No, no sacrifices are acceptable. Workers generally get taken advantage of in the US. I think everyone is tired of being taken advantage of. It’s time for businesses to actually treat people better.
Keep digging and guaranteed to find the Russians as well.
The most terrifying thing of all is how almost accepted all this is. None of it is particularly shocking. Hard core Republicans will even justify it, possibly even flaunt it. This is how far down the rabbit hole we’ve allowed things to get.
Same, but after seeing the quality of everything else besides the software, no thanks. The electronics and infotainment seem to be the only thing they made well. Put that in a Honda or Toyota and I’d be happy.
Again, it has been screenable for decades. Just like many other blood-borne diseases. Why single out HIV as if it is impossible to filter out of the supply?
Why single out HIV as if it is impossible to filter out of the supply?
Screening accuracy is lightyears better today than it was decades ago.
Also, many things on the screening test won’t kill you in the event of a false negative on screening. A false negative for HIV screening meant a certain death sentence for the recipient, and that was true until just a few years ago.
Why single out HIV
HIV never was ‘singled out’. There are numerous other behaviors and activities that disqualify a potential donor that have nothing to do with HIV.
“Singled out” implies that that it stood alone as the only behavior that was screened for. But that’s not the case. There always have been and still are numerous other behaviors and activities screened for and denied.
No, ‘singled out’ means they made a special exception for it that they made for nothing else. They didn’t even ask if you had HIV, just if you had gay sex, as if you can’t get HIV from heterosexual sex. It was never about HIV, it was about marginalizing gay people once again. And you’re excusing it. Shameful.
They made special exceptions for people who live or travel to specific regions, they made special exceptions for people who have received certain medical procedures, they made special exceptions for needle-based drug users, they made special exceptions for people who’ve gotten tattoos or piercings, they made special exceptions for other sexual behaviors like paying for sex. You do know what the definition of the word “singled” means, yeah? It means “single” - as in “one”. They didn’t single out just that one behavior.
Yet again- they only asked if you had gay sex. They didn’t ask if you had sex. HIV can be transmitted through any kind of sex. Are you really not aware of that? Because if you are aware of that, why just ask about gay sex?
It’s a bit more complicated than that. In the early years of the HIV epidemic they at first didn’t even want to screen donors. The blood banks and the FDA were slow to introduce screening for a few reasons, one being that gay men were such good donors that a large proportion of the blood supply would have been removed. Eventually the risk became too great and do screening was introduced, just like we exclude those who were in Britain when TSEs were a risk. Note that these restrictions also never applied to lesbians, because they are not a high risk group.
40 years ago contracting HIV was still a serious, life threatening event. It’s also true that in the USA homosexual men represented one of the largest risk groups, unlike in Africa where other factors made spread between heterosexuals more common. It took hold in the gay male community due to the higher risk of anal sex, the popularity of bath houses, and the amount of sex men were having basically. Testing for HIV was also expensive. You could do it at the batch stage to reduce testing, but then you throw away a lot of blood. It’s only recently that PreP is widely available and used, so that HIV is more manageable (though it is still a serious illness).
My source for most of this is And The Band Played On, which apart from being one of the saddest books I ever read, outlines well the inaction by politicians, medical funding bodies, and even within the gay community itself, in tackling the epidemic. That it was allowed to happen is a black mark on the Reagan presidency.
A false negative for HIV screening meant a certain death sentence for the recipient, and that was true until just a few years ago.
Are you for fucking real? Don’t pretend it’s not still a life shattering disease.
You can’t just say, “oh well, it’s not as bad as it used to be.” There’s a vast spectrum between “it won’t kill you” and “it’s a total nothingburger” (wow, does that ever sound familiar). Now you’re immunocompromised, something you definitely do not want in this day and age. Now you risk passing it onto partners and children. Now your quality of life is degraded decades earlier than it otherwise would be.
