#Collection Agencies in the USA

[mnscredit]

Debt Collection in the United States: Most debt collection agencies in USA work on a contingency fee basis, where the cost is usually a percentage of the total amount owed.

[bispinster]

collections agencies are the scum of the earth, ruthlessly harassing and haranguing people who have medical debts for services and/or operations that they needed to live or improve their quality of life. it’s fucked up

[sfsolutionsllc]

medical debt collection agency

SF Solutions is a specialized medical debt collection agency with a patient-first approach. Trusted by healthcare providers, we’ve successfully recovered millions of dollars in medical debt while ensuring full compliance with patient privacy regulations. Our expert team works diligently, providing efficient solutions that respect both your business and your patients' needs. Visit us now at https://sfsolutionsllc.net/medical/

[mybenjaminca]

When to Hire A Debt Collection Agency for Your Business?

Consult now if you face any issues regarding debt collection. They will help get back your money as soon as possible.When chasing past overdue payments from delinquent customers, you will face situations where hiring a debt collection agency will be the most appropriate option for your business. 

Collection agencies know the best methods to legally follow debtors to pay and they decrease your odds of collecting delinquent debts. But how to know when your business should hire a debt collection agency? 

If your business is very small and you don’t have an in-house team for credit management, your business probably needs to hire a collection agency to get back the delinquent payments. If any of your in-house collection efforts do not succeed, it means it's time to hand over the delinquent accounts to the debt collectors. With extensive experience in dealing with difficult customers, the professionals know how to implement the appropriate collection methods and ensure the best outcome.

As a small business owner, the sooner you hire an agency, your chances to successfully recover your money increases. So, stop wasting your time and valuable resource chasing behind the delinquents. Rather pass those accounts to the debt collectors for high benefits. 

If your customer avoids all methods of contact and absconds suddenly, it is highly advisable to send the account to the collection agency. The debt collection agencies by using the latest techniques would help them find and track down the evasive debtors.

Benjamin, Chaise & Associates is a full-service debt collection agency in the USA that serves clients across the nation. With years of experience in this industry, they have become the best collection agency in California, and Los Angeles. Here's what they offer their clients:

1. Debt collection

2. Credit reporting

3. Contingency-based collections

4. Investigative research and more

Consult now if you face any issues regarding debt collection. They will help get back your money as soon as possible.

[mortgage-1997]

Hospital debt collection

MAX BPO holds expertise in handling medical billing and collection and hospital debt collection service. We obtain payments for the debts owed by businesses or individuals. We are one of the most trusted medical debt collection companies globally. We strive to build focused and streamlined medical collection strategy. This will enhance the collection, cut costs, save time and enhance resources procuring. We work on No Win No Fee policy.

[daily-dragon-drawing]

In just one week we have collectively raised over $1,000 in aid going towards Gaza!!

In total I received receipts for 30 donations over the past week, and you will see the rest of those dragons posted over the course of this week. I cannot convey how grateful I am to everyone who donated, no matter the amount.

Nothing gives me more hope than knowing there are other people who care about the lives of others, who are willing to do their part in the struggle against genocide and occupation.

If you weren't able to donate for a dragon last week, please still continue to fight for Palestine however you are able. Continue to speak out, protest, boycott, pressure your politicians, and donate if you have the means.

Keep this solidarity going by continuing to do everything you can, whenever you can to help those fighting to survive a genocide.

Places to Donate:

eSims for Gaza

Palestine Children’s Relief Fund

United Nations Relief and Works Agency

Medical Aid for Palestinians

Operation Olive Branch

Non-Monetary Actions:

Contact your reps to demand a ceasefire (USA)

Join a protest in your area (worldwide)

Join a protest in your city (USA)

Do this Daily:

[mariacallous]

As president of the United States, Donald Trump threatened the federally issued licenses of television broadcast outlets that displeased him. In 2017, after NBC News reported a dispute between the president and his military advisors about the size of the nuclear arsenal, the president launched a series of tweets:

These 2017 tweets did not specifically suggest that he would have the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which issues the airwave licenses, revoke them on his order. Instead, they appear to echo the 1972 tactics of Richard Nixon, who, displeased by coverage from the Washington Post, encouraged a third party to file a challenge at the FCC (which ultimately went nowhere).  

In response to the 2017 tweets, the Trump-appointed chairman of the FCC, Ajit Pai, took a firm stand. “I believe in the First Amendment,” he said. “Under the law, the FCC does not have the authority to revoke a license of a broadcast station based on a particular newscast.”   

