I spend too much time listening to music, reading books, and watching Prime Minister's Questions.
I should probably rewrite this.
Suggestions, questions, comments, etc. always welcome via askbox. (Submissions also encouraged!)
The Supreme Court has its share of technology ignorance and Chief Roberts is a total fuckface, but this is unfair. We need a new kind of snopes for out of context meme-quotes that just won’t die. Leaving aside the fact that SC justices always ask naive questions to get answers on the public record, Roberts was actually asking a reasonable question about how police policy treats email messages and pager messages.
Let’s broaden the view:
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Wouldn’t that employee expect that the policy would carry over to pagers? I mean, would — when you think of what’s the reason why they want to look at the e-mails, wouldn’t the same reason apply?
MR. DAMMEIER: Well, I’m sure the same reasons could apply, but the — the city is the one that writes the rules here. The — if they want to make it clear on what it applies to, it certainly should be on them to write them clear so the employee understands.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Maybe — maybe everybody else knows this, but what is the difference between the pager and the e-mail?
MR. DAMMEIER: Sure. The e-mail, looking at the computer policy, that goes through the city’s computer, it goes through the city’s server, it goes through all the equipment that — that has — that the city can easily monitor. Here the pagers are a separate device that goes home with you, that travels with you, that you can use on duty, off-duty.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You can do that with e-mails.
MR. DAMMEIER: Certainly, certainly. But in this instance with the pagers it went through no city equipment, it went through Arch Wireless and then was transmitted to another — another person.
Gee, I wonder why the Supreme Court is so slow to livestream their proceedings. Can you even imagine how many hundreds of thousands of reblogs an animated gif of Roberts asking this question would get?
Turns OUT! Thanks for the correction, my friend. Nice catch.
So tempted to buy this book just based on the wonderful image it paints of Peter:
- [Mandelson] glared back at me, unsmiling, lip trembling.
‘Let me make it clear to you, Jeremy. I do not spin. I do not operate “puppet strings”’ — he was rising to his theme — ‘I am not a dark lord of manipulation, or whatever it is you people are saying this week. I am not working behind the scenes, I am not Machiavellian, I am not plotting or planning and I am definitely NOT SPINNING.’
His speech was interrupted by his mobile phone. ‘Excuse me.’ He turned away from me to answer it, listened for a moment and then hissed violently: ‘This. Must. Be. Defused.’
At any point, Peter would be involved in about 20 highly personal run-ins with political journalists, so I never felt left out.
Another time, [Mandelson] beckoned me with a melodramatically outstretched finger that kept beckoning until I was but 12 inches from his face.
‘I am in . . . can . . . descent with you,’ he hissed.
Within three seconds of the piece ending, my bleeper goes off:
I dial the number. The phone picks up immediately at the other end. All I hear is Mandelson’s voice, a slow whisper.
‘Well, well, well.’
As if it was a personal betrayal
Peter’s propensity for melodrama is delicious.
…I mean, I occasionally do really dumb things online when I’m drunk that I totally forget about until I see the results of them the next day, but I had no idea I’d put a library hold on Downton Abbey DVDs.
This is a new low.
A CV is the same thing as a resume, right? Except in a non-American way.
Why am I doing this; I’m probably going to get an email tomorrow telling me that I can’t apply for the internship after all. This would be so much easier if I could just draw a lil’ old Gladstone wheeling some books around, per timrous-beastie's suggestion. I can't draw well enough to do it for a living, but my dumb cartoons can't be any less impressive than my actual work qualifications.