Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

MAGA elected the last President

Actually people who voted third party elected him. Hopefully they learned their lesson.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Many people break that law because they do not think they will be caught. Trump has learned, over decades, that even if he is caught, he is not held accountable. (Or that he can pay some money.) He ran a risk/reward calculation, and got it wrong. That doesn't mean he has a mental illness, any more than it does for any other criminal.

He was caught. The subpoena was him being caught. Any sane person, including even his psycho mentor, Roy Cohn, would make the strategic decision to return the materials. It's the only move on the chess board.

What does Trump do? In perfect childlike fashion, in an act consistent with someone with pre-pubescent level stunted maturity, he decides to try to hide the stuff? Ok, so then there must be some value to his doing so, right? He must have run a cost/benefit. Nope. There is no value to his keeping the stuff. If the facts adduced to date are accurate, he doesn't even know the totality of what he withheld.

That is the act of someone whose mind is addled. And recall, this nutball is 78. If Biden is mentally compromised at 80, which appears so, why not Trump? Dementia + Mental Problems + Getting Away with Things. He's all three.

You only fight the obvious evidence of his mental problems because you seem to think they raise an insanity defense, or render him worthy of leniency. That's in your own head. I don't see that at all.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed on ETA point. But as an experiment, talk about Bernie with some upper middle class decently educated folks you know. There's a sharp recoiling. They'll argue he just isn't realistic, or he can't win. This translates to, "I'm all for forced social change, but not the kind that will impact me."

We obviously run in different circles.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

You were calling DEI a form of authoritarianism, and I was saying it was exactly the opposite, in that it is not really changing anyone's behavior much at all. Saying that companies spend money on DEI consultants or lose money with ESG is missing the point.

Except it is. It's a cult that's caused corporate America to engage in performative rituals. Performative rituals are not conducive to productivity. Companies exist to make money, period.

HR is enough of a cash suck/cost center already. Larding it with DEI strictures is throwing sand in gears. At one point in my life, and very annoying one, I had to work with an HR head managing 1100 people. This kind of stuff drove everyone nuts. "This is sexist, that's discriminatory, we should have a workshop." Pissed away a small fortune getting opinions from outside counsel on employment matters. Godawful, tedious.

I believe all sorts of things about the laptop. I believe Hunter Biden has done things I disapprove of, and I wouldn't vote for him. I didn't vote for him. I voted for his father, and he is being dragged through the mud in an effort to harm his father, as we all know. If he were a Republican, you would be full of sympathy for the way he is being abused, but since he is a Democrat, it doesn't bother you -- you think his dick pics should be on the news.

If the Trump kids had such a laptop, it'd have been on the front page of every newspaper in the country. Don Jr's dick picks would still be a meme today.

And you know it. There's a double standard in the media (legacy and social) and only a liar or a knave would state otherwise. And it's defended, laughably, as efforts to stanch misinformation.

But the Biden laptop is just one of the most recent examples of it. Recall how the media got in line and parroted Bush's bullshit to get us into Iraq? How about the stamping out of lab leak theories as disinformation, and worse yet, racism? How about the endless bullshit about the efficacy of masks? Even Fauci has admitted lying about that. But it's okay, and we shouldn't talk about his lies, because they were noble lies - those who know what's best for everyone else needed to get people in line.

There's an official narrative on everything these days, and what doesn't fit it is branded false. The left should give Trump a lifetime achievement award for gifting it the greatest weapon of all time: the allegation, "Fake news!" It's fucking brilliant. Destroys opposition in two syllables.

I'm not defending the pieties you want to mock (but aren't mocking). I'm saying they don't exist. You carp and carp and carp about how you can't say the things that you and many other people are saying.

I couldn't and can't say those things in public. I go along to get along just like everyone else. It's only in private where one can do so.

Your both-sidesism is apologism for authoritarianism. Left-wing authoritarianism exists -- it's called Communism. It is a real problem in some parts of the world, like China. But not in the US. Here, the authoritarian threat is from the right. And your both-sidesism is a myopic effort to deny reality, to invent a non-existent left-wing counterpart to MAGA.

