All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Kirby101]

Specifically, they bought Treasury bonds, which go down in value when interest rates go up. It was a very, very stupid choice on their part. I expect there to be criminal investigations, given the interesting timing of the bonuses.

Meanwhile, on a lighter note, the IRS just wants you to know that you must declare the value of items you stole, as well as income on your drug deals and big fraud scams. Okay, good to know for my taxes. I mean, the taxes of this guy I know.

But....they PROMISE it will only be used for tax purposes, and will not be passed on to law enforcement. Also, they are a Nigerian prince who just needs a few thousand dollars...

This has always been true. You can't be prosecuted for activity reported to the IRS. You can be for Tax Evasion.

[achilles]

This has always been true. You can't be prosecuted for activity reported to the IRS. You can be for Tax Evasion.

Yeah, but who is going to report such activity? Not Professor Moriarty, that's for sure. Or anyone who is both criminal and has a brain that isn't a turnip.

[Gray Lensman]

Yeah, but who is going to report such activity? Not Professor Moriarty, that's for sure. Or anyone who is both criminal and has a brain that isn't a turnip.

Don't take this as gospel, but I think I remember hearing about a small time weed dealer who purchased tax stamps for his stuff, and when a different agency tried to prosecute him the judge threw the case out. They can't demand a tax on something they intend to prosecute (the law was just there to add additional time at sentencing).

However, tax law can find stuff to prosecute over even if you have accounted for everything else. Al Capone found that one out.

[Mister Mets]

I think I've been pretty clear before that Transphobia is an issue that cuts across political boundaries.

Singal is in many ways, I am given to understand, an orthodox,semi-centrist liberal. He is also a transphobe willing to make common cause with other transphobes on the right due to this issue. While I do not believe he would go so far as state legislatures have in banning *all* gender affirmative care for minors, his unwillingness to take a look in the mirror and recognize that it his coverage literally being cited by conservative AGs in conservative states to ban gender-affirming care -- his sloppy, transphobic reporting I should add -- is a problem. Instead, he chooses to blame 'trans activists' and the trans people he blocks, ignores, and refuses to acknowledge in his reporting except as 'activists'. Bigotry is oftten couched in this way, where an afflicted class' ability to advocate for itself is denigrated as 'activism'. Only the good, white centrist liberal men can be fair, impartial arbiters of the truth. Arbiters like Jesse Singal.

For example, after local reporters interviewed over twenty people involved with the clinic amongst patients and staff, they found no corroboration for her extraordinary claims. This is something Singal himself should have done as a journalist before publcizing inflammatory claims about gender affirming care in a time of heightened violence against trans people. Hell, it's something he should have done as a basic piece of journalism! Instead, he tweets, "could she be lying? Maybe! But she has provided a very detailed account," as if his job as a journalist is just to share the account if he found it plausible which, NO SURPRISE, the gender-critical sources he relied on found it plausible so he went ahead with it.

I don't think I implied that Singal is a Republican partisan in a single post, just that he's a transphobe whose work has been amplified by transphobic republicans.

If one is going to demand that people be hyper-specific and hyper-accurate on a hobbyist message board, they should be willing to be at least as demanding of the journalists and the sources they rely on. So far, none of Reed's claims have been able to be independently corroborated, and several of them are unlikely, as Michael Hobbs has pointed out:

https://twitter.com/RottenInDenmark/...52579817037826

I wasn't referring to you. Someone else asked me about responding to the transphobia in the Republican party.

Some of those are pretty obscure, and they are counting a lot of awards that have only been around a few years.

But if you want to say "Most Awarded", why not?

By some metrics, it is astoundingly successful.

It won the major industry awards, in a sweep we really haven't seen in a decade. Birdman was the last film to sweep the SAG, DGA, PGA and Writers Guild awards.

Everything Everywhere All At Once also broke the record for top of the line Oscars, with Best Picture, Director, Screenplay and three acting awards. The other films that won three acting Oscars (Network, A Streetcar Named Desire) didn't win best picture.

It was my favorite film of the year, so I'm happy about the results.

