Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:20 PM) There is a difference between a kid "getting sick" and a kid dieing. If a kid dies because of a peanut allergy and the school was on notice of the allergy, how exactly are you going to win on summary judgment? All I have to do is allege that the school acted recklessly and its a question of fact. Allowing other children to have peanut butter around a kid who can die from it, could be considered willful and wanton. Its absolutely a question of fact. Why? If my kid wanted to bring a lion to school and the school said okay, would another parent argue that was willful and wanton by the school? Of course. The problem is notice. Once the school is on notice, its hard to argue that preventing a kid from touching a peanut isnt a question of fact over whether the school used "ordinary care." Now if the school didnt know about the allergy, then summary judgment would be very likely. Simply having notice of something isn't enough. Bringing a lion to school has a high probability of harm. That's foreseeable. Knowing a kid has a nut allergy and allowing him in a large lunch room with other kids eating nuts, what are the odds he gets sick/dies? I've never heard of it. I'm not sure it's ever happened before. It's gotta be incredibly rare. That's totally unforeseeable (not to mention the lack of proximate cause - condition, not a cause argument - might be at play). What you're suggesting is the school acted willfully and wantonly so long as they're on notice that a kid has an allergy. In a school full of 1000 kids, are you really going to require the school to know the severity of allergies for every single kid and protect them accordingly. That's an "intolerable" requirement, especially for an immune entity.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:06 PM) Also this recent study on white working-class Americans: (from) Research like this would seem to support the liberal/progressive contention that much of the discussion of the social safety net is tinged with racial bias. Working-class whites receive many government benefits themselves, but those benefits are not seen in the same light as the "hand outs" that other people get. eg from the report: That's not necessarily inconsistent if those white people are simply saying long-term recipients are a problem, even if they personally received some short term welfare. What does the data show re: blacks versus whites there? Do blacks accept more welfare for longer periods of time? Or is it pretty equal? In Chicago I'm guessing it's blacks more (with my knowledge of the CHA and the hospitals in the area), but maybe in towns like Boston with poor Irish it's more equal.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) The problem is that its a square peg and a round hole. There should be an explicit part of the act that covers food/schools. The reason is because I can argue that if the school knew of the allergy, not taking actions to prevent the death would be willful and wanton. Maybe id win, maybe id lose, but the risk is likely enough to get a settlement. And being on both sides of the litigation table, this is the main problem with our profession these days. If every business simply had the balls to say "no, we're fighting this to the end, he doesn't deserve a dime" the cost-of-defense filings would stop pretty quickly. Plaintiff attorneys wouldn't want to waste the time/energy/money on fighting a case with a 5% chance of winning. But as it is, today you know that even if you get to a summary judgment phase the defense is going to pay you 5-15k just because that's the cost to pay their attorneys to file and win the MSJ or motion to dismiss. It's at the point now where Judges use this fact as part of their pre-trial/mediation techniques. "Look, it's going to cost you X to try this thing, i'll try to get him/her down to X amount which is a little more than the cost of defense, but not worth the gamble of trying it."

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) The problem is that its a square peg and a round hole. There should be an explicit part of the act that covers food/schools. The reason is because I can argue that if the school knew of the allergy, not taking actions to prevent the death would be willful and wanton. Maybe id win, maybe id lose, but the risk is likely enough to get a settlement. I'd be pretty confident in winning a summary judgment there. You'd have to have some pretty good facts to plead willful/wanton. Otherwise the school would be sued on a daily basis. My kid has a weak immune system. I tell the school this. They should know to keep my kid isolated so he doesn't get sick! Come on, that's a ludicrous degree of care there. Giving a kid known to have a nut allergy a spoonful of peanut butter is one thing. Simply allowing him to be in a lunch room if you serve peanut butter to other students is another.

I never understood why liberals think that when conservatives b**** about this it's only black people we're considered about. More white people receive food stamps and welfare. I get more angry at the white parents with the 2-3 kids at Sams Clubs using Link and Wic for essentials and then spending 300 bucks on garbage more than someone living in a public housing development (anger is equal if it were black parents, but I don't see any at my local Sams Club)

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 10:55 AM) Thats not even close to true. Look up tort immunity and municipal liability acts. Schools for whatever reason dont aggressively ask for protection like other areas of govt. No idea why not. School districts are a local public entity under the tort immunity act. So you'd have to allege/prove willful and wanton conduct. Not removing peanut butter from the menu couldn't possibly be such conduct unless they knew of the kid with the allergy and purposefully gave him a peanut butter sandwich, something along those lines. Simply having it available to other children with the knowledge of his allergy wouldn't be enough.

IN!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 03:34 PM) Can you lay out in more detail how "the economy isn't a moral game" leads to "there should be no bankruptcies" If you're fine bailing out people who purposefully (or negligently) f*** up and lose everything and the only thing that matters is the economics, than you might as well get rid of the bankruptcy system and step in and pay for the employees of poorly run businesses to keep their jobs and for the businesses to continue operation because their net effect is probably more than the cost of helping them out. According to Balta, bailing out GM was actually a net positive, so why not extend that logic to every business? Why not pay off my student loans so I have more money to spend in other parts of the economy (which will eventually make more than the cost of paying off my loans)?

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) I don't understand why chickfila is possilbe. I think wendy's chicken things kick it's ass in every way possible. But I don't eat fast food much anymore beside chipotle, God's gift to man. The day after Chipotle is not pleasant for me. And it's crazy over-priced. Give me a burrito from a cheap, dirty mexican place anytime of the week.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 12:12 PM) Just a small nitpick but I think they got rid of peanut butter and peanut products because they could so easily contaminate other foods. Using the same knife, used to be on the counter, etc. No I get that, but i'm sure you could let the teachers know who has allergies (they do already) and watch out for them. It's not like 3rd graders prepare their own meals, they just eat what they're given.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) You all missed half the point. The ACLU was saying that the schools had no business in trying to 'force' these gender stereotypes that all girls want a dance or that all guys want to play sports. So the mere fact that it is daddy-daughter dance, and not parent-kid dance is one of the complaints. Oh yeah I missed that. I thought it was a "we have to make single parent kids feel like they're the same despite the fact that they're not so let's cancel the event for everyone." I didn't realize it was a gender stereotyping issue. That's even more f***ed up.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 10:53 AM) Did you really just compare this dance issue to a medical condition that could cause illness, hospitalization, and even death? I think his point was that instead of giving kids with nut allergies something different than peanut butter, schools have decided to just not give peanut butter to anyone so that the kids with the allergy don't feel left out or different.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 10:30 AM) I just took my daughter to a father/daughter dance last year. She had a great time. I didn't really pay attention but I'm sure if any of the girls came with someone other than their father they weren't denied entrance. This thinking by parents of "If my kid can't have it then why should anyone's kid" is getting ridiculous. They act like it's some horrible thing for their kid to learn that they may be different than everyone else and not everyone gets treated exactly the same. This is just as bad as schools banning peanut butter from lunchrooms because one kid is allergic to it rather than separating out the single kid. I hate to see when these kids grow up and realize that the rest of the world doesn't always conform to them and they have to deal with it. Oh but they don't deal with it. See: Occupiers.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) You have to interview, hire and train about 50,000 people. And no, they won't all be from the public schools that have jobs now. That process alone will take months upon months or more. You have to build and/or fix facilities - maybe only a few, or a lot, depending on what public facilities you can operate in. You have to go through long certification processes with the state and feds, like all schools do. You have to have companies with enough staff to handle managing the charters and administrations of these schools, which right now they don't have, and it may take a long time to get. You have to set up school boards, and have public review periods for many charter school elements, including their curriculum. You will have to fight the unions legally, and that will be a long, drawn out, and expensive mess. You have to set up the financial arrangements for funding, contracts, and all that other fun legal crap, which again, seems easy on the surface, but in reality ends up taking forever while the lawyers tear it apart. You have to make wholesale changes in the CPS administration, and take on large charges to get out from under current obligations. You have to have the laws changed, at the state level and in city ordinances, which means getting the backing of the state legislature (both chambers), the governor, the city council and the mayor (there are rules in place about public education and city-provided schools that have huge monetary impacts, and they need to change if you do this). The list goes on, but seriously... tell me with a straight face you think that could be done in a couple months. I never said a couple of months, but it's not going to take 5 years either. The City of Chicago has charter schools in place, so they're not reinventing the wheel. The majority of the hiring can come from existing people in the CPS system, and if not I'm sure there's a bevy of recent grads waiting in the wings. Yes, certification may be difficult, but if you're doing it on a city wide basis why couldn't that be expedited? They're already working/have worked on 75% of this stuff. That's where the system is headed anyway, why not do it now rather than 10 years from now? That's all i'm saying.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 08:38 AM) I think you are being incredibly unrealistic. Seriously, think for just a second about what goes into opening a new school - just one, of any kind, in CPS. Now imagine doing it for a few hundred of them, all in, what, a summer? Come on, that's insane and has zero chance of being possible. Do I even have to list all the things you have to do for each school to get it up and running? Not saying it would be easy. But I don't see why it would be impossible either.

