Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[chickmagnet]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I hope everyone here is as impressed as I am by your attempt to argue that Felt's midnight rendezvousssess with W&B provided sufficient information to constitute an ethical lapse, but were inadequate to rise to the level required for an excuse for that lapse. As noted by RT, there weren't a lot of people he could have reported this to at the time. I look forward to your fleshing out this argument. You may begin.

news conference. 60 minutes interview with dan rather. any of the democratic leadership of the house or senate. open your eyes fool, he was a toady of hoover and up to his pompadoured head in corruption and lies-going public ensured one thing, the nixonians would bring him to task for the crimes of hoover. breaching his office and getting sucked off by woodward, a well-known cia informant, in a garage doesn't make him righteous.

the only good thing that could come out of this is that maybe he will inspire some scumbag bushie neocon traitor to release info about w's crimes.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by chickmagnet
news conference. 60 minutes interview with dan rather. any of the democratic leadership of the house or senate. open your eyes fool, he was a toady of hoover and up to his pompadoured head in corruption and lies-going public ensured one thing, the nixonians would bring him to task for the crimes of hoover. breaching his office and getting sucked off by woodward, a well-known cia informant, in a garage doesn't make him righteous.

the only good thing that could come out of this is that maybe he will inspire some scumbag bushie neocon traitor to release info about w's crimes.

I think you got it backwards with Woodward. Follow the nickname.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I hope everyone here is as impressed as I am by your attempt to argue that Felt's midnight rendezvousssess with W&B provided sufficient information to constitute an ethical lapse, but were inadequate to rise to the level required for an excuse for that lapse. As noted by RT, there weren't a lot of people he could have reported this to at the time. I look forward to your fleshing out this argument. You may begin.

Read the flowchart. You trying to say he was cool with his breach BECAUSE he had a duty to disclose. I'm saying if so he should have disclosed. ain't no other loop there.

IF

You work in government and are exposed to secret information

THEN

Do not disclose

UNLESS

crimes being committed

THEN

disclose

QED

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Read the flowchart. You trying to say he was cool with his breach BECAUSE he had a duty to disclose. I'm saying if so he should have disclosed. ain't no other loop there.

IF

You work in government and are exposed to secret information

THEN

Do not disclose

UNLESS

crimes being committed

THEN

disclose

QED

Are you available to do compliance training any time in the next few months?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Are you available to do compliance training any time in the next few months?

If "compliance training" means what I think it means- then yes!

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

How did he not "disclose"? How do YOU define "sex"? His "disclosure" was anonymous, but was it legally required that he shout it publicly from the rooftops, or that he, like your good friend chickmagnet suggests, appear before Congress or Dan Rather?

IF

You work in government and are exposed to secret information

Check.

THEN

Do not disclose

UNLESS

crimes being committed

Check. Check. Double check.

THEN

disclose

Check.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Careful - that's an awfully Anglo/liberal idea there. I agree with you, but not everyone does, including a number of people setting policy from time to time in various European countries.
I overstate it. (What, hyperbole? No!) I don't think the EU will unravel entirely. However, I think that the various states will not integrate further politically, and will function more independently of each other than they have in the recent past (and therefore will offer no effective political counterweigh to the US, except to the extent that they occasionally support Russia for nuissance value). I think economically they will continue to integrate somewhat for now as a natural process rather than a matter of policy; but, economics always coming second to politics, that will last only so long as political expediency doesn't dictate otherwise (which I think is coming very soon for some of them). That's a description of what I think the reality will be, though not the policy. (But then when has policy in the EU reflected reality, anyway?)

I am not highly confident that the Euro will survive. I'd give it about a 75% chance over the medium term, but think there is a very high chance that at least one significant country will leave it in the next decade or so.
I'll bet you a buck that in 2020 the UK will not have joined.
I disagree. You're points about currency risk (and transaction costs, etc., etc.) are very valid, but the British business community isn't so slow in the head that they haven't been evaluating those risks for the past several years, and they aren't screaming for it yet. To say nothing of the business-related down sides of sharing Italian (and Romanian, and now French and German) fiscal policy.

But I think pointing to business pressures to join the Euro misses the point. Ultimately, it is not a business decision, or even really an economic one, but a political one. The UK is unlikely to switch from a currency that is well and (now) independently managed to a currency that has proven itself to be incompetently managed, and even if competently managed would not be managed in British interests (particularly given the extent to which the British economy remains very out of sync with continental economies, which aren't particularly in sync with each other, for that matter).