Beyond the Halloween franchise, A Fish Called Wanda and True Lies, I can't think of anything else she had been in without looking it up. Well, good for her for winning last night. As for Everything Everywhere All at Once, I'll have to check it out.

I don't know if you care about my film opinions, but I highly recommend it.

It's easy to recognize why Jamie Lee Curtis has been previously overlooked by the Oscars since her major work is in genres that aren't Oscar-friendly, like comedies and horror. It seems she gave performances that could have been nominated if the campaign had been slightly different (A Fish Called Wanda won Best Supporting Actor, Freaky Friday showcases her range, Blue Steel was a thriller by a future Best Director winner, She was excellent in the ensemble in Knives Out.)

Everything Everywhere was just as unlikely a nomination for the genre, although I get why it swept acting awards. The main performers played multiple versions of characters with different arcs, so she played an IRS agent who was revealed to be a bit more complicated, Michelle Yeoh's love interest in the hot dog fingers universe and a straightforward action villain. She also had a hell of a campaign, making it clear how much an award would mean for her, while complimenting her colleagues and competitors.

It’s all subjective. I think it’s a good movie…but don’t think it will feature in many all time top 100s in a decades time.

Certainly I think there’s such a thing as an Oscar role or film. I think, for example, the best screen acting I’ve seen was Tim Spall in Mr Turner back in 2014 (I think), but wasn’t remotely surprised that he didn’t get nominated. (Wrong type of role: cantankerous successful English painter).

I think it has a good chance of being in Top 100s, because it is so weird, and appeals to different groups. If you want an exciting film debut, there's Stephanie Hsu. Middle-aged people might identify more with the parents. If you like movies referencing other movies, there's the racoon subplot and the Wong Kar Wai riff. If you like greater recognition of sci fi, that obviously happened here. If you like martial arts films, it's Michelle Yeoh's masterpiece. If you like older films from the '70s, it's Jamie Lee Curtis' masterpiece. If you like even older films, it's James Hong's masterpiece. If you like Asian/ Asian-American representation, this is a film that's easy to vote for.

It is weird that it won, just because of how little known the Daniels are. This is their second film together (although one of them did a dark comedy about the slow realization that a man died having sex with a horse) so it's almost unprecedented. It's a bit like Pulp Fiction had swept the Oscars in '94, although I don't know if they'll have the same type of career.

[Username taken]

Specifically, they bought Treasury bonds, which go down in value when interest rates go up. It was a very, very stupid choice on their part. I expect there to be criminal investigations, given the interesting timing of the bonuses.

Meanwhile, on a lighter note, the IRS just wants you to know that you must declare the value of items you stole, as well as income on your drug deals and big fraud scams. Okay, good to know for my taxes. I mean, the taxes of this guy I know.

But....they PROMISE it will only be used for tax purposes, and will not be passed on to law enforcement. Also, they are a Nigerian prince who just needs a few thousand dollars...

There's nothing wrong with the bank holding treasury bonds, it's the way they reacted to changes in rates that looks very suspect.

Every bank buys and holds government instruments (bonds or treasury bills) for three primary reasons 1. Hold to Maturity 2. Available for Sale 3. Available for Trade. SVB had very long positions in (1)- Hold to Maturity which is a sound investment. Broadly speaking, these are critical investments for commercial banks because these are what constitute their basic liquidity and it's also a means for these banks to generate income.

Basically, a commercial bank can not exist without investment in these instruments because rate changes or not, they need these funds in case of changes to their books (eg for emergency withdrawals). Rates going up isn't enough to render these investments completely illiquid, at all, it just means they can't sell them at the value they acquired them. To counter this banks generally readjust their balance sheet by increasing investments in short-positions that could be exited quickly to shore up their liquidity. It's pretty much what every other bank is already doing (i work in risk management in a bank and this is stuff I am seeing firsthand).

Why this balance sheet re-adjustment wasn't done is something I really don't understand, coupled with the fact that their liabilities (depositors accounts) were pretty huge because they had the cash deposits from a lot of start-ups and tech companies, and the SVB collapse looks very suspect. Rates didn't go up overnight and SVB had time to react to rate changes accordingly. I'm expecting a detailed investigation to actually reveal what happened because from the outside looking in, it looks very strange.

