Going to guess it is significantly easier to be competent enough to kill someone with hypoxia rather than a cocktail of multiple constantly changing drugs administered by someone who had little training.
Yeah this is great if you work at an honest company, but it could also cause a lot of side effects in shitty companies. Management will start underreporting on cases or even sweeping them under the rug to save their bottom line, potentially causing more outbreaks by not telling close contacts they might be infected which lets them spread it even more. Plus the whole “must be proven it was contracted at work” sounds like there’s a lot of room for fuckery.
I don’t think it would be that hard. My staff work 100% remotely but sometimes need to come into the office. It won’t apply to every situation but if they can prove they were home and then at work and then back home, I think we’d cover it.
You also said “I don’t think it would be that hard.” Unless they’re a shut-in who lives alone it’s going to be tough to prove they didn’t get it from someone else in the house, or when they picked up dinner, or went out with friends, or …
It wouldn’t. They have an app that tracks any travel required for work. If it shows they were only at home or the office the whole time, it would be approved. You don’t have to be a shut-in to stay home for a workday.
And your point? If 2 days afterwards, they report being sick and they can show that they were only at work and at home, they’d be covered. You people act like contact tracing doesn’t exist.
Yes, the rampant spread of covid will make it difficult to make the case it was caught at work, unless the work is somewhere covid is known to be like healthcare or where an outbreak is known. Unless and until we have sufficient infection control measures in most places it will continue to be difficult to know where one was exposed.
Unfortunately it’s already the norm in many workplaces to not inform employees of outbreaks. There’s little to no requirements for reporting cases so businesses have no responsibility to keep covid out of the workplace and people are getting sick at work. This ruling is a result of that reality, not a precipitator.
Oh wow, didn’t know that was the norm in the US. Where I live, it’s still common practice to send a memo out to any relevant people, and offer days off no questions asked if you feel any symptoms coming on.
Under the law, “each school district, county office of education, and charter school” would be required to have at least one gender-neutral bathroom on campus on or before July 1, 2026.
Whut?? Why not just make them all human restrooms? How does it takes two+ years to switch some signage and inform people to use whatever door they wish?
I’ve been living in a city with “gender-neutral” restrooms for so long that I forget what it used to be like. Well, aside from sports and entertainment complexes.
They may want to allow time for remodeling instead of just new signage. Maybe better stalls for actual privacy. I hate the typical stall I see in the US.
In my small town (15K) in MA, we call it “uptown” and it’s doing great!
Small theater with plenty of live events. Well used library. New brewpub in the old fire house. New sushi joint. Brand new ice cream shop. Small, but, functional dessert bakery, Pho shop, and soon a new butcher/seafood shop.
Throw in other restaurants, pizza joints, barber, salon, liquor store.
Plenty of people living right there also. It’s a very successful New England “village”. There’s even a really nice band stand on the center park where they have all types of activities. Free concerts every Thursday night during Summer and Christmas caroling the Thursday before Christmas.
That actually sounds cool. My experience with downtown areas has been less than positive… more of a maze, everything very overpriced… now that I think about it it’s very similar to a large airport.
Shame as it’d be nice to just walk around for all your needs… you’d think it would actually be more cost effective.
I went to a gender neutral restroom in California a couple months ago. Each toilet was in its own little private room, and there was a common area of sinks for hand washing. My only thought was that all public restrooms should be like that. Even apart from the equal access issue for LGBTQ+ people, why make one gender stand in line when there are unused facilities right next door.
I’ve had family that votes Republican say this, they will literally defend the minority vote winning. They see democracy as “mob rule.” Well, if a bunch of rich assholes getting to decide who’s president, and a system where the people with the least votes win, how is that not mob rule?
And yet, none of them will support using an Electoral College to elect the governor of their state. I guess mob rule is fine when it comes to governors, senators, mayors, and sheriffs, but not presidents.
The cons really showed their hand more recently when arguing over things like suppressing the vote, and mail-in voting and telling everyone that “voting is not really a right enshrined in the Constitution”.
Wait, are you implying that only crafting policy around what the elitist of the elite want and waging stupid performative culture wars for the clueless gop base is unpopular with most Americans?
