We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If we're comparing academic credentials here, I believe I'm the only one who has taught at a top medical school.

Science, bitches.

I've taught at Michigan's graduate business school, about law. Oh, everyone shuts up now?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Still waiting for you to tell us what your research assistants found.

BTW, I was a law professor too, until I gave it up. Also, I was associated with the consul general of Finland, who got to wear an awesome sash to parties.

No offense, but your alleged professorship at what, (Florida Coastal? American Samoa School of Law? ) does not provide someone competent to find the blogs that informed your basic mindset? Once my charges have finalized working through the research to fix the several really real challenges facing the country generally and IP specifically, maybe one of them can help you find "history" on your browser. I promise em will not share everything they find in your history. We will work through it, and get you to where you claim you want to go.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

No offense, but your alleged professorship at what, (Florida Coastal? American Samoa School of Law? ) does not provide someone competent to find the blogs that informed your basic mindset? Once my charges have finalized working through the research to fix the several really real challenges facing the country generally and IP specifically, maybe one of them can help you find "history" on your browser. I promise em will not share everything they find in your history. We will work through it, and get you to where you claim you want to go.

Boalt Hall, motherfucker! One of the 25 schools in the top 15!

Also, we technology lawyers know the difference between Twitter and blogs. If you want to try to work with this century's issues, you might want to pick that sort of thing up.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

And Senators. And my post was directed to why Republicans chose to put a mediocrity like Kavanaugh on the Court instead of another conservative.

McGhan.

I don't really care today about how the allegations of sexual harassment and attempted rape made you sympathize with Kavanaugh more. On another day, perhaps, but not today. But enough with this "obligated" crap, like it isn't your own choice to sympathize with an asshole like Kavanaugh when he is accused of treating other people poorly.

Get off your pedestal. I didn't sympathize with him because he was accused. I didn't sympathize with him at all, in fact. That's your bullshit characterization. I felt an obligation to call bullshit on what had become a grievance carnival against boorish white males.

As I said, it's not a crime to be a douchebag. And no one is guilty for any moral failing for being skeptical of an allegation of any kind.

I have absolutely no problem with, and actually support, criticisms of Kavanaugh as a potential perpetrator of a sexual assault. My problem was the issue became far bigger than that, far more incoherent and emotional, and a broad indictment of males of Kavanaugh's background generally. That's bullshit.

But you knew my criticism was so limited already. You're just crafting strawmen.

You are exactly correct on this, which is why it is no surprise to see you condemning K for getting confirmed by indignantly complaining that he had been victimized by the Clintons and lying that he had never been to high-school parties instead of dispassionately talking about what he actually did in that bedroom to a younger girl.

This is miserable word salad. I can't even guess what you're saying, but if you're suggesting I support Kavanaugh's blaming the Clintons, you're delusional. I don't, and made no statement at all.

Unless you know that Schumer was the one who leaked Dr. Blasey Ford's complaint, which you don't, then you should be quiet about this.

Suppose that you're a Senator, and you get Dr. Blasey Ford's complaint, and she asks you to keep it confidential. Do you tell the world anyway, and wreck her life?

I did not say that Schumer leaked it. I said it was leaked to him and he sat on it.

On your second point, I do not think a senator leaked it. That's not how this stuff is done. But if you're asking whether Schumer would throw Feinstein and Ford under the bus to win a political battle, the answer is absolutely. Nihilist.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Hey, I posted this:


and Sebby's reaction was to defend it. When Republicans appeal to deluded mob thinking, it's politics as usually, but when Democrats do it, it's a moral panic that obligates him to take sides.

No. When Republicans do it my obligation is to laugh at it, to mock it, and to defend against it.

I did it for nearly a year regarding Iraq. I did it for nearly a year when Starr was engaged in a witch hunt against Bill Clinton.

You have a selective memory.

The Kavanaugh spectacle was perhaps the crest of a panic. I'll cite it once more, because it's the best book on panics I've read: Mobs, Messiahs, and Markets. That book defines how panics arise from often worthy movements. Much of it has to do with absence of a hierarchy and established, reasonable goals. The cathartic release of anger or fear overcomes all efforts to organize and develop goals. (Occupy has some similarities to a panic. It started out with solid critiques of capitalism gone awry, but then in the absence of a defined goal or organization devolved into a Woodstock of myriad, often poorly defined grievances.)

When the Kavanaugh affair spread into a media hurricane, in which the criticisms shifted from an alleged sexual assault to broad indictments of privilege, and people began vilifying those who raised due process concerns, the thing morphed into a panic. Logic was pushed to the back seat, an impediment to righteousness, urgency, and certainty.

When Amy Schumer hits your news feed giving a closed fist salute, you know the adults have left the building... that you're witnessing a left wing tea party protest.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

What happened to the WSJ? Is it just a mouthpiece for Murdoch now?

I feel like the old WSJ would be hammering Trump on his trade wars, etc., but now it seems to be rationalizing them?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

If we're comparing academic credentials here, I believe I'm the only one who has taught at a top medical school.

Science, bitches.

*ahem*

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Still waiting for you to tell us what your research assistants found.

BTW, I was a law professor too, until I gave it up. Also, I was associated with the consul general of Finland, who got to wear an awesome sash to parties.

When I was in Verzenay for a summer law school program, we met the mayor, who wore an outstanding sash to our luncheon at Jacques Rousseaux vineyards.

This sounds like something Tahani from The Good Place would say.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

McGhan.

GOP Senators aren't appointed by the White House counsel's office.

Get off your pedestal. I didn't sympathize with him because he was accused. I didn't sympathize with him at all, in fact. That's your bullshit characterization. I felt an obligation to call bullshit on what had become a grievance carnival against boorish white males.

