Recent Comments by scheherazade subscribe to this feed

Sarah Silverman Comments on Louis CK

scheherazade says...

The Louie thing is a watershed moment in what is classified as unacceptable ... because he asked permission and they said "yes" ... but because they really /felt/ "no", it's as if they had said "no".


Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

scheherazade says...

Ah, I see you didn't read the links.

Else you would know :

* The post 1990 borders of Ukraine include historically Russian lands populated by Russian people.

* Ukraine's nukes could not be to guard against Russia because Russia had the crypto keys and guidance control over Ukrainian nukes.

* U.S. support for the 2014 coup against Ukraine's government was arguably also a treaty violation. (I don't actually care about this one)

* Government corruption, rising nationalism, and anti-Russian sentiment, are what led to the coup, which kicked off the fighting, which led to Russian intervention, which led to the "land grabs".

(Anti-Russian sentiment was brewing for years before the 2014 coup. You can see it play out in the 2012 language law issue, which was one of the historical turning points leading up to conflict:

Sidenote, this statement is pure insanity : "We should be at war with Russia today over it's murderous expansions"
War with Russia would last less than an hour, and the only winner would be South America and Africa.
Nuclear powers can never go to war. I mean _never_ never.

Regarding collusion, here :

President Trump declared on Twitter: “There is NO COLLUSION!”
There ya go. A Trump declaration that the campaign was not illegally secretly coordinated (i.e. no collusion). Not backwards at all.

The link also explains the irrelevance of the term regarding legal issues.


newtboy said:

Expansionist Russia is back, and their neighbors need help guarding against Russian overthrow. That time is back.
Ukraine is not Russian, and it had a nuclear weapons program to safeguard against Russian incursions...which we convinced them to give up under our, and Russia's guarantee of their sovereignty and borders, and our guarantee to defend them militarily against Russia should it ever try to take any back, Crimea had the same guarantees. We should be at war with Russia today over it's murderous expansions. Russia entering either area at all was an act of war against us by treaty, one we barely responded to with defensive missiles in countries that wanted them desperately before they became Russian themselves.
The anti Russian sentiment is because of the land grabs, not an excuse for them. Holy shit!

Collusion against your own government and country to subvert the law with a foreign country is a crime. The collusion compounds the subversion.

People use the word collude to assert that Russia and the campaign illegally coordinated, you wrote it backwards.

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

scheherazade says...

The USSR is gone. No one is trying to guard western industry against communist overthrow anymore. That time is long gone.

Imagine person A pushing person B, and person B pushes back, and the news runs around screaming that B pushed A. That's basically our simplistic news coverage about Ukraine.

Feel free to read about the 2014 coup :
I take no issue with Ukrainians giving their old government a swift kick out the door (and for understandable reason - such as corruption). However, with that comes the usual scapegoating of the undesirables. Would it have been better that Russia let groups like ravage ethnic Russians just across their border?

Crimea has been Russia from 1779 till ~1990, when it happened to end up under Ukrainian control after the USSR broke up. People living there are also Russian citizens, born either while it was still Russia, or to Russian parents.
Take a look:
Then ask yourself, considering the right wing neo nazi anti-ethnic-Russian shitstorm in Ukraine, where would the Crimeans rather be?

Russia isn't a saint. It's acting in self interest. It's also not a villain. Things happen for reasons.

The treaty you refer to is :
The link explains how it can be read to fault either the U.S. (for coup involvement) or Russia (for subsequent conflict involvement).

Just to put things in perspective :
Imagine Russia getting involved in a coup in Mexico or Canada. Or imagine Russia placing missile launchers in Cuba. Do you think that we would be as cordial to Russia as Russia has been to us?
So Russia tries to help a candidate who prefers friendly relations, that's hardly the sign of a committed adversary.

I mean, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I shouldn't think and analyze the situation from multiple perspectives with consideration for circumstance and motivation, and instead I should just accept what the news has on 24/7 repeat. /s

Collusion is not a crime because /literally/ it is not a crime. You will not find the word "collusion" mentioned as an offense in any criminal code. It's only on TV because people started using that phrase to assert that the campaign and Russia were acting independently (which is irrelevant, they don't need to coordinate to break the law).


newtboy said:

Way to ignore point one...the illegal hacking of what he hoped contained top secret information by a hostile power at Trump's public direction.

