- Quickdraw McLaw
- 61 Comments
- 174 Views
- Survivors of the deadly fire filed suit against the owners of Alpine Motel Apartments yesterday. [RJ]
- Some employers, like Nacho Daddy, are having employees sign COVID-19 liability waivers before returning to work. [Fox5Vegas]
- Dr. Fauci says you may still be homeschooling your kids this fall. [Best Life Online]
Fraudster Fauci is still a thing?
I know! Get this guy out of here. I, for one, trust the opinions of hack politicians and real estate developers over people who have studied a narrow subject their entire lives.
Fauci said today his advise is coming solely from a medical perspective. That's his job. He's not weighing competing economic interests, which are also valid. The #believefaucionly people are typically in the same camp as #believeallwomen. And look how that came back to bite them. Those who only consider the health side without giving consideration to the economic and mental health side effects of an extended shut down, are typically those sitting high in their ivory towers, much like 1:29 below seems to be. Yes, I too would like to keep everything shut down for an extended time until coronavirus is eliminated, but some people are really struggling as a direct result of that very action. Their viewpoints are valid and shouldn't be so easily dismissed.
That's fine. So then why did you call him a fraud?
I'm 2:06. Not 10:29.
Because he is.
Corrupt data.
May 12, 2020 at 3:11 PM: I'm afraid you've been misled:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/plandemic-mikovits-arrest/
I trust Fauci more than I trust people on either side of the political aisle.
I'm glad I don't have kids yet.
Team Fauci Von Scarfinheimer can squirrel back into their labs anytime now. Your 15 minutes have passed.
Assuming things are like they are now, are you going to send your kids to school? Interested in hearing from parents with kids in CCSD. Assuming CCSD is open, will you send your kids?
Things can obviously change for the better or worse over the next three months.
If school opened next Monday, nope, I'm not sending the kids in yet. This fall? We'll see. Maybe this was overblown and Fauci is on crack and life will resume, but for now, there is too much uncertainty to even know what will happen a month from now.
You are not safe until there is herd immunity. 80+% having either had the virus or having had an vaccine. Instead of thinking September, think next February.
My kids aren't going to die from COVID.
You know why? They're under 75, they don't live in a nursing home, and they have healthy immune and respiratory systems. You know, like 98% of the people whove been laid off/furloughed.
You're right, 1:27 p.m. Screw everybody else! That's the ideal that this country was built on! Now you better get back to protesting that you cannot go to Olive Garden!
1:27 You miserable POS. Let's hope your children don't copy and paste your argument in the future when you fall into the demographic of whatever Pandemic strikes in the future.
Is 1:27 really gaslighting elderly people and those with compromised respiratory systems?
All these tough guys online here or Facebook. Similar to President Drump, they talk a lot but want to be safe themselves and won’t risk their health. They protest at hospitals, but can’t volunteer to help at the hospital. They are just people who will always find something to complain about. It is not even worth your energy fighting with them. We all have the right to be what we are.
There has not been enough focus on the potential long term lung damage this disease causes. Most will not die, but healthy people can still end up with diminished lung function which takes years to heal. I certainly don't want kids to deal with such injury needlessly.
I stand with 1:27, and yeah, I'd send my kids back tomorrow if the fascists let me.
1:27 here. Shout out to all of you who enjoy bowing down to government power. They love you weak and needy, just as you are.
Yes, I say it was not worth the sacrifice of our economy and freedom to save the elderly and sickly, who are mostly unproductive.
1:27 for BOG and Senate!
Don't let self-pitying and attention-seeking nurses on social media fool you, either: our emergency departments in Southern Nevada are ghost towns. The providers in those emergency departments are facing reduced hours, layoffs, and even pay cuts. The picture is far worse when considering that elective procedures performed in hospitals have been on hold, affecting the staff who would be involved in performing them. Already there have been plenty of layoffs and furloughs in the healthcare field, which seems counter-intuitive in a public health crisis, but is required because of the decision to keep the hospitals pristine for the unimpeded use of COVID patients who largely never showed up.
