You’re right. I’m just envious.Originally Posted by U-Ute
Oh, it's no doubt he's an attention seeker.
All lawyers are.
You’re right. I’m just envious.Oh, it's no doubt he's an attention seeker.
All lawyers are.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Transcript of Attorney General Barr’s CBS interview.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/william...ve-2019-05-31/
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
China has presented problems for awhile. IP theft, opaque markets for foreign companies to work in, the South China Sea, etc.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-kneecap-china
Obama was using US soft power, in extending the TPP started under Bush, as well as naval freedom of navigation exercises, with Asian-Pacific nations almost universally supportive. The whole idea was getting China to pivot from being an insular export driven economy, to emerging as a major power operating more within international norms. The progress was slow, but steady, and many nations joined the TPP, as China protested.
Trump has taken a much more aggressive approach, of course. We're out of the TPP, and engaged in a tariff war with the Chinese, with both sides issuing bellicose threats.
How the Asian-Pacific nations see things is an interesting barometer of how Trump's approach is being viewed, and more broadly, how that part of the world is reacting to both China's rise and under Trump, America's changing leadership "style" and perceived withdrawal from the international community. (Paris, TPP, animosity toward NATO and the EU, etc.)
Specifically around the Huawei issue, it looks like nations in the area are resisting the Trump hardline, but they're also being cautious about how to avoid being subject to China's security apparatus as irresistible 5G technology and pricing are making it very tough to ignore.
For the past year there has been discussion about "de-coupling" the US & Chinese economies. With the Huawei issue now clearly a potential catalyst, the US is trying to get other nations to pick sides, and may extend that to economic ties, in general. The problem with this is the Chinese economy is far more integrated with other economies in the Asian-Pac region: Japan, Australia, Indonesia, increasingly even India. When the US tariffs went up against China, the Chinese dropped their tariffs with a broad range of countries, especially their neighbors.https://www.axios.com/us-and-chinese...c1af9f92a.html
Prodding other nations to choose sides in an economic de-coupling may very well backfire on the US:
Trump's trade war in fact is entrenching China further in other Asian economies. The integration of the rest of Asia "with China is accelerating,"
John Bolton citing the Monroe Doctrine in trying to ouster Maduro in Venezuela is spectacularly ignorant of the existing and growing Chinese presence in Latin America, where crucial infrastructure development is helping those nations' economies substantially. Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Jamaica, Brazil, Ecuador are just the ones who come to mind.
As we've been ignoring our back yard, antagonizing both of our immediate neighbors, Central American nations and Caribbean "s-hole" countries, China has been quietly cultivating ties and improving the economies of nations in our neighborhood.
We live in a fascinating time.
This is stupid. Two wrongs don’t make a right, as my dad used to say.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/0...-strike-again/
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I hope next time he has the chance to meet with the Prince of Sharks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Trump's lies make him look stupid or inept. He was going to war with Iran until he was told about the death toll? I would expect any President would get a full briefing on everything prior to making a decision to go to war. One of those everything's at the top of the list would be the death toll. Either he was never contemplating going to war and this was another effort to make him look like a hero (my personal belief) or he failed to read whatever briefing he received because he is too lazy or I am not sure what the other or's are. I just finished watching Chernobyl, which was great. At the end, the lead character talks about lies and how they create a debt to the truth, a debt that one day must be paid. It certainly worked that worked that was with the nuclear reactor and Chernobyl. I'm not sure that it will ever work that way with the mountain of lies that come out of Trump and to be fair, most other politicians as well.
No one here will be shocked to learn that I think he’s right.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wro...&mod=djemMER_hWhich brings us to the Achilles’ heel of this impeachment if the goal is to bring along a broad public: Democrats’ and the media’s astonishing and studied obliviousness to the bonfire they made of their own credibility with the Russia hoax. Unless I miss my guess, even many Trump-skeptical voters have no interest in giving victory to so corrupt an opposition. An irony is that many of these voters would probably make an exception for Mr. Biden, in whom they have a hard time seeing the kind of fanatically careerist sleaziness that motivates Adam Schiff. (Indeed, Mr. Biden keeps stepping in it with his base by saying nice things about various GOP colleagues.)
Let’s briefly touch on a few other points. The universal pretense that persons in authority (who aren’t Mr. Trump) know what they’re doing plays a role here. The media would have you believe Mr. Trump’s bureaucratic enemies are uniformly competent, disinterested and patriotic.
Secondly, I’ve come to regret referring to journalism as a profession. It’s clearly an industry given to “driving the numbers” with the trope du jour. Exceptions are as likely to be found on the left as the right. T.A. Frank of Vanity Fair, Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept, the Nation’s Aaron Maté and Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi are all writers on the left who knew the Russia collusion story was a fraud and said so for years.