There are doubtless many users who subscribe to one or the other feed, but not both—and those groups may want to discuss the article from different perspectives.
They're not really being told "no", though; mainly the Supreme Court is simply not taking the cases and leaving lower rulings in place. They could take one of these cases and issue a ruling that firmly shuts everything else down but they haven't done that. One could surmise that they haven't done that because the Federalist Society "justices" are waiting for a case with facts they like more to issue the ruling they want in a narrow way that will hurt Democrats and minorities without impacting the GOP. They're looking for a way to tailor a ruling that prevents blue states from gerrymandering while allowing the GOP the legal right to pick their voters in red states.
And, as we've seen with the cases of the praying football coach and wedding website, they don't even care if the cases are real or not as long as they can use them to navigate to the ruling they wanted to issue all along.
The Supreme Court already took this case. And to everyone’s surprise, Roberts and Kavanaugh sided with the liberals and shot down the practice of racial gerrymandering. So Alabama really is being told “no”. Again.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday handed a defeat to Alabama Republicans for the second time in three months, rejecting their latest attempt to use a congressional map that includes only one majority-Black district.
The decision was in line with the Supreme Court ruling against the state in June that reaffirmed a key provision of the landmark Voting Rights Act.
Tue votes of the flyover states would matter exactly as much as the votes of any other arbitrary subsection of the country with the same number of people. That’s the point.
Fun bit of trivia: which state had the most Republican voters in the 2020 election? Answer: California had more R votes than Texas or Florida or any deep-red state. But neither party gave a shit what California Republicans wanted: Democrats knew that the Electoral votes would go for Biden no matter what, so they didn’t need to campaign there or court anyone’s vote. And Republicans knew that there was no way to get even one of those Electoral votes, so their time and money was best spent campaigning elsewhere.
I hate this argument. There are still a lot of votes in the flyover states. The electoral college doesn’t disadvantage flyover states anymore than not having an electoral college disadvantages those living outside of the major cities in a state wide election.
Republicans still win the Ohio governor’s election despite 5 major metropolitan areas in the state.
Also there are Republican votes in New York and California that get discarded currently.
This isn’t a game, this is just making the thing fair.
I think what they’re speaking to is how such a change may alter the course of a presidential campaign. As it stands, there’s this notion that a candidate has to try and have broad appeal; they need to spread their campaign out a bit in order to “capture” the electoral votes of a state.
Sans the electoral college, I see presidential campaigns becoming even more polarized and exclusionary. The Democrat campaign will become the “big city loop.” Continually visit Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, and Miami. Maybe they slide in a few secondary metros if it’s convenient. The candidate won’t have to worry about any non-urban messaging, and if they’re particularly incendiary could even preach “dumping those hicks in the sticks.”
Conversely, the Republican campaign (not even considering the existing insanity) becomes “everywhere else.” They can push the message of “big city Democrats want to destroy you” even more convincingly.
Such an outcome strengthens the “not my president” sentiment (on either side), and just further aggravates partisanship. I’m not saying eliminating the electoral college is a change that could never be made, but I definitely think this is a bad time. It will feel like exclusion and alienation and in politics perception is reality.
For the obvious follow-on question “when is a good time,” I don’t have a pat answer and I can’t even speculate if that will be in 4, or 12, or even 20 years. But it needs to be a time when there’s far less immediate friction between the two leading parties, or it’s just going to be another wedge opening the divide.
The problem with your whole argument is that ultimately it comes down to the fact that the literal minority might be unhappy that they didn't get pick the winner over the will of the majority, and that might make them feel that it's exclusionary to them.
Such an outcome strengthens the “not my president” sentiment (on either side),
By definition, the majority will actually get their chosen candidate as president. Do you know what strengthens "not my president" sentiment? Having a privileged, autocratic minority choose the president, overriding the will of the voters.
Well, our campaigns are ridiculously antiquated with the campaign season being kicked off in…Iowa? And silly photo-ops of them eating county fair food and so on, as if that is somehow representative of America in the past several decades.
Sorry, most people are not farmers, and it’s absurd to pretend as if that is “middle America”.
