Ann Althouse hammers Maureen Dowd for inability to differentiate between private citizens (Tiger "How 'bout them" Woods) and civil servants and Desiree Rogers, the White House social secretary, or does she?
Woods had a constitutional right not to talk to the police, and I assume he was well advised by lawyers as he chose not to talk. He had a right to do what he thought was best for himself. The public may be interested in him, and he needs to worry about our loss of respect for him, which would hurt his lucrative career in product endorsement, but he doesn't owe us anything.Let's set a few things straight, Ann:
Rogers, on the other hand was working for the government, in a position of a public trust, and her refusal to account for herself was quite a different matter. The constitutional provision for executive privilege is not like the individual right against self-incrimination. It's a matter of separation of powers having to do with the ability of the executive branch to function independently. If it is invoked, it should not be Rogers protecting her own interests.
- Tiger's dalliance is ignoble and the fascination is symptomatic of a voyeuristic society. Nothing of lasting value will be gained from it, other than distraction from real issues like Warmaquiddick for the perpetrators.
- Privacy is a notional in the Information Age. Some abstract "right to know" (an odd spelling of "money") will trigger
illegalcurious behavior on cue. Ask Joe the Plumber.
- The elite, on either side of the aisle, view the Constitution as seriously as the privacy of anyone creating difficulties for their agenda. Ask Senator Max Baucus.
- The propaganda media are dedicated to sowing confusion in the public mind. Hiding the cretinism of a "civil servant" behind a bogus equivalence with a private citizen is just another service the propaganda media