PDA

View Full Version : Legal Politicizing the Justice Dept.


tiptap
07-29-2008, 07:25 AM
Our investigation found that Goodling improperly subjected candidates for certain career positions to the same politically based evaluation she used on candidates for political positions, in violation of federal law and Department policy. With regard to requests from interim U.S. Attorneys to hire [assisant U.S. attorneys], we determined that in two instances Goodling considered the candidate’s political or ideological affiliations when she assessed the request. For example, in one instance when the interim U.S. Attorney in the District of Columbia sought approval from Goodling to hire an AUSA for a vacant position, Goodling responded that the candidate gave her pause because judging from his résumé he appeared to be a “liberal Democrat.”

Goodling also stated that because Republicans had lost control of Congress after the November 2006 elections, she expected that Republican congressional staff might be interested in applying for AUSA positions in Washington. Eventually, after the interim U.S. Attorney complained to [Chief of Staff Kyle] Sampson about Goodling’s response to his request, the U.S. Attorney was allowed to hire the AUSA. The evidence also showed that Goodling considered political or ideological affiliations when recommending and selecting candidates for other permanent career positions, including a career [senior executive service] position in the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) and AUSA positions. These actions violated federal law and Department policy, and also constituted misconduct.

In addition, we determined that Goodling often used political or ideological affiliations to select or reject career attorney candidates for temporary details to Department offices, including positions in EOUSA that had not been filled by political appointees. Goodling’s use of political considerations in connection with these details was particularly damaging to the Department because it resulted in high-quality candidates for important details being rejected in favor of less-qualified candidates. For example, an experienced career terrorism prosecutor was rejected by Goodling for a detail to EOUSA to work on counterterrorism issues because of his wife’s political affiliations. Instead, EOUSA had to select a much more junior attorney who lacked any experience in counterterrorism issues and who EOUSA officials believed was not qualified for the position.


Excerpt of report in full story from
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/07/report-former-j.html

tiptap
07-29-2008, 07:30 AM
We have not heard directly about the hiring and firing of Federal District Attorney's or about Gonzales but the direction of the findings are not looking good. And in keeping with Unified Executive theory, these individuals are already been found on the wrong side of the legal system. For all of you who thought it was a non issue, it was nothing unusual and political, the present Justice Dept. internal investigation is saying you were wrong. Period.

BucEyedPea
07-29-2008, 07:31 AM
Another way to consolidate power. Kinda like FDR packin' the courts.:hmmm:

patteeu
07-29-2008, 08:09 AM
We have not heard directly about the hiring and firing of Federal District Attorney's or about Gonzales but the direction of the findings are not looking good. And in keeping with Unified Executive theory, these individuals are already been found on the wrong side of the legal system. For all of you who thought it was a non issue, it was nothing unusual and political, the present Justice Dept. internal investigation is saying you were wrong. Period.

It's Unitary Executive theory, not Unified. I still think it's a nonissue as far as George Bush is concerned. And as far as the UE theory is concerned, nothing the Congress or a DoJ functionary says is dispositive as it's a constitutional issue and neither Congress nor the DoJ Inspector General can override the constitution.

penchief
07-29-2008, 08:30 AM
It's Unitary Executive theory, not Unified. I still think it's a nonissue as far as George Bush is concerned. And as far as the UE theory is concerned, nothing the Congress or a DoJ functionary says is dispositive as it's a constitutional issue and neither Congress nor the DoJ Inspector General can override the constitution.

Bah, nothing to worry about. Party loyalty being placed over equal justice, the targeting of political opponents, and voter suppression is all fair game. It's all in a day's work. It's the American way. It's the dawn of neo-fascism in America and I couldn't be prouder.

When are you libs gonna start worring about something important? Like how sleazy Obama is? Or how he hates the troops? C'mon man, get with the program!

patteeu
07-29-2008, 08:59 AM
Bah, nothing to worry about. Party loyalty being placed over equal justice, the targeting of political opponents, and voter suppression is all fair game. It's all in a day's work. It's the American way. It's the dawn of neo-fascism in America and I couldn't be prouder.

When are you libs gonna start worring about something important? Like how sleazy Obama is? Or how he hates the troops? C'mon man, get with the program!

