I remain completely uncertain as to whether or not this is satire.

Would you help clarify that, please? Because it's very bad rap, so the only way there's any positive value is if it's just remarkably dedicated satire.

I'm pretty sure that's why the "confidence level" system was introduced.

It's worth repeating (again and again) that this DoE report was categorized as "low confidence", which should mean only slightly more than absolutely nothing at all.

OK, so it’s definitely satire.

I salute your dedication to the bit.

That certainly was…a collection of words.

I’m seriously asking you a direct question: How, specifically, would the Secretary of Transportation traveling to Ohio and making a speech have prevented a derailment in Nebraska two weeks later?

Wait…this isn’t satire?

> to the disaster-site and DEMAND change

And traveling to Ohio to stomp his feet and shout would have prevented a derailment in Nebraska…how?

Damn, did he lose his “Instantly modernize rail infrastructure and guarantee corporate best practices” button again?

That silly Secretary!

Because federal law prohibits that.

Sure, but, again: That is also the intent of restorative justice.

That’s only a relevant criticism if imprisoning someone did resurrect their victim.

I think it's important to remember that "moral hazard" is an economic theory, not a sociological one.

Nevertheless, both the Canadian government and the US Department of Justice have found it to be more effective than tradtional, strictly-punitive measures.

> The portion of your comment I quoted supposed that we accept the idea that robbery/burglary are consequences of poverty and/or lack of opportunity. If it’s a consequence of poverty that means poverty causes it.

No…that’s not at all how causality works. I’m not really sure how to help you through that one.

> So clearly it must be something in their genetics

Yikes.

OK, you have a good one.

You’re basically saying the same thing.

Neither my comment nor any of the links that I provided about restorative justice suggests that poverty inherently turns people into criminals, and suggesting otherwise just badly misses the point.

As you said, not all poor people commit burglaries; that’s obvious. At the same time, even fewer rich people do.

Of course, in no way am I suggesting that poverty is the only source of these sorts of crimes. However, unless you choose to believe the (completely unsupported) notion that criminals are simply born criminals, that means that there are many environmental factors at play. The entire point of restorative justice is to attempt to mitigate those factors and reduce crime overall.

Oh, I agree with you 100%; I was more just making a broader, more snide joke about how terrible working retail can be.

1. Retail workers aren't law enforcement and shouldn't be deputized into stopping property crime: Their physical safety is more important than the company's profit margin.

2. Atlanta is a TV show, and that shouldn't be treated as empirical data to support any argument other than "Atlanta is some good TV".

Specific, happy details of a victim's life are a quick way to humanize the article's subject and draw the readers in with a sense of personal connection.

It's also a cheap and efficient way to heighten the drama—particularly when it's immediately followed by this:

> Harris spent the past week at the ICU to be with her friend, Angel.

The contrast in that narrative transition is a tidy bit of sensationalism and helps pads out the wordcount.

(Or maybe I'm just being too cynical.)

It makes sense to emphasize that to a young person just entering the workforce, though: They might not yet have developed the reflexive indifference that years of soul-crushing retail work imparts. (I got the same lecture myself when I was like 19 and attempted to prevent a shoplifting at the bookstore I was working at.)

That's also the point of restorative justice, too.

The linked article is exceptionally light on detail as to how it would apply here, but it does briefly mention that the victim saw crimes like the robbery that led to her death as "a symptom of poverty". I'm admittedly inventing the following example out of wholecloth, but it's only intended as an example:

If we accept the notion that crimes like robbery and burglary are consequences of poverty (and/or a lack of opportunity in the area), locking up her assailant for years (if not life) does nothing to address the larger problem (and might exacerbate it, if the perpetrator had dependents, etc); having the perpetrator—if they accept responsibility and actually want to try to make amends (which is a necessary first step in restorative justice methods)—spend that time giving back to the community instead of just sitting in a cell, it might at least contribute to improving the conditions that led to the crime in the first place.

Obviously, just one person doing this isn't going to fix everything—it might not even "fix" anything—but considering how many people are imprisoned in the US (both by number and rate), a larger systemic shift would be an entirely different story.

To be clear: I'm not necessarily advocating it for this case; I'm just giving one (admittedly vague) example of how and why the theory could be applied.

Except that it doesn't, really, no.

Keeps their mind off of all the hunger and poverty.

> trust and cooperation

Sorry, I'm American; can you translate that from Canadian for me?

They're classified as a vulnerable species with rapidly-dwindling habitat; I don't think culling the population is any kind of solution.

Well, for a start:

• The World Wildlife Fund

• The US government's Marine Mammal Commission

• The National Wildlife Federation

• The journal Nature

• The University of Alaska

Edit:

Oh, and their scientific name is Ursus maritimus, which literally means "bear of the sea".

I have questions (which you may or may not be able to answer):

• Is petty, car-related crime like radio theft a problem there?

• At what level of "persistent threat of polar bear attack" do (or should) area residents recognize a problem that is probably best resolved by ceding the land back to the local (huge and predatory) wildlife?

It's helpful when the party that supports the insurrectionists isn't in charge of the Executive Branch at the time it occurs.