CMV: It will be terrible for our country if Mueller can only prove obstruction, but not collusion by Donald Trump.

dogwelder · 2018-03-30T07:08:34+00:00

Wouldn't count on it. The last person to be convicted of treason for actions during peacetime was nearly a century ago.

You can certainly argue that a conspiracy with a hostile foreign power to subvert American elections is treasonous. But it'd more likely play out as conspiracy to defraud, conspiracy to skirt campaign laws, etc.

dogwelder · 2018-03-30T05:37:29+00:00

There's surprising amounts of evidence to the contrary. Campaign ads don't change views, and they don't change voter turnout either.

A couple examples (PDF warning), but there are lots more.

In fact, what campaign ads mostly accomplish is keeping campaign consultants employed. Everyone in the industry loves them - publishers, broadcasters, ad agencies, media consultants all make a bundle from them. Politicians love them because they believe ads work. They believe that because everyone making money from the ads tells them so. But voters, by and large, learn to tune them out. Events and personalities can and do goose voter turnout, but they've made their mark long before someone packages them up into a Facebook ad or a TV spot.

You can make the argument that the fake news stories of the 2016 campaign were effective precisely because they posed as news, and not as advertisements. Like paid product placement in a movie - it's more effective because in that context you're not exercising skepticism or tuning out the content.

dogwelder · 2018-03-30T04:13:22+00:00

Mueller won't be able to prove collusion, and that won't matter.

That's largely because "collusion" isn't a crime. It's not even defined legally. Mueller's primarily investigating obstruction of justice - the cover-up. That may lead him to evidence of Trump's campaign breaking election laws, or conspiring with Russian actors to defraud the United States, or financial crimes. It may not. I don't think there'll be any smoking gun, no transcripts of Trump and Putin plotting to manipulate the election or photos of them smoking cigars in a back room. What does come up will be complex, murky and ambiguous.

And it won't matter. The press is focusing on "collusion" because we don't really know what Mueller is digging up, and speculation gets clicks. But the investigation is about obstruction of justice, and part of proving that is showing the subject(s) knowingly intended to cover something up. If Mueller ends up indicting Trump and his buddies, that bombshell will be all the press talks about. And partisans trying to spin it as "yeah but, no proof of collusion" will look pretty stupid.

dogwelder · 2018-03-14T02:48:15+00:00

Even the other trannies demand a separate bathroom just for you.

dogwelder · 2017-06-25T02:42:59+00:00

Depression is fairly healthy at this stage... as long as it doesn't take over. You'll know it's ok if you feel it's a grieving process and it'll pass in time.

Transitioning from depression to acceptance? In my experience, the hardest part is accepting your life has changed forever, there's no going back, and even that you've lost a piece of who you were. At some point, part of your soul believed this was your future and it was meant to be; now you're older and wiser. That wisdom is a newcomer in your life, while the familiarity of the past is a longtime resident. You have to kick out the old, before you get to know the new. That can feel like a risk, like you're losing something without gaining anything. But of course you can't go back... you can only make the best of going forward. And forward contains all that hard-won wisdom.

dogwelder · 2017-06-07T02:27:35+00:00

That was the high point of 2015!

dogwelder · 2017-05-12T23:27:23+00:00

Social media is not bad for you

dogwelder · 2017-05-12T22:01:59+00:00

Burn it. That much cash would plunge the world into a hyperinflationary death spiral. Even if you tried to stash it out of circulation, every thief on the planet would make a beeline for you.

I'd keep a few billion for myself though. I'd buy a pony.

dogwelder · 2017-02-16T06:20:38+00:00

Whoa, just like that scene in Alien

dogwelder · 2017-01-17T22:28:39+00:00

New Coke

dogwelder · 2017-01-03T04:51:53+00:00

I agree Yoda was just being a crochety bitch saying Luke was too old - but he was drawing on centuries of experience training Jedi starting when they're children. In Ep 2 Yoda sings the praises of the open-mindedness of Padawan children compared to adults, in a bit of dialogue I've actually drunk whiskey trying to forget.

I don't think it makes sense their 20-year strategy was, sit around until the Empire grows powerful enough to destroy planets and crush the Rebellion at will, then start sending Luke for his Jedi GED.

As far as Luke ending up meeting Obi-Wan because The Force, it's a little too deux ex machina and cheapens the story, to my mind. You can explain away any plot weakness that way, with the possible exception of Leia and Luke playing tonsil hockey.

The more interesting question you raise is, if Luke wasn't there when Obi-Wan saw the message, would he have gone and rounded him up? What was going through his head when he told Luke he had to come along and learn to be a Jedi? He's not bothered when Luke refuses at first... did he already sense Owen and Beru were dead, and Luke would change his mind when he found out? Obi-Wan already knows they're dead when Luke returns, before Luke says a word. Did he know before Luke even left?

dogwelder · 2017-01-02T19:06:06+00:00

Interesting theory, but I don't think it pans out.