Now imagine you contracted it, not because you voluntarily engaged in behaviors and you knew the risks, but because you received life-saving medical care. Then imagine learning it might have been prevented if the organization responsible was concerned with pandering to sexual identity politics than ensuring product safety.
This is, and has always been, about safety. Screening has improved. Research has provided more data on prevention and monitoring. They wouldn’t have changed the policies otherwise.
So…you agree with my position that Red Cross had good reason for the ban for the past several decades but choose to attack me because my argument wasn’t vicious enough? I think you arguing with the wrong person here, tbh.
Shit, you know what, I think I may have over-interpreted your phrasing to mean that HIV is no big deal because it’s no longer a short term death sentence.
They phrased it “men who have sex with men” because that was - and is - undeniably a huge risk factor in the transmission of HIV. It was an unprecedented public health emergency and I don’t think people nowadays quite understand how severe it was. Which is great, really, we’ve come such a long way.
Communication infrastructure was nothing like it is today either, there was a real absence of information and people were extremely scared, especially gay men watching their friends die. A blanket ban was the only sane thing to do in the circumstances.
Did it need to persist so long, perhaps not, but even 20 years ago AIDS was much less preventable and treatable than it is today. And the gears of bureaucracy turn extremely slowly at the best of times.
As someone else has pointed out, this is far from the only group excluded from the donor pool. It’s not a moral judgment, just a screening heuristic at the demographic level. That’s how things have to operate at the level of public services; i.e. population-level policy.
I agree. As I said in another comment, the book And The Band Played On is a great history of the AIDS epidemic in the USA and really hammers home just how devestating it was to gay men. It’s a fact that gay men are the major risk group in the West for HIV transmission. Heterosexual sex is much less likely to spread it compared to anal sex. There was a lot of mismanagement of it, but screening was a good idea, when it was finally introduced.
Not really, it specifies “new partners,” which is completely fair. People lie, and it allows time for symptoms to show up so the red cross doesn’t end up wasting resources. I don’t really know how they’d work out polycules unless they add a monogamous restriction. The three months it’s about safety since they are dealing with blood.
Theoretically, it applies to everyone. The anti-sodomy laws also technically applied to everyone, but were only enforced against the LGBT community.
It is good that now they will at least screening those who have heterosexual intercourse, but most MSM still won’t be able to donate with the various restrictions. Only MSM in a long-term relationship will be able to donate.
I can understand the biological reason for not allowing certain medications to avoid complications. However, they could still take blood and just keep it separate just as plasma centers that take MSM plasma do. If there really is a shortage, they should be taking everything being offered.
For a lot of these people their (secular) religion is erasing real-world group differences. The fact that you can (whatever your sexual orientation) regularly engage in anal sex, and therefore be at a higher-risk of contracting STIs for physiological reasons, and therefore not be eligible to donate blood—and still be a good person is beyond their ability to square.
If we value your personhood equally then there must be no substantive physiological differences between you and anybody else.
Yes, it’s entirely about what you do, not what you are. Nothing to do with identity, only practice. This seems to be very hard for younger people to grasp, because increasingly society seems to conflate the two. That’s not particularly meant as an accusation, just an observation.
Surgical tech here. I’ve done a metric fuck-ton of c-sections, and those cases can be brutal as hell. Never been in on a vaginal delivery, cuz that’s not OR territory, but c-sections are the kind of case you’re on high alert for the entire time cuz shit can go south really fast for both mother and baby. The amount of force I’ve seen (and contributed to) applied to get a baby out is definitely in dismemberment territory if there was some defect at play.
Some of the most horrific things I’ve seen in the OR have been in the c-section room. But they’re the kind of thing that if you don’t do, it’s basically a death sentence for the mom or the baby.
Based on my own experience, I’d give the doc and delivery team the benefit of the doubt in terms of the operation: extreme circumstances can call for an extreme response, and when that doesn’t work, the result is also extreme. This is a case that will haunt the staff involved all the way to the grave - really hope the hospital hooks them all up with top-notch therapy after that shit.
