The News Thread

[HamburgerBoy]

Digging into everyone's past.

There's no hard evidence either way. I'll ask again: why is the default to disregard the accusation altogether rather than refrain from nominating a highly questionable candidate? It's not like there aren't other conservative asshats to choose from.

Whose past did I advocate digging into?

The default isn't to disregard the accusation, the default is to allow the accuser to make their case and call in whichever witnesses they desire to. Then, once that is done, the accused may respond to the accuser and call upon any witnesses of their own. Then, when all is said and done, the senate can decide which case they find more believable (though I obviously acknowledge that it's a highly partisan issue and that the accusations themselves are secondary to the main purpose of confirming/rejecting a deeply-entrenched conservative Republican judge). Your default is to accept any accusation without allowing the accused to make their case, which is a problem for Republicans that don't want to become easily-manipulated pussies every time someone cries rape.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I wonder what specific international laws would be violated, triggering outside military intervention, if the American government starts violently oppressing its citizens to the point that an armed revolt happens.

Probably next to none, at least for the forseeable future. We are international law, we don't give much of a fuck about other countries' opinions as Iraq proved. Maybe in 100 years China will be powerful enough to make some kind of move if they wanted to, though by that point I don't see why they'd care.

 

[CiG]

I'll ask again: why is the default to disregard the accusation altogether rather than refrain from nominating a highly questionable candidate? It's not like there aren't other conservative asshats to choose from.

Wouldn't this just open up the door to an easy way for opponents to disqualify future candidates with accusations?

 

[viewerfromnihil]

lmao wrong. Many left-wing groups practice open carry at rallies. The ignorance of the right-wing is that they think the whole left-wing want to get rid of muh guns, they've clearly never met hardcore socialists and communists who also own many guns.

Dude, you are so fucking out of touch. Have you ever even been to anywhere open-carry? Many is a really fucking huge stretch, and there's no realistic contrast between the number of armed left-wing militants in the United States and armed right-wing militants. I've interacted with plenty of socialists. Most of them don't even want the cops to have guns, let alone themselves. Meanwhile the right literally brings armed militias to protests.

 

[CiG]

I didn't say they were representative of the whole left you twat, I was simply debunking your claim that the most the left has is a tear gas canister. That is out of touch, you Women's March attending pussy.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Kavanaugh and our Rotting Ruling Class; or, "no means yes; yes means anal"

For those who seem to mistake academic proponents of the humanities with the elites. Goldberg did a nice little summary here of much of what's wrong with Kavanaugh, but there's one nugget that just came out not mentioned. "Renate Alumni:" how he and 13 other football players at his prep school partly designated themselves. Renate Schroeder Dolphin was a friend from the local girls school who signed the letter of 64 women pledging Kavanaugh's honor. She didn't know about the jock joke before she signed--though I don't think it's ever a good sign if you have to find women to track down to sign a letter pledging that you're not a rapist.

Unfortunately, I doubt anything will stop him from becoming Justice Frat Boy.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

fwiw the virgin defense thing makes me think he really was a sexual predator now. I could believe that he was a womanizer and partier and still never raped/molested anyone, but trying to play the saint with that yearbook seems impossible. Combined with the fact that both instances describe Kavanaugh as being egged-on, it only makes more sense. I hope he gets grilled on every single sentence of it during the hearings, should be hilarious no matter what happens.

The insinuation in the NYT article that this is exclusively an Ivy League/rich kid thing is dumb though. Obviously those are the kids most shielded from their actions, but any decent high school will have its share of privileged athletes and rich kids protected from consequences. The not-so-decent high schools will be filled with rape regardless. The real problem is that children lack the rights of adults. If an 18 year old rapist tries to attack an 18 year old on the street, no one cries if the rapist gets shot by the victim. Yet a 14 year old isn't allowed to bring a gun into a gym room full of 14 year old rapists and other sexual predators, because then it's magically murder. Just look at the California case of that high school tranny faggot sexual harasser that got its head ventilated by the victim. After the first jury was split they called a mistrial, retried him when he could no longer afford attorney costs, and sentenced the victim to 20 years in prison. The problem is that people don't have a right to defend their bodies or their reputations, and no politician really wants that. It's cheaper to just let some football rapist's parents pay a six-figure settlement to the victim and let the rapist go on to become a doctor or CEO or whatever.

