No, not yet. Obviously, there will be a point, but that will depend on what other information comes out, how fast it comes out, and whether there is some reason that all that would come out and the tapes information wouldn't. That may not be exact enough to satisfy you, but, as Kazzy said earlier, the world does not run the way you want it to.
As far as I can tell, TMZ hasn't "tackled" it. They've passed on a rumor. And the idea that no one else is looking into it, perhaps without success so far, is pure supposition. I expect that whatever the situation is with the cameras will come out at some point. I doubt if anyone who actually knows now will leak it, and I won't hazard a guess as to when either someone finds a source that will leak or it comes out officially. But at some point in the near future, as the investigation continues, we will either know or know that we don't know.
If anything good comes of this, it may be some public interest in the generally and systematically deplorable state of our prisons, an issue that has heretofore been politically suicidal to broach. It would almost be funny if the impetus for such interest was the death of perhaps the least sympathetic inmate in the federal prison system.
They probably don't know that for sure, only that that is likely what happened. And precisely because it is likely what happened, it wouldn't be news. If they knew it for sure, it might be mentioned somewhere in the 17th paragraph and nobody reading the story would pay it any attention. Dog bites man.
Probably not. What he'll likely do is pretend that what he really meant is some general proposition no one disputes, probably because it is platitudinous, and crow that no one has disputed it.
That's not the way news articles are generally written. If you want to change the whole general practice of journalism, fine, make that general case. But there is nothing special about this story.
Jaybird seems to think that the truth will emerge quickly and all at once. That it hasn't so far -- though we know a lot more now than we did 24 hours ago -- suggests to him, for reasons that are, to say the least, obscure, that no one is trying to find out. That's not how it works. We will get more and more information as the people Jaybird thinks aren't looking find out things definite enough to publish, like, for example, the existence and quality of video. He may "think that'd be something we'd know by now," but uncovering facts is hard work and may take longer that he thinks "we" expect.
They can call and ask all they want, but they can't print until they get answers. From my time representing prison officials, I know how slow they are in answering questions from their own lawyers. I can't imagine they're any quicker with reporters.
I'm not sure what that's responsive to. I was addressing the history on this site. But, hey, if people converted on SSM -- and I always thought they would if it got through and they saw the results -- I'm happy.
The point some of us have been making is precisely that, protestations to the contrary, they won't. And we're tired of the tease.
That said, I believe in the possibility of redemption and will welcome converts. It's just not the way to bet.
Several people here insist that Trump is awful and say they will not vote for him in 2020. When they say they will either stay home or vote third-party, I take them at their word, think that is the best we can hope for from them, and am happy to take what I can get. There's no reason to think they will ever vote for any Democrat who could conceivably contend for the nomination, and I'm OK with that. If they want to jerk off or vote their consciences, for those who see a difference between the two, I'm OK with that as long as I don't have to watch.
But some folks won't accept live and let live. They tease us by setting out conditions on which they might consider doing something of some marginal political value -- voting for the only general election candidate that can take the White House other than Trump -- and expect us to take them seriously. And it always amounts to the same thing: I'll gladly vote for the Democrat if the party nominates a Republican. Mayor Pete has it right. No matter who the Democrats nominate, the nominee will be painted as an evul, gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist. And from the point of view of the teasers, they are probably right. It gets old.
The Board of ESPN damn well ought to be invested. Nobody says different. (As for the merits of the decision, as I've said repeatedly, I don't care enough to have an opinion.) What's odd is two people who DON'T watch ESPN -- you and Pinky -- being invested. Was that unclear the first few times, or are you just dodging again?
Unless I have completely misread Sam, his point is just the opposite. Nobody cares if YOU watch ESPN, either the "non-political" version or the "political" version. The "oddity" is that people who DON'T watch ESPN -- and not for political reasons -- are invested in its programming decisions.
I didn't know the political leanings of most of my teachers in most subjects, unless I had some extracurricular knowledge. This is nothing special.
As far as just calling the game is concerned, I remember John Roberts saying all he does is call balls and strikes. It made me think of Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem. One night, he was out drinking with some fellow umpires. The first boasted: "I call 'em as I see 'em." The second replied: "I calls them as they are." Klem nursed his drink a bit, then said: "They ain't nothing 'til I call them."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Epstein Dead”
So now we get the platitudinous generality predicted earlier.
"
Can you give me a timeframe?
No, not yet. Obviously, there will be a point, but that will depend on what other information comes out, how fast it comes out, and whether there is some reason that all that would come out and the tapes information wouldn't. That may not be exact enough to satisfy you, but, as Kazzy said earlier, the world does not run the way you want it to.
"
As far as I can tell, TMZ hasn't "tackled" it. They've passed on a rumor. And the idea that no one else is looking into it, perhaps without success so far, is pure supposition. I expect that whatever the situation is with the cameras will come out at some point. I doubt if anyone who actually knows now will leak it, and I won't hazard a guess as to when either someone finds a source that will leak or it comes out officially. But at some point in the near future, as the investigation continues, we will either know or know that we don't know.
