Blago's Last Stand?

So Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich (hereafter, Blago) just put in an appearance at his own impeachment trial. Opting not to testify, as that would require him to, uh, answer questions related to his conduct, Blago instead opted to submit the Illinois legislature to a lengthy diatribe about how unfairly he's been treated. It hardly seems like the sort of thing that will make his impeachment less likely. Apparently they are preparing to vote, and you can watch for live updates here.

Blago's really quite successful effort to transform a slam-dunk federal wiretapping case into a public referendum having as little to do with the overwhelming evidence as possible has been a wonder to behold. Really, I can't think of a better executed example of this sort of thing.

I concede that the whole affair does point to the sometimes awkward relationship between the distribution of patronage and the receipt of campaign contributions- President Obama recently admitted that he'd be awarding at least some ambassadorships to BFD campaign contributors, an announcement which is only even notable in that Obama has worked so hard to bring unusual standards of integrity to his campaign and administration. If the line is a gray and fuzzy one, from what I've heard from the tapes there is little doubt that Blago wandered some distance past it. He probably deserves to get impeached. For that matter, he probably should have resigned some time ago. But that would require a sense of shame, the ability to tell right from wrong, and a belief that holding office is about more than just winning. It's about winning in a way that justifies the trust the public has shown in delegating the authority to address issues too big for them to address themselves. It's about giving them a public reflection of the values we are all meant to hold in common, in this case respect for the rule of law. My sense is that Blago doesn't have these things.

He does have amazing hair. Which I will miss, after he has been drubbed from public life. I bet he makes a great personal injury lawyer.

This Untrue Information May Be Used Against You

According to Wired’s Threat Level blog, the Supreme Court is about to consider a case on the government’s use of databases. In Alabama, a man was arrested because a database falsely said that he had a warrant in another county. When the officers arrested him (on a non existent warrant) they discovered crystal meth and a handgun. What’s surprising about the case is that the government is not arguing the search was Constitutional – everyone agrees that it wasn’t. What the government is saying is that it just doesn’t matter: it’s too complicated and involved for the government to bother keeping up-to-date records.

More and more of our information is being collected and collated in government databases. It’s nothing more than the government’s responsibility to make sure that these kinds of incidents don’t happen. If this evidence would be thrown out because a police officer didn’t have probable cause to search him in the first place, it ought to be thrown out because he was arrested for a warrant that wasn’t active. I fail to see a distinction between the two.

With nonsense like the “terrorism watch list” and other shadowy government databases, we need to hash out some new rights regarding the kind of information the government can collect, keep and use against you. If the government isn’t responsible for making sure this information is accurate and correct, than why would they bother?