Get outta here, Nancy


What bumbling, incompetent corporate lackey is in charge of Democratic fundraising? Fire them. Really, they annoy me so much. I get a flood of email from the Democrats, and it’s instantly recognizable, and it grates. They always put my formal first name in the subject line, like so: I don’t know what to say, Paul. Sorry. You’re not my friend, my friends call me PZ, and it’s not a human writing me anyway, it’s a bulk emailer. Call me “Mr Myers”. If you really want to suck up, “Dr Myers” is OK, but I’m not at all fooled that this is in any way a personal contact.

Then, goddamnit, SAY SOMETHING. This is the latest text.

I asked you Monday.
I asked you Tuesday.
I asked you Wednesday.
I asked you Thursday.
I’m truly sorry to ask you again today, Paul.

But my team just informed me we failed to meet yesterday’s FIRST End of Quarter Deadline since the Supreme Court’s ruling. I won’t sugarcoat this, Paul. If I don’t reach 1,387 more gifts before midnight to close the budget gap, it will be the single most devastating setback for Democrats’ chances of winning this election and protecting women’s reproductive freedoms nationwide. If you’ve been waiting for a moment to step up with $15, this is it, Paul. Can I count on you? >>

Paul, I just received an emergency phone call that made my heart drop.

My team just informed me that I did not receive enough support from Democrats to reach last night’s critical End of Quarter goal.

I don’t know how else to put this, Paul:

If Republicans discover we failed to meet our FIRST fundraising goal since the Supreme Court’s ruling…

They will take it as a sign that the Majority is theirs for the taking — and unleash every last cent at their disposal to seize power in this election.

I know I ask a lot of you, but this is quite possibly my most urgent ask:

Will you step up with $15 in this dire moment?

I need 1,387 patriots to help before midnight to hit our End of Quarter goal of this pivotal election year and avoid a humiliating defeat.

Are you self-aware enough to realize that your opening is a confession that you’ve been dunning me for money? This is SPAM. It is a gross turn-off. All you’re peddling is fear.

Allow me to make a suggestion, knowing full well that you won’t read it, because while you call me “Paul” all you really care about is my credit card number: a fundraising letter telling me what you’ve done and what you hope to do in the near future would be far more inspiring to get me to crack my checkbook open. “In June, we proposed bills X, Y, and Z, and we got Y passed. In July, we’re going to push hard for Z, and we’re revising X.” You know, that sort of thing would impress me. Can it with the fear-mongering to try and get confused old senior citizens to part with cash. Also, stop over-using my first name. You’re wearing it out.

I’m afraid, though, if the Democrats got honest about their accomplishments, they’d be talking about their vacations and cocktail parties and schmoozing with lobbyists.

Anyway, mail from Nancy Pelosi is now blocked.

Comments

  1. dschultz says

    You are lucky. The emails I get, from a variety of addresses, call me “Kate”. Most assuming I am in Ohio.

    I tried one of the unsubscribe links which failed badly so now they get added to the kill file.

  2. kome says

    Listen, Paul, you just don’t understand the galaxy-brain N-dimensional chess master that is Representative Nancy Pelosi. You see, by accomplishing literally goddamn nothing for her entire 40-year tenure in Congress to protect reproductive rights in this country, she’s just lulling the Republicans into a false sense of security for her to strike back all fierce girlboss-like. And her plan is almost complete. If she manages to get the Democratic party as a whole to accomplish nothing to protect anyone’s rights for another… I dunno, let’s say 6 years, they’ll jump into action like you’ve never seen. Well, so long as they can also somehow get supermajorities in both chambers. Oh, and if they don’t have a more pressing issue, like figuring out just how big a tax cut to give to the billionaires so they can more efficiently privatize something else about our infrastructure. And if they make sure to invite the Parliamentarian to every one of their birthday parties so they don’t feel left out. And if the Supreme Court doesn’t invoke judicial review to unilaterally declare anything the Democrats try to do as unconstitutional before it has a chance to take effect. While we’re waiting for all this to happen, we should start preemptively building statues and monuments to her keen political acumen that will surely save the day. Eventually. Maybe.

  3. rabbitbrush says

    Blah blah blah… we are about to lose…our opponent is…we need to raise… by midnight… The progressive groups are just as bad.

    I’ve killed all those political emails. Sick of them all.

  4. F.O. says

    Addressing me as “Paul” five times in your begging is not the endearing personal touch you think it is.

    You’re not their target audience, exactly as you are not the target audience of the argument of the right wing.

  5. Dennis K says

    Well, folks, I wouldn’t worry overmuch. Within the next few years, these solicitations from Democrats, at least at the federal level, will all but cease. Might take while longer, but the same will be true at the state level, too.

  6. larpar says

    Paraphrasing Mano’s latest headline: Nice reproductive freedoms you have there. Be a shame if something happened to them.

  7. lanir says

    I got just one email from Pelosi but I think it was misdirected. The first line had my name followed by “I need your immediate attention. And action.” But there’s no action I could do to affect the current situation. If she wants action she needs to talk to her friends over there in DC. They all wanted to sit in the important chairs, not me. So… use ’em.

    Oh and that weird thing where it included my first name and a request for money? That was kind of a bizarre thing to include in an email to her colleagues but sure. Since she asked, I’ll pay her what I think she’s worth… Oh, nevermind. Already did.

  8. PaulBC says

    I stopped reading these when I got one that sounded like they were threatening to put me in collection. That was a long time ago. I don’t know who these work on, but I guess they’re cheap to send out.

  9. numerobis says

    It’s no better in Canada. All the federal parties are threatening to go out and kill themselves if I don’t love them.

    Get involved locally. Your local Democratic Party office will have much less “competent” people who will act more like normal humans, and they’ll actually know you.

  10. Doc Bill says

    I get phone messages, too.

    “Hi, this is Nancy!” As if I recognize her vulturous voice. (Rats, I do.) Begging for money the very day the Roe decision came out. But, like the True Patriot ™ I am, I did my patriotic duty and sent her what I could afford: thoughts and prayers.

  11. darrelplant says

    Sadly, the real targets for these things are elderly people (and maybe people who think like elderly people).

    Back in the ‘90s, one of my elderly great-aunts was sending off thousands of dollars to the likes of Oliver North as a result of direct mail. And it’s the percentage of the population that gets these things and inexplicably reads through them credulously that fills the coffers.

  12. whheydt says

    My (late) wife once changed banks because a teller first-named her. That was long ago enough that it wasn’t a common practice. Now, seems like every business does it.

    I have the advantage that my first name is quite different from what my friends call me (which is derived from my middle name), so I can spot a come-on a mile away.

  13. StevoR says

    @6. Dennis K : Because?

    You think that will happen why?

    With what consequences for US politics?

  14. cartomancer says

    We don’t get letters or emails like that in the UK, because we actually have state funding for elections and strict rules for how much each party is allowed to spend on advertising. Admittedly the Tories still try to ride roughshod over them when they can, but they can’t get away with a lot on that score without being held to account. Most of Europe is the same – there is no such thing as a political fundraising email. Generally the day to day running of left-wing parties, beyond what membership fees bring in, is funded by trade union contributions and that of the right-wing ones by corporate donations. Come election time, cash is apportioned for campaigning by an independent committee according to formulas that take into account the relative influence of the parties already. It’s not perfect, but it’s a damn sight better than what the US endures.

  15. PaulBC says

    My old buddy Tim Ryan needs money. It turns out he’s running for a senate seat in Ohio. Fancy that! (And no, he is not my buddy. He just acts like he is.)

    He has mastered the art of the false dichotomy:

    J.D. Vance’s book, “Hillbilly Elegy,” costs $7.85.

    You can buy a copy to use as a coaster (or a doorstop or a chew toy for your dog), OR you can donate $7.85 to our campaign to flip Ohio blue and expand the Senate majority.

    While J.D. Vance pretends to be your average Ohioan, he couldn’t be more out of touch. After years of working in Silicon Valley boardrooms, Vance’s qualifications for the Senate include the backing of a $15 million super PAC from billionaire Trump lackey Peter Thiel, and a record of bashing the working class and even blaming them for their economic struggles.

    I agree about Vance, but I can do other things with $7.85 and I live very far from Ohio.

    When George W. Bush assumed office in 2000 I started to contribute money to Democrats, but I gave that up a long time ago. I would do it if I thought it did any good. In fact, their problem rarely comes down to money and there are other people with a lot more to spend.

  16. woozy says

    Addressing me as “< my formal first name >” five times in your begging is not the endearing personal touch you think it is.

    As someone who does go by my formal first name, it’s still not endearing.

  17. Susan Montgomery says

    Great. Now all Biden needs ro do is announce that he’s reinstating and retroactively applying the Obamacare mandate penalty and the Democratic party’s biannual ritual political suicide is complete.

  18. Akira MacKenzie says

    On no! You dare criticized a female Democrat?! Toxic Masculinity! Misogyny! Where is pink pussy hat, so I can wear it at you?

    There! That will show you, you dirty brogressive!

    /s

  19. wsierichs says

    I just got this email from a Democrat running for a county office in Texas (I live in La. and never heard of this candidate, whom I will not identify): ” I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your generous support over the past few weeks. Whether you made it to our volunteer party or contributed to the campaign, I’m grateful to have you as part of an amazing coalition of supporters.” I presume my name was purchased on a list of donors to some worthy cause as I have not donated to a Democrat in many years as I think all but a tiny handful of party leaders are Republicans in disguise.

    By the way, Paul, you must be a very special person. Nancy never sends me a personal email, Paul. She must appreciate your defense of science, Paul. I’m sure that at some point, in your honor, all of her emails will simply say: “Paul. Paul Paul …” and she won’t even have to name a price as she knows you know how much she is worth. Maybe that’s why I don’t get personal emails because I also know what she’s worth and for years have donated that much to her. :)

  20. UnknownEric the Apostate says

    Maybe she was just trying to give another clue to you all about the identity of the walrus.

  21. nomdeplume says

    It is scary that someone wrote this email thinking it was a good idea, and even scarier that someone in authority approved it.

  22. wzrd1 says

    The really fun part is, once you’re in the DNC’s database, you get beg e-mails from every candidate under the sun.
    Especially laughable though is, “We’re going to lose”, when the election in question is at least two years away or better, for a SCOTUS “emergency”, they need money for the legal battle that they’re not paying for.
    Never let a crisis go to waste, even while you fritter time away during said crisis, as long as you raise money.
    Yeah, my spam filter grows by the day.

  23. fishy says

    I registered as an independent during a high school voter registration drive when they still did such things. I was seventeen and a Senior. I haven’t changed it since and given the amount of landfill filler I receive, I’m afraid to.

  24. crivitz says

    Repeated use of your first name that way is the verbal equivalent of people who touch you on the arm or shoulder and lean in when they talk to you. Come to think of it, doesn’t Biden do that?

  25. Pierce R. Butler says

    Pelosi will go down in history as the first female House Speaker.

    Nobody will remember her as the first Speaker to block well-deserved impeachments of two Republican presidents in a row.

    Nobody seems to remember that even now.

  26. Pierce R. Butler says

    PZ Myers @ # 1: Addressing me as “Paul” five times in your begging is not the endearing personal touch you think it is.

    I would bet a major (for me) amount of money that the exact number of $[first_name] uses in a begmail has been measured and tested and calculated by number and value of donations received, probably multiple times per year, for decades. But such data goes into the “secret” folder and never comes out, so I don’t know how we could settle the wager.

  27. StevoR says

    @ 26. crivitz : Think that’s bad how about what Trump does?!

    Remember? :

    You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

    Bush: Whatever you want.

    Trump: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

    Source : https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/donald-trump-tape-transcript.html

    After saying that why wan’t Trump immediately arrested for self-admitted multiple sexual assualts?

    Not that it makes Biden doing that – and famously sniffing hair okay at all..

    A self-confessed sexaul assaulter who “automatically” kisses and more women that he considers beautiful and knows he can get away with anything including multiple (do-I have-to-use-the word “alleged”) rapes* versus a mere boundary-pushing creep with a single well known (do-I have-to-use-the word “alleged”) rapes* against his name. (Tara Reade, I believe her.)

    What an absolutely shithouse choice women (& all decent people who don’t favour sex pests) in the USA have for POTUS. Here’s hoping they both kark it before the next presidential election..Surley the USA can do better.

    .* I believe the women here. I think that needs to be the default. The “presumption of innocence” idea here basically becomes an assumption that the victim lies in these “he-said / she-said” cases and I think for sexual assaults it needs to be reversed based on statistics showing false rape or assault claims are vanishingly rare. Yes, if person X claims to have been assaulted they are almost certianly telling the truth so yes in most cases that need to be the presumption and that the perp should be considered guilty unless overwhelming evidence shows otherwise in my view.

  28. crivitz says

    @26. StevoR: Good reminder.
    No doubt, TFG (which I believe actually stands for: “That F***in’ Guy” and not “The Former Guy”) is in another universe when it comes to respecting personal space. It seems that his self-confessed germaphobia isn’t enough to prevent his self-confessed sexual assaults. And yes, believing women is logically the default no matter who is being accused.

  29. says

    I hit a critical point on this kind of spam a few years back. There was a lot of mood whiplash in patting themselves on the back for Texas’ inevitable and upcoming swing to blue (but they still need money) and “send money or everything is ruined by midnight tonight.”

  30. Hairhead, Still Learning at 59 says

    SteveoR@29. As a someone who has had my personal and professional life utterly destroyed by a false accusation of rape, you can fuck off completely. Oh, and from all of the people in the McMartin case, fuck off too.

  31. StevoR says

    @ Hairhead, Still Learning at 59 : I don’t know your story. I do know the stats & that most rapes go unreported and that false rape claims are vanishingly rare.

    Is that wrong of me? If so, why?

    Do you think your case is the rule or the very rare exception to it?

    Do you think your lived experience over-rides the lived experiences of many others?

    Why and with what evidence?

    When it comes to victim accounts versus accused rapist accounts which do you think are more likely to be true and which should we generally accept?

    I’m sorry, I’m not judging you as an indvidual (insufficient evidence because I don’t know you or what happened to you at all)) but, well, all of the above.

  32. rorschach says

    @21,
    “The assholes knew Clarence Thomas was corrupt 29 years ago.”
    Well, awkwardly, now it’s too late, and a whole lot of nukes are going to fall into the hands of people who the Taliban would consider religious extremists come the midterms.
    The US is dead, a failed state. Not that some other Western states aren’t far behind.

  33. wzrd1 says

    @StevoR, self-admitting assault without naming a victim makes for an impossible case to prosecute, as the law tends to like to be able to name a victim and the accused does have a right to face their accuser(s).

    crivitz @26, yeah, I loathe that behavior and any who isn’t utterly blind to social cues realize from my look, “Continue only at the risk of disarticulation of your limbs”. Never was into the touchy-feely thing, save with my wife and well, she’s deceased now.
    Typically, the speakers are of such high quality that I find myself mulling precisely how many Philistine armies I could defeat armed only with their jawbone…

    @Hairhead, Still Learning at 59, I’m rather with StevoR on this one.
    If we just don’t prosecute based upon a credible accusation, we can just shutter the courts and prisons and send the police home. Then, we only have the law of the gun.
    The law of the gun with nukes. Next up: Nukes On Ice, The Musical – with extra percussion.

    @rorschach, interestingly, what do you think those who are targeted by our nukes would think were that to become so? Personally, I’d go for a preemptive strike, as an attack would essentially be inevitable and unpredictable in when it would occur.
    Living around a mile from ground zero for multiple strikes on the military depot, I doubt I’d know what had just happened, being vaporized and all.

  34. Hairhead, Still Learning at 59 says

    SteveoR – You clearly approve of my life and the lives of others being destroyed by getting rid of the presumption of innocence. You clearly believe that it is just fine to falsely harm, imprison, or even execute some innocent people, as long as some more guilty people are punished. All your questions are transparent “gotcha’s” which are based on false assumptions, or on things I never said. Your debating tactics all are distractions from the basic fact that you approve of innocent people being punished.

    No system of law based on the idea that persons of one sex, colour, religion, language, or ethnic identify or other commonality always tell the truth can produce justice or an equitable society. Viz. previous iterations of America’s justice system where the testimony of women, or of persons of colour were discounted or ignored completely.

  35. rorschach says

    wzrd1 @35,
    “what do you think those who are targeted by our nukes would think were that to become so? Personally, I’d go for a preemptive strike, as an attack would essentially be inevitable and unpredictable in when it would occur.”

    Well that’s one of the issues. Since the GOP is essentially a Russian subsidiary by now, it would also have grave consequences for NATO and the protection of Europe. Glad Maggie Haberman waited until her book was published to tell Americans about this situation.

  36. dianne says

    Call me “Mr Myers”.

    You want the spambot making assumptions about your gender?

    Anyway, mail from Nancy Pelosi is now blocked.

    I use the “unsubscribe” button myself, but acknowledge that blocking is the only way to be sure.

  37. says

    See also: Why I stopped even checking my e-mail unless I’m expecting something important.

    Seriously, 90% of my inbox is “send us money, please” requests.

  38. Susan Montgomery says

    Am I the only one who thinks that picture of Pelosi makes her look like an anthropomorphic chipmunk as drawn by Allison Bechdel?

