USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

Democrazy posted:

If you made a rule requiring gun owners to have insurance on incidents involving their gun, couldn't the government create a program if the private market doesn't make one?

Government probably shouldn't be in the business of insuring toys. If the free market deems firearms liabilities uninsurable, it's just another proof that they have no place in the public space.

As for people who use guns in their livelihoods, they should probably get weapon incidents rolled into their occupational plans, private or public.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:14

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 22:42

Harik: Sep 9, 2001; From the hard streets of Moscow
First dog to touch the stars; Plaster Town Cop

Office Pig posted:

Believe it or not, criminal justice reform is underway in America.

Ok since you guys are too busy "engaging" with DR & Jackal to read this, I'll just quote some important parts.

quote:

McGahey had heard of Christian Alcoholics & Addicts in Recovery. People called it �the Chicken Farm,� a rural retreat where defendants stayed for a year, got addiction treatment and learned to live more productive lives. Most were sent there by courts from across Oklahoma and neighboring states, part of the nationwide push to keep nonviolent offenders out of prison.

Aside from daily cans of Dr Pepper, McGahey wasn�t addicted to anything. The judge knew that. But the Chicken Farm sounded better than prison.

A few weeks later, McGahey stood in front of a speeding conveyor belt inside a frigid poultry plant, pulling guts and stray feathers from slaughtered chickens destined for major fast food restaurants and grocery stores.

There wasn�t much substance abuse treatment at CAAIR. It was mostly factory work for one of America�s top poultry companies. If McGahey got hurt or worked too slowly, his bosses threatened him with prison.

And he worked for free. CAAIR pocketed the pay.

�It was a slave camp,� McGahey said. �I can�t believe the court sent me there.�

On May 27, 2010, three months into his time at CAAIR, something went wrong.

A machine dumped a mountain of parts onto the conveyor belt, causing chicken to pile up faster than he and his co-worker could sort it. As they plunged their hands into the heap of cold parts, McGahey remembers hearing a scream. His co-worker�s rubber glove was caught in the conveyor belt.

McGahey grabbed the woman�s arm, wresting her hand free. But the machine snagged his own hand. In a matter of seconds, McGahey�s wrist was jerked backward, lodged in the seams of the conveyor belt as it hurtled toward a narrow stainless steel chute overhead. Someone yanked the emergency kill cord, which should have stopped the machine, McGahey recalled. But it raced upward, dragging him along with it.

He felt a flash of panic. Then an excruciating crunch.

Medical notes later would say McGahey suffered a �severe crush injury.� The machine smashed his hand, breaking several bones and nearly severing a tendon in his wrist. When he finally yanked his wrist free, his hand was bent completely backward. The pain was so bad that he nearly fainted.

A nurse at the plant took one look at him and called CAAIR.

�The kid�s hand is mangled!� he recalled the nurse screaming into the phone. �He needs help!�

McGahey expected an ambulance. Instead, one of CAAIR�s top managers picked him up at the plant and drove him to the local hospital. Doctors took X-rays of McGahey�s hand, gave him a splint and ordered him not to work.

Back at CAAIR, he spent a sleepless night cradling his throbbing hand. He figured it would take months to heal and planned to rest. But CAAIR�s administrators would have none of it.

They called McGahey lazy and accused him of hurting himself on purpose to avoid working, former employees said. CAAIR told him that he had to go back to work � either at Simmons or around the campus until his hand healed, which wouldn�t count toward his one-year sentence.

Wilkerson said she doesn�t remember the specifics of McGahey�s case but acknowledged that CAAIR has given such ultimatums before.

�You can either work or you can go to prison,� McGahey remembered administrators telling him. �It�s up to you.�

He already had made up his mind.

�I�ll take prison over this place,� he said. �Anywhere is better than here.�

At some rehabs, defendants get to keep their pay. At CAAIR and many others, they do not.

Legal experts said forcing defendants to work for free might violate their constitutional rights. The 13th Amendment bans slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States, except as punishment for convicts. That�s why prison labor programs are legal. But many defendants sent to programs such as CAAIR have not yet been convicted of crimes, and some later have their cases dismissed.

�You�ve got to be kidding me,� Noah Zatz, a professor specializing in labor law at UCLA, said when presented with Reveal�s findings. �That�s a very strong 13th Amendment violation case.�

CAAIR has become indispensable to the criminal justice system, even though judges appear to be violating Oklahoma�s drug court law by using it in some cases, according to the law�s authors.

