Martell Spy Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Broadcaster who tossed shoes at George W. Bush running for president of Iraq: Report https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/1/muntadhar-al-zaidi-who-tossed-shoes-at-george-w-bu/ Quote The man who threw his shoes at then-President George W. Bush is running for president of Iraq, BuzzFeed reportedTuesday. Iraqi-born broadcaster Muntadhar al-Zaidi was at a press conference with Mr. Bush and former Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Baghdad in 2008 when he decided to throw his shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 7 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Broadcaster who tossed shoes at George W. Bush running for president of Iraq: Report https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/1/muntadhar-al-zaidi-who-tossed-shoes-at-george-w-bu/ As amusing as that is, why would anyone want to be President of Iraq? It's not a position known for safety or job security. Even if you survive the term, you're not likely to do well in its aftermath, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 24 minutes ago, Martell Spy said: Broadcaster who tossed shoes at George W. Bush running for president of Iraq: Report https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/1/muntadhar-al-zaidi-who-tossed-shoes-at-george-w-bu/ He'd get my vote based off the shoe tossing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonnot OG Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 1 hour ago, LongRider said: The stupid local news is reporting 'Mueller's' questions have been leaked and of course Trumpy is throwing a fit. Theater for goobers. Sinclair broadcasting at work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 27 minutes ago, Mexal said: I don't understand. What do you mean it's more complicated? I don't think it makes it more complicated. Schiller went with a letter giving him authority to take the files away from him. The question is was the correct HIPPA form attached. I haven't seen anything saying a copy of the letter with form was left with the doctor. The thing I don't know and perhaps someone in the US knows is whether or not you can delegate the picking up of records. I don't see why not, but perhaps you're supposed to either get them in person or have them delivered by registered mail? Medical records are very sensitive, which is why there are regulations about how they are supposed to be handled. However, no one on CNN has mentioned that delegation isn't allowed so I am going to guess it is, with proper authorization. It doesn't change the fact that Trump was not entitled to the originals. What Dr. Sanjay Gupta did say on CNN was that New York State clearly specifies patient records must be kept by the doctor for 6 years after the relationship ends, after which the patient can demand the originals. I think the term 'robbed' was an exaggeration, as was his statement 'he felt like he was raped'. Bullied to hand them over, I can believe. I wonder, since a WH lawyer apparently also showed up, if there was some professional misconduct on the lawyer's part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongRider Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 What prompted Dipshit to bully the quack into giving up the records? Has that been mentioned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Arryn Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 23 minutes ago, LongRider said: What prompted Dipshit to bully the quack into giving up the records? Has that been mentioned? Yes, he revealed Trump takes hair loss meds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 42 minutes ago, Triskele said: This was yet another incredible example of the day-to-day nonsense that The Great Ruiner has subjected us to. Presumably, it was because Dr. Bornstein had admitted (quite possibly in a HIPAA violation) that Trump gets prescribed Propecia. This is a fairly remarkable drug that can treat some kinds of prostate issues but also hair loss but also for roughly 1% of patients (including your humble narrator) causes a cascade of ruinous symptoms. Firstly, I also read your post on the Feminism thread, and I am sorry for you that it happened. I wish that things improve for you, as much as is possible, and thank you for having such a compassionate perspective on the issues that you raised. Lots of hugs and warm fuzzies your way. Secondly, I cannot think of any circumstances when a doctor would be ethically cleared to disclose anything about his patients, however mundane it may seem. Agree that Dr Bornstein is utterly wrong to have done that. Similarly, I don't think Trump suffered brain damage from taking drugs. He was always that nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Triskele said: This was yet another incredible example of the day-to-day nonsense that The Great Ruiner has subjected us to. Presumably, it was because Dr. Bornstein had admitted (quite possibly in a HIPAA violation) that Trump gets prescribed Propecia. This is a fairly remarkable drug that can treat some kinds of prostate issues but also hair loss but also for roughly 1% of patients (including your humble narrator) causes