What does a British voter do if he or she favors the legislative program of one party, say, Labour, but thinks the party's leader is someone who shouldn't be trusted to run a government, say, Corbyn? Here, we can -- and used to -- split tickets, though I think there is far less of that than there used to be. What does a British voter do?
As Mark Twain said, my memory improves with age. When I was young, I could remember only what happened. Now I remember everything, whether it happened or not.
She didn't have the Epstein death story for "three years," which is what she was talking about on the tape, because Epstein wasn't dead when her story was spiked. I guess we'll see in the interview whether either Kelly or the leaker is working on the Epstein death story.
That's certainly a view you can take of the case. It may even turn out to be true when all is said and done, but all is not said and done yet. I'm content to wait an see what actually turns up as the investigation continues. And I want to thank you for diligently keeping us updated.
If anyone did have such an "automatic expectation," it might have something to do with privilege, though that's a stretch. Other than a few standup comedians who complain that their jokes don't get laughs anymore because kids today, I'm not aware of such automatic expectations. That's something you can take up with Christopher. Maybe he expected what he got, or didn't and is amused by it, but that's for him to say.
If someone talks about something you don't want to hear about, it's privilege. If you say don't talk about something I don't want to hear about, it's not privilege, it may even be the opposite of privilege. Got it.
And your point is.....? No, wait, why do I bother? It's Jaybird. If there ever was a point, it will eventually get whittled down to some bromide that no one can disagree with and no one can figure out why anyone thought it was worth making, or how it bore on the issue at hand.
If anything, arbitrations are getting to be more like trials rather than the reverse. And then there are the usually pointless, but expensive, appeals from awards.
A fair amount of my practice involves cases brought under civil rights statutes that include fee-shifting provisions, which means that if the plaintiff wins, the plaintiff's lawyer gets paid by the defendant. The payment is usually based on a largely fictitious market hourly rate. I say fictitious because few clients could afford the "market" rate or would pay it if they could for the stakes involved in the case. Where I practice, if I worked the plaintiff's side, I could easily get $500 an hour. If my potential clients could afford that, they probably wouldn't pay it based on the value to them of the case. And many cases get filed that don't attract lawyers because the cases suck. And you're probably familiar with contingency fees in, for example, personal injury cases. What we don't have is a system where smallish-stakes commercial cases, where each side bears its own fees, can be tried in a cost-effective manner. Hence the rise of arbitration, which is itself getting expensive.
I'm not pushing any particular plan. Your question is better directed to someone who is. Many different plans seem to have worked reasonably well elsewhere, and I am happy to have some sort of negotiated deal that borrows or steals, and possibly creates something new. I just get tired of hearing that X is bad because people who would otherwise get nothing because they can't pay on their own must wait while someone else pays, or other similar arguments. Every system involves trade-offs among the pay, wait, or die variables. It doesn't advance the argument to whine about whatever feature you think is a gotcha, especially when your alternative is nothing.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “A Guide To The 2019 UK Election”
What does a British voter do if he or she favors the legislative program of one party, say, Labour, but thinks the party's leader is someone who shouldn't be trusted to run a government, say, Corbyn? Here, we can -- and used to -- split tickets, though I think there is far less of that than there used to be. What does a British voter do?
On “Lonely Election Geeks With Clipboards”
Thank you for your service.
On “Whereas It is Fitting: Veterans Day in America”
As Mark Twain said, my memory improves with age. When I was young, I could remember only what happened. Now I remember everything, whether it happened or not.
On “Michael Bloomberg Reportedly Entering 2020 Democratic Primary”
Epstein was in federal custody.
On “McDonald’s CEO pushed out after relationship with employee”
He deserved a break today.
On “Epstein Dead”
She didn't have the Epstein death story for "three years," which is what she was talking about on the tape, because Epstein wasn't dead when her story was spiked. I guess we'll see in the interview whether either Kelly or the leaker is working on the Epstein death story.
"
I'm sorry, which of these folks -- Kelly, Robach, or the leaker -- was or is working on the Jeffrey Epstein death story?
"
I have not "noticed" this, because, as the stuff you have been updating us on shows, it isn't true.
"
That's certainly a view you can take of the case. It may even turn out to be true when all is said and done, but all is not said and done yet. I'm content to wait an see what actually turns up as the investigation continues. And I want to thank you for diligently keeping us updated.
"
I'm content to wait for Jaybird's next update on the progress of the investigation. And there will be one.
"
Let's check on Kevin Spacey's whereabouts.
On “Thursday Throughput: Nuclear Explosion Edition”
I'd hate year-round DST because all that extra daylight will fade my drapes and awnings.
On “Vinyl On Pace to Outsell CDs: Here’s What That Means”
You and he are welcome to hash that out.
"
If anyone did have such an "automatic expectation," it might have something to do with privilege, though that's a stretch. Other than a few standup comedians who complain that their jokes don't get laughs anymore because kids today, I'm not aware of such automatic expectations. That's something you can take up with Christopher. Maybe he expected what he got, or didn't and is amused by it, but that's for him to say.
"
Depends on where you think it started. There's a record here, so I won't bother to argue about it. People can look for themselves.
"
And we're back where we started.
"
If someone talks about something you don't want to hear about, it's privilege. If you say don't talk about something I don't want to hear about, it's not privilege, it may even be the opposite of privilege. Got it.
"
And your point is.....? No, wait, why do I bother? It's Jaybird. If there ever was a point, it will eventually get whittled down to some bromide that no one can disagree with and no one can figure out why anyone thought it was worth making, or how it bore on the issue at hand.
"
If you're going to put up a link, you should at least be sure it addresses whatever point you're trying to make -- if you're trying to make one.
"
When you borrow other peoples' cliches, you should at least be sure you understand them.
"
As I've said in another context, it isn't politics unless you disagree with it.
On “Wednesday Writs: Whistleblowers, SCOTUS, and Nixon v. Fitzgerald”
If anything, arbitrations are getting to be more like trials rather than the reverse. And then there are the usually pointless, but expensive, appeals from awards.
"
A fair amount of my practice involves cases brought under civil rights statutes that include fee-shifting provisions, which means that if the plaintiff wins, the plaintiff's lawyer gets paid by the defendant. The payment is usually based on a largely fictitious market hourly rate. I say fictitious because few clients could afford the "market" rate or would pay it if they could for the stakes involved in the case. Where I practice, if I worked the plaintiff's side, I could easily get $500 an hour. If my potential clients could afford that, they probably wouldn't pay it based on the value to them of the case. And many cases get filed that don't attract lawyers because the cases suck. And you're probably familiar with contingency fees in, for example, personal injury cases. What we don't have is a system where smallish-stakes commercial cases, where each side bears its own fees, can be tried in a cost-effective manner. Hence the rise of arbitration, which is itself getting expensive.
On “Elizabeth Warren Releases Medicare For All Plan, Math Debate Ensues”
I'm sorry, since when did the Republican Party have any connection with reality?
"
I'm not pushing any particular plan. Your question is better directed to someone who is. Many different plans seem to have worked reasonably well elsewhere, and I am happy to have some sort of negotiated deal that borrows or steals, and possibly creates something new. I just get tired of hearing that X is bad because people who would otherwise get nothing because they can't pay on their own must wait while someone else pays, or other similar arguments. Every system involves trade-offs among the pay, wait, or die variables. It doesn't advance the argument to whine about whatever feature you think is a gotcha, especially when your alternative is nothing.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.