 

[CiG]

"God damn white people and their laws against looting." - TYT

 

[The Ozzman]

Those people are a cancer on society

 

[Einherjar86]

while I'm certainly aware that athletes are given more leeway to rape than non-athletes, that's hardly damning evidence and we may as well dig into the pasts of every single politician that was ever a high school or college athlete and known to attend parties.

I don't think it's necessary unless an accuser comes forward. Or accusers.

What isn't necessary?

Digging into everyone's past.

Whose past did I advocate digging into?

Third base!

The default isn't to disregard the accusation, the default is to allow the accuser to make their case and call in whichever witnesses they desire to. Then, once that is done, the accused may respond to the accuser and call upon any witnesses of their own. Then, when all is said and done, the senate can decide which case they find more believable (though I obviously acknowledge that it's a highly partisan issue and that the accusations themselves are secondary to the main purpose of confirming/rejecting a deeply-entrenched conservative Republican judge). Your default is to accept any accusation without allowing the accused to make their case, which is a problem for Republicans that don't want to become easily-manipulated pussies every time someone cries rape.

My default is to accept the accusations for what they are: accusations with considerable backing and substantive evidence. Pending any full investigation into the allegations (which of course, may lead to criminal charges), I think it makes the most sense to find another candidate.

You noted the imbalance of power, and the problem with letting each party "make their case" is that ultimately it comes down to belief. In a full criminal investigation, the process would be a lot more detailed. In a criminal court, reasonable doubt keeps someone out of prison (ideally). In this case, however, reasonable doubt doesn't hold the same sway. We're not talking about denying someone their personal liberty, we're talking about awarding someone a high degree of judicial responsibility.

Wouldn't this just open up the door to an easy way for opponents to disqualify future candidates with accusations?

I'll say it again, I don't think so. There's more to this than mere accusations, there are multiple accusations that have support from various parties. Making an accusation like that also invites the worst kind of publicity, and I don't think we'll just see people making random accusations because they don't like someone.

I'm not denying that people make false accusations. I'm denying the frequency with which it happens, and the facility with which someone might do it.

 

[Dak]

Very good--so let me ask this: Why should we default to "Well, there's not enough proof either way, so we might as well move ahead with the nomination" rather than "Well, there's not enough proof either way, so we might as well find someone else"?

Why is our default to proceed as though nothing happened?

The alternative being that Bill Clinton should be... what, locked away?

Again, I'm not saying there's proof to imprison Kavanaugh.
It is possible to be a decent human being and still get drunk. The problem here is that Kavanaugh is quite clearly not a decent human being.
...Yes. Yes, you should--particularly when it's fitness to the "highest court in the land."

Because of the perverse incentives for "believing". I'm not going to pull in every other quote along these lines, but you seem to think because society was somewhat punitive before towards rape or sexual assault victims, that's the case now, and that the "bad publicity" that goes along with a public accusation renders the likelihood of a false allegation small. I emphatically disagree within the current context. In 10 seconds I could pull up 10 headlines about how "brave" Ford is, and about how we must simply "believe". No one cares that McConnell says she misremembered or whatever, and that's hardly "bad publicity". The incentives are recently but still currently structured to provide a "15 minutes of fame" for "brave souls" standing up to perpetrators.....which is great, if said things happened. It's amazing to watch people play/be cast as a martyr while simultaneously being praised from every major platform. The "intellectual dark web" figures making martyr-like claims have been dismissed for such based on far less mainstream praise.

You're already convinced that Kavanaugh is not "a decent human being" because of what? I'm not saying he is, and I think he is grades below Gorsuch based on legal opinions, but it's pretty obvious on both sides of the aisle being a "decent human being" has never been part of the criteria for elected or unelected offices. Suddenly now it is, and decades old uncorroborated accusations are enough to determine "decency".

