Does anyone else find it remarkable that Democratic Party leaders aren’t the least concerned with how reasonable Americans might react to them talking like mobsters and thugs? Yesterday, Nancy Pelosi seemed to say that they might impeach the President if he nominates a judge to replace Justice Ginsburg. I suppose it’s comforting that the party is finally being open about the fact that it now regards impeachment as a pure partisan weapon, but how do you you threaten impeachment if a President fulfills his constitutional duties? For that matter, how can Democrats scream that the late Justice’s “dying wish” must be respected when it would require contradicting her statement about final year SCOTUS nominations: “The President is elected for four years, not three. So the powers that he has in year three continues into year four… and that’s how it should be”?
Well, it’s a rhetorical question, of course. Democrats have abandoned any pretense of consistency and integrity in their destructive anti-Trump mania. I thought this arch tweet was on point, but incomplete:
The list is much longer.
1. Love it. Princeton, engaged in BLM suck-up grandstanding, confessed that systemic racism is embedded there, so the Department of Education asked if Princeton doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race, as must be the case to continue recieveing federal funding. The Education Department’s demand for an explanation got full huminahumina treatment in the statement Princeton issued in response. The excuse is that they aren’t at fault for the racism, since “everybody’s been doing it,” and at least Princeton acknowledges the problem.
Weak.
2. Now THIS is an unethical lawyer! Dallas lawyer, Temani Me’Chelle Adams, was suspended from practicing before the Northern District of Texas for six months, and was lucky it wasn’t more. A panel of three judges ordered the federal court suspension of the criminal defense lawyer after a federal magistrate judge concluded she lied about sending text messages to a drug defendant during an intimate relationship before his arrest. The decision is here.
The judicial panel cited evidence of Adams’ dishonesty about the texting and her violation of a court order to stop communicating with a another defendant. Adams also tried to avoid direct answers during a hearing held for her to show cause why she shouldn’t be sanctioned for the misconduct.
She “has seemingly been unwilling to answer material questions directly and candidly, and we have found some of Ms. Adams’ answers to be intentionally obtuse and disingenuous,” the panel said in its opinion. “We think it likely” [that those actions] were calculated: the product of an intelligent mind, but one that lacks a fully functioning ethical compass.”
No kidding. Read the whole story here.
3. This was left out of yesterday’s notes: On September 20, 1777, near Paoli, Pennsylvania, British General Charles Grey ordered his approximately 5,000 British soldiers to attack a small regiment of Colonist troops, commanded by General Anthony Wayne, while they were sleeping. In what was called the Paoli Massacre, Grey ordered his troops to use only bayonets or swords to kill the sleeping Americans, stabbing them to death as they slept. The British soldiers apparently took no prisoners during the attack, stabbing or setting fire to those who woke up and tried to surrender. Nearly 200 Americans were killed or wounded.
We tend to think of the Revolutionary War as courtly and civilized compared to what came later, but that was not always the case.
4. Baseball Ethics: In case you were wondering, everything that happens in this miserable, shortened, weird, fake crowd noise season with seven inning games and offensive extra-inning rules this season will count in the record books. Baseball acknowledges that different factors, rule changes and other developments make comparing performances across seasons, decades and generations different and even unfair, but it decided long ago that what happens happens, and as one writer put it, “There’s no crying in baseball, and no asterisks either.”
Did you know that there is not now nor has ever been an asterisk attached to Roger Maris’s 61 home run record (since broken) in which he passed Babe Ruth’s iconic record of 60 using a longer season than Babe had in 1927? That imaginary asterisk has been referred to constantly through the years, but it was never more than hypothetical.
Ethics Alarms 
Did you know that there is not now nor has ever been an asterisk attached to Roger Maris’s 61 home run record (since broken) in which he passed Babe Ruth’s iconic record of 60 using a longer season than Babe had in 1927? That imaginary asterisk has been referred to constantly through the years, but it was never more than hypothetical.
Learned about this watching an episode of Suits last week. Isn’t the fact that it is thought of this way unofficially put the asterisk there?
It’s because Commissioner Bowie Kuhn, a true idiot, announced that Maris would only be considered to have broken Ruth’s record if he passed 60 within 154 games, the season when Ruth played. Everyone assumed there was an asterisk when Marris took more games.
It was Ford Frick, as I’m sure Jack is aware. 1961 was the first season with a longer schedule, and part of Frick’s reasoning was that the 162-game schedule shouldn’t be considered a permanent change. The 154-game season had mostly been observed since the early 1900s.
It doesn’t seem like anyone ever addressed the question of where in the season the extra games were added. Maris didn’t hit his first until the Yankees eleventh game of the season, so if the extra games were inserted at the front, then Maris broke the record with 61 in 152 games. Maris was hitting .208 with three homers after 28 games when he went on a binge, 24 homers in 38 games.
Ugh. Of course it was Ford Frick. I got my idiots mixed up. In my lifetime there have been three competent Commissioners, five utter fools.
No, the thinking wasn’t that complex. Frick’s idea was that we had to pretend the 162 game season due to expansion was a 154 game season for the purpose of any record set in the shorter period.
But how could FF think the longer season was temporary? It was math. 154 games didn’t work with a 10 team league.
Further expansion was on the table. Eleven opponents fit a 154-game season, but when they expanded again they went for divisions and an unbalanced schedule.
Not really, though. 11 teams would require an inter-league schedule, and at that point, the AL and NL were separate organizations. It was eight years before another expansion, and that was forced by Charlie Finley and fear of a Congress. And there was no way baseball was giving up revenue by having fewer games.
11 opponents, 12 teams in each league. 14 games against each opponent.
I am tired of many of these big school flouting the rules because they are too big to fail. I would also like to see the IRS look into their tax-exempt status for taking sides in elections. Every school that went into mourning when Hillary Clinton lost but didn’t when Mitt Romney lost should be investigated. Every school that punished students for wearing Donald Trump attire or supporting Donald Trump should also be investigated.
McConnell should do what Schumer would have done had he been the Senate leader when Obama nominated Garland.
I think expecting one side to demand the other side do X when they themselves would not is terribly naive. Demanding they should is just grandstanding.
There is an article in todays times that described *activists* walking though predominantly white neighborhoods and demanding that people come out of their houses to *support* their cause.
It is obvious where this is going.
What I wish to see happen, what I would like to see happen, is a mass strafing with large caliber machine guns where all of them are effectively executed. I know, this is an outrageous things to say and something that should not be said in these delicate times. Yet it is infuriating. I wonder how and when such people will be punished? What will it take for them to see how reprehensible such activity is?
You just can’t allow such a thing to go on.
In my state, the Disorderly Conduct and/or Riot statutes would prohibit such activities, and in all but the most liberal enclaves would likely result in neighborhood residents holding the offenders at gunpoint awaiting the arrival of law enforcement officers (assuming the “activists didn’t run away at the first sign of an armed resident). Gunfire would not be likely unless the “activists” attacked someone. Their actions certainly would not be blithely tolerated as it seems they are in some communities. Firearms ownership isn’t ubiquitous here but it’s darned close.
What we would more likely see happen, “is a mass strafing with large caliber machine guns” [and with smaller caliber guns for targeted individuals] where all of the leftists’ enemies are executed. As soon as the leading “*activists*” believe that they have swung enough spermless scrotums and abortion-depleted ovaries over to “their side” so that The Revolution is inexorable, the only people who will have guns will be the leftists. They’ll turn on each other, too, and wipe out many of their own. Because that is how revolutions “work.” A woman scorned hath no fury like a resisted American leftist.
The Democratic party has become the party of the mob. “Do as we say or we will hurt you.” It’s really a scary thought that they could actually sweep on November 3rd.
It truly is. The side demanding revolution…the side engaging in violence right now…the side threatening even greater violence…the side planning on fundamentally restructuring the Constitutional order…
If they gain actual power….gain the reins that can actually wield government’s monopoly on force?
“Do as we say or we will hurt you.”
Spoken verbatim by Tucker Carlson, last night, on Fox News.
The foolishness of that “ultimatum” is that the extortionists would, ultimately, only hurt themselves more than whomever else they deliberately hurt.
A video compilation from the RNC: