domain:parrhesia.co
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Trump's appeal to his base is in large part being the legitimate ruler who performs the proper rites of rulership with the right pomp and doesn't do anything worse with their tax money than steal it. They didn't abandon him after J6(I did; Trump proved himself weak by not doubling down). 'Legality' has nothing to do with it. It's about 'better coverage than 5g'.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
The Jet A open air burn temperature is 1,030 °C, considerably less than the melting point of even lower melting point steels.
I am not an expert on 9/11, but isn't the idea actually that the fire weakened the steel causing it to collapse under the weight of the tower, not that the steel melted?
I hate to break it to you, but the same applies to any other area of the law, including whether the state can revoke your own liberty for a period of years. Yes, there's the added protection in that case that you will be entitled to an attorney if you can't afford to pay for one, which attorney will probably do an adequate job but might not, but in any event, all the other concerns you raise still apply.
And the additional due process rights, and numerous opportunities to seek freedom, and the burden of proof falling on the government, and the burden of proof being much harsher on the government, yada yada.
As a side note, while that attorney was on record for the appeal, it isn't clear that the guy was represented at the initial hearing. Based on the available record, I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't.
It's possible, but a) we don't know and b) there's absolutely a lot of well-represented and reasonable clients that just don't present well to judges, especially when you're talking 80-year-olds.
There are attorneys in Pennsylvania who specialize in this sort of thing and no, it isn't cheap, but it's what you have to do.
Yeah, that this is "what you have to do" is a good part of my objection. Access to justice and civil rights dependent on thousands or tens of thousands of dollars is a right denied. (The other part is that it's far from clear that would be enough.)
But they're not; this is the case of someone who was already adjudicated ineligible to purchase firearms based on a separate proceeding, at which the right to own firearms was collateral to the determination.... The procedural posture here is no different than that of a convicted felon petitioning the court for an expungement so he can buy a gun legally.
Yes, the procedural posture here treat someone who had a mental health commitment like a convicted felon. Is that proceeding to issue a mental health commitment equivalent to the conviction of a felon?
I can't find the process New Jersey used in 1980, since a 1987 revision to state law was noteworthy for requiring a finding of dangerousness and mental illness, but the current law still allows initial holds for 72 hours without ever seeing or hearing from a judge, and an intermediate period up to 20 days with a court order under reduced requirements. Even assuming that T.B. had something more serious than a rubber stamp in 1980, it still had nowhere near the burden of proof, clear notice of law he was violating, or any similar due process right. (He near-certainly wouldn't have had access to an attorney, even had he seen a courtroom, and might have even been ex parte for the court hearing given the state of laws in other nearby jurisdictions at the time.)
There's a reason that this overlaps closer to the GVRO or various Red Flag laws -- but those processes are intentionally supposed to be temporary! The federal laws here apply even to mental health episodes that happened before the GCA1968 was even passed, and they chase a person to their grave unless specifically expunged.
Is the action here similar? Felons can be disarmed because being a felon is a long-lasting indicator of propensity to act violently outside the law (although even that's kinda marginal given how broad modern 'felonies' have become). Was T.B.'s issue in 1980 some long-lasting inherent problem that would likely recur? Or was it one time event? We don't know. T.B. provided some evidence that he had no current mental illness. No one on the court provides any evidence against that, they just woolgathered about how it wasn't trustworthy enough in some vague ways that their guts didn't like. The judge specifically said that these gutchecks pointed "not that he’s dangerous".
In any event, it's hard to see what the court did wrong here. The guy has the burden of proof to show he should get an expungement, and he provided very little evidence beyond "I'm not nuts and you should take my work for it".
From a statutory perspective, the petitioner is only required to prove that their illness is in remission or substantially improved; the court (and the original medical director) are the ones to "find" if the petitioner "will not likely act in a manner dangerous to the public safety and finds that the grant of relief is not contrary to the public interest" based on "the circumstances of why the commitment or determination was imposed upon the petitioner, the petitioner's mental health record and criminal history, and the petitioner's reputation in the community". The petitioner demonstrated that their condition was substantially improved, and provided some evidence that they were not likely to act in a matter dangerous to public safety. And the judge, rather than pointing to some part of the petitioner's mental health record, or reputation in the community, or circumstances of their original commitment, said that they didn't like some of the evidence the petitioner provided or the petitioner's demeanor, and then the case is done, caput, do not pass go, do not collect your rights or your 200 USD.