If Bill and Hillary could get locked away that would be some justice served (for different reasons of course).

It's not a decline of democracy. Democracy worked just fine. (see this blog, second paragraph)

We haven't declined into anything; this is just a resurgence of the same old American greatness. It's been around for centuries.

Well that might be your perspective, but it's not what is getting trumpeted from "liberal intellectuals", the NYT, The WaPo, etc.

 

[Einherjar86]

Because of the perverse incentives for "believing".

You find them perverse. You do. That's not an argument against them, that's your perspective. I think it's pretty perverse that you find them so perverse.

I'm not going to pull in every other quote along these lines, but you seem to think because society was somewhat punitive before towards rape or sexual assault victims, that's the case now, and that the "bad publicity" that goes along with a public accusation renders the likelihood of a false allegation small. I emphatically disagree within the current context. In 10 seconds I could pull up 10 headlines about how "brave" Ford is, and about how we must simply "believe". No one cares that McConnell says she misremembered or whatever, and that's hardly "bad publicity". The incentives are recently but still currently structured to provide a "15 minutes of fame" for "brave souls" standing up to perpetrators.....which is great, if said things happened. It's amazing to watch people play/be cast as a martyr while simultaneously being praised from every major platform. The "intellectual dark web" figures making martyr-like claims have been dismissed for such based on far less mainstream praise.

Somewhat punitive? That's rich.

I don't believe that because that was the case in the past it's also the case now. If anything, I'd say we're actually hearing (or trying to hear) accusers, and that's a good thing. By "bad publicity" I mean the kind that gets you stalked, gets you death threats, gets your family death threats, etc. Ford has already expressed these concerns and they're not unfounded.

It strikes me that your argument has less to do with the quality and veracity of Ford's claims than it does with the social incentivizing of belief. At best, this is inconsistent because it exacts retribution on a particular case due to the public response said case elicits. At worst, it's willful ignorance toward how incentivization is a specific reaction toward a historically substantiated climate of character assassination exacted on those who make sexual harassment/assault allegations.

You're already convinced that Kavanaugh is not "a decent human being" because of what? I'm not saying he is, and I think he is grades below Gorsuch based on legal opinions, but it's pretty obvious on both sides of the aisle being a "decent human being" has never been part of the criteria for elected or unelected offices. Suddenly now it is, and decades old uncorroborated accusations are enough to determine "decency".

For starters, he doesn't think it's possible to sexually assault someone unless you have intercourse with them. It's just another in a long line of idiotic objections to sexual assault accusations based on reprehensible attempts at definition. So not only is the guy pretty clearly a prick, I also have no faith in his ability to render judgment on legal matters.

 

[Dak]

You find them perverse. You do. That's not an argument against them, that's your perspective. I think it's pretty perverse that you find them so perverse.

Somewhat punitive? That's rich.

I don't believe that because that was the case in the past it's also the case now. If anything, I'd say we're actually hearing (or trying to hear) accusers, and that's a good thing. By "bad publicity" I mean the kind that gets you stalked, gets you death threats, gets your family death threats, etc. Ford has already expressed these concerns and they're not unfounded.

It strikes me that your argument has less to do with the quality and veracity of Ford's claims than it does with the social incentivizing of belief. At best, this is inconsistent because it exacts retribution on a particular case due to the public response said case elicits. At worst, it's willful ignorance toward how incentivization is a specific reaction toward a historically substantiated climate of character assassination exacted on those who make sexual harassment/assault allegations.

Anything can get someone death threats in the social media environment of today, even random tweets. You don't find it perverse because you don't believe you'll ever find yourself at risk. Pretty narrow view of the systemic risk. Probably wouldn't have a problem with the Salem Witch hunts either.....of course, it was focused on manufacturing claims against women so then obviously it's problematic. Let's look at the incentivizing:

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...stine-blasey-ford-brave-woman-brett-kavanaugh
https://flnow.org/christine-blasey-...us-kavanaugh-needs-to-step-aside-immediately/
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/i-believe-christine-ford
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/opin...ey-ford-anita-hill-eleanor-mcmanus/index.html
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article218743540.html
https://nwlc.org/blog/thank-you-christine-balsey-ford-heres-what-we-all-owe-it-to-her-to-do/
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/09/24/hundreds-attend-vigil-for-christine-blasey-ford

Man, imagine dollar signs and swelling egos in the mind's eye of pussyhatters everywhere.

For starters, he doesn't think it's possible to sexually assault someone unless you have intercourse with them. It's just another in a long line of idiotic objections to sexual assault accusations based on reprehensible attempts at definition. So not only is the guy pretty clearly a prick, I also have no faith in his ability to render judgment on legal matters.

I'd like to see a quote about this. I keep raging liberal sites like Daily Kos in my RSS and I would think I would have seen this getting trumpeted.

In other news about conflicts of interest for Ford:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...ord-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-palo-13236825.php

Outside of academia, she does consulting for pharmaceutical firms, helping design clinical trials. According to her faculty biography in a course catalog, she worked as director of biostatistics for Corcept Therapeutics in Menlo Park.

Wonder what Corcept makes?
http://www.corcept.com/products.html

https://www.drugs.com/monograph/mifepristone.html

Uses for Mifepristone
Termination of Pregnancy
Termination of intrauterine pregnancy through 49 days of gestation, dated from first day of last menstrual period or determined by clinical examination or ultrasonographic scan.1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 19 20 21 22 23 27 Two days after mifepristone, misoprostol must be administered to induce uterine contraction unless complete abortion has been confirmed.1 11 27

Has been used with vaginal† administration of misoprostol for termination of pregnancy;2 10 11 27 however, such use very rarely has resulted in fatal bacterial infection and sepsis.1 33 37 38 39 (See Infection and Sepsis under Cautions.)

So you have a funding source for Blasey tied to drug-based abortions while they try to find other applications for usage. No conflict there.

 

[Einherjar86]

Anything can get someone death threats in the social media environment of today, even random tweets. You don't find it perverse because you don't believe you'll ever find yourself at risk. Pretty narrow view of the systemic risk.

Mmmm, no. You don't grasp the notion of systemic risk. Rare, singular examples of women lobbing accusations isn't systemic. Systemic risk actually describes the majority of women's positions in the social sphere, at least until twenty years ago or so.

Let's look at the incentivizing:

https://www.gofundme.com/help-christine-blasey-ford
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...stine-blasey-ford-brave-woman-brett-kavanaugh
https://flnow.org/christine-blasey-...us-kavanaugh-needs-to-step-aside-immediately/
https://www.theodysseyonline.com/i-believe-christine-ford
https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/18/opin...ey-ford-anita-hill-eleanor-mcmanus/index.html
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/article218743540.html
https://nwlc.org/blog/thank-you-christine-balsey-ford-heres-what-we-all-owe-it-to-her-to-do/

Man, imagine dollar signs and swelling egos in the mind's eye of pussyhatters everywhere.

It's funny/not-funny how you perceive these examples as the dominant mode of discourse when in fact every single one of these is an attempt to secure Ford's position against a set of social institutions (read: systemic risk) that would shut her down without this kind of support.

Gotta protect your right to be a bro.

I'd like to see a quote about this. I keep raging liberal sites like Daily Kos in my RSS and I would think I would have seen this getting trumpeted.

“We’re talking about allegations of sexual assault. I have never sexually assaulted anyone,” Kavanagh said. “I did not have sexual intercourse, or anything close to sexual intercourse, in high school or many years thereafter.”

When pushed further on the topic, Kavanaugh confirmed he was a virgin all through high school and for “many years, many years after, I’ll leave it at that, many years.”

That's from Vice. He's implying that he couldn't have committed sexual assault because he was a virgin.

other news about conflicts of interest for Ford:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea...ord-brett-kavanaugh-accuser-palo-13236825.php

Wonder what Corcept makes?
http://www.corcept.com/products.html

https://www.drugs.com/monograph/mifepristone.html

So you have a funding source for Blasey tied to drug-based abortions while they try to find other applications for usage. No conflict there.

Get the fuck out of here dude.

Ford worked as director of biostatistics for Corcept Therapeutics, a California pharmaceutical start-up, from 2006 to 2012, according to an archive of her since-deleted LinkedIn page. Corcept published six papers under her name.

But claiming that Corcept sells an abortion pill is like saying a road salt company sells food seasoning.

The company sells Korlym to treat Cushing's syndrome, a rare, deadly condition characterized by high cortisol levels. Korlym’s main ingredient, mifepristone, blocks the effect of cortisol.

That ingredient has another use.

Just like it blocks cortisol, mifepristone blocks progesterone, which is crucial to the development of a pregnancy. In a medication-induced abortion, mifepristone is administered first and another drug, misoprostol, follows. That empties the uterus by causing cramping and bleeding.

The latter drug, misoprostol, can and is used alone for abortions. However, the combination of both drugs is typically used for greater effectiveness and fewer side effects.

Mifepristone, on the other hand, is not administered alone to induce abortions. In some other countries, it is used alone as emergency contraception, according to Clare Flannery, a professor of endocrinology and reproductive sciences at Yale University. That’s not an abortifacient, according to Flannery, because it plays a role before the sperm and egg implant in the uterus. (Pregnancy occurs after implantation.)

In order to induce an abortion in the United States, a low dose of mifepristone is used only once in combination with misoprostol. Korlym patients take up to four times that dose of mifepristone daily for months or even years.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...istine-blasey-ford-isnt-linked-abortion-pill/

 

[Dak]

Mmmm, no. You don't grasp the notion of systemic risk. Rare, singular examples of women lobbing accusations isn't systemic. Systemic risk actually describes the majority of women's positions in the social sphere, at least until twenty years ago or so.

It's funny/not-funny how you perceive these examples as the dominant mode of discourse when in fact every single one of these is an attempt to secure Ford's position against a set of social institutions (read: systemic risk) that would shut her down without this kind of support.

Gotta protect your right to be a bro.

That's from Vice. He's implying that he couldn't have committed sexual assault because he was a virgin.

or anything close to sexual intercourse,

Guess you skimmed right over that. It's a categorical denial. What's the systemic risk to Ford? That Kavanaugh is confirmed anyway? The police aren't coming for her. Her job isn't in jeopardy. Her friends aren't leaving her. Anyone attempting to smear her has 500 pieces written about why they are shitty people.

Get the fuck out of here dude.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...istine-blasey-ford-isnt-linked-abortion-pill/

Lol. Good ol politifact. Corcept was founded in 1998. Mifepristone was approved for early termination in 2000. Application for Cushing's syndrome wasn't approved until 2012. Blasey-Ford was instrumental in helping with that approval. I can't find confirmatory evidence at the moment, but the odds that Corcept was subsisting on investors only from 2000-2012 rather than making sales of it for its FDA approved usage while trying to expand uses are slim, especially since there is only one other manufacturer as well (Danco). Danco's website says it's had more than 3 million customers, so while not the moneymaker that the Cushing syndrome use might be (which is why push for more applications), it's not peanuts (although probably much less than it used to be since it's been around long enough for generics). It's also approved for up to 10 weeks after pregnancy, not simply prevention. In short, while an over-turn of Roe v Wade (with whatever small chance of that there would be) likely wouldn't have an immediate impact on Blasey-Ford's bank account , the facts are not "pants on fire" status, and the connection when the biggest hysteria about Kavanaugh was the overturn of Roe v Wade is beyond chance.

 

[Einherjar86]

Guess you skimmed right over that. It's a categorical denial. What's the systemic risk to Ford? That Kavanaugh is confirmed anyway? The police aren't coming for her. Her job isn't in jeopardy. Her friends aren't leaving her. Anyone attempting to smear her has 500 pieces written about why they are shitty people.

I didn’t, you just think that somehow erases the fact that he implies sexual intercourse is a necessary prerequisite of sexual assault.

