Jump to content

TwiceHorn

Full Members
  • Posts

    42452
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    3

TwiceHorn last won the day on August 3

TwiceHorn had the most liked content!

Reputation

43852 Surly 1%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Oh, for the appeal, this is probably kind of a juicy issue of statutory interpretation that you could get a civil-servant appellate lawyer interested in that's a step removed from the politics. It's probably a lot easier to keep those civil servants around than trial attorneys exercising prosecutorial discretion.
  2. Depends on what the contract defines as cause. While it seems like negligent supervision of coaches, staff and players might well constitute cause, it's one of those things that is often provable or proven only by a jury trial. So, it's relatively unlikely to be defined as cause because of uncertainty. You could have a cause definition that was something like "negligence in the conduct or operation of any of COACH's job responsibilities, as solely determined by the Athletics Director," but no coach is going to sign up for that in all likelihood.
  3. Or grand jury misconduct. Or failure to state an offense.
  4. TwiceHorn

    RIP Jimmy Cliff

    Im not armybrat, and Sticky Fingers way predated my record shopping days. Nevertheless, I can remember copies of it at Peaches/Sound Warehouse and/or Melody Shop with the zipper and the inevitably ripped up shrink wrap over it.
  5. Yeah, like I told y'all, this "appointments clause" stuff has real teeth. This doesn't make Cannon's ruling correct, as the appointment procedure here is quite different from that in the Special Counsel area. But some truly FAFO shit.
  6. These both apparently are "without prejudice," which means they can be brought again with a properly appointed USA. That means at this point one confirmed by the Senate or appointed on an acting basis by the district court. The limitations and tolling issue might preclude that for Comey, unsure. Not for James, though. But, it would seem that it's going to be hard to get a lackey confirmed in the interim. And the district court is unlikely to appoint one. This is insufficient embarrassment of the Administration, imo. But, this is going to impact Trump's practice nationwide of having "acting" USA's that are unconfirmable.
  7. I can't hear the sex pest's name without thinking of Mark. It's such a comically fictional surname.
  8. TwiceHorn

    RIP Jimmy Cliff

    Also had to check that Harder They Come was actually a Cliff song. It was. So many of the popular reggae songs are covers from older/more obscure artists. Guess it doesn't matter as he was clearly identified with it regardless.
  9. TwiceHorn

    RIP Jimmy Cliff

    The harder they come, the harder they fall. One and all. RIP. Honestly would have thought he was older or already gone.
  10. I've watched a lot of things come and go even in my relatively brief time on earth and they mostly go. For example the Sinclair method with naltrexone. The AA model sticks around for a reason. Because the "model" I describe is far more common than anything else. https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/noras-blog/2025/03/advancing-reduction-drug-use-endpoint-in-addiction-treatment-trials Nora Volkow is the top scientist in the field. Here she acknowledges that moderation in substance abuse might be nice and explores possible reasons for the common catastrophic relapse. And calls for further study. And, if it's so easy for a guy like Sark to just moderate his drinking, well then why are we even speculating that he's off the wagon? And it has been made clear to me that people don't understand what I mean by Sark's problems. I don't mean divorce, baby-mama-drama and an underachieving football team. I mean drunken public appearances, DUIs, face-down-in-the-gutter type shit. Police involvement. That would be pretty independently verifiable and obvious. I don't claim and can't claim all the medical answers, but I have extensive personal experience dealing with addicts and addiction and follow the science out of personal interest.
  11. I didn't say you have no control over it. Every addict that recovers and achieves abstinence exercises some control, some choice. But it's not a simple choice of "don't drink" or "drink less." But the top science in the field is that addicts brains essentially "overreact" to the introduction of substances in a way that others don't. And that never goes away. And it gets worse the more you feed it. Corollary to that is, the only cure is complete abstinence, and secondarily, if you resume, your brain is in approximately the same state you left it, so, if you were a bad drunk when you quit, you're gonna be a bad drunk in a hurry if you start back up, even if it's 20 years later. A guy like Sark that has a demonstrated history of bad decisions relating to alcohol. Alcohol doesn't help anyone's decisions, but most people are in control enough as adults not to show up to work-related events shiftfaced. An adult with a high-responsibility job that shows up shiftfaced on the regular has a problem, a lack of control that evinces an addiction. A guy like that is going to have to remain abstinent. If he doesn't, the wheels are going to come completely off.
  12. I'm 30 years sober. Former, recovered, recovering, whatever. It's true that you never a) completely get over it b) if you start up again you're gonna be right where you left off in a goddamn hurry.
  13. No shit, let those larping weirdos have their penile colony somewhere. Fucking Elmo, Thiel, Andreesen, Yarvin, they're all made for each other.
  14. One thing odd about Sack. First off, he's an employment lawyer, of the plaintiff's variety, and seemed to handle employment discrimination cases with some regularity and presumably some degree of success. He was, accordingly, critical of the heavily anti-plaintiff burden of proof in those cases, which is not a very Trumpy attitude, using Trumpy loosely as pro-business, anti-minority. Also, he had done some pro bono criminal defense litigation of the type intended to change the law in a way beneficial to underrepresented types, ie poors and minorities. And, he often helped explain why tort reform was bullshit. So, before the politics became acute, he seemed a lot more reasonable than he became later on.
×
×
  • Create New...