Dear Dairy:

The confirmation process for Mukasey is plodding along. I thought the deal was they’d rush through my nominee as long as I backed down on slavish loyalty to me being the number one criterion and consented to the nominee possessing at least a modicum of competence, two issues that I was only with great reluctance amenable to. I had all but promised the Attorney General post to Clarence, the kitchen staff guy who cuts the crusts off my sandwiches.

Up to yesterday, the Judiciary Committee has been happy to merely ask if Mukasey would be comfortable telling me I’m wrong, which is fine. I mean, why worry about hypotheticals that will probably never happen anyway. It’s not like I’m going to go to my Attorney General with some half-cocked notion I haven’t talked out with Jesus in advance. But today they started in with torture questions, like we have time for esoterics.

The truth is, ‘torture’ is a philosophical question. I mean, who’s to say what constitutes torture? The person it is being inflicted on? I doubt it. It’s pretty hard for them to keep their objectivity under these procedures, especially if they’re done right. It’s best to let those administering the techniques define torture. If they feel like they can simulate drowning in a humane, non-torturous way, shouldn’t we take their word for it as professionals? Or if they can electrocute genitals in a sanitary, conscientious way, they…

Wait a second, I just had an idea. We may be able to eliminate waterboarding altogether for another non-torturous technique that just occurred to me!