Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Derec]

That article says different.

No it doesn't. The article is quite explicit about talking about probation/parole violations, which are predicated on an underlying sentence which is resumed for non-compliance with rules for suspension of said sentence.

Perhaps the reporter got it wrong or perhaps you have it wrong. But as Arctish nicely put it - your quibbling misses the real point.

I guess the real point is that if you are on probation or parole, you should make sure you follow all the rules of probation/parole.

 

[Derec]

The distinction between prison and jail is unique to the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, they are synonymous.

The US reserves 'prison' as meaning a short-term holding centre for people not yet convicted; The rest of the world calls these facilities 'police cells', 'watch houses' and/or 'remand centres', and uses both 'prison' and 'jail' to mean any of these, or a place where a convict serves his sentence.

Not really. "Jail" is for serving sentences of less than a year (usually misdemeanors) and for pre-trial confinement if no bail is made. We still have local police cells where you can wait to see the judge about bail (or being released on own recognizance), but I think how soon one gets sent to central booking depends on jurisdiction. Jails are usually ran by county sheriff's departments. Prisons are for sentences of more than a year (usually felonies) and are ran by states. Sometimes states will pay the feds to house particularly troublesome prisoners in federal prisons even for state crimes. That is the case with a cop-killer from Atlanta, H. Rap Brown aka Jamil Al Amin. This former Black Panther (not the Wakanda kind but the Maoist kind) is serving life at ADX Florence even though his crime (killed a deputy and tried to kill another one while both were serving a warrant on him) was prosecuted by the state of Georgia. ADX by the way stands for "Administrative Maximum Facility", colloquially known as "supermax", a level above "maximum security". Yes, I know, they keep using that word ...
And we haven't even started on the uniquely (I think) American term "penitentiary" which is mostly used in names of institutions, such as our own "United States Penitentiary Atlanta", Arizona State Penitentiary or the Nevada State Penitentiary.

Americans, as usual, are wrong.

How so? It makes sense to use different words for different things. Jails are different than prisons in much the same way creeks are different than rivers, even though both are flowing bodies of water. And at least we do not try to spell "jail" as "gaol". What's up with that?

 

[Angry Floof]

Again. Jail != prison. If somebody is sent back to prison, that is because of the original felony conviction, not because of not paying a fine.

That article says different. Perhaps the reporter got it wrong or perhaps you have it wrong. But as Arctish nicely put it - your quibbling misses the real point.

The distinction between prison and jail is unique to the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, they are synonymous.

The US reserves 'prison' as meaning a short-term holding centre for people not yet convicted; The rest of the world calls these facilities 'police cells', 'watch houses' and/or 'remand centres', and uses both 'prison' and 'jail' to mean any of these, or a place where a convict serves his sentence.

Americans, as usual, are wrong.

I have to say that Derec was right in his response to this (above), minus the gratuitous racist diatribe, of course.

 

[Bomb#20]

Pharmaceuticals are a natural monopoly?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

Some are, yes. Where aggregate demand is sufficiently low, the market cannot support more than one manufacturer. And some diseases are quite rare.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If the disease is that rare and the patients' ability to pay is that low, how was it profitable for a supposed natural monopolist to develop the drug in the first place? "Natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual or potential competitors". Well, what is that advantage? ... Drugs are generally too easy to make and other natural barriers to entry are just too low to constitute a serious obstacle.

You can't just dismiss the regulatory influences on the pharmaceutical market and expect your resulting arguments to reflect the real world.

I can synthesise all kinds of pharmaceuticals in my garden shed; But I won't be allowed to sell them for human use - and nor should I be.

The market is, and should be, highly regulated; And those regulations lead to the unprofitably of low volume products for second and subsequent suppiers.

So who dismissed them? So who said you should be allowed to sell pharmaceuticals you synthesized in your garden shed? So who said the market shouldn't be highly regulated?

Natural barriers may well be no obstacle; But in the pharmaceutical industry, natural barriers are a trivial part of the barriers that actually exist.

I.e., pharmaceuticals are not a natural monopoly. They're an artificial monopoly.