I frankly have no idea how the judge in question here can honestly take a look at a forty-year period with no criminal history or further interactions with the mental health system or criminal justice system, a commitment that the judge found was motivated by the man attempting to strangle his wife, and say "I don’t know if that means that his condition is substantially improved or in substantial remission." I don't have high opinions of New Jersey cops! But I don't have that low an opinion, either.
That would just be annoying in other contexts. I'd like a lot more due process and a lot less 'whatever some jerkoff judge thought was good policy between ranting in their chambers', but I'm not optimistic about matters as simple as ['maybe judges shouldn't hear trials on laws that they pledge specifically to support'.
Here, we are talking a constitutional right, a petitioner who has never been convicted of a crime and may never have seen the inside of a court room before this appeal, and a judge who has rewritten the law until his or her only guiding star is 'what can I imagine' and only boundaries are 'could impact the public interest', in a jurisdiction that has spent literal generations and has extant caselaw demanding "the citizen acts at his peril" in this context. It is a problem when there is an unclear burden on the petitioner to fight any evidence that any judge may ever want or make up, in a hearing that becomes an adversarial hearing against that judge, and where there is no further opportunity or discussion before trial about what the judge decided was the magic words beyond 'hire the best and most specialized lawyer possible'.
T.B. here might well (maybe even likely would) fail an honest analysis of dangerousness, but we didn't get that. T.B. might well (maybe even likely would) fail an honest analysis of improvement in mental health condition. We don't even get a judiciary interest in that. At best, you can argue that this complied with the statute, as long as you put a heavy thumb on judicial interpretation of the 'well, it doesn't say we can't' sort. The courts could have subpeona'd medical records, or written that the petitioner refused to provide access. The courts could speak to a criminal record or lack thereof. The courts could have pointed to some critical issue in the original commitment hearing, if any existed, pointing to likely repetition or recurrence. They could have asked his wife or coworkers or doctors if he was strangling them. They didn't. Nor, for that matter did the judges comment on a lack of submissions on these points from the petition’s side.
They tea-leafed whether a guy could remember a name of a medication while speaking extemporaneously, or whether he might forget to use a safety. They announced that he needs some time working in the mental health system to prove to them he had gotten better (how long? why would that matter to an 80-year old?). And then they washed their hands of any questions of whether he was a danger to the community or mentally ill or what say you.
To treat this as in the interest of justice because you, personally, can smell a rat, in a case you couldn't be bothered to look at the first sheet before writing about?
hydroacetylene
1d ago
'Past few decades' is more recent than the change really was- when the 'long fifties' as I call them ended(varies a bit by location and background but 1970 at the latest in the US), so did the 'you got her pregnant you have to marry her' mentality.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
And Kansas ca 1860 would be appropriate for finding 19th century tradition.
The United States was founded in the late 18th century.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
1d ago
Yeah she's gone. What the heck was she thinking?
I'm surprised delivery drivers would be that brazen because of the traceability. But then again, we have sealed food order bags for the delivery apps for 'peace of mind', so its likely that this type of thing is common, even for low value goods. As long as there are multiple parties involved in the chain of custody then there is always someone else to point the finger out (in this care a 'mystery' porch pirate).
Can you give us an update later if they let you know of disciplinary action?
MathWizard
Good things are good
1d ago
I generally think time limits are bad in games, with a few exceptions. The fundamental problem is that it's a threat. It's a threat that, if you do poorly, you're going to have to restart the entire game from scratch. Like a final boss that, if it kills you, deletes your save file (though less volatile). I don't want to get 90% of the way through a 20 hour game only to have to start over from scratch. I rarely play games a second time unless they are exceptionally good, I'm not replaying the entirety of your game over again just because I wasn't quite good enough the first time.
