Idiot of the Day 2016: Election year extravaganza of idiocy.

[Dark Holy Elf]

That's pretty much par for the course for him. It's the sort of bombast which he's known for and arguably helped get him elected, as much as it makes me want to facepalm.

[NotMiki]

http://nclawyersweekly.com/2016/08/31/not-so-grand-juror/

ok that's a new one

[superaielman]

http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-hannity-never-trump-karate-2016-9

Hannity, stop talking.

[Grefter]

http://www.businessinsider.com/sean-hannity-never-trump-karate-2016-9

Hannity, stop talking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rntm3yDAQuM

[NotMiki]

http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-xbox-one-leaked-to-a-customer-before-it-was-announced-2016-9??r=UK&IR=T

[Captain K]

Might as well teach the kids about real life when they're young.

http://abc7.com/news/thief-breaks-into-indio-ymca-steals-fake-cash-from-toy-register/1515918/

[The Duck]

The day after Mike Pence denies that people have implicit bias and that implicit bias is an issue, Fox News does this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJmnLzw8NA4&feature=youtu.be

[NotMiki]

To be fair, implicit bias is usually not so explicit!

[Grefter]

Cool. Awake for 10 minutes and I want to blow up the sun already.  Thanks guys.

[Fenrir]

Nevada

http://deadspin.com/nevada-state-senate-passes-bill-raising-taxes-to-fund-n-1787691161

http://www.rgj.com/story/news/education/2016/01/07/nevada-falls-last-education-ranking-despite-improvement/78397820/

[NotMiki]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/gropegate-story-shattered-surprise-witness-unimpeachable-credibility

seems legit

[Grefter]

https://www.reddit.com/r/NoMansSkyTheGame/comments/5a39xf/pics_outside_hello_games/

Reddit is normally stupid.   The internet rage around No Man's Sky is stupid.  Reddit on the game is full batshit fucking dangerously bonkers.

Scary behaviour and people there support it.  Justifying it because they were disappointed by a video game.

[AndrewRogue]

Is this a good time to bring up my hatred of "they" when referring to companies?

Like, so much blame to everyone at the company when, realistically, barely any of them had any power to do anything about the final product or the promises made or whatever.

[SnowFire]

Well that's what they want you to believe.  They don't really believe in honor or integrity or promises anyway, so they'll give you any ol' lie as an excuse to take your money.

[Cotigo]

Is this a good time to bring up my hatred of "they" when referring to companies?

Like, so much blame to everyone at the company when, realistically, barely any of them had any power to do anything about the final product or the promises made or whatever.

Well, while I agree with you in this specific case and with most companies with only a handful of employees, you yourself just explained WHY the pronoun "They" to refer to companies is more appropriate than calling out individual employees. Yes, no one person or group of persons* is probably directly responsible for the quality of the product or for any of the other myriad of ways that large companies impact their environment/community/county, nor could they** probably have stopped them, that doesn't mean no one is to blame. Come on, business, for all that bureaucracy may make it feel mechanical, is still a human endeavor. You don't get to pretend nobody is to blame just because it's something a company did.

*Except for the executives or other managerial leadership (as an aside, usually who I personally am referring to when using "They" as a pronoun for a company); another good reason to use "they" when placing blame on companies is appropriate.  And if you don't believe that the executive leadership is the most appropriate place blame when holding companies accountable, where pray tell DO you place the blame? They're the decision makers.

**hey look they also works really well as a gender neutral pronoun when referring to a person or group of persons but don't know specifically who!

[Grefter]

I think there is a distinct difference in how you are both approaching it.

Zenny I think is going "BP is a bunch of useless fuck ups because they completely ruined the Gulf of Mexico so fuck them they are arseholes"

And Andrew is going "I just translate this stuff, I had no control over it or build of the original game.  We got it mostly wholely formed in Korean and just had to make it work in a new language".

Different scenarios.

[Cotigo]

The nail.

It's head has been hit.

That said, I'm also advocating for placing blame on the actual leadership of the company instead of the low-level employees that are just cogs in the machine, which it seems like is pretty in line with what Andrew is talking about, in hindsight.

