It’s been a long time since I harped on Fox News. Not for shortage of material, mind you, but just because it’s so depressing to see a news organization which is practically a state-run agency have such a large audience that actually believes the crap they’re being shoveled. This is just a fun little tidbit, a piece of anecdotal evidence, if you will, for why you still should not be watching Fox News.

I’m sure we’ve all heard at least part of the lovely scandal about Senator Larry Craig (R-ID), a staunch conservative who has voted time and again to ban homosexuals from doing anything except for breathing (which you get the impression he would also ban, if he could), who allegedly solicited sex acts from a man in an airport bathroom who turned out to be a cop. Fox News is known for way too frequently having “accidentally” flipped an “R” to a “D” during a scandal involving Republicans, or “mistakenly” calling Sen. Barack Obama “Osama” (even putting it in an on-screen graphic with his picture!), and a number of other thinly veiled “oopsies.” In their coverage of this recent scandal, it was noticed that a Fox News article mentioned Senator Craig’s party affiliation exactly zero times. They then proceeded to quote a bunch of Republicans denouncing him, the obvious subtext being they want their readers/viewers to not connect Craig with the Republican party and maybe even think he’s a Democrat. They also devoted less than half the air time to the scandal than MSNBC, and about six times less than CNN.

While we’re on the subject, I’d like to point out again the guys involved in this reprehensible behavior are always the ones condemning it the loudest. Larry Craig was one of the most outspoken anti-gay politicians…and goes and tries to get some in a men’s bathroom. Mark Foley (R-FL) was the House Rep who was a crusader against the sexual exploitation and abuse of children…and then was caught doing it himself. Ted Haggard was one of the biggest gay-bashers in the country…and then it turns out he’s been doing drugs and a guy from Denver for over three years. A number of “family values” Republicans were fingered in the D.C. Madame call-girl scandal. So remember the lesson here: If a politician’s lips are moving, he’s lying. And if he’s an ultra-conservative with a cause, he apparently is not only lying but means the exact opposite of what he says.

I just read an excellent analysis piece from TIME Magazine. Despite the huge scandal at the DOJ — in fact because of the very nature of the scandal — Bush will not ask Attorney General Gonzales to resign. Other than stubbornness and general stupidity, qualities which this president certainly has in abundance (and I don’t write that way about the office of the president lightly), until now I had not heard any reasonable explanations as to why Gonzales is still in charge of the Department of Justice. As TIME points out, Bush has not exactly had issues with axing high-profile appointees in the past, like Rumsfled late last year.

The conclusions the TIME article reaches fit perfectly, and they are just disgusting enough for you to know, in the context of this scandal-ridden administration, that they are accurate. To put it briefly, Gonzales is Bush’s last remaining shield from a series of long-overdue investigations and prosecutions — illegal wiretapping, unconstitutional abuse of power, illegal use of executive privilege, illegal subversion of Congressional investigation subpoenas, etc. The DOJ, the very branch of the government that’s supposed to be executing these investigations in support of the law and in check of the other branches of the government, is not doing so because Gonzales is Bush’s loyal buddy and has done all he can to dig in his heels and not approve such investigations and prosecutions. I have never, ever seen public servants — politicians or otherwise, and politicians are a pretty low form of public servant — with such blatant contempt for the rule of law. It is truly disgusting. For crying out loud, not only has Gonzales perjured himself at least once during his testimony, but he actually used the phrase “I don’t recall” something like 164 times during one day’s session alone, claiming not to remember even the broadest facts about the politically-motivated firings for which he is being investigated. I say, whether he’s guilty or not (and it’s all but clear at this point that he is sinfully guilty), that he should be fired for having such a crappy memory! How can you trust someone with that much power if they can’t remember a damn thing from just a few months ago?

Read the article at TIME.com.