There’s 2 possible explanations here: he’s got deep-seated mental issues that lead to him interrupting the graduation ceremony of hundreds of students by aggressively pursuing a person who “rolled his eyes” at his daughter, or, and more likely in my opinion, he’s a blatant racist making excuses for his racist behavior in his town where half the boys of a graduating class took a picture in front of the school doing a Nazi salute.
I agree with the therapy but see 2 even worse explanations:
He has such poor forecasting skills he didn’t envision his daughter interacting with the Superintendent at graduation and such little impulse control he couldn’t stop himself.
He absolutely foresaw his daughter interacting with the Superintendent and chose the moment on state for the largest audience of his bigotry.
Matthew Eddy told the Baraboo Police Department he had past issues with School District Superintendent Rainey Briggs. Because of the beef, Eddy said he didn’t want Rainey to have the “satisfaction” of shaking his daughter’s hand as she obtained her diploma.
It says further down in the article that his daughter was expelled. When they tried to point the daughter was being expelled for same thing the bully’s were doing to her, the super intendant rolled his eyes.
He claims that she was. And he claims that she did “the same thing her bullies did”. But we don’t have any other details. Assuming good intent on the part of the administration (in this case, specifically the principal), I would guess that she was actually the instigator. I mean, it could also be that they were athletes or other stuff that can happen in a small district. But given the actions of her father and the observation that the nut doesn’t usually fall far from the tree, I’m guessing she’s the cause.
Oh yeah I know you were quoting, I just think it’s funny how it’s being reported like it was some sort of reasonable disagreement when by all appearances it probably wasn’t
But he gave him the satisfaction of looking like an idiot to people all around the world, which I’m guessing is a lot more satisfying that shaking his daughter’s hand would have been.
And I gotta wonder wtf goes on in his head to even worry about someone getting “satisfaction” from shaking hands at a ceremony. I’m pretty sure that, if there is any satisfaction involved, it’s supposed to be on the student’s side where the diploma and handshake are an acknowledgment of the work they did to receive whatever award or certificate the ceremony is about.
And it should have been entirely up to his daughter whether or not she wanted to receive that handshake.
“He rolled his eyes when I brought up the fact the same thing happened to her and it pissed me off. She was expelled for doing the same thing that was done to her, and nothing was done to the previous people.”
Sounds like a bullying situation, but she got expelled and the ones who did it to her didn’t. If that’s the case, it’s annoying that the media made him look like a racist. Or he’s a racist and now making this up.
If she didn’t want to shake his hand she could have just grabbed her diploma. There’s no requirement for a handshake there. The father didn’t want her to shake his hand, and he couldn’t convince her not to.
The father and superintendent apparently had previous problems and the father planned to interfere in the graduation ceremony. I’m still not convinced it wasn’t racially motivated, but regardless the man needs help.
Again, that’s according to what the father told police. And if you listen to what his “beef” is, he would have objected to the principal shaking her hand as well, but didn’t seem to.
Appeal to the Supreme Court and let them overturn the conviction on the History and Tradition grounds that there’s no historical precedent from infringing on the gun rights of people on crack. 5th Circuit already ruled on this matter and acquitted the defendant on similar grounds, in the case USA v. Daniels.
For anyone curious. I mean I disagree with these ridiculous overlay broad second amendment interpretations personally, but looks like he has an appeal argument based on how the courts have been treating the second amendment lately. I look forward to the mental gymnastics of the second amendment extremists on this case. Seeing marijuana spelled “marihuana” over and over in the ruling above is also pretty funny.
Wikipedia suggests that the origin of the j in marijuana is a bit more obscure than that:
The origin of the word “marijuana” foreshadowed its current use. Historically, the earliest and most numerous group of users in the Americas were slaves from western Central Africa (modern Gabon to Angola. Their words for cannabis are now used in nearly all the places they (involuntarily) ended up during the 1700s and 1800s…Most notably, in Central America, the Kimbundu (Angolan) word mariamba became the Spanish word marihuana.
The word “marijuana” as we know it today did not appear until 1846 in Farmacopea Mexicana, though it was spelled “mariguana”. In most following instances, the word was spelled marihuana. In Chilean Spanish, mariguanza is the dance of a shaman in an altered state of consciousness.
The moment enough of us decide this has to change, it will.
Relink productivity and wages!
