About a year ago I asked the grandmother who recently passed away whether she would want euthanasia. Despite being a devout Christian who firmly believed that suicide is a sin, she said "Yes, absolutely". She said that she didn't consider it to be suicide at that point. She felt that she had lived her full life, given what she could to the world, and was now only detracting from the world by burdening others.

Personally, I don't belive that she was detracting from the world, even in her state, but she was obviously miserable. Also, maybe her adult children who were taking care of her would have seen it differently since caring for her really put restrictions on their lives.

I had two grandmother's who made it to 95. One passed earlier this year. The other is still doing great, though starting to slow down.

The one who passed essentially spent the last several years wishing it was over. Mentally she was still there but her body was failing her. She could barely see or hear. She also had no balance. Essentially, she was a prisoner in her body. She repeatedly told people that she wished it was over.

My other grandmother is still doing as well as can be expected, both cognitively and physically. She is still active doing huge crafting projects and winning competitions. Even so, she has made it very clear that she is ready to go whenever it's her time. All of her friends are gone. She has outlived every family member her generation as well as one of her children. She spends most of her time at home doing the same things day after day. Friends and family visit sometimes but not often enough. She can't travel anymore so she has to wait for others to come to her.

Based on my two grandmothers' experiences, I honestly think old age should be considered to be a terminal disease where we offer "compassionate care" as a dignified option.

You think he'd answer if she called to plan for Milton instead?

"It's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission" was coined by Admiral Grace Hopper for use in a very different context. It is intended to mean that, when dealing with a beaurocracy like the military, it is often easier to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.

She certainly wouldn't have intended for it to be used in the context of theft.

I think you mean "complicit" rather than "complacent", though both could be true I suppose.

I'm actually asking. What is meant here? That Israel isn't a real country? Or did I miss something?

I'm afraid to ask but, what do you mean by "false country"?

I'm actually not sure of he said state or federal prison. I thought he said federal. I expect you're right, though, that it is county jail, then state prison.

Thank you. I'm glad to see someone else saying this. RawStory should be banned. They are as much disinformation as anything on the right. They take things out of context, twist the wording, and sometimes blatantly lie just to create rage bait. The biggest things they achieve making the left look as bad as the right and giving Trump legitimate ammunition to use when he says the media are out to get him.

After watching the sentencing, she has been sent to county jail for now. Her lawyer motioned to have her released on bond while they appeal, but the judge denied that. They are going to appeal, who knows what will happen there,but she is in county jail right this moment.

If nothing changes, and I understood sentencing correctly, she will remain in county jail for six months then get transferred to federal prison for the remainder of her sentence.

No one is shocked by this. The conservative politicians knew what the outcome would be and the people who voted for them aren't hearing about this inside their echo chambers.

I expect that, if more conservative voters actually heard about women actually dying from these bans, some of the more moderate ones would switch sides on the issue. They're not hearing about it, though. I brought it up with an anti-abortion family member and they hadn't heard anything about the deaths attributable to abortion bans.

It was actually pretty interesting to listen to the sentencing. It's about 20 minutes. The judge goes through all of the options at his disposal and discusses his the rationale that he used to arrive at a prison sentence.

He had the option of sentencing her to parole, community service, or incarceration. He then described her as unrepentant, the most defiant defendant the court has ever seen, and a continuing danger to society. He also discussed that he considers how a sentence will act as deterrent for the defendant directly (not at all in this case) and for others who might seek to commit similar crimes as well as punishment. He determined that Mrs Peters would immediately go commit the same crimes again given the opportunity, that community deterrence is important, and that punishment was warranted.

He also went through her mitigating circumstances. He compared her circumstances to the typical defendant that his court sees and characterized her as extremely privileged with few mitigating circumstances and many aggravating ones. He said that she simply sought power, prestige, and wealth without a care for who she harmed. He characterized her as an unrepentant liar and a fraud who lied every chance she got including about why she kicked a police officer while on video.

Based on his rationale, he decided that removing Tina Peter's from the community was in the best interests of the community.

TL/DR The judge didn't like Mrs Peters very much.

Even when I do this, there are three or four uses remaining up near the tip. No matter how hard I squeeze or what method I use, there is always some left until I cut it open.

This graphic is nice enough to state that it is only based on 1901 respondents to an online survey. How many of those respondents could possibly be speaking for Nordstrom employees? Certainly not many. Also, how much does selection bias play a role in this survey?