Lol. Good ol politifact. Corcept was founded in 1998. Mifepristone was approved for early termination in 2000. Application for Cushing's syndrome wasn't approved until 2012. Blasey-Ford was instrumental in helping with that approval. I can't find confirmatory evidence at the moment, but the odds that Corcept was subsisting on investors only from 2000-2012 rather than making sales of it for its FDA approved usage while trying to expand uses are slim, especially since there is only one other manufacturer as well (Danco). Danco's website says it's had more than 3 million customers, so while not the moneymaker that the Cushing syndrome use might be (which is why push for more applications), it's not peanuts (although probably much less than it used to be since it's been around long enough for generics). It's also approved for up to 10 weeks after pregnancy, not simply prevention. In short, while an over-turn of Roe v Wade (with whatever small chance of that there would be) likely wouldn't have an immediate impact on Blasey-Ford's bank account , the facts are not "pants on fire" status, and the connection when the biggest hysteria about Kavanaugh was the overturn of Roe v Wade is beyond chance.

Lol, good ol batshit.

 

[Dak]

I didn’t, you just think that somehow erases the fact that he implies sexual intercourse is a necessary prerequisite of sexual assault.

"I didn't engage in sexual intercourse or anything close to it". You're fishing hard.

Lol, good ol batshit.

Which is what you think this is here (fishing). I guess you have a better explanation of how Corcept was funded from 1998-2012, including during the Great Recession no less. It's possible it was all done with zero sales, but Politifact didn't answer that question, or even bring it up. FDA approvals for drugs are incredibly expensive research projects and administrative processes. Blasey-Ford's time wasn't free. Some deep pockets somewhere to fund that for 14 years in the absence of drug sales for an approved application.

 

[CiG]

By "bad publicity" I mean the kind that gets you stalked, gets you death threats, gets your family death threats, etc. Ford has already expressed these concerns and they're not unfounded.

More boomers acting like online threats aren't just what happens to everyone every day over any old bullshit. So sick of the "muh death threats" narrative with these fucking people. Someone sent me multiple death threats just the other day because I was shit talking a Men's Rights Activist on Youtube and his fans got buttrammed.

Fuck outta here with that. Anybody who acts like online death threats are a "women's issue" is a fucking douche.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I haven't looked too much into this Corcept thing but I don't understand the conspiracy.

Smaller pharma companies find private investment quite frequently; while there is a lot of risk in a totally new start-up, Corcept was working with a drug that was already approved by the FDA, they apparently just use a somewhat higher dose and for a different treatment. Anecdotally, my advisor's post-doctoral advisor founded a pharma start-up for a completely new drug with a completely new mechanism of action, and despite the higher risk still managed to secure 9 figures of private investment prior to clinical approval. Drugs can be an extremely lucrative source of private investment because the government grants monopolies to the victors. Just looking at the Wikipedia article on Corcept, they charge substantially more than Danco does for the exact same drug. This is why Warren Buffet infamously only buys companies that provide him a monopoly.

I don't understand what Ford's employment has to do with anything. So she worked there from 2006-2012 as a statistician, beginning 8 years after Corcept's founding and 6 years after the drug was initially approved for abortion. It sounds like she was ultimately an employee rather than someone that was absolutely critical to the drug's development and success. She's listed as an author on six pages on the company site, though four of the six are for an unrelated drug, and for its effects on weight loss/gain. She probably was given some CORT stock options, which she may or may not still hold. How does any of that feed into abortion? From what I can find online, their monopoly on the drug's use to treat the rare disease ends next year; THAT'S the kind of thing CORT-holders are going to be concerned about, not whether or not an abortion ban will effect anything. In fact, if anything a ban of the drug for use in abortions should excite investors because it means Danco presumably changes business/shuts down and Corcept remains the sole producer of the drug in the USA.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

I sometimes find myself wondering how Dak gets some of his weird views, despite being an otherwise intelligent, educated, and critical-thinking type of guy, and then I remember he's still a conspiracy theorist at heart.