Drug courts in Oklahoma are required to send defendants for treatment at certified programs with trained counselors and state oversight. CAAIR is uncertified. Only one of its three counselors is licensed, and no state agency regulates it.

Sharon Cain runs the drug court in rural Stephens County and decides where to send defendants for treatment. She said state regulators don�t stop her from using CAAIR.

�I do what I wanna do. They don�t mess with me,� she said. �And I�m not saying that in a cocky way. They just know I�m going to do drug court the way I�ve always done it.�

About 280 men are sent to CAAIR each year by courts throughout Oklahoma, as well as Arkansas, Texas and Missouri. Instead of paychecks, the men get bunk beds, meals and Alcoholics and Narcotics Anonymous meetings. If there�s time between work shifts, they can meet with a counselor or attend classes on anger management and parenting. Weekly Bible study is mandatory. For the first four months, so is church. Most days revolve around the work.

�Money is an obstacle for so many of these men,� said Janet Wilkerson, CAAIR�s founder and CEO. �We�re not going to charge them to come here, but they�re going to have to work. That�s a part of recovery, getting up like you and I do every day and going to a job.�

The program has become an invaluable labor source. Over the years, Simmons Foods repeatedly has laid off paid employees while expanding its use of CAAIR. Simmons now is so reliant on the program for some shifts that the plants likely would shut down if the men didn�t show up, according to former staff members and plant supervisors.

Read on for the other exciting highlights, like safety equipment not working (it would stop the line and you can't have that, the resulting injured workers being told to work with mangled hands or be dumped off in prison. Since they're not actually employees there's no workers comp. Gotta pad the bottom line, after all. I'm sorry, did I say there's no worker's comp? I meant the workers don't get it:

quote:

Brandon Spurgin was working in the chicken plants one night in 2014 when a metal door crashed down on his head, damaging his spine and leaving him with chronic pain, according to medical records. CAAIR filed for workers� compensation on his behalf and took the $4,500 in insurance payments. Spurgin said he got nothing.

Janet Wilkerson acknowledged that�s standard practice.

�That�s fraudulent behavior,� said Eddie Walker, a former judge with the Arkansas Workers� Compensation Commission. He said workers� comp payments are required to go to the injured worker. �What�s being done is clearly inappropriate.�

Yes, they take the payment as recompense for having to drop you off at prison and pick up another slave to replace you.

How about that rehab?

quote:

In addition to injuries, some men at CAAIR experience serious drug withdrawal, seizures and mental health crises, according to former employees. But the program doesn�t employ trained medical staff and prohibits psychiatric medicine.

That's right - take the people who are mentally ill off their medicine, work them until they break, then give them to the prison system to deal with.

Oh yes, and a 25% success rate - 75% of divertees end up being sent to prison anyway, after providing free labor for the time they were there.

I'd say it's shocking that they manage a 25% rate but I guess that's why they take in non-drug offenders

Parting gifts:

quote:

Jim Lovell, CAAIR�s vice president of program management, said there�s dignity in work.

�If working 40 hours a week is a slave camp, then all of America is a slave camp,� he said.

quote:

But today, the pain persists. All that seems to help, McGahey says, are pain pills.

Every morning and throughout the day, McGahey chugs a can of Dr Pepper with hydrocodone pills. When his doctor cut him off from his various medications, McGahey found another doctor to write a prescription.

Before CAAIR, McGahey had no interest in drugs. Now, he says he can�t live without them

�I�m addicted to them pills,� McGahey said. �I have to take them.�

Harik fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Oct 4, 2017

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:19

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

Rigel posted:

lol

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/915683974705565696

I'm pretty sure people in the old west were required to check their guns in with the sheriff upon entering town.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:31

Wakko: Jun 9, 2002; Faboo!

Short article in Truthout today departing from the canned culture war around gun control:

A Mindset Shift Is Necessary to Defeat Gun Violence

The article posted:

I started [Mothers Against Senseless Killings] MASK three summers ago. Three years -- and 15,000 meals, thousands of backpack giveaways, hundreds of pep talks, millions of hugs, a few bee stings, some sunburns and countless new relationships -- later, we have not had a shooting on the block. Not one. The neighborhood school has moved up a tier after much improvement. Violent crime and shootings in the area continue to decline at one of the most accelerated rates in the city.

