Page 536 of 667 FirstFirst ... 36436486526532533534535536537538539540546586636 ... LastLast
Results 8,026 to 8,040 of 10005
  1. #8026
    Guardian Empress of Earth Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,083

    Default

    Drug companies seek removal of judge in landmark opioid case

    Drug companies facing more than 2,000 lawsuits over their alleged roles in the opioid epidemic demanded Saturday that the federal judge overseeing the case step aside, questioning his impartiality because he has consistently urged both sides to settle the case.

    The request comes after a series of rulings against the companies by U.S. District Judge Dan Aaron Polster in the landmark trial slated to begin Oct. 21.

    “Defendants do not bring this motion lightly,” the lawyers wrote in a filing Saturday morning on behalf of some of the nation’s biggest drug distributors and retailers but no drug manufacturers. “Taken as a whole and viewed objectively, the record clearly demonstrates that recusal is necessary.”

    The defense lawyers contended that Polster has overstepped his authority and created the appearance of bias. They cited his statements since the beginning of the case that he wants the sides to settle so that money for badly-needed drug treatment, overdose prevention and other services could go quickly to communities hard hit by the opioid epidemic.
    Last month, an appellate court admonished some of the defendants for a legal attack on Polster over an unrelated question. The panel of appellate judges said their claim that Polster’s “assurances are not entitled to our respect because [he] has been deceptive or duplicitous...is a very serious allegation and we find no merit to it.”
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  2. #8027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Oh, get ooff it with this nonsense. No one who supports the current Republican party gets to talk to anybody about being judicious about accusations of racism. And to indulge your question would have been a waste of my time, since 'different policy outcomes' had little to do with the point I raised in the first place. I rerierate: Your party is a racist dumpster fire that makes it very difficult for anyone to take your complaints about being 'unfairly tarnished' seriously.
    The discourse about racism is pretty toxic right now, and it isn't helped by liberals using the allegation excessively when it's supposed to carry a great moral weight.

    One problem with the discourse is that there are multiple definitions of racism and racist used inconsistently on the left, whereas the right is more likely to stick with the classic definition: someone who is opposed to others because of their race. In this sense, it's a pretty big insult, the equivalent of saying that someone is scum, their family should abandon them, their employer should fire them, their friends should be pariahs if they offer support in any way, and the world will be better off with them dead. That does appear to be the way you're using it right now, but there is often some category creep as it's often used in other ways which makes having policy discussions more difficult.

    The word is also used to describe people who participate in institutions with inequitable outcomes, and within some progressive organizations by white people discussing their own shortcomings, who presumably don't believe it would be the moral obligation of siblings to keep them away from nephews and nieces. So that makes it tougher to have conversations about ending racism since people with different definitions will talk post one another. Granted, there is also the difference of opinion of what constitutes behavior that is racist and worthy of moral opprobrium. If the Washington Post publishes a claim that a writer's concern about birthrates or a lawyer's discussion of particularity — ethnic, cultural, religious of nations is definitive evidence of white nationalism, it's the left-wing media crying wolf, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously when actual wolves show up.

    As for how things would be different if Obama hadn't been as conciliatory towards Republicans, the elections probably would have gone worse without the claim to the moral high ground.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    This is what Wikipedia has to say about the author



    It never hurts to consider where the opinion is coming from, who is it that is writing the opinion, when reading an Opinion Column.
    And this makes him factually wrong in his editorial because?

    And I get the crying wolf comparison, but stuff he wrote as a college student isn't the equivalent of material published in the New York Times, and an organization as prestigious as the Washington Post.

  3. #8028
    Guardian Empress of Earth Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The discourse about racism is pretty toxic right now, and it isn't helped by liberals using the allegation excessively when it's supposed to carry a great moral weight.

    One problem with the discourse is that there are multiple definitions of racism and racist used inconsistently on the left, whereas the right is more likely to stick with the classic definition: someone who is opposed to others because of their race. In this sense, it's a pretty big insult, the equivalent of saying that someone is scum, their family should abandon them, their employer should fire them, their friends should be pariahs if they offer support in any way, and the world will be better off with them dead. That does appear to be the way you're using it right now, but there is often some category creep as it's often used in other ways which makes having policy discussions more difficult.

    The word is also used to describe people who participate in institutions with inequitable outcomes, and within some progressive organizations by white people discussing their own shortcomings, who presumably don't believe it would be the moral obligation of siblings to keep them away from nephews and nieces. So that makes it tougher to have conversations about ending racism since people with different definitions will talk post one another. Granted, there is also the difference of opinion of what constitutes behavior that is racist and worthy of moral opprobrium. If the Washington Post publishes a claim that a writer's concern about birthrates or a lawyer's discussion of particularity — ethnic, cultural, religious of nations is definitive evidence of white nationalism, it's the left-wing media crying wolf, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously when actual wolves show up.

    As for how things would be different if Obama hadn't been as conciliatory towards Republicans, the elections probably would have gone worse without the claim to the moral high ground.

