Jump to content

What's with the ads?


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by ChocolateReignRemix

  1. 6 minutes ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

    I get legally prisoners have these rights. Not arguing they shouldn’t. But it seems like so many of the prisons in the US allow extremely abusive conditions that it honestly makes me 🙄 on some of the reasons why he wasn’t on watch or camera. I mean they also have a right to not be beaten or raped, but that seems to happen with a staggering amount of regularity at some prisons. So it’s hard to digest why being on camera is the line that violates anything. We’re on camera just about everywhere as free citizens. I hadn’t realized you had a right to privacy in a jail cell tbh. Aside from talking to your lawyer what other privacy do you get in prison? Phone calls and letters are screened aren’t they? 


    You aren't under constant 24/7 surveillance, and comparing that to being on camera in public is just silly.  And I never mentioned a right to privacy.  Prisoners do have a right to (reasonable) personal dignity.


    • Like 1

  2. 1 minute ago, mathnerd said:

    If he were murdered by someone inside his cell (high security room, whatever) there would be evidence had there had been a camera. It may be impossible for the camera to act as a deterrent to suicide, but, it could have showed the investigators whether he was physically attacked (a lot of conspiracy theorists are saying that he was killed to prevent truths from leaking) so they could rule out murder and move on with the investigation. El Chapo and Epstein are high profile people who have affected a lot of lives - it is in the interest of justice towards their victims to have them in a cell/room with camera surveillance at the very least. I am sure that cameras are intrusive to these prisoners, but, when weighed against the suffering of their victims, it seems a small inconvenience. An ex-jail warden says (TV news) that she has seen Epstein walk around freely (sometimes naked, as well) and getting special treatment in the prison when he was previously put under arrest. This man has used connections in the past to move around a prison and could have done so this time as well.


    Epstein had not yet been convicted.  Also his alleged victims have the same right to justice as all victims, regardless of the notoriety of the accused.  Being kept under 24/7 surveillance for reasons outside the usual protocol would correctly be challenged in court.

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1

  3. 1 minute ago, StellaM said:


    I've had my kid placed on 24/7 surveillance, and demanded appropriate care in the face of 'you can't stop them if they really want' excuses. Now she is not dead and close to graduation. Suicidality can be treated if people care to treat it.


    There are people who can be treated.  This was a person who did not want to spend his lifetime in prison. Comparing the two is illogical. 

    • Like 1

  4. 1 hour ago, StellaM said:

    Oh, it's a terrible idea, but so is the idea of multiple victims being cheated of justice by a coward because the system won't or can't be bothered.


    He wasn't yet convicted and still had rights.  We can't (or shouldn't) put prisoners awaiting trial through psychological torture to stop the occasional suicide.  If someone really wants to kill themselves they will eventually find a way.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1

  5. 2 hours ago, StellaM said:


    I think so too.

    It's kind of gross, though, that people are so busy showing off their rationality (not here, on the interwebz more generally), without stopping to think what this systemic failure on the part of the jail means for the victims, who have been denied justice. They are the only people that matter here, and the justice system let them down. Which is the larger point.

    He should have been kept alive through a trial. The cost of keeping him alive should have been borne by his estate


    Really terrible idea on multiple levels.  It's easy to say that about someone rich like Epstein but the average prisoner awaiting trial likely can't afford being charged for his own security.  And we can't charge someone like Epstein only because he has a higher net worth.

    • Like 4

  6. 1 minute ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

    I guess in light of today's technology, I had (wrongly obviously) assumed just about everything except the lights is status quo in jail. But I have no experience with that, so will admit complete and utter ignorance aside from fictional TV shows, which I'm sure give a very unrealistic impression.

    It's just surprising, because if I, a simple non-wealthy person can have a massive surveillance presence on my property with cameras and controlled alarms- I just figured that a prison in the most populous place in the US would have better equipment than me. I mean, for $100 bucks you can buy something that tells you if your baby has stopped breathing. You'd think there would be much more advanced tech available for prison security. And they had El Chapo there, right?  I'm surprised with that level of Three Stooges security, they didn't dig another tunnel and get him out! 

    If nothing, this has been an eye opener for me on prison security and treatment. I thought what I thought was the worst. I was wrong. 


    I don't think you realize how big some prisons are and how many people they house.  And they generally don't have flush budgets.  Your baby also isn't actively working to find a way to beat any monitoring system you install.

    Considering the rarity of escapes, I am not sure you can make an effective case for Three Stooges security.

    • Like 5

  7. 1 hour ago, Æthelthryth the Texan said:

    72 hours?! They must think they have some magical shrinks there. Voila! You're no longer depressed and wishing to die! If only. 