90% tax rate on all the cash you earn in a year after the first $10M
Close corporate tax loopholes
We can solve this, we just need to decide.
Maybe a general strike is out and we should just start a quiet friday strike, and just start extending that back through the week. Productivity just keeps falling until the wealthy decide they don't want to suffer with the rest of us and take the fucking haircut.
They don’t. But at some point, you throw the rich people a bone and tell them they can be rich, just not obscenely rich. I think $10 million is a good cap.
Take your current yearly salary, multiply it by however many years you expect to live after retirement + let’s say… 10% on top for inflation, + another 10 for medical expenses. Is that number above, or below, $10M? Retirement is fucking expensive and only going up in cost.
I’ve modeled it a bit more precisely considering actual expenditures as well as social security income, projected inflation and investment returns, etc. $5MM in my pocket right now should set me up just fine.
Imagine if they did this back in the 60s, but using numbers.
“1 million??? Thats way too high! If I made 1 million in a year my grandkids could retire from that year. Better make it $100,000. 90% tax after $100,000.”
Today because of inflation I would say someone making $100,000 a year is comfortable in luxery, but still earning their pay.
Tie it to a percentage of the curve of what average americans make, and I think you deflate most of inflation. Because if their price for a good is $3.00, and it costs $1.25 worth of wages to make, they could raise that $3 to $5, and only give the workers $0.25 raise, which means now that item costs $1.50 to make, but sells for $5 instead of $3. This rewards ceo’s to raise prices disproportionally. Tie it to the curve, and if he raises the price to $5, now he has to pay workers $3.25. Suddenly it’s not the ceos getting rewarded for doing that. Suddenly random price hikes to please shareholders are GONE. Which means if you can’t stay profitable in a fair market, you cease to exist. You can’t just pull a short term band-aid fix to pop a stock price, and ignore consequences. Because now those consequences actually kill your company.
What we would be left with are CEOs who actually RUN their company, rather than just load the numbers. We’d have better products, better wages, and a better life.
But if we tie it to a number, our grandkids will be right back to where we are.
If I wasn’t bald I’d have been pulling my hair out of my head when I was seeing all this “fight for fifteen” when trying to argue for a minimum wage increase.
Ok we got that now, something like 10 years later so what is $15/hr now? It’s a joke…
Alright. You make good points. I agree with you. However there is a problem. Alex jones is a nutjob with no redeeming qualities. He has a base, and called on his base to blockade his house to prevent law officials from repossesing his house, his infowars platform, and anything else worth any monetary currency. Notice, I didn’t say “value” because let’s face it. It’s alex jones. What value could there possibly be with him.
Trump did the same thing with J6. Gets his base in a frenzy to do his dirty work, and uses them to attempt a coup. I fully believe the vast majority actually there on J6 didn’t even know thats what it was. They didn’t know where were attempting a coup. But they were fully prepared to follow daddy oranges commands.
My point is, yes we CAN take this country back from the rich. But we will have to fight a second civil war to do so. This civil war won’t be about racism. It will be 100% a class war. And the rich will 100% throw every brainwashed moron they can find into the front lines to die to protect their wealth.
So if we want to take the country back, we’re going to need to fight. Quite frankly, I’m looking forward to it. Either I die and stop suffering in poverty, or I get a better life. When you push the public down to the point that they have nothing to lose, don’t be surprised when death doesn’t scare them.
What rights are you talking about taking there? Shooting rich people for the “right” to their money?
What the fuck? These days it’s like nobody understands the Golden Rule anymore. Just hate, kill, and insult whatever offends you. Surely that will lead to good results?
The fuck do you think the US revolution was? You think the starving peasants gave a fuck about taxation without representation? Or tea in a fucking harbor?
Yeah yeah, go on. But in reality, if you really started your glorious class revolution or whatever, what would you do? Are you going to roll up to Warren Buffet’s house with an assault squad and kill and rob him? Are you going to take a group of your terrorist cell to Wall Street and start shooting the stock brokers? Do you have any ideas beyond violence and theft?
What do you think you’re really accomplishing here with all your inflammatory talk of violence? It leads to nothing but thoughts of hate and accomplishes only division among the citizens who have to live together in society. There will be no revolution, because most people would never risk their comforts to enter that world of danger. We are living in a world of opportunity and convenience, with a standard of living higher than has ever existed before, and most Americans do not even comprehend true hardship.