While there is a need to study the long-term effects of the disease, as there is anecdotal data indicating that it affects everything from lung to neurological function to reproductive capacity, in terms of lethality it is a disease that overwhelmingly kills the old and the obese. As someone in neither category, my concern for the fortunes of those who are begin to diminish as this slogs into its third month and their fragility jeopardizes my ability to continue working. I recognize this is self-centered, but that's how incentives work. It's also informed by how I lost many dozens of pounds to be alive for my children and set a good example for them, have kept it off for any years, and the hatred for fat people that experience engendered in me, but that's a story for another time.
3:49–you mean when nurses, with their face masks, pose with other medical personnel(including EMTs and the Orderly staff, etc.), under bold banners which read "SALUTE OUR FRONT LINERS AS THEY SAVE ALL OUR LIVES!", we should not blindly genuflect?
Is there actually some nuance here, and is this unquestioning worship a bit much?
I don't profess to have the answer. Yes, they should be saluted for what they do. But, on the other hand, a large percentage of them do not come into direct contact with a COVID patient, and when they do they are presumably wearing the masks and taking all appropriate precautions(not that the precautions are any guarantee).
But still, whether they are either caring directly for such patients, or whether the patient is being attended by another nurse, we are still talking about these nurses taking risks of exposure that well exceed the risks the average person takes.
That said, on the other hand, before they are applauded too much as selfless altruistic heroes, consider that, unlike most people, they are obviously "essential" and thus their pay continues. Also, fewer and fewer people, who would otherwise seek admission for their ailments, are being admitted. So, yes, a lot of nurses and medical personnel report that the floor or unit they are assigned too is a lot more barren than usual.
But others report something entirely different, so who really knows.
Leave it at we should tip our hat to them, but let's not grossly exaggerate–they are not hands on with bubonic plague patients, nor are they scrubbing stumps in leper colonies.
They are doing a real fine job during the pandemic, and deserve much of the praise. I prefer to leave it at that–what is hopefully a measured, considered, proportionate response.
They are killing hospitals. The Feds are actually destroying the medical infrastructure. Terrible to watch it happening.
And, as a bonus, the poor hospitals that are forbidden to make their usual income are incentivized to classify everything as Covid, and extra incentivized to put as many patients on ventilators as possible. Horrible. Just horrible.
1:34,1:31 and 1:49–I think you are all somewhat out-of-line as to approach. Yes, it appears that 1:27 has taken a very complex, highly disturbing issue and reduced it to a few absolutes which are neither all inclusive nor anywhere near reasonably accurate.
I also agree that the approach of 1:27, in addition to lacking any real analytical depth, demonstrates a lack of sufficient empathy.
But there are a lot of really desperate, stressed families that are really suffering from no income, and that emotion is going to invariably color and taint the way they express their view points.
Does the desperate,panicking and somewhat dismissive, approach of 1:27 lack sufficient factual accuracy? Of course it does? Does it demonstrate a degree of selfishness and lack of empathy? Of course it does, but perhaps that is the extreme stress of the situation, and not so much that 1:27 is a dreadful human being.
But I ask 1:34(who called 1:27 a "miserable POS")is that how we educate, re-direct and criticize those who show a lack of sufficient empathy?
Is this the best way to deal with people who don't seem sufficiently informed and not sufficiently empathetic? To abandon our own empathy, as well as our basic humanity and civility?
I recognize that the stakes are really high and we are all becoming one giant exposed raw nerve. Perhaps that is why we need to cling to each other, and to our basic humanity, even more.