It's even messier because the CEO of the bank actually lobbied for fewer regulations a couple of years ago and he should off his shares days ago. Yeah, the whole thing looks very suspect.

[achilles]

There's nothing wrong with the bank holding treasury bonds, it's the way they reacted to changes in rates that looks very suspect.

Every bank buys and holds government instruments (bonds or treasury bills) for three primary reasons 1. Hold to Maturity 2. Available for Sale 3. Available for Trade. SVB had very long positions in (1)- Hold to Maturity which is a sound investment. Broadly speaking, these are critical investments for commercial banks because these are what constitute their basic liquidity and it's also a means for these banks to generate income.

Basically, a commercial bank can not exist without investment in these instruments because rate changes or not, they need these funds in case of changes to their books (eg for emergency withdrawals). Rates going up isn't enough to render these investments completely illiquid, at all, it just means they can't sell them at the value they acquired them. To counter this banks generally readjust their balance sheet by increasing investments in short-positions that could be exited quickly to shore up their liquidity. It's pretty much what every other bank is already doing (i work in risk management in a bank and this is stuff I am seeing firsthand).

Why this balance sheet re-adjustment wasn't done is something I really don't understand, coupled with the fact that their liabilities (depositors accounts) were pretty huge because they had the cash deposits from a lot of start-ups and tech companies, and the SVB collapse looks very suspect. Rates didn't go up overnight and SVB had time to react to rate changes accordingly. I'm expecting a detailed investigation to actually reveal what happened because from the outside looking in, it looks very strange.

It's even messier because the CEO of the bank actually lobbied for fewer regulations a couple of years ago and he should off his shares days ago. Yeah, the whole thing looks very suspect.

Yes, this is a very good longer form explanation of what I was way too lazy to write out. But accurate and pretty detailed.

[Kirby101]

Krugman on the SVB mess.

https://twitter.com/paulkrugman/stat...08696806592518

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2015, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” ran a profile of Dwayne Stovall, who ran campaign ads that attacked, bizarrely, Senator Mitch McConnell for looking like a turtle while still trying to win the nomination for his seat. The ad itself ended with Stovall's dog sitting in a pickup truck with him, and then the dog turned and started to talk to him, proving that his advisers had never heard of the Son of Sam killer. Stovall also had policy stances like that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional (in spite of the Supreme Court just having ruled that it was), that the 2nd Amendment should never be infringed, whatsoever, and that nullification of federal law was a wise course of action. Stovall finished third in that primary against John Cornyn, the senator he was actually trying to unseat.



In 2016, in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, as well as in 2022, “Fanatical Republican Extremist of the Day” published its profiles of Matt Krause, from the Texas House of Representatives for District 93, and first won office in 2012. Prior to running for office, Krause, now still only 36 at the time of his writing, was a lawyer for the Liberty Counsel in 2011, which the Southern Poverty Law Center currently classifies as an anti-gay hate group. The first bit of extremism Krause was involved with came a few months into his first term in May 2013, when he filed the "Come and Take It" firearms bill, a Texas gun nut's wet dream where state money would be held from any law enforcement agency that worked with federal agents to enforce any gun laws enacted by Congress, insisting that this attempt at using financing to nullify federal law was not, in fact, a nullification law because it acknowledges the federal government has the authority to regulate firearms. By the summer of 2013, as Texas Republicans introduced the rigid anti-abortion law SB 5, Krause not only voted for it, but followed it up by co-sponsoring HB 2, a ban on abortion at 20 weeks that would also further restrict Texas abortion facilities. He also claims that the female protesters who rallied around Wendy Davis as he remembers them as devil-worshippers giving a "Satanic Salute".