All rights are won through diversity of tactics. Some of the most effective campaigns for gay rights came from our moms just talking to people about what it was like to have gay kids. Add that to violently forcing the state to stop being so brutal in their oppression of us and years-decades of working with and within the medical and legal establishments to hamper homophobia in those realms.
You get similar shit elsewhere. Eco-terrorism has had less explicit gains than environmental lawyers, but without the militants the assailants to our planet just do it mid lawsuit and pay the fine later. The black American civil rights movement had pacifists and militants.
Force alone doesn’t create a movement, just a war if you’re lucky enough to get the people to support you.
History is filled to the brim with rights won NOT through violence. What you say is objectively wrong, though it caters to anyone suspectible to populism.
Honestly when it comes to severe crimes the punishments should put them out of business. Yeah some people will lose their jobs, but suddenly there’s a vacuum that can be filled, and it’s not like the expertise is gone. Someone else can start a better company that doesn’t do illegal shit and fill that vacuum.
Isn’t that how capitalism is supposed to work anyway?
This isn’t a skilled industry, hence why they have children working there. The equipment/facilities is the real value. Unless the government wants to take control or find new management, the jobs are dependent on whoever owns the machines.
Or, just maybe, we close the meat packing plant anyways because everyone should eat less meat.
It’s not even the slaughterhouse. The meat packing plant contracted out to “Ricky’s bone saw cleaning LLC” who is paying the fine for child labor. They might have a few jugs of detergents and sanitizers plus some work vans.
I keep hearing this about how companies failing being how capitalism is supposed to work. Capitalism doesn’t give a shit about bad companies failing or competition. Capitalism is concerned with the ownership of the means of production. Lack of regulation and competition works tremendously for the owners of capital and those owners will use their capital to foster such profitable environments. This is how capitalism works.
Okay, well Israel glassed half the strip and killed 33,000 people. They went past self defense or even basic revenge about 32,000 people ago. Any other half-assed attempt to justify a genocide?
On an embassy. And Iran’s targeting non civilian infrastructure. Which Israel hadn’t had the decency to do. Man, wherever you live has an education system that failed you completely.
I hope they will be able to get every israeli army bastard and while leadership. I know they unfortunately won’t, due to all high-tech defense systems given to Israel by the US. israel is just a nazi state.
Biden has been on Netanyahu’s ass since the beginning but Israel keeps digging the hole deeper. Israel will discover, too late, that they doomed themselves - Biden tried and tried to tell them. Netanyahu, Putin and Trump are all cut from the same cloth. They are all losers waiting for the curtain to close on them.
According to the 1948 international genocide convention, genocide constitutes “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.”
There were around 250,000 people in Gaza in 1948. There are now more than 2 million.
BTW you’re free to amend your argument so that you don’t sound like a Nazi sounds when denying the Holocaust. Maybe try some facts or logic instead of pretending population growth since 1948 has anything to do with whether or not actions are genocidal in 2024. Up to you.
Did hamas limit the food, water, and electric going into Israel too? Was Hamas making settlements inside Israel? Was Hamas controlling the border and movement of Israelis? Was Hamas controlling the outcome of Israels elections?
Did hamas limit the food, water, and electric going into Israel too?
They would if they could. Instead they took the aid meant for their population and used it to build tunnels and rockets effectively resulting in the same thing except they’re doing it to their own population.
Not before they were created as a response to Israeli occupation in '87… Israel forced Palestinians into gaza and the west Bank in the late 40s. So around 50 years of trying to deal with occupation without Hamas. That’s a long time to be subjugated and not have some sort of extremist group gain power. So if we do the math… yeah israel and the colonial powers that helped create it have been the bad guy far more often than Hamas. By raw body count alone Israel comes out looking like a monster.
Whataboutism doesn’t change the fact that Hamas has been targeting Israeli civilian population with rockets for years. Two things can be true at the same time.
Blindly shooting rockets at the civilian population in Israel for years, raping and murdering civilians on october 7th and using their own civilian population as human shields are few that come to mind.
IDF drops bombs on the homes of any man, killing entire families at once. “Human shields” do not exist, there is no point. The IDF has shown they will happily shoot through the civilians anyways.
Well most of it is unsubstantiated lies propagated by Israel, so yes. It is probable that Hamas has fired rockets into civilian areas, but I don’t think there’s any evidence on the rest of it.
I’m confused with the statement that Hamas has not been committing war crimes though: clarification about the last 6 months seems to be added for manipulative reasons.
