Trivia posted:

PJ, you may have posted this before but I'm going to ask anyway: how exactly did you come to find the SA forums?

Party Plane Jones posted:

2 https://twitter.com/markfollman/status/908725516559040513

Deteriorata posted:

Rather than free-standing homes, would something like a managed care apartments with varying degrees of independence as they show the ability to handle it work?

Each tenant would have a room, and weekly maid service with linens as necessary. Community dining with an option for in-room cooking as independence increases. As they begin to work, 25% of income goes to "rent", however much they make to help them develop the habit of paying it (also builds the credit score).

Medical and mental health staff available to meet those needs. Social workers to oversee cases and keep them all moving forward. Everyone moving toward getting out and completely independent, to free up space for new tenants - maybe a soft 2-year time limit, which could be extended indefinitely in individual cases as needed.

Further developed group homes for people still learning to cope with independence, but maybe 4 or 6 to a house with a social worker/house mother to keep it going, again as the continue to gain the skills needed to keep a home of their own. Eventual complete graduation and independence.

That's been my vision for a program I would like to see. Would be any good? Any critiques?

It seems to me like a workable plan that I would like to try getting into motion eventually around here. Please shoot it full of holes whereever you can! I want it to get to a stage where I'm confident it would work.

Fragmented posted:

I actually went through a program like this in Portland. I was bad into drugs and alcohol and got to the point where i was sleeping in a tent for 5 months and i went to Central City Concern where they detoxed me from the heroin i was using, and placed me in a transitional SRO room. I had a case manager, i had to do outpatient addiction treatment with regular counseling sessions and UA's. There was a clinic in the building if anyone had medical issues. I was forced to go to NA/AA meetings(have to get those 3 signatures a week!) but i slowly found friends in the meetings, and have stayed clean since i went through detox.

Now i have a good job, a great life and all it took was 8 months of someone giving a poo poo and saying yes when i asked for help.

Fragmented posted:

I actually went through a program like this in Portland. I was bad into drugs and alcohol and got to the point where i was sleeping in a tent for 5 months and i went to Central City Concern where they detoxed me from the heroin i was using, and placed me in a transitional SRO room. I had a case manager, i had to do outpatient addiction treatment with regular counseling sessions and UA's. There was a clinic in the building if anyone had medical issues. I was forced to go to NA/AA meetings(have to get those 3 signatures a week!) but i slowly found friends in the meetings, and have stayed clean since i went through detox.

Now i have a good job, a great life and all it took was 8 months of someone giving a poo poo and saying yes when i asked for help.

botany posted:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/...WT.nav=top-news


you know, i often find myself hoping, whenever the US makes a decision, that the Eternal gently caress Up Division of the government has more of a hand in it. what could go wrong.

Fragmented posted:

Now i have a good job, a great life and all it took was 8 months of someone giving a poo poo and saying yes when i asked for help.

Party Plane Jones posted:

6 https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/909071352233160704

Koalas March posted:

This is great! I'm really proud of you!

I quit drinking in June, and I'm glad I did. I was becoming a straight alcoholic. Election night I drank myself to sleep and then I woke up and drank another pint and then did the same thing the next day. I seriously went on a three day depression bender.

Leofish posted:

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/909102442083700736

quote:

MANY Democrats were dreading Hillary Clinton’s chronicle of electoral failure, “What Happened”, which was published this week. The former First Lady was always more admired than loved by her party (a dirty secret that even the slickest Clinton-style stage-management of her rallies could not conceal), and her defeat by Donald Trump eroded much of that grudging regard. Worse for her resentful supporters, in post-election interviews and leaked excerpts of the book, Mrs Clinton appeared to blame everyone but herself for her loss—including Senator Bernie Sanders, her rival in a rancorous primary contest that still divides the Trump-bruised Democrats. Many considered that disloyal. “If I were her, I would move on,” advised David Axelrod, a Democratic guru. A columnist for the New York Daily News was more forthright: “Hey, Hillary Clinton, shut the f--- up and go away already.”

Mrs Clinton’s book will rile her critics even more. Granted, she owns up to her errors, including a naive faith in the power of wonkish ideas to placate angry voters, and some embarrassing bloopers. Celebrating the death of coal-mining in Ohio is (no kidding) a particular regret. Mrs Clinton also acknowledges her “limitations” as a campaigner, including the carefulness of a rote-learned performer, which many voters find insincere: “I wear my composure like a suit of armour.” Yet not for a moment does Mrs Clinton believe she caused her defeat. Most of the 494-page tome (her books, produced with trusted aides, are always too long) is dedicated to causes beyond her control. Mr Sanders is among them; Mrs Clinton accuses him, among other dirty tricks, of portraying her as a “corrupt corporatist who couldn’t be trusted…paving the way for Trump’s “Crooked Hillary” campaign”. But that is trifling, set against her three biggest gripes.

