Nice Scott Adams post on Comey

By -
Here.

Adams is correct. The Romans understood this well: no one could be prosecuted for any crime while holding office. 

Comments

  1. Josiah Neeley5:52 PM

    But Hillary doesn't hold office.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah9:50 PM

      That was an EXAMPLE of the kind of regard for legitimacy Adams was talking about. And you forgot to point out that Clinton is not Roman!

      Delete
    2. Silas Barta3:14 PM

      But don't you think there's a pretty substantive difference, in terms of the logic/telos behind such a (non-)practice?

      Prosecuting an existing office holder is substantively different from disqualifying a potential one.

      Delete
  2. Greg Pandatshang1:48 AM

    Well, I guess Comey could indict her, and then the Democratic convention could nominate someone else for president, which the voters really might like better.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Samson Corwell1:29 AM

    But we're not Rome! We should hold our officials accountable. (I don't know if Hillary is guilty of anything as I haven't been paying attention to the email stuff or her.)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more