Monday morning links

Re Chicago and Rham...

They want a solution. They don't want to address the causes of the problem, or even define them, or even define the actual problem. Because, you know, that's... racist.

They just expect a solution. Imposed from on-high. As long as it doesn't cost anything, change anything, or inconvenience the powers that be.

Things won't change until they're willing to define the problem. It doesn't seem like they want to, so... (shrug)

#1 JLawson on 2018-08-20 09:25 (Reply)

The Roundup issue was always crazy. The "evidence" against it consisted of simple prejudice against anything not natural. The claims of it causing cancer were fabricated (as they often are by the whackos). But in California recently jurors gave $289 million to a man who had cancer and claiming it was caused by roundup. There was no evidence merely the claim. Now the reason for all of this is crystal clear. Very quickly now law firms will make billions suing Monsanto and roundup will be taken off the market (in fact Monsanto may not even survive this attack). But the simple fact is that Roundup doesn't cause cancer and roundup does provide about a 20% increase in crop size. The unanticipated consequence of this will be a food shortage. In a world with 7.5 billion people where there isn't enough food this will be a problem. And all of this is for no other reason then that some law firms want to make billions.

#2 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-08-20 10:47 (Reply)

SO, YOU WANT TO BE A POLICE OFFICER?

No, no I do not want to be a police officer. Which is why I'm glad the Ministry of Careers assigned me the job I have and I sure do feel sorry for all those aspiring civil engineers, truck drivers, pastry chefs and musicians who instead were forced into careers as police officers despite their being unsuited, uninterested and uninformed about that sort of work. It sure would be nice if people could choose whether or not to be police officers.

#3 Jerryskids on 2018-08-20 11:39 (Reply)

Homelessness: The problem isn't "poverty", although it is ture that they are poor. The problem is addiction. The homeless person standing on the corner with the sign that says "god bless" may make $50-$100 a day. Some of that might be spent on food but 95% of it will be spent on their addiction. Tomorrow he will be out there again.

How to fix it: Make it illegal to panhandle, to sleep on public property and to defecate on public property. Arrest everyone of them and first check their record for warrants, give them choice if it is their first arrest to leave town forever or go to jail. If it is their second or greater arrest for this put them in jail.

One additional idea to deal with the problem would be to give them one way transportation back to their home where they may have family and other support.

Seattle or San Francisco could solve their homeless problem in 30 days if they did this.

#4 Anon on 2018-08-20 11:52 (Reply)

Nice try but no cigar. If you tell them to leave town or go to jail, they'll choose leaving town, and then stay right in town, go underground, get their $50-100 some other way, and keep feeding their habit. If you put them in jail, they'll have three hots and a cot and find ways to feed their habit. If you give them one way transportation back to their home, they'll accept the ticket(s) then promptly sell them for whatever they can get and keep feeding their habit. As you say, "The problem is addiction".

#4.1 BillH on 2018-08-20 12:57 (Reply)

You points are logical except homeless people aren't logical. They may try to hide but the obvious simultaneous action to what I described is a concerted effort to find and arrest every homeless person violating the law everyday. Not just put the law on the books and ignore it but to actively 24/7 look for and arrest these miscreants.

Would they simply opt to be in jail then? of course not they are addicted and would rather take a beating to being in jail where they are denied the drug of choice. They will get out of Dodge (or Seattle) and go someplace that is homeless friendly. But Seattle/Dodge should not care where they go because their goal is to solve Seattle's homeless problem not the nation's homeless problem.

Would they sell the "ticket"? Yes if they had a ticket but I never said to give them a ticket I said transportation. It could be arranged that Greyhound transports them and the city reimburses Greyhound for whatever actual travel that individual does up to the distance to their home but no further. So... nothing to sell. They could refuse it or get off the bus at the next stop but that becomes their problem and not Seattle's.

The problem with homeless is almost exactly the same as the feral cat/dog problem. Instead of hunting them down and "eliminating" them we feed them and tolerate them so they "reproduce". THAT would be OUR addiction.

#4.1.1 Anon on 2018-08-20 14:36 (Reply)

Addiction is only part of the problem. Many addicts are burned out to the point they barely function. The physical and mental damage cannot be reversed no matter how dry they are. Then there is the mentally ill population. And many are dual diagnosis -- addicted & mentally ill. Then you have the emotionally ill and the low IQ populations.
There is no simple answer. It is the cost of building and staffing the mental hospitals to help those that can be helped with rehab and counseling, warehousing those beyond recovery, providing the housing and guidance for those able to function at low levels.