The fact that you would even try to contend that the relationship between the U.S. and Russia is not adversarial makes anything else you say moot, because you have already proven to either be a liar or insanely naive. It is, and since ww2 has been adversarial. Your contention that responding to an illegal-by-treaty Russian military build up and invasion on it's borders with a long term international defence program stoked the Russian invasions of Crimea and the Ukraine shows you bought the Putin propaganda, and your follow up that it's an excuse for them installing their candidate in a hostile nation, as if that's proper, shows you aren't being rational at all. What we were required by treaty to do was protect the Ukraine...all of it...with our full military force, securing their borders....we balked and Russia just walked in.

Really, you think collusion with a foreign power to perform illegal acts against private citizens and the government and the interests of the U.S. isn't a crime? Sorry, but it absolutely is here in the U.S., where he did it.

So far, "he" isn't charged with a crime (only because it's likely he's so incompetent that he actually didn't know his entire staff were covert foreign agents....some have admitted as much when confronted with proof)...what his cabinet is charged with varies but all of them perjured themselves to congress about the crimes, who they work for, who paid them, and who they owe millions... so that's felonious.
Just a few crimes (of many) that the campaign is accused of is working with Russian diplomats for the benefit of Russia and against the interests of the U.S., hiring foreign agents, and hiding tens if not hundreds of millions secretly paid to the managers by Russia.
The campaign managers did directly receive money, all of them it seems, tens of millions...and lied about it over and over. What's more, they have admitted (only after recordings were produced) having subverted government policy by making arrangements with Putin before taking office that were diametrically opposed to the current (at the time) policy...again, that's treason.

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

scheherazade says...

[editing down to not make wall of text / rant]

Russia is not a hostile power. We are not at war with them, and we are not in any standoff. While that sort of rhetoric generates plenty of sensation for the news, it isn't factually true. We certainly do plenty to antagonize them (placing missiles launchers on Russia's border, stoking the 2014 Ukrainian coup that led to a civil war on Russia's border), and in light of that I consider it understandable that they would attempt to aide a candidate that is likely to be less confrontational.

(Keep in mind that both sides have been hacking each other on the daily for decades. Nothing special there.)

The DNC hack was a good thing for democracy. People should not be in the dark about any candidate's election cheating.

The news argues about things that are not salient.
Collusion is not a crime. That term only comes up for argument's sake, and has no bearing on the legality/illegality of anything in question.

The crime that the campaign is accused of is 'accepting foreign money for elections', which is a campaign funding violation. The argument is that : while Russia appears to not have provided money, the *information Russians provided directly to campaign staff had a monetary value, which makes it equivalent to receiving money.
(*content of said information as of yet not revealed)

Since then, campaign staff has gotten into individual trouble when their individual financial actions have been dug into (namely, laundering), which has led to individual financial conspiracy charges (IIRC).


newtboy said:

So, there's no evidence any hack was by request, except that one, highly illegal hack where he repeatedly publicly requested a foreign country hack into and release to show his opponent used then for top secret info...meaning he also requested they hack and release that top secret info. Lucky for us all there wasn't any secret info in them....after thanking them for hacking the DNC on his behalf, and the Russians followed his direction to the letter. To me, that's pure unquestionable collusion in public intended to skew the election for the benefit of a hostile foreign power...or treason. Edit: his claim now that it was just a joke is as ridiculous as the spurned lover who hires a hitman, pays them, and revels in the murder claiming the instructions to murder were a joke. It just doesn't fly.

The email hack was not the first publicly known instance of Russian interference this election, sorry. It might be the first well known to the majority of the public, but there were many known "items" before that. Trump suggested they hack her servers and anywhere the missing emails might be because it was already well known they were hacking American systems on his behalf, clearly and repeatedly....also it was clear the FBI was investigating Trump in the final weeks of the election, but Comey didn't feel the need to tell the public about that, only about the baseless reopening of the Clinton investigation over not new evidence...WTF?

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

scheherazade says...

To be fair :

There is no evidence that any hack was by request (* The "Russia, find the 30'000 missing emails, and share them with the FBI" statement was in reference to the emails deleted from the private server - not DNC related). There is plenty self interest to motivate such a hack without anyone asking for it. Especially if the hacker's election favorite is Trump.

The election interference rhetoric started when the email hack was the only item blamed on the Russians.


newtboy said:

If that was the only Russian interference, you could have a point, but hacking and releasing her (and the DNCs) emails (assumed to contain top secret information) at Trump's public request was only one (two) of thousands of illicit things they did.

Donna Brazile: HRC controlled DNC and rigged the primary

scheherazade says...

This video is strange to me. It's like the guy woke up and realized what everyone else already knew before the election was even over.

Video makes references to the DNC/Hillary campaign calling the emails a conspiracy - but I don't remember them ever denying the authenticity of the emails.
All it would have taken was one phrase : "these emails are made up".
But they didn't - and the only reason to not deny, is if you know it will be confirmed and you will be caught lying.

The irony of the situation is:
- DNC&Hillary rigs primary election against Bernie, undermining democratic elections.
- *Russia steals and leaks documents showing that the DNC was undermining democratic elections.
- *Russia is the bad guy, because 'letting people know that elections are being rigged' is making people upset at the cheaters, and is improperly influencing elections against the cheaters.

So, apparently it's fine if you cheat, but it's cheating if you let people know who's cheating.

It's like the bizarro episode from SeaLab2021, only applied to political sensibilities.


Vox explains bump stocks

scheherazade says...

Corrections :

Lack of mechanical parts is not the reason a bump stock was deemed legal.
(Furthermore, they highlighted 'no automatically functional parts', while they said lack of mechanical parts.)

External attachment also does not disqualify an item from being considered part of a weapon.
For example, it's illegal to attach a foregrip to a pistol (because there are piles of insane gun laws already, making esoteric combinations of parts worth federal prison and 100'000 dollar fines.)

A machinegun is a gun that fires automatically.
Automatically is a mode where more than one shot comes out with 1 trigger pull.
Rate of fire does not define a machine gun.

A bump stock required the operator to trigger the weapon for every shot, which is why it was deemed not an automatic.


Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

I don't think anyone suggests that civilian disarmament encourages tyranny, merely that civilian armament discourages tyranny.

In any case, there are a variety of applications that aren't "fighting hitler".

No country goes on forever without some domestic strife. Could be domestic war, could be economic collapse, could be the government scapegoating "your kind", could be a weather disaster, could be whatever.
In such an unlikely event, if you happen to be around at the time, you may wish to guard your family, food, fuel, etc.

Note that these events affect a LOT of people when they do happen (as in millions at a time).
Even though they are less frequent than a random shooting, the sheer quantity of people makes them significant.

Eg. The last Houston destruction by hurricane was in 1979 (38 years ago). That's not so infrequent, in a city of 2.3 million people (ish).
That's an upper bound of 60'000 people affected per year on average.
Either way, it's a lot of people that need to guard their homes from looters, etc.
Granted not everyone is on a destroyed street - but you see what I mean.

There have been plenty of disasters and riots in the last few decades where you wouldn't want to be caught helpless - just in case.

That's also a commentary on society. During the Fukushima disaster, nobody was looting or robbing, or whatever. Japan has a better behaved society.


bcglorf said:

@newtboy and @scheherazade,

I think I may have come up with a shorter line of evidence for a well armed population being protection against tyranny.

Granted, a poorly armed population with strong arms control laws doesn't necessarily devolve into tyranny. We can all demonstrate this with counter examples like up here in Canada. However, can anyone name an oppressive dictatorship that had 2nd amendment level freedoms for every man and woman in their state? I can't think of a single example myself.

As I said before, that doesn't lead me to immediately declare zero restrictions on guns are thus worth any cost to forestall future tyranny. However, I have to acknowledge that the NRA style argument for protection against tyranny isn't entirely without merit.

That leads to my objections with declaring that it is objectively obvious that gun freedoms must morally be pulled back, while at the same time objectively obvious that idealogical/religious practice freedoms must not. We have ample examples of extremists gathering together to plot violence, mayhem and death on a grand scale and putting some extra lines in the sand of when that becomes unacceptable is no more obviously immoral than restricting gun ownership.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

Probability doesn't stack like that.

Imagine this.
25% chance. I.E. 0.25 ratio.

Using your method, after 10 trials, the ratio is 0.25 * 10 = 2.5, aka 250%. Beyond certain.

The proper method for 10 trials at 25% is : 1-(0.75^10) = 94% chance.

Hence why 1/24'974 per year (aka 0.004% chance per year) needs 17'000 years to reach 50% chance overall.

If you use the discharge figure (1/514'147), you get to 350'000 years to reach 50%.


newtboy said:

No. I think that's 1 out of every 24974 people are killed by a firearm assault each year....according to her.
Assuming that stays static, that's a 1/2497 chance you'll be killed by guns every 10 years, or an overall 1/250 chance if you live to 100. Not so great anymore.

Edit:where are you getting 1/350000? Not your chart.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

If you're gonna load 5 mags at the range, you could just load 1 mag 5 times at the range.

I suppose you would have whatever mags you own loaded. Otherwise there's no use in having more than 1.