The main exception I have to this is if there's meta-progression, like in Roguelites, or like Dead Rising. If you've got a 1-2 hour turn around, and I unlock new stuff every time, and the entire game is built around randomized content so it's not just the same thing again, then we're good. Or like in Dead Rising if I get stronger and it's basically a new game plus where I can solve all the problems that happened the first time around there's wayyy less risk of failing the second time around, I can take that. What I don't want is the game to tell me that the last 20 hours of play time were pointless and none of it counts for anything.
That said, I didn't have to replay Pikmin 1, because I didn't fail. If the time limit is generous enough then the majority of players don't run afoul of it. The threat looms in the background, but isn't implemented. If it's set just right then it creates stakes and pressure: the player has to act strategically and not mess up and get their party slaughtered too many times or it'll take too long to repopulate, so it feels more important to perform well. But if it's too generous then players don't feel this pressure and the time limit might as well not even exist. But Pikmin 2 was able to have a lot more content in part because of the lack of a time limit: you can keep playing the game after you "beat" it and go explore and get every last piece of treasure because there's nothing stopping you from continuing to play.
I have not yet played Pikmin 3 or 4, so I can't comment on it there, though I intend to eventually. I anticipate that the time limit in 3 will either be obnoxious if its strict, or superfluous if it's easy. There's very rarely middle ground.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Not being on drugs that make her a bitch is 'fucking your life up'? Uh, you do know how babies are made, right? A mommy and a daddy have to love each other very much first, there's no stork that shows up when you stop taking birth control.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
It doesn't seem like what he's doing is anywhere near normal enough to be ghetto family norms. Those are 'high status man behaves promiscuously and there's however many babies that makes'. Not 'recruiting e-thots to have babies via IVF'.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Maybe it's a dialect difference, but I always thought 'carnie' referred to the people working at the circus, not the performers.
How does someone that blatant stay employed long enough to reach your house?
Doorbell cameras are in 1/4 houses, and let's say half report it. That means she could get away with it 8ish times, or about one full day of normal deliveries. How unlucky do you have to be to be in the first eight(ish) thefts of her career? Alternatively, how bad can the companies be that they let her keep her job after getting caught?
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
1d ago
For the rest of this, well you have a trained professional (in the case of NJ I believe it's two physicians spread out over multiple days)
A "trained professional" is not the same as an adversarial process. A police officer is a trained professional, for instance.
NJ allows for at least a 3-day involuntary commitment with no court order, just on the word of a health facility, and 6 days in many circumstances. Then they can be held up to 20 days on an ex parte court order. Only then does the patient get an actual hearing. Any of this disqualifies you from gun ownership in NJ.
And though some of this can be sued over, the burden of proof is then on the patient to prove the commitment was unreasonable. And even that doesn't restore gun rights.
Importantly the alternative is ass - does every temporary psychiatric hold involve the legal system?
If you want it to take away legal rights, especially permanently, it sure as hell ought to.
And if you want to claim to be a strong 2A advocate, you need to accept that this sometimes means accepting that people that you'd look at and say "Naa, that guy shouldn't have a gun" have gun rights too. Otherwise you end up rationalizing yourself (as many "conservatives" do) into finding even NJs gun laws to be perfectly OK.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
Assuming your daughter isn't fraternizing with men into their twenties as a teen, almost definitionally getting pregnant as a teen is with an inappropriate man. Let's face it, teenage boys aren't ready for that.
hydroacetylene
1d ago
To Rightists with daughters reading this: are you concerned that they might encounter "natural family planning" on the internet and really f*** up their life?
No. Keeping their legs closed before marriage is entirely possible.
Primarily, I would be teaching my daughters their bodies and give them tools/trackers just for the educational value. There is so much more value to being aware of your cycle. It can tell a woman when she will be the most motivated, when she'll be more likely to make bad decisions, etc. Teenagers taught to monitor their bodies have reported things like, "Now I know when I'm angry at a certain time of the month, to just wait it out and not make any big decisions." Teenage girls in correctional facilities were astonished to see that their misbehavior typically fell in the same time of the month. Etc. I don't think I need to defend to this sub the value of self-knowledge.