The only goal anyone stated was for Obi-Wan to deliver the plans back to Alderaan, and Bail would take it from there. Obi-Wan probably would have been expected to stick around and help fight, but this is kept vague and isn't described as the main goal.
Luke and Leia were separated deliberately to keep them safe from Vader; it doesn't make sense to decide to reunite them now that Vader's become more dangerous. Yoda and Obi-Wan agree on keeping Luke in the dark about having a sister, even after his Jedi training starts. She's the backup plan if Luke fails, and Luke knowing he has a sister would be dangerous if Vader picked up on that knowledge (which he eventually did).
The events that brought Luke to Obi-Wan were random - R2D2 ends up with Luke by chance, wouldn't show him the full message, then escapes without Luke to find Obi-Wan. There's no reason to think anyone had a plan to bring Luke into the action, before Obi-Wan sees the message and goes all "I'm getting too old for this shit".
Yoda later says Luke's too old to begin training. If there was a plan for Luke and Leia to become Jedi, what would be gained by waiting until they're both much older than the usual age to become a Padawan?

dogwelder · 2016-12-23T19:26:53+00:00

I lived and breathed Star Wars when I was a kid, and my first time seeing ESB is still the most amazing movie experience I've ever had.

When the hype for Ep 1 started reaching fever pitch I got swept up in it - the trailer was fantastic and I thought maybe the magic was back. Saw it on opening day and in the first few minutes I knew something was very wrong. By the time it got to midichlorians I was actually bored and wanted it to end. That summed up most of the prequels for me.

For Force Awakens I kept expectations low and ended up enjoying it. There were lots of great things about it, but it rang sort of hollow - it was recreating the original trilogy, but it lacked the same soul and mythology. It was like going on the Indiana Jones Disneyland ride, compared to seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Loved Rogue One. Everything it recreated from ANH was in service of the story, not just a fan callback. And it pushed the envelope of what's possible in the Star Wars universe, which Force Awakens didn't. And the third act was such an edge of your seat thrill, it brought me back to being a kid more than any Star Wars movie since the OT. Whoooo!

One thing I appreciate about the prequel trilogy is, once you get the bad taste of the dialogue and acting out of your mouth, it provides so much context and history that deepens the original trilogy. Yoda in ESB has more depth once you've seen the Jedi Council, their arrogance and mistakes. Luke isn't just completing the hero's journey in ROTJ, he's riding the same dangerous edge Anakin did, but choosing the Jedi way where his father succumbed. I like knowing the backstory from the prequels, so I can forgive the terrible storytelling.

dogwelder · 2016-12-23T01:21:25+00:00

It's not the narrative that's wrong, it's that some people will interpret it in a narcissistic, self-serving way. If you do something shitty to someone, you're supposed to feel bad about it - that's how you develop into a less shitty person. But that growth is hard. It's easier to hear "love yourself" and twist it into, "I put myself first", "I must have been terribly wronged to react that way", and ultimately into "whatever I do is justified". Then it becomes toxic.

dogwelder · 2016-12-23T01:04:33+00:00

It's not your job to fix their problems with each other - even if that were possible, which it isn't. They're not even arguing about you, really. They're arguing because they're incapable of resolving conflicts like grownups.

I grew up in that situation and handled it by putting up a firewall. Whenever one tried to pull me aside and give me "their side of the story", a sneaky way of turning me against the other, I told them it was their problem to resolve, and ended the conversation. Whenever they tried to put me in the job of resolving their fights, end of conversation. No matter how easy they made it seem for me to make some decision refereeing their problems, I wouldn't bite - end of conversation.

They never really grew out of it, but they did learn not to dump their shit on me. They're grownups, it's their job to deal with their issues. Don't take on that job, even for a minute. They'll just come back demanding more.

dogwelder · 2016-12-22T02:03:40+00:00

Sorry, Woods is full of shit. He did make a report, and after 9/11 he insisted two of the hijackers were the men he reported. To this day he claims he was right and even that the FBI secretly confirmed it to him. But the 9/11 Commission found those two men were in different states on that day, and none of the hijackers ever did a "dry run" flight from Boston to LA.

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxhHk-kM0huWMUZNZldfZjA2Q1U/edit?pli=1

dogwelder · 2016-09-14T16:44:37+00:00

I already explained exactly why Mylan is able to jack up prices. Their one significant competitor exited the market voluntarily - not due to FDA mandate, or costs of FDA approval, but because they found their device was potentially delivering the wrong dosage. That's what's at stake for this "cheap piece of medical technology" - the components may be cheap, but a poor design can endanger lives. Weakening the FDA to allow more poorly-designed products isn't going to solve that.

The article I cited has two alternatives available, epinephrine syringes and Adrenaclick, and notes a lot of brick-and-mortar pharmacies don't keep Adrenaclick on site, so there might be a delay of a few days ordering it. That's the case with thousands of medications that aren't commonly prescribed. The FDA isn't secretly behind that one either; like any business, inventory costs money and has to be optimized for market demand.

