What would you recommend for an alternative here? There are inevitably going to be seniors who don't have family available to help them, and who reach a point where they're unable to care for themselves. I can only think of four options at that point:
1) Hope there's a local charity that is willing to take care of them, has adequate funding to do so, and isn't abusive. If this is unregulated there's a high likelihood of abuse occurring, and if it is regulated then you have government involved, which appears to be something you'd oppose. There's also the issue of unequal access - if it's charitable then it's inherently not mandated, so it's nearly certain some people will not have any such charity in their area (see #3).
2) Somehow have private, non-charitable entities handle it? I've no idea how this would work, as any non-charity is pretty much by definition motivated by profit, and a profit motive plus caring for the elderly is certain to lead to abuse (perhaps not in all cases, but I'd expect it to be quite common).
3) Nothing / good luck, oldies.
4) Government intercession.

In this case, a safety net facilitated by the government strikes me as the best of the available options. The problems highlighted in the video seem likely to stem from insufficient oversight and planning. I'd wager that's due to lack of funding, as this is exactly the sort of program which would be seen as a low-risk target when budget cuts come around, at least from an electoral perspective. After all, if the people impacted by this are those who don't already have people in their life who care for and can advocate for them, and being put under guardianship removes their voting rights, then where's the harm to a politician in reducing the funding?

It seems to me that a well-funded guardianship program, with proper oversight in place, would have the best chance of minimizing the suffering of elderly individuals who can no longer care for themselves. I can understand the libertarian preference for minimal governmental interference in the lives of the public, but this strikes me as a case where that simply doesn't work. If you can think of a viable option #5, or can make a case for 1, 2, or 3 being legitimately more helpful than a well-run option #4 (which is clearly NOT what's discussed in the video), I'm absolutely open to considering it. At the same time, implementing #4 in a way which doesn't leave it vulnerable to budgetary volatility is also a not-insignificant challenge.

Damn, I'm procrastinating really well tonight. That was long.

The comments in this thread is a perfect example of people not doing their own research and just believing everything they read or hear. attach a striking video or image to a comment stating some viewpoint/reason and 3 out of 4 in this case will eat it up as truth without thinking for themselves.

This looks more like ground to cloud caused by the strike just before the vertically propagating "tree". Lookup videos of "Anvil crawlers" btw, they're amazing without having to be slowed.

Kinda scary how that syncs up. Even the execution is perfectly in sync with the air strike in Jepsen's video.

Fair enough.
The striking thing, in most narratives, is: how extreme trigger discipline is in active military units.

Except the hellfire missiles they use are supersonic so you won't even hear the drone strike coming ..

On the chance your 'jokingly' isn't obvious, MLK, Ghandi and Mandela's causes ALL had support from those willing to use violence, aka better weapons would help.

Malcolm X would be the next most prominent figure beside MLK. Indian independence wasn't won with peaceful hunger strikes alone, and again lots of violence in South Africa.

Ghandi even bridged the gap to working alongside the effective army fighting for India's independence:
" I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment, forgiveness adorns a soldier."

Speaking more to the point of America today, pretty much no civil war has been fought exclusively with civilians on one side, and the government, police, army and all other branches of the state united on the other. The reason being that if that kind of unity within the government against the civilian population exists, you ALREADY have tyranny.

In America, the example would be if a president or a particular political party decided to try for tyrannical over reach, would the American public be better equipped to resist that with or without guns? In civil war, guns give power to the majority of public opinion that would need to be there otherwise. In a nation with an unarmed public, whatever the majority of soldiers side with is likely gonna win. With an armed populace, the civilian opinion matters more.

I think it's an overall modest observation, and one that really doesn't in anyway make it obvious that the modest benefit is worth the costs. That is another matter, but you can't factually claim that there isn't a meaningful difference between an armed and unarmed population when facing civil war.

I know the feeling! So Long and Thanks For All the Fish was my early favorite of the 3 main singles, but this one grew on me more. They are all good though.