    And this makes him factually wrong in his editorial because?
    Not saying right or wrong, but opinion columns are opinion columns for a reason. It's up to the reader to judge if the columnist did a good job in basing their opinion on facts or not. One way to do so is to evaluate the columnist and his or her previous body of works.

    As a Research/Reference/Instruction Librarian, I have a lot of experience on how to measure the quality of the content of a written work. Online here, I'll admit to sometimes getting lazy and making mistakes, but occasionally I do put my Professional hat on.

    Bottom line, each reader has to decide for themselves the value or what is written, but they so do so being as informed about the topic in discussion as possible. The most Opinion Columns provide links to outside sources/content that can be used to back up their statements and claims. Those sources can be used to check on the content written about.
    Last edited by Tami; 09-14-2019 at 11:28 AM.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  4. #8029
    Astonishing Member PwrdOn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    2,184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The discourse about racism is pretty toxic right now, and it isn't helped by liberals using the allegation excessively when it's supposed to carry a great moral weight.

    One problem with the discourse is that there are multiple definitions of racism and racist used inconsistently on the left, whereas the right is more likely to stick with the classic definition: someone who is opposed to others because of their race. In this sense, it's a pretty big insult, the equivalent of saying that someone is scum, their family should abandon them, their employer should fire them, their friends should be pariahs if they offer support in any way, and the world will be better off with them dead. That does appear to be the way you're using it right now, but there is often some category creep as it's often used in other ways which makes having policy discussions more difficult.

    The word is also used to describe people who participate in institutions with inequitable outcomes, and within some progressive organizations by white people discussing their own shortcomings, who presumably don't believe it would be the moral obligation of siblings to keep them away from nephews and nieces. So that makes it tougher to have conversations about ending racism since people with different definitions will talk post one another. Granted, there is also the difference of opinion of what constitutes behavior that is racist and worthy of moral opprobrium. If the Washington Post publishes a claim that a writer's concern about birthrates or a lawyer's discussion of particularity — ethnic, cultural, religious of nations is definitive evidence of white nationalism, it's the left-wing media crying wolf, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously when actual wolves show up.

    As for how things would be different if Obama hadn't been as conciliatory towards Republicans, the elections probably would have gone worse without the claim to the moral high ground.

    And this makes him factually wrong in his editorial because?

    And I get the crying wolf comparison, but stuff he wrote as a college student isn't the equivalent of material published in the New York Times, and an organization as prestigious as the Washington Post.
    For one thing, you don't get to claim that the Washington Post is "left wing media" when they have just as many uppity conservative nitwits publishing nonsensical columns as the New York Times does. And if anything, the left seriously underestimated just how racist the country was, by focusing too much on rather esoteric dog whistling and ignoring that damned near half the country were still out and proud white nationalists. Trump voters didn't come from outer space, they were the same people who spent the last few decades bitching about affirmative action, birthright citizenship, Obamacare, or what have you and vehemently denying that their political stances were in any way motivated by racial resentment.

  5. #8030
    Extraordinary Member Tendrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    9,002

    Default

    Wow. That entire post is a whole lot of assumptions and lecturing and deflections with a side of demands for 'civility'. You support a political party that is run by an administration that's eagerly trying to send sick brown kids back to their home countries to die.

    I only wish you could get as upset about that as you seemingly could about someone online saying mean things about the Republican Party.
    Last edited by Tendrin; 09-14-2019 at 11:13 AM.

  6. #8031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tendrin View Post
    Wow. That entire post is a whole lot of assumptions and lecturing and deflections with a side of demands for 'civility'. You support a political party that is run by an administration that's eagerly trying to send sick brown kids back to their home countries to die.

    I only wish you could get as upset about that as you seemingly could about someone online saying mean things about the Republican Party.
    I know, it's not like that there are statistical studies showing an increase of hate crimes, or mass shootings being carried out by deranged conservatives motivated by racial hatred.

    I'd hate to think I hurt some poor Republican's fee-fees by pointing out his party has embraced the Trump white nationalist policy and no longer has anyone with a spine to take a stand to defend any oppressed minority other than their hysterical belief that white Christians are that minority.

    So I don't think about it, because anyone who propagates that in our culture doesn't deserve to have their feelings spared.
    X-Books Forum Mutant Tracker/FAQ- Updated every Tuesday.

  7. #8032
    Guardian Empress of Earth Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,083

    Default

    Whole Foods is cutting medical benefits for hundreds of part-time workers

    Whole Foods is cutting medical benefits for hundreds of part-time workers, the company confirmed to Business Insider on Thursday.

    The changes will take effect on January 1 and affect just under 2% of Whole Foods' total workforce, a Whole Foods spokesperson told Business Insider.

    Whole Foods has about 95,000 employees, so it means about 1,900 people will lose benefits.
    The benefits that the company is cutting are offered to part-time employees who work at least 20 hours a week. The changes will not affect full-time employees.

    Whole Foods said it was making the change "to better meet the needs of our business and create a more equitable and efficient scheduling model."