We could make actual, meaningful, improvements to american society to address our insane rates of violence. It's an option.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:34

DaveWoo: Aug 14, 2004; Fun Shoe

https://mobile.twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/915690825849364480

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:36

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

Solkanar512 posted:

I'm pretty sure people in the old west were required to check their guns in with the sheriff upon entering town.

I think you are right. I remember watching some kind of debunking show explaining that gun control at the local level in every city was actually very strict. Do whatever you want out in the wilderness, but everybody roaming around an old western town armed is a Hollywood invention.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:47

Democrazy: Oct 16, 2008; If you're not willing to lick the boot, then really why are you in politics lol? Everything is a cycle of just getting stomped on so why do you want to lose to it over and over, just submit like me, I'm very intelligent.

steinrokkan posted:

Government probably shouldn't be in the business of insuring toys. If the free market deems firearms liabilities uninsurable, it's just another proof that they have no place in the public space.

As for people who use guns in their livelihoods, they should probably get weapon incidents rolled into their occupational plans, private or public.

I'm pretty skeptical that insurance companies wouldn't jump on the opportunity once legislation created the market, but i was just trying to illustrate that even if they didn't, that wouldn't render the idea impossible.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:50

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

Again with your lovely metaphors. There are numerous products that are banned in the united states because of the pollution those products cause.

I don't think that things like DDT fit the "We need to manage externalities" model. DDT is just inherently dangerous, any use of it causes damage. That's not an externality, that's an intrinsic property of DDT. Any individual gun can at least theoretically be used safely. There is no safe use of DDT. And again my point here isn't that we should regulate guns like cars or tire factories. My point is that pretending to care about externalities is stupid, because it's immediately obvious that no one applies this thinking to anything other than guns, since all of the reasoning falls apart as soon as you apply it to anything else. The thing they care about is guns, so they should be saying "guns are different from these other things so we should treat them differently from these other things" and not "I have a general system of rights analysis where negative externalities of any particular freedom allows me to curtail that freedom to reduce those externalities".

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:53

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

twodot posted:

I don't think that things like DDT fit the "We need to manage externalities" model. DDT is just inherently dangerous, any use of it causes damage. That's not an externality, that's an intrinsic property of DDT. Any individual gun can at least theoretically be used safely. There is no safe use of DDT. And again my point here isn't that we should regulate guns like cars or tire factories. My point is that pretending to care about externalities is stupid, because it's immediately obvious that no one applies this thinking to anything other than guns, since all of the reasoning falls apart as soon as you apply it to anything else. The thing they care about is guns, so they should be saying "guns are different from these other things so we should treat them differently from these other things" and not "I have a general system of rights analysis where negative externalities of any particular freedom allows me to curtail that freedom to reduce those externalities".

Think again! Just like guns, you can find people of authority arguing DDT has valid and safe uses, like the World Health Organization, for example:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/

quote:

Nearly thirty years after phasing out the widespread use of indoor spraying with DDT and other insecticides to control malaria, the World Health Organization (WHO) today announced that this intervention will once again play a major role in its efforts to fight the disease. WHO is now recommending the use of indoor residual spraying (IRS) not only in epidemic areas but also in areas with constant and high malaria transmission, including throughout Africa.

�The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment,� said Dr Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO Assistant Director-General for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. "Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures, and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.�

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:57

Rigel: Nov 11, 2016

Democrazy posted:

I'm pretty skeptical that insurance companies wouldn't jump on the opportunity once legislation created the market, but i was just trying to illustrate that even if they didn't, that wouldn't render the idea impossible.

This is a risk with tremendous potential liability and basically no historical loss data. State Farm and Allstate are not going to jump into that.

We're probably talking exotic specialty insurance companies who insure weird things like a singer's voice or a pitcher's arm. Its not going to be cheap.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 22:58

Harold Fjord: Jan 3, 2004

Lol someone wrote a great article about this thread.

On Ignorant Liberals and Their Clumsy Attempts at Gun Laws

And it's perfect.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:03

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

Think again! Just like guns, you can find people of authority arguing DDT has valid and safe uses, like the World Health Organization, for example:

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/

Ok, I still don't see how the government banning DDT has any relevance to the "It has a negative externality and banning items is the way we deal with things that have negative externalities" argument. The use of DDT you're quoting isn't just beneficial it apparently has no negative externalities. Now you just seem to be saying that the government was mistaken when it banned DDT, which I'm willing to believe, but I don't see a connection to the actual conversation.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:05

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

twodot posted:

Ok, I still don't see how the government banning DDT has any relevance to the "It has a negative externality and banning items is the way we deal with things that have negative externalities" argument. The use of DDT you're quoting isn't just beneficial it apparently has no negative externalities. Now you just seem to be saying that the government was mistaken when it banned DDT, which I'm willing to believe, but I don't see a connection to the actual conversation.