Krause was interviewed by noted serial molester, adulterer, and Family Research Council personality Josh Duggar at a panel at the Voter Values Summit from November 2013, where they re-wrote history by boasting of their fight as a noble battle "for Civil liberties against the ACLU", by Christian politicians against hordes of Satanists. The fact that he expressed his interest in passing an abortion heartbeat bill in the interview isn't much more reassuring, nor is his sponsorship over a bill to keep brain dead women who are pregnant on life support, regardless of the family's wishes or if the unborn child was even viable. In August 2014, he was one of 63 Texas legislators who signed a legal brief opposing same sex marriage that linked it to incest and polygamy. You might look and that and say, "Big deal. It's bad, but 62 other people did it." True... but Matt Krause didn't stop there. A month later he spoke at TribFest, an event at the University of Texas at Austin where he discussed same sex marriage, and claimed it had a proven link to mental illness, suicide, and even causing malignant tumors. The crowd, being from Austin, the liberal bastion within Texas, mocked him with laughter, as such a statement deserves to be. When asked by a journalist after this meeting to be given a copy of the medical study he cited, Krause could not, of course (because it doesn't apparently exist).

Not surprisingly, he has also proposed an amendment to the Texas state constitution that amounted to a "religious freedom" law that would allow the legal discrimination of gays based on religious faith. As disastrous as the result was when Indiana and North Carolina's Republican-controlled legislatures attempting the same thing around the time, what with boycotts being announced, Krause suggested his idea anyway, and in his defense of his plan, argued in favor of the religious freedom law by asking, "Should a Jewish bakery have to bake a cake for a Neo-Nazi convention coming to town?" Considering how pro-choice activists are Satanists in Krause's mind, it should come as little surprise that he would compare people seeking a same sex marriage to Neo-Nazis. When his amendment idea went nowhere, he instead settled for co-sponsoring SB 2065, a bill that would authorize religious organizations to be able to deny marriage services. In 2017, upon returning to the Texas legislature for a new term, Krause sponsored legislation to attempt to outlaw no-fault divorce in Texas to preserve the institution of marriage. His quote was, “Some people say I’m trying to take relationships back to the 19th century. I’m not trying that at all.” We almost believe him. He'd probably like to return to the 16th centuries or earlier, if he had his way, when women were strictly property. He spent most of 2018 trying to prevent gay adoption, gay marriage, and transgender bathroom use, because he’s an anti-LGBTQ twit.

In 2019, Krause continued trying to legalize gay legislation, sponsoring what was referred to as the “Save Chik-Fil-A Bill”. He continues to insist his efforts are not a concentrated effort to discriminate against gay people, because of course he does.

Matt Krause, in spite of being a deranged fanatic, and still believes there’s no time like the present to waste taxpayers’ time in the legislature with “religious freedom” legislation to ignore the Supreme Court’s ruling on same sex marriage and try to keep transgender citizens out of public restrooms. He was eventually named the Chairman of the Texas House Committee on Investigating… which normally would be a fun thing for someone looking to create bogus investigations into Planned Parenthood to grab some headlines with witch hunts to raise their profile for statewide office… but that’s not what the people of Texas want right now. His Twitter feed has been a non-stop barrage of constituents demanding investigations into corrupt Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, and people demanding answers for how a snowstorm managed to cripple the entire state’s power grid and leave people getting electric bills in the tens of thousands of dollars. He’s getting hammered day in and day out, and if he doesn’t address the failures of his party in governing when they’re this egregious, that narrow window he has to keep staying in office is possibly going to shut on him real quick.

Going into the 2021 mid-terms, Matt Krause thought he’d score points with voters by making a list of 850 books to remove from view that might give someone a better understanding of sexuality, racism, or U.S. history, scream “Critical race theory!” and let the votes roll in. He figured that would make him a shoe-in to become the next Attorney General of Texas, or perhaps just the District Attorney of Tarrant County, but lost in the GOP Primary in both races.

He is now out of office, and we would like to wish him our deepest “GOOD RIDDANCE!” salutes at this time.

[BeastieRunner]

I don't sit anywhere NEAR a corporate board and even I am knowledgeable enough to know not to put too much money into an investment that will turn bad if interest rates have to go up - especially at a time when that's the only direction for them to go.

If they did this when inflation started to hit then the move is - insert George Carlin voice here - EVEN DUMBER THAN THAT!

Specifically, they bought Treasury bonds, which go down in value when interest rates go up. It was a very, very stupid choice on their part. I expect there to be criminal investigations, given the interesting timing of the bonuses.

