Connecticut is especially dicey because they have a 1:4 ratio right up to age 3; if you have 2 kids under 3, like one of the mothers in this article, you're effectively paying 1/2 of a full-time employee's salary plus your share of all of the other costs (rent, utilities, insurance, supplies, administration) associated with running a daycare.
Childcare is an absurdly labor-intensive business and I don't know how to make it work for non-wealthy people without massive subsidies.
It can’t be fixed. The only thing that could fix it is the country changing to the point that it’s a new country, and that doesn’t happen peacefully when a country is this far gone.
I don’t know how to make it work for non-wealthy people without massive subsidies.
Just do that. Public education is a public good that doesn’t need to run in the black. Low cost childcare (which will involve some education as well) is the same. Some things can just be government provided or supported services.
Can I offer my point of view as an Australian and childcare worker? Don’t do that.
Go fully public, not for profit but with subsidies.
Here all the companies raise fees, which the government ends up raising subsidies for, and it just repeats every few years. Parents don’t feel the pinch because they’re still out of pocket roughly the same. But these companies are raising ever growing record profits and none of it is going to the children, their education, or the workers.
I welcome it, but you should know we as a country are almost completely incapable of learning from other countries’ experiences. We might be willing to listen to Australia’s experience in doing it poorly (we like when other countries fail at doing good things), but if so it will definitely be to scrap the idea altogether rather than take the fully public route.
Honestly something along what you’re suggesting was my first thought too but then that might hurt Fetterman when he runs for reelection. He beat Dr Oz by 3%, which is rather good, but Oz was a pretty terrible candidate. He might face significantly stiffer competition next time around and he probably wants to avoid a montage of him dressed silly on some attack ad.
Maybe. Seems like it could be a lot to risk with little gain. I don’t think it would play well in the suburbs. I’m just some schlep though what do I know?
PA is basically 3 states in one. As someone who grew up there, don’t confuse Philadelphia (or Pittsburgh for that matter) politics with PA politics. There’s a BIG area in the middle there…
He also suffered a stroke right before the election and was not in the most coherent state in his speeches at the time. And the ruling is only for the Senate floor, so he should be able to campaign in his own form of style outside of that.
Also it doesn’t say where those garments have to be worn. I’m putting on my jacket as a cape, slacks on my head, and tying a tie around my dick. Technically compliant with your stupid dress code.
Nobody wants to watch a bunch of losers kiss the ass of an elephant who isn’t even in the room (honorable mention to C. Christie who clearly does not kiss Trump’s ass)
Chris Christie. Maybe the least smelly turd in the group. He still smells like shit and now the question is whether he’s only trying to separate himself from the others while still planning to deliver the exact same steaming mess any of them would. Is he hedging his bet that trump is falling to the charges?
Christie was a spoiler candidate in the 2016 election for Trump. I don’t know what his angle is right now, but he’s a Trump ass kisser for sure and his strong statement nonsense is some kind of game.
News media use to have a respectability solely by being the people carrying the torch. With every inch of our lives being saturated with what ever digital media we want to consume at any given moment the established news media has run its course. Not even mentioning all its faults and the bullshit it propagates. You had 50 years and we are tired of the show. Please cancel, do not renew.
Oh right because this was the only thing keeping businesses from switching to zero wage robots. No companies were already planning on doing this, but now that employees get a livable wage, all bets are off.
To me, the “well-regulated milita” became a moot point in the 19th century when all of the state militias were unified into the National Guard and state defense forces. The term was never intended to include private militias, as evidenced by the fact that in 1886, the Supreme Court concluded that militias are not constitutionally protected and that states have the right to ban them altogether (Presser v Illinois). So any state can choose to have their own militia or they can choose to prohibit them all together. It clearly shows that militias are under the control of the states.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens. I have no clue how we got to the point that we are currently in with 2A somehow protecting private ownership of assault rifles other than to blame corporate lobbying and institutional corruption.
That’s why, but how did they manage to pervert the amendment and get away with it? Before you answer, I understand it was ultimately the result of corruption, but why does no one talk about it from this specific angle? It seems so crystal clear to me that private gun ownership was never protected by the second amendment.
The 2nd amendment never once mentions private gun ownership, so it seems more like the right to bear arms was always intended to be a right of the individual states, not a right of private citizens.
My take is that it was to enable the militia, especially minutemen, to, as the text says, “keep and bear arms” in their homes and not during actual battles.
I agree that that is how it was intended, so in turn, the amendment provides for National guardsmen and state militias to be permitted to keep guns rather than all private citizens.