You argued DDT was always unsafe, unlike guns which can be safe. I'm giving you an example of how DDT can be used safely, something you thought no one would argue.

Your entire argument that "no one considers externalities except for guns" is blatantly false. We do it all the time.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:13

C2C - 2.0: May 14, 2006; Dubs In The Key Of Life; Lipstick Apathy

Nevvy Z posted:

Lol someone wrote a great article about this thread.

On Ignorant Liberals and Their Clumsy Attempts at Gun Laws

And it's perfect.

Most salient point:

quote:

We will not craft perfect laws. We never do. But it�s astounding how laws intended to prevent Muslim terrorism can be sloppy as hell, laws intended to stop illegal drug use can put tons of the wrong people away, yet gun laws and gun laws alone must be 100% effective before we contemplate passing them.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:16

steinrokkan: Apr 2, 2011; Soiled Meat

twodot posted:

Ok, I still don't see how the government banning DDT has any relevance to the "It has a negative externality and banning items is the way we deal with things that have negative externalities" argument. The use of DDT you're quoting isn't just beneficial it apparently has no negative externalities. Now you just seem to be saying that the government was mistaken when it banned DDT, which I'm willing to believe, but I don't see a connection to the actual conversation.

Much like DDT, guns should be selectively governed in ways that eradicate their negative externality potential while allowing them to be used where they have a proper purpose (not penis extensions) :tipshat:

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:16

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

You argued DDT was always unsafe, unlike guns which can be safe. I'm giving you an example of how DDT can be used safely, something you thought no one would argue.

Your entire argument that "no one considers externalities except for guns" is blatantly false. We do it all the time.

If I wind up having to change my argument to "no one considers externalities except for guns and DDT" I don't think that causes much damage to my stance, but I don't think I need to. The people who banned DDT in 1972 weren't aware of your article from 2006. Are there any posters in this thread who think that DDT has completely safe uses and also needs to remain banned, rather then regulate that DDT needs to only be used in safe ways?

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:20

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

twodot posted:

If I wind up having to change my argument to "no one considers externalities except for guns and DDT" I don't think that causes much damage to my stance, but I don't think I need to. The people who banned DDT in 1972 weren't aware of your article from 2006. Are there any posters in this thread who think that DDT has completely safe uses and also needs to remain banned, rather then regulate that DDT needs to only be used in safe ways?

No because the DDT industry doesn't have the lobbying and cultural pressure that the NRA and pals do?

But I have a feeling that even though I can keep listing poo poo that we do (attempt to) consider and manage externalities for you will keep sighing and adding them to a list, since you're confident in the knowledge that pile will never become a heap.

Because basically this:

steinrokkan posted:

Much like DDT, guns should be selectively governed in ways that eradicate their negative externality potential while allowing them to be used where they have a proper purpose (not penis extensions)

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:25

Democrazy: Oct 16, 2008; If you're not willing to lick the boot, then really why are you in politics lol? Everything is a cycle of just getting stomped on so why do you want to lose to it over and over, just submit like me, I'm very intelligent.

Rigel posted:

This is a risk with tremendous potential liability and basically no historical loss data. State Farm and Allstate are not going to jump into that.

We're probably talking exotic specialty insurance companies who insure weird things like a singer's voice or a pitcher's arm. Its not going to be cheap.

It's purely speculative either way, but that still would not prevent the federal government from setting up an insurance program for guns.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:27

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Dead Reckoning posted:

No, they're not, not in the way you think at least. I can build a dragster with no plates, that runs on coal slurry, and has no seat belts, and let a felon with a suspended license drive it, and as long as I do it on private property for non-commercial purposes, the state DMV and Highway Patrol won't say squat. Virtually every law related to the operation of motor vehicles is with respect to operating them on public roads, lands, or waterways.

...you REALLY really thought this was a good analogy?

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:27

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

I did the thread recommendation "centerfire semi-auto rifles with large detachable magazines" and got "but mah ruger bolt action" and "stripper clips" today.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:32

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

No because the DDT industry doesn't have the lobbying and cultural pressure that the NRA and pals do?