A lot of album reviewers seem to think this one is a bit too preachy in being sort of anti mobile devices / anti social media. I can kinda see that, but it doesn't strike me as overly that way. Guess it touches a nerve for some.

My only hope is that the creators know they're portraying two very sad, middle aged men who have no other way of proving their value, and catastrophe will strike in either a funny or poignant way.

its just waiting for the right time to strike at it. Near the end of the video, it starts to make a lunge but holds up.

Good points.

I'm not a gun nutadvocate, but I have friends who are. I have shot a fairly wide range of guns with them, including an AR-15. For myself, I only ever owned BB guns and a .22 pellet air rifle, for target shooting and varmint control on my family farm. I did go pheasant hunting with borrowed 20 and 12 gauge shotguns a couple times.

My friend that owns the AR-15 is a responsible gun owner. Do I think he needs it? Hell no. But he likes it. Do I need a PC with an i7 processor and nVidia 1060 GPU? Hell no. But I like it.

So I guess it becomes a question of to what extent the things that we like can be used for negative purposes. My nVidia 1060 is unlikely to be used to facilitate a crime (unless games or bitcoin mining get criminalized). However, even though AR-15s might be one of the primary firearms of choice for murderous wackos, the percentage of people that own AR-15's who are murderous wackos is also extremely low.

If banning AR-15s would significantly reduce the rate of mass shootings and/or the average number of deaths per incident, it could be well worth doing even though it would annoy many responsible owners like my friend. ...But, I just don't think that would be the case. Not by itself.

I think we're at a point where we NEED to do something. If the something that we decide to do is to ban AR-15s, well, so be it I guess. But I don't think we'd be pleased with the long-term results of that. It'd be cutting the flower off of the top of the weed. We need to dig deeper, and I think that registration and licensing are sane ways to attempt to do that.

I just now saw this. My yahoo email account sometimes disappears things on me. I lost another email about the same time.

I absolutely agree with everything you say. Biology is biology. There are differences. Sex is in the workplace, of course, and women bring it there.

I can agree with all these things, and still be creeped out by the indulgence, the wallowing, of only hiring very attractive women.

There is a long history of that in America, and it was creepy then, too. Stewardesses and what they were subjected to in the workplace is a great example. They would lose their -- THEIR WORK -- if they gained five pounds, is an example of really inappropriate use of a woman's appearance as a job qualification. These people are responsible for the safety of the passengers if a tragedy strikes. I love reading stories about how women are heroes and professional when an accident happens.

A shooting range is not a strip club. Wanting to be surrounded by women in your business who COULD work in a strip club is creepy.

Creepy really isn't the right word. It is shorthand for a complex interplay of gender roles and abuses and complicity that is endemic in our culture. I just like the way it feels in my mouth -- I found that Japanese word for it that perfectly explains my pleasure in using it. I am still pleased to know that word exists.

Gitaigo: Onomatopoeia that describes states of being, not sounds.

Creepy perfectly feels like my state of being around this video.

We are all biological beings who like to look at pretty people. Tall men make more money. Attractive people of both genders make more money. We will never be free from those responses.

But lets keep it unconscious, shall we? Let us work to be better human beings than people who reduce ourselves to walking genitalia looking for constant stimulation.

The rest of your points... yeah. I'm right with you. I am not someone who criticizes men for "looking." I find myself looking and I'm pretty firmly on the hetero side of things.

It came up the other day on a hike through the woods. A woman passed me wearing some sort of body hugging stretch pants. There was natural jiggling from her movements, which caught my eye. I found myself staring, I became aware of how perfectly proportioned she was, and how the rest of her was lovely in every aspect (I had seen her a few moments before, walking in a different direction.) I almost called out to my friends -- my god, that is the most beautiful woman. All triggered by a chance glance at an objectively beautiful rear-end.

Biology. It happens. I have no problem with it.

And those shooting range owners want to stimulate that reaction in the workplace, 100% of the time. And that, my friend, is creepy.

from link:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/year-one-list-81-major-trump-achievements-11-obama-legacy-items-repealed/article/2644159

Below are the 12 categories and 81 wins cited by the White House.

Jobs and the economy

Passage of the tax reform bill providing $5.5 billion in cuts and repealing the Obamacare mandate.
Increase of the GDP above 3 percent.
Creation of 1.7 million new jobs, cutting unemployment to 4.1 percent.
Saw the Dow Jones reach record highs.
A rebound in economic confidence to a 17-year high.
A new executive order to boost apprenticeships.
A move to boost computer sciences in Education Department programs.
Prioritizing women-owned businesses for some $500 million in SBA loans.
Killing job-stifling regulations

Signed an Executive Order demanding that two regulations be killed for every new one creates. He beat that big and cut 16 rules and regulations for every one created, saving $8.1 billion.
Signed 15 congressional regulatory cuts.
Withdrew from the Obama-era Paris Climate Agreement, ending the threat of environmental regulations.
Signed an Executive Order cutting the time for infrastructure permit approvals.
Eliminated an Obama rule on streams that Trump felt unfairly targeted the coal industry.
Fair trade

Made good on his campaign promise to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Opened up the North American Free Trade Agreement for talks to better the deal for the U.S.
Worked to bring companies back to the U.S., and companies like Toyota, Mazda, Broadcom Limited, and Foxconn announced plans to open U.S. plants.
Worked to promote the sale of U.S products abroad.
Made enforcement of U.S. trade laws, especially those that involve national security, a priority.
Ended Obama’s deal with Cuba.
Boosting U.S. energy dominance

The Department of Interior, which has led the way in cutting regulations, opened plans to lease 77 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling.
Trump traveled the world to promote the sale and use of U.S. energy.
Expanded energy infrastructure projects like the Keystone XL Pipeline snubbed by Obama.
Ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to kill Obama’s Clean Power Plan.
EPA is reconsidering Obama rules on methane emissions.
Protecting the U.S. homeland

Laid out new principles for reforming immigration and announced plan to end "chain migration," which lets one legal immigrant to bring in dozens of family members.
Made progress to build the border wall with Mexico.
Ended the Obama-era “catch and release” of illegal immigrants.
Boosted the arrests of illegals inside the U.S.
Doubled the number of counties participating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement charged with deporting illegals.
Removed 36 percent more criminal gang members than in fiscal 2016.
Started the end of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program.
Ditto for other amnesty programs like Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.
Cracking down on some 300 sanctuary cities that defy ICE but still get federal dollars.
Added some 100 new immigration judges.
Protecting communities

Justice announced grants of $98 million to fund 802 new cops.
Justice worked with Central American nations to arrest and charge 4,000 MS-13 members.
Homeland rounded up nearly 800 MS-13 members, an 83 percent one-year increase.
Signed three executive orders aimed at cracking down on international criminal organizations.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions created new National Public Safety Partnership, a cooperative initiative with cities to reduce violent crimes.
Accountability

Trump has nominated 73 federal judges and won his nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.
Ordered ethical standards including a lobbying ban.
Called for a comprehensive plan to reorganize the executive branch.
Ordered an overhaul to modernize the digital government.
Called for a full audit of the Pentagon and its spending.
Combatting opioids

First, the president declared a Nationwide Public Health Emergency on opioids.
His Council of Economic Advisors played a role in determining that overdoses are underreported by as much as 24 percent.
The Department of Health and Human Services laid out a new five-point strategy to fight the crisis.
Justice announced it was scheduling fentanyl substances as a drug class under the Controlled Substances Act.
Justice started a fraud crackdown, arresting more than 400.
The administration added $500 million to fight the crisis.
On National Drug Take Back Day, the Drug Enforcement Agency collected 456 tons.

Helping veterans

Signed the Veterans Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act to allow senior officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs to fire failing employees and establish safeguards to protect whistleblowers.
Signed the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act.
Signed the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act, to provide support.
Signed the VA Choice and Quality Employment Act of 2017 to authorize $2.1 billion in additional funds for the Veterans Choice Program.
Created a VA hotline.
Had the VA launch an online “Access and Quality Tool,” providing veterans with a way to access wait time and quality of care data.
With VA Secretary Dr. David Shulkin, announced three initiatives to expand access to healthcare for veterans using telehealth technology.
Promoting peace through strength

Directed the rebuilding of the military and ordered a new national strategy and nuclear posture review.
Worked to increase defense spending.
Empowered military leaders to “seize the initiative and win,” reducing the need for a White House sign off on every mission.
Directed the revival of the National Space Council to develop space war strategies.
Elevated U.S. Cyber Command into a major warfighting command.
Withdrew from the U.N. Global Compact on Migration, which Trump saw as a threat to borders.
Imposed a travel ban on nations that lack border and anti-terrorism security.
Saw ISIS lose virtually all of its territory.
Pushed for strong action against global outlaw North Korea and its development of nuclear weapons.
Announced a new Afghanistan strategy that strengthens support for U.S. forces at war with terrorism.
NATO increased support for the war in Afghanistan.
Approved a new Iran strategy plan focused on neutralizing the country’s influence in the region.
Ordered missile strikes against a Syrian airbase used in a chemical weapons attack.
Prevented subsequent chemical attacks by announcing a plan to detect them better and warned of future strikes if they were used.
Ordered new sanctions on the dictatorship in Venezuela.
Restoring confidence in and respect for America

Trump won the release of Americans held abroad, often using his personal relationships with world leaders.
Made good on a campaign promise to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Conducted a historic 12-day trip through Asia, winning new cooperative deals. On the trip, he attended three regional summits to promote American interests.
He traveled to the Middle East and Europe to build new relationships with leaders.
Traveled to Poland and on to Germany for the G-20 meeting where he pushed again for funding of women entrepreneurs.


see link above for more complete

Also from Vox, an interview with Political Science Professor Peter Feaver : https://www.vox.com/world/2017/11/17/16656856/trump-congress-nuclear-weapons-war

He says, in the instance that the United States is under imminent threat, the above applies, otherwise:

"The other scenario is that the president wakes the military up in the middle of the night and says, "Hey, I wanna do a nuclear strike," and in that setting, he would raise a lot of alarms throughout the chain of command. People would be saying, "Well, what is this? Why are we doing this?" It would require a lot more people to say, "Yes. This is the right decision." "

@newtboy

I do think the 'arab world' has legitimate complaints

Gonna stop you there, I never said anything about validity or number of complaints or grievances anyone had. In a better world things like that would matter, in a military conflict though they don't change the outcome.

I see no chance for a single state (where non Jews are sub-citizens with no vote or power) or an Israeli designed two state...

You misunderstand me. I said nothing about the chances of those outcomes working for Palestinians or even being better for them. I stated that whether we like it or not, Israel has more than the required military might to do so and whichever moment they decide the cost of implementing one of those options is better than the status quo they are gonna do it. Do you really see 'no chance' of that happening?

I don't think propaganda is that important to them that they actually prefer their allies suffering to reasonable resolutions, but I don't think that any reasonable resolutions are being offered or even discussed.

Then on this we vehemently disagree. Israel wasn't the only one that expanded their borders in the war in 1948. The Arab Palestinians allies snatched up parcels of land as well. They haven't even considered ceding that land back to facilitate a Palestinian state. In fact, Israel's very existence is pretty widely accepted as being due to the fact that each neighbouring Arab state went to war with the intent of securing sections of Palestine fro themselves and thus each fought independently giving Israel a chance to survive facing off against each of them rather than facing a united coalition in a co-ordinated strike. That they all mobilized their forces and sent them in the second they could to try and get the most land allowed Israel to fight them, with the exception of Jordan whom Israel cut a deal with by agreeing to not fight for the land Jordan wanted so jordan just silently took that part of Palestine for themselves.

In short, the neighbouring Arab states are not true allies to Arab Palestinians.