a cascade of ruinous symptoms. I'm totally speculating here, but I assume it's because it was both not cool per normal MD-client relations (that is to say that Bornstein fucked up) but also because if you're Trump you don't want it to get out that you're taking this drug for your hair. Propecia also seems to be a neuroendrocrine disruptor, but albeit only for a small number of patients. This is part of its medical mystery (currently being researched at Harvard, Baylor, and U. Milano). So maybe brain damage to some unfortunates though let me stress that even though I hate Trump I am not alleging that he suffered brain damage from the drug and indeed it seems statistically unlikely. So why did they raid his old doctor's place? Remember that Richard Branson said that when he met with Trump for lunch years ago Branson was struck by how Trump was obsessed with destroying people he thought had wronged him. Sounds like Bornstein shouldn't have said stuff about Propecia, and since he did. well... ETA: Ninja'd (sort of) Re the neuro endocrine bit. what if trump behaved like a typical spoiled celeb and demanded more dosage and doctor shopped til he got it. So say if normally someone takes two propecia pills a day and trump took twenty does that have a bigger brain damage potential? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 I can't help but be amazed at the coincidence of Trump taking a drug that can cause feminisation for his hair while the Republican party wages war on trans people. To be clear I'm not suggesting it had any such effect on him, just the political equivalent of 'wow its a small world'. Trisk - I'm really sorry that happened to you, I think I've got a better idea than most of what that would be like and it would be awful. There is another anti-androgen that gets used for blood pressure, I don't think it carries as much risk of a permanent response though. That kind of side effect is really playing with fire, but its integral to the way its treating the hair loss so I get why that's the approach taken. Much more akin to when they're used for prostrate issues than the blood pressure application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukle Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 18 minutes ago, karaddin said: I can't help but be amazed at the coincidence of Trump taking a drug that can cause feminisation for his hair while the Republican party wages war on trans people. To be clear I'm not suggesting it had any such effect on him, just the political equivalent of 'wow its a small world'. Trump seems to be very good at "projection" whereby he accuses others of having the same flaws that he sees in himself. Requiring a drug to increase his "manliness" would go a long way to explaining why he makes such targeted and personal attacks against the manhoods or womanhoods of trans people. His boasting about the size of his sausage to Kim Jon-Un is typcial of an insecure wimp, and also in the same vein of being insecure about his manhood. Even though the links between hand size and penis size are just a joke told in jest, he can't abide having small hands. He actually said as much in the Republican debate. But, of course, the Republican party are racist fools who were happy to finally have someone spout what they always implied, so they didn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karaddin Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 16 minutes ago, Triskele said: Thank so much, karaddin. I would be so curious to hear more about this, although it would simply be a curiosity. I don't think anything will change for me unless the foundation discovers some major paradigm shift and knowing medical science a bit I don't think that's too likely any time soon. Are we in the US politics thread still? Shit, let's talk about how many crimes the POTUS might be guilty of.... Happy to talk more, will PM so its not a huge tangent in here haha. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fragile Bird Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 I believe I heard on CNN this evening that Dr. Borenstein and Trump had a discussion about what he could reveal to the press regarding Trump’s health and he thought he had clearance to talk about what meds he was on. It is perfectly ethical for a doctor to have such a discussion when the client gives their consent. Don’t forget, Trump was a presidential candidate and it is expected and demanded that candidates provide honest medical reports about their health. The fact that Trump dictated to the doctor what would go in the letter released to the press has caused a scandal because the letter was obviously untrustworthy and the public does not know what has been concealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Can I just say that the confirmation that Trump dictated that letter is possibly the least necessary confirmation since it was confirmed that the sun rose this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A True Kaniggit Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 I have a love/hate relationship with HIPAA. Is the protection of patient information important? Yes. Was it fun having people scream at me for not emailing them their records to have on hand for an appointment they had the next day? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Rubio on the Republican tax cuts. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/5/1/17306562/marco-rubio-tax-bill-republican-corporations-stock-buybacks-tax-cut Quote The Republican tax cut bill has found an unlikely critic in its giveaways to big corporations: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). The 2016 Republican presidential candidate — who voted for the legislation in December — is openly doubting it’s actually benefiting American workers and says it is instead resulting in a boost in stock buybacks that benefit shareholders. In fact, he says, there’s “no evidence whatsoever” that American workers are seeing a big tax cut boost. Quote “There is still a lot of thinking on the right that if big corporations are happy, they’re going to take the money they’re saving and reinvest it in American workers,” Rubio said in a recent interview with the Economist. “ Well that’s interesting theory. By passing corporate tax cuts, evidently spontaneous socialism would break out. Not the standard theory in explaining how rising wages are linked to tax cut on capital. But, interesting none the less. Quote Rubio — once a rising star in the GOP who is now struggling to figure out where he fits in — spoke with the Economist about his plan for a “reform conservative movement,” the details of which are unclear. Well, I hope Rubio is ready to have a big fight on his hands, as he’s gonna basically have something comparable to bare knuckle brawl on his hands, as the three legged stool of modern conservatism is going to be hard to break up, which are the media bullshit artist that make big bucks marketing the conservatism, and who ain’t gonna give up that cash cow anytime soon, the Republican Party donors, and the white grievance crowd. And then, the “serious” thinkers of the Republican Party, like the Cochrane’s and the Taylor’s are going to have to rethink the errors of their conservative ways. I wish Rubio well, but lets hope he understand what he is trying to accomplish here. ........................................................... Well conservative sorts of people, I guess that Chamely Judd model you're using might be a bit off, as we should be seeing large orders of capital equipment right about now. But in the real world, where there is uncertainty, corporations act on a shorter planning horizons, and they don’t know precisely what consumers future plans your perfect foresight and long horizon models might be a bit off. And let’s face it conservative sorts of people, estimating discount rates from CAPM or APT or whatever isn’t a real confidence building exercise. You might be more confident in your sales growth numbers. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/opinion/republican-tax-cut-workers.html Quote So how’s it going? Politically, the tax cut is a damp squib: Most voters say they haven’t seen any boost to their paychecks, and Republicans are barely talking about the law in their political campaigns. But what about the economics? You might be tempted to say that it’s too early to tell. After all, the law has been in effect for only a few months, and we got our first look at post-tax-cut economic growth only last week. But here’s the thing: To deliver on its backers’ promises, the tax cut would have to produce a huge surge in business investment — not in the long run, not five or 10 years from now, but more or less right away. And there’s no sign that anything like that is happening. Quote It never made sense to believe that corporations would immediately share their tax-cut bounty with workers, and they haven’t. No outbreaks of spontaneous socialism? Quote In short, the effects of the Trump tax cut are already looking like the effects of the Brownback tax cut in Kansas, the Bush tax cut and every other much-hyped tax cut of the past three decades: big talk, big promises, but no results aside from a swollen budget deficit. Big talk is what the Republican Party specializes in. Quote You might think that the G.O.P. would eventually learn something from this experience, realize that tax cuts aren’t magical, and come up with some different ideas. But I guess it’s difficult for a man to understand something when his campaign contributions depend on his not understanding it. The GOP donor class probably won't let that happen. The only question here is: Have the convinced themselves of their own bullshit, or are they knowingly sellin' bullshit. ................................................................................................ Related: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-05-01/economics-grapples-what-causes-recessions Quote The financial crisis of 2008 and Great Recession taught macroeconomists that they didn’t really understand the sources of recessions. The long, grinding stagnation that followed demonstrated that economies sometimes don’t bounce back as quickly or automatically as most models had assumed: Quote Meanwhile, evidence continues to emerge that some of the basic building blocks of modern business-cycle theories — such as the assumed relationship between consumption and interest rates — are faulty. Yes, the Euler Consumption doesn’t seem to fit the data very well. Corporations issue bonds when they think their investments are going to pay off. And if your delaying your Natural Light purchases, that doesn’t get seen as commitment to buy more tomorrow, unless hay you know you went and bought it under a forward contract. But, I doubt many people are going to go looking for loose change in their couch to by forward contracts for Natty Light. Just my little ol’ humble opinion Anyway. Quote The unwritten rule that macroeconomists should assume perfect rationality on the part of economic agents like consumers and businesses is falling by the wayside. That people have incorrect expectations should have been a standard modeling assumption years ago. And that people often have incorrect expectations or they act on shorter horizons undermines the results in Chamely Judd. ........................................................................................................ Oops! https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/01/trumps-former-health-secretary-americans-will-pay-more-because-gop-weakened-obamacare/ Quote President Trump's former top health official on Tuesday said the Republican tax law would raise the cost of health insurance for some Americans because it repealed a core provision of the Affordable Care Act. Tom Price, Trump's first secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, said people buying insurance on government-run marketplaces will face higher prices because the tax law repealed the ACA's individual mandate. The mandate had forced most Americans to have health coverage or face a financial penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldGimletEye Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 Gaps in sexual harassment law. https://www.vox.com/2018/5/2/17306798/ashley-judd-2018-harvey-weinstein-allegations-sexual-harassment-me-too-movement Quote Ashley Judd said on Good Morning America on Tuesday. The actress is suing producer Harvey Weinstein for defamation, sexual harassment, and violation of California’s unfair competition law, which prohibits unfair business practices, according to the New York Times. She says that after she rejected Weinstein’s advances, he told lies about her to director Peter Jackson, costing her a role in the Lord of the Rings franchise. Quote It’s hard enough for workers to fight back against harassment in conventional workplace settings. But for independent contractors harassed by people who don’t have an official working relationship with them, the process is even more difficult. If Judd wins, her case could have larger implications for people who face harassment in nontraditional working relationships. Quote That puts her in a difficult position with respect to sexual harassment law. Federal and most state sexual harassment laws apply to employers and their employees, Rossein, the law professor, explained. That means they don’t cover independent contractors, or people in professional relationships like the one Judd says she had with Weinstein, in which he didn’t employ her but still had influence over her career. Quote Judd’s suit is a reminder that sexual harassment is, among other things, a labor issue — being harassed or retaliated against can deprive survivors of work opportunities, forcing them out of their jobs and even their fields Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holy Sith! Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 2 hours ago, mormont said: Can I just say that the confirmation that Trump dictated that letter is possibly the least necessary confirmation since it was confirmed that the sun rose this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 14 hours ago, Yukle said: @Pony Empress Jace, firstly I notice you have been promoted from Queen to Empress. Well done. Careful with your encouragement. This isn’t the first time Jace has made a power move to become a god. Last time…… faces melted. History has a way of repeating itself. You should know that better than most. 14 hours ago, Fragile Bird said: Aaaaargggghhh! Your medical information BELONGS to you and don't take any bullshit from anyone who says otherwise. The physical records belong to the doctor. This is a legal distinction! Whoa!!!!!!!!!! Calm down Birdie. Your seething rage is melting my screen! Did a rare Pokemon get away from you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted May 2, 2018 Share Posted May 2, 2018 4 hours ago, mormont said: Can I just say that the confirmation that Trump dictated that letter is possibly the least necessary confirmation since it was confirmed that the sun rose this morning. Eh, it took over a year to confirm though. What’s more amazing is it took a day to confirm that Trump was full of **** for screaming about Mueller leaking the questions when it turns out that his lawyer wrote them and assuredly handed them off to an aide to leak. And more important, that confirms that the biggest leaker in the Trump Administration is Trump himself, because there is no way those questions got leaked without Trump approving it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.