The lack of transparency after the fact though is 100% inexcusable, but also unsurprising coming from a private hospital. Their decisions are driven by money and PR. Ethics are a tie breaker at best.
Most places recognize civil causes of action for negligent or intentional mishandling of a corpse, or interference with the disposition of a corpse. I think the result here does not necessarily impute medical negligence but it definitely warrants liability for their handling after the fact, as you’ve said. What a case. Wonder what the hospital will settle for.
I mean, if someone's going for a radical C-section definitely either mom, the baby, or both are about to die. But dude this is fucked up. I wouldn't give the benefit of the doubt here, personally. She should be sued and she should lose. But I suppose arguably it shouldn't define her career. She's been practicing for 20 years it looks like without any problems. Something went drastically wrong here but I agree with you that chaos is unfortunately part of medicine and definitely is in labor and delivery.
As for swaddling the severed head and body... I kind of also understand. Again, this is extraordinary. Everyone else in the room is as shocked as the rest of us are. What are they going to do, hold up the two halves and say "whoopsie doodle?"
As for denying an autopsy and trying to cover everything up, the hospital should be metaphorically burned to the ground. If the obstetrician was involved, that SHOULD define her career and it should be over.
The advertisement entices workers to make the jump, even for a short while, to its on-campus hotel, saying: “Just imagine no commute to the office in the morning and instead, you could have an extra hour of sleep and less friction,” CNBC reported.
Did these stupid motherfuckers read their own ad??
No commute and extra sleep? That sounds great!
No wonder everyone is trying to WFH - the very same reasons you just listed.
The real startup story is quietly happening elsewhere: trillions of dollars of wealth are slowly being transferred to a younger generation by boomers selling their businesses to those looking to build their own.
What?!
That’s not transferring wealth to a younger generation, it’s transferring wealth to the boomers in exchange for businesses that are likely going to fail, plus some to lenders for the interest. Regardless of who buys it, they have to pay sky high interest, if they can’t the bank gets it.
And at least in my city, it’s mostly people who worked for the boomer, didn’t understand the legal parts, and got hosed.
We just had a guy pay 1.5 million for a failing restaurant without having a lawyer look at it because the seller was a “mentor”.
There was a stipulation in there that it was just for the name and lease. The boomer didn’t even own the property, even though he had been telling people he owned it for over a decade.
Dude thought he was buying a restaurant and the property. The boomer sold all the equipment and moved to Florida.
Yeah. Real story here is yet another shell game is playing out in plainview of everyone. One that ensures generational wealth and poverty remain in place
I mean, good. If he isn’t going to do even the single most basic thing to connect with his students and meet them where they are, how can he ever be an effective teacher?
Right? Some of these kids see their teachers more than their actual parents. Could you imagine having to deal with such blatant disrespect every day from someone that is meant to be your role model?
I can, I did, it fucked me up mentally. I’m 41 now and still suffer some of the consequences of the abuse by my peers and one especially vicious teacher.
Anybody else feel like Trump forgot Joe is still president? I feel like he thinks he resigned and handed the position over to Kamala. Weird old man delivers sad speach…
On X, Rowling posted a photo of Khelif and Carini. In the photo Khelif looks like she’s patting a crying Carini on the back. But that’s not what Rowling sees.
“Could any picture sum up our new men’s rights movement better?” Rowling posted. “The smirk of a male who’s [sic] knows he’s protected by a misogynist sporting establishment enjoying the distress of a woman he’s just punched in the head, and whose life’s ambition he’s just shattered.”
Of course, once Rowling learned that Khelif is not a man, she apologized…. Ha. Just kidding.
X user @YourAnonNews posted, “Imane Khelif should sue every single account and outlet saying she is trans. Assholes are putting her life at risk, it is illegal in her country to be trans. The continuance of the blatant trans lie continues unfettered on Twitter.”
