Pics that make you smile

The rats at this truck stop are a little too big and friendly for my liking.


 
I just know it's not a dog, or cat. It looks like he just came out of the store. I don't want a rat/ferret/weasel starring at me while I wait in line at the cashier.
:)
 
Dashmellow said:
This is the kind of unfortunate mindset and distorted analysis we get from people who don't suffer from a disability or have family members who do. It's more along the lines of corporate right wing propaganda intended to sidestep these regulations and lower costs.

Where are you getting your employment statistics from anyway? Links?

The issues with the ADA have revolved around compliance and enforcement, not the law itself. The ADA has had far reaching positive effects on countless people's lives.
Click to expand...

What makes you think I do not have any disability and did not have one in 1990 before the ADA became law?
I have more than 1 legally recognizable disability. I did in 1989. I know Title II of the ADA which comes from 28 CFR section 35 because I had to do that research in dealing with the Court system for my own disabilities.

I have seen what happens with employment options when a potential employer gets wind of a disability, the extra expenses involved, and the likely lawsuits to come from hiring someone with disabilities. Employers can always find a legal excuse to not hire or to remove an employee with disabilities to save costs. When you read Court cases where the Court says that an employee who makes $50k a year requires the employer to pay for assistants that cost the employer 2-4 times that amount per year you will understand why employment fell drastically for the disabled.

Here is a link for you.
The Unintended Consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/4/deleire.pdf

Employment rate (percent) and change
in employment rate (percentage points)

Men with disabilities (first number) Men without disabilities (second number) with jobs.
Before enactment of ADA (1985-1990) 59.8 95.5
After enactment of ADA (1991-April 1995) 48.9 92.4
Change in employment rate -10.9* -3.1*
Employment effect of ADA -7.8*

Why has ADA harmed its intended beneficiaries? The added cost of employing disabled workers to comply with the accommodation mandate of ADA has made those workers relatively unattractive to firms. Moreover, the threats of prosecution by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and litigation by disabled workers, both of which were to have deterred firms from shedding their disabled workforce, have in fact led firms to avoid hiring some disabled workers in the first place.
 
Technology to the rescue!


19145979_1598841773479436_5999316183239349697_n.jpg
 
I would like to work the little i am allowed to do as a early retired Dane, cuz really what my pension is are not something than make you clap your hands and run smiling to the bank.

But it is so little i am allowed to work before my pension go bye bye, and i have no idea where i could find a job with so few hours every month, and it would also have to be something new as the physical jobs are a no go for me.

Still i keep my eyes and options open, but not quite sure for what, but i do now i would like to have a little more money every month.

I guess in this matter i am lucky to be here in Denmark, and for sure it could be worse.
 
country_hick said:
...When you read Court cases where the Court says that an employee who makes $50k a year requires the employer to pay for assistants that cost the employer 2-4 times that amount per year....
Click to expand...
That is a radically different interpretation of 'reasonable accommodation' than mine. :confused:
 
country_hick said:
What makes you think I do not have any disability and did not have one in 1990 before the ADA became law?
I have more than 1 legally recognizable disability. I did in 1989. I know Title II of the ADA which comes from 28 CFR section 35 because I had to do that research in dealing with the Court system for my own disabilities.

I have seen what happens with employment options when a potential employer gets wind of a disability, the extra expenses involved, and the likely lawsuits to come from hiring someone with disabilities. Employers can always find a legal excuse to not hire or to remove an employee with disabilities to save costs. When you read Court cases where the Court says that an employee who makes $50k a year requires the employer to pay for assistants that cost the employer 2-4 times that amount per year you will understand why employment fell drastically for the disabled.