Meanwhile, on a lighter note, the IRS just wants you to know that you must declare the value of items you stole, as well as income on your drug deals and big fraud scams. Okay, good to know for my taxes. I mean, the taxes of this guy I know.

But....they PROMISE it will only be used for tax purposes, and will not be passed on to law enforcement. Also, they are a Nigerian prince who just needs a few thousand dollars...

Looking at the early financials, they basically spent $300K to get $100k ... Over and over again.

Oh man, that's bad.

[JackDaw]

I think it has a good chance of being in Top 100s, because it is so weird, and appeals to different groups. If you want an exciting film debut, there's Stephanie Hsu. Middle-aged people might identify more with the parents. If you like movies referencing other movies, there's the racoon subplot and the Wong Kar Wai riff. If you like greater recognition of sci fi, that obviously happened here. If you like martial arts films, it's Michelle Yeoh's masterpiece. If you like older films from the '70s, it's Jamie Lee Curtis' masterpiece. If you like even older films, it's James Hong's masterpiece. If you like Asian/ Asian-American representation, this is a film that's easy to vote for.

It is weird that it won, just because of how little known the Daniels are. This is their second film together (although one of them did a dark comedy about the slow realization that a man died having sex with a horse) so it's almost unprecedented. It's a bit like Pulp Fiction had swept the Oscars in '94, although I don't know if they'll have the same type of career.

All good reasons why it appeals to a lot of people. And why I might well be wrong in predicting its status in a decades time (effectively I’m predicting it will be regarded as a very good film rather than a great one.)

I’m going completely on my own gut reaction on seeing it, which was “that was fun” rather than “wow, really, really enjoyed that”.

[aja_christopher]

I don't think I implied that Singal is a Republican partisan in a single post, just that he's a transphobe whose work has been amplified by transphobic republicans.

If one is going to demand that people be hyper-specific and hyper-accurate on a hobbyist message board, they should be willing to be at least as demanding of the journalists and the sources they rely on.

It's just more rhetoric that distracts from what's really behind the scenes with regards to the Republican party -- the elephant in the room that he has repeatedly proven unwilling to address directly.



At a certain point one just has to accept what we are truly dealing with here even if those whose views align with those of the Nazis are loathe to admit it.

Democrats are depressed because of the existential threat of an authoritarian conservative takeover of the government.
It’s hard to be hopeful when half the country has abandoned democracy in favor of autocracy and you don’t know if you may be caught in a mass shooting when you go to the store for groceries.

This also tracks with the issue of empathy -- if said trait is uncommon in conservatives then it's easy to understand why "liberals are more depressed" when they witness injustice aimed at themselves and/or others.

It's easy not to be troubled when you have little regard for others.

I'll also note that this is yet another attack on "liberals" that fails to address Republican complicity by utilizing the standard technique of attacking via questioning (Tucker Carlson style) rather than addressing the root of many elements of depression (climate change, gun violence, racial injustice, gender discrimination, homophobia, economic uncertainty, etc) most of which are caused and/or exacerbated by conservative policies.

Instead of questioning why "liberals are depressed" we should be questioning why Republicans are against adequate health care -- both mental and physical -- for all American citizens.

[CaptainEurope]

This will make Europe very nervous.

Ron DeSantis Says Protecting Ukraine Is Not a Key U.S. Interest

[WestPhillyPunisher]

This will make Europe very nervous.

Ron DeSantis Says Protecting Ukraine Is Not a Key U.S. Interest

Don't worry, DeSantis will never become president, so pay no attention to his nonsense.

[Adam Allen]

Precision matters. A claim that an article is false is different than a claim that an article can be weaponized. It does get to something that's icky in that it can be serious criticism of people who are factually correct.

First of all, why use the word "claim" here?

Being precise: The Wash U story has been weaponized because the information in it is false.

Or are you still holding at the opinion that maybe she is telling the truth?

[mogwen]

Don't worry, DeSantis will never become president, so pay no attention to his nonsense.

So did people say about Trump!
I prefer to remain wary, what Trump taught to us Europeans is that we can't expect the US to always be a reliable ally.