The allegation here is that Ms. Goodling at the DoJ chose not to hire people at least partly because of their ideology not that people were impacted by DoJ official activity in a way that denied them justice. Why should we assume that a conservative Republican DoJ employee is going to administer justice any less fairly than a liberal democrat? There is no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, if Ms. Goodling hired a less partisan Republican over a highly partisan liberal democrat, it isn't unreasonable to assume that it resulted in less bias in official DoJ business. Further, if the result of Ms. Goodling's ideologically based hiring decisions resulted in a better mix of conservative and liberal DoJ employees, it may have resulted in less overall bias in DoJ business.

Silock
07-29-2008, 09:20 AM
The allegation here is that Ms. Goodling at the DoJ chose not to hire people at least partly because of their ideology not that people were impacted by DoJ official activity in a way that denied them justice. Why should we assume that a conservative Republican DoJ employee is going to administer justice any less fairly than a liberal democrat? There is no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, if Ms. Goodling hired a less partisan Republican over a highly partisan liberal democrat, it isn't unreasonable to assume that it resulted in less bias in official DoJ business. Further, if the result of Ms. Goodling's ideologically based hiring decisions resulted in a better mix of conservative and liberal DoJ employees, it may have resulted in less overall bias in DoJ business.

Be that as it may, it's still against the law, and for good reason.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 09:23 AM
Be that as it may, it's still against the law, and for good reason.

Be that as it may, penchief's wild misconceptions needed to be addressed. And while it's probably unnecessary to point this out, your opinion about how good the reason is, is your own.

Silock
07-29-2008, 09:52 AM
But I'm not alone in my opinion, as I'm sure you're not alone in yours, either. However, the law didn't come about for no reason. Because as much as it could possibly be used for good purposes, it can also be used for much more selfish purposes. There's a reason patronage isn't allowed any longer. It doesn't lead to efficient or effective government.

Dave Lane
07-29-2008, 10:03 AM
Well I wonder what Patty will say when Obama gets in and unfortunately he probably won't pack the DOJ with litmus test cronies but if he does....

beer bacon
07-29-2008, 10:04 AM
Well I wonder what Patty will say when Obama gets in and unfortunately he probably won't pack the DOJ with litmus test cronies but if he does....

It is ok if Bush does horrible things because he is a good guy. It is only bad when bad guys do bad things. Otherwise it is good.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:05 AM
Well I wonder what Patty will say when Obama gets in and unfortunately he probably won't pack the DOJ with litmus test cronies but if he does....

Hopefully, we won't have to find out! :p

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:10 AM
It is ok if Bush does horrible things because he is a good guy. It is only bad when bad guys do bad things. Otherwise it is good.

If you believe that the constitution and federal statutes ought to be interpreted and applied in one way (let's call it conservative for shorthand) and not in another way (let's call it liberal), then it's good to hire conservatives and bad to hire liberals. That means that if Bush is hiring conservatives, it's good whereas if Obama is hiring liberals, it's bad. They aren't equivalent actions, they are opposite actions. Now if Obama were to hire conservatives, that would be a good thing just like it is with Bush.

HC_Chief
07-29-2008, 10:15 AM
I thought these attorneys served at the whim of the executive branch?

penchief
07-29-2008, 10:16 AM
The allegation here is that Ms. Goodling at the DoJ chose not to hire people at least partly because of their ideology not that people were impacted by DoJ official activity in a way that denied them justice. Why should we assume that a conservative Republican DoJ employee is going to administer justice any less fairly than a liberal democrat? There is no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, if Ms. Goodling hired a less partisan Republican over a highly partisan liberal democrat, it isn't unreasonable to assume that it resulted in less bias in official DoJ business. Further, if the result of Ms. Goodling's ideologically based hiring decisions resulted in a better mix of conservative and liberal DoJ employees, it may have resulted in less overall bias in DoJ business.

The weren't weeding out ideologues, they were harvesting them. And by doing so they were discriminating against superior applicants so that they could hire lackeys. They were asking questions that gaged loyalty to president Bush and the republican party. And the proof of that was in the pudding. The conduct of the department reflected the partisan ideology that they were looking for instead of the department's overall mission.