The ideal would be that they don't have sex. But if they do, they will know exactly when and why they got pregnant.
I have a huge issue with lumping together "Symptoms-based fertility awareness ex. symptothermal and calendar-based methods". There are five different methods I can name off the top of my head that meet that criteria, which vary in effectiveness from 75% to 99.8% with perfect use. Complicating this is that a lot of people use a condom during fertile time instead of abstaining, which just makes the effectiveness on par with a condom.
Calendar-based method: Terrible effectiveness rate. I've heard of one that was just, "Have sex every 10 days" and it had an effectiveness rate of like 90%, which is funny but isn't super in-tune with the body.
Then there's the Marquette Method, which is starting to get into more measurable, technological solutions. You pee on a stick every morning, it gives you a reading you chart, the chart tells you whether or not you should have sex that day if you want to be pregnant or not.
There were forty-two unintended pregnancies which provided a typical use unintended pregnancy rate of 6.7 per 100 women over twelve months of use. Eleven of the forty-two unintended pregnancies were associated with correct use of the method. The total unintended pregnancy rate over twelve months of use was 2.8 per 100 for women with regular cycles, 8.0 per 100 women for the postpartum and breastfeeding women, and 4.3 per 100 for women with irregular menstrual cycles.
Typical use effectiveness of 93.3% is not bad at all - very comparable to the pill.
The version I use and will teach my daughters is the Sympto-Thermal method with a Doeringer rule - like the Sensiplan. I would give them special thermometers to wear at night which only need to be synced about once a week (unless you really want sex, in which case they get synced every morning.) For the Sensiplan Method:
After 13 cycles, 1.8 per 100 women of the cohort experienced an unintended pregnancy; 9.2 per 100 women dropped out because of dissatisfaction with the method; the pregnancy rate was 0.6 per 100 women and per 13 cycles when there was no unprotected intercourse in the fertile time.
This is comparable to an IUD.
Trust me, I have done the research on this. It is literally impossible to get pregnant on phase III (three days after ovulation to the start of menses), if your phase I is longer than 6 days. I've had to rely on this knowledge many a time and it doesn't fail. If I have sex anywhere near a fertile window, I get pregnant immediately (I have learned.)
Edit to add an article on the "teach teenagers to be aware of their cycle" thing: https://naturalwomanhood.org/cycle-mindfulness-what-happens-when-you-teach-fertility-awareness-to-teen-girls/
Here is what she found out: for 90% of the girls in the program who had ended up in jail, it happened during the premenstrual phase of her cycle...
One of the documented outcomes of Teen STAR’s work is the much lower likelihood for these girls to engage in premature sexual activities. The program was evaluated by ChildTrends, a leading U.S. nonprofit research organization, which reported “that this program is effective in reducing the rate of pregnancy, delaying the onset of sexual activity, decreasing sexual activity in sexually-active youth, and improving attitudes towards abstinence, compared with students in the no-treatment groups.”
aceventura
1d ago
Thanks for this, very helpful.
I saw this in Axios:
The Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the executive oder that curtails birthright citizenship in October, Attorney General Pam Bondi said, adding that she was "confident" in the court.
Until then, the administration can start pursuing its policy in states where it's not blocked.
As of right now, 22 states have challenged the the executive order.
Given that we could end up in situations where newborns in certain states acquire citizenship and other newborns don't, I would've thought the Supreme Court would issue a decision on birthright citizenship within the present term. Is it just that there's not enough time?
What are the chances that the Supreme Court actually strikes down birthright citizenship? My impression from the start was that this was always going to be a losing case given how far back the precedent goes, but I'm far from an expert.
Hadad
1d ago
With Russigate, no-one of any significance was suggesting that there was anything compromised about the voting process itself, which obviously crosses into very new and dangerous territory.