It's your own choice to decide that the issue is not whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court -- read the papers, that is what [STRIKE]McGahan[/STRIKE] the Senators were actually voting on -- but what you cll a grievance carnival, as if anyone enjoys sharing stories of sexual abuse.

As I said, it's not a crime to be a douchebag. And no one is guilty for any moral failing for being skeptical of an allegation of any kind.

Again, not the issue. The issue was whether K should be confirmed. Republicans worked hard to reframe that issue so they could talk about something else.

I have absolutely no problem with, and actually support, criticisms of Kavanaugh as a potential perpetrator of a sexual assault. My problem was the issue became

note use of the passive tense here -- it "became"? all by itself, it just "became"?

far bigger than that, far more incoherent and emotional, and a broad indictment of males of Kavanaugh's background generally. That's bullshit.

If you don't like that, stop watching TV.

This is miserable word salad. I can't even guess what you're saying, but if you're suggesting I support Kavanaugh's blaming the Clintons, you're delusional. I don't, and made no statement at all.

I'm saying that the way you described the reaction to Kavanaugh applies equally to what Kavanaugh himself said (e.g., blaming the Clintons), and yet when I posted about that, you essentially shrugged and said that's politics and he's smart to do it.

I did not say that Schumer leaked it. I said it was leaked to him and he sat on it.

So he wasn't the one who engineered anything, but you it's still all his fault. Got it.

On your second point, I do not think a senator leaked it. That's not how this stuff is done. But if you're asking whether Schumer would throw Feinstein and Ford under the bus to win a political battle, the answer is absolutely. Nihilist.

If I gave a shit, I would try to figure out why you think Schumer mishandled anything, but I don't care to try, because the answer is, you don't know. What you're saying is that the Democrats lost this one, and Schumer was in charge, so he's a loser, and it's really his fault for being a loser. That's how it's done.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

No. When Republicans do it my obligation is to laugh at it, to mock it, and to defend against it.

That's nice, Sebby, but here's what you actually said:

And your criticism there would be?

This is the game engaged. He’d no choice but to play. I thought his play was crazy. My misperception explains a lot about why he’s at the top of the political mountain and I’m here arguing with you. That or he just got lucky. One never knows.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

*ahem*

Sorry bout that, Professor.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I've taught at Michigan's graduate business school, about law. Oh, everyone shuts up now?

Dude, not even a top 20.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

GOP Senators aren't appointed by the White House counsel's office.

BK was McGahn's pick.

It's your own choice to decide that the issue is not whether Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court -- read the papers, that is what [STRIKE]McGahan[/STRIKE] the Senators were actually voting on -- but what you cll a grievance carnival, as if anyone enjoys sharing stories of sexual abuse.

The Senate was trying to create two broader issues:

1. On the right, BK was victim of smear;
2. On the left, if you don't believe Ford unconditionally, if you doubt her, or if you think a nominee like BK deserves some form of due process, you're anti-woman.

Again, not the issue. The issue was whether K should be confirmed. Republicans worked hard to reframe that issue so they could talk about something else.

Nonsense. The Democrats sprung a surprise challenge on a nominee and happily engaged in questioning him about his HS drinking. If they'd actually given a shit about Ford's real allegation, they'd have crossed BK relentlessly on what happened in that room, and that only. Instead, they were asking him about Devil's Triangle and how much he drank. The Democrats tried to convict by circumstantial evidence and make BK look like an entitled drunk because they suspected they would not be able to sway the GOP on Ford's testimony alone. This was a huge error, as everybody found her credible, and no one found any of the circumstantial crap elicited from Whitehouse, Klobuchar, and Booker convincing of anything. The only thing positive one can say of any of the Democratic cross examination was it was better than Lindsey Graham's ludicrous and pathetic performance.

note use of the passive tense here -- it "became"? all by itself, it just "became"?

You think the GOP did that? They're not smart enough to have done so. That was all the media, and the media is in a permanent feedback loop with the Democratic party. Except for Fox, which is in a permanent feedback loop with the GOP.

If you don't like that, stop watching TV.

And get rid of my news feeds, cancel all the papers, and stop all the magazines.

I'm saying that the way you described the reaction to Kavanaugh applies equally to what Kavanaugh himself said (e.g., blaming the Clintons), and yet when I posted about that, you essentially shrugged and said that's politics and he's smart to do it.

You've added croutons. I'm still grasping what point is buried beneath the arugula.

So he wasn't the one who engineered anything, but you it's still all his fault. Got it.

Schumer learned of the letter weeks ago and brought it to no one's attention. He orchestrated its later release. Of course no one will ever know how. That's how these things work. (You can tell me my source sucks, but this is what I heard.)

If I gave a shit, I would try to figure out why you think Schumer mishandled anything, but I don't care to try, because the answer is, you don't know. What you're saying is that the Democrats lost this one, and Schumer was in charge, so he's a loser, and it's really his fault for being a loser. That's how it's done.

I don't know. I was told a version of what happened. Could it be right? Maybe. Could it be wrong? Maybe. The quantum of proof offered is akin to circumstantial evidence. You can extrapolate to the obvious meta point that follows.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Boalt Hall, motherfucker! One of the 25 schools in the top 15!

Also, we technology lawyers know the difference between Twitter and blogs. If you want to try to work with this century's issues, you might want to pick that sort of thing up.

Don't use that name, you supporter of racists! https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/...e-13221947.php

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That's nice, Sebby, but here's what you actually said:

And I stand by that. Once an opponent has engaged dishonestly, or with a pretext, or using artifice, you're licensed to engage in whatever effective form of reply is necessitated, without limitation of any kind.

Are you suggesting one side is allowed to employ all tactics available, but the other may not?