Though I don’t expect to see it, one thing might yet transform our national dilemma: if Mr. Biden, in response to a reporter asking an interesting question for a change, lent his support to the Justice Department’s John Durham investigation into the Steele dossier and other troubling 2016 questions. The 2020 race then would become a shockingly different election from the one we’re now slated to get. The one we’re slated to get, unfortunately, is an all-out war of two sides that fundamentally reject each other’s legitimacy.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Here's a different slant on the culture of dishonesty in the Trump administration: the economic impact.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/b...gtype=Homepage
This editorial offers no new perspectives or ideas, but I liked it anyway: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/12/o...gtype=Homepage
Trump supporters would disagree with me, but I feel like the upper echelon of the military has not looked as good as it does now since WWII. Kelly, H.R. McMaster, Mattis, John Taylor, Vinland and others are demonstrating their integrity and sense of duty and loyalty to their country in ways they never would have imagined when they entered the military. And they're being attacked by a thoroughly immoral narcissist and conservative Republicans.
I flipped between Fox News and CNN for their post impeachment coverage last night. Both were equally embarrassing in their pandering to their customer base. I tire of it. Its unwatchable and cringe-worthy. I hope future generations are smarter than we are and simply want facts not distorted biased opinions on each and every piece of information.
Reading Fox News vs reading CNN is like getting all your sports information from either UFn or Cougarboard: it seems like there are two different realities being projected.
That’s not likely to happen unless something changes.
Current trends are for the youngest generation to not do their own research, but instead rely on someone (or something like Alexa) to provide it for them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Well, it seems that Trump is now doing something about the thing he did that he said he couldn't do anything about.
Jeff Sessions will have to consult a different part of the bible. Maybe he should do New Testament this time.
The real news is that Kirstjen Nielson will be allowed to eat in Mexican restaurants again.
I am glad.
Don’t be too sure about that. The people who shouted her out of her meal are not the type who think past sins should be forgotten.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
So I wonder what Kirstjen Nielson thinks now, after Trump completely capitulates on a policy that she fell on the sword and went out to a press conference to defend to the death three days ago and became the public face of it, after Sarah Huckabee Sanders refused to it, after John Kelly advised Kirstjen not to do it, after she opposed the policy internally before it was announced, and after Trump repeatedly berated her in cabinet meetings for being a Bushie and not doing enough to protect the border.
What did she expect, though? This was a clear loser of a position. Did she ever think she would come out looking anything but bad?
if I had to guess, she was hoping she would bond with Trump and win his confidence by being a hardliner; thought they would tough it out and she would come out ahead with Trump.
But seriously, folks, no one is answering this question: What place does hassling public servants in their personal lives have in a liberal democracy? A large group of demonstrators showed up at the FCC Chairman's home (where his little kids live) over net neutrality; the White House Press Secretary is asked to leave a restaurant; the AG of Florida is hounded out of a movie theater; the Homeland Security Secretary is hounded out of a restaurant and demonstrators show up at her home; Maxine Waters says "If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere."
I understand that the targets of these efforts are not all sympathetic people. My question: If these are the new rules we are setting or accepting, how will my liberal friends feel when the same rules are used in the future against the government officials they favor?
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
The rules are not new. They are just being applied to a new group of people - elected officials - a group that in my opinion, have been allowed to avoid the consequences of their words and their actions for far too long.
The civility Debate Has Reached Peak Stupidity.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...-hen-civility/
Can you think of times in the recent past when this type of behavior has been so widespread, and actively encouraged and defended by elected office holders on the other side, as well as sympathetic pundits?
EDIT: I think the more important questions are, at what point is it permissible to engage in this kind of harassment of public officials in their personal lives? Who gets to decide when that point is reached?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by LA Ute; 06-26-2018 at 12:27 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
From my point of view, there is no point where it's permissible to treat others poorly. I've certainly broken that rule myself, but I don't feel good or justified about it.
The two arguments I've seen attempting to justify this:
(1) We've always had incivility. _______________ was uncivil (recently or 200 years ago). Why, then, should we be civil?
and
(2) There's never been a more grotesque president, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Basically, we need to fight fire with fire.
I don't find either argument compelling, but I tend to see things from a christian point of view. Even from a strategic/political point of view, however, the restaurant owner hurt her own cause. She'd have served her cause (which is a good cause, I think) better by just giving that women her dinner.
I also try to be civil. I admit, however, that I sometimes respond to uncivil or borish behavior with similar behavior. I try to avoid putting myself in those situations and that is why I do not attend Utah games at BYU.
Add a few arguments since last week:
3) Well, they are worse!
4) Well behaved protesters seldom make history.
Again, not very compelling. There just aren't many instances where being mean to someone is better than turning the other cheek.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