I love the way you twist crap around in order to make the Bush Administration appear not only like innocent victims, but also as virtuous. But there has been too much of this kind of conduct for anyone to believe that they are not what their pattern of behavior says they are.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:19 AM
The weren't weeding out ideologues, they were harvesting them. And by doing so they were discriminating against superior applicants so that they could hire lackeys. They were asking questions that gaged loyalty to president Bush and the republican party. And the proof of that was in the pudding. The conduct of the department reflected the partisan ideology that they were looking for instead of the department's overall mission.

I love the way you twist crap around in order to make Cheneyburton appear not only like innocent victims, but also as virtuous. You're a pro's pro.

They were weeding out candidates who were ideologically opposed to Bush and to Bush's understanding of the department's overall mission. The knife cuts both ways.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:20 AM
I thought these attorneys served at the whim of the executive branch?

I don't think this article was specifically about the attorneys, but instead about other employees of DoJ.

HC_Chief
07-29-2008, 10:24 AM
I don't think this article was specifically about the attorneys, but instead about other employees of DoJ.

The second sentence suggests otherwise. I'm also considering the source of the thread - nothing against tiptap - but the poster is on the left side of the political spectrum. The whole "US attorneys being fired by da debil (W)" act has been a constant, along with "stolen elections", "Chenneyburton", "W lied, people died", "War for oil", "Rove to be indicted in two weeks", et al.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:28 AM
The second sentence suggests otherwise. I'm also considering the source of the thread - nothing against tiptap - but the poster is on the left side of the political spectrum. The whole "US attorneys being fired by da debil (W)" act has been a constant, along with "stolen elections", "Chenneyburton", "W lied, people died", "War for oil", "Rove to be indicted in two weeks", et al.

My mistake.

penchief
07-29-2008, 10:29 AM
They were weeding out candidates who were ideologically opposed to Bush and to Bush's understanding of the department's overall mission. The knife cuts both ways.

Sounds like they were doing more than that. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an issue now, would it?

patteeu
07-29-2008, 10:33 AM
Sounds like they were doing more than that. Otherwise, it wouldn't be an issue now, would it?

Why not?

penchief
07-29-2008, 10:38 AM
Why not?

Uh, because the whole thing became an issue because more qualified candidates were being passed over for lesser qualified candidates based on how they answered the Bush/party loyalty questions. Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer!

Amnorix
07-29-2008, 02:08 PM
The allegation here is that Ms. Goodling at the DoJ chose not to hire people at least partly because of their ideology not that people were impacted by DoJ official activity in a way that denied them justice. Why should we assume that a conservative Republican DoJ employee is going to administer justice any less fairly than a liberal democrat? There is no reason to believe that this is the case. In fact, if Ms. Goodling hired a less partisan Republican over a highly partisan liberal democrat, it isn't unreasonable to assume that it resulted in less bias in official DoJ business. Further, if the result of Ms. Goodling's ideologically based hiring decisions resulted in a better mix of conservative and liberal DoJ employees, it may have resulted in less overall bias in DoJ business.


:Lin:

That's absurd and I think you know it.

VAChief
07-29-2008, 02:19 PM
:Lin:

That's absurd and I think you know it.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Donger
07-29-2008, 02:22 PM
I'm not good with history, but wasn't JFK's AG his brother?

VAChief
07-29-2008, 02:36 PM
I'm not good with history, but wasn't JFK's AG his brother?

Yes, I don't think he got his law degree from Regent University however. Stupid is stupid, and this woman was just plain stupid, well I'm sure naive to some degree, but how could she not know this was unethical. Maybe ethics was an elective there at Robertson U.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 02:39 PM
Uh, because the whole thing became an issue because more qualified candidates were being passed over for lesser qualified candidates based on how they answered the Bush/party loyalty questions. Sieg heil, mein Fuhrer!

I'm personally against affirmative action, but there are a lot of people who buy into that kind of thing and some even argue that there is inherent value in a diverse workforce even before qualifications are taken into account.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 02:42 PM
:Lin:

That's absurd and I think you know it.

