Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is one of the few instances over the last X years I've been posting here that I actually know what I'm talking about. The differences in enforcement from administration to administration or from commissioner to commissioner are not very dramatic. The only "loosening" I expect is at the high profile level (e.g., I think the SEC will back away a bit from the Spitzer type investigations (or persecutions, depending on your perspective).

How many years ago was it the SEC had no cachet as a place to work? How long under Cox before it loses that cachet?

[BloatedSlave]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Spanky, you shouldn't respond to trolls, whether they be on the left or the right. It just encourages Penske.

I knew Ghostface Sockkillah, GhostFace Sockkillah was a friend of mine, and Sidd, you are no Ghostface Sockkillah.

B(encouraging Penske)S

[Penske Material]

Originally posted by BloatedSlave
I knew Ghostface Sockkillah, GhostFace Sockkillah was a friend of mine, and Sidd, you are no Ghostface Sockkillah.

B(encouraging Penske)S

Did someone bellow? NTTAWWT

BTW, you forgot to mention which sock you wanted.

Croak Madame perhaps?

How about Yankee Doodle Greedy?

Or Pubic Hair on a Coke Can?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
I would make that Assumption.

Ralph spoke at my law school graduation. He said that there are a ton of attorneys but very few lawyers (or maybe it was the other way around). The few and the proud go out and use the legal system to change society and make their mark on the world. The rest just becomes cogs in the machine. He said that you have to make your mark right out of law school. You can never do it the other way around. He said if you don't do something remarkable by the time you are six years out of lawschool it ain't going to happen. I don't know about the rest of you guys but I missed my chance.

Its an odd thing for Ralph to say, considering that he pretty much canceled out his previous good works by getting Bush elected in 2000. Is he suggesting its better to do a lot of good, then do something horrifically bad, which pretty much outweighs your previous good deeds, than it is to have done nothing at all? I haven't been much more than a cog in the machine, but I also haven't upset the machine for no reason other than my own insane ego trip.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
How many years ago was it the SEC had no cachet as a place to work? How long under Cox before it loses that cachet?

I think somewhere up until about 1 day before Congress approved a ~35% across-the-board increase to the pay grades.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I think somewhere up until about 1 day before Congress approved a ~35% across-the-board increase to the pay grades.

Right. If I remember correctly, the SEC lawyers are now paid on par with justice.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Right. If I remember correctly, the SEC lawyers are now paid on par with justice.

No, they're actually paid on a par with the Fed, which is about 30% higher than Justice. Well, I guess I should say (from what I know, and it's not a huge amount on this), that at least the top staff salary is ~30% higher than the top staff salary at DOJ, which is still on the GS schedule. So the top lawyer salary at DOJ is somewhere around $130k, and at the SEC somewhere around $160k (or more). Apparently top staff are paid more than the Commissioners.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Cooney's departure was "completely unrelated" to the disclosure two days earlier that he had made changes in several government climate change reports that were issued in 2002 and 2003.

I may be naive, but not that naive.

Darmak at Tanagra!!! His eyes open wide!!


(inside joke)

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Is it just me or are the mother's comments way off the chart?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGJND7G5L1.DTL(spree: 9 year old mauled by pit bulls after walking in on pits schtupping).

She's worried that the dogs may hurt the kid.... so she locks up the kid?

It's times like these that I wonder why this country lets just anyone breed.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is one of the few instances over the last X years I've been posting here that I actually know what I'm talking about. The differences in enforcement from administration to administration or from commissioner to commissioner are not very dramatic. The only "loosening" I expect is at the high profile level (e.g., I think the SEC will back away a bit from the Spitzer type investigations (or persecutions, depending on your perspective).

I'd be interested to hear why you think this. I've spoken with several people who I consider very knowledgeable in this area -- former SEC attorneys, people who practice before the SEC, etc. -- and they take a very different view.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
She's worried that the dogs may hurt the kid.... so she locks up the kid?

It's times like these that I wonder why this country lets just anyone breed.

The locking the kid up was perhaps to keep him inside, not just away from the doggies. I believe lots of childcare-less moms use that technique to control the kids.

They aren't good parents, though.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The locking the kid up was perhaps to keep him inside, not just away from the doggies. I believe lots of childcare-less moms use that technique to control the kids.

They aren't good parents, though.

She didn't lock the kid in the house; she locked him in the basement. Because she was worried that the male pit bull was "possessive" -- i.e., that he might attack the kid.

She didn't lock the dogs in the basement. Or chain them, as she should have. She knowingly left the kid in a dangerous situation.

Shoot her and be done with it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
She didn't lock the kid in the house; she locked him in the basement. Because she was worried that the male pit bull was "possessive" -- i.e., that he might attack the kid.

She didn't lock the dogs in the basement. Or chain them, as she should have. She knowingly left the kid in a dangerous situation.

Shoot her and be done with it.

I know all that. The kid is good with locks, he got out of the basement. Maybe she knew he couldn't be locked in the house other than by being in the basement.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I have avoided following this trial, as I avoid following every "celebrity" trial. That said, some things manage to leak their way through. From what's gotten through, I have no problem with this verdict -- it seemed permeated with "reasonable doubt," occasionally even overwhelming doubt.

I would not be shocked to learn that Michael Jackson had molested boys. I am shocked, however, that the prosecution chose to hang their hats on this alleged victim and his mother. They were a parody of the gold-digging plaintiffs.

Given that this was, apparently, the best the prosecution could do, I would also not be shocked to learn that Michael Jackson had, in fact, never molested boys.

The whole "this would be different if he weren't a celebrity" strikes me as, bluntly, a crock of shit. People have a gut feel about the guy because of his persona as a celebrity. No one should go to prison on gut feel. But, I think the prosecution was banking on that, and felt that they could get away with a weak case and weaker star witnesses because of the gut feel.

If he weren't a celebrity, I doubt that the case would have been brought on this evidence. I do not doubt that another wealthy defendant, one who was not a celebrity but who, like Jackson, had the means to mount a full defense, would have gotten the same result on the same evidence. In fact, I think it would've been easier for someone who did not bring Jocko's creepiness into the courtroom.

As for OJ, that's a different story. The case was stronger (infinitely), and the prosecution just grossly bungled it. The jury lost sight of the important things, but who can blame them? If the prosecution hadn't spent eight months on bullshit (including, if I remember the Bugliosi book correctly, a full day explaining that an indentation on Nicole's back was caused by the clasp of her dress), then they maybe they could have focused the jury's attention on the important stuff -- the DNA evidence. Also, one has to wonder who got the brilliant idea of asking a professional actor (OJ) to do an uncontrolled demonstration (the glove). Stupid, stupid, stupid.

OTOH, we got a great Chris Rock bit out of it, so that's something. ("You can't tell me that white people wouldn't wonder, if Jerry Seinfeld was being prosecuted for murder and the one cop who found the glove just happened to be in the Nation of Islam.")

2. On every last everlovin' point.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I know all that. The kid is good with locks, he got out of the basement. Maybe she knew he couldn't be locked in the house other than by being in the basement.

By all accounts, the kid was pretty popular. For some reason, dropping him off at a friend's place to play was apparently not an option.

This really pissed me off. She said she has no regrets about what she did, and that she still loves the pets, etc. If any animal killed my child, I would wring the life out of that animal with my bare hands and face the consequences later. She should be looking at a manslaughter charge, to my mind.