    Think about what a suicide watch is.  Constant surveillance all day and night.  Lights on.  No privacy at all.  Nothing in a cell that can even possibly be used to harm yourself.  It is dehumanizing and they have found too long under watch is also damaging.  Not to mention it is staff intensive.  The goal is to get someone out of immediate crisis, and by and large it usually works.  In the end if someone really wants to kill themselves they will eventually find a way.

    • Like 5

  8. 8 hours ago, FuzzyCatz said:

    Well NYT is reporting typical protocol was not followed for Epstein prior to his death.  And according to this article, after allegedly trying to commit suicide was deemed no longer a threat to himself in SIX days.  Wow.


    The 6 days isn't surprising.  I think the norm for being on a watch is 72 hours.

    • Like 1

  9. 4 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

    Yes. My point was that if he was in the SHU it's probably much less likely to be a case of "jailhouse justice" because he was segregated from the general population.


    Agree. My main point was that I believe the sources saying he was in a SHU as that would be expected roughly 2 weeks after the suicide attempt.  Has this happened within in 48 hours I would be very skeptical.

    • Like 5

  10. 8 hours ago, Pawz4me said:

    I've seen some tweets from credible sources that say he was in the Special Housing Unit, which is for keeping inmates like him separate from the general prisoner population. Obviously at this point we don't know if what we're hearing is true or not, but . . . FWIW.

    It would follow standard policy.  

    Being on suicide watch is usually temporary.  The prisoner is kept in a fairly bare cell under constant supervision.  Usually the more restrictive conditions last only a few days (much longer without good reason and issues with cruel and unusual punishment will pop up). The suicide watch is also very expensive to maintain and affects staffing. The next phase is usually to put the prisoner in a SHU.  Check ins are again about every 15-20 minutes.  It is not common but also not unusual for someone to commit suicide in a SHU.

    My guess is we will find out whomever is in charge of psychology services and 1-2 others signed off on his transfer to a SHU.

    It's *possible* someone killed Epstein.  It's more likely he committed suicide.  Considering the rumors about him had existed for some time, my guess is anyone powerful enough to get to him in a federal prison would have done it long ago.

    • Like 4

  11. 5 hours ago, Janeway said:

    But the term atheist specifically has a dictionary definition of meaning belief in no god. It does not even mean belief in nothing, which many people think it does.  One can be very religious and their religion simply does not include the belief of gods of any sort and they would still be an atheist. However, the term "atheist" has been used a lot in modern society to mean belief in no religion (theist refers to gods, a refers to none, theist does not refer to theology or religion in general).

    The word feminist, however, can mean either supporting equal rights, or...organized activity on behalf of women's rights (not stating equal).

    This is defined much like Republican or Democrat is defined which one subsection is defined as subscribing to that political party. When one says he or she is feminist, by definition, that can mean equal rights or it can mean belonging to the bigger political movement/group of today calling itself feminism.  Groups change. And the political group of feminism by standards of today, abortion is about equality. By many of us who believe in equality do not feel that things like abortion should be legal nor do they bring on equality. That means a huge set of us who seriously believe in equal rights for the genders has been left out and scorned by the feminist movement of today. Plus, the feminist movement makes it clear that it is all about female rights and not about gender equality. Many of us who may have once been called feminists would now be more of gender equalists. 



    I just have to ask - exactly how do you think the SAT is scored?

    • Like 1

  12. 1 hour ago, Sneezyone said:


    Perhaps, but I also think those numbers are too out of date to capture the increasing numbers of aging boomers who need to (and do) work. Every year, millions more age up. I think it is highly likely that, in two and a half years, my mom will still be working in some capacity.


    The last number wasn't from 2008.  The uptick began at that time.  Currently 75+ in the workforce is around 10%.  There is an expectation the % will grow as life expectancy increases, but it will always be the lowest.

  13. 27 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:


    While I think Heigh Ho's characterization is off, I also think 2002/8 numbers are woefully out of date. My mom is 67, almost 68, and she works as a substitute teacher as often as she can. She NEEDS the money because she did not prepare for old age. She is not alone among her age cohort. I think the people who are mostly likely to still be working at these ages are those in 'knowledge' professions tho, people who have degrees and don't have to expend tons of physical energy. These are probably also the same people who were not working minimum wage jobs in their prime.

    The uptick began in 2008.  The increase in the 65-70 group was much higher than in the 70+.  The 75+ had an increase but smaller than the others.  Those working over 75 are still a distinct minority for many reasons.

  14. 7 hours ago, HeighHo said:



    I don't know why you think 'still working at 76' is rare.  People live to their late 90s.  Many of them live a full life and aren't ready to leave part time work, especially when it comes with full medical as it does in this state.  I know people in their early 90s who are candy stripers at the hospital, and they are pushing stretchers, not passing out tissues.  Part of why they have a long life is they keep busy doing things besides occupying the porch swing.

