This week, both of our winning comments on the insightful side come in response to the news that Jared Kushner’s coronavirus task force has been using private email accounts for official business. In first place, it’s That One Guy breaking down his reaction:
‘Lock… him… up?’
The best case scenario I can think of is this is just hypocritical incompetence, where they’re using private email accounts because doing otherwise would take work, and the whole point of nepotism is to avoid that, with it only getting more damning from there such as the potential they are trying to keep the public in the dark because they know full well that something they are doing would not go over well with the public(can’t imagine what though, I mean it’s not like there’s an absolutely staggering pile of money up for grabs…).
Given the point raised in the article about how hard Trump ragged on Hilary for using a private server during the election I don’t see that they deserve any ‘maybe they just didn’t think about it?’ benefit of the doubt here, such that the assumption should be the worst case scenario, full blown corruption, until proven otherwise.
In second place, it’s PaulT answering one commenter’s question about why so few candidates on either side of the aisle actually seem worth voting for:
A combination of the effectively binary system not allowing true independents to have a chance, a primary system that tends to favour the status quo, and a shift to the right politically over the last few decades which means that even a true centrist will appear to be hard left-wing to a lot of people.
Meaning that, if your politics are truly centrist or centre-left there’s not really any representation, and you’re completely out of luck if you’re an actual left-winger. I just hope you realise that a vote is still necessary, even if it’s not for your ideal choice.
For editor’s choice on the insightful side, we’ve got a pair of responses to the misguided freakout about the Internet Archives enabling more checkouts of ebooks from their library. First up, it’s Heather M with a librarian’s take:
Libraries and copyright issues.
As a librarian I for one welcome the Archive. In fact I was ecstatic. Our library had to close and it really bugs all of the librarians that we can’t provide services people need safely. One idea we had was to continue our storytimes on line. We can’t the biggest publishers will only let people do a live event and then we are to delete any recording we’ve made. How is this helpful how is this even reasonable? Do they think that by restricting us people are going to rush out and buy their books. Newsflash That isn’t going to happen. It didn’t happen before the new plague and it is sure not happening now. But when people ask why we can’t and we tell them why I can guarantee the names of the publishers who did this are going to linger in memory far longer than the memory of a book being read on line.
Next, it’s PaulT again with a thought on misleading pleas about authors needing income:
Well, yes, it’s clearly an emotional ploy that’s not taking into account the wider picture. Typical for these kind of arguments, along the lines of the stereotypical “starving musician”, who is often starving because they signed to a label for a 4 album deal who then refuse to release their 2nd one because it’s too uncommerical.
Over on the funny side, our first place winner is Sok Puppette responding to one commenter who decided to defend bad cops after a court smacked them down:
Based on my training and experience, I know that posters of inflammatory and idiotic comments are often trolls. I therefore have a reasonable suspicion that you are a troll.
If you persist in this behavior, I will have probable cause to believe that you are a troll. My training and experience, trolls lurk under bridges and eat children. Based on my awareness that you are a troll, I will fear for my safety and may be forced to discharge my weapon.
If you persist in this course of action, I cannot be responsible for the consequences of your behavior.
In second place, it’s That Anonymous Coward responding to the audacity of performance rights organizations trying to get licensing fees from rental car companies:
It finally happened…
After decades of trying to jump the shark, they have now attempted to jump the sharknado.
Our only hope now is that fight each other to the death while we listen to radios without paying them.
For editor’s choice on the funny side, we start out with an anonymous comment that in fact mostly racked up insightful votes for its reminder that the world of older books is much bigger than classics and money-makers, but I think it deserves a funny nod for how colorfully it illustrated this fact:
You mean those books that have been out of print for 20 years (and only had one printing), are forgotten by used book stores, and were last seen in a box in your uncle’s attic beside the stuffed octopus and the box of 1980’s tax documents?
Jeez, I didn’t think they’d be so upset about the 1994 land survey of Maricopa County water rights, or “Flax and you: the businessman’s new threads.” Both very good reads when you’re out of Ambien.
Finally, it’s DannyB wondering about the nomenclature that’s often employed by collective licensing organizations:
Something I don’t understand?
Why are they called “Collection Societies”?
I thought organizations like this were called “Collection Rackets” and prosecuted.
That’s all for this week, folks!