Rowling responded to this with, “The idea that those objecting to a male punching a female in the name of sport are objecting because they believe Khelif to be ‘trans’ is a joke. We object because we saw a male punching a female.”
It’s interesting to combine this with trump’s “I say Kamala is not black” to conclude that in their worldview, people can’t just be free to determine what they are (which could be debated, I guess), but what is worst is that some special people think they have the right to determine what anyone else is and how to live their life based solely on their own whims. An aristocracy of buffoons.
Yes, exactly. The inconsistency is a consequence of the objective. Many people discriminate in order to gain or maintain personal power. Or to put it another way, in many situations it’s true that racist policies led to racist values, not the other way around.
Of course this situation is not only about racism. It’s about mixing together several different kinds of discrimination. But the same rules apply.
My wife really loved it. I saw the first movie with her and did not care for it. Then when my daughter was little, she had me start reading the first book to her. I thought it was really boring and my daughter must have too, because she lost interest after a few chapters. I’m not super into magical fantasy anyway, so it isn’t exactly my cup of tea, but my dad got a scholarship to a real prestigious English school which would be, I suppose, the “muggle” version of Hogwarts, and as the poor (and Jewish) kid, he got treated like utter shit by both students and teachers pretty much the whole time, so it’s what was on my mind the entire time I watched the movie and read the book. That didn’t help.
I enjoyed it when I was younger, but in the wake of Rowling coming out as a trash human, I’ve seen a lot of breakdowns of Harry Potter that highlight that it was actually never good. This YouTube video by Shaun is an extremely thorough breakdown of that stuff if anyone who liked the books read this. In hindsight, I’m shocked by how popular these books were, what with characters like Seamus Finnegan, an Irish character with a tendency to accidentally blow things up (!).
I went to a university where they filmed a bunch of Harry Potter, and whilst the classism I saw was no doubt quite different to your dad’s experience, I think there’s a common core. Big, posh institutions like that like everyone to think that they’re meritocratic, but they’re just prestige machines fueled by classism and racism.
Absolutely. In fact, that snobbery extended for him when he ended his schooling there. He decided to go to Sheffield and asked his headmaster for a recommendation and was told, “boys at this school go to Oxford or Cambridge.” He ended up getting into Sheffield eventually anyway. Fuck that guy.
I won’t pretend that its popularity is in any way proportional to its quality, but I enjoyed it and so did many others so she must have done something right. Calling a work that many people enjoy trash just sounds a bit elitist to me.
Feel free to call the author whatever you want though, at this point I’ve no respect left for her.
Vance’s Tuesday stop [in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania] is just the start of a three-day, four-state tour, Politico previously reported. Next up: visits to Detroit, Michigan, and Eau Claire, Wisconsin, on Wednesday, plus an additional stop in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Thursday. Those trips will bracket Harris and her running mate’s rallies in each of those cities.
So not just weird, but creepy-stalker-ex kinds of weird.
Jd is a creepy weirdo, but the couch story was made up.
Not directed at you (unless you already knew it was fake, I guess) - I fucking hate it when people feel the need to make up stuff about someone who already has plenty of real red flags that need attention.
From an outside perspective on the other side of the world, I disagree. Any lie, once uncovered, makes it so much easier for even the the worst positions to be defended. ‘See, they have to make shit up about us, they have nothing’. Bam, now even all the other factual points are discredited in the eyes of many people who may have been on the fence.
Really? You haven’t seen a rise in facts being deemed false? Or maybe news being deemed fake? Maybe there’s even been a new term created for it that is being thrown around a lot by one side in particular.
Doesn’t seem like a good idea to give them more examples they can point to when they want to discredit your facts
I agree with you in principle, but I think the words you’re using are flawed.
The electorate have devolved into petty, schoolyard name-calling. Still, it’s possible to use that language of pettiness to point out the factual hypocrisy, dishonesty, duplicity and lies of the Republicans’ messaging, and maybe hang a couple of relatively harmless schoolyard labels on them with it.