    And really, you're a bit old for ad hominems. Makes it hard to take you seriously.


    As of 2002 less than 5% of those age 75 or older were still working.  The number has been growing and and jumped after the 2008 economic debacle and is somewhere around 8-10% now.  I would call that relatively rare.

    • Like 4
    • Thanks 2

  15. 6 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

    *For some people*, you’re right. Those things are tickets out. But we have to stop pretending everyone has that access and ability!


    It's also important to remember that education is a solution at the micro level, but has shrinking returns at the macro level.  There are only so many openings for jobs with higher skill levels, and eventually someone has to do the unskilled work.  A landscaping company isn't going to pay you more just because someone has an engineering degree (extreme example obviously).

    • Like 7

  16. 2 hours ago, SKL said:

    Well are we subsidizing businesses that offer jobs to people with very limited skills/experience, or are we subsidizing people who have not (or not yet) developed the skills and experience needed to land a better job?  I mean if those jobs for those people went away, would those people be qualified for higher-paying jobs?  If so, they should go take them.  WalMart is not a monopoly.  Why are people willing to work at WalMart in this time of near full employment?


    For starters, near full employment is a bit misleading.  The unemployment rate is calculated in a consistent measure and for that reason is a solid measure of trends over time, but it doesn't account for underemployment.  It should also be noted WalMart employs around 1.4 million people in the United States.  Considering a fair number of those are in areas with limited employment opportunities, I am not sure where you think that many people can find employment elsewhere.

    Not to be trite, but as noted in "Caddyshack", the world needs ditch diggers too.  Our labor market consists of X number of jobs that may be unskilled but still require a person willing to do them.  As long as the number of those seeking work >>> number of available jobs, those on the unskilled side of the labor market will be on the low end of wages.  As a society we then have to decide how we are going to treat the least of us.  Personally I think whether someone is bagging my groceries, doing the landscaping in my neighborhood, or cleaning houses, anyone who is working full time should be able to afford to put a roof over their heads, food on the table, and live a decent life.

    • Like 11
    • Thanks 1

  17. On 5/15/2019 at 2:02 PM, EmseB said:

    Have you ever run a small business? 

    The point is wages don't exist in a vacuum. If you think every business owner is swimming in cash like Scrooge McDuck and just refuses to pay his employees $5 more per hour, then I have to assume you have not. Employee salaries are a carefully budgeted item just like everything else. Comfortable isn't really the issue when many small business owners often forgo taking a salary themselves to get off the ground, get through tough economic times, or to try to grow their business. If I run a bakery and the price of grain goes up I have raise the sales price on my bread. Similarly, if the price of labor goes up, I have to make up that loss somewhere or go out of business. It's telling that you think no business is preferable to a business paying $7.25/hour when that bit of income could make a huge difference for someone for a variety of reasons.

    It is denying economic reality to say that we can raise wages without causing a ripple effect in other areas of the economy. It does us no good to earn extra money if prices are higher or less people overall have jobs.

    Your argument is emotionally compelling but doesn't address the actual issues with raising wages independent of other economic factors.

    When unemployment is high, we don't tell businesses to just hire more people to solve that problem because in general people realize that unemployment isn't a simple matter of businesses being unwilling to hire people. I don't know why people seem to think the answer of low wages is just telling businesses to pay more.  

    Everyone says, "Oh, I will pay a little more so that businesses can pay a living wage," but the problem is you've just also raised prices on those same people you wanted to lift out of poverty by paying them more. It's so obvious the problem can't be solved this way. And yet.


    So...if business margins cannot support the additional pay, and those who are working for $7.25 can't make ends meets, then who makes up the difference? 

    Hint: it starts with tax and ends with payers via the social safety net (as limited as it may be.)

    So the question could also be posed as why should businesses be indirectly subsidized by the taxpayer?  And let's nor pretend these are only small businesses being subsidized.  WalMart and other major corporations benefit even more than the typical small business.  WalMart has been known to even provide employees on how to apply for government assistance.

    If we are okay with subsidizing business, then fine.  But that means the constant attacks on the social safety net need to be dropped as well. 

    • Like 7

  18. 5 hours ago, RootAnn said:

    Black Widow didn't smile much (except when she's putting on the fake sex appeal thing she was taught to use). She "got things done." But, IMO, she's way more likeable. Scarlet Witch didn't smile much & she was both powerful & likeable.

    But perhaps both those characters were a bit vulnerable and obviously cared about other characters. They had friendships. CM doesn't seem to actually care in a personal way about others - only in a general "I have to save the world [or universe]" way. Perhaps I would like her more if she cared about someone personally. I liked her past self when she had a best friend.


    She also has a back story involving brain trauma and manipulation.  I won't judge her yet as we are very early in her story arc. 

  • Create New...