sumgai’s Techdirt Profile


About sumgai

sumgai’s Comments comment rss

  • Jul 10th, 2020 @ 11:22am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Does Richard Blumenthal Always Feel The

    In any case, the problem of widespread gullibility / lack of critical thinking ability can generally be traced to an abysmal education system, where critical thinking is actively and aggressively discouraged.

    This!! I am indeed mortified at what the past several decades of the American education system has done to our country. Shameful, that's all I can say (politely).

    Oh, and I like 'critical thinking' more than my previous use of 'rational thinking'. To bad for me that I can't go back and edit my earlier post. Thanks for that. ;)

  • Jul 10th, 2020 @ 10:17am

    (untitled comment)


    Very cogent. But I think I could shortcut your letter, and the diatribes of those who contributed 'case studies' to your reasoning thus:

    Come on people, stop disguising your emotional outbursts as rational thinking. Or as a famous wag once said "Put brain in gear before engaging mouth".

    The very definition of over-reaction is to use emotion where rationality would've been the correct response. Hmmm, sounds like a standard response by certain members of society, the ones who wear a badge, doesn't it.....

    Sad, just sad that we have to go through all this. Whatever happened to the KISS principle?

  • Jul 8th, 2020 @ 1:24pm


    we need a smart politician

    Ohhh, I love it, an oxymoron describing a senatorial moron. ;)

    But as to the Federal anti-SLAPP business, I don't agree quite so much. Instead, I'd propose the following scenario:

    • Lawyers must take, and pass, a Continuing Education class focused solely on Sections 230 and 1A. A test of no small effort must be passed before a lawyer can present a case in court, showing that he's not acting friviously out of ignorance.


    • Judges must also take and pass that same course, so as to be cognizant of what law is applicable, and to readily understand if the attorney(s) is/are properly presenting the case. This also works to let attorneys know that they won't be able to easily baffle a judge with bullshit.

    Lacking either of those two qualifications, no case can be brought to bar, period. That will bring most actions to a screeching halt, trust me.

    Finally, it is my sad duty to inform you that a legislative body full of lawyers is not going to make a law that penalizes one of their own brethren. Any forthecoming anti-SLAPP law will perforce have penalties, but they will of course devolve onto the plaintiff, not the representing attorney. I'd bet next year's paycheck that judges will not be required to sanction an attorney for being ignorant, nor even for being abusive of the law. Which is why my proposal above might be the better solution. (Predicated on a tough course, written by a small committee of highly-regarded law professors, and vetted by the ABA, and then passed into statutory law.)

  • Jul 8th, 2020 @ 1:07pm

    (untitled comment)

    • all the above quotes*

    Oh come on, Mike - what's the first thing out of your mouth (well, out of your fingers at the keyboard).... it's always a variation of "follow the money". Blumenthal is being paid to raise a ruckus, that's all. The only thing that baffles me is, why isn't 4chan or Anonymous doxing the 'good senator', exposing his financials to the world at large.

  • Jun 20th, 2020 @ 7:42pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Posing as a federal employee throwing out threats...
    Yeah, that's a federal crime...

    Oh? And how do you describe what's been done in the Oval Office for the past 41 months? I don't see him even facing even any charges, let alone any jail time, sad to have to say.

  • Jun 16th, 2020 @ 8:48pm


    How will they go about terminating officers with the union contract in place? Does a lack of funding cause layoff's, and does that contract actually allow that?

    Minnesota statutes allow a city or county to either employ for itself a policing force, or it may contract with another jurisdiction for that service, per MNS 436.05. Also, MNS 471.59 specifically permits the rescission of a policing contract.

    I have no experience negotiating such things, but I suspect that the first stop for the union won't be a court, but the NLRB. If not, I'm pretty sure the court will "advise" the plaintiffs of their rights, and their duties in following, and exhausting, the proper course of administrative action first. ;)

    I have read that Officer Derek Chauvin will collect his $50,000 per year pension even if he is convicted and serving a prison sentence, something the union arranged for their members.

    You can bet your bottom shekel that a civil "wrongful death" lawsuit brought by Floyd's estate will latch on that that money, mosh-kosh. Chauvin can thank O.J. Simpson for that precedent. Ditto for any monies tendered for books, movies, magazine articles and the like.