It would make far more sense to kick things off on the coasts. Where all the people are.
If you’re still voting based on whether or not someone visited you or not I’m also giving you exactly 0 sympathy. It doesn’t matter, that’s just a show. Jason Aldean can visit all the county fairs he wants, that doesn’t make him a real country boy or mean he’s “with you.” The same is true of a politician. What you should care about is how their policies affect you and the rest of the country.
Not to mention areas already have disproportionate representation via the Senate. If you can’t get your case across to the majority of the county or by senate representation… maybe you don’t have a very good case.
We should be trying to convince a majority of people about something, not forcing some arbitrary “win” that allows a minority to have disproportionate power over the majority in multiple areas of the country. We’re closer than ever to having “taxation without representation” as is, and it’s getting worse (Gore only had ~500,000 more votes, Clinton had ~3,000,000).
That’s 3,000,000 people that didn’t get their voices heard at all, and that Trump promptly told to go pound sand (even in the face of a natural disaster forbes.com/…/trump-administration-refuses-to-give…).
Except they can say whatever politics they feel like that day, and the average American is neither smart nor informed enough to predict how policies will affect them.
The only solution is to go back to supporting ethical politicians instead of the ones who are best at saying what you want to hear. And that will only happen if we start actually educating citizens instead of just teaching them to check educational boxes.
As it stands, there’s this notion that a candidate has to try and have broad appeal; they need to spread their campaign out a bit in order to “capture” the electoral votes of a state.
That’s currently not the case: in most states, the vote isn’t close, so we know before the campaign even begins how most states will vote. There’s no reason for Republicans to appeal to Kansans, because Kansas will vote R no matter what. Likewise, there’s no point for Democrats to appeal to Kansans because it won’t do them any good.
Sans the electoral college, I see presidential campaigns becoming even more polarized and exclusionary. The Democrat campaign will become the “big city loop.” Continually visit Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, and Miami.
There’s a word in politics for a candidate who wins in big cities, and nowhere else: “loser”.
Check the demographics. Get a list of the 20 biggest cities in the US and add them up. You’ll see that’s only about 30% of the vote. So even if you somehow managed to get everyone in the big cities to vote for you, including children under 18, felons, and people on student visas, that still wouldn’t be enough to determine the election.
Maybe they slide in a few secondary metros if it’s convenient. The candidate won’t have to worry about any non-urban messaging, and if they’re particularly incendiary could even preach “dumping those hicks in the sticks.”
Just in passing, there are more Republicans in the California sticks than the total population of several other states. If the president were elected by popular vote, candidates could no more ignore those voters than California gubernatorial candidates can, today.
The electoral college doesn’t disadvantage flyover states anymore than not having an electoral college disadvantages those living outside of the major cities in a state wide election.
When you’ve become accustomed to privilege equality feels like oppression.
The “fix” for the problem of equality isn’t removing voter power from the flyovers it’s ADDING voter power to the large coastal states like California and doing it is so damned simple. Uncap the size of the House of Representatives by changing the Re-Aportionment Act of 1929.
Maybe, maybe not. It would depend on the districting process in each state. We’d certainly see new Republican’s in Congress from California but we’d also see new Democrats in Congress from Texas.
If that happens then it happens. The intent of increasing the size of the HoR isn’t so that the Correct Party, whichever you judge that to be, would win. The intent is restore its ability to correctly represent the Citizens of this country. Doing that will have a direct and positive impact on the EC and other things.
Not quite, the number of house reps is not strictly proportional to the population of each state. California has 704,566 people per house seat, while e.g. Wyoming has 568,300 per house seat. This means a Californian house vote is worth roughly 80% of a Wyoming house vote.
No, but a Kansan’s vote should have the same weight as a New Yorker’s or Californian’s, or even a Pennsylvanian or Michigander. Not all Kansans vote the same way, and it would be nice to have a system that recognizes this.
They get to vote, don’t they? They just don’t get to have their vote given extra privileges just because they live in a sparsely populated area, that’s all.
And so, neither party is going to bother trying to court your vote: one can take you for granted, and the other will write you off. So I hope you have the same concerns as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Arizona, because that’s what you’re getting.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.