Excuse you, Mr. You’re-An-Invalid-Not-Capable-Of-Defending-Yourself? Your whole point is deeply insulting and offensive. Be civil and stop making it. See how that works? Anything can and is uncivil to somewhere at sometime. So don’t cry to me about your poor sensitive little feelings when you give not one single fuck for mine.
If he doesn’t have a gun and can’t fight, then he needs cops to protect him from people who do have guns and can fight.
No, the answer to not having a gun and not being able to fight is to get a gun and gain the ability to fight. If you cannot do that, ally yourself with friends and family who 1) do and 2) are willing to defend you, even with their lives.
That’s the only real answer because we’ve seen clearly that cops 1) legally are not obligated to protect anybody, 2) won’t, 3) are tyrannical and more interested in entrenching power over other people than doing anything positive.
Cops are not the answer to the human condition. Only friends and family are, really. Only you youself are, ultimately.
Is that everyone? No. I never said it was.
That’s clearly what you’re implying, or did you mean something else by your obnoxious threatening statement?
What are you talking about? It’s a fact of reality that people who can’t defend themselves need others to do it for them. There’s nothing ‘offensive’ about it. I don’t think less of anyone who can’t fight or doesn’t own a gun. Do you?
You’re actually just spewing nonsense at this point. Sorry, I’m going to block you.
There should be no offsets. Either don’t pollute or pay a hefty tax proportional to the amount of pollution, those should be the options. If there are quotas, massively increased taxes past the quota, with no way of raising the quota.
Carbon storage should be an entirely separate matter, not something companies can buy into to excuse not optimizing what they’re doing.
Rich countries/politicians only pay lip service to caring about the planet. The most important thing to them is being re-elected, and that won’t happen if they remove subsidies for Big Oil/fracking projects or really invest in green infrastructure.
We can change that. They focus on the re-election issues they do because that’s what their voters seem to press for. They can’t read our minds, they have to rely on talking to us and polls and shit. They don’t care about these things though, they only care about what we say we vote for.
The democratic deficit, that’s the gap between what people want and what representatives do, is very high in the U.S.
As a climate lobbyist, this is 100% false.
The solution the African Climate Summit proposed is the ideal one - carbon taxes. Any politician pushing carbon taxes will get obliterated at the polls because Americans do not like paying taxes and especially do not like high fuels costs caused by paying taxes.
Someone throwing a paper cup out a window is only littering once. I’ll still football spike that cup back at them through their window. He doesn’t have to die in the ocean, he can die elsewhere if he wants to so bad, without polluting the ocean.
When Coast Guard officers told Baluchi they were cutting short his “manifestly unsafe” voyage, Baluchi threatened to kill himself with a 12-inch knife if anyone tried to apprehend him, and claimed to have a bomb aboard, which turned out to be fake, according to the complaint. Three days later, Baluchi—who authorities have intercepted in his Hydro Pod at least three times previously—finally surrendered
I know you’re being facetious but Florida’s mental healthcare system is abhorrently managed and funded. If it’s not the worst in the US we’re easily top 5. Especially for Baker Acts (involuntary admission to a psych facility), which he is. If you so much as blink at a cop or mention you’re depressed in the wrong way to a doctor you get locked up for 72 hours. It’s often traumatic, rarely does anything to help people in distress and leaves you thousands of dollars in the hole at the end of it.
This isn’t entirely true. More than just cops can place people under a baker act and they need to believe that the person they are placing under a baker act as a result of a mental illness is a threat to themself or others, or the person is incapable of caring for themself. And in the context of “locked up” it doesn’t mean jail and it is not 72 hours, it’s up to 72 hours.
That doesn’t mean cops don’t use it inappropriately but if it is obviously inappropriate once they see a doctor, a doctor can override it. On the opposite end, if it is a valid baker act that is still a threat to themselves or others at the end of that 72 hours, they can be l placed under another one with no limit on how many times they can be placed under a baker act. Tho a cop should never be in the situation to keep someone under multiple baker acts.
The rest of your comment about being traumatic and not helpful, yeah… that sounds accurate.
I’m an EMT in Florida. Cops and doctors both baker act people for bullshit reasons all the time. I had a lady that was suffering from a bad migraine, she told the doctor something to the tune of “it hurts so much I want to die”. Obviously being hyperbolic. She got baker acted. I have a thousand stories just like hers. Cops will baker act people for being drunk and they just didn’t feel like processing them at the jail.