The point is, when Don started this whole subthread with:

The next thing you might consider is that there is competition which should drive down prices. But that isn't really what is at the heart of capitalism. What is at the heart is winning and monopolies and market barriers and price fixing and patenting and IP in order to block competition because that guarantees profit. Only through regulation is that nature of capitalism somewhat mitigated, and I say somewhat, because regulation thus far hasn't stopped market barriers. Much of Big Pharma, too, hasn't produced new drugs recently and so they acquire smaller companies which is another way of crushing competition. Maybe take a look at this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli​

he was neglecting half the picture. The price was only able to shoot up because Shkreli bought the marketing rights. Think about the implications of that. He bought marketing rights for a drug the FDA approved in 1953. Why the devil does that drug have such a thing as "marketing rights"? So no, this isn't about "patenting and IP in order to block competition because that guarantees profit". The patent expired over forty years ago! Today GlaxoSmithKline makes it in Britain and sells it for under a dollar a pill. Canada imports it from Britain and sells it for two dollars a pill. There isn't any capitalism reason, and there isn't any natural monopoly reason, and there isn't any "nor should I be allowed to sell pharmaceuticals I synthesized in my garden shed" reason, for Americans to be barred from importing British pills that have fully passed the requirements of British drug safety regulations. British regulators are every bit as capable of weeding out dangerous products as American regulators. Canadians are not dropping like flies from recklessly buying British medicine. Harry Bosch had it right: it's extremely difficult to raise prices, when government allows competition to operate. Yes, we need regulation to mitigate the nature of capitalism; but we equally need capitalism to mitigate the nature of regulation. The fact that Americans aren't allowed to buy it from Britain for the same price as Canadians is entirely the choice of Congress. Congress created Shkreli.

 

[Derec]

I have to say that Derec was right in his response to this (above),

Thanks, I guess.

minus the gratuitous racist diatribe, of course.

You just had to ruin it. What "gratuitous racist diatribe"? I do not think you understand the meaning of any of those words.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Happy Sunday everyone - let’s sing! This LOVE This VOICE This STRENGTH This PEACE This JOY that I have/ The world didn’t give it to me - The world didn’t give it, & the world can’t take it away Thank you @ResistanceRev for our #GreenNewDeal community celebration yesterday!… https://t.co/vA42u0KXpt"
?????

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Hello Ms. Conway, On Easter I was away from tech visiting my grandmother in Puerto Rico, which continues to suffer from the White House’s incompetent disaster response. Are you trying to imply that I am less Christian? What was the point of you bringing this up on national TV?… https://t.co/3UPhcNiZrS" noting Kellyanne Conway on Twitter: "Wrong again. You can delete or apologize (holds breath) I was referring to @AOC silence about the Sri Lanka massacre of Christians (not “Easter Worshippers” as Obama and Hillary oddly said). Try listening before spewing.… https://t.co/O8kHVE3rOB"
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "I chose to use the word ‘incompetent’ when it comes to Trump’s response to Hurricane María & the 3,000 Americans who died on his watch, but that’s only because I had 280 characters. There are plenty of other words too: - Negligent - Inept - Inhumane - Predatory Take your pick."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "“Corrupt” is a good one, too. I’m curious, how do you spin ignoring and neglecting the largest mass death of people on American soil in decades, @KellyannePolls? After all, the official count of 3,075 people is much bigger than the 64 number your admin clung to for so long."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The terrorist attack in Sri Lanka was horrifying. Saying ‘Easter worshippers’ matters bc Easter is the holiest day of the year for Christians, & to be targeted on Easter highlights how heinous the attack was - just as saying yesterday’s #SanDiego shooting was on Passover."
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "You are using this as an excuse to stoke suspicion around my Christianity + faith life, @KellyannePolls. The Sri Lanka massacre was horrifying. No one should be targeted for their religion. If you’re so moved, let’s do more to welcome immigrants fleeing religious persecution."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I have to say that Derec was right in his response to this (above),

Thanks, I guess.

minus the gratuitous racist diatribe, of course.

You just had to ruin it. What "gratuitous racist diatribe"? I do not think you understand the meaning of either of those words.

That was 3 words.

 

[ZiprHead]

The distinction between prison and jail is unique to the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, they are synonymous.

The US reserves 'prison' as meaning a short-term holding centre for people not yet convicted; The rest of the world calls these facilities 'police cells', 'watch houses' and/or 'remand centres', and uses both 'prison' and 'jail' to mean any of these, or a place where a convict serves his sentence.

Americans, as usual, are wrong.

I have to say that Derec was right in his response to this (above), minus the gratuitous racist diatribe, of course.

