DescentBB

http://womensrights.change.org/blog/vie ... al_neglect

When stuff like this goes on? I'm just.... shocked. I can't even express outrage practically because it just seems so damn ludicrous to have happened in this country... I'd expect something like this out of Saudie Arabia maybe?

This has nothing to do with best or worst country. This is about some local turn key gaoler's who improperly did their job and whom I hope, get reamed either thru criminal neglect charges or thru a civil wrongful death for both the woman and her unborn child.
What is truly sad is how we treat incarcerated terrorists better than we do our own citizens.

In case you didn't notice she was already in jail on a work release. Meaning she got released to go to work and then she reported back to the jail for the remainder of the day. She wasn't jailed because got pregnant she just had her work release revoked.

Article states she violated her work release by becoming pregnant. Heretic you reading something different? Either way, still no excuse for not sending her for medical care.

In prison systems, work release programs allow a prisoner who is sufficiently trusted or can be sufficiently monitored to leave confinement to continue working at his or her current place of employment, returning to prison when his/her shift is complete.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_release

Meaning she was allowed to go to work not go out and screw. She also violated her probation from a prior convictions that is what landed her in jail. Then she got a work release. If you check more in to the story you will find that she was also treated for viral influenza then when her condition worsen she was sent to the hospital for treatment and that's when she was diagnosed bacterial pneumonia. We all know the flu and pneumonia can have similar symptoms.

Mistakes were indeed made with her illness but don't make more by implying she was jailed because she just got pregnant when in fact she was already in jail and violated her work release by not working but screwing around. Of course her work could have cause her to get pregnant since she was a hooker but that is also illegal in the state this all happen in.

So if you are married and out on a work release program you can not have sexual relations with your spouse?

So you are rushing to hypothetical questions. A work release allows you to to do you job at your work place not to work at your sexual releases at your home or other places.

So is it possible that her work release was revoked not because she became pregnant but because becoming pregnant proves she was engaging in activity prohibited as a condition of her release? For example I could see the condition of no visitation from boyfriends during work release...she gets pregnant...admits to warden she screwed her boyfriend while out for work...warden revokes work release....'journalist' writes that she was jailed for becoming pregnant.

The no medical treatment until it is too late is another issue and makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to have government in charge of everyones health care rationing.

So who owns and operates the jail?

Edit: Yes Will; she was locked up because there was proof positive that she violated her terms of release.

Krom wrote:So who owns and operates the jail?

Edit: Yes Will; she was locked up because there was proof positive that she violated her terms of release.

Allegheny County operates the Jail. Here is the article from the newspaper in Pittsburg PA. The county seat in Allegheny County.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10321/1103874-53.stm

Will Robinson wrote:The no medical treatment until it is too late is another issue and makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to have government in charge of everyones health care rationing.

And our highly vaunted private insurance industry cares a rat's behind whether she lives or dies. Suuuuuuuure private industry is "better"!

Sounds like we already have some 'Sharia Law' going on already in her case too. Oh, she got preggers, so now she goes to jail! Who cares about the fetus or if it and the mother dies. Where's the right to lifers now! Morons!

tunnelcat wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:The no medical treatment until it is too late is another issue and makes me all warm and fuzzy inside to have government in charge of everyones health care rationing.

And our highly vaunted private insurance industry cares a rat's behind whether she lives or dies. Suuuuuuuure private industry is "better"!

so let me get this right. the Government Prison system denied her medical treatment and its Private Industries fault???

tunnelcat wrote:Sounds like we already have some 'Sharia Law' going on already in her case too. Oh, she got preggers, so now she goes to jail! Who cares about the fetus or if it and the mother dies. Where's the right to lifers now! Morons!

I'm all in favor of Sharia law. maybe it will stop stupid posts like this

Wow the nonprofit Allegheny Correctional Health Services Inc was set up by none other then a government and wasn't even a private company. Not to mention that it was setup to eliminate private firms from doing the medical for inmates. Nice going TC for the epic fail to make your point about private health industry.

Did you read any of the articles?

Autopilot FTW!

CUDA wrote:I'm all in favor of Sharia law. maybe it will stop stupid posts like this

and yet, when it's applied anywhere else, you are against it.

LOL!

Ferno wrote:

CUDA wrote:I'm all in favor of Sharia law. maybe it will stop stupid posts like this

and yet, when it's applied anywhere else, you are against it.

LOL!

Obviously the intent of my post zoomed right over your head

actually no.

but you're just annoyed that I caught you in a hypocritical moment.

I don't know how true this is, but I was just talking to someone the other day about womens rights and he was telling me the US Constution does not garentee womens rights. Although some, but not all State Consitution's will garentee them.

