Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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.

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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.

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

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

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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.

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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.

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

Can you buy your own airplane?

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

Wisconsin! It drives me crazy.

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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.

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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

And now the child can understand why this is the law of all the land.*
 

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.

Re: Northam, Warren, Fairfax...
 

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