    And, I'm pretty sure that no contract ever written, even by a police union, can have a clause to the effect of overriding or frustrating a court's decision. But IANAL, so go lightly on the grains of salt.

  • Jun 15th, 2020 @ 1:19pm

    Re: The problem is much broader than Twitter

    .... I get a little kick out of giving a kick to someone that is applying his stupidity maliciously.

    Reminds me of the old joke about how stupid people are similar to a slinky. Both are good for a laugh when you push them down the stairs.

  • Jun 12th, 2020 @ 1:03pm

    Re: Re: New cow, same pile..

    What is wrong with everyone just thinking for themselves?

    That would require the development of critical thinking, something that's been frowned upon by politicians for generations. For reassurance of that little factoid, consider H.L. Mecken's quote from 1920:

    "On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

    That prediction came to pass just 96 years later. Also, Mencken had much more to say on politics, I suggest that you search him out.

  • Jun 6th, 2020 @ 5:34pm

    Re: Re:

    I'm sorry, I didn't make it clear (at all) that I personally don't like, nor do I easily advocate, bankruptcy for all the reasons you indicate. But I had hoped that my reasoning would've been obvious, that one can indeed hew to higher principles and expose the dirty laundry, even if doing so might might endanger one's equilibrium in life.

    Where I come from contract law is based on the very definition of tort - that of a harm, or an alleged harm, to the offended party. Contract law, and the ensuing contracts springing therefrom, is a an attempt to apply uniformity to the enforcement of contracts, with varying results. Said variances being negotiated and adjudicated by the courts.

    FWIW, an injunction against further offending conduct is not considered a punishment or a form of recompense, it is merely a stemming of behavior that might continue to cause damage, that's all. Yes, courts can impress upon you a more harsh remedy for failure to abide by any such injunction, however, such a remedy will inure not to the offended party, but to the court itself. You can be sure that no contract will stand that implies that a court will automatically grant the offended party's wish for non-monetary recompense.

    I think you'll find that nearly every state has laws on their books that closely follow the definitions found in Horn's Second Restatement of Torts. Much of contract law is based on this very tome, though certainly not all of it. You can easily discern this for yourself by perusing your state's version of the U.C.C.

    And finally, my experience is certainly not vast. All I did was ask if others had differing experiences in their law careers. Times do change, and it's been a long time since I occupied a chair in a law office.


  • Jun 5th, 2020 @ 1:26pm

    (untitled comment)

    It is my thought that even the financial backers of a given candidate might want to know more than just the usual BS the candidate has been feeding him/her all along. So it would follow that the solution is obvious: unless violating the terms of the NDA involves a quiet (and permanent) disappearance in the middle of the night, then go ahead and blab. When they try to enforce the agreement, just declare bankruptcy. After all, they can't demand in return for your agreement that you owe them anything else besides money. (In all of the jurisprudence I've ever seen, monetary compensation is the only acceptable recompense for a tort. If my experience is too limited, please feel free to enlighten me.)

    The proper argument to present in court is that NDA's were constructed to protect business secrets, usually those learned by an employee that then went to work for a competitor for whatever reason. But nearly all courts have struck down NDA's with no time limit, the usual accepted limit being 3 to 5 years. I can't imagine that after a campaign has run its course, anything would be damaging to the desired results of said campaign (the successful election of the candidate), so a time limit beyond that scope would be highly suspect of attempting to squelch one's right to speak freely.

    Speaking of "giving up free speech", this isn't a governmental dictum (nor a court order), so one is still free to speak, but for the pain of potential monetary loss.

    The courts take a dim view of one party trying to suppress another party's speech long after the reason for that suppression has lost its value.

  • Jun 4th, 2020 @ 4:00pm

    (untitled comment)

    The answer would be yes, there was a "right' added by § 230, the right to be free of culpability for allegations, accusations and assignations of blame for the actions/words of another, without having to prove your innocence first, such actions/words being the basis of an actionable tort. The doctrine arises from the long-standing common law that no person can be held responsible for the actions of another without some kind of attachment such as parent/child, or a contractual relationship of some kind.