Cuda68 wrote:I don't know how true this is, but I was just talking to someone the other day about womens rights and he was telling me the US Constution does not garentee womens rights. Although some, but not all State Consitution's will garentee them.

At the time the Constitution was written women didn't have many rights they have today. There have been laws passed since then that define equality that wasn't in law before and those laws are not unconstitutional so in that sense the Constitution does not prohibit but rather it protects womens rights.
It was really a case of the tradition of women being subservient to men giving way to the desires of women to be equal and to stop that I think would have been found to be unconstitutional because it may say "All men are created equal" I think it can be proven that "all men" was not intended to be gender specific.

Just like the slavery issue. They couldn't get the Constitution and Bill of Rights ratified if they included a specific section freeing slaves, too many states were against that, but they constructed the fundamentals to where laws that establish equality were going to be proven constitutionally correct so therefore slavery was really doomed, it merely needed the tradition to be challenged.

example: In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.

Cuda68 wrote:I don't know how true this is, but I was just talking to someone the other day about womens rights and he was telling me the US Constution does not garentee womens rights. Although some, but not all State Consitution's will garentee them.

Correct.

But, just because the constitution doesn’t protect a right doesn’t mean you done have them…

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Protection of rights ensures that some government doesn’t remove them by an act of law, therefore you have all the rights that have not been removed by law.

And the last time I checked…womens rights have not been removed by the state of PA.

Of course many of your rights are removed by default when convicted of a crime, but unless the sentence was death, life was not one of those. Or being treated like a human being.

Going from \"single case of tragic prison abuse\" to ruminating about whether we are the \"best country\" seems a bit melodramatic.

On a lighter note.

Heretic wrote:Wow the nonprofit Allegheny Correctional Health Services Inc was set up by none other then a government and wasn't even a private company. Not to mention that it was setup to eliminate private firms from doing the medical for inmates. Nice going TC for the epic fail to make your point about private health industry.

Did you read any of the articles?

Yes, I know it was a government entity. I was being snarky because whenever the government screws up, people, especially here, use that to pump up rhetoric for privatizing things. So while constantly bashing government doing this and government doing that, all the while extolling the great and wonderful benefits of the almighty private market, is in reality NOT A SOLUTION. For the deluded here, the private sector can be just as corrupt as the government sector. One isn't better than the other. Humans can screw up both systems equally. Trading one for the other isn't going to fix the problem.

CUDA, when a pregnant woman can't get proper medical care because she violated some law or another, this country has stooped right down to the same conditions women have to deal with in Muslim countries. Is that what you want for some but not others? And I thought of you as a nice person.

This is disgusting. Any prisoner who stands a reasonable chance of eventually being released should be given access to adequate medical care.

Also, she shouldn't have been screwing around while out on her work release. I think the article really tries to make it sound like she was imprisoned BECAUSE she got pregnant when it sounds like she was already imprisoned and her getting pregnant just proved she was doing things besides working while out on work release.

Jeff250 wrote:Going from "single case of tragic prison abuse" to ruminating about whether we are the "best country" seems a bit melodramatic.

On a lighter note.

It ties in with the massive prison reform we need, and I thought it was the "icing on the cake" sort of thing. I also thought of asking that question because like I said, when I read it I thought "Saudie Arabia" or "Iran" and then it read "PA, USA"... though it could be my own desire to get everyone off their high horse with this country, stop screaming "WE'RE ★■◆●ing NUMBER 1!!!!!" with no real evaluation of it.

Though in hind sight it is quite a bit melodramatic

Only people in the USA think USA is the best country in the world.

I thought this thread was going to be about Norway, Sweden, etc. You know - a country that was actually in the standing. USA isn't close.

edit: AHH USA IS #4 ON TEH LATEST FIGURES! HUGE IMPROVEMENT, THEY ARE IN THE RUNNING NOW.

Only problem is Africa is missing. Hidden racism?

http://www.katu.com/news/local/111043689.html

\"Violence behind bars and misconduct by guards is common, regardless of whether prisons are run by the government or private companies.\"

roid wrote:Only people in the USA think USA is the best country in the world. ...

Well there is the locals for sure but then there is that whole cross section of the world that choose america over all other countries as the place they choose to move to by a very large ratio:


But don't let that stop you from fomenting.

Chart is in absolute numbers. Have to take the population size & area into account. Also, \"migrant\" in general only means \"a person who moves from place to place to get work, esp. a farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally.\" ?

Edit: heh, responded to a post that was retracted while I typed..

