America - The Official Thread

  • Thread starter ///M-Spec
  • 39,755 comments
  • 1,793,755 views
This is fun.



Asked by a reporter if they were satisfied with the level of supplies, Sophia Thomas, a New Orleans-based nurse and president of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, replied that personal protective equipment (PPE) had been "sporadic" but "manageable" in her area.

"I think it's sporadic. As I talk to my colleagues around the country, certainly there are pockets of areas where PPE is not ideal but this is an unprecedented time," Thomas said, noting that she had been wearing the same N95 respirator for a few weeks.

"PPE has been sporadic but it's been manageable," Thomas continued. "And we do what we have to do. We're nurses and we learn to adapt and do whatever the best thing that we can do for our patients to get the job done and get the care provided."

Trump pushed back on the idea that supplies were sporadic across the country. "Sporadic for you but not sporadic for a lot of other people," the president said. Thomas replied that she agreed with him.

"Because I have heard the opposite. I have heard that they are loaded up with gowns now," Trump said. "Initially, we had nothing. We had empty cupboards. We had empty shelves. We had nothing because it wasn't put there by the last administration."

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...r-nurse-reports-sporadic-supply-of-protective
Click to expand...
*arm folding intensifies*

A GTPer once posited, "Curious how you can have privilege and be fragile at the same time." Quite.

As for placing passing the buck to the previous administration, NPR visited a Strategic National Stockpile facility in 2016 and it wasn't exactly depleted.

"If everybody knows exactly what we have, then you know exactly what you can do to us that we can't fix," says Burel. "And we just don't want that to happen."

What he will reveal is how much the stockpile is worth: "We currently value the inventory at a little over $7 billion."

But some public health specialists worry about how all this would actually be deployed in an emergency.

"The warehouse is fine in terms of the management of stuff in there. What gets in the warehouse and where does it go after the warehouse, and how fast does it go to people, is where we have questions," says Dr. Irwin Redlener, director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University.
Click to expand...

What's more, I previously brought up a piece regarding a meeting between Obama administration staff and the Trump transition team wherein the latter were to participate in an exercise (which bears staggering similarities to our present situation) to address emergency preparedness which would likely include dealing with supply shortages. Pity those in attendance couldn't be bothered with the exercise, but then it's not like any of them are still around given the apparent revolving door approach to staffing of the current administration. Something something loyalty something something.

[Posted here rather than the CoVid-19 thread as that isn't really the relevant issue.]
 
Last edited:
Thomas: "Our PPE supply is less than ideal."

Other medical staff in the US: "Our PPE Supply is critical."

Trump: "Nuh uh!"

@TexRex On second thought, it is kinda uncomfortable to make fun of the man at this point. I think this is what's called punch-down "comedy."
 
This comes back to FEMA hoarding supplies and distributing them to where they think has the greatest need. I'm sure Trump is getting his information through FEMA and thinks that everything is sound as a pound. But in reality, FEMA's hoarding has caused PPE to be difficult to obtain in other areas of the country that aren't considering hot spots. FEMA is denying that they are doing this.

On April 15th, FEMA's Administrator Peter Gaynor sent this letter that contained the following:

As I continue to do calls with Members of Congress, Governors, and other key stakeholders, I find myself correcting misinformation. One of the areas I get the most questions about is regarding FEMA ‘seizing’ or ‘commandeering’ critical PPE. I want to share the ground-truth with you – FEMA is neither seizing or taking PPE from local or state governments or taking PPE from hospitals or any commercial entity lawfully engaged in the PPE distribution. However, there are bad actors out there who are hoarding and price gouging and trying to profit from the confusion and widespread fear surrounding COVID-19. The Department of Justice (DOJ), under the direction of Attorney General William Barr, has assembled a hoarding and price-gouging task force to prioritize the detection, investigation, and prosecution of illegal conduct related to the pandemic. The DOJ efforts resulted in the seizure of PPE from those individual bad actors and businesses hoarding PPE.

