We are all Slave now.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Anyone with experience in having someone declared incompetent? My FIL is 94. We took his car keys away, telling him once he passes a driving ability test (we are told he won't) he can have them back. He lives in another state so we can't watch his every move. The wily old dog had a locksmith come and make a new one. I'm trying to talk to the assisted living village staff about it. They told my wife they can have a doctor sign a letter saying he is mentally incompetent to handle finances, then she can get control and sell the car.

That sounds harsh and complicated and pushing way to much on her. He still buys his groceries, as an example. But doesn't one have to go to a court of some kind to have em declared unfit? This is in Pa.

Depends on the state. We* deal with this all the time. Here, there's a guardianship process to go through, in court. See Here for info on that. You could go with a POA instead, where he would give her authority to make some decisions on his behalf without taking all of his rights away. In Texas, there are both Medical and Durable Powers of Attorney.

My 101 year old great aunt still drives herself to the Y every day for Tai Chi. I avoid that area of town around noon.

I'd get in touch with an elder law lawyer in PA and see if there's an intermediate step.

*One was just put on my desk this morning.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Sound advice

thanks RT/Thurgreed/Ty and Sebby (who called).

The take the license away thing, the staff said the old guys mostly ignore the letter from the state and lose the license but keep driving anyway- still it seems the best next step.

fun shit.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We went through this with my grandparents, using persuasion instead of legal proceedings, and it was hard for everyone involved except the local body shops. At the risk of stating the obvious, you really don't want him to kill someone, and neither should he, but giving up his independence is lousy. If he lives someone with Uber/Lyft, you can buy the car from him in exchange for an open Uber/Lyft account.

We went through it too. Required actually moving the elderly person involved to a new place, because as long as she lived in the old one out in the sticks she was going to find a way to drive. She now lives near us, my wife sees her every day, there is van service, she knows how to lyft, and we convinced her she needed to pass her car on to one of her grandchildren who really, really, needed it to get by, so it was a good thing she was doing.

All I can say is, be creative. Regardless of competency/incompetency, the old folks are smart and wily and you'll need to be too.

[ferrets_bueller]

Hank:


My sympathies. I've been going through this for the last ten years with my mother, who is currently a 96 year old batshit crazy, full blown doesn't-remember-me incontinent dementia patient at a very good Sunrise "Remembrance " unit five minutes from my house. The staff thinks she's funny because during her limited periods of wakefulness she barks curses at them like an overserved drill sergeant. There is no explanation for her continued existence other than a circulatory system that should be studied by science.



We got her two doctors to write a determination that she was a dangers to others behind the wheel 10 years ago. I was simply able to take her keys, unlike the problem you have. I set her up with a very local cab company while she still owned her own home. My brother bought the car for one of his children for bluebook value. We then redid her will, medical directives, and power of attorney to my brother and me.


She sold her home at her insistence, and although there was some risk, she signed the paperwork. Simpler.



Shortly thereafter she became incapable of caring for herself. We got her round the clock care until, at 92, she tried to pummel the saintly lady taking care of her. Off to Sunrise.


Please consider services that were in very nascent stages ten years ago, such as a local equivalent of Peapod by Giant or Whole Foods' delivery service. The Uber/Lift duopoly mentioned by others is a great alternative. Set him up with Grubhub. If he can't use a computer, ask him what he wants and you can order the deliveries.


There are transport companies that specialize in medical transport to doctors, physical therapy, and the like.



My neighborhood is experimenting with a Florida phenomenon: Extremely limited golf cart use on public streets. My quiet suburban locale in Northern Virginia (remember the discussions sneering at such a barren existence?) now allows golf carts that can get to a major grocery without going on a road other than a two lane 35 mile an hour road, except for crossing US Rt 1 at a stoplight. Several of my neighbors do this.


