Totally. On the flip side, it blows my mind that more rich people don’t do this kind of stuff more often. If only for the ego boost / moment in the spotlight they’d get out of it. Instead, they’ll just horde the money.
Another massive fuck up by the American police system, to no one’s surprise. I honestly don’t know what it would take to get the massive reforms we so desperately need
Don’t care, I have no sympathy for those that lack empathy. Everyone that touched that document is a douche, and I hope it stains their careers for decades. Shoestring staff or not, it’s still a terrible document that spells the death of this nation as we know it now. If anything this article makes me despise the people working on it more, due to the fact that they are working on it against such odds means they believe this is Gods mission for them to get this thing live. We will see this thing morph into actual policy in a decade unless we stop now and shame everyone that thought any of it was a good idea.
The relatively low-budget feel of the database and the training academy has prompted some of the project’s partners to wonder what, exactly, Dans and his team have done with the $22 million that the Heritage Foundation initially pledged toward Project 2025. When I asked Dans how the budget had been used, he reached for one of his folksy aphorisms.
“I remember this Old Milwaukee [beer] ad from the ’80s … and there was the one guy who was in charge of the beer fund, and [he and his friends] were all happy and they’re drinking ‘Old Mill,’ and [one of them] said, ‘Well, what did you do with all the monies that you were putting into the beer fund?’ And then you see the guy behind them with a big yacht.”
“We’re drinking ‘Old Mill’ here,” he added.
So not all of the $22 million that had been earmarked for the project had actually been allocated to it? I asked.
Dans nodded. “We’re much more [low] budget over here than what people [operating] in the caverns of the liberal mind would like to believe.”
I don’t think anyone every thought conservatives would become ‘ultra-disciplined’ because of 2025. I don’t know where they get that notion.
No the fear was that it would facilitate a legal version of the fake electors scheme via unitary executive theory… Which if you look at the Wikipedia for Project 2025, is the theory that it’s trying to implement.
It’s not enough! With the Chevron doctrine being abandoned and the Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy decision (where they basically ended the use of administrative law justices, forcing the use of full jury trials) the caseload of the Federal courts is about to skyrocket.
They’re going to need to quadruple (or more) the Federal judiciary if they want it to be able to keep up.
The justification for this seems to be “Yes we know you’ve done the hard part by taking action against them, but we simply don’t trust you to stick to that decision, and thus must monitor you to ensure you do what we want you to do with your life. Oh, but we’ll make sure your abuser knows all about it, whether you want them involved or not. That’ll definitely help keep those kids safe!”
I can absolutely see how that would be traumatic and intrusive. I hope this challenge goes places.
Yeah, it sounds like some reform to the process should be made.
I don’t necessarily disagree with having child welfare involved, just how they handle things might be a bit (or a lot) on the iffy side.
This is where you get to an impasse though, the procedures are possibly (I say possibly because I don’t know the history there) the way they are because people complained of not getting enough help, so the rules were changed to become more involved to better protect those needing help. Now it’s too much so people are up in arms again.
So often victims of domestic abuse go back to that situation, whether it be fear, love, pain, or whatever other reason there is. There is a reason for “but we simply don’t trust you to stick to that decision”.
There isn’t a cut and dry solution to problems like this. It doesn’t really matter which direction they go, there will always be people screaming about not doing enough, or doing too much etc.
They may be legally required to tell the abuser what is going on… I mean, how can you serve a no contact order without telling the accused.
There is a ton of work to unfold here, so many things that are in place for a reason, as unreasonable as it may seem. It will always be a work in process with such sensitive situations.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.