June 8, 2017

Bold Prediction - Trump hasn't yet done the thing for which he will be impeached

I'm willing to bet that boy has deeper levels of stupid than we've seen thus far.

June 5, 2017

Ghost Ship: authorities arrest two in deadly fire that killed 36

Source: SFGate

Two proprietors of the Ghost Ship warehouse in Oakland where 36 people died in a fire in December were arrested Monday morning and face criminal charges related to the deadly blaze, a source familiar with the investigation told The Chronicle.

Master tenant Derick Almena and the art space’s creative director Max Harris were arrested in counties outside the Bay Area on suspicion of 36 counts of involuntary manslaughter, the source said.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ghost-Ship-authorities-arrest-two-in-deadly-fire-11196787.php

May 26, 2017

I got it! - Trump's Plan To Get Mexico To Pay for the Wall

I think I have this figured out... it just hit me...

Step 1 -

First, he tells them, "Okay, look, we'll keep NAFTA, but you gotta do one thing." He tells them that he'll authorize bonds, exclusive high interest bonds, just to Mexico, to finance the wall. These bonds are so good, let me tell you. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States just like Treasury bonds, but much, much better terms. Higher rates, earlier maturation, you name it. These are GREAT bonds. And look, he can say, "You don't even have to like me, and you might think I'll be impeached or whatever. You don't have to like me. These bonds, once they are issued by the US Treasury are Constitutionally guaranteed. Now, they can throw me out the very next week, but you'll have these bonds, and no matter what, the US Treasury HAS to honor them, no matter what. And, look, maybe we'll be the next Argentina, but the court is still going to order these bonds be paid."

Step 2 -

The Mexican say, yeah, well, the guy's a complete asshole, but he's right about these bonds. So Mexico gathers every cent they can muster, and then they offer subsidiary deals to attract foreign capital, so they can monetize the difference between their exclusive deal on these bonds and whatever they offer other investors.

They get the money together and finance the biggest, bestest, most beautiful wall in the world. Believe me. Everyone will love it, and say, "What a wonderful, beautiful wall."

Step 3 -

The minute the last piece of that wall is finished, we default on the bonds. Zip, zilch, zero, nuthin. We don't pay 'em. The Mexicans get squeezed by their creditors in turn and, hey, maybe we make a deal for pennies on the dollar with them.

But otherwise, fuck it. We don't pay it. And they can't touch us because WE GOT A WALL, AND THEY PAID FOR IT!!!!

------

Think about it. This is how he built damn near everything else.

May 25, 2017

Does the GOP health bill eliminate the Death Panels?

And, if not, why not?

As I recall, they particularly disliked the Death Panels, but I haven't heard anything about getting rid of them.

Someone should ask them "Which section of the bill eliminates the Death Panels?"

And if they don't have an answer, ask them why they aren't getting rid of them.

May 24, 2017

In what other sport would this be a key moment?

Tom Dumolin's lead in the Giro d'Italia went from more than two minutes to 31 seconds over Nairo Quintana on yesterday's queen stage of the Giro....

May 23, 2017

"Terrorism Is Mass Murder With A Media Strategy"

Good piece from Buzzfeed:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/zeyneptufekci/dont-let-isis-shape-the-news

"ISIS has a media strategy, and unfortunately, it is aimed exactly at generating this type of coverage. In fact, this media strategy is instinctively shared with other sensational mass killers — school shooters, white-supremacist terrorists, and others. They crave the distorted infamy they hope they will get after their death; they carefully prepare manifestos they hope will be published; they record videos they hope will be played on loop on cable TV.

....

We don’t have to do this. We can give such news incidents the coverage they deserve, somber and proportional, while respecting and embracing the victims. We have examples of such media restraint: In the '80s, the world went through suicide clusters that spread via mass media. In the aftermath, the CDC developed sensible guidelines for media coverage of especially young suicides: Don’t romanticize it; don’t say they are now in a better place; emphasize that help is available and describe how; do not describe the method of suicide (practical ideation increases the odds of re-creation); do not create overexposure. Media followed these sensible guidelines, and indeed dampened the suicide contagion.

We can and should do this for terrorism and mass shootings. The guidelines won't be the same, but the outlines are clear. Don't go into loop mode. Mention names of killers sparingly. Avoid their photos, manifestos, and coverage they left behind for us except in brief mentions. Don't overreact. Report news when there is news. Don't retraumatize victims.

...

There is a better way: Let’s kick off the murderers from the producer seat. Let’s deprive them of our attention on their terms. Let’s embrace the victims, and their families, across the globe, not just here but also over there. Don’t splash the names and faces of the killers on TV; don’t repeat their manifestos on loop. Each death is horrible, but that isn’t a reason to exaggerate the power or the reach of the killers."

May 18, 2017

Clients Who Follow Instructions Poorly

Any lawyer will appreciate the problems of counseling a client on what, if any, statements to make.


"Okay, now, look, they might turn up evidence of collusion between your campaign and the Russians. So, in order to be able to act surprised and betrayed later on if that evidence turns up, I want you to make sure that any denials you make on the subject of collusion are just about yourself. You need to isolate yourself from anyone in the campaign for whom there is evidence of collusion Be sure to say that you didn't collude with the Russians, but don't take the rap for anyone else. You got that?"

"Sure."

...............

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/us/politics/trump-fbi-mueller-rosenstein.html

“The entire thing has been a witch hunt,” Mr. Trump said. “There’s no collusion between, certainly, myself and my campaign — but I can only speak for myself — and the Russians — zero.”

May 18, 2017

HOLD THE PRESSES! Karl Rove says there may be numbers in Ohio keeping Roger Ailes alive!

Someone send Megyn Kelly to check in the morgue.

May 18, 2017

They are running THIS on a continuous loop on Fox

&t=29s

May 18, 2017

The "Jeane Dixon Effect"

Jeane Dixon is popularly known as the psychic who "predicted the assassination of JFK", and is probably the best known demonstration of what is known as "confirmation bias".



If you want to do well in the prediction business, you do the following:

1. Make a lot of predictions
2. Promote the ones that "came true" or ones for which you can shoehorn the facts into it "sorta, kinda" happened.
3. Make sure your predictions contain enough "slop" in them that you can more easily do #2.

This has been the stock in trade for psychics and soothsayers for a long time.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeane_Dixon#The_Jeane_Dixon_effect

John Allen Paulos, a mathematician at Temple University, coined the term 'the Jeane Dixon effect', which references a tendency to promote a few correct predictions while ignoring a larger number of incorrect predictions. Many of Dixon's predictions proved erroneous, such as her claims that a dispute over the offshore Chinese islands of Quemoy and Matsu would trigger the start of World War III in 1958, that American labor leader Walter Reuther would run for President of the United States in the 1964 presidential election, that the second child of Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and his young wife Margaret would be a girl (it was a boy), and that the Russians would be the first to put men on the moon.

---

Demonstrating that someone "is really good at predicting stuff" is not done by rattling off a list of predictions which came true, or which are too vague to have "come true" or not.