"
Sadly, you're probably right.
"
And one of the things I’m kinda hoping for on the part of the media is a display of competence.
You can have "display" or "competence." You've made your choice, the rest of us have made ours.
"
If anything good comes of this, it may be some public interest in the generally and systematically deplorable state of our prisons, an issue that has heretofore been politically suicidal to broach. It would almost be funny if the impetus for such interest was the death of perhaps the least sympathetic inmate in the federal prison system.
"
They probably don't know that for sure, only that that is likely what happened. And precisely because it is likely what happened, it wouldn't be news. If they knew it for sure, it might be mentioned somewhere in the 17th paragraph and nobody reading the story would pay it any attention. Dog bites man.
"
Now Michael, no fair bringing common sense into this.
"
This early? Not at all. Read a newspaper now and then.
"
Have you seen any news articles talk about the footage?
I wouldn't expect any until somebody had something to report about it.
I’ve seen no shortage of tweets yelling “THE CAMERAS WERE ON THE FRITZ” but none of them were sourced.
Exactly.
Have you seen a news article talk about the security tapes?
Not yet. See above.
Because I haven’t.
And you won't until somebody actually has something, which is as it should be.
"
Probably not. What he'll likely do is pretend that what he really meant is some general proposition no one disputes, probably because it is platitudinous, and crow that no one has disputed it.
"
That's not the way news articles are generally written. If you want to change the whole general practice of journalism, fine, make that general case. But there is nothing special about this story.
"
Jaybird seems to think that the truth will emerge quickly and all at once. That it hasn't so far -- though we know a lot more now than we did 24 hours ago -- suggests to him, for reasons that are, to say the least, obscure, that no one is trying to find out. That's not how it works. We will get more and more information as the people Jaybird thinks aren't looking find out things definite enough to publish, like, for example, the existence and quality of video. He may "think that'd be something we'd know by now," but uncovering facts is hard work and may take longer that he thinks "we" expect.
"
They can call and ask all they want, but they can't print until they get answers. From my time representing prison officials, I know how slow they are in answering questions from their own lawyers. I can't imagine they're any quicker with reporters.
"
What makes you think they haven't?
On “The Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind? Perhaps.”
in 44 years of spending most of my time with white men, I just don’t see any of that
As a mentor of mine once said: "We don't know who discovered water, but we can be pretty damn sure it wasn't a fish."
On “Endorsed: Other Options”
I'm not sure what that's responsive to. I was addressing the history on this site. But, hey, if people converted on SSM -- and I always thought they would if it got through and they saw the results -- I'm happy.
"
Sounds good, but there's an actual history on this, which those interested can assess for themselves, and I'm content to let them.
"
We've tried. It never gets anywhere.
"
The point some of us have been making is precisely that, protestations to the contrary, they won't. And we're tired of the tease.
That said, I believe in the possibility of redemption and will welcome converts. It's just not the way to bet.
"
Several people here insist that Trump is awful and say they will not vote for him in 2020. When they say they will either stay home or vote third-party, I take them at their word, think that is the best we can hope for from them, and am happy to take what I can get. There's no reason to think they will ever vote for any Democrat who could conceivably contend for the nomination, and I'm OK with that. If they want to jerk off or vote their consciences, for those who see a difference between the two, I'm OK with that as long as I don't have to watch.
But some folks won't accept live and let live. They tease us by setting out conditions on which they might consider doing something of some marginal political value -- voting for the only general election candidate that can take the White House other than Trump -- and expect us to take them seriously. And it always amounts to the same thing: I'll gladly vote for the Democrat if the party nominates a Republican. Mayor Pete has it right. No matter who the Democrats nominate, the nominee will be painted as an evul, gun-grabbing, baby-killing soshulist. And from the point of view of the teasers, they are probably right. It gets old.
On “The Answer, My Friend, is Blowin’ in the Wind? Perhaps.”
That “sir” at the end is key, an marks it as the act of a proper civilized man. You just don’t see that in ghetto drive-bys.
Well bless your heart.
On “On Changing The Subject”
The Board of ESPN damn well ought to be invested. Nobody says different. (As for the merits of the decision, as I've said repeatedly, I don't care enough to have an opinion.) What's odd is two people who DON'T watch ESPN -- you and Pinky -- being invested. Was that unclear the first few times, or are you just dodging again?
"
Unless I have completely misread Sam, his point is just the opposite. Nobody cares if YOU watch ESPN, either the "non-political" version or the "political" version. The "oddity" is that people who DON'T watch ESPN -- and not for political reasons -- are invested in its programming decisions.
"
I didn't know the political leanings of most of my teachers in most subjects, unless I had some extracurricular knowledge. This is nothing special.
As far as just calling the game is concerned, I remember John Roberts saying all he does is call balls and strikes. It made me think of Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem. One night, he was out drinking with some fellow umpires. The first boasted: "I call 'em as I see 'em." The second replied: "I calls them as they are." Klem nursed his drink a bit, then said: "They ain't nothing 'til I call them."
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.