[Cmdr_King]

I'd say it's more that, being a corporate cog, Andrew is mentally keyed to read "they" as "people similar to Andrew", while being flaming liberal asshats, most of the rest of us read "they" as "those fucknuts running these companies that will destroy us all".

[AndrewRogue]

Well, it's also that when you read any of the shit going around NMS, you get a very distinct impression that they blame everyone (see the topic Grefter linked). That said, Zenny is right and my grumble was way too broad. And yeah, some of it does come from having personally gotten shit over stuff I have absolutely no control over. I got particularly annoyed over that "they deserve to be harassed" comment in the topic in relation to people stopping by the office. That's the sort of thing that isn't going to effect the decision makers, that's going to fuck with the people just trying to do their damn job.

So, all in all, I do think we're on the same page.

[SnowFire]

I, on the other hand, was just being silly.  I actually agree with original Rogue.  People like to assume that when something goes wrong, it's someone's fault, that somebody *chose* to screw them over.  Sometimes this is actually true, but very often the problem is the system.  Which really means the boss / CEO.  When it's nobody's fault, it's the captain of the ship's fault, etc.

Going back to IotD material...

https://lawfareblog.com/attorney-generals-role-clinton-email-mess

....considering I have seen Breitbart type links on FB claiming that Lynch's attempt to stop Comey constituted de facto evidence of conspiracy and corruption, this is really stupid.  If Lynch walks down to Comey's office and forbids him from publishing the letter, one of three things happen:

A) Letter not published.  Some conservatives are salty in a month after they find out the FBI email non-revelations were maliciously hidden from them, and accuse this of conspiracy.  This is probably the best outcome and the one the article writer seems to assume.

B) Letter not published, but the fact that the FBI is at it again is immediately leaked by the rogue agents who dug this up.  Now the damage is done AND there's evidence of Evil Conspiracy, so it's like today but much worse.

C) Comey resigns, feeling that he is being unfairly pressured by the government.  (Say what you will about him, he is the type who clearly marches to the beat of his own drum.)  Well now we have a different October Surprise.  It's not like you can forbid someone from resigning!

[Cotigo]

I imagine the disclaimer at the bottom of the link has more to do with the opinion than anything else.

[Grefter]

I'd say its more that as a human, Andrew is mentally keyed to read "they" as "people similar to Andrew".  That's just kinda how people are.

[NotMiki]

https://lawfareblog.com/attorney-generals-role-clinton-email-mess

....considering I have seen Breitbart type links on FB claiming that Lynch's attempt to stop Comey constituted de facto evidence of conspiracy and corruption, this is really stupid.  If Lynch walks down to Comey's office and forbids him from publishing the letter, one of three things happen:

A) Letter not published.  Some conservatives are salty in a month after they find out the FBI email non-revelations were maliciously hidden from them, and accuse this of conspiracy.  This is probably the best outcome and the one the article writer seems to assume.

B) Letter not published, but the fact that the FBI is at it again is immediately leaked by the rogue agents who dug this up.  Now the damage is done AND there's evidence of Evil Conspiracy, so it's like today but much worse.

C) Comey resigns, feeling that he is being unfairly pressured by the government.  (Say what you will about him, he is the type who clearly marches to the beat of his own drum.)  Well now we have a different October Surprise.  It's not like you can forbid someone from resigning!

Considering the FBI is leaking like a cartoon character that got shot with a tommy gun then drank a glass of water, I'll go with B.  I'm trying to figure out who is worse at reading partisan politics: Comey or that blogger.

[Shale]

So, lawyering question for Jim. Are there consequences for filing an amicus brief in a reasonably high profile case that flat-out lies about the administrative record in that very case? Not even an obscure part of it, but Document 1, Page 3. Because it seems like bad form, and also a very stupid plan.

[NotMiki]

Wow, that's a new one.

There are two forms that consequences could take - sanctions from the court, and disciplinary action by the relevant bar.  The former I am not sure about - Rule 11 applies to all "papers" filed, but does the court have jurisdiction over a non-party or counsel to a non-party?  Sort of, but for purposes of imposing Rule 11 sanctions it's not clear (to me, anyway).  The relevant bar can certainly take action against a lawyer who files a fraudulent brief, but if the filing party is a non-lawyer, the bar can't do anything - no professional license to suspend.