Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

I never really got the sense he was trying to tell us that he didn’t do it.

Yeah, he never outright admitted any of it, but he didn’t exactly deny either.

First of all, that's not true. He made a number of denials, including stating that the claim by the congressional aide that accused him of trying to forcibly kiss her was "categorically not true." Maybe he didn't inform his constituents of this particular denial?

Second of all, in the full swing of the #metoo movement (and the fact that there was a photo of him acting the fool, but not actually committing an assault), he had to be very careful about what he said. I genuinely think he wanted to be respectful of the women accusing him. And if it was true that he asked her to kiss him for the skit, could he publicly shit all over her reading of that request? Sure it's true that he asked, but her read may be all the fucking way out of left field.

Third, I'm arguing that he should have had an opportunity to help define and address his actions. It just can't be that someone gets accused and that's it, their career is over. I am not sure I understand why this is controversial. It is the very fucking basis of our legal system.

Again, I'm not saying he shouldn't have been forced out. I'm saying that there should have been an ethics hearing/investigation in which he could have defended himself. There are surely enough allegations of inappropriate behavior for him to be booted. But this is not how it should work for anybody.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

I never really got the sense he was trying to tell us that he didn’t do it.

Yeah, he never outright admitted any of it, but he didn’t exactly deny either.

I got the same sense from his comments to the media. He seemed to have recognized that he'd been sleazy in the past. But this does not mean he had to give up his job.

The punishment of Franken was wildly disproportionate to the crime. In any other normal time, rather than at the peak of #metoo, people would have reacted to Franken in a circumspect manner. His timing was bad. A mob wanted every #metoo violator's head and was unable and unwilling to differentiate the behaviors of a Weinstein from a Charlie Rose from a Franken from an Aziz Ansari.

Zero tolerance = Zero thinking. Franken gave up too soon and paid a price far too high, and we're all much poorer for it. Gillibrand is a useless operator, driven only by her own ambition. Franken was actually a thoughtful legislator with a voice. And yet she persists, adjusting her every syllable to the latest polls, maneuvering and conniving to appear as Presidential mettle. Franken sits silent, a voice of reason we very much need in the Senate, probably touching up scripts and doing some executive producing.

One last point on Franken... Ty suggested that I was arguing that Gillibrand cannot be elected President because of what she did to Franken. This is incorrect. Gillibrand cannot be elected President because Gillibrand is a lousy candidate with nothing original to say. She wouldn't last five minutes in a debate with Warren or Harris. She's an entirely political confection, saccharine, hollow... the utterly vacant creation of focus groups, consultants, and donors.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

*This is almost as good as "As an attorney..." followed by whatever bullshit you want others to think is somehow automatically legitimate.

In the bowels of flyover land, one would occasionally hear, "Attorney So and So?"

This was a bit starting at first. Partly because it's clumsy, partly because it's like hearing someone say, "CPA So and So?" Or "Engineer So and So?"

The reply, "Hey now... It's early and I haven't seen any need to insult you," tended to amuse court reporters.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Very few are smart enough to walk away when they “ring the bell.”

After much deliberation, I have determined that I am in a position that my financial future, and that of my family unto my grandchildren's generation, is secure. Having worked at the same outfit for 44 years, I have decided not to make a career of it. The signature cases I have on my docket are in the "pig has moved through most of the python" stage. My successor is more than ready, she has been ready for a decade. Time to step down before the Board taps me on the shoulder, pins a note to my sweater, and leaves me at a dog track. It is time. I'm going out on a very good note.



At age 72 and a low fraction, I will ring the bell on March 29, thus making April Fools Day my first day of retirement. Bueller LLC will open for business the next day.



Mostly, I'll be found at beaches between North Carolina, Bermuda, Aruba, Costa Rica, and, when the narco problem clears up again, Barra Beach in Rio. Buy futures in SPF 90 sunscreen. I'll be using it by the quart as I fish for breakfast at sunrise, reapplying until the cocktail hour at sunset.



I also expect to be busy enough, but not too busy. I will be working for the World Bank and the Financial Services Volunteer Corps once or twice a year to see a few of the more remote emerging economies I have yet to visit. Get ticket, review facts on the ground, write report, repeat.



I wish all of you the same level of happiness in your careers that I've been fortunate enough to have. Peace.

Congratulations! I hope your next endeavors are peaceful and/or fulfilling.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Sure, but if formal proceedings can't be trusted to get to the truth, people will continue to call for punishment without waiting for the results of formal proceedings. People like Sebby who are offended by the unfairness of that should think about how to make the formal proceedings work better to identify and punish bad actors.

