AARP types should be flexing their political muscle to cash in and fully fund social security. They should not pussyfoot around trying to keep social security payments high every year. It is a political battle every year as the report on how well the social security trust fund is doing comes out, much like China before permanent normal trade relations (PNTR).

Instead, they should get Congress to fully fund social security and privatize it at the same time by distributing bonds to all seniors. The bonds that they would distribute would magically make appear the trust fund that has not exactly been on the books since the original Social Security Act of 1935. An individual version of the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation can monitor each senior

And hundreds more to go. Still, this is worth breaking out a bottle of bubbly for.

In the context of the perhaps-imminent fall of the Canadian government, and the laughable chicanery of the San Francisco city government, Wretchard has an interesting post about how, once again, attempts to impose censorship are futile in the age of the Internet. Dean Esmay once wrote, with regard to the Swift Boat Vet story, that:

The Internet has detected the mainstream media as a form of censorship and simply routed around them.

It seems to be applying to real censorship as well.

Of course, while Colby Cosh was careful (it will be interesting to see if anyone from Ottawa goes after him), there’s an interesting question as to whether Winds of Change is a Canadian blog, because it’s run by Joe Katzman. Where is it hosted? Is Joe sticking his neck out legally, by posting to it from Toronto? Could other Canadians get into trouble by discussing it on Free Republic?

The absurdity abounds.

As the day approaches, John Miller has a righteous rant against the stupidity that is Daylight “Saving” Time.

As the day approaches, John Miller has a righteous rant against the stupidity that is Daylight “Saving” Time.

As the day approaches, John Miller has a righteous rant against the stupidity that is Daylight “Saving” Time.

So, Sandy Berger cops a plea. At least there will be no more of this nonsense about how this was “inadvertent.” However, his defenders (both literal, and in the ally sense) continue to use language to downplay what happened, just as they always did when caught with their hands in the cookie jar:

Lanny Breuer, Berger’s attorney, said in a statement: “Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”

Lanny Breuer.

Sigh. I thought we’d heard the last of names like that, but the Clinton administration is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Well, I guess I should be grateful that it’s at least in the active voice. Usually when one of the Clinton administration members did something like this, the phraseology was passive–“mistakes were made”–as though they just appeared out of the aether, unbidden.

But sorry, no. Forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning is a mistake. Turning on the wrong burner on the range is a mistake. Even getting distracted, and forgetting to put a document away and properly checking it back in is a mistake.

For someone with a high security clearance, one supposedly who has had extensive briefings in the proper handling of classified materials, taking documents classified at some of the highest possible levels, slipping them into your clothing, sneaking past the guards at the National Archives with them, taking them back to your office, and deliberately cutting them up in the dark of night with a pair of scissors isn’t a “mistake.” I don’t know if we yet know what it is, but mistake it wasn’t.

If this were a Republican campaign advisor and former Republican administration official destroying documents that reflected poorly on that same former Republican administration, we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway. The decibel level of the self-righteous howls would fell large trees all the way up to Bethesda. There would be cries of coverup, and demands for years of prison time (instead of a mere ten grand fine), and a permanent revocation of his security clearance (rather than the laughable three years) and for a deeper investigation of all of the other former Republican administration and campaign officials who were (obviously) involved, and for a full confession, Soviet style, with a statement of motive.

But he’s a Clinton administration official, part of “the most ethical administration in history,” and so he gets a slap on the wrist, and it probably won’t even be a topic of discussion on Sunday morning, let alone a heated one. After all, it’s an old story, and the election’s over, and he surely meant well, and isn’t it time for us to just bind up our national wounds and “move on”?

The late Mrs. Schiavo, and those evil Republican theocrats who were trying to thwart her “right to die,” will no doubt continue to be Topic A, not the fecklessness and duplicity of the administration that for eight years fiddled (and diddled) while Al Qaeda plotted, and then tried to destroy the evidence while blaming George Bush.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Jim Geraghty is more pithy than me:

Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?

Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.

[Update at 9:45 AM EST]

INDC Journal isn’t happy, either.

So, Sandy Berger cops a plea. At least there will be no more of this nonsense about how this was “inadvertent.” However, his defenders (both literal, and in the ally sense) continue to use language to downplay what happened, just as they always did when caught with their hands in the cookie jar:

Lanny Breuer, Berger’s attorney, said in a statement: “Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”

Lanny Breuer.

Sigh. I thought we’d heard the last of names like that, but the Clinton administration is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Well, I guess I should be grateful that it’s at least in the active voice. Usually when one of the Clinton administration members did something like this, the phraseology was passive–“mistakes were made”–as though they just appeared out of the aether, unbidden.

But sorry, no. Forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning is a mistake. Turning on the wrong burner on the range is a mistake. Even getting distracted, and forgetting to put a document away and properly checking it back in is a mistake.

For someone with a high security clearance, one supposedly who has had extensive briefings in the proper handling of classified materials, taking documents classified at some of the highest possible levels, slipping them into your clothing, sneaking past the guards at the National Archives with them, taking them back to your office, and deliberately cutting them up in the dark of night with a pair of scissors isn’t a “mistake.” I don’t know if we yet know what it is, but mistake it wasn’t.

If this were a Republican campaign advisor and former Republican administration official destroying documents that reflected poorly on that same former Republican administration, we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway. The decibel level of the self-righteous howls would fell large trees all the way up to Bethesda. There would be cries of coverup, and demands for years of prison time (instead of a mere ten grand fine), and a permanent revocation of his security clearance (rather than the laughable three years) and for a deeper investigation of all of the other former Republican administration and campaign officials who were (obviously) involved, and for a full confession, Soviet style, with a statement of motive.