Yes, technically Derec is right. It's also right that it's a quibble.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Some are, yes. Where aggregate demand is sufficiently low, the market cannot support more than one manufacturer. And some diseases are quite rare.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. If the disease is that rare and the patients' ability to pay is that low, how was it profitable for a supposed natural monopolist to develop the drug in the first place? "Natural monopolies arise where the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual or potential competitors". Well, what is that advantage? ... Drugs are generally too easy to make and other natural barriers to entry are just too low to constitute a serious obstacle.

You can't just dismiss the regulatory influences on the pharmaceutical market and expect your resulting arguments to reflect the real world.

I can synthesise all kinds of pharmaceuticals in my garden shed; But I won't be allowed to sell them for human use - and nor should I be.

The market is, and should be, highly regulated; And those regulations lead to the unprofitably of low volume products for second and subsequent suppiers.

So who dismissed them? So who said you should be allowed to sell pharmaceuticals you synthesized in your garden shed? So who said the market shouldn't be highly regulated?

Natural barriers may well be no obstacle; But in the pharmaceutical industry, natural barriers are a trivial part of the barriers that actually exist.

I.e., pharmaceuticals are not a natural monopoly. They're an artificial monopoly.

The point is, when Don started this whole subthread with:

The next thing you might consider is that there is competition which should drive down prices. But that isn't really what is at the heart of capitalism. What is at the heart is winning and monopolies and market barriers and price fixing and patenting and IP in order to block competition because that guarantees profit. Only through regulation is that nature of capitalism somewhat mitigated, and I say somewhat, because regulation thus far hasn't stopped market barriers. Much of Big Pharma, too, hasn't produced new drugs recently and so they acquire smaller companies which is another way of crushing competition. Maybe take a look at this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Shkreli​

he was neglecting half the picture. The price was only able to shoot up because Shkreli bought the marketing rights. Think about the implications of that. He bought marketing rights for a drug the FDA approved in 1953. Why the devil does that drug have such a thing as "marketing rights"? So no, this isn't about "patenting and IP in order to block competition because that guarantees profit". The patent expired over forty years ago! Today GlaxoSmithKline makes it in Britain and sells it for under a dollar a pill. Canada imports it from Britain and sells it for two dollars a pill. There isn't any capitalism reason, and there isn't any natural monopoly reason, and there isn't any "nor should I be allowed to sell pharmaceuticals I synthesized in my garden shed" reason, for Americans to be barred from importing British pills that have fully passed the requirements of British drug safety regulations. British regulators are every bit as capable of weeding out dangerous products as American regulators. Canadians are not dropping like flies from recklessly buying British medicine. Harry Bosch had it right: it's extremely difficult to raise prices, when government allows competition to operate. Yes, we need regulation to mitigate the nature of capitalism; but we equally need capitalism to mitigate the nature of regulation. The fact that Americans aren't allowed to buy it from Britain for the same price as Canadians is entirely the choice of Congress. Congress created Shkreli.

Corporations through lobbyists and other undemocratic means often impact regulatory legislation. That supports what I wrote and doesn't refute it.

 

[Derec]

That was 3 words.

I edited to make you happy, but technically, 'either' can be used even when the number is not 2.

 

[Derec]

Yes, technically Derec is right.

The best kind of right.

It's also right that it's a quibble.

Not really a quibble. Too many people do not understand the difference between felonies and misdemeanors. For example AOC with her claim that somebody caught with a dime bag of weed would lose their voting rights.

 

[lpetrich]

AOC Took D’Souza to Town in 2018 | Jonathan MS Pearce about an exchange from last Septermber.

The Hill on Twitter: "Ocasio-Cortez: Puerto Rico is "still a colony" of US [url]https://t.co/ZIIADyImjr… "[/url]
Dinesh D'Souza on Twitter: "Normally colonies provide resources for the nation that rules them. What does Puerto Rico provide the US?… "
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "- Hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the US military - Nat’l supply of hospital IV bags & medical supplies - Historically, sugar, coffee, crops - A strategic port in the Atlantic & Importantly for the 1%, one of the biggest loophole tax havens for the super-rich.… https://t.co/wCkUOSL3rL"
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "It is revealing that this question: a) comes from quite the colonial mindset of “what value is this territory providing us anyway?” (Do we ask that about Appalachia, etc?) b) implies that PR’s current status is somehow an act of charity - also a sentiment rooted in colonialism"

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That was 3 words.