I'm not offended by it. I understand the urge to skip the adversarial and investigatory processes. The adversarial process in courts involves bullshitters competing against one another to see whose narrative tale makes the most sense to a jury of middle minded common people.

I believe the adversarial system should be done away with in most cases. Most humans are simply not adequate judges of what has or has not happened. They are swayed by emotion, they cannot process information adequately to see issues from all sides, and they're easily manipulated by presentation of a compelling narrative. The only proper jury member would be a person who was 100% logical, 0% emotional. This person does not exist.

But the cry to short circuit this flawed process is even worse than this flawed process. It's the worst of emotional reactions, often infused with a nice dose of mob-think and self-righteousness.

The fix, I think, would be to establish professional juries and truly dispassionate investigators for all issues, from Franken situations to crimes to civil actions. Pay these jurors well and keep them anonymous. Vet them for selection by giving them tests to assess their ability to think in a purely logical manner.

Instead of having prosecutors, have only investigators, whose sole charge is to assess the statistical likelihood of certain facts having occurred. Instead of charging someone with something, develop a list of potential facts and liable actors and then use a process to determine the most and least likely explanations of what occurred.

No more adversaries. No more "hammer and nail" issue in which prosecutors or claimants are compelled to seek the win at all costs.

And yes, a star chamber of smart people who could look at something like the Franken Affair and say, "As a threshold issue, of the punishments which may be meted out, loss of the Senate seat should not be included."

Some may say this is elitist. But if you've been involved in our current system, I think you'd agree, some form of enlightened logic-based system has to be employed. It's kind of like a hyper-logical JAMS or AAA for all situations.

I'd also use an algorithm to comb the evidence and facts and assess the veracity of any finding by a human jury or investigation. If the computer finds it's flawed, out it goes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'd also use an algorithm to comb the evidence and facts and assess the veracity of any finding by a human jury or investigation. If the computer finds it's flawed, out it goes.

Yes, computers are the answer!

With Cavanaugh I asked why is there a "fitness and character" test to be a lawyer, but nothing to be a Supreme Court Judge, for life. Most states' bars have some process to sort out past bad acts. I've no idea how they do it, but have never heard any implication of bias from the process. A senate committee is no answer, as half will hate the person in question, and even the "friendly" (Gillibrand) are often driven by their own futures.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by pony_trekker

Smart guy, does Tom Brady delegate some of the passes in the superbowl? I didn't think so.

We don't provide snacks. I actually turn off the water and remove all of the toilet paper from the bathrooms.

Can you buy your own airplane?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In the bowels of flyover land, one would occasionally hear, "Attorney So and So?"

This was a bit starting at first. Partly because it's clumsy, partly because it's like hearing someone say, "CPA So and So?" Or "Engineer So and So?"

The reply, "Hey now... It's early and I haven't seen any need to insult you," tended to amuse court reporters.

Wisconsin! It drives me crazy.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Yes, computers are the answer!

With Cavanaugh I asked why is there a "fitness and character" test to be a lawyer, but nothing to be a Supreme Court Judge, for life. Most states' bars have some process to sort out past bad acts. I've no idea how they do it, but have never heard any implication of bias from the process. A senate committee is no answer, as half will hate the person in question, and even the "friendly" (Gillibrand) are often driven by their own futures.

Seriously, the more sophisticated a person is, the less he sees the world in black and white. A jury of enlightened thinkers can understand the mitigating and aggravating circumstances and render a fair and logical assessment of a less sophisticated person's behavior. The reverse, however, is not always possible.

And you certainly cannot have simplistic thinkers, or people with overdeveloped notions of morality or "right 'n wrong" judging other less sophisticated people's actions. That's what wrongly lands people on death row.

The cure ultimately becomes a computer and scrapping of the adversarial system, a somewhat barbarous legal relic.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Wisconsin! It drives me crazy.

I makes me sad someone's low enough to think there's reason to aggrandize that credential.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I got the same sense from his comments to the media. He seemed to have recognized that he'd been sleazy in the past. But this does not mean he had to give up his job.

The punishment of Franken was wildly disproportionate to the crime. In any other normal time, rather than at the peak of #metoo, people would have reacted to Franken in a circumspect manner. His timing was bad. A mob wanted every #metoo violator's head and was unable and unwilling to differentiate the behaviors of a Weinstein from a Charlie Rose from a Franken from an Aziz Ansari.

