The AP reports on beavers who found some stolen cash and wove it into their dam.

Galley Friend (and high-powered Washington lawyer) K.T. weighs in on the question of state-sponsored gag orders. K.T. reports that government injunctions against free speech are frequently part of criminal plea agreements and that this arrangement most commonly is used to prevent criminals from profiting by talking about their crimes. K.T. also insists that there is nothing novel in this and that the government frequently limits speech as a matter of course.

Blogger/ex-barista Kathleen Nelson goes on the funniest and most informative blog tirade I’ve read in months. It’s about the difference between Starbucks and Caribou. I won’t tell you whose side she’s on, but the essay culminates in this cri de coeur:

“Honestly, some days it was like being a sommelier at a five star restaurant and having to convince people that no, Night Train is not what wine is supposed to taste like.”

I understand that Kathy’s blog isn’t solely about coffee-related matters, but maybe it should be. I need to know what her position is on Illy.

[You’re not calling this nice lady a “whore,” are you? -ed No, you doofus; rent Mean Girls.]

French lefties and communists (I mean that descriptively, not pejoratively) want to name streets after Arafat.

I’m sure this has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. It’s just that they respect how he empowered the powerless!

It seems that John McCain also back Goss. He says that “a shake-up is absolutely necessary.”

Battered by Hayes and McCain, I now find my position–that this has all the earmarks of political hackwork–supported only by Jane Harman (Jane Harman!) who says that the resignations were caused by Goss’s “highly partisan inexperienced staff.” Thanks for the help, Congressperson Harman.

Still, I maintain that this smells like the type of petty bureaucratic infighting practiced all over Capitol Hill and in the Bush administration by people like Galley Enemies B.C. and M.G. (You know who you are!)

And I remain unconvinced that a better leader, like Bob Mueller, couldn’t have shaken things up without sparking a revolt. Of course, I’m open persuasion if someone wants to argue that the institutional culture of the CIA is markedly different than FBI.

As one of America’s most beloved figures once asked, Why not the best?

Steve Hayes makes the case (contra me) that Porter Goss is actually intent on reforming the institutional culture of the CIA, and that the two resignations are just the CIA trying to make a big stink in public. Hayes is, I should mention, loads smart on this stuff and has the benefit of having done actual reporting.

And if this is the case, I’m all for it: The CIA’s track record over the last four years hasn’t been the best. But I’m still unconvinced. A couple things leap out at me.

(1) As I said before, the conflict here isn’t between Goss and career subordinates, it’s between Goss’s congressional minion and his career subordinates. Is Patrick Murray just Goss’s stalking horse? Maybe. But if this is a serious fight, Goss should be waging it himself.

(2) There seems to be an assumption that transforming an intelligence agency necessarily means pissing off the career guys. As Robert Mueller has shown during his tenure at FBI, this is a false choice. A skilled executive can transform, and bring the rank-and-file along. We should have a skilled executive at CIA.

This is lovely. After keeping George “Slam-dunk” Tenet on for longer than any reasonable executive would have, President Bush replaced him with Porter Goss. At the time, it seemed that the change would, by the necessity of averages, be an upgrade. Not so fast.

On Friday, John McLaughlin, the number two man at CIA resigned. He was a 32-year veteran of the Agency. The deputy director of Operations, Stephen Kappes, also resigned on Friday, although he has agreed to postpone his final decision until today.

If Goss really needs to “clean house” at the CIA, as one anonymous source told the New York Times, that’s one thing. And he should have a free hand to make command decisions. But what is worrisome is that these two fellows were pushed to the brink not by Goss, but by Goss’s chief minion, Patrick Murray. And the complaint is not about systemic reorganization, but that Murray was “treating senior officials disrespectfully.”

Murray came over to the Agency with Goss from Capitol Hill, where he was Goss’s chief of staff. Anyone who has spent more than six months in Washington knows four or five (or more) people like Murray: The officious, sycophantic seat-sniffers who follow semi-important people around for a career, hoping to hit the big time one day should their principal get a high-level job. Washington is, sadly, full of these people. I don’t begrudge these little men and women their fun. After all, without them, Chris Buckley would have nothing to write about.

But while it’s fine for them to muck up the Commerce Committee or the RNC or even the EEOB, should they be allowed to use bloody CIA as a battleground for their bureaucratic power-piss matches? Doesn’t someone at the White House have their hands on the wheel?

I know that some of you out there surfing the interweb had talked yourselves into believing that CBS News’ little forged document scandal was politically motivated and that CBS would never punish anyone danrather for the mishap.

But CBS can get tough. Just a few days after she made the call to interrupt CSI: NY to report Yasser Arafat’s death, CBS has fired the producer who made that call.

Even Columbia Journalism Review‘s Campaign Desk was outraged by this rush to judgment. How could CBS fire this poor woman without the consultation of an independent commission? And if breaking into CSI with real, non-forged news is a firable offense then what about . . . oh, never mind.