    While 1A defines and supports the meaning of "free speech", it deliberately excludes private parties from such efforts to control said speech, thus giving rise to the efforts of butthurt asshelmets to seek compensation for their lack of a proper upbringing (i.e. getting whacked upside the head every time they whined "that's not fair!").


  • Jun 4th, 2020 @ 11:30am

    (untitled comment)

    It's pretty difficult to use [any smartphone] without all this hoopla....

    Seems to me that the proper answer is to use the phone only for what A.G. Bell designed it to do - make voice phone calls. Portability doesn't change that little factoid. Or didn't you ever stop to wonder why they still make "dumb phones"?

  • Jun 1st, 2020 @ 1:15pm

    Re: Re:

    People seem to forget the rest of the "few bad apples" expression.

    Would that be "95% of all cops are giving the rest of them a bad name."?

  • May 21st, 2020 @ 8:01pm

    (untitled comment)

    'Sfunny, I don't see any such notice. Perhaps AdGuard is earning its keep after all.

    The rest of what I have to say is just so much blathering of an old curmudgeon, so I'll get off of your lawn now.....

  • Apr 20th, 2020 @ 5:59pm


    While I've always liked the nuclear option, I think in the long run that's not gonna keep other nations from pulling the same stunt, vis-a-vis the EU requiring each country to implement the Mathias Döpfner Guaranteed Personal Enrichment Directive. (aka Article 15 of the Copyright Directive.)

    What would work better would be to continue the current balance by telling the "Will Whine For Money" news outlets they will be charged exactly the same amount as their snippet tax for the privilege of having their headlines appear on a Google results page. Yes, this flies in the face of Google, et al, claiming that their search results cannot be bought, but hey, the news organizations have only Mathias Döpfner to thank for this bogus attempt at redistributing unearned wealth.

    Some EU nations, and France in particular, believe that the Internet respects borders. The planet will be rocked right out of its orbit when those ossified bureaucrats are replaced by the next generation, the ones that grew up with the internet as just another aspect of daily life. They are the ones who "get it", in that advertisers put their money where they eyeballs are, not where the aforementioned Whiners want them to put it.

  • Apr 11th, 2020 @ 10:54am



    You've praised the Lowered, so I'm going to pass you some more ammunition.

    (I don't know who wrote this originally, it's certainly not mine. If you know the author, please leave a reply to that effect.)

    An anguished question from a Trump supporter: "Why do liberals think Trump supporters are stupid?"

    Short answer:

    Because if you're NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering."

    The serious answer: Here's what we really think about Trump supporters - the rich, the poor, the malignant and the innocently well-meaning, the ones who think and the ones who don't...

    That when you saw a man who had owned a fraudulent University, intent on scamming poor people, you thought "Fine."

    That when you saw a man who had made it his business practice to stiff his creditors, you said, "Okay."

    That when you heard him proudly brag about his own history of sexual abuse, you said, "No problem."

    That when he made up stories about seeing muslim-Americans in the thousands cheering the destruction of the World Trade Center, you said, "Not an issue."

    That when you saw him brag that he could shoot a man on Fifth Avenue and you wouldn't care, you chirped, "He sure knows me."

    That when you heard him illustrate his own character by telling that cute story about the elderly guest bleeding on the floor at his country club, the story about how he turned his back and how it was all an imposition on him, you said, "That's cool!"

    That when you saw him mock the disabled, you thought it was the funniest thing you ever saw.

    That when you heard him brag that he doesn't read books, you said, "Well, who has time?"

    That when the Central Park Five were compensated as innocent men convicted of a crime they didn't commit, and he angrily said that they should still be in prison, you said, "That makes sense."

    That when you heard him tell his supporters to beat up protesters and that he would hire attorneys, you thought, "Yes!"

    That when you heard him tell one rally to confiscate a man's coat before throwing him out into the freezing cold, you said, "What a great guy!"

    That you have watched the parade of neo-Nazis and white supremacists with whom he curries favor, while refusing to condemn outright Nazis, and you have said, "Thumbs up!"

    That you hear him unable to talk to foreign dignitaries without insulting their countries and demanding that they praise his electoral win, you said, "That's the way I want my President to be."

    That you have watched him remove expertise from all layers of government in favor of people who make money off of eliminating protections in the industries they're supposed to be regulating and you have said, "What a genius!"

    That you have heard him continue to profit from his businesses, in part by leveraging his position as President, to the point of overcharging the Secret Service for space in the properties he owns, and you have said, "That's smart!"

    That you have heard him say that it was difficult to help Puerto Rico because it was the middle of water and you have said, "That makes sense."

    That you have seen him start fights with every country from Canada to New Zealand while praising Russia and quote, "falling in love" with the dictator of North Korea, and you have said, "That's statesmanship!"

    That Trump separated children from their families and put them in cages, managed to lose track of 1500 kids. has opened a tent city incarceration camp in the desert in Texas - he explains that they're just "animals" - and you say, "well, ok then."

    That you have witnessed all the thousand and one other manifestations of corruption and low moral character and outright animalistic rudeness and contempt for you, the working American voter, and you still show up grinning and wearing your MAGA hats and threatening to beat up anybody who says otherwise.

    What you don't get, Trump supporters in 2020, is that succumbing to frustration and thinking of you as stupid may be wrong and unhelpful, but it's also...hear me...charitable.

    Because if you're NOT stupid, we must turn to other explanations, and most of them are less flattering.

  • Apr 7th, 2020 @ 1:33pm

    Re: Why don’t we have nice things

    ... beyond give me more money

    Shouldn't that be "All your money are belong to us"?

  • Apr 2nd, 2020 @ 4:28pm


    You're almost correct, AC, in that buying government regulators has been a sport for over a century. (The first such regulatory act was in 1912, the Radio Act (simple titles were all the rage, back then). And no, the Wireless Ship Communications Act of 1910 doesn't count. That was to require all ships registered with US ports to carry functional radios, it had nothing to do with regulating them.)

    However, it wasn't until 1934 that FCC was setup, and invested with powers to regulate not only radio, but telecommunications of all kinds. At the time, this was meant to include not only radio, but wired telecommunications, as in telegraph carriers. But it would seem that the courts have always interpreted that word to include all manner of non-face-to-face communications, excepting the Postal Service. Thus, the telcos banded together, and started waging war, pitting the states against the FCC where it benefited them, and vice-versa where needful (in their eyes).

    To my understanding, unless there's a part of the Act that I can't find, then the FCC really does not have the authority to dissolve itself, nor to cast aside any of it's duties or responsibilities. Insofar as I can discern, the courts still haven't decided whether the FCC acted within the bounds placed upon it by Congress.

    However, I do know this: Any time a government sets up a body for controlling something in order to protect the population from abuse, the people that stand to benefit the most from such regulation are exactly the ones who are not placed anywhere near that position of power. IOW, there's not even a semblance of balance to be seen betwixt and between the regulators, the regulatees, and the public at large. Raise your hands if you can spell "MONEY".....


  • Mar 9th, 2020 @ 3:45pm

    Re: Weak story. . .

    I'm not too sure I'd be so quick to label this story as 'weak'. The questions you raise are good, and have been answered both here on TD and elsewhere. But the bottom line for most folks, whether they be FB users or FB haters, is that the Cambridge Analytica debacle proved that FB has no moral scruples whatsoever. And I mean, proved beyond any possible doubt.

    The inescapable problem for FB is that they have a history of taking advantage of people's personal data. Stating things like "we will never mistreat your data" has less than no meaning to them. All that this Libra venture meant to them was yet another avenue to access private, personal data, and deeply financial data at that. Even if they simply worked to arbitrage the money flow (shady at best, but done every day by the big boys...), they'd still be untrustworthy to the maximum degree possible.

    Submitting to any degree of government oversight would expose this kind of behavior, and would tend to reduce profits from triple or quadruple digits down to double digits.... and Mark can't have that, now can he?

  • Mar 3rd, 2020 @ 8:39am

    (untitled comment)

    These garbage fans.... [a]re not smart people or wise people. They're spiteful people who are unable to exercise restraint. They're the kind of people that make other people say stupid stuff about regulating speech. Let's not encourage assholes.

    I'm confused here. Are you referring to sports fans with the maturity of a two-year-old, or to Trump-ettes? Insofar as I can tell, there's not much difference between the two groups.

More comments from sumgai >>

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it