Zero tolerance = Zero thinking. Franken gave up too soon and paid a price far too high, and we're all much poorer for it. Gillibrand is a useless operator, driven only by her own ambition. Franken was actually a thoughtful legislator with a voice. And yet she persists, adjusting her every syllable to the latest polls, maneuvering and conniving to appear as Presidential mettle. Franken sits silent, a voice of reason we very much need in the Senate, probably touching up scripts and doing some executive producing.

One last point on Franken... Ty suggested that I was arguing that Gillibrand cannot be elected President because of what she did to Franken. This is incorrect. Gillibrand cannot be elected President because Gillibrand is a lousy candidate with nothing original to say. She wouldn't last five minutes in a debate with Warren or Harris. She's an entirely political confection, saccharine, hollow... the utterly vacant creation of focus groups, consultants, and donors.

Can you believe this bullshit?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/u...dard-2020.html

First, nobody EVER branded Hillary as shrill. I read that on the internet. Second, the idea that men would use the world shrill to disparage uppity women is laughable. The beauty of the word shrill is that is it almost exclusively used by women, to great cutting effect. By the way, while on the uppity women tip, you should know that it's no longer "o.k." to state that these women are "persisting." McConnell ruined that for everyone.

But that's not why I am here. I am just here to share a video of Cardi B in homage to her win at the Grammys. It's profane because, well, Cardi B:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu9EX9YRTdQ

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Can you believe this bullshit?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/u...dard-2020.html

First, nobody EVER branded Hillary as shrill. I read that on the internet. Second, the idea that men would use the world shrill to disparage uppity women is laughable. The beauty of the word shrill is that is it almost exclusively used by women, to great cutting effect. By the way, while on the uppity women tip, you should know that it's no longer "o.k." to state that these women are "persisting." McConnell ruined that for everyone.

But that's not why I am here. I am just here to share a video of Cardi B in homage to her win at the Grammys. It's profane because, well, Cardi B:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu9EX9YRTdQ

Who said Gillibrand was shrill? I said she's soulless. She's a stuffed suit. And an ambitious opportunist.

I think she's a zero. Like Mitt Romney was a zero. I think she's guided by nothing but focus groups and polls, and has no independent thought.

So without knowing who exactly you were writing to, or what your point was, here's my view on the candidates:

Beto: Vacant media darling, McCandidate
Harris: Smart and thoughtful, but has to up the charisma a bit
Warren: Super-smart and formidable (if people will pay attention to her sometimes complex policy arguments)
Bernie: Past sell by date
Klobuchar: Don't know anything about her
Booker: Smart, but overthinking and too perfect, occasionally precious
Biden: He can walk away with it, as he could have in 2016
Gillibrand: 0.00, total phony

Kasich: DOA, egomaniac
Christie: Trump v. Trump
Romney: Oh, fuck... Not again

Schultz: Not dynamic enough to be a spoiler... 15 min almost up

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

row.

The cure ultimately becomes a computer

You don't understand computers. And I'd say you are likely reading too much science fiction, and the wrong stuff at that.

[Not Bob]

James Fucking Baldwin explains systemic racism and why it doesn’t really matter if Not Bob in particular hates black people, because BigLaw sure doesn’t have very many black equity partners.

*This song gave a young Not Bobby a somewhat inaccurate view of the progress of the civil rights movement.

ETA: I think that it’s “understand THAT” and not “understand WHY,” but whatever.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Who said Gillibrand was shrill? I said she's soulless. She's a stuffed suit. And an ambitious opportunist.

I think she's a zero. Like Mitt Romney was a zero. I think she's guided by nothing but focus groups and polls, and has no independent thought.

So without knowing who exactly you were writing to, or what your point was, here's my view on the candidates:

Beto: Vacant media darling, McCandidate
Harris: Smart and thoughtful, but has to up the charisma a bit
Warren: Super-smart and formidable (if people will pay attention to her sometimes complex policy arguments)
Bernie: Past sell by date
Klobuchar: Don't know anything about her
Booker: Smart, but overthinking and too perfect, occasionally precious
Biden: He can walk away with it, as he could have in 2016
Gillibrand: 0.00, total phony

Kasich: DOA, egomaniac
Christie: Trump v. Trump
Romney: Oh, fuck... Not again

Schultz: Not dynamic enough to be a spoiler... 15 min almost up

“What about Sherrod Brown!?!” asks the product of a union-proud, JFK/RFK worshipping family in the Ancestral Homeland.