Grendel wrote:Chart is in absolute numbers. Have to take the population size & area into account. Also, "migrant" in general only means "a person who moves from place to place to get work, esp. a farm laborer who harvests crops seasonally." ?

Edit: heh, responded to a post that was retracted while I typed..

don't know what you mean by retracted, I didn't change anything...
anyway, look up the ratio of people changing location by country any way you want, other than running away from a war zone or complete lack of ability to travel across great distance you will find America is the #1 choice

No Will, Grendel is right. You can't use that chart for meaningful comparison since it's not adjusted per capita (or per some other useful metric that we would expect migration to grow with respect to). All the chart says is that the United States is larger compared to other first world countries and so it can take in more immigrants in an absolute sense. In fact, by eyeballing it, it looks like if you adjusted it per capita, we would lose to at least Spain and Canada.

I doubt per capita would make a proper metric, perhaps first choice, or some other parameter to determine where people “want” to go.

Also the “dips” on that chart, tell a great deal.

Jeff250 wrote:No Will, Grendel is right. You can't use that chart for meaningful comparison since it's not adjusted per capita (or per some other useful metric that we would expect migration to grow with respect to). All the chart says is that the United States is larger compared to other first world countries and so it can take in more immigrants in an absolute sense. In fact, by eyeballing it, it looks like if you adjusted it per capita, we would lose to at least Spain and Canada.

People choose to go to a location because of numerous things not always the same reason. If we are discussing the most desirable choice then why do we need to subdivide the make up of what makes it desirable so that we can compare with other countries? The reason America has so many more people voting for her with their feet is the sum of all her parts.

Is it really "the best country"...no, no place is the best country except for those who have the ability to live anywhere but choose to live here. We seem to attract the lion share of those people and that is the basis for my little dig at the angry roid.

Spidey: I agree--something like \"first choice\" would be even better than adjusting per capita.

Will: I'm not \"subdividing the make up of what makes the U.S. desirable.\" The problem with the graph isn't that the U.S. being larger makes it more desirable (which may or may not even be true). The problem with the graph is that the U.S. being larger means it can support more immigration. That's all the graph is telling us, that we can take in more people. It doesn't say much about who they prefer, their first choice, etc. If we are twice as large as another country, then all things being equal, we would expect to have twice the number of immigrants, just like we would expect to have twice the number of murders, twice the number of concert pianists, and so on. You might be right that immigrants actually do prefer the U.S. but your graph does a poor job of demonstrating that, and you will have to find some other evidence.

Ok, this is kind of silly off topic but it's interesting too so WTF...

If size matters:

Immigration Statistics > immigrant population > Percentage of total number of immigrants in the world (most recent) by country:
Russia - 6.474
Canada - 3.72
India - 3.05
United States - 20.56

Of the top 4 countries in the world as sited previously by someone here:

Australia 2.1
New Zealand 0.5
Norway 0.5
United States 20.56

I know this doesn't exactly prove what I was getting at but it shines some light on why I have the perception that the U.S. is destination #1

This comparison suffers from the same problem. For example, you say that the U.S. has 20.6% of all the world's immigrants but that Canada has 3.7%. If this is true, then yes, the U.S. has 4.6x more immigrants than Canada, but we also have 8.1x more people in general! Another way of saying this is that Canadians have a lot more immigrants per capita than the U.S.!

I understand your point regarding Will’s numbers, but I’m still having a hard time figuring out why the per capita ratio is significant.

Can you explain it so I can understand? Do you know the immigration policies of these countries? Can you show a relationship between population and immigration.

I guess I could look it up myself, but you seem to already have some idea.

My logic goes like this:

You have 1000 people who want to emigrate…

20 % end up in America
4 % end up in Canada
2 % end up in Australia
Etc…

Unless there is some significant limiting factor other than choice…those numbers would indicate more people chose the USA.

Seems that up until the present for the most part, Canada has no limits on immigration. But, we on the other hand do restrict immigration.

Also according to this website, Canada may actually be suffering because of a lack of immigrants.

http://www.canadavisa.com/citizenship-a ... 80314.html

The number of people in the place immigrants choose to move to doesn't mean much to my assertion that people favor the U.S. as a destination considering the reason anglo's came here in the first place wasn't because they knew there was an indigenous population that could support there new life here. It was the opportunity to live without the hardships caused by other people.

I'd agree that the infrastructure, economy, culture and government here is an attraction to them and all that is proportionate to the population but every country in the 'contest' has their own population and culture and geography, etc. so the contest is fair.
You may be highlighting some of the reason for choosing a place but regardless of why, the choice has been made.

So you're buying it?

All Jeff did was take your raw data and convert it into a statistic. That statisic has no data on why the original numbers are what they are.