This drug is so common and cheap that it costs less than $1 US in most countries, but Shkreli was charging $750. Reportedly some hospitals just make the drug in-house, on-demand.
Apparently, there now is a generic equivalent in the U.S. But the only reason why the price could be so high is because there wasn't any other option. And yes, the reasons why there was only one option wasn't entirely caused by government -- it was a low-demand and low-margin product -- but the reason why Shkreli could raise the price without worrying about competition undercutting him is mostly due to government regulation.
Assuming the results hold up through the Iowa state convention, the difference between Trump's and Rubio's finish is zero. They both get seven delegates. And Cruz gets eight.
It's similar for the Democrats: Clinbton gets 22 and Sanders gets 21. Or maybe vice versa.
One delegate wil not make the difference in the end. All of this energy and posturing about the difference between first and second/third place, who "won" and "lost," is all about marketing, not about one delegate.
Last night’s Republican debate on Fox News offered a brief glimpse at a race without Donald Trump. And what that glimpse showed us was a race that is smarter, more substantive, and better at revealing the spirited differences of policy, personality, and ideology in the Republican primary field.
They serve no serious purpose, except for marketing. They aren't objective, and never have been, and never could be: there's no reasonably objective way to judge which actor or film is "best."
If there is a snub of non-whites, it is almost certainly because there is greater financial benefit to support other films. And why find fault with that? The problem is that people try to put meaning into the Oscars that just isn't there.
So yes, the more boycotts, the better. They mean nothing. Stop pretending they do.
The "Charleston loophole" is necessary. If the government can indefinitely delay a background check, the government will use that to deny people their constitutional rights. We know they will. It's inevitable.
Maybe the current government wouldn't do it, but some future government will. And maybe the period should be longer than three days; that is a reasonable topic for discussion. But forcing people to wait indefinitely for a background check to return from the government is not a reasonable option.
It's hard to tell from Clinton's remarks whether she merely supports a longer period of time, or abolishing the limitation entirely. One would hope it's not the latter.
So even if race and sex are the reasons Haley was chosen -- which is patently silly, since she is one of the most popular governors in the nation, from the state that holds its primary right after New Hampshire -- in the same breath, she is saying that Democrats should invite people to the SOTU based on their religion.
And this is why I love to hate DWS. She's just a massively dishonest jerk.
Well ... yeah, we are. We're safer from violence and guns. We're more prosperous and productive, and the economy has improved. We've lost some liberties, but we've gained others. Overall, we're better off.
We're not nearly as well-off as we could be. The economy could, and should, be much better. Our foreign policy has been a mess, and the world is a more dangerous place than it should be. ObamaCare is a mess (even if you agree with its goals). Americans seem to hate each other more than ever.
A mistake we often make is to over-emphasize the negative. We also often give the President too much credit or blame for what happens. But probably the biggest mistake we make is to not try to imagine where we should and could be, rather than simply looking at where we were and are.
Yes, it's true that Cruz was not born in the U.S., but he has always been a U.S. citizen. He is a natural-born citizen, but Earnest is saying, well, maybe, since he wasn't born here, he maybe isn't really a citizen.
Please let's stop pretending that Obama and his crew was ever principled on the issue of natural-born citizenship.
I am against the decision (because I think the Constitution clearly does not require states to recognize same-sex marriage, even though I am personally against bans on same-sex marriages), but in favor of following it (because that is what the Constitution demands, in my interpretation of Article III etc., even though I think this decision is clearly wrong). That is what it means to follow the rule of law: to follow it even when you think it's wrong.
Both sides here -- Roy Moore, and those supporting Obergefell -- don't care about the rule of law. They only care about pushing their personal views on the issue of same-sex marriage.
"I met a man who was obssessed with driving a car around the world in one day. He swore up and down he could do it. And he tried to. Many times, from what I understand. At the end of those failed days ... he'd sit on the side of the road cursing his back luck. Eventually, a good samaritan would stop. After slaughtering the samaritan -- and anyone else with the samaritan -- like his wife, children -- he'd put them in his car, set it on fire, and drive off in theirs. Then he'd fill up the tank and wait on the sun, so he could try to drive around the world again. ...