I can’t think of a single time a doctor has overridden a BA. If the cop drops them off at the ER, they sit around until a psych facility has a bed open (that alone can take days because they’re often at capacity). If they take them straight to the psych facility, they get punted off to the ER for BS reasons for “medical clearing” which just means the nursing staff didn’t feel like taking on another patient and wants to delay it for as long as they can.
Because inpatient psych is so underfunded and understaffed, it’s far more likely than not the patients will stay the.whole 72 hours than not, and often times it can be longer if they’re “still a threat to themselves/others”. What “no longer a threat” means to you and I isn’t what it means to these facilities. They just pump you full of anxiolitics, antipsychotics, or sedatives and send you on your way in a couple of days with a followup appointment. The case load on the doctor’s at these facilities is so large people essentially have to stay the full time if they’re going to be cleared.
I could go on for days about the myriad of fucked up things that happen to these people who have the misfortune of being baker acted. It helps some people sure. But only in the sense that some of those people wanted to die and they’re so drugged out of their minds that they forgot they were suicidal in the first place. I’m being slightly dramatic but I hesitate to give this system any credit because it’s done far more harm than it ever will help
Just to be clear I’m agreeing with most of what you’re saying. And on the topic, I’m a Paramedic in Florida. Currently working for a ground agency as an advanced practice paramedic and hold a board certification as a flight paramedic.
From my original comment, yeah sometimes it isn’t used appropriately but you are oversimplifying the process. Now don’t get me wrong the process and system is messed up and has definitely caused harm but your experience isn’t the entire system. Do cops baker act people that are drunk? Yes, It happens but no competent law enforcement officer would baker act someone because they are drunk, they would place them under a marchman act instead. But that’s a different topic that is just as messed up but it’s not the same thing.
Doctors absolutely override them all the time for medical reason, I’ve had patients who were hypoxic in full blown CHF who got baker acted because they were talking nonsense and unable to care for herself. The cops thought it was psych issues, they aren’t medical. I get there and the patient was talking nonsense because her SpO2 was 70%. Same with sepsis and stroke patients.
This also extends to the “medical clearance” you were referring to. Psych facility are not medical facilities, some are both but before going for psych treatment medical causes of whatever lead to the baker act needs to be ruled out.
I am agreeing with most of your other statements, under staffed, under funded, high case loads so yeah people can just get loaded up with meds and sent on their way.
If only there were some well-established type of business, one with lots of rooms available for short periods of time that don’t share those hallways of rooms with full-time residents. Something you would pay a fee for and they would let you stay in one of those rooms. I wonder what we would call it? Maybe an AirbnTel?
As the Tampa Bay Times reported, Step Up for Student’s new guide to approved expenses for recipients of PEP vouchers in the 2023-24 academic year authorizes the purchase of theme park tickets. Theme park tickets were previously a prohibited expense, but Step Up for Students’ “reconsidered after hearing from parents about the potential benefits.”
…
Other approved expenses for all homeschooled students this academic year include swing sets, foosball tables, air hockey tables, skateboards, kayaks, standup paddleboards, dolls, and stuffed animals.
Insanity. And, of course, this is homeschooling parents all doing this.
I can defend every single item on that list except air hockey tables when you consider physical education is part of schooling and stuffed animals can be used to communicate some concepts to young kids.
Why does the state need to fund dolls and stuffed animals or any of those other things for homeschoolers when teachers have to buy those things out of their own pocket if they even do? And those kids don’t get to play with them after school. It’s a two-tiered system and it is absolutely unfair.
That doesn’t justify what I was talking about at all. And even in that case, the child gets to play with the swing set after school, unlike kids at public schools.
Again- kids at public schools can only play on those playgrounds at recess. These homeschoolers can play with their swingsets all the time. That is a two-tiered system.
Of course it’s a two-tier system. Do you think every parent is rich enough to survive on a single income while the other parent homeschools their children?
Welfare though I doubt any single parent is homeschooling. In my buddy’s case they are part of an atheistic group of homeschoolers and they share teaching responsibilities.
Why should people like a single mother not have access to the same vouchers despite their children going to public school? Or does that particular social program not need to be utilized by everyone?
They do have access to these programs but they likely cannot use them. Unless you want an incredibly authoritarian system there cannot be a state where all programs will be used by everyone.
Go back and read my posts. I said available to everyone and they are available to everyone. If your circumstances mean you cannot avail yourself of them that does not mean they were not available.
Is that really that hard to wrap your brain around?
If your circumstances mean you have no choice to put your children in public school because you’re a single mother working two jobs just to support your children, it is not available to you. It simply isn’t. I have no idea why you think everyone can homeschool just because you know someone who does.
The state is not preventing single parents from accessing it. It IS available to the single parent. The only people who cannot access this are childless people.
You seem to not know what a two tiered system means. A single mother working two jobs has no possibility of accessing that money. Again, you think anyone can homeschool and that is patently false.
I don’t think everyone can homeschool. I never said they could.
A single parent being unable to afford to homeschool does not mean the money is not available to them. The money is available but their circumstances prevent its use. That is why I said your confusion is over what “available” means.
Your inability to homeschool does not mean the program is not available to you. You could choose to homeschool and get the money if you want.
The availability of the funds is based on whether you choose to homeschool not whether it makes financial sense for you to do so which us why I keep saying they are in fact available to all parents because they are.
If they will talk to you Ultra Orthodox Jews can explain exactly how you do this as there are thousands of people in those communities who homeschool and have no income.
Again, some people can’t make that choice. Because it isn’t always a choice. You say you don’t think anyone can homeschool, but you keep talking as if they can. Unless everyone can homeschool, there are two tiers because some people are literally unable to access those funds. They do not have that choice to make. So no, they aren’t available to all parents since they aren’t available to poor single mothers working multiple jobs. They cannot make the choice to homeschool no matter how much you think they have that option available to them.
No it’s like saying you have an option to participate in x program but choose not to because of y. No one is stopping you from accessing x other than your choice which is exactly what these people are facing.
Now you’re just arguing in bad faith. The fact that they can choose to take the money means the program is available to all parents of school aged children.
How can they choose to take the money if they can’t choose to homeschool their kids? The only answer I can come up with based on what you are saying is that they are choosing to be poor.
The fact that they cannot take the money because of other circumstances does not mean they are being prevented from accessing it. Since they aren’t being prevented from accessing this money by anyone other than their own decisions you cannot claim the money is not available to them. It is available and they are choosing not to take it.
It really seems like you do not understand what “available” means.
You need to look up what “available” means then because that is your confusion. There is milk available to me right now but my choice not to drink it because Im lactose intolerant does not impact the fact it is available to me.
Nope. You can still drink milk if you’re lactose intolerant unless you can’t afford milk. You can’t access that money unless you can afford homeschooling or private schooling.
Again, this is no different from claiming I have access to a Ferrari. I just can’t afford one.
Ok now you need to learn what “access” means. Im hoping English is not your primary language.
That is a false equivalence as you will be stopped for attempting to purchase a Ferrari if you do not have the money. In fact they credit check you before any talk of the deal begins.
In the case of this program NO ONE IS STOPPING YOU OTHER THAN YOU WHICH IS WHY IT IS AVAILABLE TO YOU.
Except the fact that the money is only available to people who don’t have kids in public school, and they can’t have kids in private school or homeschool them, so they do not have access to those funds. They simply don’t.
They do because they can choose to homeschool. As the only thing that is preventing them from taking this money is their own decisions and choices it is completely inaccurate to claim it is not available. It is available and they choose not to take it.
If someone stopped them then you could claim it isn’t available but that is not the case.
Again- a single mother working two jobs cannot choose to homeschool no matter how many times you claim they can. That is not a choice they can make. It isn’t. Why you keep saying it is, that’s beyond me.
The fact they they are making a choice is why we can say it is available. If they could not choose it then it would not be available.
Im not joking you really do not seem to understand what “available” means. You really want this to be two tiered and it isn’t. I promise you that the Ultra Orthodox community next to me is both very poor and almost entirely homeschooled through Yeshivas.
They aren’t making a choice. They can’t make a choice. They have only one option. Why don’t you understand that? There is absolutely no way they could choose to homeschool their kids. None.
Because they do have a choice. Im not trying to be an asshole here but you really seem to not understand the words you are using here.
They have a choice to take the money and homeschool or not take the money and send their kids to public. The fact that they cannot make ends meet if they took the homeschooling money does not make it unavailable to them.
The fact that they can choose to take the money means it is available.
Because their decision not to take the money is a choice.
The only way it would be not available to them would be if someone else was preventing them from taking the money. That is not the case. The money is available but they are not taking it.
The only people this money is not available to are people with adult children or childless adults.
Yes but for each swingset purchsed using state funds for a homeschool kid provides for 1 student whereas each swingset purchased using state money can provide for multiple classrooms of students.
That homeschool swingset is now private property not useable by anyone else that helped pay for it.
People choose homeschooling, fine. Homeschool should never be funded by the public, unless public school is not available or the student cannot attend for legitimate reasons.
You choose to homeschool? Great, you homefund it, too.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.