I edited to make you happy, but technically, 'either' can be used even when the number is not 2.

Either you are wrong.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The inhumane living conditions in NYCHA are a disgraceful result of Congress’ refusal to fund routine public housing investment for almost 20 YEARS. That $32 billion in neglect means kids are now testing w/ lead in their blood, breathing in mold, & more. And it was preventable.… https://t.co/mPVh8npAEY" noting Alexis Goldstein on Twitter: ".@RepAOC: "It was completely unnecessary for these kids to get lead in their blood...to breathe in mold, and we did it anyway, b/c we decided their lives & housing wasn't worthy of federal investment" @AOC on what underinvestment in #PublicHousing has wrought… https://t.co/cn0g23NFNb"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "You: Why is my balance so low? Economists: Bc working Americans haven’t gotten a raise in 30 years despite unprecedented growth; & living costs have exploded. Chase: Maybe if you skipped that Dunkin on April 22nd you‘d be able to afford your RX meds. That’s how that works right… https://t.co/vzdjDchkdI"
If everybody stopped taking out loans, then Chase and all the other banks would go broke and all the Chase employees would be laid off and all the Chase stockholders would be stuck with worthless adult Pokemon cards. Such is the Paradox of Thrift.

Chantal Da Silva on Twitter: "@AOC: "We continue to provide tax cuts to corporations and the exceedingly wealthy...Yet, at the same time, folks have the audacity to say that there's no money for public housing and that we can't afford for children to have clean blood and clean water." https://t.co/q0rp30rNSS" noting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: U.S. Hands Tax Cuts to Wealthy While Housing Cuts Leave Kids With Lead Poisoning, Sewage in Apartments

NowThis on Twitter: ".@AOC ran because ‘everyday Americans deserve to be represented by everyday Americans’ — but the new documentary ‘Knock Down the House’ shows just how rigged our political system is… https://t.co/pNNdaOJkUn"

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "“The new documentary is worth a watch, no matter your political persuasion.” I’m so glad #KnockDownTheHouse is inspiring people across the political spectrum. At early screenings, even Trump supporters left the film in tears - because it’s about the power of everyday people.… https://t.co/wx4Z5hy2wu" noting Vox on Twitter: "Knock Down the House, which starts streaming on Netflix today, is about more than @AOC. It’s about hope in American politics. https://t.co/jRE9GBUelq" noting Netflix’s Knock Down the House finds hope in American politics - Vox

It’s about four progressive Democratic candidates, all women, ran primary campaigns against establishment Democrats in the midterm elections: Amy Vilela in Nevada, Cori Bush in Missouri, Paula Jean Swearengin in West Virginia, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York.

Only Ocasio-Cortez was ultimately successful in her bid, and Knock Down the House feels, in the end, as if it’s mostly her story. (The fact that she is incredibly charismatic doesn’t hurt; a scene in which she deconstructs the graphic design of her opponent’s campaign materials is unexpectedly unforgettable.)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s campaign design was a big, bold winning bet - Vox -- more on that.

Ocasio-Cortez’s platform is unabashedly far left, and her branding is equally radical. In comparison, Crowley’s plain, inoffensive posters — surprise! They were red, white, and blue — signal the Democratic Party’s centrist, safe approach. Between the two, something as elementary as campaign posters has become an analogy of infighting on the left. As Democrats try to flip the house in the 2018 midterms, the party may need to decide which brand will serve them best.

The article discussed mainly AOC's campaign artwork, which was designed by a graphic-arts firm.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "The mediocrity is astounding. How would these guys like it if Gov was 80% female, constantly looking for ways to limit or outlaw condoms + vasectomies, yet had little/no medical context? Sounds crazy? The flipside is what women & LGBTQ+ people have to deal w/ ALL the time. *… https://t.co/HqaA3nVzdi" noting Lauren Underwood on Twitter: "Sec. Acosta didn’t know women use contraceptives to treat medical conditions, but is still trying to limit our access to birth control. He didn’t know junk plans don’t protect people with pre-existing conditions, but he’s trying to expand them anyway. Not on my watch!… https://t.co/QL90DHntLA"

 

[Metaphor]

Again. Jail != prison. If somebody is sent back to prison, that is because of the original felony conviction, not because of not paying a fine.

That article says different. Perhaps the reporter got it wrong or perhaps you have it wrong. But as Arctish nicely put it - your quibbling misses the real point.