"He blamed the cars for his failures. It never crossed his mind that what he believed he could do was impossible. I admire that."
This evoked Donald Trump in my mind. I am not sure if he is The Joker or the driver, though.
If I had free time, I'd go to a Trump rally. It's be historic and entertaining. But there's no way I'd give him money or vote for him.
So when you see a lot of people at Trump rallies ... I dunno, I have a hard time believing most of them necessarily support Trump for President (or will continue to do so as they pay more attention to the election).
Federal research on gun violence is not banned. It never has been. Only some gun research, using certain funds, is banned. The language reads: none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.
The CDC puts out studies about guns every year (such as http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf which is a CDC-funded report called "Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention—Wilmington, Delaware"). Because the law is written somewhat vaguely, to stay on the right side of the law, the CDC sometimes doesn't engage in research it might otherwise want to do, and be allowed to do under the law.
But again: the CDC still does gun research every year. Federal gun violence research is not banned, and never has been. Please stop saying it is.
* There is no correlation between guns and violence. There just isn't. Look all you want; it's not there. Some states have very high gun ownership and very low gun violence rates; some have very low gun ownership and very high gun violence rates. And in those same places, the violence rates are about the same regardless of whether a gun is involved. President Obama says that we are not more violent than other countries, as a way to imply that guns are the cause of our violence, but the facts show that he is wrong: as a country, we are more violent than many other countries. We simply know that guns do not cause violence, but rather that violent people will use guns to commit violent acts; but if they cannot use guns, will commit violent acts anyway.
* Gun violence in America -- like all violence in America -- has been decreasing for years, and continues to do so. There may be small blips of increased violence in certain areas, but overall it is going down ... all while more guns are being bought, and more gun rights are being recognized.
* There is no basis for the view that because background checks have worked to reduce gun violence, therefore covering all sales will have a similar effect. The concept of diminishing returns applies here. In fact, extremely few guns used in crimes -- best estimates are around one percent -- were bought legally, but without a background check (the "gun show loophole"). Closing the "gun show loophole" cannot possibly have a significant effect on gun violence, because very few guns used for violence are procured this way today.
Now, all that said, I think most people are fine with covering people who make a business of selling guns into "dealers" in the understanding of the law. But what most people are not fine with is doing what the state of Washington has done, where it is now a felony for you to hand your gun to your mother in your own home just for her to look at, or to let your good friend borrow your gun to go to the gun range, and so on.
As long as this is actually limited to the President's actual legal authority, and as long as it is targeted only at actual gun dealers, then I think most people will be fine with it.
From 18 U.S. Code § 921, we find that a firearms "dealer" inclues "any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail," and "engaged in the business" in this context means "a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms."
Further, "with the principal objective of livelihood and profit" requires that the "intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection."
While there could be some confusion in some rare cases, generally, this is not going to be confusing. If you have some guns, and you simply decide to sell some of the guns you don't want anymore, the government cannot use this to legally require you to be a dealer.
The real change will probably be for what are traditionally considered hobbyists, who buy and sell guns and try to make a profit from it, but have other jobs they consider their "livelihood." There's some grey area there for some people.
But the word "and" is important. You must be engaged for livelihood and profit.
If Donald Trump is a "recruitment tool" for terrorists ... so what? The question is never if the terrorists want us to do something, or don't want us to do something, the question is only what we want to do: what is the best way to accomplish our goals?
Donald Trump would be a terrible President, but not because terrorists think he's terrible, but because we think he's terrible.
Look around you. Look at what we have in America. Look at our relatively very high levels of peace and prosperity. We are living longer, we have less death, we have more stuff. And for those of us who allow it to ourselves, we have plenty of opportunity for happiness and fulfillment.
People act like a few attacks against us means we're losing. For every successful attack against us, we have dozens or hundreds against them. They live in caves and shacks, we live in warm homes and have wireless Internet strapped to our faces.
Let's have some perspective. Even on 9/11 we weren't losing. We have never been losing, and there's no prospect that we will be losing. France isn't losing, either.
