Advertisement
by Galloism » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:38 am
Dreria wrote:Galloism wrote:There’s another horrifying thing.
(Largely) Female consumers, through the magic of the free market, are having baby boys genitals mutilated so they can harvest the foreskins for use in skin rejuvenating makeup.
Yeah.
No, really. Yeah. That’s a thing. That happens today and now.
Cool it with the anti semitism
by Auzkhia » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:43 am
by Kowani » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:46 am
T Trying to run a child care system using market prices runs into three main problems.
The wages for child care providers wind up very low.
The costs for parents wind up very high.
Paying the costs out of pocket requires families to undergo major drops in their standard of living when they have a child and creates asymmetries between identical families with different numbers of children.
For a government, solving these problems is pretty simple. You can pass a law that mandates higher wages for child care workers and then use public money to fund the child care sector rather than rely upon user fees. This gets you lower (or no) costs for parents, higher pay for workers, and reduces (or eliminates) the negative shocks and horizontal asymmetries that come from funding the child care system with out-of-pocket fees.
This is how the K-12 system works and how the Democrats’ proposed pre-k system works. But it is not how the Democrats’ proposed child care system works
The Democrats’ child care proposal mandates higher wages for child care workers but then does not follow through on the public subsidies for all families. The result will be a massive increase in child care fees for families with incomes slightly above their state’s median income.
According to the Center for American Progress (CAP), the average cost of basic quality center-based infant care is $15,888, with $9,480 going to pay worker wages, $768 going to pay worker benefits, and $2,580 going to pay for administration.
Under the Democratic child care plan, child care worker wages will increase to the wages currently received by elementary school teachers. The median child care worker is currently paid $25,460 per year while the median elementary school teacher is currently paid $60,660 per year. Thus, this mandate will increase child care worker pay by 138 percent. If we increase the salary cost from the CAP estimate above by 138 percent, the unsubsidized price of child care goes from $15,888 per year to $28,970, an increase of $13,082 per year. And this is not the only thing the bill does that will increase the cost of care.
The Democratic child care plan subsidizes the price of child care by replacing flat user fees with a sliding-scale income-based copayment. Costs that exceed a given family’s copayment amount will be picked up by the government.
But in the first 3 years of the program, families with incomes that are just $1 over 100% of the median income (year one), 115% of the median income (year two), or 130% of the median income (year three) will be eligible for zero subsidies, meaning that they will be on the hook for the entire unsubsidized price, which as discussed above will now be at least $13,000 per year higher than before. How much income is too much will depend on the state and depend on how the word “income” is defined (the bill does not define it). But for illustration purposes, note that the median household income last year in the country was $67,521. If this was your state’s median income, then having a family income just $1 higher than that would result in you being ineligible for child care subsidies in 2022 even as the unsubsidized price of child care skyrockets due to the wage and other mandates in the Democratic proposal.
This is obviously a perverse outcome and it’s not clear whether lawmakers even realize what they are about to do.
Under this scenario, there will be many dual-earning couples who cannot afford child care if both of them continue to work, but could afford child care if one of them quit their job and thereby brought their family income below the eligibility cutoff. Normally people who quit jobs to take care of their kids do so in order to save the money they’d have to spend on child care. Under this plan, they have to quit their job in order to afford child care!
For all the talk of child care benefits being a boon to women’s labor force participation, this design clearly pushes against it by making it virtually impossible for a dual-earning middle class couple to afford child care in the first three years of the program.
Abolitionism in the North has leagued itself with Radical Democracy, and so the Slave Power was forced to ally itself with the Money Power; that is the great fact of the age.
by Deanson » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:50 am
Galloism wrote:Stellar Colonies wrote:While the issues faced by men are being discussed, there's also theforeskin harvestingmaking them normal and cleanDD occurring in American hospitals.
There’s another horrifying thing.
(Largely) Female consumers, through the magic of the free market, are having baby boys genitals mutilated so they can harvest the foreskins for use in skin rejuvenating makeup.
Yeah.
No, really. Yeah. That’s a thing. That happens today and now.
by Galloism » Wed Oct 20, 2021 9:53 am
Kowani wrote:oh my fucking godT Trying to run a child care system using market prices runs into three main problems.
The wages for child care providers wind up very low.
The costs for parents wind up very high.
Paying the costs out of pocket requires families to undergo major drops in their standard of living when they have a child and creates asymmetries between identical families with different numbers of children.
For a government, solving these problems is pretty simple. You can pass a law that mandates higher wages for child care workers and then use public money to fund the child care sector rather than rely upon user fees. This gets you lower (or no) costs for parents, higher pay for workers, and reduces (or eliminates) the negative shocks and horizontal asymmetries that come from funding the child care system with out-of-pocket fees.
This is how the K-12 system works and how the Democrats’ proposed pre-k system works. But it is not how the Democrats’ proposed child care system works
The Democrats’ child care proposal mandates higher wages for child care workers but then does not follow through on the public subsidies for all families. The result will be a massive increase in child care fees for families with incomes slightly above their state’s median income.
According to the Center for American Progress (CAP), the average cost of basic quality center-based infant care is $15,888, with $9,480 going to pay worker wages, $768 going to pay worker benefits, and $2,580 going to pay for administration.
Under the Democratic child care plan, child care worker wages will increase to the wages currently received by elementary school teachers. The median child care worker is currently paid $25,460 per year while the median elementary school teacher is currently paid $60,660 per year. Thus, this mandate will increase child care worker pay by 138 percent. If we increase the salary cost from the CAP estimate above by 138 percent, the unsubsidized price of child care goes from $15,888 per year to $28,970, an increase of $13,082 per year. And this is not the only thing the bill does that will increase the cost of care.
The Democratic child care plan subsidizes the price of child care by replacing flat user fees with a sliding-scale income-based copayment. Costs that exceed a given family’s copayment amount will be picked up by the government.
But in the first 3 years of the program, families with incomes that are just $1 over 100% of the median income (year one), 115% of the median income (year two), or 130% of the median income (year three) will be eligible for zero subsidies, meaning that they will be on the hook for the entire unsubsidized price, which as discussed above will now be at least $13,000 per year higher than before. How much income is too much will depend on the state and depend on how the word “income” is defined (the bill does not define it). But for illustration purposes, note that the median household income last year in the country was $67,521. If this was your state’s median income, then having a family income just $1 higher than that would result in you being ineligible for child care subsidies in 2022 even as the unsubsidized price of child care skyrockets due to the wage and other mandates in the Democratic proposal.
This is obviously a perverse outcome and it’s not clear whether lawmakers even realize what they are about to do.
Under this scenario, there will be many dual-earning couples who cannot afford child care if both of them continue to work, but could afford child care if one of them quit their job and thereby brought their family income below the eligibility cutoff. Normally people who quit jobs to take care of their kids do so in order to save the money they’d have to spend on child care. Under this plan, they have to quit their job in order to afford child care!
For all the talk of child care benefits being a boon to women’s labor force participation, this design clearly pushes against it by making it virtually impossible for a dual-earning middle class couple to afford child care in the first three years of the program.
by Stellar Colonies » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:08 am
Auzkhia wrote:Vassenor wrote:
Where's the anti semitism there?
Some people believe that criticizing penile circumcision is antisemitic. I'm not Jewish but I know plenty of Jewish people observant or not, who critique that practice, but like penile circumcision in west, especially the United States, was not for any religious reasons or tradition but rather sex negativity, i.e. Dr Kellogg popularized and his brother invented Corn Flakes because it would make people less horny basically.
Although this supposed issue is much much more complex, and perhaps blown a little out of proportion
by Kowani » Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:44 am
A woman who claims she was sex trafficked from Costa Rica to the United States says she was victimized by the very people who were supposed to help her— the local police.
The plaintiff, who filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia under the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” alleges that in 2010 she was approached by a woman who suggested she travel to the U.S. to work as an “escort”—a job she says was described as going on dates and attending lavish events with wealthy men. She claims she was not told she would be required to perform sexual acts.
She flew to Virginia on a ticket purchased by her new employer in October 2010 and was allegedly driven to an apartment in Fairfax, Virginia, where she met her new boss, Hazel Marie Sanchez Cerdas. The plaintiff claims Sanchez told her that she would not be going on dates with men, but instead would be having sex with them—and that she knew where her family was and would have them harmed if she did not comply.
The plaintiff claims she was forced to have sex with several men per day for four and a half years, and that all of the proceeds went to Sanchez or her husband.
“By reason of her fear of harm to her family in Costa Rica, Jane Doe was coerced into providing commercial sex, beginning the very day of her arrival in Virginia,” the lawsuit states. The suit also claims that local police officers were complicit in protecting the trafficking ring from authorities, in exchange for sexual services. It alleged that two Fairfax County police officers alerted Sanchez when the department would be doing sex trafficking stings and tipped her off about when they would be searching sites like Backpage.com and Eros.com, where she allegedly advertised her services. In exchange, the suit states, “Sanchez made Jane Doe available to them for sexual services gratis.”
In April 2015, the plaintiff says, she “seized the opportunity to escape” and went to law enforcement. In 2019, Sanchez was charged with—and eventually pleaded guilty to—felony charges related to sex trafficking and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
Multiple women who spoke to the FBI in that case recounted similar stories of being lured to the U.S. by Sanchez’s associates under false pretenses, arriving in Virginia only to be told that they had to provide sexual services for money, according to an arrest affidavit. Often, Sanchez coerced them into staying by threatening their families abroad. One woman was required to let a customer spit in her face, and another insert a bottle into her vagina.
According to the lawsuit, the criminal case was later transferred to the FBI’s Public Corruption Division, where the plaintiff believes the police officers allegedly involved were investigated for their involvement in the trafficking ring. However, the plaintiff says she has not been able to obtain information about the outcome of that investigation from the FBI, and the Fairfax County Police Department has refused to identify the officers involved.
The police department and FBI did not respond to multiple requests for comment. [...] The department also received a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice in 2013 to build an entirely new human trafficking department, including a full-time detective and a full-time crime analyst. An anti-trafficking group called The Polaris Project was given another $500,000 to provide support to trafficking victims in northern Virginia. In a statement at the time, the police department said these funds would help the Northern Virginia Human Trafficking Task Force “continue to take an aggressive and innovative approach to investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases.”
Abolitionism in the North has leagued itself with Radical Democracy, and so the Slave Power was forced to ally itself with the Money Power; that is the great fact of the age.
by The V I C » Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:45 am
Kowani wrote:The Police department that led the Northern Virginia federally-funded task force was sexually abusing victims of traffickingA woman who claims she was sex trafficked from Costa Rica to the United States says she was victimized by the very people who were supposed to help her— the local police.
The plaintiff, who filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia under the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” alleges that in 2010 she was approached by a woman who suggested she travel to the U.S. to work as an “escort”—a job she says was described as going on dates and attending lavish events with wealthy men. She claims she was not told she would be required to perform sexual acts.
She flew to Virginia on a ticket purchased by her new employer in October 2010 and was allegedly driven to an apartment in Fairfax, Virginia, where she met her new boss, Hazel Marie Sanchez Cerdas. The plaintiff claims Sanchez told her that she would not be going on dates with men, but instead would be having sex with them—and that she knew where her family was and would have them harmed if she did not comply.
The plaintiff claims she was forced to have sex with several men per day for four and a half years, and that all of the proceeds went to Sanchez or her husband.
“By reason of her fear of harm to her family in Costa Rica, Jane Doe was coerced into providing commercial sex, beginning the very day of her arrival in Virginia,” the lawsuit states. The suit also claims that local police officers were complicit in protecting the trafficking ring from authorities, in exchange for sexual services. It alleged that two Fairfax County police officers alerted Sanchez when the department would be doing sex trafficking stings and tipped her off about when they would be searching sites like Backpage.com and Eros.com, where she allegedly advertised her services. In exchange, the suit states, “Sanchez made Jane Doe available to them for sexual services gratis.”
In April 2015, the plaintiff says, she “seized the opportunity to escape” and went to law enforcement. In 2019, Sanchez was charged with—and eventually pleaded guilty to—felony charges related to sex trafficking and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
Multiple women who spoke to the FBI in that case recounted similar stories of being lured to the U.S. by Sanchez’s associates under false pretenses, arriving in Virginia only to be told that they had to provide sexual services for money, according to an arrest affidavit. Often, Sanchez coerced them into staying by threatening their families abroad. One woman was required to let a customer spit in her face, and another insert a bottle into her vagina.
According to the lawsuit, the criminal case was later transferred to the FBI’s Public Corruption Division, where the plaintiff believes the police officers allegedly involved were investigated for their involvement in the trafficking ring. However, the plaintiff says she has not been able to obtain information about the outcome of that investigation from the FBI, and the Fairfax County Police Department has refused to identify the officers involved.
The police department and FBI did not respond to multiple requests for comment. [...] The department also received a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice in 2013 to build an entirely new human trafficking department, including a full-time detective and a full-time crime analyst. An anti-trafficking group called The Polaris Project was given another $500,000 to provide support to trafficking victims in northern Virginia. In a statement at the time, the police department said these funds would help the Northern Virginia Human Trafficking Task Force “continue to take an aggressive and innovative approach to investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases.”
by Kowani » Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:34 am
Abolitionism in the North has leagued itself with Radical Democracy, and so the Slave Power was forced to ally itself with the Money Power; that is the great fact of the age.
by Neutraligon » Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:39 pm
Kowani wrote:The Police department that led the Northern Virginia federally-funded task force was sexually abusing victims of traffickingA woman who claims she was sex trafficked from Costa Rica to the United States says she was victimized by the very people who were supposed to help her— the local police.
The plaintiff, who filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for Eastern Virginia under the pseudonym “Jane Doe,” alleges that in 2010 she was approached by a woman who suggested she travel to the U.S. to work as an “escort”—a job she says was described as going on dates and attending lavish events with wealthy men. She claims she was not told she would be required to perform sexual acts.
She flew to Virginia on a ticket purchased by her new employer in October 2010 and was allegedly driven to an apartment in Fairfax, Virginia, where she met her new boss, Hazel Marie Sanchez Cerdas. The plaintiff claims Sanchez told her that she would not be going on dates with men, but instead would be having sex with them—and that she knew where her family was and would have them harmed if she did not comply.
The plaintiff claims she was forced to have sex with several men per day for four and a half years, and that all of the proceeds went to Sanchez or her husband.
“By reason of her fear of harm to her family in Costa Rica, Jane Doe was coerced into providing commercial sex, beginning the very day of her arrival in Virginia,” the lawsuit states. The suit also claims that local police officers were complicit in protecting the trafficking ring from authorities, in exchange for sexual services. It alleged that two Fairfax County police officers alerted Sanchez when the department would be doing sex trafficking stings and tipped her off about when they would be searching sites like Backpage.com and Eros.com, where she allegedly advertised her services. In exchange, the suit states, “Sanchez made Jane Doe available to them for sexual services gratis.”
In April 2015, the plaintiff says, she “seized the opportunity to escape” and went to law enforcement. In 2019, Sanchez was charged with—and eventually pleaded guilty to—felony charges related to sex trafficking and was sentenced to 30 months in prison.
Multiple women who spoke to the FBI in that case recounted similar stories of being lured to the U.S. by Sanchez’s associates under false pretenses, arriving in Virginia only to be told that they had to provide sexual services for money, according to an arrest affidavit. Often, Sanchez coerced them into staying by threatening their families abroad. One woman was required to let a customer spit in her face, and another insert a bottle into her vagina.
According to the lawsuit, the criminal case was later transferred to the FBI’s Public Corruption Division, where the plaintiff believes the police officers allegedly involved were investigated for their involvement in the trafficking ring. However, the plaintiff says she has not been able to obtain information about the outcome of that investigation from the FBI, and the Fairfax County Police Department has refused to identify the officers involved.
The police department and FBI did not respond to multiple requests for comment. [...] The department also received a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Justice in 2013 to build an entirely new human trafficking department, including a full-time detective and a full-time crime analyst. An anti-trafficking group called The Polaris Project was given another $500,000 to provide support to trafficking victims in northern Virginia. In a statement at the time, the police department said these funds would help the Northern Virginia Human Trafficking Task Force “continue to take an aggressive and innovative approach to investigating and prosecuting human trafficking cases.”
by Neutraligon » Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:59 pm
by Des-Bal » Thu Oct 21, 2021 3:18 pm
Neutraligon wrote:Why was that an acceptable plea deal?
by Fahran » Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:49 pm
Deanson wrote:Always found it odd how most Americans just commonly accept a barbaric practice from an ancient middle eastern religion that wasn't and still isn't present in mainland Europe, the place from which most of American culture originally derived. Research reveals a combination of Zionist and Puritan fuckery which caused it, rather unsurprisingly I suppose.
by Fahran » Thu Oct 21, 2021 7:51 pm
Des-Bal wrote:I don't know the charge or the specifics of the deal but based on the players they probably got a hand going after other people. There's also the issue that the sentence for being a human trafficker who the jury was only MOSTLY sure was guilty is that you go free without restriction and can never be charged again.
by Kowani » Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:46 pm
Students in the Magnolia Independent School District in suburban Houston must adhere to several requirements when it comes to their hairstyles. Those include keeping their locks "clean, well-groomed, and worn out of the eyes," maintaining "appropriate hygiene at all times" and having a "natural hair color."
For males, the districtwide policy is even stricter: no beards, mustaches or long sideburns; hair can't be pinned up in a bun or held in a ponytail; and its length shouldn't be longer than the bottom of the ear. For at least six boys, and one student assigned male at birth who identifies as nonbinary, having hair longer than permitted has come at a steep cost this school year: They've been suspended.
A federal lawsuit filed Thursday on behalf of those students by the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas argues the punishment is biased and violates both their constitutional rights and Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in schools. The students, who are identified by their initials, are seeking an injunction to halt enforcement of the policy.
"They have been denied classroom instruction, barred from extracurricular activities, and forced to be suspended and separated from their peers for well over a month simply because these students do not conform to Magnolia ISD's stereotypical notions of gender," according to the suit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
The school district said Thursday it was reviewing the suit and that its administration and school board are also looking at grievances filed by parents.
"Magnolia ISD respects varying viewpoints, and we respect the rights of citizens to advocate for change," spokeswoman Denise Meyers said in an email, adding that schools are regularly asked to accommodate children based on religion, gender identity, disabilities and other reasons, and that "Magnolia ISD considers all factors set out in law when considering such requests."
A survey last year by the ACLU of Texas found that nearly 500 public school districts in the state have some form of a boys-only hair-length rule. [...] Brian Klosterboer, an ACLU staff attorney, said the Magnolia School District appears to be taking discipline to a level that's detrimental to the students' learning. The students, he added, are not academically troubled or would otherwise be considered problem students.
One of the boys is Latino and wears a long ponytail, emulating his father and uncle with a hairstyle that is part of the family's heritage, Klosterboer said. The boy, who is 9 years old and in elementary school, was initially placed in in-school suspension for more than a month, then forced into a disciplinary alternative education program at another site, according to the suit. He is now homeschooled, while his sister, who attends the same elementary school and has long hair, was not disciplined. "I don't think we've encountered what Magnolia is doing — that they're punishing a significant number of students," he said. "Three students have been pushed out of school. Three were suspended and in in-school suspension for five weeks."
Klosterboer said the students were looking forward to being back in the classroom for in-person learning after a school year of challenges and disruptions during the pandemic. He said he's unsure why the school district has "vigorously enforced" its hair policy, but that one of the plaintiffs has had long hair for the past five years without incurring disciplinary action. Over the summer, some students and parents voiced opposition to the policy during a school board meeting. In a previous statement, the school district said it has had a dress code policy "for many years."
"The differentiated dress and grooming standards do not violate Title IX and are included in the student handbook each year," the statement said. "Magnolia ISD's approach to the dress code reflects the values of our community at large."
But Danielle Miller, whose 11-year-old child, Tristan, is nonbinary and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, disagrees. The length of Tristan's hair, which falls to the shoulders, and how they wear it does not diminish her child's ability to learn, Miller said, and their teachers are accepting of it.
"Tristan feels strong and confident with long hair," Miller said. "Tristan's hair is always clean and out of their face. I straighten it every couple of days because they like it that way. Sometimes they like to wear a ponytail or barrettes."
But administrators in the school district recognize her child as being male, Miller said, which has led to Tristan's suspension for nine days and they potentially face further punishment if they don't cut their hair. Miller added that she doesn't want to have to pull her child out of school.
The dispute over acceptable hairstyles boils down to this for Tristan, Miller said: "'It's dumb, Mom. It's just dumb that they don't accept, Mom.'"
Abolitionism in the North has leagued itself with Radical Democracy, and so the Slave Power was forced to ally itself with the Money Power; that is the great fact of the age.
by Des-Bal » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:00 am
Fahran wrote:It's infuriating, especially because I'm certain a lot of these pond scum will not face proper justice in their lifetimes. Slavers should be tried, convicted, and shot in accordance with the law, and the law should be written in such a way.
by Kowani » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:10 am
Abolitionism in the North has leagued itself with Radical Democracy, and so the Slave Power was forced to ally itself with the Money Power; that is the great fact of the age.
by Stellar Colonies » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:24 pm
The Womyns State wrote:"men's rights" as described in the OP are misogyny.
by Vassenor » Fri Oct 22, 2021 3:46 pm
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Fri Oct 22, 2021 9:24 pm
The Womyns State wrote:"men's rights" as described in the OP are misogyny.
by Kowani » Fri Oct 22, 2021 11:51 pm
Abolitionism in the North has leagued itself with Radical Democracy, and so the Slave Power was forced to ally itself with the Money Power; that is the great fact of the age.
by The Xenopolis Confederation » Sat Oct 23, 2021 3:39 am
Users browsing this forum: Aguaria Major, American Legionaries, Atrito, Bradfordville, Diopolis, Equai, Floofybit, Gragastavia, Greater Miami Shores 3, Hakinda Herseyi Duymak istiyorum, Hauthamatra, Kubra, Leranea, Molchistan, Mtwara, Perchan, Phage, Port Caverton, Stellar Colonies, Tarsonis, The Jamesian Republic, Xind
