Bongo_Stryker @ Bongo_Stryker @lemmy.ca

Posts

5

Comments

245

Joined

2 yr. ago

When you leave off the beginning of the quote it seems misleading:

“BM 110 implementation also lacked any training and education for law enforcement officers,” the report says. “Departments simply received a simple question-and-answer guide from the state and officers were unclear about how best to handle situations involving drug possession and leading to additional frustration.” https://www.wweek.com/news/2023/06/23/researchers-release-second-round-on-findings-on-measure-110-police-dont-like-it/

So everyone received training but somehow between you and me we found two sources that say there wasn't training.

I think you're just re-defining the word "training" to something other than what an average person would consider "training" to mean, and claiming you're right. Just like the Reagan administration redefining ketchup as a vegetable in order to cut costs on children's nutrition funding. Oh sneaky republicans.

Be real: if officers were unclear on how to handle situations- then they clearly didn't receive as much instruction as they needed. Not receiving enough instruction = untrained. A Q&A pamphlet does not constitute training. It doesn't matter if that's what typically happens or if this is officially referred to as training, this is not what is normally meant by the word, or what a reasonable person would expect of "training"- especially when the health and safety of officers and the general public are at stake.

And I don't think anyone is blaming police. It seems they were as frustrated as anyone with the lack of clarity, resolve and commitment from state and local government to address drug addiction's terrible burden on communities, families, and individuals. Like they did in Portugal.

Anyway, you can have the last word, I'm done here.

Nope I didn't make that claim.

But Oregon’s Department of Public Safety Standards and Training, which trains law enforcement, confirmed in February that it has offered police no instruction on how Measure 110 works other than to update information for new recruits on when drug possession is a violation, misdemeanor or felony. https://www.propublica.org/article/oregon-leaders-hampered-drug-decriminalization-effort

Published in February 2024

Well I have been cautioned not to share any personal information on the interwebs including where I live, so I won't comment on that.

I will say that there is least one town I have spent time in, near some mountains with trees where the police were informed but didn't receive any additional training, nor did they seem to take the policy change seriously. Yes they wrote tickets and they also simply found something else to arrest people for. It seems not many people, of those who were in a position to effect real change, took the policy seriously. Unlike in Portugal where a more serious approach appears to have been more successful.

Portugal achieved a 75% reduction in drug deaths with decriminalization. So citizens in the great state of Oregon voted for decriminalization and diverting people from jail to treatment, and what happened?

Foot dragging happened. Money earmarked for new treatment services didn't get used, nobody mentioned to police hey we're doing this new thing, and people with addictions didn't get directed to treatment.

So throw up your hands and forget it, let's go back to the war on drugs because that was such a resounding success.

It's concerning. When people vote for administrators and vote for policy, then those administrators are supposed to implement those policies instead of do nothing and then claim it doesn't work.

Well it just goes to show the hypocrisy of evangelical and socially conservative voters. Jesus never said anything about gay people but there is a direct quote from Jesus in the book of Matthew about divorce. Trump is on his third wife and was unfaithful at least once if news reports are to be believed.

What a choice: The old and confused current president hands out bombs with one hand and humanitarian aid with the other. The other option is a rapist and criminal up to his eyeballs in debt for his misdeeds. These are symptoms of a system that is breaking down.

Hmm it's an interesting use of the words "social conservatism" to describe people who would vote for someone with 91 criminal charges.

Hey finally! Representation in the media! I don't like either of them.

Ivxferre has good advice. My go-to is 3 cups flour, 1/4 c lard/butter and 1 C warm water gets me 12 tortillas depending on size, I get about 7-8 inch. I prefer em pretty light and thin, I don't like the Cozumel thick kind. 4 cups flour/ 1 1/3 cup water, etc. to make 16. I can't say what the measurements are by weight, but I don't spoon my flour into cup measure, I scoop and level.

I usually make the dough and let it rest while I take a break and do something else so it's not such a laborious process. If you can get a partner to work the pan while you roll it can go very fast. The more times you do it the faster you will get, it's always slow the first time to try a new thing.

Hmm yes maybe that's what happened. My daddy did say book learnin don't come to no damn good.

It's like you guys are unaware of the ideological assumptions that color all of your opinions. Is it shocking to hear that social conservatives believe in hierarchy? Is it surprising to be told that religious conservatives believe there is an overarching authority to which all of humanity, and all of nature is subject? Is it news to you that inequality is seen as inevitable, and this is why liberal ideas about forcing equality on everyone are seen as foolish?

Why then is there any objection to feminism? Why the opposition to DEI programs? Whats wrong with migrant refugees getting US government assistance and why did Ronald Reagan complain about "welfare queens"? What is the problem some people have with young men becoming young women? Is there not some philosophical thread that connects these things as wrong or bad or out of order? It's because they all seem to violate deeply held assumptions about social order.

If you've never heard of Edmund Burke (called by many the father of modern conservatism) you should absolutely read up on him. He definately makes a case for heirarchy. I'm sure you have heard of Jordan Peterson who tries to claim that hierarchy is part of the natural order by famously pointing to lobsters. Peterson is less of a political thinker, but an alt-right hero I suppose, who dresses up conservative christian talking points with academic sounding language.

Anyway I feel like I made my case, debate it or not I don't care. it seems super funny to me that I am called on to justify a connection between conservatism and hierarchy. It's like if I said "water is so important to fish" and immediately wintermute is like " what? I literally never heard a fish say anything about water you are making that up you got a cite forr that?"

I think the discomfort with this situation comes from very foundational conservative thinking. It is a tenent of conservatism that a well ordered and correct society should resemble a pyramid: there should be a few people with wealth, privilege and power (political and otherwise) at the top, supported by a broad base of people with less wealth and less power at the bottom. Including noncitizens in voting upsets this hierarchical model, where outsiders oughtn't have any political clout at all.

But there's another element of conservative ideology that is violated by including noncitizens in the electoral process. It is zero-sum thinking that posits any gain for one group results in a loss to another. So handing out rights and and opportunities for political participation will diminish the the rights and opportunities for the rest of us.

As a leftist, I can understand this reasoning and see that it is a functional way of organizing and dealing with people and situations, as long as you are ok with the consequences of of the hierarchal model. I feel that the advantages of such an approach are far outweighed by the disadvantages. It is, at it's core, antidémocratic. I personally don't think it's worth it to accept those consequences, nor do I think zero-sum applies well to issues like rights or matters of common good.

Woah wait a minute, I didn't see this. It doesn't say that reading and writing is white supremacy. It doesn't say that at all.

Crazy stuff.

Meanwhile in America, police kill black people on a regular basis. While the black population of America is about 13%, in the prison system black people make roughly 37% of the population (prison policy.org) and the average Black and Latino households earn about half as much as the average White household and own only about 15 to 20 percent as much net wealth (federalreserve.gov). So it seems equally ridiculous to me to insist (and I have heard ppl say this) there's no more racism in America, that everyone has equal opportunity and everyone can prosper if they blah blah bootstraps and freedom and liberty. What's funny is that it's purveyors of bullshit pointing out someone else's bullshit in such a bullshitty way.

I seem to remember there was a bipartisan bill that made the asylum application process more strict and harder to get in under but that bill got voted down for some reason. Maybe those who are really concerned about the border situation would be frustrated with the people who voted down that bill. Maybe because of the hypocrisy.

It wasn't the Biden administration that stopped that bill. I'm really wondering, are people ok with things unfolding like this? I can imagine someone saying, well that's just part of the game of politics. You have to act like there's a great calamity to motivate your voter base, find a scapegoat and try to impeach somebody. -But when an actual attempt at solution comes along, oh no, we don't want that solved, not till after the election.

What I don't understand is, why wouldn't that kind of dealing lose votes?

I confess I do believe in the right of nations to pursue socialism by different paths, dictated by the conditions, culture and social institutions of each nation, but I would not say I am 100% anti-revisionist. Mostly tho. I mean, don't try to deny class struggle with me, because I am not having it.

Someone very wise recently told me:

Just crying and throwing a fit because people disagree with you doesn't make it a bad bill

Well to be fair, I have never been to an endocrinologist nor sought treatment for gender dysphoria. But I wonder, is this legislation necessary? I think it was written from the perspective of someone who believes young people are deciding over breakfast "I want to be a girl now," or "I want to be a boy now," and have changed their wardrobe and gotten hormone injections that afternoon. I don't believe it happens like that.

“It is a policy project that attempts to make it so onerous, so restrictive to get care, that people are functionally unable to do so,” said Kellan Baker, executive director of the Whitman-Walker Institute, a Washington-based organization focused on the health of LGBTQ+ people.

Just like our immigration policy. Make it super difficult and say "well I don't have a problem with it if they do it legally."

I think a lot of people are really worried that there's a huge organized plan by liberal woke trans nonbinaries intent on tricking as many people and children (please won't someone think of the children!) as possible into gender reassignment. This doesn't make any sense tho because the only ones who would profit from such a scheme is the for-profit healthcare and big pharma, but leftists are largely mad at them.

It's nothing more than a big moral panic about a very small and politically powerless minority. God bless America.

I feel like a pour over tastes more "sharp" and the press gives a more "round" taste. I suppose you could say "bright" and "dark", but either way these are poor metaphors. I prefer a press, but I wouldn't want to leave coffee in the press for too long. For connection to the coffee it seems like making a lot and keeping it in a thermos is not as good as making 1 cup and drinking it immediately.

Everybody has to find the coffee and coffee method that's right for them, so if you like pour over, stick with that. It never hurts to try new things, but I wouldn't lay out a lot of cash for something different if you already know what you like. Do you know someone with a quality press maybe?

Unless you have something in mind that you want, that you know you can get a good deal on, I think you would be better off saving your money than buying something you don't want/need just for the sake of a black Friday deal.

This whole black Friday thing gets hyped so much that you start to think "I better get in on these bargain prices," but the truth is that some retailers actually raise their prices on some things in October and then lower them back to regular 40% markup and call it a "SIZZILIN SALE PRICE!!!"

So in conclusion, if there's something you want, check different sources and compare prices. Otherwise, don't get scammed into thinking you're missing out, you are not. Source: I am 55 years old, have worked in retail.