These people that are so brave to hurry back make me sick. If you have ever seen or known anyone who has lost a child you might take your time and f the economy. I knew a guy at work who lost both children to a drunk driver and another guy who came home to a suicide. Neither person was ever "right in the head" again. I'm still haunted by that look on their faces. Like a deathcamp prisoner or something – and that was about 30 years ago. My point: take this seriously. Children are at risk and all these arguments about the economy and other bs mean nothing to me. And yes I'm on the end of that philosophical debate of "even if it is one life saved." Finally, I could not give a sh*t who wins the election, as I am concerned about my kids and my family. I wish they would all shut up. And before you start giving me sh*t on a blog how about you address my fear that I do not want to be like those people I mentioned. I just don't see how anyone with children cannot take this situation seriously. Appreciate any honest, sincere comments. Sorry for venting but this is very stressful to me.
How does being a non-equity partner differ from being a senior associate?
Your mother is more proud of the former.
That's completely dependent on the firm. Many firms pay higher salary and bonuses to non-equity partners. Plus benefits like use of firm expense account, paid personal travel, car allowance, etc.
Related question: would you rather be an associate at a biglaw firm making $500k, or a partner at Lewis Brisbois making a small portion of that?
How much do Lewis Brisbois non-equity partners make?
$500,000 a year isn't worth billing 2800 hours
It is for one single year of your life. Problem is to get to the $500k mark, you would have needed to give up the prior decade+ as well.
This is 9:01. We have different priorities – I just don't see how a couple hundred grand is worth being miserable for a whole year. Maybe if it was so much money that I could retire or donate a ton and end homelessness or something, but $500k won't get you there.
And of course you're right that it is extremely rare for someone to be able to hop over and start making that kind of money without having billed 2500+ for years and years.
May 12, 2020 at 6:08 PM – A tough call that obviously requires knowing a lot of variables, but I would say this – no attorney wants to be taking the lions share of his or her compensation in the form of a salary if they aren't backing that up with a book to support it. It would be safer to take more in the form of a productivity bonus. I've said this over the years and unsupportable salaries helped torpedo more than one firm in this town.
Billing 2800 hours is not as crazy as it may sound.
I know lots of biglaw lawyers that say they've never hit 2000 hours. They say people that realistically want to make partner need to bill 2400+, though, and even then the chances are slim.
People that bill less than 2000 hours are lazy
Lazy is good. The practice of law would be so much more pleasurable if more of the attorneys were lazy.
Your firm can bill you as a Partner in the former and has to bill you as an Associate in the latter. Amazing how much better of a lawyer you become with the change in title.
The tone of these posts is that Fauci is either an impartial medical expert who bases opinions only after a laborious analysis of all the data, or that he is a polarized hack who carries the water for the current administration.
Like most people who are at the center of very high profile matters that many people have a very real-life stake in, neither extreme or polarized opinion is accurate, and the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes.
I realize that pointing out such nuance will not be popular either with those who view him as an altruistic genius with no agenda except for trying only to protect us(which he is not), or the opposing camp which paints him as an incompetent fraudster(which he clearly is not).
So, it's meaningless to continue a dialogue of which extreme he should be classified as since neither extreme is particularly accurate.
The far more informative dialogue to have is since he is somewhere in the middle between these two extremes, where in the middle is he–closer to one extreme than the other?
I'm not alone! Thank you.
I disagree that all of these posts take those 2 polemic extremes. I have not seen anyone (least of all Fauci himself) say that he is an altruistic genius. Like good scientists (and good lawyers) Fauci has been forthright in saying what he does not know. The data is all that matters and the data is constantly changing, for good and for bad. After a few months, we do not know where this is going: is it the Spanish Flu which killed millions or Hong Kong Flu that was relatively mild and killed between 65,000-100,000? The physicians in my family are erring on the side of caution; the business people in my family are erring on the side of economics.
The RJ will endorse in the Family Court races tomorrow. Apparently, rather than have the editorial board interview the candidates this year and making a decision based on that, the RJ instead arranged these debates in each judicial race and will be basing their endorsements largely on the debate content(along with, presumably, how incumbent performed on the judicial survey).
Before I spend time going back and watching these Family Court debates, I would ask if they are as lame as some posters have suggested? It seems these debates fall into the "so bad it's good category"–much like 1950's no budget sci. fi. flicks by Ed Wood.
It's been presented that in at least one debate, the central issue was which candidate cares more about "best interests of children." Is some candidate actually accused of not caring about children? If not, it seems like a senseless bone of contention.
And on another debate we are informed that the candidates are each going to great length to commit to avoiding financial contributions due to the tainting effect. One poster pointed out that the candidates who indulge such "principled stand" are often the ones with nothing to lose by adopting this stand as they don't seem to be attracting contributions in any case.
So, did anyone bother to watch? And if so were they just plain bad(in which case I will not watch) or were they "so bad they are good" in which case my morbid curiosity may take over.
Fauci is an egomaniac with short man's syndrome, let's call it Covid-19.1E, the ego strain, and the only cure is for him to stop mouthing off. He says nothing when he speaks…"Well, this disease may come back for a second round, or perhaps not, but you never know, I mean I just don't know, none of us do, that's why this is so scary." Not a direct quote, but there is no need for one since he says the same thing every time.
It's how they all talk because the innuendo of not knowing is that they need more money to perform more research. If they gave a definite answer, everyone's interest would go elsewhere…like to a viable solution, which would be an end to the glorious spotlight.
Impressive list of patents he accumulated during a lifetime of public service. How much does he stand to make peddling treatments that pay well?
3:44: The answer to your question is contained in the link you provided. The Assignee/Owner of all of those patents is "The United States of America, as Represented by the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services." He stands to make nothing.
I love being corrected. Thank you. Yes, some of the patents are assigned to the USA, and some are not.
Re @4:35p – All patents that have been granted are assigned to the USA. The ones that aren't are applications that weren't granted, or haven't been granted yet. (btw I'm not @4:28p)
5:56 is correct.
This was a fun learning experience. Thank you for correcting my post.
2:53–I haven't watched, at least not yet. But,if like most debates or discussions by judicial candidates,the content is boring and lame,there is a lot of built-in excuse or mitigation for that. It's not simply a matter of poor performance by the candidates.
Many judicial candidates are well aware of how extremely restricting judicial elections are, and how easy it is to run afoul of the rules.
Anything of any substance that well exceeds "I will be a fair, impartial judge" seems to invite ethical focus that such candidate is telegraphing how he/she would rule in certain types of cases. That is one reason they are forced to keep things really vague and general.
Now in races involving incumbents, the debates are usually a little more interesting as the candidates often feel free to barbecue the sitting judge for reversal rates and survey performance–both of which appear to be fair game and not violative of the rules.
But open seats, with no incumbents, are often a yawnfest. Such debates ,or speeches by candidates, often consist of them essentially reading their resume in a monotone, and then asserting that such experience and qualifications make them the best candidate.
So, since they are not allowed to really say much of substance, that may be why the candidates, as you mention, kept repeating the mantra "best interests of children."
But beyond the limitations of the rules, there must be something about these formats that make lawyers a bit nervous and tentative. I understand that most lawyers, who are running for a judgeship, have never campaigned as a candidate before. But that all said, it is surprising that often we see someone who is quite dynamic in court(great voice inflection, etc.)but once they are in a judicial race they become very low-key and even monotone.
There are some sociopaths in this profession.
Nothing better than karma. I am a paralegal, and I cannot believe the crap my office is pulling during these troubling times. It would make your skin crawl
I read once that sociopaths make great biglaw attorneys. It really is gross but we prioritize those traits in law school and beyond as a profession so we reap what we sow.
Thank anyone who does shitty to you, because it all comes out in the wash. Plus, karma is 3×5 worse than what they did to you.
The worst sociopaths I've gone against have actually made me a better lawyer. Still not sure it was worth the experience though. But it's like they say, a smooth sea never made a skilled sailor.
@ 5:58 Do tell. What is the crap our office is pulling?
Being unethical to employees and other attorneys during covid19