What Difference, at this Point, Does it Make?
At a news conference this month, Mrs. Clinton appeared to provide two answers about whether she still had copies of her emails. First, she said that she “chose not to keep” her private personal emails after her lawyers had examined the account and determined on their own which ones were personal and which were State Department records. But later, she said that the server, which contained personal communication by her and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, “will remain private.” The server was kept at their home in Chappaqua, N.Y., which is protected around the clock by the Secret Service. (New York Times, 3/28/2015)
Our next president.
Mr. Reid’s admirers seem to think Mr. Reid is their champion, but the reason he has carried so much water for Mr. Obama isn’t liberal ideals. It’s the result of a crude political bargain in which Mr. Reid agreed to do the President’s dirty work on Capitol Hill if Mr. Obama blocked the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. (Wall Street Journal, 3/30/2015)
Reid will be feted at his retirement by Democrats and the media who will use words like "tireless" and "unflinching." We are glad to be reminded of his crass political deals. And, of course, we will always cherish his description of Barack Obama as "a light-skinned African American with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." If John Boehner used such language he would be in a nursing home now. No such banishment for Reid, however, because Obama 'knows what is in Reid's heart.'
Measures similar to that signed into law by Indiana Gov. Mike Pence this week are already in place at the federal level and in some 30 states. The law covers a relatively complex issue—setting a legal framework for those who claim a government rule or requirement is hampering their exercise of religion. (Wall Street Journal, 3/29/2015)
The Gay Mafia along with its Liberal enablers are apoplectic about a new Indiana law.
Which is exceedingly complex to understand, never mind explain.
Which mirrors federal law.
And state law in thirty states.
It does not matter, however, because any opportunity to cry "homophobe!" is an opportunity not to be missed.
One of Silicon Valley’s most famous venture capital firms prevailed on Friday over a former partner in a closely watched suit claiming gender discrimination, but hardly got away unscathed. The plaintiff, Ellen Pao, had accused the firm, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, of discriminating against her in the course of her employment and eventual dismissal.
After the jurors rejected each of her four claims, they were found to be one vote short on a claim about her termination. For two hours, doubt reigned, the media unspooled possible outcomes and the jury went back to work. In the end, the problem seemed more juror confusion than anything else, and the claim went down with the others. (New York Times, 3/28/2015)
We have absolutely no idea whether Ellen Pao's lawsuit against Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers had any merit. We don't know if either party is good or bad. What amazes us, however, is the way in which the New York Times and feminists can claim that the case 'prompts a debate' and 'sends a powerful signal.'
How exactly? She lost.
On every single count.
What does failure look like?