No, I’m gonna thank the people who attacked an Iranian embassy. Fucking zionists and genocide apologists really love to jump at the chance to blame Hamas for everything, especially Israel’s own fuckups, huh.
Hamas could stop the invasion of Gaza at any time by releasing the hostages and disarming. Instead the Hamas leadership are big chillin in Qatar living the good life escalating the violence every chance they get.
If Hamas hadn't attacked Israel on October 7th, Hezbollah wouldn't have ramped up rocket attacks on Israel in response to the Gaza invasion. Then Israel wouldn't have needed to target the Iranian general helping to fund and coordinate the attacks from Syria.
The middle east is a giant cluster fuck of bad actors being funded by Iran in an effort to destabilize the west and eradicate Israel. The west defends Israel because if they didn't then the surrounding Arab states would absolutely destroy the country of Israel and do their best to enact a second Holocaust of any Jewish people they could get their hands on.
There are no "good guys" in any of these conflicts, especially not Hamas or Iran. Because of Israel, Hamas, and Iran the Gaza civilians are being punished.
Don't say any stupid shit like I'm a Zionist or genocide apologists just because I understand that Hamas doesn't really give a fuck about Palestinian civilians.
Hamas could stop the invasion of Gaza at any time by releasing the hostages and disarming. Instead the Hamas leadership are big chillin in Qatar living the good life escalating the violence every chance they get.
I’m going to go out on a limb and assume you haven’t heard Netanyahu repeatedly say the hostages aren’t the end of it? That they have to destroy Hamas too? And that’s a pretty glib statement for the guys currently standing on the wrong side of the border.
Just like the Russians saying Ukraine can end the war at any time with total surrender. Just let them win and do whatever they want then it will totally be over, we swear! There’s no way they will continue to kill civilians, occupy land that isn’t theirs, and bring in more settlers. /s
The oppressors would love it if any resistance just went away.
Fuck Hamas. But fuck Israel also. They’re not crazy idiotic islam nuts. They simply used what those islamist fuckers did to start genocide of innocent people. Fuck Netanyahu, fuck whole state if Israel. They got down to nazi level.
Remember, those numbers are from around 3-4 weeks ago. There isn’t any mechanism for continuing the count, which is why the number hasn’t changed as starvation kicks in.
Its going to be like Yemen where the official death count hovered around 4 thousand for years and then one day it was “oops it’s 400 thousand now, gee how did that happen?”
The guerilla doesn’t need to win, just not lose. The correct response of you actually want to end the fighting is to attack the Idea. Which turns out to be a careful balancing act of of fighting radicals while respecting and helping the local population.
You are describing the American response to the Taliban. I suspect Israel saw what happened in Afghanistan and decided that it wasn’t the “correct response” after all.
It’s a bit more than just that. If you look at successful counter insurgencies throughout history then you see it’s the defining trait. Afghanistan is an example of what happens when you try to change the culture at the same time, have a corrupt reporting chain that doesn’t report failure, and the enemy can hide in the next country over. You can do everything right and still lose, and we didn’t do everything right.
Still, I’m not sure if Israel is even performing a counterinsurgency operation. Hamas was in control of the government of Gaza, after all. This may have more in common with a regime change, or some hybrid of the two.
Regime change can be counter insurgency too though if the people liked their government. Imagine if the US Army sucked and Russia occupied the US. They’d have to fight an insurgency too. So there’s a lot of crossover. In both cases you treat civilians as gently as possible.
This is a war. What makes you think war is supposed to be proportionate?
How many American civilians were killed at Pearl Harbor? There were 68.
How many Japanese civilians were subsequently killed by Americans? About 500,000.
Americans weren’t obligated to stop when Japanese civilian casualties outnumbered American civilian casualties. They were only obligated to stop when Japan surrendered.
A “war” as you’re mentioning it is very different than what’s happening here.
Sure, in a total war, massive nation state war , if one side blunders and gets a whole army, or a whole city obliterated, that’s just war. (I’m not condoning or calling for total war, anywhere. Just explaining a difference)
Ah yes, Israel is just doing what the US did in Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. Very apt comparison.
Also the US killed way more that 500,000 Japanese civilians in WWII. Your just counting the atom bombs. We had leveled multiple cities with conventional and fire bombs before that.