  39. John Morales says

    Susan, possibly. To some. Maybe.

    It’s really rather irrelevant, that observation.
    Looks like an older woman to me, same irrelevance.

  40. Susan Montgomery says

    @42. I can’t imagine that anything we say here is “relevant” to anyone but ourselves and, arguably, not even then.

  41. StevoR says

    @36. Hairhead, Still Learning at 59 : Nonsense. No I don’t approve of innocent lives being destroyed. Massive strawperson fallacy on your part. I note you failed to answer the questions I actually asked. I cna see why youahve a bais ere base don your experience but the statistics ar every clear and innocent rape victims shoudl be believed unless there is good reason to do otherwise seems a pretty basic and key principle to hold to me and I’d say most others. Currently, a sInoted , tehpresumptionof innocence does the opposite and i don’t think that is fair and as it is it makes it incredibly difficult for peopel whohave been raped to see any justice in our legal system which is a massive problem.

    See :

    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/sexual-assault-remains-dramatically-underreported

    Plus :

    https://www.nsvrc.org/sites/default/files/publications_nsvrc_factsheet_media-packet_statistics-about-sexual-violence_0.pdf

    As well as :

    https://www.salon.com/2015/06/01/false_reports_of_rape_are_vanishingly_rare_so_why_treat_women_as_liars_by_default/

    Do you think the victims of rape don’t have their lives ruined and changed forever and that that isn’t made many times worse by the extreme difficulty ingetting convictions and justice?

    Its not about you personally but others and we know what the statistics are and how things work – or don’t.

  42. StevoR says

    @35.wzrd1 :

    @StevoR, self-admitting assault without naming a victim makes for an impossible case to prosecute, as the law tends to like to be able to name a victim and the accused does have a right to face their accuser(s).

    True but Trump basically boasted of getting away with repeated sexual assualts. A confession of guilt on his part. If he wants to face his accuser, show him a mirror.

  43. Silentbob says

    @ 29,33 StevoR

    I’m sure you mean well, but feminists have never asked for people to be prosecuted without evidence. They’ve asked for sexual assault to be taken as seriously as any other crime.

    It a man said some guy had picked his pocket, would people reflexively disbelieve him? Would they speculate he offered the contents of his pockets to the guy and then changed his mind? Would they assume he’s accusing the guy out of spite? Would they say he shouldn’t have gone out in public with unsealed pockets if he didn’t want them picked? If the guy was boasting about being a pickpocket would people dismiss it as locker room banter? I multiple people had said this guy picked their pocket would people think they’re all lying?

    All feminists have asked are that the same standards apply to sexual assault. Not that you completely reverse the burden of proof in a court of law. That’s idiotic.

    (And you have no reason to disbelieve Hairhead – why the hell would someone bring up themselves that they were falsely accused of a crime to complete strangers if it wasn’t true?! Use your noggin.)

  44. velociraptor says

    @44StevoR

    No. Just no. Every sexual assault victim MUST be taken SERIOUSLY, and any and all claims investigated fully.

    Presumption of guilt? No.

    Fuck every bit of that.

  45. Silentbob says

    @ 44 StevoR

    First: You’re drunk again.

    Second: You said “the perp should be considered guilty unless overwhelming evidence shows otherwise”. That’s what you’re being called out for. Nobody is disputing rape statistics so stop deflecting and backpedalling.

  46. tuatara says

    Presumption of guilt is one of the tools fascist states utilise for the repression of their citizens. None of us here should want this.

  47. erik333 says

    @45 Stevor
    Shame Johnny Cash is dead, or he could be tried for that murder in Reno as well…

  48. rrhain says

    The Democrats in the House under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi have passed all the bills you claim to be in support of, from codifying Roe (that was done last year long before the “leak”) to tightening gun control to combating domestic terrorism to voting rights to legalizing marijuana and more.

    They’ve gone to the Senate to die because every single Republican has voted to not even let them have a debate let alone an actual vote.

    The fact that they are not perfect does not mean they have done nothing. This claim of, “I’m afraid, though, if the Democrats got honest about their accomplishments, they’d be talking about their vacations and cocktail parties and schmoozing with lobbyists” is a bunch of bullshit.

    Yeah, there are two Democrats in the Senate who are doing the heavy lifting in the Senate to allow the Republicans to do this.