Here is a link for you.
The Unintended Consequences of the Americans with Disabilities Act

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/4/deleire.pdf

Employment rate (percent) and change
in employment rate (percentage points)

Men with disabilities (first number) Men without disabilities (second number) with jobs.
Before enactment of ADA (1985-1990) 59.8 95.5
After enactment of ADA (1991-April 1995) 48.9 92.4
Change in employment rate -10.9* -3.1*
Employment effect of ADA -7.8*

Why has ADA harmed its intended beneficiaries? The added cost of employing disabled workers to comply with the accommodation mandate of ADA has made those workers relatively unattractive to firms. Moreover, the threats of prosecution by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and litigation by disabled workers, both of which were to have deterred firms from shedding their disabled workforce, have in fact led firms to avoid hiring some disabled workers in the first place.
Click to expand...


All laws are double edged swords. There's no free lunch.

I do have to agree that you have a disability.
 
Last edited:
DT MI said:
Amen to that. All the 'free' government benefits people rave about aren't free - they are being paid for by someone other than the recipient.
Click to expand...

I basically agree. It's our tax money and we don't always have control over how it gets allocated. What we get for our taxes is certainly not "free". I get to see this close up as I live in a town with a population of 2000 and that is governed by a small select board. We still have town meetings to debate and directly vote on our budgets. I'm not always too thrilled to see how my local taxes get spent but I understand that my taxes may go to benefit others than me. For example, I don't have kids in the local school system at this time and a large portion of my taxes go to fund it but I understand the value proposition of all of us local citizens paying for it. Now and again I get to directly see my tax money come back to me in one beneficial form or another.
 
kamkar1 said:
I would like to work the little i am allowed to do as a early retired Dane, cuz really what my pension is are not something than make you clap your hands and run smiling to the bank.

But it is so little i am allowed to work before my pension go bye bye, and i have no idea where i could find a job with so few hours every month, and it would also have to be something new as the physical jobs are a no go for me.

Still i keep my eyes and options open, but not quite sure for what, but i do now i would like to have a little more money every month.

I guess in this matter i am lucky to be here in Denmark, and for sure it could be worse.
Click to expand...
I am told that if you run for political office that income does not count as income in the USA. Maybe Denmark has a similar rule?
 
country_hick said:
When did you see my x-rays?

At least I do not have anger issues that cause me to be cruel to others around me.
Click to expand...

I'm not angry with you but I often disagree with you. Sorry you interpret that as cruel.

As for the article you linked, it is from the Cato Institute, originally the Charles Koch Foundation. Trust me friend, the billionaire Koch brothers do not have your particular libertarian interests at heart despite how appealing such propaganda may sound to you.
 
Last edited:
While i respect the billionaire philanthropy club The giving pledge, then i also feel apprehensive about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Giving_Pledge

While i have often said you really should help the unfortunate people where ever they may be, i also have to ask do that mean that say a country like Denmark have to lower our standard of living so we can help the unfortunate people of Africa, or do we and any other nation have the right to say sorry we cant help at the moment as things are stagnating here.
I do believe that if your society dont have a surplus and that not only financial, then how can you help people.
I say this cuz for decades Denmark went on the world marked borrowed money just to give them to Africa, and then we Danes pay that loan.
And i am pretty sure that approach to helping people have been just about the most expensive one for the Danes, and the solution that actually helped the less fortunate people down there the least.

I do respect the giving people out there, but i also have to say if they give the shirt off their back they are silly.

I know what i say may sound cruel and just ice cold to some people, i have never given a dime to anything on a personal basis, but i have a few times looked at what my options was to go and help people personally cuz that i can afford and justify.
And i have always done my best to help the people around me.
But my International efforts / intentions always stranded as i would pretty much just have to drive all my stuff to the dump and then start all over when or if i got home,,,, and i am sorry but that i find pretty silly too cuz then i become poor for helping the poor.
I have never been big on supporting some NGO, cuz as it have proven a few times here at least, what money you give them a low percentage only reach where the money are needed, and we are talking pretty respected NGOs here, not just some bunch of do good hippies.

I have also argued often the people without jobs here, why arnt they sent to Africa to dig wells and build schools and what not, that's much better then they stand around here and do nothing, and i think at least a better avenue of helping as this would actually empower the people down there as many of the people will have some form of skill the locals can learn from.
 
