A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Jon Stewart 1, Tucker Carlson 0

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Applicability of what statutory language to what? The "don't reveal our spies" language as applicable to Novak?

Yes. I asked why Novak wasn't in jail. (OK, I "asked" by way of ranting that he should be.)

And I though Novak outed Plame, but I didn't know he threw her out a window. Surely he could be nailed for battery or something if that's the case.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Bilmore seems to think that the non-veracity of what Wilson later said to people about how he got the gig justifies what Novak et al. did to his wife.

Not to agree with Bilmore, but I took it to be a justification for the WH's leak of the name to Novak.

Novak's no Bob Woodward--he got a juicy tidbit thrown in his lap by someone in the WH with an agenda, and he ran with it. The greatest moral culpability is the WH leaker, not Novak, although Novak runs a close second for not saying right away to the leaker "why are you giving me what seems to be confidential intelligence information--are you trying to use me as a conduit to avoid restrictions on your diseminating directly?" Then he could have turned one scoop into two.

(cue fringey and mmmm, two scoops.)

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, he definitely outed Plame--the question is whether that was illegal, or the outing to him was.

But none of it's relevant to that question, just to the question of who's the most odious in the whole debacl--Wilson, the WH, or Novak, and whether one person's odious behavior justifies the same from another.

Well, the White House is accountable to us, the voters, in a way that a former Ambassador and a journalist are not.

Novak was the guy the White House used in this case, though apparently they had to leak the info to about a half dozen journalists before they found one who would be their tool in outing a CIA operative.

And why again is Wilson relevant to this particular violation of law? Fine if you don't like him (insert rant here about various assholes I don't like, starting with Rummy and Cheney, and throwing in Delay for good measure (Hi RT!)), but I just don't see the relevance.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Not to agree with Bilmore, but I took it to be a justification for the WH's leak of the name to Novak.

Ah, so this is it! They're arguing that W didn't like Wilson, so his minions get to violate US law and go all Nixon on his wife?!

Did someone dig up Spiro Agnew here? Who else is on the enemies list? Why can't they just arrest them on their European vacation and send them to Gitmo?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
(cue fringey and mmmm, two scoops.)

I'm not a huge raisin bran fan.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Jon Stewart 1, Tucker Carlson 0

Wow. I thought that would just be a Tucker-gets-fired story, but Tucker's boss says this clearly was a point in Stewart's favor:

"I guess I come down more firmly in the Jon Stewart camp," Klein told The Associated Press.

He said all of the cable networks, including CNN, have overdosed on programming devoted to arguing over issues. Klein said he wants more substantive programming that is still compelling.

I must remember to keep telling my boss every April that I'm "interested in doing something different", so I can have a face-saving explanation when I get fired.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm not a huge raisin bran fan.

you would never be this careless on FB, or here if I hadn't gone all nicey-nicey.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
I've read the abstract, and the authors' discussions. Premise: artificially place a whole line of people into slots in schools that they would not have normally tested/applied into. (The model being, the schools are ranked from the top/hardest/most-prestigious to the bottom/easiest/least-prestigious. Like mine.) Because they are placed into a rigor for which they may not be prepared through their past learning, they end up occupying the lowest rungs of the academic ranking in their respective schools, with the concomitant rates of failure and nonachievement. Without the artificial placement, people would go into the schools which they tested into more appropriately - i.e., the line of applicants would still mostly get in to some school, but the line would shift down to fill lower-ranked slots in lower-ranked schools. They would all thus occupy a more random pattern of ranking within those schools, with a higher passing rate and a more fruitful learning experience. Thus, more successful, graduated, bar-passed lawyers. (The failure rate among people admitted through any kind of AA criteria is very high - theory is, they get in, but aren't prepared to swim in that pool.)

I am familiar with the premise (it is hardly a new idea - I recall this very conversation with a friend at least a year ago). It is just how him will demostrate it statistically that I am curious about. How do you predict how a kid who funked out of Georgetown would have done had he gone to Catholic, "where he belonged?" But then again, now that I think about it, you can probably come up with some decent predictions based on grades and LSAT scores. At least the law schools think you can.

I am a little surprised that that the drop out rates, at least at the top end of schools (i.e. ones where they don't teach ballet) would be high enough to make up for the lower rates of admission.

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
In the dim recesses of my mind, I recall a requirement that the disclosure be for bad purpose, or some such wording. I think Novak skates on that basis. Plus, I remember reading that, since it came out that Plame DID provide the rec to get Wilson the slot, and that both he and she were lying to the public about that, and that her status as a CIA employee was central to that thesis, it would be that much harder to show "bad purpose" on anyone's part, (refuting a lie aimed at the Prez's reputation is nobler than outing for revenge), making any prosecution problematic.

But then, I drink.

Maybe I'm drunk, but what is the relevance of her recommendation?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Adder]

Originally posted by bilmore
British law recognizes all sort of rights, and imposes all sorts of protections, that we ignore.

And vice versa. We also do not yet imprison citizens indefinitely without charges either (yet). Nor do we "try" people in closed sessions without a jury of their peers (yet).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
And vice versa. We also do not yet imprison citizens indefinitely without charges either (yet). Nor do we "try" people in closed sessions without a jury of their peers (yet).

The toenail thing would be considered bad taste here.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Novak runs a close second for not saying right away to the leaker "why are you giving me what seems to be confidential intelligence information--are you trying to use me as a conduit to avoid restrictions on your diseminating directly?"

You think he needed to ask?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The toenail thing would be considered bad taste here.

Well, can you really complain about toenails when you are also regularly being anally violated??

Then again, some of the stuff that was smuggled into IRA prison wings....