But, why is it effective? Many times authoritarians are insecure in themselves, almost as a rule. Call a fascist a fascist and they’ll double down as they fantasize about their boot on your neck. Call them a weirdo in front of everyone else and suddenly they’re the part of the out crowd. They already feel victimized because there’s more of us than there are of them, so it sticks.
Sometimes it’s jarring enough for them to give them pause and make them ask if this is really who they are. If maybe there’s a way to get back into the in crowd.
We don’t need to play their dishonest game using lies, they give us so much to work with already.
Finally: yes, we can certainly use better judo than we have been to beat them at it. That’s why I agree with you.
Because you can’t prove something like that happened or didn’t so they wanted to protect their image and stick with only things that can actually be fact checked.
Great job Homeland Security! What was the rush in disclosing this information? You waited for 3.5years, why not wait until next insurrection? Ted Cruz and rest of the repubes are already finishing the planning for next Trasonfest
I mean, you do kinda gotta hand it to them to reveal that one of Trump’s goons got close to killing his opponent in this election after Trump’s assassination attempt and before election day.
I’m sure it’s not for a good reason that they waited this long, but it’ll at least be useful.
Because it’ll look bad for NASA if people are stranded in the ISS (plus, I assume they have to foot the bill for any resulting extra resupply missions).
Also, if I’m not mistaken, NASA authorised the launch, while knowing the craft was faulty and leaking and the company malignantly incompetent, so it’s partly their fault, too, or at least they were necessary accomplices.
They gave Boeing the contract despite their obvious lack of experience in the area. There should be a forensic accounting, including any decision maker’s finances, about this whole deal
The US Federal Government would be best served by ARMIES of independent accountants doing audits of all its business, and issuing CRIMINAL CHARGES for all fraud, graft, and corruption, wherever it’s found.
Boeing dwarfs SpaceX in experience building spacecraft.
Mercury and Gemini spacecraft were both built by the McDonnell Corp. That company merged with the Douglas Aircraft company (which built the 3rd stage of the Saturn V rocket) becoming McDonnell Douglas in 1967, which merged into Boeing in 1997. Boeing itself co-manufactured the space shuttle orbiters with Rockwell.
On paper and judging from experience and history, if you were going to pick a single company to build a spacecraft, it would be them. Not some brand new company run by a space-obsessed software engineer.
Clearly Boeing has huge cultural issues and has for a while.
Just saying if you wanted to go off experience alone, they’re the best there is.
What commercial programs are supposed to do is have multiple competing companies. NASA doesn’t want to rely on SpaceX or Boeing alone, or even NASA’s own rocket building programs.
What we’ve gotten is:
NASA’s rocket building program is an overpriced/overschedule boondoggle
Boeing needs to be taken out back and shot for the good of both space and atmospheric flight
SpaceX is fine for getting to LEO and the ISS
Russian Soyuz is a political land mine, and Russian manufacturing practices have gone to shit
Nobody else is fully capable at the moment
There’s some up and commers around. Most will fail. Maybe one will work out and this will get back on track. It shouldn’t just be SpaceX.
A company doesn’t have experience. people have experience.
I can’t imagine that the current Boeing would have kept the spaceflight experts on staff while not being used, so I don’t imagine that they had any expertis when they began the project.
Likewise neither did NASA, because neoliberal policy had gutted them for much the same reasons, and is why they are pursuing the commercial space program.
Boeing might opt to cancel Starliner and leave NASA with just a single provider of crew transportation. That would be painful for both NASA and Boeing.
Because the knuckle heads that protest end up in the streets for things they cant ever change instead actual concrete problems they could change with pressure.
It is nuts that this act even has to be put forward. These conservative frauds claim to look at the original intent of the constitution. Making the president above the law is literally the exact opposite to what we fought and died for with England. These justices are traitors.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.