Oh really? Which office do you think would be least prone to political bias?

a) An office made up of 10 conservatives and 0 liberals

b) An office made up of 10 liberals and 0 conservatives

c) An office made up of 5 liberals and 5 conservatives

I don't know what your answer would be, but I think political bias is much less likely in office (c).

VAChief
07-29-2008, 02:50 PM
I'm personally against affirmative action, but there are a lot of people who buy into that kind of thing and some even argue that there is inherent value in a diverse workforce even before qualifications are taken into account.

I'm not sure affirmative action as presently used is the best answer, but I also know that even though the outward prejudices have been pc'd out in most cases the hidden deep seeded agendas are still there.

I know a black guy that was in a doctoral program similar to mine at a major state university. He was in higher ed. admin. program and he was struggling in one class with his grades, he would constantly get rewrites and lower grades on his papers than other classes. Another woman in his study group offered to switch papers on the next assignment. She put her name on his and vice versa (she had gotten full credit on previous papers with no rewrites). They got the papers back and his original paper that he wrote with her name on it got full credit. Her paper with his name on it had a much lower grade with rewrite suggestions. They brought it to the dean's attention, the dean said they were aware of this issue and had the previous papers graded by another professor.

Sorry for the long-winded diatribe there, but despite the drawbacks inherent in affirmative action programs there is a need for protection against blatant discrimination.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 03:23 PM
I'm not sure affirmative action as presently used is the best answer, but I also know that even though the outward prejudices have been pc'd out in most cases the hidden deep seeded agendas are still there.

I know a black guy that was in a doctoral program similar to mine at a major state university. He was in higher ed. admin. program and he was struggling in one class with his grades, he would constantly get rewrites and lower grades on his papers than other classes. Another woman in his study group offered to switch papers on the next assignment. She put her name on his and vice versa (she had gotten full credit on previous papers with no rewrites). They got the papers back and his original paper that he wrote with her name on it got full credit. Her paper with his name on it had a much lower grade with rewrite suggestions. They brought it to the dean's attention, the dean said they were aware of this issue and had the previous papers graded by another professor.

Sorry for the long-winded diatribe there, but despite the drawbacks inherent in affirmative action programs there is a need for protection against blatant discrimination.

Affirmative action is blatant discrimination.

penchief
07-29-2008, 04:02 PM
I'm personally against affirmative action, but there are a lot of people who buy into that kind of thing and some even argue that there is inherent value in a diverse workforce even before qualifications are taken into account.

But there are those with more knowledge than you and me (first hand and otherwise) who claim that that very diversity (that you claim was the goal of the administraion) was undermined precisely because hiring the most qualified was replaced by hiring the most ideologically partisan.

Are you trying to tell me that those who excel in the legal profession tend to be more liberal? Or is it just that they are more fair-minded and more apt to advocate equal justice? Surely, there are plenty of Robert Borks and Anthony Scalias out there who are both qualified and right wing partisans.

VAChief
07-29-2008, 04:11 PM
Affirmative action is blatant discrimination.

I'm not advocating for it, I just get tired of people making light of the reasons it exists in the first place.

patteeu
07-29-2008, 04:13 PM
But there are those with more knowledge than you and me (first hand and otherwise) who claim that that very diversity (that you claim was the goal of the administraion) was undermined precisely because hiring the most qualified was replaced by hiring the most ideologically partisan.

Are you trying to tell me that those who excel in the legal profession tend to be more liberal? Or is it just that they are more fair-minded and more apt to advocate equal justice? Surely, there are plenty of Robert Borks and Anthony Scalias out there who are both qualified and right wing partisans.

I'm not trying to tell anyone what the administration's goal was. I'm just pointing out that your conclusions aren't logically derived from the underlying facts. You've got a theory about the impact of these hiring decisions, but it's not the only possible impact they could have.

And as for this concern on your part about unqualified candidates being hired, I see only one example of this in the report. It's not like this appears to have been a routine occurrence.

VAChief
07-29-2008, 04:20 PM
I'm not trying to tell anyone what the administration's goal was. I'm just pointing out that your conclusions aren't logically derived from the underlying facts. You've got a theory about the impact of these hiring decisions, but it's not the only possible impact they could have.

And as for this concern on your part about unqualified candidates being hired, I see only one example of this in the report. It's not like this appears to have been a routine occurrence.