    "The small percentage of part-time team members ... who previously opted into medical benefits through Whole Foods Market's healthcare plan — less than 2% of our total workforce — will no longer be eligible to buy into medical coverage through the company," the Whole Foods spokesperson said.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  8. #8033
    Extraordinary Member PaulBullion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    5,658

    Default

    So the NYT is being useful for a change, bringing more evidence that the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh were sad but true.

    And the FBI did not interview those witnesses, because of the limited scope of the investigations.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/14/s...gtype=Homepage

    During his Senate testimony, Mr. Kavanaugh said that if the incident Ms. Ramirez described had occurred, it would have been “the talk of campus.” Our reporting suggests that it was.
    "How does the Green Goblin have anything to do with Herpes?" - The Dying Detective

    Hillary was right!

  9. #8034
    Incredible Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    576

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    The discourse about racism is pretty toxic right now, and it isn't helped by liberals using the allegation excessively when it's supposed to carry a great moral weight.

    One problem with the discourse is that there are multiple definitions of racism and racist used inconsistently on the left, whereas the right is more likely to stick with the classic definition: someone who is opposed to others because of their race. In this sense, it's a pretty big insult, the equivalent of saying that someone is scum, their family should abandon them, their employer should fire them, their friends should be pariahs if they offer support in any way, and the world will be better off with them dead. That does appear to be the way you're using it right now, but there is often some category creep as it's often used in other ways which makes having policy discussions more difficult.

    The word is also used to describe people who participate in institutions with inequitable outcomes, and within some progressive organizations by white people discussing their own shortcomings, who presumably don't believe it would be the moral obligation of siblings to keep them away from nephews and nieces. So that makes it tougher to have conversations about ending racism since people with different definitions will talk post one another. Granted, there is also the difference of opinion of what constitutes behavior that is racist and worthy of moral opprobrium. If the Washington Post publishes a claim that a writer's concern about birthrates or a lawyer's discussion of particularity — ethnic, cultural, religious of nations is definitive evidence of white nationalism, it's the left-wing media crying wolf, which makes it more difficult to be taken seriously when actual wolves show up.

    As for how things would be different if Obama hadn't been as conciliatory towards Republicans, the elections probably would have gone worse without the claim to the moral high ground.

    And this makes him factually wrong in his editorial because?

    And I get the crying wolf comparison, but stuff he wrote as a college student isn't the equivalent of material published in the New York Times, and an organization as prestigious as the Washington Post.
    An opinion piece that the writer is going by his own anecdotes while defending his personal friends for being called racist. No bias here.

  10. #8035
    Astonishing Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    3,054

    Default

    Well yeah, they're Amazon's handpuppet now.

  11. #8036
    Extraordinary Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    7,602

    Default

    Most businesses don't offer any health benefits to part-time employees. I'm surprised to learn that Whole Foods was doing that to begin with.

  12. #8037
    Guardian Empress of Earth Tami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    22,083

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    Most businesses don't offer any health benefits to part-time employees. I'm surprised to learn that Whole Foods was doing that to begin with.
    They were innovative in that way. Probably why they ended up being taken in by Amazon. Innovative isn't always profitable.


    New Jersey has their own way of being innovative regarding health benefits .

    However, not everyone in Trenton is happy about all these reforms.

    Amazing how, even when a State turns Blue, there are still some who see Red.
    Last edited by Tami; 09-14-2019 at 04:49 PM.
    Original join date: 11/23/2004
    Eclectic Connoisseur of all things written, drawn or imaginatively created.

  13. #8038
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    17,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    Most businesses don't offer any health benefits to part-time employees. I'm surprised to learn that Whole Foods was doing that to begin with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    They were innovative in that way. Probably why they ended up being taken in by Amazon. Innovative isn't always profitable.

    ...
    I'm not so sure that it was the company being "Innovative..."

    While the initial company was a bit more worker-friendly that than some of the outfits who treat their workers like dirt, Whole Foods was always anti-union. I strongly suspect that them providing medical benefits to part-time employees was a way to try to keep unions at an arm's length.

  14. #8039
    Extraordinary Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    7,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tami View Post
    They were innovative in that way. Probably why they ended up being taken in by Amazon. Innovative isn't always profitable.

    Amazon probably did what they usually do. Offer to buy out Whole Foods. Then, when Whole Foods refuses, start selling an inferior version of what Whole Foods sells, at a deep discount, until Whole Foods has no choice but to sell out to Amazon, most likely for a lower price than Amazon originally offered.

  15. #8040
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    That doesn't seem to answer my question.

    But one thing that would help is the left being more judicious about allegations of racism. When they get it wrong, it gets harder to take it seriously.
    I think it's the opposite really, the Left has been too lenient with allegations of racism for a long time. We're just now catching on.
    By "we" in this case, I mean guys like me. Too oblivious (read: white) to notice things that minorities have been dealing with forever.

    Also, I cannot stress enough how much racists explaining how they can't be racist should never be accepted as an okay alternative interpretation of what racism means.
    They're trying to delegitimize criticism of them, and we all have to consciously remember that's what's happening and that it can't be allowed to succeed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •