TempermentalAnomaly @ TempermentalAnomaly @lemmy.world

Posts

26

Comments

629

Joined

2 yr. ago

Melville spends a chapter comparing the different interpretations of whiteness in Moby Dick. This article talks about that, but I recommend reading the chapter if you get a chance.

If you see the dancing bear, you're just round the corner.

Two and a half imperial bushels

If [I buy wheat] at Wrexham, [I must order] by the hobbet of one hundred and sixty eight [pounds] [76 kg]. But, even if I do happen to know what a hobbet of wheat means at Wrexham, that knowledge good for Flint is not good for Caernarvonshire. A hobbet of wheat at Pwlheli contains eighty-four pounds [38 kg] more than a hobbet at Wrexham; and a hobbet of oats is something altogether different; and a hobbet of barley is something altogether different again.

Tad
Dash
Smidge
A bit
Just a moment
Monarchical Inch
A peck
A hobbit

Don't worry. They'll get over and then speed up so you'll have to do 90 to pass them.

That's only if you think the only thing that changed was 110. Clearly, it was not.

Portugal never mandated treatment. It require a hearing by a local board made of experts including medical personelle. The quote you cited is clear about this, but you state otherwise. And the quote correctly notes that Oregon does have this or some of the other additional measure.

More importantly, what is missing from the quote, is the boards rarely ever forced people into treatment. The article you quote goes on to state the following:

The sites include social workers and mental health professionals to encourage people to enter treatment. The goal is to start people on a path to health — even if they don’t start treatment immediately, said Brendan Saloner, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“The entire kind of logic of the rooms is very much designed around: ‘Let’s bring these folks indoors, they’re using drugs. They are here in our community,’” he said.

If that quote didn't drive home the central principles, this one should:

“The key innovation of Portugal is having services that people need when they need them,” he said. “And I think that a lot of the bones of that could kind of come together in Oregon, but it’s going to take resources, time and patience.”

We didn't do that. Forcing people into treatment was never the solution.

People continually seize upon this 1% figure. The subtext, and explicitly your's, is "addicts are addicts and they won't get help if you don't force them." The reality is much more complicated and individual than that. It varies from individual to individual and where they are in the addiction and recovery events. Addicts are often in the grips of multiple, complicating issues include mental health and trauma. They usually lack the education and framing to see that clearly and the addiction can be the way they cope. Many want help, want to change, don't know how to, don't believe they can, and when do, them moment passes all too quickly.

The solution, of course, is to make them go to treatment. But this does not work and continued thinking that it will is a mixture of hopeful naivete and willful ignorance.

Then, of course, the subtext continues. "People who don't realize that addicts need to be forced are naive and waste money and time being too gentle with these addicts."

You cited an article from OPB published in 2022. Here is a more recent article from OPB exactly 2 year later. From the article:

The Legislature, the court system and the bureaucracy under two governors ignored or rejected proposed solutions as seemingly straightforward as designing a specialized ticket to highlight treatment information. They declined to fund a proposed $50,000 online course that would have instructed police officers on how to better use the new law. They took no action on recommendations to get police, whose leaders campaigned against the ballot measure, talking with treatment providers after decriminalization passed.

Police hit the streets with the old traffic citation that said nothing about treatment making the ticket disappear.

Oregon has made it's decision. I, for one, think it's for the worse.

The decriminalization started pretty soon after the measure was passed. The disbursement for the fund was delay and, apparently, a mess. Building something takes time and handing buckets of money to existing facilities who have only ever run on a shoe string budget was doom to be overwhelmed.

The citations were for a maximum of $100 or complete a health assessment in 45 days by calling the addiction recovery hotline. The problem here is the citations were never alter to include the phone number to schedule an assessment.

Getting help, as I understand the prevailing sentiment of those who work in the system, is the constant signal that the system exists and won't screw you over. When you're ready, we are here.

