dhammer

Person #4497: 0 Posts

Recommended: 11 times

Posts   |   Comments

  1. There's nothing the matter with Kansas (2 Replies)

    Tom Frank is an entertaining writer, but he’s just wrong. Poor people vote in their economic interest everywhere, it’s only rich people in rich states that ‘betray’ their class. Everyone should read Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State and throw out your copy of What’s the Matter with Kansas and your back issues of the Baffler.

  2. Please... (1 Reply)

    From Slate:

    The hospital “filed an allegation of medical child abuse” against the couple for seeking what the hospital deemed as “unnecessary treatment” and petitioned the state for custody.

    From the Globe:

    Children’s had contacted the state’s child protection agency to discuss filing “medical child abuse” charges, as doctors grew suspicious that the parents were harming Justina by interfering with her medical care and pushing for unnecessary treatments.

    And again, from the Globe:

    The Pelletiers had butted heads with other doctors in Connecticut — Justina’s pediatrician there would accuse them of doctor-shopping and “firing” multiple providers.

    You can disagree with the facts and the way they’re interpreted, but the family has been accused of medical child abuse, doctor shopping and demanding unnecessary treatment. You’ are wrong.

  3. suspected medical child abuse (2 Replies)

    Children’s Hospital thinks they were treating her for a disorder she didn’t have. They felt she was being put in danger and needed to be taken away. The court ruled that she has what Children’s says she has – the parents refuse to believe that and are unwilling to cooperate on coming up with a agreed treatment plan. At the end of the day, this really should be determined by medical professionals – were the parents doctor shopping or were they acting in the best interest of their child? What’s the real diagnosis?

  4. personally irritating? (1 Reply)

    The state claims the father threatened the life of one of the social workers. Let’s be clear about something. Children’s Hospital felt that the parents were treating her for a condition she didn’t have – that’s medical child abuse. The state agreed with the doctor’s at Children’s and not the doctors at Tufts. This is a case where suspected child abuse PLUS a pattern of refusing to cooperate with authorities (in your words, being pushy) cased the state to take this action.

    The state wanted to discharge the girl from the hospital, yet somehow the media was alerted where this was going to happen. Do you think it was the state that told the press or the parents? This caused the girl to have to stay in a locked ward. Even if you don’t blame the parents for that, the parents had reached an agreement where they would take custody of the girl with some state supervision. All of a sudden they change their mind and say that MA DCF and CT DCF can’t be involved at all. This goes beyond just being pushy – these people have been accused of abusing their child – the state thinks there is some strong evidence to support that claim, yet the parents refuse to allow the state to be involved at all. To me, that’s not circular logic, that’s the state doing its job.

  5. well, if the children's hospital doctors were right (0 Replies)

    then the parents were doctor shopping for someone to say she had a disorder she didn’t have and forcing lots of dangerous and unnecessary procedures on her – that’s child abuse. If that’s the case, then they should have their parental rights taken away. No because they were being argumentative, but because it was very likely that they were harming their child and they refused to work with the state in any way to resolve the issue.

    I just read the ruling, your characterization is way overblown – you say the judge has ruled that the parents should never get custody, yet they backdated the order to December so the first six month visit designed to test whether she could go back to her parents could be in June. Your conflating the financial incentives in an unrelated case to this one are at best bad argument, at worst trickery. You might have a point to make about the state overplaying its hand, you might have a point about the profit incentives of private contractors, but I don’t think you’re making them here.

  6. it seems like if she had what the Tufts doctors said she did... (1 Reply)

    …then after a year of not being treated for that by Children’s she’d be in pretty bad shape. Is she? If not, I could be convinced, if not, it seems like the family might be in the wrong.

    Also, I’m pretty quick to jump on the care providers are just in it for the money bandwagon, but I have a really hard time thinking Children’s is doing this for the money. There’s a huge backlash against them from some pretty prominent folks, hardly a money making scheme.

  7. Why is this better than just lowering tuition? (1 Reply)

    It seems like a pretty complex system. Why don’t we just make tuition at UMass $2,000 and have the taxpayers pick up the rest of the tab?

  8. (1 Reply)

    It’s not the material the bottle is made out of, it’s how the glass is collected.

    Single stream recycling mixes glass with everything else. During this process, it gets broken up and those small pieces are mixed in with bottle caps, small bits of paper, etc. – all of which makes it too difficult or expensive to separate. So for every 100 pounds of glass sent to the recycling center using single stream recycling, 60 pounds can be recycled into bottles, 19 pounds is too small to be sorted by color so can only be used in road base or landfill cover, and 21 pounds can’t be separated at all, so it gets sent to the trash.

    A major point of the article was that single stream recycling decreases the amount trash the city sends to the landfill or incinerator, but not all that reduction is recycled – the recycling center, due in part to single stream making many recyclable products unusable, sends a lot of “recyclables” to the landfill or incinerator.

    In contrast, deposit bottles are collected at redemption centers. They only collect glass and that glass, because it’s broken up into pieces that are large enough to sort by color, can be sorted effectively. Thus, for every 100 pounds of glass deposit bottles recycled, 98 pounds can be turned back into glass. Presumably, you could make a similar same case for curbside recycling that separated glass from paper and metal.

  9. Not to pile on, but seriously did you read the article? (1 Reply)

    …only about 60 percent of single-stream glass can be turned into high-quality products like bottles or fiberglass. Another 19 percent is too small to be sorted — glass is separated by color for recycling — useful only for road base or landfill cover. The last 21 percent is trash. By contrast, about 98 percent of deposit glass can be recycled back into glass bottles.

    We’re talking 60% vs. 98% – it’s not even a comparison. My only complaint is that I’ve been asking the MassPirg staff asking me to support the expanded bottle bill this question for years and not once have I gotten someone who could answer. Given these facts, however, it’s no question, we need an expanded bottle bill now.

  10. In the interest of self promotion, full disclosure... (0 Replies)

    …and the end of anonymity, dhammer – a semi regular commenter – is David Hammer, the subject of this post.

  11. Your reasoning is sound, still I disagree. (1 Reply)

    What you’re refusing to talk about is the underlying rationale for age of consent laws. If we assume any decision regarding sex and children has to be made or approved by an adult, then what your saying follows.

    Adolescents makes these decisions all the time without input from their parents, however. Maybe they shouldn’t, but they do. I want public policy that supports those children, and recognizes the reality that lots of parents are awful and stupid. In my mind, that’s lots and lots of sex ed, pretty much unfettered access to birth control and age of consent laws that try to treat children as close to adults as they can. I’m comfortable with the inconsistency because I think it produces the best result.

  12. she's an anti union scumbag (1 Reply)

    That doesn’t mean she’s not smart, accomplished, and has the qualifications to be commerce secretary. It does mean, however, that the President of the United States chooses anti union scumbags to help manage the economy – just like he did when he chose Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and countless others in the administration. This says more about Obama and the Democratic Party than Pritzker. Don’t trust them, they don’t care about you and your future, they only care about your vote and their short term accumulation of power and money.

  13. Actually, you're not being robbed of anything. (2 Replies)

    I don’t mean to be rude, but if you’re interested in making sure girls aren’t being coerced, denying them the ability to make their own choices about reproductive choice seems an awful strange way to show it.

    Let’s say you discuss, educate and engage your daughter about Plan B. You tell her you’re concerned she might get cancer, or be harmed in some other way. You discuss the risks, the challenges and let her know you don’t want her to take the drug. If she says she doesn’t care, she wants to take it anyway, what right do you have to deny her? The fact that your her parent? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

    People, not women and men, have a right to self determination – that doesn’t start when they’re 18 or when they’re mature enough to make a good decision. It starts when they have the ability to make decisions. Your only right as a parent is help them make those decisions. Good for you if your kid engages with you about these decisions, but to deny medical services to a person whose parent doesn’t, well to me that’s coercion.

  14. (1 Reply)

    Seems like part of the strategy is to conflate quantitative with objective.

  15. What would strike you as statistically proportionate? (0 Replies)

    By my count, black teachers make up 25% of the total teacher population, yet 50% of the teachers being set up for review. You’d expect that if race has nothing to do with performance, around 34 black teachers would be targeted, but 68 actually were. You’d expect that 86 white teachers would be up for review, but only 53 were.

  16. That is a giant leap of logic (1 Reply)

    Electronic benefit cards have been in use since before Grossman was elected, the idea that only the ‘waste’ and not the ‘fraud and abuse’ in his ‘waste fraud and abuse’ comment apply to this issue is just plain silly.

  17. +1 (0 Replies)

    because voting just once for this sentiment isn’t enough.

  18. right, talking to the chamber of commerce (1 Reply)

    about fraud and abuse among recipients of public assistance couldn’t possibly be construed as pandering to a conservative group about how “those people” are the real problem. It could be the Herald’s bias, but the article mentioned patronage and ebt cards as the two areas of corruption Grossman mentioned.

    Curtailing fraud is fine, but to do it loudly and in front of the business lobby (read nearly 100% Republicans in any other state) plays to the racial prejudices and biases conservatives are more likely to hold. Plus, according to the article Grossman said:

    “We have tried to root out waste, fraud and abuse,” including in the use of Electronic Benefit Transfer cards that automate the redemption of public assistance benefits.

    That’s root out, not be watchful…

  19. given that it's a line from Star Wars (1 Reply)

    I think it was probably meant as a joke… But I didn’t read the thread, so who knows.

  20. Well, I won't be supporting Lynch (1 Reply)

    My view is that climate change is as an important issue (if not the most important issue) for the working class. Markey is a leader on this.

    Lynch is a good foot soldier when it comes to the big union issues, but he’s not a leader. He’s not criticizing Obama for not supporting card check and he’s not leading the fight for changing labor law in this country. The Senators from Massachusetts should be leading the left on important issues. I’ll take Warren supporting the leadership on foreign policy, even though she’ll likely vote in ways I disagree, because the benefit we get from someone standing up for the middle class is enormous. In the same way, I’ll take Markey not putting everything on the line to oppose a trade deal that the leadership in his party supports so that we can get someone who will be willing to fight to ensure we take the necessary, expensive, and potentially painful steps required to protect the planet.

    Our job is to make it so the political climate is such that there’s no down side to Markey supporting a vibrant labor movement and opposing trade deals that destroy communities.