Jails are the wrong answer.

#4.2 Blick on 2018-08-20 20:52 (Reply)

Red tide. Get away from highly settled coastal areas and farms and you will find historical Florida, no perfect lawns or foreign trees/plants/shrubs, no man-made catch ponds to drown trees. Too many people, too many bad chemicals.

#5 SgtBob (Link) on 2018-08-20 12:09 (Reply)

Notable commenters say there no bad chemicals, Bob, and notable commenter's have figured out simple stuff Monsanto's combined hundred thousand dollar an hour legal team apparently could not with a couple of swimming pools of casework.

With a record like that I'd say you need to stop getting all foul with the Corporate State, buster.

QUOTE:

Glyphosate has a large number of tumorigenic effects on biological systems, including direct damage to DNA in sensitive cells, disruption of glycine homeostasis, succinate dehydrogenase inhibition, chelation of manganese, modification to more carcinogenic molecules such as N-nitrosoglyphosate and glyoxylate, disruption of fructose metabolism, etc. Epidemiological evidence supports strong temporal correlations between glyphosate usage on crops and a multitude of cancers that are reaching epidemic proportions, including breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, thyroid cancer, liver cancer, bladder cancer and myeloid leukaemia.

https://responsibletechnology.org/irtnew/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Glyphosate_pathways_to_modern_diseases_IV_cancer_and_related_pathologies.pdf

Pish posh.

#5.1 Meh on 2018-08-20 12:58 (Reply)

responsibletechnology.org is a paranoid GMO site.

Bear that in mind as you read Ten's meh's cited quote.

#5.1.1 feeblemind on 2018-08-20 13:19 (Reply)

The sources you cite are the co-conspirators in this scam. The 1st amendment gives them the right to say anything without proof or reason and they do. These sites and sources plant the seeds of "toxins" into the mind of those without a lot of intelligence who believe this crap. Then activists in states like California get a proposition passed that declares these things to be "toxins" and cause cancer with zero proof. Follow this up with a law firm that find a sympathetic client and uses these phony sites and sources to bolster their claim and some high school dropout jury awards $289 million to the law firm. It is a said state of affairs that Juries can make these kind of awards with no evidence and even sadder that our education system allows people to make it through school and learn next to nothing.

#5.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-08-20 14:46 (Reply)

I don't know about the bad chemicals, but fertilizers and imperfectly treated sewage are all algae need to multiply like crazy and spoil the water. That's why you don't see red tides in lightly inhabited areas, or areas where farmlands don't drain into the bays.

#5.2 Texan99 on 2018-08-20 14:27 (Reply)

Those dummies at the National Cancer Institute evidently don't realize that the cause of cancer can be determined by lawyers and juries.
https://training.seer.cancer.gov/disease/war/

#6 Ray on 2018-08-20 20:22 (Reply)

I met my 2nd husband and AWESOME man online. We lived across the country from each other. We've been married over 7 years now. My stepson just met his almost-fiancee and broke our distance records...she's an American teaching in China!

Online is the way to go, but you have to do it WELL. The most powerful part about online dating is you can decide if someone is compatible with your desires and values before you ever get emotionally attached. Make a list of 'must haves' in your spouse and stick to them like glue. There is plenty of choice online, you just need to be patient.

No compromising! It works.

Also, be ready to look for red flags and then cut someone loose. Take time to get to know this person with lots of pointed questions before you ever meet. If they don't want to answer you questions, cut them loose. The serious will stick around to answer them.

I met my husband ONE WEEK after I got online to look (just casual looking).

My stepson met his awesome girlfriend after about 5 or 6 months of looking...had to expand his geographic circle to worldwide and then he met girl of his dreams.

#7 MissT on 2018-08-21 13:22 (Reply)

Me: happily married and not looking. But if I were I would not do it online. I am not saying it doesn't work or didn't work for you but I don't see how it could work for me. I can't even order off a menu and I'm known to walk around the restaurant and ask "what is that?". I would have to meet someone and spend time with them. And, I know this is supposed to be shallow, but, I would know at first sight if I wanted to go to the next step.

#7.1 OneGuy on 2018-08-21 21:55 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, August 20. 2018

Monday morning links