How could it be anything other than routine with the interview questions she used? I'm guessing as transparently idiotic as some of those questions were that people that wanted jobs told her what she wanted to hear. Of course the persecution of those who she viewed as contrary to what she believed (regardless of whether it was true or not) was completely ethical too right?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-justice29-2008jul29,0,5266095.story

Amnorix
07-29-2008, 07:27 PM
I'm not good with history, but wasn't JFK's AG his brother?

Not relevant. Nepotism at the political appointee level is expected and accepted. It's the guys that make the DOJ go that shouldn't be politicized.

Amnorix
07-29-2008, 07:28 PM
Oh really? Which office do you think would be least prone to political bias?
a) An office made up of 10 conservatives and 0 liberals

b) An office made up of 10 liberals and 0 conservatives

c) An office made up of 5 liberals and 5 conservativesI don't know what your answer would be, but I think political bias is much less likely in office (c).


And what does that have to do with your prior statement?

Amnorix
07-29-2008, 07:40 PM
How could it be anything other than routine with the interview questions she used? I'm guessing as transparently idiotic as some of those questions were that people that wanted jobs told her what she wanted to hear. Of course the persecution of those who she viewed as contrary to what she believed (regardless of whether it was true or not) was completely ethical too right?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-justice29-2008jul29,0,5266095.story

Good link/summary. Here are some key bits from the article you linked to:

The latest disclosures include a finding that Goodling rejected the application of a career terrorism prosecutor for a job at Justice Department headquarters because his wife was active in local Democratic politics. The report said a less-qualified candidate was hired.

Goodling also sought out the advice of the White House and other Republicans in filling vacant immigration judge positions. Goodling -- who declined to be interviewed by the authors of the report -- previously testified that, based on advice from Sampson, she incorrectly had believed that it was legal to consider political factors in selecting judges.

The report found that Gonzales was unaware of many of the hiring decisions, and took action when he realized there were problems.

Gonzales' lawyer, George J. Terwilliger III, said Monday that the report was a measure of vindication for the former attorney general.

Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey said in a statement that he was "of course disturbed" by the findings, and noted that the department had taken action to head off future abuses.

So, just for the record, even though it breaks the law, and former AG Gonzales saw it as a "problem" that required him to "take action", and current AG is "of course disturbed" by these matters, Patteeu sees them as perfectly fine, apparently, and perhaps even a net benefit for providing some type of theoretical (because the evidence doesn't even hint at it) balance to what otherwise might be overly liberal DOJ offices.

But, of course, a President getting a blow job is something that should presumably result in summary execution.

What you don't seem to appreciate, Pat, is that the DOJ **MUST** be immune from politicization at the lower levels. The DOJ serves far too important a function in our system to be a den of sub-rate political appointees. It's also a very important resume builder for those aspiring to judgeships, political office, etc. To foreclose that opportunity is really to the detriment of everyone.

And I'd be saying the EXACT same thing if we had Democrats doing this.

patteeu
07-30-2008, 06:15 AM
And what does that have to do with your prior statement?

It's directly related. It's a simplified example of what I was talking about. Maybe you misunderstood my prior statement. What did you think I was saying?

patteeu
07-30-2008, 06:34 AM
Good link/summary. Here are some key bits from the article you linked to:



So, just for the record, even though it breaks the law, and former AG Gonzales saw it as a "problem" that required him to "take action", and current AG is "of course disturbed" by these matters, Patteeu sees them as perfectly fine, apparently, and perhaps even a net benefit for providing some type of theoretical (because the evidence doesn't even hint at it) balance to what otherwise might be overly liberal DOJ offices.

But, of course, a President getting a blow job is something that should presumably result in summary execution.

What you don't seem to appreciate, Pat, is that the DOJ **MUST** be immune from politicization at the lower levels. The DOJ serves far too important a function in our system to be a den of sub-rate political appointees. It's also a very important resume builder for those aspiring to judgeships, political office, etc. To foreclose that opportunity is really to the detriment of everyone.

And I'd be saying the EXACT same thing if we had Democrats doing this.