Regarding the Defense Production Act (DPA) and the use of priority ratings for “reallocation” of critical resources, DPA authorities are applied to support acceleration and expansion efforts. Priority rated DPA orders do not create a situation of “outbidding;” rather, it puts the federal government requirement to the “front of the line” for fulfillment ahead of other orders so we can best assist you. In this process, we work to balance our authorities while avoiding interference of private sector supply chains that can deliver resources most efficiently and effectively. Therefore, as we process orders through the supply chain, we maintain close coordination with states to identify potential bidding conflicts. We look to you as well as your governors and tribal leaders to make us aware of apparent bidding conflict. If a bidding conflict occurs, we work closely with the state or tribe to resolve it in a way that best serves their needs. At the end of the day, we all have the same objective – getting the right resource, to the right place, at the right time.
Click to expand...

This is, of course, utter BS.

Here's an article from the NYT that describes PPE being seized in Maryland, Kentucky, and Colorado: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/coronavirus-fema-medical-supplies.html

FEMA is apparently seizing PPE from people and companies who are price gouging (which is a problem all its own) and redistributing it as it sees fit. I guess this is legal to do, but it seems really shady for the government just to come in a steal something that was bought and paid for by someone else. If they are price gouging the market will filter them out pretty quickly since there are only so many people and organizations that will pay an inflated price.
 
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-border-wall-texas-orphanage-1502435

The Trump administration is suing an orphanage in South Texas in order to exercise its eminent domain powers and obtain temporary access to the property to plan for construction along the border with Mexico.

In return for a year-long grant of access to the land, known as an easement, the federal government says it will pay the Sacred Heart Children's Home of Laredo, Texas, $100 as "just compensation."
Click to expand...

$100...seems a bit low
 
68 acres apparently is 275,186 square metres.

If that is correct, that's massive. Like, 100 bucks for something like that is ripping them off big time.

You could probably build several neighbourhood streets on something like that, if I am visualising the numbers right. I can't fathom 275,186 square metres in my mind, yet.
 
Submerged
68 acres apparently is 275,186 square metres.

If that is correct, that's massive. Like, 100 bucks for something like that is ripping them off big time.

You could probably build several neighbourhood streets on something like that, if I am visualising the numbers right. I can't fathom 275,186 square metres in my mind, yet.
Click to expand...
Here's a view of the property by drone:

Screenshot_20200507-143233.png


Laredo Morning Times reported in October that it's 61 acres.

The kids stay in dormitories and have a basketball court, a pool, a chapel and open porches plus a huge front lawn with a tree-lined driveway. All told the children's home’s land spans over 61 acres.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection is requesting irrevocable access to this property for 18 months in order to survey, stake, appraise and take water and soil samples in order to determine where a wall would be best suited. This is called a Right of Entry for Survey and Sight Assessment.
Click to expand...
The property backs right up to the Rio Grande and includes the flood plain which, as the name suggests, is subject to flooding when the river runs high. The other side of the river is Mexico.

If a barrier ends up being built, it won't be built in Mexico and it won't be built in the river, so seizure through eminent domain is a very good possibility.

They own the land. How much of it they utilize isn't particularly relevant.
 
Danoff
I don't understand how this is an orphanage, my understanding is that they are extinct in the US. Maybe it's some sort of foster boarding school? I'm confused.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it seems "orphanage" is an error on Newsweek's part. I can't find any other source that indicates it as such.

Sister Maria Valdez with the children’s home says their mission is to help every child that ends up at their facility.

Right now they have 40 children living there, both boys and girls.

Sister Valdez says these donations will go a long way to helping provide for the kids.

Valdez says, “We help out the parent or grandmother, whomever is the guardian of the child while they are going through some troubled times and we serve them as they were at home. We try to give them as much as we can.”

https://www.kgns.tv/content/news/Sa...ome-receives-generous-donation-487921371.html
Click to expand...
 
Danoff
I don't understand how this is an orphanage, my understanding is that they are extinct in the US. Maybe it's some sort of foster boarding school? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

An orphan was a child who wasn't in the financial or physical care of their parent/s, the US still operates "group homes" for children without their familiies, they're what we'd consider to be modern orphanages. This particular one apparently houses 40-ish children who for various reasons can't be in the care of their parents... it's an orphanage in all but name.

And now they're getting an exciting new climbing wall with ad-hoc short-term Mexican instructors.
 
TenEightyOne
An orphan was a child who wasn't in the financial or physical care of their parent/s, the US still operates "group homes" for children without their familiies, they're what we'd consider to be modern orphanages. This particular one apparently houses 40-ish children who for various reasons can't be in the care of their parents... it's an orphanage in all but name.

And now they're getting an exciting new climbing wall with ad-hoc short-term Mexican instructors.
Click to expand...
I know a middle-aged couple who had a kid. They were self-indulgent, pot-smoking professionals, who, when the kid became a problem with ADHD, shipped him off to a "group home". Problem solved. :rolleyes:
 
Dotini
I know a middle-aged couple who had a kid. They were self-indulgent, pot-smoking professionals, who, when the kid became a problem with ADHD, shipped him off to a "group home". Problem solved. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That would be a bad enough story in isolation, sadly I feel it isn't as unusual as one might hope.
 
TenEightyOne
An orphan was a child who wasn't in the financial or physical care of their parent/s, the US still operates "group homes" for children without their familiies, they're what we'd consider to be modern orphanages. This particular one apparently houses 40-ish children who for various reasons can't be in the care of their parents... it's an orphanage in all but name.
Click to expand...

We have slightly different definitions of "orphanage", but these terms get used very differently from one person to the next.
 
Ya, I really don't understand the Arbery incident. I get there are racist people everywhere that will automatically jump to a racist stereotype whenever it suits them, but how terrible does a police department need to be to completely ignore a shooting? Even if the circumstances were self-defense, most agencies would at least do something instead of sitting idly by. What's even more concerning is if there hadn't been a video of this, those guys would've gotten away without any form of repercussions.

Although, assuming this goes to trial, I can't see them being charged with anything more than manslaughter despite being an obvious case of second-degree murder. They'll probably get a plea deal that results in probation or something though.
 
Joey D
Ya, I really don't understand the Arbery incident. I get there are racist people everywhere that will automatically jump to a racist stereotype whenever it suits them, but how terrible does a police department need to be to completely ignore a shooting? Even if the circumstances were self-defense, most agencies would at least do something instead of sitting idly by. What's even more concerning is if there hadn't been a video of this, those guys would've gotten away without any form of repercussions.

Although, assuming this goes to trial, I can't see them being charged with anything more than manslaughter despite being an obvious case of second-degree murder. They'll probably get a plea deal that results in probation or something though.
Click to expand...

I've watched this and have been thinking about it. It's such a specific type of crime...still processing. In my head these are the keywords that are kind of swimming around:

Southern white entitlement (related to concepts like racism and white privilege but somehow more sinister)
Guns
Self Righteousness

Racism, guns, and self righteousness abound in the United States. But I have a hard time seeing a crime quite like this take place anywhere but the deep south. Like I get the feeling when they got in that pickup truck they were absolutely elated to go hunt down that black person. Like they've been waiting for such a joyous occasion for years. They armed themselves "just in case" they needed to defend themselves, but really they armed themselves hoping they would have to defend themselves, a plausible deniability that provides the desired outcome: Killing that black person who didn't belong in their territory.

I think that's where entitlement plus guns feed into this. I've said this before, but it's been proven that objects can amplify certain feelings. Wearing a bicycle helmet boosts appetite for danger, even in unrelated activities. - Isn't it reasonable that guns could do something similar? It seems more unreasonable that they wouldn't. I think for some people who may be predispositioned to entitlement and self righteousness, (like the two Jabronis in this case probably), guns may amplify emotions beyond control. I'm a gun owner...I understand the powerful feeling they imbue in their operator. You mix that with someone who feels entitled to some geographic/cultural region and I think the "lets go hunt black people" mentality is a predictable result. The gun didn't commit the crime. The person committed the crime. But to say the gun isn't a factor in the cause of the crime I think is a mistake, because I think it's all mixed up in the psychological profile of the perpetrators. In the same way that southern white entitlement PLUS guns resulted in this outcome, I think special-forces-fetishism, seclusion, and xenophobic-ignorance PLUS guns results in things like the El Paso or Christchurch shootings. It's not just that the guns provide the tool for the action, they amplify pre-existing psychology.

I don't want to see the 2A stripped of its usefulness (how many autocratic governments in the world would exist with something like 2A?) but damn do we need to better understand the psychological effects of guns.

Apologies for the rambling stream of consciousness post.
 
Last edited:
Joey D
Ya, I really don't understand the Arbery incident. I get there are racist people everywhere that will automatically jump to a racist stereotype whenever it suits them, but how terrible does a police department need to be to completely ignore a shooting? Even if the circumstances were self-defense, most agencies would at least do something instead of sitting idly by. What's even more concerning is if there hadn't been a video of this, those guys would've gotten away without any form of repercussions.

Although, assuming this goes to trial, I can't see them being charged with anything more than manslaughter despite being an obvious case of second-degree murder. They'll probably get a plea deal that results in probation or something though.
Click to expand...

I believe it used to be called "institutional racism" - but supposedly it doesn't actually exist any more.

The McMichaels claimed there had been a spate of burglaries in the area. Apparently, police reports in the preceding weeks show no evidence of that.
 
Eunos_Cosmo
I don't want to see the 2A stripped of its usefulness (how many autocratic governments in the world would exist with something like 2A?) but damn do we need to better understand the psychological effects of guns.
Click to expand...

Totally.

I own a couple guns and will even carry my 9mm pistol with me on occasion depending on what I'm doing. I don't know how any person could want to use their weapon to shoot another person. I hope I never have to use my pistol, I don't ever want to use it either because I'd be taking a life and, even if I'm 100% in the right, that sort of thing sticks with you. But I get that there are many people who do have an itchy trigger finger and are just waiting for the opportunity to blast someone (unfortunately some of these people are cops too).

I fully believe anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to, the Constitution grants them that right. However, I think people often forget that just because you have the right to own a firearm, doesn't mean you have the right to use it free from consequences. This is why I think training is so important for gun owners, you need to be savvy of the laws, when you're allowed to use it, and how to use it effectively without hurting anyone innocent in the process. Unfortunately, there are many gun owners in the US that don't think like this and that is a problem. Even when they throw out statements like "well everyone in the 1700s had a gun", I just want to say "Well ya, but those people also had to use their gun frequently as part of militia training or hunting for food. They weren't just some redneck who thought they should carry around a .50 cal without any kind of training hoping to blast someone."
 
Joey D
Totally.

I own a couple guns and will even carry my 9mm pistol with me on occasion depending on what I'm doing. I don't know how any person could want to use their weapon to shoot another person. I hope I never have to use my pistol, I don't ever want to use it either because I'd be taking a life and, even if I'm 100% in the right, that sort of thing sticks with you. But I get that there are many people who do have an itchy trigger finger and are just waiting for the opportunity to blast someone (unfortunately some of these people are cops too).

I fully believe anyone who wants to own a gun should be able to, the Constitution grants them that right. However, I think people often forget that just because you have the right to own a firearm, doesn't mean you have the right to use it free from consequences. This is why I think training is so important for gun owners, you need to be savvy of the laws, when you're allowed to use it, and how to use it effectively without hurting anyone innocent in the process. Unfortunately, there are many gun owners in the US that don't think like this and that is a problem. Even when they throw out statements like "well everyone in the 1700s had a gun", I just want to say "Well ya, but those people also had to use their gun frequently as part of militia training or hunting for food. They weren't just some redneck who thought they should carry around a .50 cal without any kind of training hoping to blast someone."
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I've known people (back in TX) who would would commute through rough neighborhoods, when it wasn't necessary, just to provide an opportunity to "strap-up". I appreciate that having a CHL is fairly/very critical for some people. But utilizing a CHL as a pretext to be reckless is an abuse of the latitude protected by 2nd amendment. I don't know why more gun owners / 2nd amendment supporters aren't more critical of sloppy gun ownership habits. The NRA, especially, should be pro-active when it comes to firearm responsibility.
 
Biggles
I believe it used to be called "institutional racism" - but supposedly it doesn't actually exist any more.

The McMichaels claimed there had been a spate of burglaries in the area. Apparently, police reports in the preceding weeks show no evidence of that.
Click to expand...
It sounds like it could have been a random alibi to justify their actions.
 

Similar threads

Ross
  • Poll
Britain - The Official Thread
444 445 446
Replies
13K
Views
617K
Famine
Famine
Harley45
What did you do in GT7 today?
447 448 449
Replies
13K
Views
740K
skydragon49
skydragon49
The_Greaser
Forza Motorsport (2023): The Bugfest Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
19K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Dotini
Trump's Legacy: the US Space Force and conservative judges
Replies
1
Views
780
Dotini
Dotini
Joey D
High Altitude Objects Over North America
2 3
Replies
75
Views
7K
Liquid
Liquid

Latest Posts

Back