Be prepared for the resentment that you know is coming. Nothing you can do can stop it. Try not to lose your sense of humor. I'm reliably informed you have one. Good luck.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ferrets_bueller

Hank:


My sympathies. I've been going through this for the last ten years with my mother, who is currently a 96 year old batshit crazy, full blown doesn't-remember-me incontinent dementia patient at a very good Sunrise "Remembrance " unit five minutes from my house. The staff thinks she's funny because during her limited periods of wakefulness she barks curses at them like an overserved drill sergeant. There is no explanation for her continued existence other than a circulatory system that should be studied by science.



We got her two doctors to write a determination that she was a dangers to others behind the wheel 10 years ago. I was simply able to take her keys, unlike the problem you have. I set her up with a very local cab company while she still owned her own home. My brother bought the car for one of his children for bluebook value. We then redid her will, medical directives, and power of attorney to my brother and me.


She sold her home at her insistence, and although there was some risk, she signed the paperwork. Simpler.



Shortly thereafter she became incapable of caring for herself. We got her round the clock care until, at 92, she tried to pummel the saintly lady taking care of her. Off to Sunrise.


Please consider services that were in very nascent stages ten years ago, such as a local equivalent of Peapod by Giant or Whole Foods' delivery service. The Uber/Lift duopoly mentioned by others is a great alternative. Set him up with Grubhub. If he can't use a computer, ask him what he wants and you can order the deliveries.


There are transport companies that specialize in medical transport to doctors, physical therapy, and the like.



My neighborhood is experimenting with a Florida phenomenon: Extremely limited golf cart use on public streets. My quiet suburban locale in Northern Virginia (remember the discussions sneering at such a barren existence?) now allows golf carts that can get to a major grocery without going on a road other than a two lane 35 mile an hour road, except for crossing US Rt 1 at a stoplight. Several of my neighbors do this.


Be prepared for the resentment that you know is coming. Nothing you can do can stop it. Try not to lose your sense of humor. I'm reliably informed you have one. Good luck.

thanks. no smart phone is a problem. supposed to be cabs out front of his place (it's a small town of old people), and of course a shuttle- somehow that isn't enough. Delivery could be good, but I think he wants to get out.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

thanks. no smart phone is a problem. supposed to be cabs out front of his place (it's a small town of old people), and of course a shuttle- somehow that isn't enough. Delivery could be good, but I think he wants to get out.

I deal with one old coot (I use the term fondly) who dealt with all these issues when raised by his kids by selling his house and moving into the Four Seasons. Presto - endless people looking to wait on him, providing him company, and take him where he wants to go. Of course, he's running through the kids' inheritance like there is no tomorrow, but that pleases him as well.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Anyone with experience in having someone declared incompetent? My FIL is 94. We took his car keys away, telling him once he passes a driving ability test (we are told he won't) he can have them back. He lives in another state so we can't watch his every move. The wily old dog had a locksmith come and make a new one. I'm trying to talk to the assisted living village staff about it. They told my wife they can have a doctor sign a letter saying he is mentally incompetent to handle finances, then she can get control and sell the car.

That sounds harsh and complicated and pushing way to much on her. He still buys his groceries, as an example. But doesn't one have to go to a court of some kind to have em declared unfit? This is in Pa.

My limited understanding is that it is really really hard to have someone involuntarily declared legally incompetent. It's almost harder than having someone involuntarily committed as insane. I can't remember who tried to have it done but if FIL comes into CT and says "I'm fine" you're SOOL.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I deal with one old coot (I use the term fondly) who dealt with all these issues when raised by his kids by selling his house and moving into the Four Seasons. Presto - endless people looking to wait on him, providing him company, and take him where he wants to go. Of course, he's running through the kids' inheritance like there is no tomorrow, but that pleases him as well.

I've never bought the economists' argument that the death of baby boomers is going to result in this enormous transfer of wealth to younger generations via inheritance. Having represented assisted living and nursing home companies, I'm confident a majority of that transfer will be to those entities. Or, if one is lucky enough to avoid needing assistance, to a Four Seasons.

Daltrey's "hope I die before I get old" line seemed naive and arrogant when I was in my 20s. It evidences sage wisdom, revealed in small but steady increments, as one cruises through middle age.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

What do you call someone who votes for a bigot because he hopes to pay less in taxes?

Selfish, immoral. Or if you're feeling generous, viciously pragmatic.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Except perhaps abortion, all of these things are very different, because there are good-faith arguments to be made in favor of both ends of the policy side. We are not talking about "addressing racism," as if it's something that just exists out there in the world independent of what the government does. The government either does or does not subject blacks to searches and arrests at higher rates. It does or does not categorically discriminate against Muslims trying to enter the country. It does or does not send immigration agents to schools to detain and deport parents dropping off their kids. The Republican Party is running on these things. It's not just a question of devoting resources to undoing the effects of slavery in the nineteenth century.

Not every Republican is a racist, obviously. But those who have good intentions are casting their lot with a lot of people who doing racists things, and playing to racist voters. I absolutely believe that there are Republicans who are better and worse on these issues, but I don't see many will to take a real stand on their principles. The reason for that is depressing: Most conservative voters will punish them for it, because they like the racism.

I agree except I'd replace "most" with "the loudest." It's really a jackass minority that loves the racist shit. It's big, no doubt. But it's punching way above its weight right now. I'd say 1/5 of conservatives truly like the racism.

The problem is this 1/5 votes in lockstep. So if you offend them, you're guaranteed to lose a bloc. If you offend, say, Establishment Rs, or even Evangelicals these days, you''ll lose a percentage but not all of them. They're more thoughtful voters. That hardened crazy racist vote is deeply tribal. Piss off the wrong lunatic within that crowd who knows how to create memes, or has a friend at Breitbart, and you're fucked.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

It's not hyperbole. You have a personal definition of those words that's ridiculously narrow.

You have a personal definition of them which is too broad.

Also, you said they were "two of the nastiest labels in the language." This is a different (dumb) claim.

Misogyny is a hatred of women. Racism is a hatred of people based on arbitrary characteristics. If there are stronger pejoratives out there, provide them (seriously... I'm struggling for new insults, as all seem to have lost their punch since Trump and the tribal politics around him came to the fore).

Why do conservatives desire a conservative SCOTUS, though? It's not for abstract reasons. First and foremost, they want a conservative court to scale back or eliminate abortion rights. They also want a court that won't uphold affirmative action, that will aggressively back the police, that will (and did) gut voting rights, that will uphold voter ID and gerrymandering, etc.

It's not misogynist to oppose abortion. I'm staunchly pro-choice and cannot accept that leap. I also do not agree that abortion rights are the main reason conservatives want SCOTUS. I think the main reason they want to control SCOTUS is to use it as a bulwark against progressive policies generally. They want to preserve what they see as traditional American culture.

That conservatives may support police does not automatically make them racist. These people actually believe in "law and order." You and I understand the racist impacts of "law and order," but given many conservatives who fancy that issue are low information voters, I don't think they understand the connection. They're not focused on race. They're just strange people who like hierarchies and order and rigid rule application.

But none of this is to say that conservatism is not infected with bigotry and misogyny. So yes, a percentage of conservatives want SCOTUS to bless gerrymandering and voter suppression. But that doesn't allow one to throw the terms racist or misogynist at all of them. They are not synonyms.

Heck, even where they aren't explicitly motivated by those things - wanting jurists who are skeptical of environmental and other regulations - they're pining for courts that will help them maintain a racist and misogynistic status quo. Is there anywhere in the country where pollution and health and safety risks fall disproportionately on the affluent white neighborhoods? Nope.

My affluent neighborhood is harmed by climate change. If yours is not, can you send me the zip? I'm always on the lookout for retirement locales.

And come on... Tying avoidance of regulation to racism or misogyny is beyond a stretch. People who wish to avoid regulation do so for economic reasons. Most of the actors here are huge corporations. To suggest Exxon is racist is silly.

Race and gender bias is everywhere, literally baked into how our society functions. Not caring about counteracting it is pretty much indistinguishable from preferring it that way.

Heads you win, tails any critic of your position loses. You realize how that half-cleverness is harming your aims, I assume. Try a similar argument before a judge. Ever try to trap a judge like that? It's akin to to writing "The Court must" do something in a brief.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I agree except I'd replace "most" with "the loudest." It's really a jackass minority that loves the racist shit. It's big, no doubt. But it's punching way above its weight right now. I'd say 1/5 of conservatives truly like the racism.

The problem is this 1/5 votes in lockstep. So if you offend them, you're guaranteed to lose a bloc. If you offend, say, Establishment Rs, or even Evangelicals these days, you''ll lose a percentage but not all of them. They're more thoughtful voters. That hardened crazy racist vote is deeply tribal. Piss off the wrong lunatic within that crowd who knows how to create memes, or has a friend at Breitbart, and you're fucked.

By definition, conservatives prefer the status quo. The status quo is racist. Conservatives therefore prefer racism.

Yes, most of them don’t think of it that way and/or deny that the status quo is racist. You see a meaningful distinction between these people and your 1/5. When taking about how large groups of people vote, I do not.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Misogyny is a hatred of women. Racism is a hatred of people based on arbitrary characteristics. If there are stronger pejoratives out there, provide them (seriously... I'm struggling for new insults, as all seem to have lost their punch since Trump and the tribal politics around him came to the fore).

Again, seeing these words as insults rather than descriptions of actual reality is playing the denial game.

It's not misogynist to oppose abortion. I'm staunchly pro-choice and cannot accept that leap.

It’s just a coincidence that those denied bodily autonomy happen to be women (setting aside trans men for the moment).

These people actually believe in "law and order." You and I understand the racist impacts of "law and order," but given many conservatives who fancy that issue are low information voters, I don't think they understand the connection.

Those low information voters know what law and order means and 5ey know what the police do, which is why the GOP has been using those dog whistles for decades

To suggest Exxon is racist is silly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You have a personal definition of them which is too broad.

You join a group of friends who plan to rob a liquor store, knowing that someone might get hurt but not planning or wanting yourself to hurt anyone. The robbery goes off and the clerk gets killed. You didn't intend to hurt anyone, but it happened. You may not have wanted to murder anyone, but you are guilty of felony murder.

This is what we are talking about, except that about 1/5 (or 1/2, or 1/10, or 3/4 -- whatever) of the group is pretty inclined to kill someone if they get a chance, and no one in the group is particularly inclined to stop them. Under those circumstances, if you join that group, you have no business claiming later that you aren't a murderer because you didn't personally pull the trigger.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You join a group of friends who plan to rob a liquor store, knowing that someone might get hurt but not planning or wanting yourself to hurt anyone. The robbery goes off and the clerk gets killed. You didn't intend to hurt anyone, but it happened. You may not have wanted to murder anyone, but you are guilty of felony murder.

This is what we are talking about, except that about 1/5 (or 1/2, or 1/10, or 3/4 -- whatever) of the group is pretty inclined to kill someone if they get a chance, and no one in the group is particularly inclined to stop them. Under those circumstances, if you join that group, you have no business claiming later that you aren't a murderer because you didn't personally pull the trigger.

well, that and common law has enacted a felony murder law- have congress propose a new law:

Proposed: A racist result that occurs in the course of voting, even an accidental racist result, to be charged against the voter as racism. A voter can be guilty of racism during the course of the dangerous voting even if the voter is not the one doing the act that has the racist result, as might happen when a President builds a wall -- the voter for financial reasons, as well as the voter in the MAGA hat, may be charged with first-degree racism. The rule extends to unusual circumstances, such as the racism resulting in one of two voters being, say kicked out of the country, by the presdient(the remaining voter may be charged with racism).