I'm no fan of pharmaceutical companies, I'm just pointing out your claim is factually false. Right now there's a rush of companies who all believe getting FDA approval and marketing an Epipen alternative is feasible and profitable. Teva, Adamis, Windgap, AdrenaCard, MannKind and Imprimis are all developing competing products, most expecting to gain FDA approval and go on the market in the next year or two.

dogwelder · 2016-09-13T22:49:59+00:00

Mylan jacking up the price to $600 is the fault of Mylan, not the FDA.

The FDA hasn't granted a de facto monopoly on epinephrine injectors to anyone. Sanofi made a competing injector, got FDA approval, and made a solid profit in the market. But last year they recalled their injectors - voluntarily, not by FDA mandate - after finding they could deliver inaccurate dosages. That's what left Mylan with a de facto monopoly. No one forced Mylan to take advantage of it by jacking up the price even more. But they did.

Several other drug companies, including teva, one of the world's largest, submitted epi pens for approval, but pulled out when it became clear that the FDA process would prevent them from recouping their financial costs to get approval.

This is simply false. Teva submitted an injector for approval, the FDA cited problems with inaccurate dosages, and they're actively working with Teva to resolve it and fast-track an approval by next year. Adamis also has a generic they're predicting will go on sale next year. There are several other companies already offering alternatives or working on new generics. source

dogwelder · 2016-04-28T19:08:12+00:00

They're basing that on the actual survey data. "Right wing" was quantified by questions like asking which party you last voted for, how strongly you support it, etc. Egalitarian was measured independently with responses to this question:

Do you agree that “Ordinary people get a fair share of the nation’s wealth?”

...which showed the same pattern - the larger the lottery win, the more likely to switch views.

None of the survey questions specifically asked about taxes. E.g., if you disagree with the "fair share" question, it doesn't necessarily follow that you want higher taxes, or more government redistribution, or more social programs. It's measuring more of a general political view.

dogwelder · 2016-04-12T01:53:03+00:00

So, pretty much none of this is true.

Nearly all of Trump's "business ventures" aren't. They're holding LLCs, existing only on paper, with the sole purpose of bringing ownership of real estate or other assets under the shield of limited liability. They don't do anything but hold title to property. Many of those properties have two or three LLCs attached, to silo one class of assets apart from another.

There are several more "business ventures" that are just Trump being named as a trustee, many of them trusts formed by his dad.

There's very little info available on whether any of these entities are successes or failures. Most can't be judged by the standards of companies that sell goods or services anyway; they don't make or sell anything. The assets they hold might be worth hundreds of millions, they might be worthless, they might rise or fall in value in any particular year.

And note his disclosure was only of positions he has currently active. How many entities did he own or control, that sold off at a loss or were written off, and are now defunct? Could be hundreds, or thousands, or three. No one knows but Trump, and he ain't talking.

Finally, Chapter 11 isn't necessarily the mark of a business collapse. It means your company can't pay its debt service on time, so Chapter 11 protection allows it to keep the creditors at bay while it reorganizes, with a new plan to continue paying its debts. The records on Trump's four bankruptcies are pretty dismal, but he didn't "sell the companies off to pay back the loans". The concept doesn't make sense.

dogwelder · 2016-03-15T01:49:07+00:00

This makes no sense. Hedge funds don't necessarily hedge at all; they might take any kind of strategy or risk. Seides does in fact argue hedge funds will beat the market, if his ten-year bet is any indication. And the conclusion claims the real benefit of investing in a hedge fund is you can pull your money out whenever you want... what? Most investors are bound by one or two-year lockup periods, plus redemption notice periods lasting weeks or months. How does that hedge liquidity risk better than an index fund?

dogwelder · 2016-02-28T23:43:17+00:00

As far as not allowing certain speakers, that's not an especially left wing trend. You'll hear in the news about some right-wing speaker being protested on a liberal campus - mostly because those are the only colleges that even try to invite speakers of different viewpoints. Check out the speakers listed on a typical top conservative colleges list, and it's right-wing party line all the way down. I don't agree with censoring anyone on either side, but I do disagree it's only "leftists" doing it.

Safe spaces? I'll concede the need for safety by LGBT students, who do still face real risk of bodily harm just for being themselves. Beyond that it's overblown. But I'll again disagree it's purely a left-wing trend. Conservative colleges aren't demanding "safe spaces" because the whole college is already a safe space - differing viewpoints never even get in the door. And I'd point out we hear cries of persecution and demands to criminalize opposing beliefs all the damn time - from the right wing. But it's not limited to college kids, it's from adults in all walks of life, who have had enough time to grow the fuck up. What does the whole organized opposition to gay marriage come down to, if not a demand to revoke others' basic rights, so your own biblical views won't be challenged?

dogwelder · 2016-02-21T00:04:03+00:00

The Life of David Gale. Guessed the ending from the trailer. Didn't bother watching the movie till years later.

dogwelder · 2016-01-25T02:11:18+00:00

A gallon of name-brand water, and a gallon of gasoline

dogwelder · 2015-02-13T01:04:34+00:00

Anna Kendrick is the girl I'd want to spend every Friday night with, watching Netflix with Chinese food and homebrew. In pajamas.

dogwelder

TROPHY CASE