And that’s just the optics of unions for the people they are trying to recruit—it’s even worse for non-members whose political support they want to rally.

One cannot simultaneously believe Dodd Frank is a good thing and that big banks need to be broken up without fundamentally misunderstanding at least one of the two issues, considering the former is pretty ingeniously designed to prevent the latter.

It’s OK because there’s no evidence they actually, y’know, used the accounts for official business to evade federal records laws or transmit classified information. Once they do that, skewer ‘em, but until then this is garden variety Hatch Act compliance, and they would be getting skewered for not having private…

It’s another example the hypocrisy because it is, in fact, hypocrticial.

The hypocrisy is only “immediately obvious” to those desperate to find it regardless of what the facts prove to be. There are important distinctions between the use of a single, private, unsecured server to conduct official business without prior authorization, and the mere *existence* of a private account that…

The Newsweek article also points out that any WH staffer engaged in political activity has to maintain a private account of some kind of Hatch Act compliance—a detail Gizmodo of course decided to leave out for reasons that aren’t obvious at all or anything.

Or, more likely, they have been assigned a proper government e-mail, but retained private RNC accounts to make sure they comply with the Hatch Act when engaging in political business. A detail the original Newsweek report makes painfully obvious, so of course had to be omitted from the Gizmodo rending of garments.

What about blog editors who completely lose their fucking minds over a politician teasing their stalkerific employees?

Yeah, you guys are real heroes for throwing your support behind the right wing anti-labor guy as soon as he takes a moment away from plotting to deregulate Wall Street with his cabinet of billionaires in order to toss your specific industry a few jobs.

everyone outside of Boston is rooting for Pittsburgh

O, now everyone at legacy Gawker is concerned about compliance with federal recordkeeping laws?

Now all they get is bad (fan)rep.

Are you still talking about Cumberbatch? Because BBC would fucking love to make more Sherlock if it weren’t for the fact that Cumberbatch is one of the most in-demand actors in showbusiness right now, which does nothing to detract from my argument.

BC has a huge fanbase, but everyone who loves him does so right now, at this point in his career. 

Charities are also subject to rigorous policing of their compensation policies, though, because of the extremely high risks associated with turning profit into mere pay.

Have Axanar open its books to CBS. Let Axanar cover its costs & release the film. If there was any overages from the fund raising, it goes to CBS. It if makes money on YouTube, the money goes to CBS. CBS could be altruistic & donate the proceeds to a charity, but that’s unlikely.

No, it’s like saying Justin Bieber is a *bigger star* than Bob Dylan because he sells more tickets.

There’s a reason I haven’t bothered trying to defend that proposition. Rudd might have been a bit more familiar to the viewing public—which could also be said of Norton—but I wouldn’t say he brought any star power to the role and certainly hadn’t proven himself as any kind of box office draw.

Sure—and consequently, he wasn’t that big of a star leading into Iron Man. Certainly not on the order of what Cumberbatch was leading into Dr. Strange.

Yea—there seems to be a combination of overstating where RDJ was in his career before 2008, and dramatically understating how big Eggs Benedict already was coming into this year. Cumberbatch had prominent roles in 4 films that cleared $200M domestic in the 4 years before Dr. Strange (Star Trek Into Darkness and the Hob…