You’re forgetting something. 30% of those numbers from October 7th are Israeli military. And yeah it was bad that they killed so many civilians. But this number gets thrown around like they were on an unopposed rampage. Then there’s the fact that Israelis near Palestinian borders tend to be well armed and a picture of an actual fight begins to emerge.
Most of the Israelis who live near Gaza are peace activists and environmental activists who live there to help build peaceful relations with Palestine.
Yeah I just don’t buy that. There’s obviously some but the overwhelming narrative of border communities in Israeli newspapers seems to have been a fear of exactly this happening.
There’s also the fact that Israel’s response to 10/7 was tanks and helicopters. Hamas didn’t level any kibbutz’s, the IDF did, because Hamas was there. Any kibbutzniks who died from friendly fire were blamed on Hamas.
It has nothing to do with the numbers being proportional on two sides. It’s whether the military response is proportional to the military goal. The military goal in this case is the defeat of an embedded terrorist organization and return of hostages.
The people that told you that are mentally insane, so you know. I know it feels good to have a rationalisation and that they seem reasonable. but they are emotionally immature men that have traumas preventing them from growing up correctly and now they are in a psychosis.
No, nothing about any one killing anyone is about a military target goal. It’s not justified to do these things. Just like it was and is not justified by the terrorists to do them. Stop being a fool really that thinks this is normal to do, to slay an entire people. What the fuck man.
You are not upset with me, you are upset with the definition of a word.
Obviously we all want a peaceful world, but when you have a group like Hamas that believe their god wants them to kill anyone who is not their form of extremist religion, how can you end violence without eliminating them? Israel tried for decades to avoid this type if direct conflict. That avoidance cost them and led to the deadliest day in all Israeli history.
There are literal international laws, and people who spend their entire life around the science of proportional military action. It’s so much more than a word you can define.
It is after a genocide people wonder what the fuck happened. But a few wonders right the fuck now what the fuck is happening.
Military petsonell over the world work with you know real horrible game theory politics considerations that are mentally insane and some of these military spheres has completely lost their shit and are currently spiraling into the TELLTALE TEXTBOOK definition of the cycle where they become destructive and the world suffers from the consequences for years.
It is repeating history. I don’t hate a word, I hate that you defend it with no objective partials
By that definition Israel is failing to meet its military goal. Killing SO MANY innocent civilians would be considered a military failure by any other western county.
Unless the goal is collective punishment and not proportional warfare.
Yup, a total failure. They’re currently at -2. They’ve rescued no hostages and killed two “by accident”. The only time Israel got hostages was when the military was put on a leash during a ceasefire and they traded some of their own Palestinian hostages.
Israel does not keep or have Palestinian hostages.
You are trying to establish a moral equivalence between kidnapping civilians from their homes and arresting suspected or convicted criminals. They are not the same thing and equating them only muddies the waters on the real underlying issues.
Israel has thousands of Palestinians in “administrative detention” that have not been accused of any crimes. Using a fancy word doesn’t make them not hostages. You are right that falsely imprisoning thousands of people over a long period of time as part of a standing policy of oppression is not the same as having 50 one time hostages. It’s way worse.
Dozens, maybe as many as 100. There were only about 200 taken to begin with. Hamas gave back more than a third, and Israel has murdered at least several, that we know of. So sure, bicker about that number and give no fucks about the THOUSANDS of hostages Israel is keeping with no plans to release.
Lmao, no. Holding people without charges is kidnapping them and that’s the best interpretation. The words State Sponsored Terrorism exist for a reason.
This is exactly what I mean by muddying the waters. Israel clearly has an extremely damaged criminal justice system, but those underlying systems are not going to be addressed as long as the world refuses to acknowledge them.
When you have activists who only understand half the story decrying Palestinian “hostages,” they draw focus away from where it’s needed. Israel needs serious criminal justice reform, but that is now than ever from happening.
While it is impossible to have an accurate count, the best estimates are that about 1/3 of those killed have been combatants. The UN estimates 90% civilian casualties across all wars. The Iraq war was similar in that it involved urban, embedded terror groups and modern technology. The civilian casualty ratio was 77%. This war is in line with other conflicts of the past 50 years.
It is still a terrible tragedy. War is always a tragedy.
The Iraq war was fought against a standing military. The follow-on counter insurgency was far less lethal to civilians. Call us when Hamas is running T-80 Tank Divisions.