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 20, 2012 -> 08:02 AM) If she tried to do any of those things and they prevented her, then I could maybe see an issue. If not, then this is beyond stupid. This. Our country is getting more f***ed up every year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 07:06 PM) Your desire to see bad people punished, to make the economy a morality play hurts everyone. By this logic there should never be bankruptcy, the gov't should just step in and pay everyone off. That's bunk and you know it. Morality has nothing to do with it, just like government should have nothing to do with fixing other people's egregious errors.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 04:53 PM) Who pays for the person's food and shelter while at the community college? The same people that pay for it now while they're in grade school? The public!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 02:59 PM) Completely impractical. You really think you can start up a few hundred charter schools in any short period of time? Who will run them? This would take years, and you'd have utter pandemonium in the meantime. They are instead slowly sliding that way, which is really the only way to do it. It also allows you to control things better, seeing what works and doesn't as you build, etc. Not sure I agree with that. Frankly, the CPS just hasn't done a great job with the resources they have. And yes, I am aware of and agree with the thought that in SOME areas, they do not have enough resources. Why not? There are already model schools out there, borrow their charters. Just say "hey this CPS school is not a charter school." Boom. Done.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 12:58 PM) "Osama bin Laden is dead and General Motors is alive". "At a 14 billion+ loss to the American people and a boon to my reelection chances because I pandered to the auto unions."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) I'd be happy to do a lot more things that are an economic plus to society over the long run. Now's a great time too since interest rates are negative relative to inflation over the 10 year period. But that actively requries spending money. It doesn't matter if it's a good investment in the long run to invest in education, bridges, high speed rail, electric cars, dams, solar power, smart grids, whatever...those can all be great investments in the long run, but when you have people who are focused solely on "Cutting spending", good investments get cut when they are listened to. But again, you're not spending anymore money. How much does it cost to go to a community college for four years? 15k? How much is the City going to spend at John Stroger or assisted living or whatever else? Probably near the same or more. You're talking about the same time frame roughly, so it's not like pay it now and wait for the investment to pay off.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) Who cares if it gets the economy functional again and gets people working? People shouldn't be rewarded for being stupid. The banks shouldn't have been bailed out, and these idiots should have lost their homes. We're not talking about people 2 years away from owning their home outright. We're talking about idiots that took on a 30 ARM with a balloon payment a few years down the line that was way more than they could afford. They don't deserve to keep their home.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) You don't have to do that, though. As with anything, you do this with rules attached. You don't bail out people that bought houses far above and beyond what they could afford. But by that token, you also don't bail out the banks that lent them the f***ing money in the first place. There is, however, a HUGE subset of people that fall in the middle that did deserve the help...and helping them as I suggested would have fixed everything they attempted to fix, only it wouldn't have just benefited the rich. Who's going to determine that? And how many people would use the "oh the predatory lending got me! I was dooped! I knew I only made 1500 a month but that 3200 mortgage payment seemed totally doable in 5 years into the future!"

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 03:19 PM) I don't know that there's data supporting it, but I'd be all-in for the concept if someone could establish that it would produce good results in terms of getting people to finish college. Problem of course is finding the money, and spending = bad. Why would their be anymore spending? Presumably they go to college and get a good job and become a economic plus to society. They're not in jail or in public housing and they can pay for themselves. And again, they're not creating a new generation of people uninterested in obtaining an education and moving up in the world.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 19, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) Real wages have been stagnant for decades. The middle class is shrinking and the wealth and income gaps are exploding, especially since the start of this recession. The problem isn't a "moocher" class of lazy poors. The opportunities to pull yourself out of poverty have been disappearing. Agreed, so instead of throwing money at the status quo, why not throw the money at creating more opportunities. Ditto with the schools. Instead of throwing money at the schools, throw it into the communities. Shoot, at this point i'm almost ready to pay those kids to show up and get decent grades. You graduate you get a free ride to a community college. Something along those lines. Hopefully a good percentage of those students would take that deal and at least for some generations there'd be some movement up in society.