DT MI said:
That is a radically different interpretation of 'reasonable accommodation' than mine. :confused:
Click to expand...
I agree... However...

Searls v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 158 F. Supp. 3d 427 - Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2016
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+lights+billion&hl=en&as_sdt=3,60&as_ylo=1990

JHH then claims that because a nurse's starting salary is about $60,000, and a full-time ASL interpreter would cost $120,000, "n order to fund the $120,000 annual cost, the nursing unit would have needed to lay-off at least two full-time Registered Nurses."

Additionally, even if it is correct that the salary of a full-time ASL interpreter would be twice the salary of a nurse, that in itself does not establish that an ASL interpreter would be an undue hardship.

Because all three experts lack experience with deaf healthcare professionals or deafness in general, they cannot reliably testify about how Searls would have worked with an interpreter to monitor and respond to alarms, and whether she could safely monitor and respond to alarms on Halsted 8 with an interpreter. Additionally, because the court finds that JHH's direct threat defense relies on post-hoc rationalizations without any individualized assessment, the proposed expert testimony about whether a deaf nurse can safely monitor and respond to alarms with the assistance of an interpreter is not relevant. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion to strike.
 
^^^ So sad...
 
country_hick said:
I agree... However...

Searls v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 158 F. Supp. 3d 427 - Dist. Court, D. Maryland 2016
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+lights+billion&hl=en&as_sdt=3,60&as_ylo=1990

JHH then claims that because a nurse's starting salary is about $60,000, and a full-time ASL interpreter would cost $120,000, "n order to fund the $120,000 annual cost, the nursing unit would have needed to lay-off at least two full-time Registered Nurses."

Additionally, even if it is correct that the salary of a full-time ASL interpreter would be twice the salary of a nurse, that in itself does not establish that an ASL interpreter would be an undue hardship.

Because all three experts lack experience with deaf healthcare professionals or deafness in general, they cannot reliably testify about how Searls would have worked with an interpreter to monitor and respond to alarms, and whether she could safely monitor and respond to alarms on Halsted 8 with an interpreter. Additionally, because the court finds that JHH's direct threat defense relies on post-hoc rationalizations without any individualized assessment, the proposed expert testimony about whether a deaf nurse can safely monitor and respond to alarms with the assistance of an interpreter is not relevant. Therefore, the court will grant the plaintiff's motion to strike.
Click to expand...

worldsnottobad.jpg
 
Dashmellow said:
This is the kind of unfortunate mindset and distorted analysis we get from people who don't suffer from a disability or have family members who do. It's more along the lines of corporate right wing propaganda intended to sidestep these regulations and lower costs.

At least in the part of the country where I live we see more and more people with disabilities of all kinds engaged in gainful employment to the benefit of everyone and the reduction in public tax outlays and benefit provisions. Disabled people who would otherwise be on the public dole are instead earning a living, paying taxes and spending their incomes into the economy.

This discussion began with the popular joke about putting braille in drive-up ATMs which is really there so blind people can walk up to and use any ATM. According to your thinking, blind people should be left to struggle because, "Government regulations are not that helpful for most real life situations."

Where are you getting your employment statistics from anyway? Links?

Why is that the only statistic you cite has to do with employment?

The issues with the ADA have revolved around compliance and enforcement, not the law itself. The ADA has had far reaching positive effects on countless people's lives. For example, just ask anyone confined to a wheelchair how they feel about the requirement to provide curb cuts in sidewalks before and after the law was passed? Or access to buildings, elevators, transportation etc., for work, medical care, polling places, entertainment and many other activities that you obviously take for granted.
Click to expand...
Your talkin him down because he offered no proof the first time. He has and you still havent other than you think you now see more disabled people working than you did 30 years ago.... :/

Sent from my SM-G920W8 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
DashcamDPR A couple of Eclipse Pics.... Off Topic 4
DrekiTech 2016 in Dash Cam Pics Off Topic 2
Similar threads
A couple of Eclipse Pics....
2016 in Dash Cam Pics
Back
Top