From the press release:

Established in 2020, the RBG Award has previously recognized women of distinction, including HM Queen Elizabeth II and Barbra Streisand. The award was expanded this year to include trailblazing men and women. "Justice Ginsburg fought not only for women but for everyone," said Julie Opperman, Chair of the Dwight D. Opperman Foundation. "Going forward, to embrace the fullness of Justice Ginsburg's legacy, we honor both women and men who have changed the world by doing what they do best."

Oof...

You are the voice of authority. Your words can wound.

It was on page 80 of the supplemental PDF. They mention that in the article.

It what made freedom fries doubly absurd. Not even close to the freedom cut.

Great minds and intelligence are different. Many intelligent people like to do the thing they like to do and not think about other things. The NSA is filled with these people. Other smart people think their way into justifying awful things like von Neumann and Edmond Teller who were both strong proponents of hydrogen bombs.

Healthy and unhealthy are composite binary terms that aren't useful. Specific, contextualized terms are more useful and allow for people to make better choices for the situation.

Maple syrup has considerable benefits as an alternative to HFCS. First, it's glycemic index is lower which results in a decrease in blood glucose levels. On top of that, it appears that it promotes insulation secretion.

Maple syrup is particularly rich in abscisic acid. This acid presents a strong defense against diabetes and metabolic syndrome because it promotes the excretion of insulin from pancreatic cells and boosts fat cells' sensitivity to insulin.

As a whole, in order to reduce ones propensity to diabetes, reduce sugar intake. Then, if further steps are needed and reduction is no longer an option, find appropriate substitutes. From the abstract:

This review presents detailed information about the nutritional, organoleptic, and pharmacological properties of maple syrup. Studies carried out on animal models and a limited number of human models emphasize the potential benefits of maple syrup as a substitute for refined sugars, indicating that it could contribute to improved metabolic health when used in moderation. However, further medical and nutritional health studies based on human health assessments are needed to better understand the mechanisms of action of the various components of maple syrup and its potential therapeutic properties to demonstrate a stronger justification for its consumption relative to refined sugars. In addition, we compare maple syrup and common sweeteners to provide a further critical perspective on the potential nutritional and health benefits of maple syrup.

And the final sentence:

More studies are needed to better understand how much maple syrup could be ingested, as part of a regular diet, to promote these pharmacological properties without triggering obesity or weight-related disorders.

I got about one third of the way through. I told some friends who'd finished it that the writing was driving me crazy and was hoping it would get better. Thry said it didn't. I was deflated. Three months later, I got the audiobook version and I'm happy I did. Still not finished, but some of it inspired me to pick up the book again and review select passages.

Your initial presentation was vague. I agree that it could be made clear, but your initial posts just hinted at it.

There are some similarities and a some important differences. If you don't acknowledge the differences. I think you haphazardly write responses with half remembered idiomatic expressions, sensationalism, and simplistic thinking.

With that said, you land in positions I might agree with. But you do a disservice to leftists. Do better.

I was contending "Nazis lost the election to Hindenburg ... and came to power anyway in 1933 regardless." Hitler didn't come to power for some amorphous reasons, but specific decisions by people in power. I agree that material conditions are important, but it's so vague here that it's meaningless and can be shifted at any point in this discussion to support your position.

The Nazis agitated support on multiple fronts including electoral politics. Hindenburg surrounded himself with other military conservative and as conditions in the streets continued to worse economically and support swung to the nsdap, they urged him to give support to Hitler. However, the Nazis had won a plurality of the vote in every Reitsrat election starting in 1930.

Electoral politics alone isn't the answer. Never was. Garnering support on the ground is difficult work.

Hidenberg handed Hitler the chancellorship. Hidenberg, the only check on the Nazi power, remained president until his death until 1934. After which, using the Enabling Act, Hitler was able to proclaim himself both chancellor and president.

Hitler becomes chancellor because Brünig, Hidenberg, Papen, and Schleicher all think they can control and temper Hitler all while staying in power and keeping the left wing out of power.