We can argue all we want about how ineffective and/or misguided the War on Drugs has been, but that doesn't change that fact that crimes are crimes. Were some of the sentencing guidelines structured in a racist way? Maybe, I've heard people say that and don't have any evidence showing the opposite, but that is a side issue.
The money quote:
> "You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
The origins of that quote are dubious. Author Dan Baum claims that Nixon lawyer John Ehrlichman made this confession to him back in 1994, but Dan waited until 2016 to publish it-- long enough that most people in Nixon's inner circle (including Ehrlichman himself) have died and couldn't set the record straight.
However, Pat Buchanan (long time adviser to Nixon) said in an interview that the quote is nonsense.
Not a fan on the War on Drugs, especially not after reading that. On the other hand, I'm strongly in favor of enforcing the laws on the books, and if there is a bad law it should be changed, not ignored.
That Vox article is being misleading when they frame it based on "reported using the drug in the last year" because doing coke once on New Years is a lot different that doing coke daily. Looking at the daily use stats their statement that "In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people." doesn't seem so extremely disproportionate considering the daily usage is in some cases 3x as much. Very dishonest article.
Sorry for double post, it wouldn't let me edit the other one for more clarity.
Typically you waive your rights to view your recommendation letters. With FEPRA, I believe you can review recommendation letters a year after you applied as schools may keep them on file. However, I believe if you did not enroll at a school, they are typically destroyed.
Recommendation letters are candid responses from teachers/professors about your abilities and what you will bring to a school. By waiving your rights, it allows them to be more candid in their writing instead of stating facts such as grades and other items readily accessible on your transcript.
Having written letters of rec as a school counselor for 8 years, it is a daunting and tiring process. However, the best letters I wrote were because the students befriended me and I was able to write them without them providing me any information.
This looks to be a good alternative except it does not have HIPAA support.
Even though I have shut down my practice for the near future, I will still need to have information protected for several years to the Health Department's requirements for psychological records.
Email providers who lack this support will have difficulty gaining traction in the health world.
This is what puzzles me about the immigration debate. Most move here to work and better themselves and effectively pay a higher tax rate than corporations.
I don't know where "immigrants" came into this. I made NO mention of immigration, just foreign (overseas) ownership of shares in Corporations. What has that got to do with immigration?
I have been with Fi for several years and have never had a problem with customer service. I always call and speak with a rep who is readily available to help. My Pixel 1 had bluetooth issues and I was sent a replacement within a week. The second time it went bad because the screen stopped turning on, it was an equally quick turn around.
Maybe voice is a better option than chat, at least in my experience.
This is a loaded question with many different factors. One factor is privatized insurance is only concerned about turning quarterly profits over providing care. Additionally they are not held accountable for unethical practices as they continue to break the law without any ramification.
Anecdotally, my mom worked for P&G when I was growing up and she said the main difference between the brands was which one was on sale, sold more than the other. In a way the price was the biggest reason for selling toothpaste, not marketing.
I realized quickly in undergrad I could not program. This prompted the change to psych and eventually a MS in Counseling Psych. Today I am licensed with a small practice and work full-time in public education.
Even though I have so much more to learn, moving towards a humanistic approach has had such a positive impact with clients and myself. Being able to sit back and be with a feeling, no matter how uncomfortable, challenges me to think about what is really the problem. This is beneficial in schools because it is the same way with students and faculty because the surface emotion is only an indicator something is wrong.
I think my curiosity to understand the human condition is what led me to study and practice. At the same time, involving tech into my practice is necessary to help indicate progress for clients in addition to how it can replace me when out of session.
Man's Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl changed how I viewed most of the world, especially as a counselor. Learning how experiences change how a person views the world and its impact on their life.
Reading about how he experienced time in a concentration camp with endless hope to be reunited with his wife kept him going and surviving each day hungry, cold, and doing his best to take care of the ill. He learned the positive impact of hope and when individuals lost it, they quickly fell ill or died. It gave me perspective and to challenge my way of thinking in addition to helping clients learn there are multiple ways to interpret anything.
No, C-shift-w closes the window. C-q Quits the application, meaning it would close all of your Windows. And if the entire application closes, a hotkey to bring the window back won't work. That's why it's so frustrating when I click it by accident.
