Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    box_cardinal_peanut

    + friends - friends
    62,855 link karma
    4,982 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Brunette sitting on a bookshelf box_cardinal_peanut 2 points ago in pussy

    What's life without a little risk right?

    [–] Leopard print jacket and no panties box_cardinal_peanut 5 points ago * (lasted edited 12 hours ago) in FoxyDi

    More pictures from this set: https://imgur.com/a/mmGUlZm

    [–] How Fox News accidentally revealed the truth about support for Medicare-for-all box_cardinal_peanut 2 points ago in politics

    Full text of the article, for those blocked by the paywall:

    By Helaine Olen

    Opinion writer

    April 16 at 7:40 PM

    It was a moment so surreal, it seemed almost like a dream. During Fox News’s Monday night town hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), host Bret Baier asked audience members how many had private health insurance. A large majority raised their hands. He then followed up by asking how many would like to see Medicare-for-all enacted. Almost all the same hands went up — remember, this was on Fox News! — with wild cheers to boot.

    Baier’s action violated a major rule of lawyers: Never ask a witness on the stand a question to which you don’t know the answer. However, I must point out, only in the Fox News bubble would anyone be surprised by the popularity of Medicare-for-all — polls routinely find more than half of Americans say they support it, including one from last year that found a majority of Republicans say they back Sanders’s signature initiative.

    As I watched the hand-waving, cheering crowd on Fox, I immediately thought about a statistic that landed on my desk earlier Monday, which showed how employer-based health insurance is offering less financial protection for low-income Americans than many realize. According to a study on the employer health insurance market from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Peterson Center on Healthcare, households with incomes at 200 percent of poverty — slightly more than $50,000 for a family of four — are spending on average 14 percent of their income on premiums, deductibles and medical bills — a number that jumps to 18.5 percent if someone in the family suffers a health crisis.

    Health care and health insurance costs are putting increasing strains on all budgets, not simply those of people living paycheck to paycheck. As the Kaiser Family Foundation reported, the typical health insurance premium for a family increased at double the rate of inflation in 2018, after soaring by 55 percent over the previous decade. The average deductible is also in the four figures, having increased by slightly more than 50 percent over a five-year period. People find medical services increasingly unaffordable, even when they are insured, with almost a quarter of people prescribed prescription drugs — including 23 percent of senior citizens — saying they are having an increasingly hard time affording their medicines.

    Nonetheless, many health-care policy wonks and more than a few politicians remain convinced Americans are enamored of the current system. They point to surveys that find people are satisfied with their current plans, not realizing that those findings are all relative. Stability in the health insurance market is wildly exaggerated: A few years back, a survey found that only 7 in 10 people with employer insurance in Michigan remained on the same employer plan a year later. Second, dissatisfaction with employer health insurance is hardly unknown: For starters, it was one of the causes of the teacher strikes and job actions last year in red-state West Virginia and solidly blue Jersey City, N.J. Almost everyone is concerned about increasing costs. Even when people are happy with what’s on offer, they can feel trapped, something economists call job lock: People who suffered cancer in childhood, for instance, often fear changing jobs because they are afraid of coverage gaps or higher medical costs going forward.

    All this goes a long way toward explaining why parts of the health insurance industry went on the offensive Tuesday after Sanders’ appearance on Fox, attempting to scare the American public into submission to the current, clearly unacceptable status quo. David Wichmann, the chief executive of UnitedHealth, the nation’s largest health insurance company, said on a company earnings call that Medicare-for-all plans would “surely jeopardize the relationship people have with their doctors, destabilize the nation’s health system and limit the ability of clinicians to practice medicine at their best.” Actually, that sounds like our current reality, where insurance companies routinely impede the relationship between doctors and patients, insisting on approving medications, treatments and even requests for physical therapy sessions, sometimes denying them willy-nilly.

    While I suspect more than a few people believe Medicare-for-all means something more like the Center for American Progress plan called Medicare Extra for All, which would permit people to keep employer-based health insurance if they prefer, I don’t think very many believe, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated in a recent interview with The Post, that they mean simple universal health coverage. Nor does it simply mean upping subsidies for the Affordable Care Act plans. I think it means people want at least the option of joining the plan that works so well for people over the age of 65. Much of American politics — like, say, tax cuts — comes down to some variant of “What about me?” Why would health care be any different?

    [–] How Fox News accidentally revealed the truth about support for Medicare-for-all box_cardinal_peanut 1 points ago in politics

    Full text of the article, for those blocked by the paywall:

    By Helaine Olen

    Opinion writer

    April 16 at 7:40 PM

    It was a moment so surreal, it seemed almost like a dream. During Fox News’s Monday night town hall with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), host Bret Baier asked audience members how many had private health insurance. A large majority raised their hands. He then followed up by asking how many would like to see Medicare-for-all enacted. Almost all the same hands went up — remember, this was on Fox News! — with wild cheers to boot.