I didn't express an opinion about whether or not I saw this practice as "perfectly fine" or not. What I did do was this:

I'm not trying to tell anyone what the administration's goal was. I'm just pointing out that [penchief's] conclusions aren't logically derived from the underlying facts. [penchief has] a theory about the impact of these hiring decisions, but it's not the only possible impact they could have.

I think it's clear that this kind of selective hiring *could* be a net benefit, but I'm not arguing that it *is* a net benefit in this case nor am I arguing that it should be an acceptable practice.

As for foreclosing opportunities, the people who aren't hired are having their opportunity foreclosed regardless of why they aren't hired. Someone is going to win the job and others are going to lose it. I'm not as convinced as you are about the absolute necessity of forcing the DoJ to hire people who are intent on undermining the President's policies. Do I think there is a good reason to reject the most technically qualified applicant just because he tends to vote for the other party at election time? No. Do I think there is a good reason to reject the most technically qualified applicant because he will undermine policy and make every attempt to embarrass or damage the current administration? Yes.

penchief
07-30-2008, 06:51 AM
Do I think there is a good reason to reject the most technically qualified applicant just because he tends to vote for the other party at election time? No. Do I think there is a good reason to reject the most technically qualified applicant because he will undermine policy and make every attempt to embarrass or damage the current administration? Yes.

This is a silly argument based on the premise that people who merit the highest consideration are intending to dishonor their duty and torpedo their own asperations by actively seeking to undermine the president who just hired them. If the administration is not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional your argument is rendered entirely irrelevant.

Your explanation is indicative of the paranoid mindset that pervades extreme ideology. And it is one that tries to justify a loyalty litmus test in which there is no justification for. Why not just admit that the administration was trying to stack the deck with lackeys so that they could push the legal envelope without having to worry about underlings who are more dedicated to the law than they are the administration?

patteeu
07-30-2008, 07:53 AM
This is a silly argument based on the premise that people who merit the highest consideration are intending to dishonor their duty and torpedo their own asperations by actively seeking to undermine the president who just hired them. If the administration is not doing anything illegal or unconstitutional your argument is rendered entirely irrelevant.

Your explanation is indicative of the paranoid mindset that pervades extreme ideology. And it is one that tries to justify a loyalty litmus test in which there is no justification for.

LMAO

If ideology isn't enough to distort the administration of justice, then an ideological litmus test can't really be objectionable.

If ideology is enough to distort the administration of justice, then consideration of ideology ought to be a part of hiring a workforce that won't distort the administration of justice.

Why not just admit that the administration was trying to stack the deck with lackeys so that they could push the legal envelope without having to worry about underlings who are more dedicated to the law than they are the administration?

Because it's not true. The LA Times article linked by VAChief in post 34 indicates that the person who made these hiring decisions claimed to have not understood the rules, but more importantly it indicated that AG Gonzales "Gonzales was unaware of many of the hiring decisions, and took action when he realized there were problems."

NoLurkerNoMore
07-30-2008, 02:12 PM
It's quite simple. What is good for Republican is good for America.

splatbass
07-30-2008, 03:10 PM
How anyone with even a shred of integrity and decency can defend this is completely beyond me. I guess for some people having their side "win" is the only important thing, and any illegal and unethical activity to further that cause is perfectly acceptable. That is very sad and pathetic.

Whatever happened to that whole "rule of law" thing the Republicans were screaming about during the Clinton impeachment? I guess that only applies to Democrats.

patteeu
07-30-2008, 03:24 PM
How anyone with even a shred of integrity and decency can defend this is completely beyond me. I guess for some people having their side "win" is the only important thing, and any illegal and unethical activity to further that cause is perfectly acceptable. That is very sad and pathetic.

Whatever happened to that whole "rule of law" thing the Republicans were screaming about during the Clinton impeachment? I guess that only applies to Democrats.

Who's defending it?

splatbass
07-30-2008, 04:09 PM
Who's defending it?

You've spent this whole thread defending it and excusing it. And coming up with lame reasons why it is good instead of bad. Don't you read your own posts?

patteeu
07-31-2008, 12:16 AM
You've spent this whole thread defending it and excusing it. And coming up with lame reasons why it is good instead of bad. Don't you read your own posts?

That's simply not true.