Stupidity

You know I'm a smart ass, I admit it. But I've been blogging for about 17 months now, and put up about 3,500 posts or so, probably comprising about 700,000 words, probably half of which are my own, as opposed to cut and paste jobs from other articles.

In all that time, by and large, I've managed not to refer to the vast monolith of "conservatives" as a group. Sure, I've commented on the margins of them often, "evangelicals"; "christian conservatives"; "neo-cons"; and, of course, "freepers". But I don't think I've often said, "conservatives believe" or "conservatives are". Certainly, I have not made it a habit. I'm sure I've done it a time or two, but put up that many words, you'll over-generalize a bit.

But vast oversimplification doesn't stop "Non-com, Neo-Con, Jonah Goldberg" who continues to make an ass out of himself on so many issues. Over-generalization, meet the Doughy Pantload, you two have undoubtedly consumated your relationship quite often.

PREDICTION [Jonah Goldberg]
Rove didn't do it. But, as Glenn Reynolds notes, the possibility will cause many liberals to have a second case of whiplash (the first being their sudden disapproval of the investigation they essentially started when it became clear that the Times and Newsweek would get ensnared). Now that it seems possible Rove did it, many will suddenly re-fall in love with Patrick Fitzgerald. And if the person I *think* did it, did in fact do it, we will see even more plastic-collared liberals in the weeks to come.
Posted at 08:29 AM

This particular liberal has not commented terribly often on the "First Amendment" implications of this matter, but I will now.

The First Amendment is not to be used for encouraging criminal activity. The outing of a CIA Operative is a crime, by definition a criminal act. If I tell Judith Miller I intend to murder somebody, or steal your car, I should not expect nor should she to use the First Amendment to protect either of us.

This isn't Watergate, when a then anonymous official -- who turned out to be a high-level FBI official, revealed that criminal activity was afoot by others; it is a high-level Administration Official themselves using the Press to commit a crime. It is not a particularly difficult distinction to make. The same logic applies if the "anonymous source" abuses privilege to commit perjury.

The alleged use of private sources by journalist in Washington have been turned by Administration after administration in the post-Watergate era to spread malicious gossip and float trial balloons for years and frankly, I see little evidence it has done anything positive for the nation other than create a "cocktail circuit" of Washington insiders among both politicians and the media. It's not about "freedom", or constitutional rights, it is about the use and preservation of power. The "cool kids" club does little to make the rest of us more free, or more informed -- it just makes us, like them, more cynical.

The First Amendment protects the press, but that doesn't mean it should be used as a shield of privilege, to the detriment of the rest of us mere proles outside the corridors of power.