Commenter Archive

So you aren't backtracking from something to nothing, you're backtracking from nothing to nothing.

Yeah, they were. If the story wasn't publishable, then the suits were right to "squash" it. That's their job. "Squashing" is worth noting only if the story was wrongly squashed.
Then again, this may just be the all-too-typical Jaybird Backtrack to Banality (TM). Say something that sounds like something, then backtrack to nothing.

The usual amount of substance, but less jargon. I suppose this is progress.

You left out the "publishable," which makes all the difference.

What it shows is that a reporter thought she had a publishable story and her bosses didn't. Reporters always think they have publishable stories. They are often wrong. I have no idea who is in the right in this pissing match, and neither do you.
That is, however, somewhat related to my main point, that getting a publishable-quality story on something like this is genuinely hard. If you disagree, you have as much right to make phone calls as any reporter does, and as much power to compel answers as they do. And you don't have to answer to any suits who might say what you find isn't good enough to publish. I look forward to your results.

I don't know. Do you? If so, how?

It's all very well to be suspicious, and probably a good idea on general principles. But getting real, solid, reportable information about the sorts of things we suspect might have been going on (which are what, specifically?) is hard work with a low antecedent probability of successfully ferreting out the story. I have no idea if anyone has any promising leads and is working the story, or if others have tried and failed. And neither does anyone else.

I wish I could take credit for it, but someone watching this said: "Does Ken Starr know he's Ken Starr?"

I am righteous.

You are self-righteous.

English, please. Preferably somewhat on point.

So if there is video evidence that he uses the phrase "spic and span" frequently and then pointedly uses it in referring to a Hispanic, or uses the word "niggardly," if he knows it, frequently and then pointedly uses it while referring to a black person, then . . . what? Proof that he doesn't know how to behave like a decent human being?

You say you'd "probably point to a video like this one and say..." Do you say? And if you do say that, do you believe it to be true?

We now know a lot about how awful Epstein was and who his enablers were and we now know he wasn't murdered. How do we know that? Either proximately or ultimately through the efforts of several people, from different news organizations, in the MSM. Is there more stuff we'd like to know? Sure. There's always more. Probably someone is looking into it, but for obvious reasons it isn't a front-burner story anymore. But we'll probably have some long-form piece putting together everything we now know and what gets found out before the year is out. Will that satisfy everyone? Of course not.

The Hall of Fame is full of prodigious base-stealers. Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, and Joe Morgan were among my favorite players.

after Northram’s antics, even Republican’s on gurneys with IV drips will be rolling into the polling booth.

Why? Since when do they actually object to white guys in blackface?

Seriously, this shit is tedious as hell.

I don’t know why people prefer it to “Here is what I am seeing from where I am and here are the conclusions I am drawing from that.”

Maybe because one of them is about facts in the world and the other is about you?

Trying to figure out what you're "actually talking about" is half the fun.

I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about Joe, "the Democratic frontrunner," not Hunter. Talk about changing the subject.

And then you say "No." Some folks won't believe it, but that's life.

Oh boy, you've heard of modus ponens. Whether we should accept your P or your Q or your -> is up for grabs, and not entirely unrelated to who says any of it.

If I'm not mistaken, Gore is younger than Bernie or Biden. "Let's get it right this time" would make a fine campaign slogan.

A Senator asks Elena Kagen how she celebrates Christmas, and she just chuckles good naturedly and answers “Eating Chinese food.”

I always wondered what Lindsey Graham was up to with that, though I recall taking a trip to Charleston when Nikki Haley, a Sikh, was running in the Republican gubernatorial primary against someone, whose name I forget, who was Catholic. The Charleston paper thought it necessary to explain not only about Sikhism -- can't have the voters think she's a damn Mooslim, after all -- but also about Catholicism. I have to assume the paper knew its readers, and knew they would find both Sikhs and Catholics exotic enough to require explanation.

I accidentally hit the "report" button. Please disregard.

I won't quarrel with your preferred phrasing; I think we mean the same thing.

That sounds plausible. I wouldn't be surprised if all the jurors agreed on the ultimate result but some had different reasons from the others.

I am not insisting that geographic balance is necessary, only that it is usually treated that way by the people who make these decisions.