They need to continually stoke hatred, even when there’s nothing to hate in the news. Can’t have viewers cooling off and developing a mind of their own…
I don’t see this at all, they very much seem like people who play Scrabble. You don’t need to be smart, and just playing it doesn’t mean they’re good at it.
I mean, hiding in a tree, disguising your scent, scoping a dumb animal and shooting it with a rifle from a hundred yards away isn't exactly a fair fight either. I agree there is a difference, I think there is just a lot of mythmaking about what is effectively using all of the gifts of civilization in order to trick a sub toddler intelligence deer that it's not about to be murdered.
There’s no question the planet and all other life would be better off if we died out in the stone age. Climate change, PFAS, microplastics… We’re parasites to the planet (channeling my best Andrew Ryan impression there).
The criticism isn’t about a fair fight, it’s about the unnecessary cruelty in the treatment of the animal. An important part of hunting ethics is minimizing the suffering of the prey. Kills should be as quick and efficient as possible.
You’re not wrong, but I’ll say some devil’s s advocate stuff: hunting is a lot harder to get a successful kill than you make it out, deer are experts in their environment, they aren’t just bumbling around, and hunters usually honor the animals they kill reasonably well.
When I’ve hunted blacktail in the Pacific Northwest that’s certainly true. When I’ve hunted whitetail in the Midwest it was as if the deer also didn’t want to live in that hellhole lol
I don’t think dishonor is really the issue. I’m not a hunter, I’m actually vegan…but I like to think that most recreational game hunters are hunting responsibly and want to ensure as clean a kill as possible, and to put the animal down quickly if they don’t get that on the first shot.
It’s the poachers and irresponsible hunters they are aiming to stop. People hunting over their limit and without tags/permits. The point of the tags/permits/limits is to keep the population itself relatively healthy.
In a lot of regions, hunting is a necessity, if only because we’ve hunted down or driven out most of the game animals predators (like wolves). It’s a necessary evil in order to keep the wild population from overbreeding.
It is a cultural ritual and a challenge, but certainly not a “fight” in the sense of taking your chances one v. one. I don’t hunt. I find the idea of making myself incredibly uncomfortable solely for the opportunity to be the one who kills my meat animal to be distinctly unappealing. That said, I eat meat. I can’t do so and also condemn someone for being willing to kill an animal, even if I am eeshed out by the ones who seem to enjoy it too much.
I grew up around a lot of hunters, though, and to a one they all had chest-freezers full of venison, so in terms of expending vertebrate life they’re certainly no worse than I am. Even field crops involve some chance of killing vertebrates, though I don’t think it’s as many as some of my fellow omnivores like to imply (and hay for livestock feed seems to be the worst of it). I’m cognizant of the difference between killing to eat and tolerating rather less killing in order to eat.
Ironically, allowing hunting itself is probably one of the best ways (and certainly one of the oldest) to encourage conservation of wild spaces and the lives therein, and if properly regulated it can be maintained at a scale that I don’t think would be out of line with a fairly natural role for humans in the natural world. The world is messy, people have deeply held beliefs coming from vastly different frameworks and experiences, and finding the right balance is necessary to avoid even more tragic disasters.
Fuck this guy in Wyoming, though. Showing off and torturing a dying animal is cruelty for its own sake and I don’t think that’s a hard line to draw either. He sure as shit wouldn’t do that with a calf or deer (or maybe he would, but he’d find even fewer defenders).
Would you prefer the government to draft a bunch of untrained, unwilling vegans to go into the woods and manage invasive populations of prey animals? Perhaps the best people for the job would be volunteers who pay for something they consider a privilege? Then maybe the government could reinvest those fees into wilderness management programs? Like they do.
Despite your objections, that is the primary purpose of hunting.
Here, I’ll help you. Legalized hunting is a program based on scientific wildlife population management. Why is this necessary, you ask? Because ignorant, irresponsible humans wiped out most of the natural predators which previously managed prey populations. Therefore, it becomes our modern responsibility to manage prey populations using our intelligence and highly developed ethical systems. If a population grows too large, they can change the way forests grow, which can alter the flows of rivers. There are countless unpredictable knock-on effects to consider. Invasive species like pigs destroy land, plants, and other animals, often endangered.
Examples you might consider are the wolves of Yellowstone and the sea otters of Puget Sound. Those are natural predators that were reintroduced to manage invasive over populations of deer and sea urchins respectively. In many areas of the world, it is unfortunately inadvisable to reintroduce natural predators such as wolves, bears, and large cats. Therefore the responsibility lies on humans to maintain herds scientifically. And yeah, probably the best people for that task would be volunteers who enjoy the hunt and don’t waste the remains of the animals they take, who respect their quarry and pride themselves on a swift and relatively painless kill.
Poaching is illegal for valid scientific reasons. Poachers do not respect limits and kill all they can. They kill often just for trophies to sell on the black market. This negatively affects populations that scientists are working to maintain. Consider when hunting was unregulated, and racist assholes did their best to wipe out the buffalo in order to starve the Native Americans. Animal torturers like this sick f#ck exhibit serial killer behavior and need to be managed by the justice system.
Finally, it sounds like you consider predation to be unethical. I’m not sure if you realize that predation is part of the natural order of things, and cannot be altered by any known means. Most prey animals in an unaltered environment will die in agony to tooth and claw. Most predators find killing pleasurable. Any that didn’t would go extinct. My pet housecat, for instance, cannot be given a vegan diet without slowly killing it, no matter how much I dislike buying animal products. Maybe you disagree with the concept of pets, hell, I don’t know. Then you have to deal with the massive feral cat population somehow, and they kill like 10 billion birds a year.
Besides complaining about the injustice of it, what alternative solutions do you have to offer the Real World? Humans happen to be animals – top predators who survived and evolved by hunting. You cannot get around that fact, but we can moderate ourselves and manage it responsibly through science and the law.
I’m all for things like population control and invasive species removal, but that doesn’t mean hunting for pleaser is perfectly fine because it serves that end.
Like I support compassionate euthanasia for people. That doesn’t mean I also support someone going into a hospice with rifle and shooting cancer patients.
Maybe you should ask Native Americans what they think about the honor and respect they hold for the animals they hunt. Which, you might want to consider, they consider a large part of their religious rites. Do you think they’d be offended to be compared to poachers, abusers, and torturers?
Okay, how many hunters in the US do you think are native American and hunting for food and fur, versus white Americans that go hunting primarily for the entertainment?
No, race is completely irrelevant. Ethics are all that matters. The point I was making with Native Americans was to remind you of a case where most people accept that hunting can be ethical. It was not to suggest that one race can do this but another can’t. You cannot separate enjoyment from hunting. It’s a natural feeling that developed over millions of years. If you do not enjoy hunting, you will not hunt. We don’t write laws to dictate how people feel. We we do it to regulate how people behave.
Instead of trying to trap me with another question, you might consider thinking about the questions I asked you.
This sucks, but a few points are at least worth mentioning:
Of the five judges listed on the order, annoyingly slim as it is, three are Democrats and two are “nonpartisan” but with resumes in the public sector and public interest law.
Most states actually have a cap on appeal bonds, often around $50 million or less. NY doesn’t have one, but all the same thinking, for good or for ill, that would lead to a statutory limit might influence the appeals court here. Among them is precluding additional litigation from forcing a fire sale.
In an appeal like this, the court has to at least conceptually imagine that there’s some possibility of success, and that with a defendant who is leveraged AF and not nearly as liquid as he boasts, there is only one bite at the apple when seizing and selling the assets to satisfy the judgment. If the court is convinced that this amount, well into nine figures, will occupy the vast majority of his liquid assets and insure some plausible compensation for the plaintiff, and the other assets aren’t going anywhere, then it’s not insane to demand a bond more in line with the available liquidity.
Trump is definitely getting the “rich business owner with lots of lawyers” treatment here, and that’s certainly something you could criticize about the American legal system, but I don’t think we’re seeing some completely inexplicable abuse of existing civil procedure. The orange turd still gets the due process that a President Turd would deny to so many others.
TL;DR: it’s possible the only thing the Appeals Court is saying is that ol’ Donny really can’t get the bigger bond and that Trump Tower will still be there to seize later.
I can’t say I’m surprised by this, and while I hate Trump, it’s not for the cynical reason. It’s going to be quite the nightmare unwinding those transactions. My understanding is that NY doesn’t have a right of redemption after a Sheriff’s sale. While this is judicious, I would prefer Trump be given no quarter.
I heartily disagree on these limits being to prevent a fire sale. They’re to protect the wealthy from a fire sale. You or I would be forced into a fire sale in a heartbeat for a million dollar judgement. And then into debtor’s prison when we turn out to be normal people who don’t have a million dollars of assets lying around.