    So we should allow more Republicans to get elected? If you actually care about those bills that Pelosi and the other Democrats in the House have passed, it’s clear that the solution is to elect more Democrats. People whine about what FDR and LBJ were able to accomplish. They had massive majorities in the Senate that were able to get past filibusters…which weren’t actually used all that much (except for blocking racial equality). Make the bad Democrats irrelevant by electing better Democrats. Push the Overton Window back to the left.

    It took the Republicans 50 years to overturn Roe v Wade. It took them 48 years to strike down the Voting Rights Act. We aren’t going to fix this in a single election. It’s going to take generations in order to fix the mess that we’re in.

    Vote the Republicans out.

    Every election
    Every race
    Every time

  49. StevoR says

    @ 52. erik333 : Because a song is just the same as a credible rape accusation right? No. Obvs not.

    @48. Silentbob :

    @ 44 StevoR First: You’re drunk again.

    No. Not drunk at all. Just a lousy typer and previewer esp when pushed for time and doing so quickly. FYI. as an Aussie the time I posted #44 – 11:47 pm – with how timezones work equals 1.17 pm in the arvo here in Oz. If you think I’m drunk at that hour – or many others – well, no, just no. Not any more.

    Second: You said “the perp should be considered guilty unless overwhelming evidence shows otherwise”. That’s what you’re being called out for. Nobody is disputing rape statistics so stop deflecting and backpedalling.

    Its hardly a deflection or backpedalling to provide the justification and reason WHY I think as I do here and make that suggestion. The rape statistics showing that most rapes go unreported and false claims are vanishingly rare is why I am saying that the presumption of innocence needs to be reversed specifically in sexual assault cases because when its a case of Victim says vs Perp says the presumption of innocence is statistically almost always wrong and helps prevent justice from actually happening and rapists from being convicted. The presumption there effectively becomes one of assuming the victim’s words are NOT accuate and the Perps words are. That’s why it needs to be changed.

    I had thought that was pretty clear but no?

    We have an issue where rapists and molesters get away with their crimes and go on to committ more of them because the presumption of innocence makes it too hard for them to be convicted when they are clearly guilty in most cases. That is the problem, reversing things so the presumption is that the victim is telling the truth unless strong reasons to think otherwise exist when their accounts clash seems like the best solution to that problem doesn’t it? If not, then what do you suggest?

    @50. tuatara :

    Presumption of guilt is one of the tools fascist states utilise for the repression of their citizens. None of us here should want this.

    I’m not advocating for fascism and don’t want that or political change here as this is discussing a specific legal reform ina specific set of cases that makes it easier to prevent and deter rapes and sexual assualts as explained above. There are plenty of non-fascist,democratic nations incl France and Italy and Japan that use a very different set of (technically inquistitorial rather than adversarial) legal systems and assumptions that do NOT contain a presumptuion of innocence. IOW, just because you do not have this specific legal prinicple or evena specifically adversarial english common law derived legal system does NOT mean an nation is fascist or has a more flawed and less just system of justice.

    There are plenty of flaws and problems in the USA’s justice system as well as with other systems. I do not believe reforms are a bad thing or that assumptions that especially cause problems for ethical justice being delivered cannot be questioned and reformed if and when required to improve things for more just and ethical outcomes.

    @ 46. Silentbob : I am aware that this idea isn’t something Feminists are asking for and I am certainly NOT saying I disbelieve Hairhead here. To Hairhead, Still Learning at 59 I am NOT saying nor do I think that you are guilty or referring to your specific personal case here at all since I know nothing about it other than what you have said which I accept having no reason to do otherwise.

    FWIW These are just my thoughts on this question and I’m not sure that either guilt or innocence should necessarily be presumed at all but rather determined based upon the precise evidence and logic and circumstances. I think there’s something to be said in favour of European style investigatory rather than adversarial justice systems and the Scottish legal idea of a “not proven” verdict and other things. I think it is clear that the current Justice system in the USA and Australia has many problems and deserves challenging and questioning. I didn’t intend to derail the thread here but, anyhow FWIW, that’s where I’m coming from and something i’d like more people to think about.

  50. John Morales says

    [OT + meta]

    StevoR:

    … anyhow FWIW, that’s where I’m coming from and something i’d like more people to think about.

    It’s not like you’re a new commenter here. There’s a historical dataset.

    I for one know where you’re coming from… you mean well, but are driven by ignorance and naivety and shallow facile thinking and no filter to quick opining and committal. Earnest, that’s you. But, beardless.
    That’s my perception.

Leave a Reply