Your refusal to see authoritarian creep all around you is kind of surprising. You're not a blindered sort. But I think you're so tied to the idea that it can only come from the right that to show you how it insidiously comes from the left incenses you. It's like pissing on some article of faith.

There are all sorts of things you can't say at many large organizations, because saying them reveals that you are a little dim, with poor judgment, someone who doesn't know how to fit in. You can poke fun at DEI just like you can poke fun at Finance. (But if you go after either in the wrong way, you are demonstrating that you don't know how to play.)

Here's where you shift and adorn yourself with the wise cynic hat. It is a game, and you're right - only a fool fails to act as a Roman when in Rome. But we're not in Rome. The conversation here is inconsequential, only had for the purpose of the intellectual exercise. If your immediately preceding statement is true, if you mean it, then you and I don't really disagree. We both admit things like DEI are feel good performative behaviors. We only disagree on the extent to which they impact things (you say not much; I say they are productivity-sucks and cash machines for manipulative consultants).

But on your last point, I don't see any right way to poke fun at these things. And things like DEI, or ESG, are not like finance at all. People hold these things to be so virtuous as to be beyond reproach. I can make fun of finance all day long, anywhere. Nobody takes offense or thinks one "dim" for doing so. Finance doesn't care; it's making money. Poke fun at a DEI consultant or exec and see how that flies. Better yet, try it with a Dean or Professor. These things are sanctified. And what's sanctified is... religion.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That protest held outside the match, on the grounds, would have been totally fine. To do it in the match is the height of narcissism and extreme fundamentalism. They did nothing but harm their cause.

I am completely sympathetic to drawing attention to the immediate threat of climate change, but the protestors are amazingly inept at gendering anything but disdain. Destroying art, this incident, etc.

Three weeks ago, before a half inch of rain made national news, a climate group decided to shut off the single road to Burning Man.

95 percent of the people inconvenienced didn't have a clue what the fuck was going on, so the message never made it to them. But that road is also the single road on and off the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation, whose members were already dealing with the headache of 70,000 partiers coming and going next door. The tribal rangers had zero hesitation in just ramming the blockade with their pickup.

Like I said, I'm completely sympathetic to the need to address the issue they're trying to address, but their methods are so utterly and completely ludicrous, it makes me want to buy a F350 and roll them with diesel smoke.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When I have been in a jury pool I would have loved to have been seated. I'd sit back and watch. But yes, a Grand Jury, I don't get how anyone can do that.

Last time I was dismissed* from a jury (I knew the prosecutor), the judge made an announcement they were looking for new panelists and gave a run down of the qualifications. I'm not sure how anyone with a straight face makes the argument that grand juries are comprised of any representative portion of the population.

Also, in my neck of the woods, those of us with childcaring responsibilities are excused until I think the kid is 12. I found this out when asking how I could pump breast milk and serve on a jury. Seems like a pretty important segment of the population isn't around for deciding cases where kids are involved. I'm not sure how to reconcile the two.

*I'd love to sit, but I always get bumped pretty fast.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

When I was a big law a young litigation associate told a Judge (from the box) "I am a litigator on major lawsuits. I cannot expend the time." The Judge did not excuse him, but one of the lawyers did. The Judge called the firms head of lit and Junior got yelled at.

I was in the box once. The case was a murder trial. Prosecutor explained the evidence was heavily scientific, things like fibers. When he heard I was a patent attorney he looked at me curiously, like trying to figure out if I'd be good or bad. I'd have been bad. He was going to try and pitch "science=magic" and i have clients that make test equipment and put effort to invent ways to reduce errors.

D Counsel asked the pool, "Hypothetical, say we don't have the trial, we just ask you all now is my client guilty, what is your verdict." I told her it was sort of a silly question because Prosecution carries a heavy burden and we have not seen any evidence.

I can't remember which bounced me, and whether it was because I'd be a wildcard for their case, or just because I was an asshole.

Oh, but if looking at a 4 month trial I'd get myself bounced using the best trick I've ever seen- the Judge is doing the VD and asking some old guy questions, OG just kept saying "huh?" Got out right quick he did!

I got bounced very fast once for saying I didn't believe in home owners associations in a case where the HOA was suing some resident for non-payment of dues. In Texas, HOAs have massive power and in some circumstances can take your house.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

By the way, if you really want to scare the daylights out of your healthcare provider, eat beats before giving the stool sample.