It is my understanding that the British Business community wanted to join the Euro, but they just did not have the clout. The instability of the currency is really more of a focus of the press. A single currency is better than a weak currency. When making business decisions, the business community hates uncertainty more than anything. When you are making long term investment plans every extra variable is a nightmare. If Lloyds makes a twenty percent return on its money in France, but the Pound devalues twenty five percent against the Euro they lose money. If Lloyds makes a twenty percent loss in its French subsidiary, and the Euro loses twenty five percent against the pound Lloyd ends up making money. That may not sound like a problem, but an unforseen profit is much harder to take advantage off than a forseen profit. At least with a weak currency you can predict what is going to happen and make sound business decisions based on it. That does not even factor in the loss of money over currency exchangtes. In politics persistence is everything. Political issues go in and out of importance, and passions on these issues wax and wain. But the international business community wants as few currencies as possible. They will keep pushing forever until it happens. None of the European population really wanted the Euro but it happened anyway becaue of the consistent business pressure. Actually, Europeans have never really cared much for the EU. It is really the business community that keeps pushing it. Eventually they will win because they will never quit and time is on their side.

[chickmagnet]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I think you got it backwards with Woodward. Follow the nickname.

felt is a vindictive, bitter, spitefilled man, and, ironically, those very qualities inspired him to destroy another vindictive, bitter, spitefilled man.

win-win in a way.

woodward is cia-what do you think he was doing in casey's deathbed?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
As noted by RT, there weren't a lot of people he could have reported this to at the time. I look forward to your fleshing out this argument. You may begin.

Hmmm. Good point. Even Harry Peterson (I think that was his name), the career DOJ person running the Criminal Division at the time, was tricked/bullied by Nixon into giving him info about what the grand jury was learning regarding Haldeman and Ehrilichman.

Archibald Cox is one who comes to mind. But I don't think that he had been appointed at the time of the first meetings between Woodward and Deep Throat.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This doesn't sound right to me at all. I don't think Felt is proud of what he did. His motives were more self-interested than altruistic -- he was, inter alia, angry that Nixon did not appoint him to replace Hoover.

I agree with Tyrone. I think it was just sour grapes. Anyone that could be Hoover's number two man could not be all that concerned about the integrity of the institution. He got passed up for the top job and bit back.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
How did he not "disclose"? How do YOU define "sex"? His "disclosure" was anonymous, but was it legally required that he shout it publicly from the rooftops, or that he, like your good friend chickmagnet suggests, appear before Congress or Dan Rather?

I don't know what he told W&B but in the movies he gave hints not disclosure. And why not go to Congress or the press- your excuse for him was he was compelled to disclose- but he didn't really. And I suggested going to congress or the press not the new SS sock.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Hmmm. Good point. Even Harry Peterson (I think that was his name), the career DOJ person running the Criminal Division at the time, was tricked/bullied by Nixon into giving him info about what the grand jury was learning regarding Haldeman and Ehrilichman.

Archibald Cox is one who comes to mind. But I don't think that he had been appointed at the time of the first meetings between Woodward and Deep Throat.

Yes, that's my point - I'm pretty sure there was no special prosecutor yet. And L. Patrick Gray, Felt's boss, was shredding documents at the order of the WH. And Dan Rather was embedded in Vietnam.

[chickmagnet]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with Tyrone. I think it was just sour grapes. Anyone that could be Hoover's number two man could not be all that concerned about the integrity of the institution. He got passed up for the top job and bit back.

Indeed, it appears that "Deep Throat" was less concerned about defending democracy than about getting back at then President Richard Nixon for refusing him the directorship after Hoover's death in May 1972. So Watergate ends up as another story of powerful men undercutting one another in a squabble over turf and bruised egos.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't know what he told W&B but in the movies he gave hints not disclosure.

And hence no ethical lapse.*

And why not go to Congress or the press- your excuse for him was he was compelled to disclose- but he didn't really. And I suggested going to congress or the press not the new SS sock.

My bad. Mad props to you.

* I wish to note for the record, at 1:36 GMT on June 2, 2005, Hank Chinaski cited, in support of an argument he was making, to Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
And hence no ethical lapse.*

I'm not sure if your thinking this way means I should want you to be my lawyer, or not. I do know it means it is quite likely you won't maintain your license to practice for very long.