The distinction between prison and jail is unique to the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, they are synonymous.

The US reserves 'prison' as meaning a short-term holding centre for people not yet convicted; The rest of the world calls these facilities 'police cells', 'watch houses' and/or 'remand centres', and uses both 'prison' and 'jail' to mean any of these, or a place where a convict serves his sentence.

Americans, as usual, are wrong.

Well, they're correct on one point. They, unlike Australians and the British, know how to spell 'jail'.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The distinction between prison and jail is unique to the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, they are synonymous.

The US reserves 'prison' as meaning a short-term holding centre for people not yet convicted; The rest of the world calls these facilities 'police cells', 'watch houses' and/or 'remand centres', and uses both 'prison' and 'jail' to mean any of these, or a place where a convict serves his sentence.

Americans, as usual, are wrong.

Well, they're correct on one point. They, unlike Australians and the British, know how to spell 'jail'.

Actually, Bilby has it backwards. Prison is long term storage. Jail is short term or misdemeanor storage.

 

[Toni]

Again. Jail != prison. If somebody is sent back to prison, that is because of the original felony conviction, not because of not paying a fine.

That article says different. Perhaps the reporter got it wrong or perhaps you have it wrong. But as Arctish nicely put it - your quibbling misses the real point.

The distinction between prison and jail is unique to the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, they are synonymous.

The US reserves 'prison' as meaning a short-term holding centre for people not yet convicted; The rest of the world calls these facilities 'police cells', 'watch houses' and/or 'remand centres', and uses both 'prison' and 'jail' to mean any of these, or a place where a convict serves his sentence.

Americans, as usual, are wrong.

You're incorrect. In the US, jail is a short term holding facility, typically where one is held pending being arraigned on charges. There may be holding cells within a police station separate from jail, usually depending on the size of the community served. Holding cells are for very short term only: pending arraignment, for example. Shorter sentences for less serious charges are often/usually served in jails, which are local, generally serving the county, although in a high population density area, there may be municipal jails as well as county jails. Prison is for longer term and generally more serious crimes. It's where you go after you are convicted. Jails are typically somewhat near the courthouse where trials are held. Prisons can be state or federal, depending on the type of crime committed. Some prisons are relatively low security for lower level criminal offenders who are not deemed dangerous to the general public. Think: white collar criminals.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The distinction between prison and jail is unique to the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, they are synonymous.

The US reserves 'prison' as meaning a short-term holding centre for people not yet convicted; The rest of the world calls these facilities 'police cells', 'watch houses' and/or 'remand centres', and uses both 'prison' and 'jail' to mean any of these, or a place where a convict serves his sentence.

Americans, as usual, are wrong.

You're incorrect. In the US, jail is a short term holding facility, typically where one is held pending being arraigned on charges. There may be holding cells within a police station separate from jail, usually depending on the size of the community served. Holding cells are for very short term only: pending arraignment, for example. Shorter sentences for less serious charges are often/usually served in jails, which are local, generally serving the county, although in a high population density area, there may be municipal jails as well as county jails. Prison is for longer term and generally more serious crimes. It's where you go after you are convicted. Jails are typically somewhat near the courthouse where trials are held. Prisons can be state or federal, depending on the type of crime committed. Some prisons are relatively low security for lower level criminal offenders who are not deemed dangerous to the general public. Think: white collar criminals.

Pondering when Trump whined about how Manafort was in solitary confinement in custody and that was a bad thing.

 

[bilby]

The distinction between prison and jail is unique to the USA. In the rest of the English speaking world, they are synonymous.

The US reserves 'prison' as meaning a short-term holding centre for people not yet convicted; The rest of the world calls these facilities 'police cells', 'watch houses' and/or 'remand centres', and uses both 'prison' and 'jail' to mean any of these, or a place where a convict serves his sentence.

Americans, as usual, are wrong.

Well, they're correct on one point. They, unlike Australians and the British, know how to spell 'jail'.

Actually, Bilby has it backwards. Prison is long term storage. Jail is short term or misdemeanor storage.

Sorry - my bad.

At least it's not a mistake that will lead to gaol time.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Actually, Bilby has it backwards. Prison is long term storage. Jail is short term or misdemeanor storage.

Sorry - my bad.

At least it's not a mistake that will lead to gaol time.

In the US, anything is possible.