    Baier’s action violated a major rule of lawyers: Never ask a witness on the stand a question to which you don’t know the answer. However, I must point out, only in the Fox News bubble would anyone be surprised by the popularity of Medicare-for-all — polls routinely find more than half of Americans say they support it, including one from last year that found a majority of Republicans say they back Sanders’s signature initiative.

    As I watched the hand-waving, cheering crowd on Fox, I immediately thought about a statistic that landed on my desk earlier Monday, which showed how employer-based health insurance is offering less financial protection for low-income Americans than many realize. According to a study on the employer health insurance market from the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Peterson Center on Healthcare, households with incomes at 200 percent of poverty — slightly more than $50,000 for a family of four — are spending on average 14 percent of their income on premiums, deductibles and medical bills — a number that jumps to 18.5 percent if someone in the family suffers a health crisis.

    Health care and health insurance costs are putting increasing strains on all budgets, not simply those of people living paycheck to paycheck. As the Kaiser Family Foundation reported, the typical health insurance premium for a family increased at double the rate of inflation in 2018, after soaring by 55 percent over the previous decade. The average deductible is also in the four figures, having increased by slightly more than 50 percent over a five-year period. People find medical services increasingly unaffordable, even when they are insured, with almost a quarter of people prescribed prescription drugs — including 23 percent of senior citizens — saying they are having an increasingly hard time affording their medicines.

    Nonetheless, many health-care policy wonks and more than a few politicians remain convinced Americans are enamored of the current system. They point to surveys that find people are satisfied with their current plans, not realizing that those findings are all relative. Stability in the health insurance market is wildly exaggerated: A few years back, a survey found that only 7 in 10 people with employer insurance in Michigan remained on the same employer plan a year later. Second, dissatisfaction with employer health insurance is hardly unknown: For starters, it was one of the causes of the teacher strikes and job actions last year in red-state West Virginia and solidly blue Jersey City, N.J. Almost everyone is concerned about increasing costs. Even when people are happy with what’s on offer, they can feel trapped, something economists call job lock: People who suffered cancer in childhood, for instance, often fear changing jobs because they are afraid of coverage gaps or higher medical costs going forward.

    All this goes a long way toward explaining why parts of the health insurance industry went on the offensive Tuesday after Sanders’ appearance on Fox, attempting to scare the American public into submission to the current, clearly unacceptable status quo. David Wichmann, the chief executive of UnitedHealth, the nation’s largest health insurance company, said on a company earnings call that Medicare-for-all plans would “surely jeopardize the relationship people have with their doctors, destabilize the nation’s health system and limit the ability of clinicians to practice medicine at their best.” Actually, that sounds like our current reality, where insurance companies routinely impede the relationship between doctors and patients, insisting on approving medications, treatments and even requests for physical therapy sessions, sometimes denying them willy-nilly.

    While I suspect more than a few people believe Medicare-for-all means something more like the Center for American Progress plan called Medicare Extra for All, which would permit people to keep employer-based health insurance if they prefer, I don’t think very many believe, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated in a recent interview with The Post, that they mean simple universal health coverage. Nor does it simply mean upping subsidies for the Affordable Care Act plans. I think it means people want at least the option of joining the plan that works so well for people over the age of 65. Much of American politics — like, say, tax cuts — comes down to some variant of “What about me?” Why would health care be any different?

    [–] The Trump administration’s suspicion of science claims another victim box_cardinal_peanut 17 points ago in politics

    Full text of the article, for those blocked by the paywall:

    By Editorial Board

    April 15

    THE LAUNCH of Sputnik by the Soviet Union on Oct. 4, 1957, sent shockwaves through the United States, not the least of which was a fear of being overshadowed in science and technology. Physicists rose to the Cold War challenge. In 1960, a small group of them formed an independent organization, known as the Jasons, to help the U.S. government solve its most vexing technological problems. For more than six decades, the Jasons have labored every summer to tackle mind-bending challenges. Now, their future is in doubt.

    On March 28, the Defense Department notified the MITRE Corp. that an expiring five-year contract for the Jasons would not be renewed because the “requirement has changed.” Only one study, on electronic warfare, is to be completed. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), chairman of the strategic forces subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee, revealed the decision at a hearing on April 9, and it was confirmed by Steven Aftergood of the Federation of American Scientists, as well as reports in Science and Nature . Mr. Cooper has asked the Pentagon to reconsider — and we agree.

    If not reversed, the decision could effectively end a long and fruitful collaboration of the best and brightest scientists with the U.S. government. The candid advice of the Jasons, widely respected, has not always led to easy choices for policymakers, grappling with limited resources and political interests. The word of the Jasons may not be sitting well with an ideological administration like this one, so often at odds with scientists on climate change and other topics.

    According to Nature, there are currently about 40 members of the Jasons, stellar academics with top-secret clearances, who spend the summer at La Jolla, Calif., working on 12 to 15 studies a year at a cost of $7 million to $8 million, including for the military, the intelligence agencies and the departments of Energy and Homeland Security. Ann Finkbeiner, author of “The Jasons: The Secret History of Science’s Postwar Elite,” a book about the group, documented their early work on thorny problems arising from the nuclear weapons age, such as the test ban and questions about defense against ballistic missiles. In later years, the Jasons broadened out; by the end of the 1980s, members included computer scientists, astronomers, geoscientists, mathematicians, materials scientists, engineers and oceanographers. The 1990s brought more attention to biology and cybersecurity. Many of the group’s studies are classified, but some are public. Ms. Finkbeiner says the name Jasons was conferred by Mildred Goldberger, wife of founding member Murph Goldberger, after the Greek myth, because she thought of the advisers as golden heroes.

    Today’s technology enigmas are no less daunting than those of the 1960s: climate change, antibiotic resistance, cybersecurity, genetic engineering, privacy and more. It is wrong-headed to jettison a braintrust like the Jasons. The scientists serve out of a sense of duty to the nation. The United States imprudently abolished the Office of Technology Assessment two decades ago. It shouldn’t make a similar mistake now.

    [–] Random nice guy making a comment about so girl he doesn’t know in a meme box_cardinal_peanut 13 points ago in niceguys

    It must be a universal law that a /r/niceguy shows up in response to comments like these and starts spewing ... whatever this is.

    [–] Guy who paid a (fake) hitman $500 to lynch his black neighbor box_cardinal_peanut 3 points ago in beholdthemasterrace

    Article (behind a soft paywall) that talks about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/15/us/hit-man-lynching.html

    The hitman was actually an undercover FBI agent.

    Full text of the article:

    A white man in South Carolina has been sentenced to 10 years in prison after he pleaded guilty to trying to hire a hit man to kill his black neighbor, hang him from a tree and leave a burning cross in his yard, prosecutors said.

    The man, Brandon Cory Lecroy, 26, of Greenwood, was arrested last year after a confidential source tipped off the authorities that Mr. Lecroy had reached out to an unidentified white supremacist organization seeking help in the murder.

    An F.B.I. agent posing as a hit man contacted Mr. Lecroy, who told the agent over the phone, “$500 and he’s a ghost,” according to an arrest warrant affidavit. After giving the agent an initial payment of $100, he was taken into custody.

    Mr. Lecroy received the maximum 10-year sentence and three years of court-ordered supervision on Friday after pleading guilty to a murder-for-hire charge, the United States attorney’s office in South Carolina said in a statement.

    The attempted killing came as hate crimes are on the rise. Last year, the F.B.I. said that reports of such crimes had increased 17 percent from 2016 to 2017. That was the third straight year they had risen as issues of race increasingly dominated the political climate. Image

    The primary motivators in hate crimes are race, ethnicity, religion and sexual orientation, the F.B.I. said in its report last year. Reporting hate crimes to the F.B.I. is still voluntary for law enforcement agencies, and in 2017, only 12.6 percent of federal agencies reported that a hate crime had occurred in their jurisdiction.

    In Mr. Lecroy’s case, the authorities said they were tipped off in March 2018 that he had contacted the white supremacist group for help with the killing.

    Mr. Lecroy went as far as texting the agent photos of two targets, including the neighbor, whom the authorities have not identified. He also provided times when it would have been best to commit the murder.

    Mr. Lecroy said he planned to take over his neighbor’s property, according to an affidavit in the United States District Court in South Carolina. He also asked the agent for a “ghost gun,” or an untraceable 9-millimeter gun that had not been stolen, according to court documents. What Mr. Lecroy planned to do with the “ghost gun” was not disclosed.

    After initially pleading not guilty, Mr. Lecroy withdrew his plea and pleaded guilty to one count of murder for hire.

    Victims of hate crimes often do not believe that reporting their crime will help their situation, and that contributes to why many hate crimes remain unreported.

    Last year, the F.B.I. said it planned to train its agents to be better at identifying and reporting hate crimes. The Justice Department has also set up a website that focuses on education and prevention of hate crimes and providing resources for victims, citizens and officials.

    [–] This ad for graduation photography box_cardinal_peanut 2 points ago in CrappyDesign

    Dude you're bringing back awful memories from my own graduation

    [–] This ad for graduation photography box_cardinal_peanut 1 points ago in CrappyDesign

    But can you see the moment when her heart breaks in half?

    [–] This ad for graduation photography box_cardinal_peanut 1 points ago in CrappyDesign

    I too saw this joke posted earlier in this exact thread

    [–] This ad for graduation photography box_cardinal_peanut 1 points ago in CrappyDesign

    Someone else in the thread mentioned that is usually illegal to take photos on train tracks in the US because they're private property. It's also quite dangerous