This is the News!

[JohnW]

Credit Suisse and now Deutsche Bank - what domino number are we up to now?

I've been too apathetic to look, and I wouldn't understand any of it anyway. All I know is that I get a cheeky letter every few weeks telling me my mortgage payments are going up again.

Back in the last crash my bank printed off a handy graph showing what had happened to my life savings. It looked like a drawing of a steep cliff with little pointy rocks at the bottom.
"Jesus," I said, even though I wasn't too surprised.
"Yeah, I know," said the bank monkey. "How did they let that happen?"
They?
They?
THEY?

[The Legendary Shark]

Throughout history there has been a quiet struggle going on. Sometimes the people control money creation and society flourishes. Sometimes money is created by a very few and society suffers, as it is suffering now. Neither one can sustain itself indefinitely.

This is the true economic cycle.

To curb the excesses of both, the cycle must be broken and another way found. In my view, this would be one of the major steps towards true global civilization.

[Jim_Campbell]

Sometimes the people control money creation and society flourishes

Not snark — I'm genuinely curious. When has this ever happened?

[The Legendary Shark]

In Rome. One of the cesars (I forget which one off the top of my head but I want to say Julius because this factor played an important part in his assassination) took control of money creation (which, at the time, consisted of confiscating the wealth of conquered peoples into the public purse instead of into the private hands of the generals, governors, senators, etc.) and spent it into society through massive public projects such as aqueducts, stadia and roads. Doing it this way meant that the state no longer had to borrow from private sources at interest and pass the cost onto the people through taxes.

The main difference between publicly created money and privately created is the need for interest. Publicly created money requires virtually no interest, just enough to run the system, but privately created money bears the interest the creators decide is right. In the Christian tradition, making money from money is called usury and regarded as a sin. The money changers outside the temple (who sold "temple coins*" to worshipers) wound Jesus up so much that he lost his temper with them. No matter one's view of the veracity, or otherwise, of the Bible, it at least displays an awareness of the dangers of usury - which have been ignored and now stifle virtually the whole world.

(I think Jim knows most of this, especially the stuff about usury, so I'm not trying to teach my granny to suck eggs - I'm just showing off...)


*Temple coins were sold as a kind of holy coin, the only currency valid in the House of God as common coins were too dirty and nasty and horrid to be accepted into His treasury. The money changers (not money lenders, as is commonly misquoted) sold temple coins to the faithful at whatever rate they liked and the priests then sold the temple coins back to the money changers so that everyone - except the faithful, of course - made a tidy profit. Money from nothing, see? That's basically how the banking system works today, though it's obfuscated to buggery.

[Proudhuff]

obfuscated to buggery.

I think I saw that Portillo train journey, he had his little Bradshaw in his hand.

[Funt Solo]

This one has an odd and twisted path, but it goes something like this:

1. Disney owns a theme park in Florida.
2. Florida's Ron DeSantis passes a regressive anti-LGBT+ law (aka "Don't say gay").
3. Disney calls it out as regressive.
4. DeSantis moves to take over the running of the theme park as a punishment.
5. Disney sneaks a clause into their legal agreements the day before the takeover.

The clause says Disney can veto anything they're told to do until "21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, king of England"

Longer story here: Disney sidesteps DeSantis board with royal clause

[The Legendary Shark]

US legislation appears to be bonkers.

In some American states, children as young as 9 can apparently judge for themselves about such monumental, life-altering decisions as taking sex-change hormones, agreeing to the (CENSORED) injections without parental consent or even knowledge and whatnot - but, in Maryland:

A Democratic delegate proposed a law in Maryland that would bar anyone under 25 years of age from being charged with felony murder.

...supporters of the bill say that the brain is not fully developed before age 25, so issuing so harsh a sentence is unfair.

What the actual flip is going on over there?

[lincnash]

What the actual flip is going on over there?

Murderous Futsies running amok in primary schools and the orange Bad Bob Booth having a second run at power?
Going by the escalating turmoil over decades and current state of affairs, the Meggers future can only be Block Mania breaking out in isolated States, followed by a Nationwide Block War.

[Hawkmumbler]

In some American states, children as young as 9 can apparently judge for themselves about such monumental, life-altering decisions as taking sex-change hormones

Going to have to correct you on this one Shark, there isn't a single state in the US where anyone taking sex change hormones can be any younger than 16, if it's legal at all.

What you are thinking of is hormone blocker medication, which is none permanent (to reverse the effects you simply stop taking them, and there are no indicators of any long or short term detrimental effects) and are used for a wide array of reasons outside of transitioning.

[M.I.K.]

It should also be pointed out that "felony murder" isn't the same as just "murder".

The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed (regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.

The rule was abolished in Ireland, Northern Ireland, England and Wales in the 1960s and didn't exist in Scottish law to begin with.

[The Legendary Shark]

Hawkie, I'm not going to debate the ins and outs of individual treatments. My point is that parents are being further and further removed from involvement in such decisions for minors. In California, senators are disagreeing over this aspect (consent) across several "sensitive services," which are defined as "all health care services related to mental or behavioral health, sexual and reproductive health, sexually transmitted infections, substance use disorder, gender affirming care, and intimate partner violence." You are correct, though, it's not 9 years of age, but 12.

The age 9 has been applied in cases of that-which-cannot-be-mentioned, not "sensitive services," sorry about that.

M.I.K., it's not the nature of the legislation which I am criticising, it's the illogic of having an age limit of 25 imposed on some, 12 on some, and 9 on others. A person aged 9 or 12 can consent to some life-altering things without parental input (presumably because their brains are developed enough), but can't join the armed forces, consume alcohol, have sex etc. My point is that arguing that pre-teens can consent to such monumental decisions does not fit with the idea that under 25s cannot be held responsible for certain crimes.

A good friend of mine (here in the UK) has been told by the NHS that she cannot make a decision on that-which-cannot-be-mentioned for her 14 year old daughter, but that her daughter must contact the NHS herself to decline treatment because the age of consent for that-which-cannot-be-mentioned is now 12.

I am not a parent, thank God, but if I was I'm pretty sure I'd want to be involved in such decisions.

[Hawkmumbler]

Bit baffled by your inclusion, not of evidence to support your point, but a random letter denouncing the existence of the point you're trying to make. 

[The Legendary Shark]

That letter was ignored and the bill was passed.

[Hawkmumbler]

Now, unless there's an entirely AB 1184, that just so happened to be passed in September 2021, in the state of California no less, that actually DOES specify that 12 year old's can consent to exclude parental counsel in regards to medical matters I'd love to see it.

Because I just read the whole bill three times over and it sure as anything doesn't.

[The Legendary Shark]

Probably because it's an amendment to existing legislation.

The bill states:

(l) "Protected individual" means any adult covered by the subscriber's health care service plan or a minor who can consent to a health care service without the consent of a parent or legal guardian, pursuant to state or federal law. "Protected individual" does not include an individual that lacks the capacity to give informed consent for health care pursuant to Section 813 of the Probate Code. (My emphasis.)

One such piece of existing legislation states:

(25) At 12 years of age or older, to choose, whenever feasible and in accordance with applicable law, their own health care provider for medical, dental, vision, mental health, substance use disorder services, and sexual and reproductive health care, if payment for the service is authorized under applicable federal Medicaid law or other approved insurance, and to communicate with that health care provider regarding any treatment concerns or needs and to request a second opinion before being required to undergo invasive medical, dental, or psychiatric treatment. (My emphasis.)

Okay, so what?

That former piece of legislation applies to medical insurance whilst the latter applies to children in foster care, so what's the problem?

To some, it's an indication that the emotive subject of gender change is going to be forced on children. To me, this argument is rubbish and is presented to imply that anyone questioning it is against all gender issues and only frothing lunatics think this way.

If I were to apply it to my own hobby-horse of creeping totalitarianism I would say that it opens the door another inch on something like the following scenario:

Let's say that That-Which-Cannot-be-Mentioned II arises. The "government" mandates Procedure X for TWCbM II. Some parents disagree and refuse to undergo Procedure X for them or their children. The parents are deemed to be endangering their children. Their children are taken into care, becoming "protected individuals," who can then be tricked, convinced, or coerced into accepting Procedure X.

But that's not my argument here. My argument is that cherry-picking the age of consent differently for different things is not logical but is dangerous.