Yup.

Some other articles on this arrest:

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/minneapolis-leaders-say-us-citizen-was-wrongfully-arrested-by-ice-agents/

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/somali-resident-mayor-frey-to-detail-erroneous-ice-detention/

Regardless of citizenship status, he shouldn’t be put in a chokehold and assaulted for…walking down the street while being non-white? A lot of citizens are living under the illusion that citizenship status protects people from this treatment. It doesn’t, but even if Mubashir was here illegally, he didn’t deserve this. The chokehold could have killed him, and now he has to live knowing that he can’t leave his home without risking being killed by an armed gang.

If there’s one thing Trump knows, it’s fraud

https://parade.com/food/cheese-recall-aldi-target-walmart-december2025 This article’s a little more extensive. It’s weird apnews didn’t link to the fda report that briantheebiscuiteer linked to, since that has the actual actionable info people would need.

My first thought was that there was a bright light shining on it for some reason.

Some of the ones that get to stay professional are also majority female, so there’s something else going on too, but I’m sure sexism is also hugely involved.

Like, a sensible list for higher loan thresholds would be how genuinely expensive it is to train someone in it. Like, how much the gear - books, equipment, normal trainer salaries, etc - cost. And nursing would have to be high in that regard. If they aren’t using more objective measures because this is a vibes based government, bias that treats women’s jobs as less valuable seems like a likely reason for the change.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/trump-administration-professional-degree-list-student-loan-limits/4020475/

The Education Department is defining the following fields as professional programs: pharmacy, dentistry, veterinary medicine, chiropractic, law, medicine, optometry, osteopathic medicine, podiatry and theology.

Left out are nursing, physical therapy, dental hygiene, occupational therapy and social work as well as fields outside of health care such as architecture, education and accounting.

theology needs the professional level of student loans, but not nursing?

Then the “economy” should make more repair shops and sell more replacement items if it can’t convince people to throw away still useful items anymore.

Lot of involuntary participants in that black friday boycott

Is she stepping back to run for a different office? Did the death threats get to her? Did she make enough money and contacts she doesn’t need to do this shit anymore? Only time will tell since you can’t trust them to be honest!

I only know a little bit about New, but, from wikipedia:

In an email to Epstein, New mentioned she would reread Lolita (a book Epstein was known to have by his bedside) and, separately, recommended he read My Ántonia by Willa Cather, describing both as stories of ‘a man whose whole life is stamped forever by his impression of a young girl’

Each parent has the same legal right as the other, but neither is allowed to harm their kids, or they lose those rights.

Again, the right of a child to live free from abuse is greater than either parents’ right to have them around. If it is illegal to protect a child from harm, or remove them from harm, it should not be. Courts should be equipped to figure out if the parents are safe for the child, and act accordingly. Removing a child from a parent who is harming them is good and correct, even if the parent who does it doesn’t know english well enough to follow correct protocol. Removing a child from a safe parent through abduction is bad. The parent who does this is harming the child and should not have access to that child to prevent them from doing it again. The best interests of the child far, far outweigh parental rights. Parental rights are nothing, if they don’t benefit the child. This is my answer. Did you get your gotcha yet?

Are you talking legally? I believe parents should legally lose all rights to their child when (at the moment) they use violence against them, and if it turns out they were violent, there was no abduction because the safe parent had the right to travel with their child. Since this is not how the law works, currently, DV should be an exception to the proposed law in order to keep abusive parents from using the law as against their victims. Resources should be devoted to ensuring the abuse happened, so false accusations can’t be used by the abductor to justify kidnapping.

Rights that are abrogated at the moment of violence.

The problem is that the isolated victim has to navigate a hostile legal system. Look around the internet, as you said. You’ll see all sorts of stories about abuse being ignored by the legal system because the system failed them.

But there does need to be evidence and process, especially since abduction is a form of abuse as well. It harms the child to be removed from a safe parent, so it is a legal, social, and ethical responsibilty we have to make sure the parent is actually dangerous.

(And we should take DV seriously enough to devote resources to actually investigate these cases with everyone involved having a thorough knowledge of what DV is and isn’t. And we should also devote resources to having a safe foster care system for when neither parent is safe, and we should transform social work into a desirable career with good pay, benefits, and acceptable work life balance, so cases are investigated before in a timely manner so victims are mostly all informed of who they can contact to escape within the country when they need to)

Someone legitimately fearing bodily harm or death for them or their child needs to be allowed to flee that harm. This should not be criminalized. DV needs to be an exception, until such a point that the safety net within the country is easy to find and access for everyone who needs it. And until such a time as the legal system considers domestic violence a serious crime even when it’s perpetrated by people they like and want to believe against people they don’t (against men, immigrants, the mentally ill, the marginalized, drug addicts, sex workers, etc)

Outside of the law, if someone fears harm to their child, they should flee as fast and far as they can, and are morally correct to do so. The law should support the morally correct position as best it can.

The work to strip abusive parents of their rights and prevent them from being harmed by their parents needs to happen before criminalizing the safe parent for removing them from the situation.

If 75% of women who abduct the child (if the stat in the article is accurate) are doing so because of DV, then that work has not been done. If someone looks at their own situation and has had other attempts to gain safety removed from them, and they see a way out by taking their children from the country, they are morally correct for doing so and the failure is on the part of their local social systems and government. If the law cares for its obligation to the rights of children to physical safety more than the rights of abusive parents to have unmitigated access to their children, putting the safe parent in prison for trying to protect their child is the wrong move.

It is illegal to beat your spouse and threaten to kill them, and it is illegal to do this to their children. We both agree that a parent who does this should not have rights to their children. Why are they not having this happen? Is it because one or both parents are immigrants? Can the government be doing more to ensure the safety of DV victims in these situations?

This law is the cart before the horse if the goal is protecting children and maintaining their rights to physical safety. There should be an exception for people fleeing violence. Otherwise, it should be criminalized, sure.

Do you believe the right of a parent to have access to their child is more important than the right of that child to safety?

The driving test costs £62 for a weekday slot or £75 for evenings and weekends.

The letter said some third-party sellers are charging up to £500.

A kind of ticket scalping that never would’ve occurred to me.

Love an organized boycott!

Ow, that sounds awful! I’m sorry you went through that.

I think I get it now. It hasn’t been tested for under 50 year olds because there’s no real reason to get vaccinated if you have a healthy immune system, right? You just wouldn’t get it.

I was wondering if there was some known harm caused by the dead virus vaccine, but it doesn’t seem like it. Like, if you get shingles, it’s because the virus is already hanging out in you, so it’s not like measles where the virus is introduced for the first time to prep your system. Prepping for shingles doesn’t make sense unless there’s a reason to think your immune system will fail. The virus is already there.

I think it helps me get it to think of the group who gets vaccinated as entirely people who are immunocompromised. 50+ is just a category inherently part of that group. If I got vaccinated now, it would serve zero purpose.

Thanks for your answer! I hope you never have to deal with shingles ever again.