unicorn

Oooh. Name-calling. You must be right. The point, Einstein, is that it's the job of all defense lawyers to discredit accusers, whether the accusers are right or wrong (sometimes they're right, sometimes they're not). It's pretty ridiculous to disparage someone for doing his job. I don't know specifically about KS. I have seen evidence that in at least some cases, the activity was quite consensual and even bragged about later. He may, in general, be a sleazebag, but just being accused doesn't make one a sleazebag. So far those who've looked actually looked at the evidence (neither of us) have not been convinced.

Thank you, professor. To think that, all of this time I thought that to goal of a defense lawyer was to praise and support the accuser.

I feel a song coming on...

Yes, you did. You said Biden shut down the pipelines. One can't shut something down that isn't open to begin with. You did NOT say he shut down the construction. Even if it had been possible for those to be running by now, the impact, as you well know, would have been negligible.

That's preposterous, and I'm sure you know it. Obviously, the pipelines weren't operating under Trump, either, and even if they were (which they weren't), the effect would be tiny--certainly not 25%.

They were polling people on the news on what they had against Biden "He's responsible for the gas prices," the Trump supporter said. The one thing Biden has virtually no control over. The most he can do is encourage alternative energy sources, which is what he's done.

I usually book through hotel chain's individual sites. Most brands include mid-range properties, including Hilton (HHonors), the InterContinental Group (including Holiday Inn hotels), Marriott/Bonvoy (includes Fairfield Inn and Four Points, which are usually 3*), and Best Western. I only use the Hotels.com and similar sites for small towns which may not have any chain hotels. With the chains, one gets the lowest fees at their sites, and also accumulate points, which one can use at 5* places when one wants snazzier digs.

Well, especially Barrett Pall, who has always been a loud complainer. It's one thing to say "You have a modeling contract for Balenciaga. Go to the photographer's office at 1752 Madison Avenue." Under such circumstances (and with Bruce Weber fondling his men during photoshoots), any sexual activity would be harassment. But someone given $2000 cash to go to a private house while being told this is for a "sexual experience" certainly should know what's going on, and what the money's for. That being said, it should obviously be clear what the intent is if someone is being given cash and a plane ticket to go to a private party in Marrakesh as well. This is obviously not a photoshoot for GQ magazine. Those models who go along with this know damned well that these are not legitimate modeling gigs. I find it unsavory for them to take the money then complain about it years later. No means no, and yes means yes. Once the erotic activity ends, one stops having the ability to withdraw consent. Regrets any time later do not negate consent given at the time of the activity. I remember reading an autobiography by former model John Barrowman. In it, he recalls a story in which Valentino invited him onto his private yacht to discuss "employment opportunities." Early in the voyage, after having given him expensive gifts such as a Rolex watch, Valentino put his hand on Barrowman's shoulder. Barrowman flicked it off, and was let off at the next port. I'm sure JB had a good laugh, as I'm sure he understood why he was being invited on the yacht in the first place.

Dude, the model was told he was being hired for a "sexual experience," to use his own words. Nothing ambiguous about that. Had my gardener told me "I'm really hard up for cash this month," while he was at my place, while taking his shirt off, and I countered with "I can spot you for another $250 if you're willing to give me a sexual experience," that would not be shady either. If I added "And I've been thinking of having that tree in my back yard taken down," that wouldn't have made it even more shady.

I was unable to pull the full scientific article (not the lay press article), but in none of the portions I saw quoted an author say "the degree of risk was not modest." If the actual scientific article said that, I can only respond by saying that no reputable journal would allow such language in an observational/case-control study. That why there's something called peer review for reputable journals. With such a study, the only thing a real scientist would said was that the degree of association was not modest. If someone responds to this article by replacing artificially sweetened drinks with drinks that have NO sweeteners, including sugars (glucose, sucrose, or fructose), then no harm done. However, if someone were to react by replacing diet sodas with regular (sugar-filled) sodas, then there could be some real damage done. Sugars such as those found in sodas are known to put a stress on the pancreas's insulin-making cells (without even mentioning the empty calories sugars add). The lazy authors of this study picked a low-lying fruit, so to speak. Similar associations have been observed with all other artificial sweeteners, including the dipeptide aspartame, which simply consists of two amino acids (the building blocks of proteins). I cannot imagine a biological/physiological mechanism which would lead to a cardiovascular risk from a dipeptide. These authors simply appear to have picked the one artificial sweetener which hadn't been so associated yet. What needs to be done to ascertain any risk is to randomize assignment to drinks (or whatever) which are sweetened with sugar vs various artificial sweeteners, in which neither the patients nor the scientists know who gets what sweetening agent, then count the events over time. If one wishes to be extra-cautious before those studies are done, the wisest course is to simply avoid ALL sweeteners, including real sugars and artificial ones. I would certainly not conclude at this time that diabetics are better off consuming sugary drinks and pastries.

