Did you see the Time article, too, on the last days of Bush/Cheney?

From near the end:

Two days after that, Libby, who hadn't previously lobbied on his own behalf, telephoned Bolten's office. He wanted an audience with Bush to argue his case in person. To Libby, a presidential pardon was a practical as well as symbolic prize: among other things, it would allow him to practice law again. Bolten once more kicked the matter to the lawyers, agreeing to arrange a meeting with Fielding. On Saturday, Jan. 17, with less than 72 hours left in the Bush presidency, Libby and Fielding and a deputy met for lunch at a seafood restaurant three blocks from the White House. Again Libby insisted on his innocence. No one's memory is perfect, he argued; to convict me for not remembering something precisely was unfair. Fielding kept listening for signs of remorse. But none came. Fielding reported the conversation to Bush.

Meanwhile, Bush was running his own traps. He called Jim Sharp, his personal attorney in the Plame case, who had been present when he was interviewed by Fitzgerald in 2004. Sharp was known in Washington as one of the best lawyers nobody knew. A savvy raconteur from Oklahoma who had represented a long list of colorful clients — from Nixon pal Charles G. (Bebe) Rebozo to Sammy Sosa — Sharp had worked quietly for the President for a while before anyone even knew about it. In the meantime, the two men had become friends, spending hours chatting over cigars and near beer. On the Sunday before he left office, Bush invited Sharp to the executive mansion for a farewell cigar. (See Bush's economic mistakes.)

While packing boxes in the upstairs residence, according to his associates, Bush noted that he was again under pressure from Cheney to pardon Libby. He characterized Cheney as a friend and a good Vice President but said his pardon request had little internal support. If the presidential staff were polled, the result would be 100 to 1 against a pardon, Bush joked. Then he turned to Sharp. "What's the bottom line here? Did this guy lie or not?"

The lawyer, who had followed the case very closely, replied affirmatively.

Bush indicated that he had already come to that conclusion too.

"O.K., that's it," Bush said.

Here's the link, if you want to read the rest...

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1912297,00.html

I have a different reason for not watching TV these days, not that I was watching much any way. ("Two and Half Men" is a comedy?!)

It was that technological advancement known as the digital converter box that was the downfall of TV in our house. We finally got them (after the Old House guys nagged us into doing so), installed them and... POOF! Even worse reception than before. That was probably about a year ago.

If I were to stop and think about it, I might remember that I miss some public television, but I honestly don't even think about it that much. No... I moved on... to NetFlix InstantView and to the online books page, which now includes some audio in various formats.

I refuse to get cable; It is undemocratic.

For entertainment, I sometimes tune in here, and then I remember why I don't like television any more... ;~)

As Pedinska said, I, too, hope you will continue here. The brutality quotient varies... like the weather.

I'm going to close my still allergy-ridden eyes. Back tomorrow...

Neither race nor gender issues get much respect here. I know. My first battle in these threads was about race... even though I am a white woman.

Subsequent battles (these were all quite some time ago) were about gender issues and my objection to the constant name-calling using women's body parts as the worst possible epithets.

In both cases, I made headway and even earned some grudging respect. In fact, there was a time when males in these threads would even call each other out for using such anti-woman language. However, most of those folks are gone now, have moved on to other sites and/or rarely comment here any more, if at all. Only a few remain.

The "new" crew are much less subtle in their thinking and far less civilized. So, I haven't bothered to fight those same battles again. Sometimes you just know when it's not worth it, and besides I've already done it. What makes that sort of thing worthwhile can only happen when there is at least a modicum of mutual respect, and I see so little of it here these days...

And, there are other issues that I think have to take precedence. Like torture. Rendition. Etc., etc.

Steele... I sympathize with your wish to make some head way here on race issues, but under the current conditions, I think it is very unlikely. Perhaps when there is another turnover in personnel...

I did not single you out.

In the threads I was reading, there were a number of people attacking bernbart. And it was nothing new. I read here regularly, even when I don't comment.

It could be amusing reading/watching the different tones and vocabulary that appear here... depending on whether new commenters understand everyone's gender (or not)... if only it weren't so predictable.

You're not the first to be confused. And if you really want to learn, don't be in too big a hurry to un-confuse anyone else.

However, it's very rare to see a man attacked here in the same way that bernbart often is. Except in those cases when a commenter "thinks" he is addressing a woman, but is not.

I just added two comments to his facebook page, one critical, as is your letter, and another with the barest minimum of what is (should be) required in the health care bill.

That's (sadly) hilarious!

I think I found an answer (almost) to my question in the Harper's post.