But I have a feeling that even though I can keep listing poo poo that we do (attempt to) consider and manage externalities for you will keep sighing and adding them to a list, since you're confident in the knowledge that pile will never become a heap.

Because basically this:

I mean I've already got two examples of places where people 1) are completely aware an activity has negative externalities and 2) don't even think about banning that activity, and instead try their best to mitigate it by shifting costs and adding regulations. I don't think you have even one counter example unless you have someone arguing simultaneously that DDT has safe uses and must remain banned.

I'm not trying to construct an argument that says all gun control is bad, I'm trying to construct an argument that says the focus on negative externalities is clearly in bad faith (or poorly thought through). People have independently already come to the conclusion, through consequentialist thinking, that banning or restricting guns is a good idea, and they are trying to bolt on a deontological framework to deal with the deontologists that are out there, but it doesn't work because it was never actually part of their thought process.
edit:
Like applying the rule that people claim to support leads directly into madness. The fact that it maybe doesn't immediately lead into madness for DDT is not interesting or relevant, when I can show many examples where it does.

twodot fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Oct 4, 2017

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:33

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

twodot posted:

If I wind up having to change my argument to "no one considers externalities except for guns and DDT" I don't think that causes much damage to my stance,

"I can just use limitless amounts of special pleading to wave away contradictions between my argument and reality" never change, twodot, never change

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:58

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

twodot posted:

I'm trying to construct an argument that says the focus on negative externalities is clearly in bad faith (or poorly thought through). People have independently already come to the conclusion, through consequentialist thinking, that banning or restricting guns is a good idea, and they are trying to bolt on a deontological framework to deal with the deontologists that are out there, but it doesn't work because it was never actually part of their thought process.

How do you exactly support your idea that anyone arguing about regulations based on externalities is trying to bolt on a deontological framework?

That's a presupposition you've been trying to find facts to fit the entire time.

# ? Oct 4, 2017 23:59

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Jaxyon posted:

I did the thread recommendation "centerfire semi-auto rifles with large detachable magazines" and got "but mah ruger bolt action" and "stripper clips" today.

Plus pistol grips. Anyways that's basically the assault weapon ban again, and there's now literally tens if not hundreds of millions of those in circulation among insane libertarian ranchers out West

I think banning the bump-fire stocks is about the best you could reasonably hope for, and even that is not likely

# ? Oct 5, 2017 00:16

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

Wakko posted:

Short article in Truthout today departing from the canned culture war around gun control:

A Mindset Shift Is Necessary to Defeat Gun Violence

We could make actual, meaningful, improvements to american society to address our insane rates of violence. It's an option.

The idea that we can cure gun violence with BBQ parties and free backpacks is very compelling to people who don't actually want to do anything about gun violence. Everyone just has to sit out on their front porches watching those dangerous sorts of people (wink, wink) to make sure they can't get up to any trouble.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 00:32

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

twodot posted:

Ok I agree with this, but it makes the comparison with leaded gasoline weird. Like cars used to shoot lead into the environment, we decided that was bad, but instead of banning cars or imposing passenger-mile maximums, or whatever, we made cars do that less, and let people drive as much as they like.

No be banned leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline actually serves a purpose, but we banned it anyway.

quote:

This is just nonsense. Fraud, threats, and incitement, are intrinsically negative speech. They aren't otherwise fine speech that occasionally harm people, they are, by definition, bad. A government ban on threatening someone is very different from a government ban of possession of a dangerous object. Governments do manage externalities, but how it does it varies a lot. Like if a manufacturer of tires is polluting a river, the government doesn't generally forbid tire production, it just makes tire producers pay the cost of cleaning up the river (or the cost of avoiding polluting generally). Also driving has a bunch of negative externalities, but the government doesn't ban driving, it just makes people possess car insurance to pay for accidents, and taxes to pay for road wear and tear and such. I'm struggling to think of even one example where we ban an activity rather than just force the actor to pay for the costs of their externalities. (Obviously in some cases that's an effective ban if the externalities are so costly the actor no longer wants to do it)

"Punch nazis everyday" is incitement and it's not intrinsically negative. I'd be happy with the government banning some types of guns, imposing regulations, taxes and insurance requirements on the remainder to pay for the costs of gun violence. That approach would be easily justifiable in the externality framework. And we should obviously overturn the laws that protect gun manufacturers from liability.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 00:36

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

Rigel posted:

I think you are right. I remember watching some kind of debunking show explaining that gun control at the local level in every city was actually very strict. Do whatever you want out in the wilderness, but everybody roaming around an old western town armed is a Hollywood invention.

Also cowboys are farmhands that help with

cows. Also 2/3 of them were non white. 1/3 Blacks and 1/3 mexicans.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 00:41

SMERSH Mouth: Jun 25, 2005

Harik posted:

Ok since you guys are too busy "engaging" with DR & Jackal to read this, I'll just quote some important parts.

That's pretty goddamn bad. poo poo is really hosed up.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 00:42

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

cross posting this from the suck zone, it's a new-yorker article about the guardian system, and how it's abused to literally rob the elderly and rip them away from their families...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights

quote:

For years, Rudy North woke up at 9 A.M. and read the Las Vegas Review-Journal while eating a piece of toast. Then he read a novel�he liked James Patterson and Clive Cussler�or, if he was feeling more ambitious, Freud. On scraps of paper and legal notepads, he jotted down thoughts sparked by his reading. �Deep below the rational part of our brain is an underground ocean where strange things swim,� he wrote on one notepad. On another, �Life: the longer it cooks, the better it tastes.�

Rennie, his wife of fifty-seven years, was slower to rise. She was recovering from lymphoma and suffered from neuropathy so severe that her legs felt like sausages. Each morning, she spent nearly an hour in the bathroom applying makeup and lotions, the same brands she�d used for forty years. She always emerged wearing pale-pink lipstick. Rudy, who was prone to grandiosity, liked to refer to her as �my amour.�

On the Friday before Labor Day, 2013, the Norths had just finished their toast when a nurse, who visited five times a week to help Rennie bathe and dress, came to their house, in Sun City Aliante, an �active adult� community in Las Vegas. They had moved there in 2005, when Rudy, a retired consultant for broadcasters, was sixty-eight and Rennie was sixty-six. They took pride in their view of the golf course, though neither of them played golf.

Rudy chatted with the nurse in the kitchen for twenty minutes, joking about marriage and laundry, until there was a knock at the door. A stocky woman with shiny black hair introduced herself as April Parks, the owner of the company A Private Professional Guardian. She was accompanied by three colleagues, who didn�t give their names. Parks told the Norths that she had an order from the Clark County Family Court to �remove� them from their home. She would be taking them to an assisted-living facility. �Go and gather your things,� she said.

Rennie began crying. �This is my home,� she said.

One of Parks�s colleagues said that if the Norths didn�t comply he would call the police. Rudy remembers thinking, You�re going to put my wife and me in jail for this? But he felt too confused to argue.

Parks drove a Pontiac G-6 convertible with a license plate that read �CRTGRDN,� for �court guardian.� In the past twelve years, she had been a guardian for some four hundred wards of the court. Owing to age or disability, they had been deemed incompetent, a legal term that describes those who are unable to make reasoned choices about their lives or their property. As their guardian, Parks had the authority to manage their assets, and to choose where they lived, whom they associated with, and what medical treatment they received. They lost nearly all their civil rights.

Without realizing it, the Norths had become temporary wards of the court. Parks had filed an emergency ex-parte petition, which provides an exception to the rule that both parties must be notified of any argument before a judge. She had alleged that the Norths posed a �substantial risk for mismanagement of medications, financial loss and physical harm.� She submitted a brief letter from a physician�s assistant, whom Rennie had seen once, stating that �the patient�s husband can no longer effectively take care of the patient at home as his dementia is progressing.� She also submitted a letter from one of Rudy�s doctors, who described him as �confused and agitated.�

Rudy and Rennie had not undergone any cognitive assessments. They had never received a diagnosis of dementia. In addition to Freud, Rudy was working his way through Nietzsche and Plato. Rennie read romance novels.

Parks told the Norths that if they didn�t come willingly an ambulance would take them to the facility, a place she described as a �respite.� Still crying, Rennie put cosmetics and some clothes into a suitcase. She packed so quickly that she forgot her cell phone and Rudy�s hearing aid. After thirty-five minutes, Parks�s assistant led the Norths to her car. When a neighbor asked what was happening, Rudy told him, �We�ll just be gone for a little bit.� He was too proud to draw attention to their predicament. �Just think of it as a mini-vacation,� he told Rennie...