This is the important detail. Europe was destroyed and the USA was able to flourish. Opportunities existed that will likely never exist again. Capitalism has never been as great as it was in the USA post-WWII.
America was basically the only industrialized country that hadn’t been bombed to fuck. You had to be a clown to not succeed in that environment (or systemically oppressed, since opportunity in the US is always only for white people). Boomers took quality jobs making reliable products and moved those to low wage jobs making disposable products in China.
Median waiter salary in USA seems to be $15/hr currently. Did you think it was significantly less? There are large differences in the median between states. Where did she work?
Couple of my friends were servers at their family’s resturaunt growing up (early 2000s) and I think they only made about 2 and some change before tips. 30 year difference from your example and their wages were roughly the same amount. It’s ridiculous.
Servers in most of America make $2.13 an hour plus tips. Id say depending on COL, anywhere from $12/hr at shitholes to $30+/hr at nice spots or high COL
$15/hr seems like a decent number, considering most servers will not claim cash tips. considering lack of cash these days compared to credit usage, id say $20-25/hr is a decent average.
But again, the other commenter said that $2.20 was WITHOUT tips, so certainly the 1972 waittress made more still
Definitely was. Inflation has been ridiculous over the years. My father pumped gas part time at Sears and was able to have an apartment with roommates as well as pay all of his tuition for college.
Few people in that period had the information you have now. People were presented with this economic miracle in the 50s and there was little to no components other than conformity.
As more time has passed and I continually re-assess my Boomer parents, I am struck more and more that they truly were a propagandized generation who was never given the tools to properly think through what they were seeing. It was always just “here, more, buy this, this technology is new and amazing”. Everything was new year after year until the late 80s/early 90s, when technology evened out. Even then people had cell phones and such. Once met with the Internet, especially through Facebook, we could see all of their problems flourish.
Not to say that any generation is better than any other or not, but I do believe that each generation after Boomers is actually much better than the previous one at critical thinking–probably because society had no choice but to and the fact that more people have at least a bachelors degree now.
As much as you complain about the boomers, the current generation(s) are the ones you need to pay attention when it comes to who’s caused the house shortage because of unchecked capitalism. There’s more than enough houses that should house everyone for cheap.
You cannot blame boomers for the smouldering wreck that Airbnb left behind. That was the work of a millennial. Take some responsibility for yourselves and your own actions that have attributed to the current state of society that you live in.
My guy, air bnb didn’t cause the shortage or even significantly make it worse. It’s the mega corps that literally own hundreds of thousands of homes across the US and just rent them out. I’m not even upset at boomers who own 3 or 4 rental properties and I work with a lot of them. It’s always mega corps fucking it up for the rest of us.
Housing was wildly expensive and rising incredibly fast before Airbnb was invented (company started in 2008, which you might recognize as an important year for the real estate market). After 2008, tons of investors came in to buy up the depressed value properties to either flip or rent out or just hold onto until the value returned. People buying houses with cash isn’t something Airbnb caused. Corporations buying up houses to rent isn’t something Airbnb caused. Foreign investors buying up houses to get their money out of their country isn’t something Airbnb caused.
Airbnb invented a way to make money off of housing by taking houses away from people. Entire blocks will be bought by a company just to use as an Airbnb hence why a lot of stipulations have been recently coming in to prevent a ‘housing shortage’ while there’s enough housing.
So yes, Airbnb did a lot of damage there when it comes to ‘who can we pin ideas on’ blame which we love to do so much to boomers.
Wtf even does “the current generations” mean? Whenever people say “the newer generation” or “the young generation” or something they just sound so fucking incompetent.
As is blaming boomers when the world is not run by just that one generation. The most successful billionaires today are made up from genx and millennials.
So making it a generation war just when it’s pointed at boomers is just stupid and incompetent for an argument.
LOL you really believe that “a millenial” created AirBNB and not some conglomerate of venture capitalists funneling billions at a team made up of people of all ages?
No shit. So you agree It’s not just boomers. Now go get mad at the OP for spawning this stupid nonsense argument in the first place. Go on and grow that attention span.
The original version would have allowed a child support action at any time following conception, but the measure was amended to have such an action apply only retroactively after the birth within the time limit.
Weird, it’s almost like there’s a huge difference between a fertilized egg and a baby.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.