First of all, I don't consider my biological father my "father," and I doubt most people in my position would. My father was the person who brought me up and had legal custody. At first I though you were slighting my father. My purpose at bringing him (the bio dad) up was to use an example of how men pull off BS all of the time in order to get their sexual partners to say yes. I'd at least like to think that had my mother known the truth about him she wouldn't have consented. Were they alive, would she be in a position to say she was unduly coerced? I don't think so. You missed the point on the gardener example as well. My point there was that just because one pays someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise want to do doesn't equate with unethical coercion. By his own admission, the model BP above received ample financial compensation for what he was told would be a "sexual experience." Even after he'd received the money, if the experience went beyond what he was willing, he could have easily left and taken the LIRR (with that amount of money, he could even have hired a taxi for the whole trip if he felt the LIRR was below his dignity--but I just took the LIRR 3 months ago to Sayville/Fire Island, and I consider myself financially secure). Now that he's apparently financially secure himself, to express regret about this years later comes off as very phony. Do you truly believe his statement that he had to consent to additional sexual acts just because he didn't have a car???

Men (and sometimes women) have probably always used "manipulative" ways to get others to have sex with them. I'm sure my gardener has better things to do than take care of my garden. Am I "manipulative and shady" in paying him to do so? Wealthy (and less fortunate) men have been enticing women (and men) for years to get them to agree to intimacy. I found out several years ago that my biological father wasn't my legal father. My biological father, according to DNA records, enticed lots of women (we half-sibs had a large meeting at one point, without, of course, informing the children of his wife). I have but little doubt he probably fed his women some BS lines, but they were free to say no, and consented nonetheless. I was reading in Wikipedia about the formerly billionaire cryptoexchange dude Sam Bankman-Fried. Apparently: "According to former employees of FTX and Alameda, Bankman-Fried was romantically involved with co-worker and Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, until their split around the time of the 2022 crypto crash when Caroline reportedly stopped talking to him...". People consent to sex all of the time based on hopes of love and/or riches, not all of which become fulfilled. The dictum of caveat emptor seems to apply. Obviously, it's not OK to threaten or drug someone into consenting, nor can someone consider a consent valid if the person has diminished capacity, such as a child or an intellectually impaired adult. However, I don't see any evidence that these models were threatened, drugged, or unduly coerced (it's ridiculously loose to say the promise of money is a coercion--we all agree to do things we wouldn't otherwise do for financial reasons). The model I quoted knew full well why he was invited to the Hamptons. Even if it were true that he was told he'd be thrown out the door if he didn't have sex with the owner (and I doubt it was), he certainly had a way to get back without a car. His ridiculous "but I didn't have a car" protestation to me just accentuates the silliness of his allegations. So, he regrets his decision to consent after the fact. So might my mother, had she known of her Don Juan's philandering. If we were to arrest everyone who "manipulated" another to consent to sex, probably half of the world would be in jail, and, well, we could solve the world overpopulation problem.

These stories always make me want to roll my eyes. 🙄 Do we have a bunch of men who want money to just fall on them because they're good-looking? This comes straight out of the article: "Barrett Pall, a former model turned life coach and activist, said he felt pressured into attending an event in the Hamptons in 2011. Then 22, he said he was recruited by an older model, who received a referral fee, to be his "replacement" for "some sort of sexual experience" with the couple. He said he felt obliged to comply as the older man had been supporting him financially and he felt indebted. Like the other men, he said initially he attended a "test run" with Mr Jacobson. Mr Pall said the older model told him that "you don't have to do anything you don't want to do" but suggested that "the further you go, the better", and alluded to career opportunities. When he arrived at the event, he said he felt under pressure to "perform". "How was I going to leave? I didn't have a car," he said. "I had a chaperone sitting and watching me."...". Well, sir, you were a grown man who knew exactly what "some sort of sexual experience" meant. If you consented, you may have done so financial reasons, but you were a consenting adult nonetheless. New flash: a lot of people wouldn't go to work if they weren't being paid either. You were not a child. You were not drugged. This was a Saturday afternoon, apparently. You didn't have a car? Poor baby. Maybe you could do what the vast majority of New Yorkers/Long Island residents do: take the Long Island Railroad if you were late in understanding what "some sort of sexual experience" meant. And he makes his living being a life coach now? Please.

This all seems kind of silly. A replica will never be Angkor Wat, nor will it ever be a UNESCO World Heritage site. Maybe they'll make replicas of Machu Picchu or the Sphynx next. No one should care.