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/915277469170782208

Condiv fucked around with this message at 00:58 on Oct 5, 2017

# ? Oct 5, 2017 00:53

Crain: Jun 27, 2007; I had a beer once with Stephen Miller and now I like him.

I also tried to ban someone from a Discord for pointing out what an unrelenting shithead I am! I'm even dumb enough to think it worked!

Rigel posted:

lol

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/915683974705565696

# ? Oct 5, 2017 01:04

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Condiv posted:

cross posting this from the suck zone, it's a new-yorker article about the guardian system, and how it's abused to literally rob the elderly and rip them away from their families...

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/09/how-the-elderly-lose-their-rights

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/915277469170782208

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/915278318043369473

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/915281345525448704

# ? Oct 5, 2017 01:04

Condiv: May 7, 2008; Sorry to undo the effort of paying a domestic abuser $10 to own this poster, but I am going to lose my dang mind if I keep seeing multiple posters who appear to be Baloogan.

With love,
a mod

Trabisnikof posted:

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/915278318043369473

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/915281345525448704

i can't agree more. everything in that article has me boiling. the judge issuing an arrest warrant for a woman stealing her father back from this unjust system. the dead seniors whose cremated remains were left forgotten in a storage locker. these "guardians" being so awful that most of their wards only had one shirt

the loving doctors of elderly people selling out their clients to these parasitic guardians cause they knew they would be rewarded with kickback money in the form of unneeded visits and ditto for hospitals with unneeded treatments. it's so utterly disgusting

# ? Oct 5, 2017 01:07

Banana Man: Oct 2, 2015; mm time 2 gargle piss and shit

gently caress that piece of poo poo

# ? Oct 5, 2017 02:04

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

Trabisnikof posted:

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/915278318043369473

https://twitter.com/libbycwatson/status/915281345525448704

Oh my god, this is downright evil.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 02:21

NoEyedSquareGuy: Mar 16, 2009; Just because Liquor's dead, doesn't mean you can just roll this bitch all over town with "The Freedoms."

Literally stealing old people is a hell of a way to make a living.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 02:53

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

remember when we respected the elderly, and treated them with care and dignity until All Hallow's Eve when they were carried out of the village into the woods as sacrifices for the Beastmen

# ? Oct 5, 2017 02:58

ded redd: Aug 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

https://twitter.com/jgermanrj/status/915752034267144192

# ? Oct 5, 2017 03:03

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

Good thing real life jet fuel doesn't work like movies/videogames.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 03:09

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Nevvy Z posted:

Lol someone wrote a great article about this thread.

On Ignorant Liberals and Their Clumsy Attempts at Gun Laws

And it's perfect.

Why should workers trust a system that already works against them to then disarm them like Australia disarmed it's citizens?

# ? Oct 5, 2017 03:10

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 24, 2024 22:42

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Trabisnikof posted:

How do you exactly support your idea that anyone arguing about regulations based on externalities is trying to bolt on a deontological framework?

That's a presupposition you've been trying to find facts to fit the entire time.

Why in the world you bother justifying curtailing a right because of its externalities if you weren't trying to bolt on a deontological framework? A consequentialist would just say that they think deaths are bad, and that reducing gun prevalence reduces deaths therefore reducing gun prevalence is good, who gives a poo poo about rights. I know these people aren't originating from a deontological stance because their stance falls apart the moment you apply any amount of scrutiny, and I assume they would be smart enough to see that if they actually cared about deontology.

JeffersonClay posted:

No be banned leaded gasoline. Leaded gasoline actually serves a purpose, but we banned it anyway.

Ok that's what I thought originally, but then the analogy implies you think we should ban lead bullets. I think that's a fine argument, but it doesn't really do anything to stop gun violence.

quote:

"Punch nazis everyday" is incitement

This is false.

quote:

I'd be happy with the government banning some types of guns, imposing regulations, taxes and insurance requirements on the remainder to pay for the costs of gun violence. That approach would be easily justifiable in the externality framework. And we should obviously overturn the laws that protect gun manufacturers from liability.

The problem isn't that caring about externalities can't justify gun regulations, it clearly can. The problem is no one thinks caring about externalities should lead to bans in practically any other situation, in almost every other situation we do whatever we can to mitigate the externalities or push the costs of externalities on the people responsible and let people do what they want.

# ? Oct 5, 2017 03:44

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »