HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » ShazzieB » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »

ShazzieB

Profile Information

Name: Sharon
Gender: Female
Hometown: Chicago area, IL
Home country: USA
Member since: Tue Mar 26, 2013, 04:18 AM
Number of posts: 3,434

Journal Archives

This is nicely done, but I have one problem with it.

I'm not crazy about the idea of making vaccinated people responsible for convincing the unvaxxed to do the right thing. It's not our job!

The more people get vaccinated, the better it is for everybody. I get that. I just don't feel like taking on yet another responsibility, on top of masking, social distancing, and getting myself fully vaxxed.

I don't know what the answer is. Obviously, they need to be convinced, but not all of them are convinceable. I believe there is a subset of the vaccine resistant who might be swayed, using the right approach(es). But I don't know how to do it, and being vaxxed myself actually works AGAINST any credibility I might have with these people.

And getting back to what I said in the beginning, it's not my job to convince stupid people to get vaccinated, and I kind of resent the idea of the Detroit Free Press, or anybody else, telling me it is. As I also said above, I don't know what the answer is. I just don't like the idea of somebody trying to dump this in MY lap and make it MY job, just because I had enough sense to get vaccinated myself.

I will always speak out in favor of getting vaccinated, and I will always encourage people to get their jab if the opportunity presents itself. The recipients of any information I provide will then decide what to do with it. I am NOT responsible for getting them to change their minds.

Maybe I'm just overreacting and being weird about this. I don't know. All I know is how I feel right now, and how I feel is, well, everything I just wrote!

People who say things like that are invariably massively uninformed

about what the nazis were REALLY like.

A venn diagram with one circle representing people who know what REALLY happened during the Holocaust and another curcle representing people who say stuff like that quote would look like this: 🅾️🅾️

Especially if you are in certain parts of the country.

Where I live (a purple county in a blue state), it's not nearly so bad. Cases started going up when Delta came to town, but we have a governor who wasn't afraid to bring back the mask mandate for indoor spaces, and we have a pretty high vaccine rate as well. Covid cases are still up compared to July, but nowhere near what they are in places like Texas, Florida, and all the other red states with loons for governors.

Of course, the farther south you go in this state, the redder it gets, the lower the vaxx rate is, and the worse the covid statistics are. Those areas are also more rural and much less densely populated, but the most densely populated (and bluest) part of the state (Chicago/Cook County and the so-called "collar counties" that surround it) has a much lower per capita rate of covid cases and deaths than some southern Illinois counties, which says a lot to me.

When I read about what's going on down south and in the northwest, I feel like I'm living on a different planet. My heart goes out to all of you who are having to deal with having your own health care needs neglected due to the unvaccinated hordes that are clogging up the health care system.

I am and have always been a C.

This stuff DOES takes time, you get only one chance, it's huge, and more stuff is being discovered which just adds to the time the whole thing takes.

I am pretty sick and tired of people beating up on Garland over this. None of us knows jack shit about what he's got on his plate, what he's up against, or what it might take to actually convict TFG of anything.

Even the people here who are lawyers and have an understanding of the process of investigating a case, bringing it to trial, and getting a conviction, don't know all the details and specifics of this particular case. And I've noticed that the lawyers among us are mostly telling us to be patient and give Garland a chance.

It's way too easy for people sit here and enumerate all the things they think he's doing wrong and the things they think he should be doing that he's not doing (as far as we know, which is NOT very damned far), when they don't actually know the first thing about it.

Because his daddy told him so.

That's where his narcissism originally stemmed from. When Fred saw that his oldest son wasn't going to follow in his footsteps, he began grooming his next oldest son to do so. From that time on, little Donnie was the Golden Child who could do no wrong in his father's eyes. He could and did get away with anything and everything, and his 2 sisters and younger brother went along with it, because to do otherwise would have meant defying Fred Almighty.

I'm very clear on that part of the story, thanks to Mary Trump’s book. How he managed to continue getting away with so much after Fred was gone, all the way up to becoming president and using the powers of the office in all sorts of nefarious ways -- well, that part escapes me!

That "You will burn in hell for all eternity if you [fill in the blank]!" crap is powerful stuff.

At least it is for some. I got it mostly in church, rather from my parents, but I was the kind of compliant trusting child who believed what I was told unquestioningly until I got old enough to think for myself. (Yes, we DO exist.)

By my mid-twenties, I had started to intellectually reject a lot of the things I was taught, but there was a deeply buried, existential "...but what if I'm wrong?" fear that took years longer to fully dispel.

It's gone now, but I still remember what it was like and how powerful it was.

I couldn't remember who Erica/Erika Casher is, so I googled.

I'm not in a place where I can watch the video right now so I googled the name to find out who KO was talking about. Found out she was the rude woman who laughed at the boy in the school board meeting in Tennessee. (I had seen the video but never knew what her name was.)

I found out two other things that I'll mention here, just for the record:

1. Her name is Erika (not Erica) Casher, but it's been spelled both ways in various news stories, and different things turn up on Google, depending on which spelling you use.

2. There seems to be some confusion as to whether she was actually fired from her job at Cigna. The supposed firing was originally reported in a tweet, as a "someone who knows her told me" type story, but hasn't been confirmed by Cigna, according to some news sources.

I mention the above for context. Will watch the KO video as soon as I can. Also planning to do some more digging to see if there's ever been any confirmation on the firing.

Companies CAN and DO "hire and fire for arbitrary reasons."

At least in the U.S. they can. Every state in the U.S. except Montana has what is called "at-will" employment. This means that, with certain exceptions,, employers can fire an employee at any time for any reason (or no reason).

You may not agree with this (I don't care for it myself), but that is the law here in the good old USA.

The following quotes are from this source: https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/at-will-employment-overview.aspx

Employment relationships are presumed to be “at-will” in all U.S. states except Montana. The U.S. is one of a handful of countries where employment is predominantly at-will. Most countries throughout the world allow employers to dismiss employees only for cause. Some reasons given for our retention of the at-will presumption include respect for freedom of contract, employer deference, and the belief that both employers and employees favor an at-will employment relationship over job security.

A. At-Will Defined

At-will means that an employer can terminate an employee at any time for any reason, except an illegal one, or for no reason without incurring legal liability. Likewise, an employee is free to leave a job at any time for any or no reason with no adverse legal consequences.

At-will also means that an employer can change the terms of the employment relationship with no notice and no consequences. For example, an employer can alter wages, terminate benefits, or reduce paid time off. In its unadulterated form, the U.S. at-will rule leaves employees vulnerable to arbitrary and sudden dismissal, a limited or on-call work schedule depending on the employer’s needs, and unannounced cuts in pay and benefits.


The only way to change this is to get the labor laws changed. There are movements to do that in some states, but since it has to be done on the state level, it's going to take a long time. Especially since employers are like being able to hire and fire (especially the latter) at will and will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. In the meantime, this is how things are.


That said, I fully support this woman's firing for completely different reasons. As a nurse, she's a member of a profession that is bound by a code of ethics. I believe she violated that code in multiple ways by mocking someone who was talking about the death of a loved one and by working against scientifically based public health measures (i.e., masking to prevent the spread of covid). No, she wasn't on the job at the time, but I don't think that matters. Nursing is a profession, not just a job, and her behavior was a disgrace to that profession. She fully deserved to lose her job.

The Texas Abortion Ban Hinges On 'Fetal Heartbeat.' Doctors Call That Misleading

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/02/1033727679/fetal-heartbeat-isnt-a-medical-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion

The Texas abortion law that went into effect this week reads: "A physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child."

The new law defines "fetal heartbeat" as "cardiac activity or the steady and repetitive rhythmic contraction of the fetal heart within the gestational sac" and claims that a pregnant woman could use that signal to determine "the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to full-term birth."

But the medical-sounding term "fetal heartbeat" is being used in this law — and others like it — in a misleading way, say physicians who specialize in reproductive health.

"When I use a stethoscope to listen to an [adult] patient's heart, the sound that I'm hearing is caused by the opening and closing of the cardiac valves," says Dr. Nisha Verma, an OB-GYN who specializes in abortion care and works at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

The sound generated by an ultrasound in very early pregnancy is quite different, she says. "At six weeks of gestation, those valves don't exist," she explains. "The flickering that we're seeing on the ultrasound that early in the development of the pregnancy is actually electrical activity, and the sound that you 'hear' is actually manufactured by the ultrasound machine."

More at source: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/09/02/1033727679/fetal-heartbeat-isnt-a-medical-term-but-its-still-used-in-laws-on-abortion

MY COMMENTS: Of course, the "heartbeat" aspect of the new Texas law is only a tiny fraction of what's wrong with it. But I think knowing that the law is literally based on a fallacy and uses language that is both medically incorrect and deliberately misleading (like calling an embryo a fetus) puts the whole thing into an even sharper focus. I recommend clicking on the link and reading the whole article, because the amount we're allowed to post here is so limited. There is NO paywall at npr.org.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next »