I like the message, but the statistics likely make this info useless...

Adding more to this. If we assume that the 1901 responses were evenly distributed across the 34 companies mentioned in the graphic, we get about 56 responses per company. That would give a margin of error of +/- 13.1% for the numbers. So, even without any kind of bias, most of these numbers are junk...

We have one $450 Toto and one cheap one from Luxe that currently sells on Amazon for $63. I actually prefer the Luxe because it sprays harder. It just uses the ambient water pressure while the Toto self-pressurizes. I think my wife prefers the Toto because of the other functions like the heated seat and the preheated water.

When I have to poop away from home I feel like a barbarian. I seriously miss the bidets when I travel or have to poop at work.

Again, let me preface this by saying that I do not like Trump and think that he is terrible for the country. I'm just saying that he says enough awful shit that we don't need to twist the truth or lie.

Okay, two things here. First, the statement that Trump "cut overtime for millions of Americans as President" has been rated as "Mostly False" by PolitiFact.

PolitiFact ruling: Mostly False. When contacted for comment, the Harris-Walz campaign pointed to news articles showing that former President Barack Obama proposed to extend overtime pay eligibility to more workers, but a judge blocked it in November 2016, just before it was slated to take effect. The Trump administration did not challenge the judge’s ruling and instead set its own overtime rule, which extended overtime pay to millions fewer people than Obama’s rule would have done.

The Obama rule was not in effect at the time Trump took office, so Trump’s administration did not cut an existing benefit.

Second, that's not even what this article is about. This is about him saying the following:

I know a lot about overtime. I hated to give overtime. I hated it. I'd get ... I shouldn't say this ... I'd get other people in. I wouldn't pay. I hated it.

So, what does he say there? He hated paying overtime so he would bring in new people to take over the work. He didn't stiff them. He sent them home after working a full shift and brought in new people to take over.

Now, he may have (probably did) stiff workers in other ways. This is not evidence of that.

I know that he does screw over employees, but how is that the case in this circumstance? He is sending workers home before they hit overtime and bringing in a different shift of workers. Every business does that. Every business attempts to minimize the amount of overtime that they pay. In fact, that's the point of overtime laws, to disincentivize working employees too many hours.

I'm not defending him as a person. I'm saying this is shitty journalism that just gives him something additional to point at when he says that the media lies about him. We shouldn't be giving him that ammo.

I despise Trump. I want him to lose. This kind of "journalism" needs to die so that the real stories about him don't get buried by half truths and lies. Trump says enough shitty, faschist things that we don't need to twist his words like this.

Trump said that he hates paying people overtime so, if they're getting close to overtime, he brings other people in. He does what every business does and implements shifts. He didn't say that he screws people out of overtime pay for time they worked. He avoids overtime pay by bringing in a new shift of workers.

How often Trump stiffs his employees and contractors for real is a good story. This story is essentially a lie that attempts to portray Trump badly but really only makes "the left" look bad.

Don't lie and ruin the credibility of left-leaning media. Use the real ammo that Trump drops like bread crumbs everywhere he goes.

Actually, an example of this just popped up. This article states that Trump admitted to stiffing his employees by not paying overtime. If you listen to the video at the bottom, though, he said that he hates paying overtime and would "get different people in".

He didn't require people to work, then fail to pay them overtime. He would send the workers home and bring in a new shift.

I wouldn't call that stiffing his employees. I wouldn't even call that controversial. This article twists Trump's words to make up a story about him rather than focus on the very real threat that he poses. It dilutes the negative press against him and makes it look like the left are liars, just out to get Trump.

This kind of journalism needs to die. Trump is an awful human being and says plenty of awful stuff. We don't need to bend the truth or lie about him. We just need to report the actual shitty stiff he says.

I don't have anything at my fingertips. I thought I had some comments on articles that bothered me in that way, but maybe I never finished those comments. I had problems with lemmy not letting me post with my vpn turned on...

I've had several times recently where I felt that an article was making a mountain of a mole hill to make Trump look worse. I wrote, but apparently didn't post, comments saying, effectively, "Trump makes himself look bad enough without exaggerating or lying. Tell the truth about what he says and he looks like a fascist maniac. Exaggerate and you make people wonder if you're always stretching the truth.