For some people it's their main hobby. There's some expensive premium stuff out there.
If I wanted to hemorrhage money, I could probably drop 10k on a rifle build.
Heck, here's 3k on just a scope :


newtboy said:


Side note, but you wouldn't normally keep thousands of rounds all loaded in extended mags....and this guy didn't pinch any pennies either.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

Also, we may yet find out that the "explosives" were no more than reloading powder and/or tannerite shooting targets that he had lying around his car.


newtboy said:

20+ more at home, thousands of rounds and explosives in his car, so he didn't bring everything.

360rpm is nothing to sneeze at. I think he got better than that though.

Just Google rapid fire trigger.

Edit: most minor felonies can be expunged, and they come in classes, a, b, and c.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

Either way, he brought plenty more than needed.

Sidenote :
Everyone who shoots regularly (sport, not hunting) has thousands of rounds.
A 1k brick of 223 is ~28c per shot.
If you buy boxes of 20 each at the range, you're gonna pay closer to ~50c per shot.
If you go to the range 2x per month, firing 200 rounds per trip (6 or 7 mags worth), that's 2.5 months to empty a 1k brick.
~110 bucks/month if you buy 1k at a time.
~200 bucks/month if you buy individual boxes at the range.
The choice is simple. 1k bricks to save money.
So if you have 5 different caliber rifles, you have 5 1k bricks.
This is one of those "out of touch" sort of things with TV coverage. They make it sound like thousands of rounds is a lot to have.

Granted, I know hunters that have 40 rounds to their name, and it will take them 10 years to shoot all 40. One shot at season start to check zero. Then 1 or 2 more to take 1 or 2 deer. But they don't like to shoot, they like to hunt.

I googled 'rapid fire triggers'.

Geissele, Timney, Hypertouch, these are all normal triggers.
They are premium offerings. Smooth, low grit, low creep, clean crisp break.
They don't actually have any function that artificially increases rate of fire.
The marketing can fool you if you don't know what they are.
(It's like buying a "no name mouse" vs a "gamer mouse". One feels better, but you still click just as fast.)

Tac Con 3MR does have its own gimmick. It does a partial reset on every fire. Your finger still has to move forward and back to fire again, so you're still limited by your reaction time. In reviews it's no different than a normal trigger rate of fire wise.

4473 just asks if you've ever been convicted of a felony that could (not did) have had a 1 year sentence. That's a pretty broad set.

AFAIK, they all screw your right to vote. I could be wrong.

Note :
Sorry about edits mid your reply.
I have a habit of "word processing" in place - out of fear that I'll click back or something and lose my text.


newtboy said:

20+ more at home, thousands of rounds and explosives in his car, so he didn't bring everything.

360rpm is nothing to sneeze at.

Just Google rapid fire trigger.

Edit: most minor felonies can be expunged, and they come in classes, a, b, and c.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

Only what they mentioned in the news.
20 ish guns.
2 ar15s, 1 with a bump stock.
1 ak pattern rifle (47 claimed, but the news is clueless. Could be a 74, could be an odd variant), possibly with a bump stock.
Then a bunch of other guns, not described.

Yes, full auto varies. I erred on the higher rate side.
A more realistic rate would be 12hz auto, 6hz bump, and 3hz semi.

Only other non-NFA non-bump rapid fire mechanism that I know of is a binary trigger (fires on pull, and on release). Effectively doubles your semi fire rate.

In any case, he only needed 1 gun and spare magazines.
I assume he brought everything not because it was necessary, but because he was planning to die and he had the stuff, so why not use it one last time (not like he'll get another chance).

To be fair, so far, mass shooters have stuck around for the long haul. Escape hasn't been an issue. But sure, in the future it could be.

True, you don't have to be 100% squeaky clean, but the vegas guy so far does look like he was.

As an aside, our felony code is incredibly expansive. People get disqualified from gun ownership over things that most normal people wouldn't even think would be illegal.

There's a stat that some lawyer published : a person typically commits 3 [obscure] felonies per day just going about normal daily activities. You can basically put anyone in jail if you choose to monitor them.

IMO, felonies should be divided into major and minor, with anything non violent being minor, and not disqualifying of gun ownership or right to vote.

Eg. I don't care if someone is running a pot farm. It isn't bothering anyone, it shouldn't even be a crime. But if it's gonna be a felony, at least it should be some lesser felony than it is now.


newtboy said:

Really? You have a complete inventory of his arsenal, because I haven't seen one. He had many bump stocks.
Full auto what is 20 Hz? Different guns have different rates of fire, and he had many. Different bump stocks also deliver different rates, as do different fingers on different triggers.

When your target is a 15 degree arc, it's fine. For aiming, I agree.

Not in my experience at gun shows is all I'll say about that.

My point, these are legal. The traceability comes in if he had escaped.

You don't have to be squeaky clean, just not banned if you buy legally. There's no check at all for the bump stock or other rapid fire mechanism (there are many).

Ban of the rapid fire mechanisms would have at least forced him to buy them on the black market for far more money...if he could find them at all. That's a step, not a solution.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

He didn't have full auto, he used a bump fire stock.
Full auto fires around 20hz. Well practiced bump firing is around 10hz. Well practiced semi auto pull is around 6hz.

Bump firing also sprays so bad it's not aimable beyond a few feet distance. The gun community is even more surprised than other people, most considered the bump stock as a joke doo dad for making noise and wasting money.

All vendors, even at a gun show, must do background checks.

All private sellers, regardless of where (at home, gun show, on the street, wherever), are not required to do checks - but are in practice held liable for subsequent gun crimes if they can't prove they had no idea the buyer was shady.

There is absolutely nothing special about gun shows. The gun show loophole is an entirely imaginary issue (I explained this earlier).

A traceable gun is just as capable of shooting a person as an untraceable gun.

Yes, anyone can put together that arsenal.
Especially anyone with a squeaky clean record who qualifies to be a gun owner no matter what the restriction - like the Vegas shooter.

Hence why *nothing proposed* would have had *any impact* on the Vegas events, short of confiscation raids nation wide and capital punishment for possession.

The reply was to : "You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't."

I have two interpretations of that chart

1) (my initial thought)
Assault understood as the legal meaning (brandishing, threatening, not necessarily killing).
Discharge understood as firing.
This is what the original math was based on.
But yes, it seems senseless because how can you die to brandishing?

You are correct regarding the "per year".
The original math does include the mistake of thinking it was cause of death, not per year chance of death.
That alters the result from 350'000 lifetimes for a 50/50 chance, down to 350'000 years for a 50/50 chance. AKA 4600 lifetimes worth of years for a 50/50 chance in the next year.

2) (your [likely correct] thought)
Assault understood as being fired upon.
Discharge understood as accidental (what else could it mean?)
This variant is computed below.
However, this challenges conventional assertion, because the common assertion is that accidents kill more than intentional. Maybe that assertion is crap.

1/24974 as caused by assault
That's a 99.995995835669095859694081845119% chance of dying by a cause OTHER than firearms.
Which requires around 17'000 trials for the chance of the next death to be 50% by firearm.
I.E. 99.995995835669095859694081845119% ^ 17'000 = 50.625%, or about 50/50.
AKA 226 lifetimes worth of years to have a 50/50 chance of death by firearm in the next year.

Referring to the study I linked earlier :!/life
#2 version has a similar death chance to the polstats link, so the #2 variant is likely the appropriate understanding (not my initial understanding).


newtboy said:

Common sense is not anti gun.
There clearly aren't laws enough. Anyone could put together the arsenal of full auto weapons he had, untraceable if from a gun show, legally, and repeat this. Felons, psychotics, terrorists, libtards, anyone. This is definitely a case of intentional neglect, make no mistake. Congress knows about these devices, they've fought to keep them legal. This hole in the law was by design.

You totally misread or intentionally misrepresent your own dumb, misleading chart which separates all different firearm deaths into "firearm discharge, firearm assault, intentional self harm (by firearm) , and accident" Even using their highly suspect numbers and singling out only death by firearm assault, it's 24974/1 , not the 350000/1 that you claim ....and that's total odds of dying by firearm assault per year, not odds that, if you die, it will be by firearms.'s a thing.

Colbert To Trump: 'Doing Nothing Is Cowardice'

scheherazade says...

I dunno about you, but it cost me lifetime to acquire the funds to buy my shit. I certainly wasn't going to work for the fun of it. I can't get that time back. But if you don't care about being robbed, then sure, help them carry.

I agree that life is worth more than stuff.
I also think that you reap what you sow.

For example, I don't think I should be killed for punching someone.
But if I did punch someone, I wouldn't be shocked if they turned around and killed me for it. It's certainly on the table of possible outcomes for my action, and I know that going into it.


ChaosEngine said:

I'll go further. I'd rather be burgled than kill someone.

If someone broke into my house and tried to steal my TV, as long as they weren't trying to hurt me or my family, hell, I'd help them carry it.

It's just stuff and it's not worth taking a human life over.

Send this Article to a Friend

Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients

Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon