What’s the problem for you with nursing ?

Is it job insecurity or is it travel?

My understanding is that traveling nurses make very good money. Obviously there’s more to life than money though.

I’m sure you don’t have to leave medicine to make good money and have a different working arrangement. There are all sorts of alternative non-nursing jobs for nurses. How do you see there’s administration, insurance, consulting, or even just continuing to search for the situation that you want.

The question is not would it be more beneficial, it’s what do you want to do? Do you want to be a nurse at all? Did you rush into it because a guidance counselor told you it’s a great career path?

I have two friends in cyber security and I could not tell you what they do but they both seem to make very good money without working very hard, but they’ve both also been computer nerds since the 90’s.

Many, if not all Trump supporters, are disabled. So they leave early because it takes them a long time to find their car.

What boat?

"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of: (a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury; (b) the anticipated military advantage; © and whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b)."

— Luis Moreno-Ocampo.

Emphasis my own.

The pagers were

• Ordered by Hezzbollah
• For Hezzbollah
• As part of a specific plan to make it possible to continue organizing rocket attacks
• 1,000 rockets per month, costs $600,000,000 a year to intercept
• Rockets are fired without guidance of any kind (no discrimination)
• At civilians (null proportion)
• By non-uniformed fighters (no distinction)
• By non-state actors
• Launchers and fighterd hidden purposely among civilians
• Munitions and launchers assembled and smuggle via underground tunnels, purposely under civilian centers

Aside, a strike aimed directly at the means by which attacks are carried out, upon a military target, meant to disrupt the enemy’s ability to carry out further attacks is the gold standard of proportionate, so scratch that box.

Edit: sorry I leaped over your question into a different answer. It’s kind of because the concept of discrimination is built into distinction and proportionality, which are codified, as cited above in the Chief Prosecutor’s letter. At the link is like a restatement definition or like common law definition of indiscriminate though it doesn’t have any kind of force of law itself, but see the section labeled Interpretation, toward the bottom, and it explains how ICRC arrived at a definition and it’s relation to these other concepts.

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule12

Things like what?

It’s crazy. That kid was actively firing a gun at the president and they shot him fewer times than the Boston Marathon bomber who was unarmed and had been hiding in a boat for a day and a half.

That’s not what discrimination means in international law.

It was not an indiscriminate attack and only people who obviously do not have a clue what they’re talking about think that’s not the case.

If you don’t want to be a tragic yet lawful incidental casualty of war, don’t stand near people whose idea of good government is launching 1,000 rockets a month while their families are malnourished.

Immediately dismissed because first sentence describes the pager attack as indiscriminate, which is utterly idiotic.

Look how they massacred my boy.

Wtf are you taking about? As this rate that would take ten years.

And my shoe.

I thought they killed that kid?

Hamas stops Gaza having elections.

The West Bank has no water? If they have money to fire a thousand rockets a month at Israel, why not spend some of that on the water infrastructure?

What could make a racism so institutionalized it’s written into the Constitution liberalism? What about a constitution that would allow such provisions to be amended? I agree they are outmoded in purpose and spirit and should be amended. I won’t go so far as to say they existed for no reason or for an offensive reason ab initio. Even if I did believe that, it’s irrelevant to reality: Israel is there and it began as an ethnostate.

The logical conclusion to your position is that you believe Israel doesn’t have a right to exist / defend itself, unless and until it amends the offensive provisions of its constituon. Is that your belief?

I don’t find arguments about who lives there now and who used to live there compelling at all. They fall apart just at face value when the earliest historical record has the land occupied by Hebrew-speaking bronze-age people called Judites. That is to say the land records are a total crapshoot of lands changing hands, peoples changing identities, cultures changing over time, and shifting borders. It’s also futile because, again, Israel is there now, is a nuclear power, and any plan forward must realistically account for this (Israel is going to defend itself).

Suppose Israel amends the offensive provisions, annexes all the disputed borderlands, and naturalizes every person therein with full rights and privileges, but then Iran and others in the region don’t stop funding terrorism at Israel’s borders and don’t stop carefully cultivating a culture of martyrdom and anti-western and anti-liberal violent extremism? Are we not right back where we started?

No doubt. I’ve seen some organizing though. There are some homeless individuals around me who are members of regional organizations at least. They use technology and organize locally.

Palestinians in the “occupied” territory aren’t citizens of Israel; they don’t want to be and the world doesn’t want them to be. People would flip their shit at a one state solution, they’d be self imolating all over the place. What you’re suggesting is called annexation. I’d support annexation if it would stop all the pointless killing and help democratize the region. If Palestinians wanted to be Israeli, there wouldn’t have been 100 years of terrorism on both sides or even now, we’d be talking about lawful occupation and jurisdiction of under terra nullius, or irredentism.

Actual experts at the UN disagree strongly, and have no consensus on this. I went to school with some of them and was a better student. Some others of them, as it turns out, were actually far-right religious terrorists themselves, and were using the UN for decades as a platform to teach generations of Palestinian kids the honor of martyrdom culture and terror culture.

Here’s the thing about Desmond Tutu and other legal scholars who wrote comparative-law content on Palestine and apartheid (lower case a): “like” and “as” don’t mean the same thing.

There was a lot of legal scholarship for a while around the time that the world turned on South Africa, and for years after, during reconstruction, when it was trendy to draw comparisons to Apartheid (big A). I concede that interested people have taken that comparative work, and misquoted it to suggest that there was any kind of serious scholarship saying that Israel-Palestine was as apartheid, until it became truth for some people. I disagree with them. Racially oppressive government’s exist all over the world, yet the world has not turned on them as it turned on South Africa in an such a unanimous and unprecedented way. It was really something to behold. And even afterward, all the help and support the world gave South Africa with reconstruction: so many people were so proud to help launch a new democracy, to write from scratch a constitution for a modern nation that was freeing itself from being oppressors and its people for being oppressed.

Desmond Tutu’s work doesn’t support that he believed Palestine was literally the same as apartheid (small a), he drew certain comparisons, said certain policies were apartheid-like, and I agree. Correct me if I’m wrong. Certain policies in America are apartheid-like, too. Also, if memory serves, it was only in the last few years of his life that Tutu stopped being offended by such comparisons and started making them himself. Nelson Mandella never said it was equivalent. Correct me if I’m wrong. I agree Palestinians are oppressed people. I disagree with the Lemmy Zeitgeist about who has led them to oppression and who maintains it.

In any event, one thing Nelson Mandela and Desmond Tutu agreed on, and I agree with wholeheartedly, is that the cure for Apartheid or apartheid, and for systemtic oppression in all forms, is democratic governance enshrined in a written Constitution with clear minoritarian rights–freedom of speech, assembly, and a right to petition, due process of law, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment–the kind of rights that religious law cannot ever provide because religious law doesn’t have them to give and claims for itself a right to take rights away by religious proclamation, which is antithetical and mutually exclusive to democracy, a constitution, or minoritarian rights.

That is to say that, if your opinion is that Israel-Palestine is apartheid, you must agree that the cure for it as it was in South Africa is democratic governance. If you’re not totally ignorant or brainwashed, you must also agree that the first step to making that happen is to dispose of Hamas and Hezbollah. Can we agree on that?

No and no.

Would be nice to see them all organize and descend on Washington, a tent city wave vis a vis the Bonus March in 1932.

I wonder how bad homeless would need to get before major reform. Camps are going to keep popping up until they overwhelm local resources, and then disperse some, a microcosmic cycle of ruralization and urbanization, with greater and greater capacity, and more and more sophisticated systems of public services, trade, and justice, until existing institutions and policies are replaced by popular hobo demand.

What’s more, increasing poverty and homelessness is a major social, economic, public wellness, and national security issue that, in addition to not going away anytime soon, is something I think most Americans find compassion for, and even demand action on, when it’s face to face, people like themselves.

It’s like, as the oceanliner sinks, and the 99% have to fight for a few life boats and a piece of door, while the 1% fly away on a helicopter, the 99% must realize they were always exponentially closer to being in the same boat together than any of them were to being on the helicopter.

Nobody thinks innocent people deserve to die, that’s what innocent means. Don’t have to deserve it to be killed incidentally, which is inevitable in war, and yet war can still be just.

As an aside, these are not distant, national, state-actor regimes. They are hyper-local partisans, non-state actors who are classified by most of the western world as terrorist organizations, doing things that most of the western world, including the ICJ, considers to be criminal: shooting 1,000 rockets a month as Israeli civilians.

deleted by creator