But he’s a Clinton administration official, part of “the most ethical administration in history,” and so he gets a slap on the wrist, and it probably won’t even be a topic of discussion on Sunday morning, let alone a heated one. After all, it’s an old story, and the election’s over, and he surely meant well, and isn’t it time for us to just bind up our national wounds and “move on”?

The late Mrs. Schiavo, and those evil Republican theocrats who were trying to thwart her “right to die,” will no doubt continue to be Topic A, not the fecklessness and duplicity of the administration that for eight years fiddled (and diddled) while Al Qaeda plotted, and then tried to destroy the evidence while blaming George Bush.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Jim Geraghty is more pithy than me:

Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?

Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.

[Update at 9:45 AM EST]

INDC Journal isn’t happy, either.

So, Sandy Berger cops a plea. At least there will be no more of this nonsense about how this was “inadvertent.” However, his defenders (both literal, and in the ally sense) continue to use language to downplay what happened, just as they always did when caught with their hands in the cookie jar:

Lanny Breuer, Berger’s attorney, said in a statement: “Mr. Berger has cooperated fully with the Department of Justice and is pleased that a resolution appears very near. He accepts complete responsibility for his actions, and regrets the mistakes he made during his review of documents at the National Archives.”

Lanny Breuer.

Sigh. I thought we’d heard the last of names like that, but the Clinton administration is the gift that just keeps on giving.

Well, I guess I should be grateful that it’s at least in the active voice. Usually when one of the Clinton administration members did something like this, the phraseology was passive–“mistakes were made”–as though they just appeared out of the aether, unbidden.

But sorry, no. Forgetting to pick up the dry cleaning is a mistake. Turning on the wrong burner on the range is a mistake. Even getting distracted, and forgetting to put a document away and properly checking it back in is a mistake.

For someone with a high security clearance, one supposedly who has had extensive briefings in the proper handling of classified materials, taking documents classified at some of the highest possible levels, slipping them into your clothing, sneaking past the guards at the National Archives with them, taking them back to your office, and deliberately cutting them up in the dark of night with a pair of scissors isn’t a “mistake.” I don’t know if we yet know what it is, but mistake it wasn’t.

If this were a Republican campaign advisor and former Republican administration official destroying documents that reflected poorly on that same former Republican administration, we know that the outrage, from the Democrats and the Washington press corps, would be heard all the way out beyond the Beltway. The decibel level of the self-righteous howls would fell large trees all the way up to Bethesda. There would be cries of coverup, and demands for years of prison time (instead of a mere ten grand fine), and a permanent revocation of his security clearance (rather than the laughable three years) and for a deeper investigation of all of the other former Republican administration and campaign officials who were (obviously) involved, and for a full confession, Soviet style, with a statement of motive.

But he’s a Clinton administration official, part of “the most ethical administration in history,” and so he gets a slap on the wrist, and it probably won’t even be a topic of discussion on Sunday morning, let alone a heated one. After all, it’s an old story, and the election’s over, and he surely meant well, and isn’t it time for us to just bind up our national wounds and “move on”?

The late Mrs. Schiavo, and those evil Republican theocrats who were trying to thwart her “right to die,” will no doubt continue to be Topic A, not the fecklessness and duplicity of the administration that for eight years fiddled (and diddled) while Al Qaeda plotted, and then tried to destroy the evidence while blaming George Bush.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Jim Geraghty is more pithy than me:

Do any Democrats want to confront the unpleasant truths of how the Clinton White House handled terrorism?

Because there were some facts out there that were so damning, Sandy Berger was willing to break the law to make sure the public never saw them.

[Update at 9:45 AM EST]

INDC Journal isn’t happy, either.

The Democrats are apparently going to put up a fight against the nomination of John Bolton:

Although Democrats have challenged a number of diplomatic nominees, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, “they see this nomination as more distasteful, and they’re more united,” said one Democratic Senate aide.

The split on the panel is one of several signs that the proceedings, set for April 7, could be acrimonious.

Advocates have organized letter and ad campaigns for and against Bolton. Democrats said they intended to investigate Bolton’s comments on a variety of issues, an exercise that Republicans said could stretch the hearing into a second day. Republicans said they were concerned that Democrats might attempt to filibuster the nomination if it reached the Senate floor.

Bolton, undersecretary of State for arms control, is controversial because of his criticism of the United Nations and other international institutions and agreements.

“He’s been contemptuous of the U.N.,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record) (D-Calif.). “There’s a lot to talk about at this hearing. It’s going to be very contentious.”

I think they’re misreading the mood of the public, and setting themselves up for an Ollie North moment, in which the witness makes fools of them. Bolton will have two messages: 1) the UN is very badly broken, and he will lay out all the evidence for that, from Darfur to Oil-for-Palaces to child sex rings among the “peacekeepers, with a Secretary General who is either incompetent, corrupt, or incompetently corrupt, and defiantly unwilling to step down; and 2) that his job is to reform it, not wreck it, something that cannot be done without a clear recognition of its many problems. In their own blind transnationalist love for the UN as they’d like to fantasize it, rather than as it is, the Donkeys are going to end up looking like defenders of the status quo, and I suspect that this will be quite obvious to anyone watching the hearings. This will not be a smart political move for them.