The man is an imbecile.

Every man finds his own way.

This particular song doesn't speak to me.

But the man who taught Kirk Hammett and Steve Vai to shred?

He speaks, without words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZMxTeh5dwQ

Vile. 

But as you say, Judith, unsurprising. 

Any child (by this, of course, we mean a moral child--he may be a grown man) who defends Hamas or Hezbollah on the grounds that they provided medical care here or there or held a neighborhood soccer match, is little more than a useful idiot.

Yes, quite right.

How did this 501(c)3 get organized so quickly? Hrmmm!? This appears to be a Koch brothers plot to outshine FEMA. Just outrageous.

IRS, DOJ--do your worst!

If it is indeed true that this administration thought that they could cover up the truth by strong-arming CIA or blackmailing Petraeus via sex scandal, then, to adopt a phrase, they've merely got a wolf by the ears.

We shall see what comes of it.

I understand the General's hesitation to speak out in public and endanger our assets, or to involve himself in the political process.

But if the truth will not come to light any other way, then Gen. Petraeus: you know the truth. Speak to this.

It really is a travesty. The headlines are just chock full of stories of good hearted men and women entering Congress and the upper echelons of government and sacrificing themselves for the public good.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/13/us-usa-congress-wealth-idUSN1330776120080313

[Link function in the toolbar above not functioning in Safari or Firefox at the moment for me]

One of the reforms that ought be proposed far and wide in the 2014-cycle is the abolition of public employee unions. An idea whose time has come.

Many of them receive some sort of public subsidy.

It appears someone slipped this thread a little blue pill a few pages back.

No. Let's take an only vaguely connected point as a way of demonstrating what I mean.

Consider the case of common law. The reason that common law develops, and the reason that it functions, is because all of the modes, all of the conditions, and all of the consequences of a particular action are not immediately evident at once. Principles work themselves out over time--that does not mean they do not exist, or that there isn't a certain logic to them. Precisely because there is a logic to them, common law works.

What I am saying to Joseph is just because things are not evident to him, does not mean they are not evident to others. Just because he does not see the connection, does not mean a connection cannot be drawn, or that one does not come to light, through investigation and reflection.

Although, it should also be noted, Marx makes a reasonably explicit argument for forms of sexual license as a way to break_down_the_family.

Ah, excellent! Good to see the show back in the feed, and as an admirer of Michael Totten's work, I look forward to listening later today.

One more relevant thought here. I suspect the reason that conservatives are treating this AP scandal as a scandal on par with the others, in addition to the reasons I outlined in #15, is this:

Conservatives have observed that there is a startling double-standard at work in our politics--not only in the media, but in the internal machinations of much of the bureaucracy in Washington.

On a practical level, conservatives want the media to continue to push on these scandals, so they are standing with the media for reasons of convenience rather than principle.

Progressives, when they are out of power, valorize whistle-blowers--they are noble and disinterested everyday folks taking on corrupt institutions! But when they are in power, Progressives smash whistleblowers, because there is a tinge of the one-party-state mentality that the Party cannot ever be Wrong. We are not corrupt, they say.

If you ask a progressive about this in the abstract, they'll deny it, of course. But it isn't their speech that concerns us--the have enough shame to deny it--it is their behavior once in power.

I agree, Aaron, and its why I consider the AP scandal very far down the list of what concerns me. There is no right to leak classified information in order to earn a Pulitzer. 

In my eyes, in so far as this is a 'scandal', my questions have to do with process, standard procedure, oversight, and transparency. I don't challenge for a moment the notion that the DOJ has the right to pursue and prosecute these leakers--the question is: is it wise that the Attorney General, without further oversight, have the authority to issue the subpoenas in secret, and seize the breadth of records seized in secret. Would a warrant be better (honest question)? Shouldn't there be notification immediately prior?

The "revolving door" has a number legal strictures placed on it, as it ought to. When these erode and break down, its just another sign of the amount of trouble limited, representative government is in.

One of the reasons that public employees, especially at this level, are supposed to disclose all financial assets is not only to ensure a corporation or some lobbying group--some faction--doesn't have undue influence in policy, but because there are security clearance issues related to one's financial status and one's interests. It's not only a cronyism question, its a national security concern.

An arrangement? Under what authority did the State department exempt her from disclosing these sources of income?

Yet another example of Mrs. Clinton seeming to believe she lives beyond the law.