Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Mike]

I know it's hard to keep track when there has been 27 investigations of the same incident but try to keep up, Jon!!

[Da Geezer]

From that progressive, liberal rag, The Economist

Oh, I wouldn't call it a rag.

I do wonder why Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch were meeting in secret and why the officers of the court in this forum aren't bothered by the appearance of impropriety. I suspect there is far too much money to be made from a Clinton Presidency for most lawyers, particularly trial lawyers. Classic elite behavior.

[iam416]

I leave this here as a piece by Kevin Williamson that I found interesting: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...ity-pipe-dream

It is more on a "wonky" policy/philosophy and was prompted by some weird tweet by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

I have my criticisms. I suppose the entire article could cynically be boiled down to "everything has unintended consequences; how should we make policy in view of that." But, whatever.

Read it at your discretion.

Also, Jonah Goldberg adds on: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...gmatism-rehash

As a disclaimer, I agree almost entirely with this from Goldberg:

Politics in the most basic Aristotelian and democratic senses rests on the idea that people can disagree about what the right course of action is. If you want to replace a park with a shopping mall, some people will object because they like trees more than stores. Others will says jobs are more important than green spaces. Tyson wants the “weight of the evidence” to win out every time. But everyone can agree on the “evidence” while still disagreeing on whether or not to release the bulldozers. Likewise with abortion. Fundamentally, the fight over abortion isn’t about evidence, it’s about principles. That doesn’t mean evidence isn’t important, just that its importance is entirely contingent on the question you’re trying to answer.

Indeed, most meaningful political disputes are fundamentally disputes over competing values. That means people of good will can disagree on what the evidence shows or, more importantly, on which evidence should win out. Tyson thinks that all good and right people will see the “evidence” the same way. I honestly believe only arrogant or naive fools and oblivious dogmatists can think that is right.

This particular passage calls to mind the week long Brexit discussion. Reviewing it through the above lense, it's easy to see that Brexiters prioritized certain values that Brexit clearly furthers (as established by the evidence). Remainers prioritize certain values that remaining clearly further. In the discussions both sides were strongest when sticking with the evidence that supported their value proposition (there were modest refutations attempted but I'd consider them less than persuasive acknowledging I, like several, made those attempts). But what I may have missed is that actual value proposition debate -- and likely because it's so f'n apples to oranges when it comes to the "evidence". Looking back on it, I think that's what the pro-Brexit editorial I posted awhile back was struggling with.

I need to keep this sort of framework in mind as I think it puts the opinions of others in the proper light -- as rational, reasonable, etc.

So, with that -- my apologies for snarky bullshit -- probably to hack. DSL can F himself.

[Ghengis Jon]

In the report released in the last week, not a report from 2013!

I've downloaded the report released this month. Its 800 pages, 5 sections, 12 appendixes and one 'additional views' by two unbiased (heh) republicans. Can you save me a bit of time and tell me where that tidbit is found? I'll search/read from there.

Section IV deals with documents and emails, particularly pages 51-65. Not a word about a hacking incident.

Truly, I've not heard (from either the right or left) about a hacked server.

[Mike]

Why can't two people have a private conversation?

[lineygoblue]

Hey Mike .. meet me on the runway at Bishop Airport ... I've got a lasagna recipe to share with you ... :-)

[Mike]

OK, great. I love lasagna. But seriously, what if they spoke by phone? Or if they were in the same city at the same time would they be allowed to meet in a conference room somewhere? What is it about meeting in a plane that causes suspicion? Just curious.

[SeattleLionsFan]

There's nothing wrong with it. Unless you believe that Clinton and the dems are all corrupt. In which case they bake a cake for nefarious reasons.

[Mike]

They put the Vince Foster murder weapon in the cake! Then they smuggled it through the Clinton Foundation to a third world country where... you guessed it, the cake mysteriously disappeared!

[hack]

I agree that DSL can fuck himself, but that's just thanks to the standard Ohio policy around here. Other reasons may apply. You can do same, but, thanks for that. Is really a good reminder for all.

I do think that the regulatory argument was really a terrible one. Your values may clash with Brussels' approach, but ultimately it all gets filed under the broader category of commercial concerns. Commercial concerns have been damaged given the UK's diminished ability to influence regulation in its key export market.

As for that piece, it's a good piece, and I agree that Tyson is a dreamer at times. An admirable pursuit and part of the overall mix of activities required. I think the story does suffer a lack of specifics. In one particular case I could expand:

There are things that it cannot do, even in principle, such as impose a “rational” order on the nation’s energy markets, deciding that x share of our electricity supply shall come from solar, y share from wind, z share from natural gas, all calculated to economic and environmental ideals. That is simply beyond its ken, even if all the best people — including Tyson, from time to time — pretend that it is otherwise.


That can and does happen, and for purely technical reasons. Different sources have different traits: the volume of wind and solar are variable based on the strength of the source at the moment, but gas-fired plants can adjust output in small bits and do it fast. Until electricity can be stored supply and demand have to always be in balance, and having very flexible output options is needed to accomplish that.

[hack]

They put the Vince Foster murder weapon in the cake! Then they smuggled it through the Clinton Foundation to a third world country where... you guessed it, the cake mysteriously disappeared!

Heh. Turn that same focus on things Dick Cheney did, perhaps.

[hack]

An extremely crude indicator, but the pound's bounced a bit since Boris Johnson decided not to run. No idea why Gove would. Or anyone else. Let someone else fail with this mess first, and then try again.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Heh. Turn that same focus on things Dick Cheney did, perhaps.

Or Denny Hastert. Maybe he would not have molested kids. Or at least not as many.

[Da Geezer]

Mike:

Why can't two people have a private conversation?

SLF:

There's nothing wrong with it. Unless you believe that Clinton and the dems are all corrupt.

Of course two people can have a private conversation. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that. And no one is saying all Democrats are corrupt. And where Dick Cheney enters the debate, I'll never understand.

That said, Loretta Lynch's DOJ is running a criminal investigation of the Clinton Foundation and its officers and the possibility of favors being done in exchange for donations to the Foundation when Hillary Clinton was SOS. The meeting happened on Monday, and yesterday the DOJ filed a motion on behalf of the Dept of State to extend the time frame for the delivery of 34,000 emails that are known to exist, but are due from State. The motion is for another 27 months of time. Also this week, subpoenas have gone out to the scheduler at the DOS, requesting emails related to the 75 meetings that were held with foreigners overseas by Ms. Clinton and were not reported. And did I mention many of those foreigners made donations to the Foundation and to her campaign (if there is any difference between the two).

And the question I asked was rather straightforward. Do any of the leftist lawyers in this forum believe this at least shows an appearance of impropriety?

Hey, Bill was playing golf in 110-degree heat and Loretta just happened to be in her plane at the airport, and shazam, so was Bill. Well, you know Bill, and he came bounding over to her plane, and what could she do? C'mon.

[CGVT]

The bigger question is, does anyone really give a shit about the emails?

Nothing burger.