Almost everyone hates political correctness in the abstract, but almost everyone has their sacred cows that must be protected. You can tell someone's true level of support for free speech by how they react when you gore their ox.
(Is that a mixed metaphor? Or close enough for government work?)
Fact checking itself is a biased business with a problematic history. (Most fact-checking outlets are rightfully seen as shading their judgments to benefit a particular candidate or party.) If Facebook gets into that game, they will undermine themselves without adding a meaningful benefit to their audience.
Living in a free society, where citizens have rights necessarily entails making things harder for law enforcement. The KGB, the Stasi, they had it made. But that doesn't create any great desire in me to go commie. I'm fine with a police force that has to do a bit of extra leg work and occasionally can't close case. That's a trade off I'll happily take.
Fuel surcharges on airplanes (because apparently the airline didn't anticipate needing fuel when it set its prices), half a dozen line items on your phone bill, your cable bill. Buying a car? Good luck getting it for the agreed-upon price. Dealer delivery fee? Seriously?
Hidden charges are everywhere. Supposedly we have laws against false advertising, but one would never know it doing business in this country.
"First off, eliminate all emails not having Clinton on the recievnig end."
Why? What possible reason could there be to focus on emails sent to Clinton? If Clinton had to be involved, it should be as sender. But there's no reason for that limiter either. It should be all emails from or to Huma where the other party is in any way associated with the Clinton campaign. Anyone who gave a number is making it up out of whole cloth.
Sure, that's a fine way to eliminate most of these emails, but it's not much help in going through the rest. There is a roughly 0.0% chance that there aren't a few thousand that require actual eyes on them.
This is a species of the media excuse that "most were personal or from Weiner." Yeah, so? That tells you nothing about the ones that aren't. If I go two days without emptying my spam folder, then most of my emails are about erectile dysfunction or penis enlargement. It's like going through a thousand emails of someone suspected of planning a bank robbery and closing the case because 990 didn't discuss bank robbery.
2. You know Comey's getting a lot of pressure from above to bury this and he's getting a lot of pressure from below to bring down the hammer. It's no easy task he's been assigned, but he has come up with an elegant solution that infuriates everyone equally.
As a couple people here have pointed out, the incentives are all wrong. As I found when I used to do immigration law, there is no downside for the examiner to refuse a qualified person, but there may be severe consequences for allowing someone who later turned criminal. The incentive is not to do your job to the best of your abilities, but to exaggerate the dangers.
Bonus that it helps your department get more money. In the score-keeping world of bureaucratic government, money is prestige. Getting more means you're more important.
While I agree that it is either obtuse or disingenuous to claim no bias, you shouldn't need Mike to tell you what his bias is, if it's there, you can figure it out without his help.
My bias? Equality before the law is a fundamental value. We do not have an aristocracy. Yet. President Hillary Clinton would represent a significant undermining of our status as a republic. I care about the values of the Enlightenment; therefore, I am not "with her."
If you want honest government, vote Trump because our institutions will be on him like white on rice. As secretary of state, the president himself couldn't say no to Hillary. Who's going to say no to her when she's president?
Re: IP Lawyers in pursuit of OPM -- Other People's Money
How about going a step further to put the blame exactly where it really does belong--with the laws that the legal profession uses to advise suit. If the law didn't punish under-policing, you wouldn't see so much over-policing.
Trademark differs from Copyright and Patent in that Copyright and Patent protect new things, whereas Trademark takes already existing things out of the public domain and hands them over to private entities. In theory, the public is compensated through economic gains from business advantage, but all too often, specific applications have no public benefit.
Strong protection should be reserved for Trademarks that truly are new--invented words that have meaning in the public mind solely through the efforts of the company using the word. But the Arsenal Football Club did not invent the word arsenal. They did not popularize the word arsenal. Closer to the truth to say that they are free-riding on a word popularized through great military effort and public expense.
I don't see any justification for giving them any rights at all to the word except as explicitly referring to a soccer team somewhere in England.