Name me someone that's not a parasite

... and I'll go out and say a prayer for him

In the dark now, and at almost sun up I loose any sense of digression. This night and this dark and I wish that right now that our arms were wound together. Some how when we speak it's overcome by the crashing of waves. Sound waves are easily distorted. But light has it's own way of cutting through space.

how did it come to this?

Whatever happened to fearlessness in the face of oppresion?

update: More

just quit my job yesterday. Time to do that unemployable musician thing, I guess. I think I'll go to job interviews wearing nothing but a sandwich board sign that says "please avoid the jellyfish".

I'll be an artist!

Yeah Media!

NY Times headline: Alito Resists Making Comparisons to O'Connor

ABC News headline: Alito Says He'd Emulate O'Connor's Style

Bullies

I'm starting to think they may be right about the culture of victimization. Pathetic.

Martyr

Okay, I've thought about this Judy Miller case some more. First off, this woman is a blight on journalism all around. About a year or so ago, after there were no WMD found in Iraq, and I noticed she was still reporting on Iraq, getting front page by-lines, I actually called and cancelled my subscription to the times. Over the years the coversation about journalism has always centered around bias. Liberal or conservative biases and how those playout in our nations news cycle. And there are legitimate concerns on both sides. But it has become such a crusade that we've completely lost track of the more important issue of integrity and competance. Judith Miller just wrote her own first hand account of her testimony and you can only come away with the understanding that she had absolutely no concern for the truth or for her role in shaping our national dialouge. And she is completely unrepentant. I don't know if she had a personal PNAC style hidden agenda or if she had just become so entrenched with being a part of Washington's Spin Industrial Complex. That's not even important. She made it completely clear that she saw her job not as being to give her readers a clearer understanding of the realities of what our government is doing, but as assisting those in power who want to twist the truth to their fit their purposes, and for that she should be fired.

Atrios has already pointed this out, but look at this passageMy recollection, I told him, was that

Mr. Libby wanted to modify our prior understanding that I would attribute information from him to a "senior administration official." When the subject turned to Mr. Wilson, Mr. Libby requested that he be identified only as a "former Hill staffer." I agreed to the new ground rules because I knew that Mr. Libby had once worked on Capitol Hill.

Did Mr. Libby explain this request? Mr. Fitzgerald asked. No, I don't recall, I replied. But I said I assumed Mr. Libby did not want the White House to be seen as attacking Mr. Wilson.

While not technically a lie, it was absoluetly disingenuous and indefensible. I mean, they were attacking Joe Wilson. I'm sure that didn't even cross her mind though. After all, this was Scooter, asking a favor. I'm sure she would have id'd him as "former pizza maker" if he had wanted, because she knows that he did that for 2 months in high school to earn money to buy KISS tickets.

She has also refused to be forthcoming at all, refusing to let other Times reporters, or even her own editors, review her notes! She conveniently forgets who told her about Valerie Plame, but knows for sure it wasn't Libby.

When Miller was first found in contempt, I was a supporter. Granted we all knew much less about the details then, and I took her and the Times editorial staff at their word that this was First Ammendment issue, and that she felt her duty as a journalist was to protect her source. But she's way too cynical for that. She was covering up for a friend. She was making her bones. Concider this line

Once Ms. Miller was issued a subpoena in August 2004 to testify about her conversations with Mr. Libby, she and The Times vowed to fight it. Behind the scenes, however, her lawyer made inquiries to see if Mr. Libby would release her from their confidentiality agreement. Ms. Miller said she decided not to testify in part because she thought that Mr. Libby's lawyer might be signaling to keep her quiet unless she would exonerate his client. The lawyer denies that, and Mr. Libby did not respond to requests for an interview.

Her motive was never to uphold the highest standards of journalism. It was to keep her high ranking government source out of jail so he'd still be there to return the favor. There's no two ways about this. She was obstructing justice. Pure and simple.

She thought she was above the law. But working for the New York Times isn't a get out of jail free card. This isn't something she dug up while researching a story. They came to her with this with the clear intention of getting revenge on someone who calling them on their bullshit, never matter who got hurt. And yes, that does matter They weren't even trying to discredit Joe Wilson. Libby was making an example of him.

Millers contention has been that by the sheer fact that she works as a reporter, she isn't obligated to discuss any coversation she has in any more detail than she herself sees fit. The more you think about it, the more arrogant that seems. Remember, she didn't even write a damn story about this until today, 2 years later.

Here's my favorite part

It was in these early days that Mr. Keller and Mr. Sulzberger learned Mr. Libby's identity. Neither man asked Ms. Miller detailed questions about her conversations with him.

Both said they viewed the case as a matter of principle, which made the particulars less important. "I didn't interrogate her about the details of the interview," Mr. Keller said. "I didn't ask to see her notes. And I really didn't feel the need to do that."

Still, Mr. Keller said the case was not ideal: "I wish it had been a clear-cut whistle-blower case. I wish it had been a reporter who came with less public baggage."

It's one thing to stand on principle, but you should at least know if the details fall within that principle.

I just hope next time they don't take the reporters word for it.