So Hillary Clinton in 2019 claiming the election was not on the level and was tampered with is ... ? I don't buy your quibbling. People have been doubting the legitimacy of electoral victories for multiple elections now. I don't find your splitting hairs over the specific wording of these doubts, as if they weren't all simply expressions of distrust in an enemy's victory, persuasive. That you find Trump's rhetoric perhaps more crass or vulgar is noted, but I genuinely don't care. The substance is not different.
Cult mindset.
No, the cult is the ones that look at multiple bellweather-defying special exceptions pulled out in a crisis, that multiple influential agents later boast about fortifying, and go "nah bro, it's totally fine".
anti_dan
1d ago
So I just had a delivery guy brazenly steal the delivery ON CAMERA. The camera is not subtle. It points directly at the place she took her "Proof of Delivery" photo. And she just kinda put it down then looked around and picked it back up.
Sorta fun I suppose.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
1d ago
It's crazy on multiple levels. His age, like you said, but also that it's blatantly illegal. I guess in theory the constitution could be amended, but does anyone seriously think that's likely? I certainly don't, at least. And without an amendment, a lot of Trump's supporters are going to refuse to support him any more (because they don't like flouting the law), at which point he can't win an election anyways.
To me, the whole idea of a third Trump term is just another in the long line of people freaking out about how he's the worst thing to ever happen to America. As the saying goes, the demand for authoritarianism from Trump outstrips supply.
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
1d ago
MAGA is/was strongly opposed to sending troops to Iran, and is broadly in favor of how things actually played out. There is no contradiction there.
mrvanillasky
Indo Aryan Thot Leader
1d ago
Violence has always been something people have been fascinated by as viewers. The NFL offers a watered down much worse version of it, mma is just more honest about it.
I personally watch it because I like seeing how people solve problems, how a set of techniques and strategies can best another.
fribble
1d ago
"having a kid out of wedlock is a bad idea" is left-coded
... when it presupposes one is having lots of sex with lots of men outside of marriage.
I'm going to make the wild suggestion that both sex and children should be within a marriage.
cjet79
1d ago
Hasn't come up yet honestly. It would definitely be the call the cops option. Where we live they'd show up and actually deal with the problem and probably get a round of applause.
Troublemakers are most often teenagers being teenagers. Though recently it was an inebriated adult causing problems. Which pisses me off way more because now the pool will probably start cracking down on any kind of drinking at the pool, and thus ruining it for all the adults that can have a few beers on the sly and not become complete animals.
There is a checkin area so we will generally know if someone is trying to enter when they shouldn't, but yeah in the past people have apparently tried to dodge their punishments. Memberships at the pool are acquired as a family unit, so we can kinda get family's to punish bad teens by threatening to remove the entire family unit if a particular teen does not behave. If they are incapable of controlling their teen ... Well we have a wait-list for membership so they will be replaced by a better behaved family.
Gaashk
1d ago
On the more wacky front, I've wondered if we should be dosing married couples with Oxytocin since pretty much all the literature available shows that it makes couples more interested in each other (although I'd not be surprised if this would fail to replicate.)
Couple shows up at the doctor's office saying they've not had sex in months, he hands them a spray bottle: "Take two snorts each and call me in the morning."
Inconveniently, babies are one of the big things that leads women to not want sex over long periods of time.
Oxytocin comes up medically in the context of childbirth and lactation, and is heavily involved in breast feeding. So, if you stimulate a breast feeding mother's nipples, her body will produce oxytocin... and milk. She will likely then think of the baby. Doctors give oxytocin during delivery to make contractions stronger (or, if they only need them a bit stronger, can use a breast pump).
Is $200k the limit on the amount that Keith's insurance would cover? If not then Keith is entirely in the right here, and the bankruptcy judge should not have required the limit of 200k in the first place. There's no reason the amount should have been relevant for this ruling except if it would be dis-chargeable via the bankruptcy.
If it is the insurance limit then the best outcome would be the $1.6 M being the official amount awarded and the $1.4 M being retroactively discharged by the bankruptcy.
It's unfortunate that the laws aren't smart enough to do the obvious thing.
More options
Context Copy link