One is the savaging of her reputation by an updated version of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” she accused, with some justification, of smearing her and her husband in the 1990s—including radical conservative donors, fake-news peddlers and Russian hackers and their internet bots, all egged on, wittingly or not, by a Republican candidate who “trafficked in dark conspiracy theories drawn from the pages of supermarket tabloids and the far reaches of the internet”. The results were devastating. Out canvassing in leafy suburbs, Mrs Clinton’s supporters were politely assured their candidate “had killed someone, sold drugs and committed any number of unreported crimes”. When, a month after the election, an apparently sane man shot up a pizza parlour in Washington, DC, in a bid to free the child sex slaves he believed Mrs Clinton had imprisoned there, no one was surprised.

A second complaint is the hyperventilating coverage mainstream outlets gave to Mrs Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server while secretary of state. This, as she concedes, was a fatheaded blunder. But it broke no law, caused no security breach and, while frowned upon, was not especially unusual at the State Department. Yet it was the prevailing intrigue of the election, more incessantly discussed than any of Mr Trump’s manifold scandals. By one measure, television news devoted three times as much airtime to Mrs Clinton’s e-mails as to her entire policy agenda. Her third grievance is related—the late intervention into the election of James Comey, the then FBI director, to announce he had reopened, and then that he had closed, an investigation into Mrs Clinton’s e-mails—even as early voting was taking place.

Even admirers of Mrs Clinton will curl their toes at this. No one likes a sour loser. And Mrs Clinton’s account is sufficiently self-serving to be open to that charge. In particular, she blames the competing din of fake news for her failure to persuade voters that her economic plans—an infrastructure package, incentives for apprenticeships and so on— represented a compelling picture of future prosperity. But Lexington listened hard to her economic speeches and could not identify the main point of them—a shortcoming her book repeats. Mrs Clinton insists she had “fundamental differences” with the populist Mr Sanders, while also suggesting they were only of degree—he vowed to soak the rich and splurge on everyone else; she says that would be nice, but tricky to pull off, so advocates a watery version of the same. This will not discourage the many Democrats who believe Mrs Clinton’s failure to impart a compelling economic vision cost her the election—especially as many of them back Mr Sanders’s vision.

To the devil her due
But there is a problem with that: Mrs Clinton’s analysis is basically sound. Had it not been for the uncontrollable “headwinds” she describes, she would probably have won, despite her shortcomings. Going into the election, she was up by six points; then Mr Comey intruded and her lead evaporated, as undecided voters recoiled from this clinching evidence of her perfidy. Of course, had she been a better campaigner, including on economic issues, she might have been further ahead. But that is harder to quantify; in fact, in the rustbelt states where she is thought to have lost the election, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, she polled well on economic issues. There is also little reason to think a more populist message would have helped her there. The white, working-class voters who, continuing a decades-old-trend, went from Democrat to Republican in those states, wanted less immigration, not more handouts for immigrants (among others) to enjoy.

In this election, policies, messaging and campaign effectiveness hardly seemed to matter. It was decided by partisanship and internet-borne misinformation—the enabling environment and means by which Mr Trump and his proxies destroyed Mrs Clinton. Wonk that she is (“If you’re unconvinced that friends are worth it, consider the data,” she writes), that is a surpassing humiliation. For her party, it is a warning not to resort to the comfort-blanket of left-wing policy. It might make the Democrats feel better; it probably cannot restore them to power.

Taerkar posted:

The last line of that bit only has only one response:

Fffffffffffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

But then again I'm really not surprised that their stance is 'Give in to the terrorists' demands'

Quorum posted:

So the police are literally forbidden by state law from banning guns at these things, they aren't wrong about that. Remember, VA is one of the most progressive states in the south but when it comes to guns it's basically anarchy. The cops were being deliberately overcautious and as it turned out basically no Confederates showed up; there were a tiny handful who got jeered at by the crowd and then their tires got slashed and they had to call a tow truck and go home. Then a couple more showed up late and got told their friends already left. So turns out transforming my neighborhood into the loving Green Zone wasn't really needed, but better safe than sorry I guess.

All in all it was an appropriate end; after all, the last time a bunch of Confederates were in Richmond, they did a bunch of property damage then ran away. This was just payback.

Quorum posted:

So the police are literally forbidden by state law from banning guns at these things, they aren't wrong about that. Remember, VA is one of the most progressive states in the south but when it comes to guns it's basically anarchy. The cops were being deliberately overcautious and as it turned out basically no Confederates showed up; there were a tiny handful who got jeered at by the crowd and then their tires got slashed and they had to call a tow truck and go home. Then a couple more showed up late and got told their friends already left. So turns out transforming my neighborhood into the loving Green Zone wasn't really needed, but better safe than sorry I guess.

All in all it was an appropriate end; after all, the last time a bunch of Confederates were in Richmond, they did a bunch of property damage then ran away. This was just payback.

Quorum posted:

So the police are literally forbidden by state law from banning guns at these things, they aren't wrong about that. Remember, VA is one of the most progressive states in the south but when it comes to guns it's basically anarchy. The cops were being deliberately overcautious and as it turned out basically no Confederates showed up; there were a tiny handful who got jeered at by the crowd and then their tires got slashed and they had to call a tow truck and go home. Then a couple more showed up late and got told their friends already left. So turns out transforming my neighborhood into the loving Green Zone wasn't really needed, but better safe than sorry I guess.

All in all it was an appropriate end; after all, the last time a bunch of Confederates were in Richmond, they did a bunch of property damage then ran away. This was just payback.

Potato Salad posted:

Not that I don't believe you, but where are you getting this?

Leofish posted:

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/909102442083700736

Jaxyon posted:

Nobody said giving people the homeless was a panacea they said it was a starting point and given your other poo poo opinions you making a strawman isn't really a surprise so don't act all shocked.

Deteriorata posted:

Rather than free-standing homes, would something like a managed care apartments with varying degrees of independence as they show the ability to handle it work?

Each tenant would have a room, and weekly maid service with linens as necessary. Community dining with an option for in-room cooking as independence increases. As they begin to work, 25% of income goes to "rent", however much they make to help them develop the habit of paying it (also builds the credit score).

Medical and mental health staff available to meet those needs. Social workers to oversee cases and keep them all moving forward. Everyone moving toward getting out and completely independent, to free up space for new tenants - maybe a soft 2-year time limit, which could be extended indefinitely in individual cases as needed.

Further developed group homes for people still learning to cope with independence, but maybe 4 or 6 to a house with a social worker/house mother to keep it going, again as the continue to gain the skills needed to keep a home of their own. Eventual complete graduation and independence.

That's been my vision for a program I would like to see. Would be any good? Any critiques?

It seems to me like a workable plan that I would like to try getting into motion eventually around here. Please shoot it full of holes whereever you can! I want it to get to a stage where I'm confident it would work.

marathon Stairmaster sesh posted:

He was a nice Juggalo to work with and he shined the best at running the chainsaws when we had a CalTrans issued job order.

Fragmented posted:

Koalas March posted:

This is great! I'm really proud of you!

I quit drinking in June, and I'm glad I did. I was becoming a straight alcoholic. Election night I drank myself to sleep and then I woke up and drank another pint and then did the same thing the next day. I seriously went on a three day depression bender.

Dead Reckoning posted:

People keep bringing up the Utah study like it's a straightforward explanation bothers me. Patting themselves on the back that "Utah solved homelessness 91%" like the answer has been staring us in the face all along and the only reason we haven't done it is because of Capitalism or elected officials being secretly Ebenezer Scrooge or whatever. But it isn't true, the real story is the government redefining success, a tale as old as time. That fucks with the narrative though, the idea that everything has a simple, satisfying solution. The truth is that 91% of the people on the street aren't necessarily going to be ready or able to transition back.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Mister Adequate posted:

Not to downplay your narrowly-avoided alcoholism but I don't think the first couple days after election night can be used as too strong a guide for that, you sure as poo poo weren't the only one I can tell you that from memories of hangover.

Koalas March posted:

Well I mean since the the new year I was drinking at least a pint almost every day. I got super drunk one night and had a meltdown about a person in my life, I broke a TV etc. It was very bad and I never want to do that again.

Dead Reckoning posted:

What you are proposing is will be expensive (24/7 staff, food, utilities, linens, administration, medications), and if you want to make room for those you can help, you're going to have to cut the problematic ones loose, back to the street, the police, the mental hospitals.

berserker posted:

I'm starting to see discussion about Graham-Cassidy gaining traction; McConnell wants to prioritize it before Sep 30th and Cassidy says he has 49 votes right now...

Thoughts? I know what Rand Paul said, but he's flipped his vote on this before.

Koalas March posted:

Remember when the list of people that yall shouldn't engage with because they defended nazis or killer cops? Then they deleted it and within the same hour, it was proved why we needed it? Fun times all around.

RuanGacho posted:

I thought people don't read OPs

Koalas March posted:

I thought reading the OP was a rule back in the day? We need to do that again.

RuanGacho posted:

The classiest Storm.

I don't know, I'm not all that inclined to make a list of posters I feel post in bad faith because I just don't really believe in that.I think the forums are better served by letting people incriminate themselves and earn red texts to a point. There are a few I would just ban on repeat offence though.

Office Pig posted:

Ruan I would deeply appreciate it if you could slap the topic of Graham-Cassidy into the op that nobody reads.

Lemming posted:

The problem is the people who repeatedly post in bad faith forever. There's no point in having a discussion if that's what's going on, and it derails other potential good conversation.