She was a slightly left of center moderate dem, and for better or worse modern-day America is highly polarized politically. So she was out-of-step politically with both right and left. Her legacy was already in the dumpster. Going out like this just ensures that this is what she’ll be remembered for.
I mean, Supreme Court appointments are for life, what RBG did was not at all unusual. Age is also not nearly as much of problem on the court, because the whole point of it is to be stable, not rotating constantly like Congress.
It’s that she didn’t retire during Obama’s tenure when she could be safely replaced by someone other than a white male rapist that people generally criticized, not that she served on the court until death.
You are correct. My main concern is that this is contributing to the overall concern with voters that our aging political figures are holding onto their stations of power to the bitter end.
Those stores left because of crime. Instead of fixing the root cause of major social issues, their Band-Aid is taxpayer funded stores? Why not just skip the middle man and send food to people directly? Or just set up taxpayer funded food banks. That’s effectively what these “stores” will turn into anyway. This just seems like performative nonsense, not intended to solve anything.
Why do you think these examples are analogous? The stores in the towns described in the articles you linked didn’t shut down because of poverty or crime. In the examples you provided, collective supermarkets seem to be a good fit. Contrast this with the Chicago mayor, who cites poverty. If people can’t afford food anyway, and the business is going to face sky high theft, the plan doesn’t make sense. Cut out the middle man and just send poor people food. It would cost far less than trying to set up supermarkets from scratch and running them at a loss in perpetuity. Plus it means helping poor people, rather than forcing them to shop lift if they’re hungry.
If the stores are government run, there is no profit motive. That means lower prices, which means more accessibility for the people who need it.
If these stores are going to be run at a loss anyway, why waste enormous sums of money on premises and other costs when they could just start food banks and give people the food directly? Or, as I suggest above, the government could send people food directly.
I’m suggesting that we give people free food and I’m the boot licker? Okay Bezos.
No, you’re just pushing the tired old, “religious groups and charities should be feeding people, leave the government out of it” bullshit. It doesn’t work.
you’re pushing the tired old… “leave the government out of it” bullshit.
They literally said government was the solution in the message above yours. Regardless of the merits of @JasSmith 's argument, you’ve mischaracterised what they’ve said and that isn’t fair or productive for discussion.
why waste enormous sums of money on premises and other costs when they could just start food banks
This runs into the problem of charity out-competing potential business ventures. Government subsidized private groceries, or public-private partnerships or just plain government run grocery stores can alleviate the problem of a food desert while still bringing the benefits of an active business to the area. The local government can increase or reduce its investment as needed, and it doesn’t create a service that inherently can’t be competed with by private business in a space that’s already unprofitable/too risky to operate a business within
This runs into the problem of charity out-competing potential business ventures.
But this is moot as the city is planning to run loss-making stores where private stores are non-viable. There is no risk of outcompeting businesses which aren’t even there. And if there is a concern of outcompeting private stores, running stores offering cheaper products than any private store could do so in the area would destroy those businesses just as effectively.
The decision has been made to entirely sacrifice any pretence of private enterprise in the supermarket space in certain areas in Chicago. I’m merely arguing that, given this decision, there are more effectively ways to use public funds.
Lack of shopping opportunities and an inability to pay for food are two separate things. They may often co-occur, but just sending food too poor people doesn’t solve food deserts.
And separately from that, poor people deserve to be able to look at their produce, buy stuff last minute, or browse and buy what strikes their fancy too. All the reasons everyone else uses supermarkets should be available to poor people as well.
For decades now developers have been buying commercial property and shutting down the business. This makes the area less desirable and lowers residential prices
When those are “low enough” developers buy them up
The next step is usually getting tax money to “redevelop” the area and then they’ll reopen businesses and sell the residential at a high markup as an “up and coming neighborhood”. It’s just a money shuffle that hurts the majority of Americans and funnels wealth to the wealthy.
Do you have some examples? IMHO, few shareholders are willing to weather decades of losses like that in the hope that one day their investment pays off. I’m not buying it. No one buys property and then intentionally devalues it.
So the last one got resolved when protestors shut down LaGuardia and Trump blinked. What ends it this time? How bad do things need to get before the MAGAts balk?
All you have to do is look up an interview with him in the early 2000s. He was still a self absorbed asshole, but at least he could form complete sentences.
This is my grandma. She got tested a few years ago, but refused to tell anyone the results. It’s so sad. Now then though my mom wants to move she’s stuck taking care of her and grandpa.
Watching my parents age, now into their 80s, they’re only just now starting to admit that, maybe, they’re not as smart, agile, and capable as ever. Chronic kidney disease, COPD, metastatic cancers… No blatant signs of dementia, but it’s a struggle to explain new concepts or devices to them. I think it’s just hard for people who’ve been strong, independent people all their lives to accommodate a world in which they can’t carry 25 pounds or deviate from habits engrained over 20 years. It’s got to be even harder for a politician or oligarch surrounded by sycophants. Harder still when the brain loses its capacity for logic.
50’s fine, as long as you haven’t really abused your body or lost the health lottery. Can’t speak from experience, but 60 looks OK for the most part, although you’ll probably learn your doctor’s name around then. 70 is my current schedule.
The news itself is great, but holy hell is this headline hyperbole. The medicine is a really great treatment and even preventive cure for kidney disease, which is a very common cause of death in old age for cats.
No, this isn’t some miraculous treatment that will give all cats a longer lifespan. It’s a great cure to a very common cause of death in cats. Not sure where the 30 years figure comes from.
You’re 100% right. It isn’t a great article but I couldn’t find a better one. I just thought people would be interested in reading it. Hopefully better information becomes public soon.
Maybe, I've got an older cat I adopted from a shelter, don't know his exact age. But he's in stage 3 of kidney failure and we've got him on the renal diet. I'm excited to read this news and really hope my boy can stay alive long enough to receive this treatment.
Okay, their name is actually offensive, because that is easily the LEAST menacing YT street interview video I’ve ever seen. I’m not being hyperbolic at all, it’s not even close. Even for Mormons, they were polite. POLITE BY MORMON STANDARDS.
I work in veterinary medicine, and it’s alarming how many calls we get like this. Just last night a potential new client called saying their breeder told them Ragdoll cats can’t get the rabies vaccine without later developing cancer. The client point-blank told us the breeder was more knowledgeable than our doctors. What do you even say that wouldn’t get you fired?
Agreed. On a sad note, when puppies come in to a veterinarian for tail cropping and dewclaw removal procedures they are not anesthetized. While it’s done in a sterile, more safe way, it’s still torture. The puppies scream. I hate being in the building for those appointments. Ear and tail cropping, declawing, de-barking, and all physical modifications for nonmedical reasons should be outlawed everywhere.
My first cat died from kidney failure. She was about 15 or 16 at the time so she wasnt exactly young. But it really affected me as a kid because I grew up with her. So glad this to read this.
Yep, many fast food places are already implementing AI taking orders in the drive thru, not to mention all the kiosks in the lobby. Only a matter of time until making the food is automated and all there will be is a skeleton crew of workers to make sure everything is running smooth.
This is not a bad thing. It is always a good thing when humans can be freed to do non-repetitive tasks. Or would you prefer to return to weaving your own clothes?
I was visiting a city for a wedding and went to a restaurant I’d never heard of to get food. Turned out to be drivethru only with an AI voice assistant order taker and holy crap was it a fight to get the AI to give me a damn second to read the menu for a place I’d never been. The food was very good though
It’s a good thing we weren’t automating anything before this! Nothing at all. Companies DEFINITELY weren’t researching and implementing automation until right now when the minimum wage increased. And they DEFINITELY will start hiring more people if the wages go down again.
I think lawmakers getting paid during a government shutdown, free healthcare, and only work half the year is more concerning. They get more breaks than I get vacation time at work.
People like this believe that kids have no agency of their own and must be taught everything. If the kid does something “wrong” that’s because someone taught them to, so they have to control education to get their overall goal of controlling what kids and future adults do. Of course, that’s not entirely how this works, but attacking education to create change over decades is a viable plan to increase their hate and bigotry.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.