Since we're talking about winning and losing, I might as well bring in a sports analogy: this would be like if Tom Brady got sacked three times by the Dolphins, but he still got six TDs and the Patriots were winning 52-6, and you polled Patriots fans and they mostly said the Patriots were losing.
Again: let's have some perspective here. Most of the day, most of us don't think about anything bad, let alone terrorism. We think about work, family, movies, games, sports, hobbies, pets, and all sorts of other things we would not be thinking about right now if the terrorists were actually winning.
But guns do not make us violence. Where we have high gun violence, we also have high rates of non-firearm violence; and where we have low violence rates, we often also have lots of guns.
It's not just that guns do not cause violence, it's that there is not even a correlation between guns and violence. We do have violence problems in this country, but the more we blame guns, the harder it gets to actually solve the problem of violence.
On Meet the Press, Chuck Todd asks why Chicago gets less focus than Sandy Hook and Charleston. Lee says it's because people get numb. But it's not: it's because people recognize that Chicago has systemic problems with a culture of violence that we, on the outside, are powerless to do anything about. For big events with single shooters, we hold out hope that maybe there's something we can do about it.
I am not a fatalist. I'm not. I am not saying there's nothing we can do about violence. I am saying that we cannot stop violence by going after guns, and I say this because the data demonstrates there is no correlation between guns and violence.
President Obama says we are not more violence, implying that the only difference between us and less violent countries is guns, but he's completely wrong. We absolutely are more violent. We need to change the culture, and that starts from within.
I hadn't thought of this before, but -- combined with the foolish notion that poll numbers represent how people are going to vote in the primaries -- it might help explain why so many people believe that candidates with the lowest poll numbers should just "drop out."
In late 2007, everyone knew Hillary would be the nominee. Rudy was the "frontrunner" for the GOP nomination. It's the same story every year: the polls are more often wrong as a predictor, than right. It's because they are not intended to be a predictor. And if they are intended to be a predictor, they shouldn't be, because they cannot be: people "vote" in them differently than they vote in the primaries, both because they are meaningless, and because they change their minds.
I suspect lots of people "vote" for Trump in polls because they either think he's entertaining, because he's the only name they know, or because they want to damage Republican chances. None of those people are likely to also vote for him in the primaries.
But even if they were, it's still the fact that this is not a race to win a poll, it's a race to win dozens of primaries, so no one should drop out unless they have no chance to win those primaries, and lots of things change between now and the primaries. It's like telling the Seahawks they should drop out of the NFL season because they are too far behind to win the Super Bowl. It's nonsense.
This is what the pro-global warming folks tell us all the time, when someone says, "it's cold! therefore, global warming is a myth!"
Yet when we have a particularly warm winter, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are out here telling us that it is evidence of global warming.
It's not. Stop it.
I just wish she would've stood up against Obama the many times he's bullied his way to, and in, the presidency, like when he, many times, dishonestly demonized Republicans and conservatives. Sure, Trump is more vulgar and stupid and direct than Obama, but Obama shouldn't get a pass because he's more articulate.
So, I think Rey is Han and Leia's daughter. She acts like Han in various ways, is a loner, is mechanically inclined, can fight, etc. She thinks of Han as a father, and wears her pistol just like he does. Leia hugs her like a mother would. There's plenty of little hints.
Then there's the possible brother-sister dynamic with Ben Solo/Kylo Ren, and Rey. Sibling rivalry, light vs. dark, and so on. Reminiscent of Planet Mortis from Clone Wars, and the brother and sister who lived there (Google it).
Plus, long before The Phantom Menace, in various books etc., Han and Leia did have twins.
Also, Han and Leia named their son Ben, after Obi-Wan. Seems they might have wanted to name their daughter after someone too. Well, Leia's adopted mother is Breha Organa ... it seems possible Breha's nickname might have been Rey. (I thought of this today, but upon Googling I am not the first to think of it, of course.)
Many people think Rey is Luke's daughter. I say she's Leia's.
And that Snoke is Palpatine's former master. But he could also be the father or son from Mortis.
I would really like to know why my MacBook Pro running El Capitan leaks fds so badly. The worst offenders are Mail, Safari, and Calendar. I had almost 23K fds reported by `lsof` -- just the ones owned by my user -- until I quit those three apps, and I dropped down to under 13K.
Most of them, from Calendar (well, CalendarAgent) and Mail -- several thousand -- are Unix domain sockets. Most of the Safari ones are weird-looking cache filenames, like "/E99288583F728C94325C775C3437E13FCD52C315".
Luke is a general and old Jedi. Annikin is his Padawan Learner. Leia is a princess being protected by them. Biggs is her little brother. Vader is not a Sith. Leia falls in love with Annikin. Han Solo is big and green. Everyone carries a lightsaber, even the stormtroopers.
It's all very confusing.
May the force of others be with you, if you read this book.
My least favorite is, "only a Sith deals in absolutes." It's so stupid, and not just because it's obviously self-contradictory, but because it's completely backward: it's the Jedi who generally regard issues as absolute, and the Sith who see everything as relative.
Not to be all feminist, but I think it's gotta be how completely weak Padme was in Episode III. Episode III was the worst of the films, not because it wasn't exciting or the story was terrible, but because the characters made no sense. There's many examples of this (including Anakin's incomprehensible switch from "let's arrest the Chancellor because he's bad" to "I'm gonna go kill those younglings over there" in the span of about three minutes), but the worse is with Padme.
Here we have a person who is the head of state, who is a practically a commando, who stands up to anything and jumps into battle with a blaster ... and the next thing you know, the only thing she can hold is a hairbrush, she only sees herself in terms of her man, she's too scared to take any action, and she literally dies because she's so sad. I know that pregnant women go through a lot of emotional changes, but it's pretty ridiculous.
In real life, Padme would have survived if for no reason but to protect her children, and would've devoted her life to destroying her ex-husband.
I know a few people who want Trump, a bunch of people who like Carson (and a few who want him to be President), and a larger number who want Cruz. But most Republicans I know think Carson and Trump are not qualified, and simply dislike Cruz, or find him to be untrustworthy.
That's never happened before. Granted, in other polls, Rubio is in the top three, and on average he may be in the top three. But almost none of the Republicans I know would reject him as a candidate, unlike the other three candidates. It's just remarkable how unpopular these "top three" candidates are, among the Republicans I've talked to.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about Apple? No more encryption?
CLINTON: This is something I've said for a long time, George. I have to believe that the best minds in the private sector, in the public sector could come together to help us deal with this evolving threat. And you know, I know what the argument is from our friends in the industry. I respect that. Nobody wants to be feeling like their privacy is invaded.
But I also know what the argument is on the other side from law enforcement and security professionals. So, please, let's get together and try to figure out the best way forward.
That sounds good to some people ... but it is not possible. The tools to encrypt are out there on the Internet and written in books and magazines and on t-shirts and coffee mugs, and it cannot be taken back. And if I use encryption, generally speaking, you cannot get around it. You might be able to crack it, in some cases; but generally, you simply cannot get it, no matter how many minds you put together to solve the problem.
While privacy is a big part of this problem, it's not the fundamental problem. If Apple gives you back doors to get into communication, yes, you might have privacy issues. But if Apple does that, then the "bad guys" will simply stop using Apple's messaging tools, and use other ones. And if you get back doors to all commercial apps, they will write and use their own apps. Then you'll be able to access communications ... but only of the law-abiding citizens, not the bad guys.
Encrypted communications is not something that you can stop. You're wasting time and energy -- and demonstrating yourself to be woefully ignorant -- by trying.
It's fine to say that if you want to destroy America or commit terrorist acts, you shouldn't be allowed into America. It's also fine to say that if you think that Americans should all be forced to follow Sharia law, your views are un-American.
But those views are not "Islam." Neither is it true that those views are not "Islam." "Islam" is not one thing. "Islam" is different things to different Muslims. Most of the angst we have regarding "Islam" in America is that many people see all Muslims as having the same views about "Islam," and that's just wrong.
But it is also true that many adherents to Islam do see Islam as being un-American and terroristic, and that we are terrible at figuring out which Muslims have those views, and we not only do let some of them into the country, but we also make some of them citizens. Arguably, we should not be letting them in and making them citizens. But how do you stop it?
This is a problem. But Trump's proposal won't help solve it.