I am sorry, folks, I did not think that one through.

I did that right before a myomectomy. Wasn't until I was in recovery and my husband saw them trying to figure out why my urine was red but the blood count was zero that they figured it out.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Smith wants to get a trial before the election. Willis can be less worried about that, in part because there's nobody to pardon Trump for her charges.

People who know a fuckton more about these things than I do have said that it really goes down to federal vs state prosecutors. Federal prosecutors are super cautious and state prosecutors have a ton more leeway from their courts. I also get the impression from RICO people that the Georgia RICO statute is bonkers.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Thanks.

You all should know you're part of the support network that makes it happen. A big piece of fighting this stuff is staying engaged and vital, and frankly while I joke about it getting called out on spelling goofs caring about that stuff and mixing it up over trump or bush or whatever is part of staying vital. So thanks for giving me shit.

Really super happy that you're still with us. Keep fucking up the odds for a lot longer.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Can you run to your songs or are you too critical that it would break the zoning?

Team silence outdoors, where I do most of my runs. Have to listen for animals sneaking up on me, falling limbs when I run on trails and listen for minibikes, scooters, motorcycles and the like when I run on the pedestrian-"only" paths in Manhattan.

I listen to music only on a treadmill and then I can. When I do run on a treadmill it's usually Underground Garage on Sirius and occasionally a song of mine comes on.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That protest held outside the match, on the grounds, would have been totally fine. To do it in the match is the height of narcissism and extreme fundamentalism. They did nothing but harm their cause.

I wonder if the guy who glued his feet to the floor worried about using a petroleum product to unglue his feet.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Agreed on ETA point. But as an experiment, talk about Bernie with some upper middle class decently educated folks you know. There's a sharp recoiling. They'll argue he just isn't realistic, or he can't win. This translates to, "I'm all for forced social change, but not the kind that will impact me."

The same people we all know who will talk up these "efforts at equity" are the same people who'll ask you to write a letter to help their kid get into a school. "You know a guy on the alumni board, right?" The same people who hire SAT tutors for their kids. The same folks who pull up all the ladders behind them, but excuse all of that by observing the catechism of "equity policies."

And their MAGA opponents are almost identically similar. Singing you an endless song about the forgotten rural "left-behinds." Hillbilly Elegy fans. But then ask them, "Where were you folks for the last hundred years while poverty raged in the inner cities?"

It's all the same song: "Equity forced on thee, but not upon me."

I think it's no secret I work for a public institution of higher education in the state of Texas in arguably the most diverse city in the country. The legislature just banned all DEI activities on campuses. It's really hard and heartbreaking to dismantle some really amazing programs which have made for a more interesting and productive student body and workforce. And we're going to lose good people because of it.

Last April, I was on a search committee and one of the short list candidates told us she was attracted to us because of our commitment to diversity. I internally wept because I knew this bill was on the tracks.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

W

D Counsel asked the pool, "Hypothetical, say we don't have the trial, we just ask you all now is my client guilty, what is your verdict." I told her it was sort of a silly question because Prosecution carries a heavy burden and we have not seen any evidence.

I will never forget. Years before I went back to law school, back when I was a long haired musician I was called for a jury and my day job was as a bill collector for American Express. I was asked the question "So you can tell whether a person is lying?" to which I responded "Whether they are lying is irrelevant; what's relevant is whether they've paid the bill."

How's that for a lawyer answer from a rocker?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think it's no secret I work for a public institution of higher education in the state of Texas in arguably the most diverse city in the country. The legislature just banned all DEI activities on campuses. It's really hard and heartbreaking to dismantle some really amazing programs which have made for a more interesting and productive student body and workforce. And we're going to lose good people because of it.

Last April, I was on a search committee and one of the short list candidates told us she was attracted to us because of our commitment to diversity. I internally wept because I knew this bill was on the tracks.

That's a stupid and authoritarian bill. If people want to employ DEI, do so. If they don't, don't.

I don't understand how that's constitutional. But then, I also don't understand how DeSantis' preclusion of certain content in FL is either. My guess is its constitutional until someone sues and it is found otherwise.