Re: Red Red Whine
 

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

Re: Red Red Whine
 

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.

Re: Red Red Whine
 

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.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

McGhan.

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.

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 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.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

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.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

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?

Re: Red Red Whine
 

*ahem*

Re: Red Red Whine
 

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.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

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

Re: Red Red Whine
 

Sorry bout that, Professor.

Re: Red Red Whine
 

Dude, not even a top 20.

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

BK was McGahn's pick.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.)

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.

Re: Red Red Whine
 

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

Re: We are all Slave now.
 

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?