This is a very preliminary study that shows at best an association, not causation. As the authors of the study put it: "Studies assessing the long-term safety of erythritol are warranted." That's the most one can conclude from that study. It was not a randomized controlled trial, just an observational one. It's easy to show associations, but one can easily be fooled by observational studies. I would also add that many observational studies have shown very similar associations for just about every artificial sweetener out there. The association seems the same despite extremely different chemical compositions of these artificial sweeteners. The fact that the associations are similar but the chemistry is vastly different suggests the associations are linked to a different variable (for example, people who use artificial sweeteners may have similar otherwise unhealthful diets or exercise less). An easy way to understand the difference between association and causation would be to imagine a study observing over time people who carried matches or gas lighters. One would observe over the years that both matches and lighters have a similar association with the development of lung cancer in those who carry them. However, neither the matches nor the lighters are causative. Observational studies (which are cheaper and easier to conduct that clinical trials) can only serve to suggest directions for randomized clinical trials. A prospective observational (case-control) study can NEVER show causation.

That statement is so asinine. Obviously no one is free to say anything he wants to say. Freedom of speech entails freedom to express one's opinion. It does not mean freedom to lie, defraud, swindle, perjure, defame, incite riots, provide state secrets to a foreign power, slander, or any other kind of illegal speech. Yes, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie house, to incite injury to others, is an obvious example even a 6 year-old can understand. However, what people say often has to be regulated for societal good. Telling an election official "I want you to find me 12,000 votes" is another category of speech that is not protected, as it constitutes election fraud. How can anyone above the age of 7 not understand that?

Unfortunately, the Russian people still suffer from their centuries-long history. Russia has always been ruled by ruthless dictators (except Yeltsin). This has led the population believe they're best led by at least more effective ruthless dictators (ones who will keep goods, especially food, on the shelves). I had a boyfriend for over 13 years, who grew up in Russia (born USSR). Even after the fall of the USSR, his mother kept a statue of Lenin in her closet, in case communism came back.

I was looking at the list of GOP candidates, and the only ones I know are complete disasters (Trump, DeSantis, Pence, and Christie). I don't know the others (Scott, Haley, Ramaswamy). Are any of those three at least somewhat decent people?

What does your first sentence mean? Who knows the answer to that? I'm pretty confident, though, that where it ends is Putin's death. My suggestion is that NATO use its civilian-flagged ships to transport the food/grain from Ukraine, and warn Putin not to attack them. I feel it's unlikely Putin will attack those ships, but, if he did we'd not have too much trouble taking him out. And anyone would know that any use of nukes would mean we'd be saying "the country formerly known as Russia"... Putin is stupid and insane, but not to that extent. Someone will take out Putin eventually.

I can't imagine any circumstance in which there'd be a WWIII. If Putin were stupid enough to engage NATO, no one would back him up, not even Belarus or China. The Russian armed forces are a joke. Look how easily the mercenaries almost walked right into Moscow. Russia isn't even able to take down Ukraine. Russia wouldn't even be able to fend off Germany or France alone, were it not for supply-chain/logistics issues. It was barely able to fend off Turkey. You really think Russia could put up a fight with Germany, France, and Turkey together--not to mention the US, UK, Canada, Finland, Sweden? Absurd. Even someone as stupid as Putin knows damned well he can't win a fight with NATO.

I like Pita.

Putin's blocking of Ukrainian grain exports could again stoke marked rises in grain prices, with consequent effects on inflation and the world economy. It would seem that NATO countries could defuse that by announcing that ships registered with NATO countries would be transporting said grain. Any attack on ships from NATO countries would therefore trigger NATO involvement, which would probably result in Putin's demise. I don't think even Putin is crazy enough to attack ships from NATO countries. That would be tantamount to suicide.

Factually wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thérèse_Coffey "Thérèse Anne Coffey (born 18 November 1971) is a British politician serving as Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since October 2022. A member of the Conservative Party, she previously was Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care but only from September to October 2022..."

If it's Trump vs Biden, one on one, Biden will probably win. Only hard-core Republicans will vote for Trump. Independents are the ones who determine election winners. If a moderate Democrat enters the race, Trump will probably win. Actually, almost any Democrat can swing the election to Trump. Due to the electoral college, one doesn't even need a plurality of votes to win. Even though he only garnered a tiny fraction of votes, Ralph Nader gave the election to Bush, Jr., with catastrophic results. Bush, Jr. won the election even though he didn't even have a plurality of the votes. Bush won by a handful of votes in Florida, which was all he needed. Now if Trump loses the Republican nomination but runs as a 3rd party candidate, the whomever the Republicans nominate will have zero chance of winning. 3rd party candidates can't win themselves, but they can steal enough votes to determine the election results.

Fortunately, the law often limits the fine print. The law has to limit underhanded insurance company schemes, otherwise each time we bought insurance, we'd have to hire a lawyer to go over the details and negotiate each contract. These policies generally run some 30 pages or so long and are written in legalese. Obviously, most people don't have the ability/means to go over everything each time they want to buy a travel policy. This is why we have laws--to limit sneaky insurance company tricks. Yes, insurance companies should be able to invalidate claims which result from the insureds' law violations, such as driving under the influence. However, one should not be able to invalidate a policy just because the insured had some drinks at his hotel. As others have mentioned, we lack enough details in this particular case to come to a judgment.