What people? If you don’t think it’s referring to the people in a militia, you are completely ignoring the first part of the sentence. From congress.gov:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t say all people. Considering the entire sentence, “people” implies nothing more than the people of a well regulated militia.
Also, Madison was very clear that the right to bear arms was for the militia in the federalist papers.
It seems you have your mind made up, but you’re incorrect. The punctuation does a lot of work there separating the prefatory clause. The people are the same people covered in the first amendment.
While that seems excessive to me, and I have 40+ guns, we don’t get to talk about “need” when discussing rights.
Think on it folks. Gun ownership is the only right outlined in the Constitution where people talk about “need”. That’s a bad path to start down.
(And for anyone wanting to argue to “rights” angle, the 2A exists and the courts uphold it as an individual right. Those are facts. We can discuss them, but ATM they are not open to debate as facts.)
And just for fun, no I cannot maintain, shoot, gunsmith, whatever, that many. I’m basically at my personal limit for what I can actually use. Still want a lever gat though!
I'm of the same mind really. I don't even have an issue with someone owning 280 guns tbh. Collections are a thing and quality guns hold their value extremely well. Obviously someone under investigation for multiple homicides shouldn't have full access to his 280 guns but I also kind of think they should let him sell them; they're his and he's entitled to adequate legal representation (which is expensive).
"The defense’s motion was filed in response to a prosecution motion asking the court to allow the transfer of Heuermann’s guns and other firearm items to the Nassau County Police Department...the defense cited precedent in their motion, stating, 'When property is no longer needed as evidence, the government must establish, in an appropriate proceeding, an independent interest to justify any further retention' and reminded the court that prosecutors said that they no longer needed the property as evidence. "
AFAIK his MO didn't involve shooting so the guns aren't that relevant, he's not been convicted of anything, pigs just want the guns .
It’s even crazier when it’s 200+ guns on Long Island, where general gun culture used to be next to invisible. Growing up there I had not seen a gun store until I moved to Florida, I’m sure they were there, just not all over or obvious, most people there used to not own guns, outside of all of the cops, it’s suburbia with little shitty areas and rustic areas sprinkled in between.
Let’s say that there are roughly 3 times as many black players as white players. I have no idea what the actual percentages are, but for the sake of argument let’s say the NBA is 60% black, 20% Hispanic or Latino, 15% white, and the last 5% is everybody not already mentioned.
If all players are playing roughly equivalently, but 90% of the calls were made against just the white players, would you have a problem with that? What if 95% of the referees are black?
Let’s even throw a common racist counter point in there, and say that white players are more likely to commit a foul. Say each individual white player is 100% more likely to foul another player than his black teammates are. That would only account for 30% of the fouls and yet 90% of the calls are still made against white players.
Let’s go on to say that white players are penalized so heavily that for anything that could even appear to be a foul, whether it is or not, other players go to the referee and complain about their white teammates actions. Leading to even more calls against white players.
What if just having a white sounding name like Justin or Matt was enough to prevent you from even being considered for the NBA draft?
You’re right, violent crime is typically goes under reported in black communities. Secondly some state agencies only report crime to the national agencies at around 50%. Overall 67(ish)% of agencies across the states reported. I’m also pretty sure its just resolved crimes/situations that are reportable.
Its fucked. It should be ringing alarm bells in everyones head noticing the multiple times gap between black and non-black murder offenders is now higher then the gap between men and women offenders. Even if it is skewed, its still people being murdered in communities that need the most.
this was never gonna convince the racist garbage you responded to because they didn’t arrive at their racism through reason. Their ‘misunderstanding’ of statistics is a post hoc justification for their racism. And any actual scientific analysis that disproves them would just be liberals twisting the simple statistics. As these things always go with fascists.
This could be the start of something good. The 40% number isn’t out of thin air. It is the amount the CEO got his pay raised to . Unions can tie exec raises to worker pay in a way that boards aren’t doing.
Got to be careful about execs getting paid through shares. My CEO gets millions in shares but only gets paid like 120k. This gets reused in certain indexes and pitched as being a decent ratio of executive to drone pay ratios.
True, but unions as an external force can simply state the exec total pay package rose by 25% in value. “pay us” The problem has been looking to the boards installed by investors to cut their own pay. My hope is boards will cool down on huge exec bonuses if it means they may have to do the same for workers.
Unfortunately a lot of americans like it just the way it is. Nothing’s going to get better without a lot of time, or a lot of conservatives ending up in the ground
our police/courts/corrections is an industry, unfortunately. Who knew that placing ever more profit motives on arresting, processing, and jailing people would end up leading to bad outcomes.
But, hey, it’s just the unwashed the masses, so who cares, I guess.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.