Now, in 2024, as a presidential candidate, Donald Trump has reasserted that broadcasters who displease him should lose their federal airwave licenses. A September 2023 post on Truth Social accused NBC of “Country Threatening Treason.” He added, “Why should NBC, or any of the other corrupt & dishonest media companies, be entitled to use the very valuable Airwaves of the USA, FREE?”

The current Chair of the FCC, Jessica Rosenworcel, responded, “the First Amendment is a cornerstone of our democracy. The FCC does not and will not revoke licenses for broadcast stations simply because a political candidate disagrees with or dislikes content or coverage.”  

However, the ability of future FCCs to stand up to such instructions could be at risk. Candidate Trump has promised, “I will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under Presidential authority, as the Constitution demands.” While the Constitution never mentions regulatory agencies, bringing the FCC under direct presidential control would surely undercut its independent decision-making.   

But a president of the United States already has powers beyond coercing the FCC. These powers could be exercised not only against broadcasters, but also against those who operate the internet. 

The “Doomsday Book” 

During his presidency, Donald Trump asserted, “When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total.” Whether or not presidential authority is “total,” there does already exist a compendium of presidential powers that have been enacted by Congress for use in extreme circumstances.  

Reportedly locked in a White House safe are the secret “Presidential Emergency Action Documents” (PEADs). Colloquially known as the “Doomsday Book,” they are a collection of powers authorized by Congress for the president to use in emergencies. Included in this compendium is Section 706 (codified as 47 USC 606), titled, “War Emergency – Powers of the President,” that is tucked away at the end of the Communications Act of 1934, the statute that created the FCC.  

TIME Magazine reports, “When Donald Trump was in the Oval Office, members of the national security staff actively worked to keep him from learning the full extent of these interpretations of presidential authority, concerned he would abuse them.”   

Here is what Section 706 authorizes: 

(c) Upon proclamation by the President that there exists war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency… the President, if he deems it necessary in the interest of national security or defense, may suspend or amend, for such time as he may see fit, the rules and regulations applicable to any or all stations or devices capable of emitting electromagnetic radiations within the jurisdiction of the United States as prescribed by the Commission, and may cause the closing of any station for radio communication…

The next subsection, using similar “national security” criteria, gives the president authority over the wired networks, such as those that carry telephone and internet service. Section 706(d), in pertinent part, authorizes the president to “suspend or amend the rules and regulations applicable to any or all facilities or stations for wire communication… cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication… [or] authorize the use or control of any such facility or station… by any department of the Government under such regulations as he may prescribe…”  

The terms “war or a threat of war, or a state of public peril or disaster or other national emergency” are not defined by the Communications Act. Such declarations of national emergency were, however, a go-to solution when Donald Trump was in office. The effort to restrict travel from majority-Muslim countries was justified on national security grounds. Tariffs were levied on foreign steel and aluminum as a national security threat based on their impact on domestic production. When Congress would not give him the funding he wanted for the Mexican border wall, the president simply used a national emergency declaration to reallocate Defense Department funds to build the wall. Reportedly, he even considered declaring that the use of natural gas for electricity production was a national security risk because the gas pipelines could become terrorist targets. 

The power of the Chief 

Candidate Trump, in September 2023, posted that NBC and other “corrupt & dishonest media companies” are “a true threat to democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE!” He declared, “The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country.”  

A 2021 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) concluded, “in the American governmental experience, the exercise of emergency powers has been somewhat dependent on the Chief Executive’s view of the presidential office.” When he was Chief Executive, Donald Trump explained how he viewed the office: “I have Article II [of the Constitution], where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”  

The tools to do whatever the president wants—whether at the FCC or in the Doomsday Book—are at hand. As the CRS report concluded, such decisions are dependent “on the Chief Executive’s view of the presidential office.”  

The institution that created these broad powers, the Congress, has an important role as overseer of the authority they have delegated to the executive. Congress constantly holds oversight hearings on the agencies of the executive branch; hearings on the unilateral powers granted to the president are warranted. The threshold question for such hearings should be whether there are sufficient guardrails in place to protect against their abuse, and what such protections should look like. Regardless of who wins the election—Congress should review whether the unilateral powers granted to the president in the 20th century need updating for the 21st century. 

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive (Daily updates!)

Weird how this "endemic" German strain is poised to dominate worldwide... That almost sounds like a pandemic :O

By Ahjané Forbes

KP.3.1.1 is still the dominant COVID-19 variant in the United States as it accounts for nearly 60% of positive cases, but the XEC variant is not far behind, recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data shows.

"CDC is monitoring the XEC variant," Rosa Norman, a CDC spokesperson told USA TODAY. "XEC is the proposed name of a recombinant, or hybrid, of the closely related Omicron lineages KS.1.1 and KP.3.3."

The variant, which first appeared in Berlin in late June, has increasingly seen hundreds of cases in Germany, France, Denmark and Netherlands, according to a report by Australia-based data integration specialist Mike Honey.

The CDC's Nowcast data tracker, which displays COVID-19 estimates and projections for two-week periods, reflected that the KP.3.1.1 variant accounted for 57.2% of positive infections, followed by XEC at 10.7% in the two-week stretch starting on Sept. 29 and ending on Oct. 12.

KP.3.1.1 first became the leading variant between July 21 and Aug. 3.

The latest data shows a rise in each variant's percentage of total cases from Sept. 15-28, as KP.3.1.1 rose by 4.6%, and XEC rose by 5.4%. Previously, the KP.3.1.1 variant made up 52.6% of cases and XEC accounted for 5.3% from Sept. 15-28.

Here is what you need to know about the XEC variant and the latest CDC data.

COVID-19:Your free COVID-19 at-home tests from the government are set to expire soon. Here's why.

Changes in COVID-19 test positivity within a week Data collected by the CDC shows a drop in positivity rate across the board, while the four states in Region 10 had the biggest decrease (-2.7%) in positive COVID-19 cases from Sept. 29, 2024, to Oct. 5, 2024.

The data was posted on Oct. 11.

Note: The CDC organizes positivity rate based on regions, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Here's the list of states and their regions' changes in COVID-19 positivity for the past week:

Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont): -2% Region 2 (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands): -1.9% Region 3 (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia): -1.3% Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee): -0.6% Region 5 (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin): -2% Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas): -0.8% Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska): -1.7% Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming): -1.2% Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau): -1.3% Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington): -2.7% The CDC data shows COVID-19 test positivity rate was recorded at 7.7% from Sept. 29 to Oct. 5, an absolute change of -1.8% from the prior week.

COVID-19 symptoms The variants currently dominating in the U.S. do not have their own specific symptoms, the CDC says..

"CDC is not aware of new or unusual symptoms associated with XEC or any other co-circulating lineage of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19," Norman said.

The government agency outlines the basic symptoms of COVID-19 on its website. These symptoms can appear between two and 14 days after exposure to the virus and can range from mild to severe.

These are some of the symptoms of COVID-19:

Fever or chills Cough Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing Fatigue Muscle or body aches Headache Loss of taste or smell Sore throat Congestion or runny nose Nausea or vomiting Diarrhea The CDC said you should seek medical attention if you have the following symptoms:

Trouble breathing Persistent pain or pressure in the chest New confusion Inability to wake or stay awake Pale, gray, or blue-colored skin, lips, or nail beds

[mimi-0007]

****†** EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE. ****Project 2025, also known as the Presidential Transition Project, is a collection of policy proposals to thoroughly reshape the U.S. federal government in the event of a Republican victory in the 2024 U.S. presidential election. Established in 2022, the project aims to recruit tens of thousands of conservatives to the District of Columbia to replace existing federal civil servants—whom Republicans characterize as part of the "deep state"—and to further the objectives of the next Republican president. It adopts a maximalist version of the unitary executive theory—which asserts that the president has absolute power over the executive branch upon inauguration. Unitary executive theory is a disputed interpretation of Article II of the Constitution of the United States. Project 2025 envisions widespread changes across the entire government, particularly with regard to economic and social policies and the role of the federal government and its agencies. The plan proposes slashing funding for the Department of Justice (DOJ), dismantling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), sharply reducing environmental and climate change regulations to favor of fossil fuel production, eliminating the Department of Commerce, and ending the independence of various federal agencies such as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The blueprint seeks to institute tax cuts, though its writers disagree on the wisdom of protectionism. .

Project 2025 recommends abolishing the Department of Education, whose programs would be either transferred to other government agencies, or terminated. Scientific research would receive federal funding only if it suits conservative principles. The Project urges the government to explicitly reject abortion as health care and to restrict access to contraception. The Heritage Foundation, an American conservative think tank that leads the development of Project 2025, asserted in April 2024 that "the radical Left hates families" and "wants to eliminate the family and replace it with the state" while driving the country to emulate totalitarian nations, such as North Korea. The Project seeks to infuse the government with elements of Christianity, stating in its Mandate that "freedom is defined by God, not man." Project 2025 proposes criminalizing pornography, removing protections against discrimination based on sexual or gender identity, and terminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, as well as affirmative action. The Project advises the future president to immediately deploy the military for domestic law enforcement and to direct the DOJ to pursue Donald Trump's adversaries by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1807. It recommends the arrest, detention, and deportation of undocumented immigrants across the country. It promotes capital punishment and the speedy "finality" of such sentences. Project director Paul Dans, a former Trump administration official, explained that Project 2025 is "systematically preparing to march into office and bring a new army, aligned, trained, and essentially weaponized conservatives ready to do battle against the deep state." Dans admitted that it was "counterintuitive" to recruit so many people to join the government in order to shrink it, but pointed out the need for a future President to "regain control" of the federal government. Although the project does not promote a specific presidential candidate, many contributors have close ties to Donald Trump and his presidential campaign. The Heritage Foundation has developed Project 2025 in collaboration with over 100 partners including Turning Point USA, led by its executive director Charlie Kirk; the Conservative Partnership Institute including former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows as senior partner; the Center for Renewing America, led by former Trump Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought; and America First Legal, led by former Trump Senior Advisor Stephen Miller. The Project is detailed in Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a version of which Heritage has written as transition plans for each prospective Republican president since 1980. Critics of Project 2025 have described it as an authoritarian Christian nationalist movement and a path for the United States to become an autocracy. Several experts in law have indicated that it would undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers. Some conservatives and Republicans also criticized the plan, for example in the contexts of centralizing power, climate change, and foreign trade.

[iwriteaboutfeminism]

I just made a donation to UNRWA, the largest organization providing relief efforts in Gaza. As the Zionist governments of several Western countries, including the United States, have pulled funding and chosen to make themselves complicit in the genocidal action of collective punishment, it's important to show our solidarity with the people of Palestine and give what we can to help fill the funding gap.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Scraping to train machine-learning models is good, actually.

The Human Rights Data Analysis Group is a crucial player in the fight to hold war-criminals to account. As the leading nonprofit providing statistical analysis of crimes against humanities, HRDAG has participated in tribunals, truth and reconciliation proceedings, and trials from Serbia to East Timor, South Africa to the USA, and, most recently, Colombia.

Colombia’s long civil war — funded and supported by US agencies from the CIA and DEA to the US military —went on for decades, killing hundreds of thousands of people, mostly very poor, very marginalized people.

Many of these killings were carried out by child soldiers, who were recruited at gunpoint by both CIA-backed right-wing militias whose actions were directed by the richest, most powerful people in the country, and by the leftist FARC guerrillas.

HRDAG, working in partnership with the Colombian human rights group Dejusticia, merged over 100 databases in order to build a rigorous statistical picture of the war’s casualties; the likelihood that each death could be attributed to the government, right-wing militias, or FARC forces; as well as which groups were primarily responsible for kidnapping children and forcing them to be soldiers.

The resulting report builds on the largest human rights data-set ever collected. The report — which makes an irrefutable case that right-wing militias committed the majority of killings and child-soldier recruitment, and that their wealthy backers knew and supported these actions — have been key to Colombia’s truth and reconciliation proceedings.

-How To Think About Scraping: In privacy and labor fights, copyright is a clumsy tool at best

Image: syvwlch (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Print_Scraper_(5856642549).jpg

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en

[mnscredit]

Debt Collection in the United States: Most debt collection agencies in USA work on a contingency fee basis, where the cost is usually a percentage of the total amount owed.

[leothil]

Introduction to TV ratings

Hi! I know a lot of us in the 9-1-1 fandom have started looking more closely at episode ratings this past year, but every time I see them posted I also see a lot of comments from people being unsure what the numbers really mean. I'm someone who first got introduced to tv ratings from being involved in the pro wrestling fandom and learned a lot about them through osmosis, so I thought I could make a small informative post explaining the main concepts and why tv ratings matter!

What I'll cover below:

What are tv ratings?

What exactly are they reporting?

How do I know what the numbers mean?

Are the numbers any good?

Let's dive in!

What are tv ratings?

Tv ratings, or Nielsen ratings, is an audience measurement system operated by Nielsen Media Research that tries to figure out the audience size and composition for tv programs in the USA. The Nielsen company has been measuring this since the 1950's, and their ratings is the currency that drives business between advertisers and broadcasters. To simplify it, the higher the rating a program gets, the more the broadcaster can charge the advertisers and agencies for broadcasting their ads to the audience during that program.

The data collection methods have varied over the years, but right now they're using Portable People Meters and track data from DVR:s. Since 2017 they're also tracking data on Hulu and YoutubeTV, and select programs on Netflix. It is an approximation, since they (naturally) aren't getting the full data from every single tv in the country, but they are good enough (and trusted enough) that their reported metrics are what's considered official.

So what exactly are they reporting?

A couple of different things! The most interesting numbers are total viewers, demographic shares, and demographic ratings. According to Nielsen they also track "gender, race, ethnicity, income, education, occupation, etc." but those are usually not reported as openly as the aforementioned three numbers and are mostly used by advertisers.

Sites like Tvline, Tvseriesfinale and Showbuzzdaily often report daily ratings very quickly after Nielsen releases them. The Fast Nationals are usually what gets the most attention, since they're released the morning after, but they're time period ratings, which means it only measured what was watched during primetime. The more accurate Official Nationals are released later the day after, and are program ratings. So if a program was moved from its usual slot for some reason, the fast nationals will still count the original time slot towards its ratings, while the official nationals will count the slot it actually aired in.

There are also C3 and C7 ratings (live viewing + DVR three/seven days after the airing), but they are seen much more seldom and are largely a fighting point between networks (who want to get paid for more days) and advertisers (who only want to pay for live viewings).

How do I know what the numbers mean?

Let's dive into that! I'll use tables from Tvseriesfinale and Showbuzzdaily with ratings for Monday March 20th (the air date of 9-1-1 S6E12) as my examples.

Here's how Tvseriesfinale reports the ratings, they're using the fast nationals (or "fast affiliate ratings"). The %change is compared to last aired episode of the same show. If you're wondering how the demo change can be positive while the number of viewers change is negative, I'll get to that in a minute.

And here's Showbuzzdaily, they report Live+Same Day which include live viewership + DVR views from the same day (which should be the same as fast nationals, but sometimes varies a bit). You can see that they colour code according to how far above/below the average rating of the night a program placed in different ratings categories.

Now for what the different columns mean:

Viewers (mil) or Persons 2+ (000s): the total number of viewers, in millions, who watched the program. So here Tvseriesfinale reports that 4.3 million people watched 9-1-1, and Showbuzzdaily reports that 4.413 million people did.

18-49 demo and Sales Demo Ratings Adults 18-49: These are the numbers that everyone is really looking at! The demo rating means proportion of a certain group (in this case adults 18-49) that are watching a particular show. In other words, this is the percentage of all adults aged 18-49 in the United States that were watching the show. So a 0.6 (or 0.59) rating for 9-1-1 means that 0.6% (or 0.59%) out of all people aged 18-49 were watching 9-1-1. This is the money demo, this is the number all advertisers and networks are looking at. Persons 18-49 is considered the most lucrative demographic, so the more people in that group your show can draw, the better for the network since they then can ask for more money from the advertisers. Persons 18-49 are considered to be the group to best target advertisements towards for a variety of reasons (disposable income and interest towards buying new things being two of them).

As you can see above, Showbuzzdaily also reports the demo numbers for Adults 18-34 and Adults 25-54. Some advertisers are more interested in these demographics, but overall 18-49 is still the most popular demographic. As you can see, the audiences skew older for all programs. I believe the general consensus is that younger people (<35-year-olds) watch much less tv than older generations, and these numbers support that. This is also why total viewers and demo ratings can have different %change - the 18-49 demo rating cuts off a relatively large part of the audience.

Demographic shares: While the ratings are based on percentage of all people in a demographic, the shares are based on percentage of the number of people who were actually watching TV at that time. So a 6.0 in Women 18-49 means that of all women aged 18-49 watching TV at 8PM, 6% chose to watch 9-1-1.

So... are the numbers any good?

That depends on what you're looking at. TV ratings as a whole have been dropping steadily for many years now, so trying to compare ratings to even, say, five years ago can be hard. For example: in the late 90's, pro wrestling regularly pulled in ratings of 5.0 and higher (I'll put a few below as an example), but those same shows would now be ecstatic if they managed to get above a 1.0 rating; their regular numbers the past year (for the big shows RAW, Smackdown and Dynamite) have mostly hovered around 0.4-0.7.

The first number is the demo rating

For the best overview, it's best to compare ratings for a certain show to the ratings of other shows on air, and I believe that's what the networks are doing as well. In that context, 9-1-1 is doing very well, as it regularly ends up near the top for scripted shows, even when looking at all shows over a week. The average rating for S6 so far is 0.63, which is lower than the average rating of 0.76 for S5 (which in turn was lower than the average rating of 1.05 for S4 and so forth). The ratings consistently dropping year over year are a concern for the industry at large, and it's pretty clear streaming services have played a big role in causing this, but I find it hard to believe tv networks would consider stopping producing shows for live tv anytime soon.

And that's it! If something still feels unclear, feel free to drop me a message and I'll do my best to answer any questions! If you want to dive a bit deeper into the different metrics, I recommend this page on Showbuzzdaily, and if you want to look at ratings from previous seasons, Tvseriesfinale's 911 ratings tag is a good place to find articles summarizing both individual episode ratings and ratings for a whole season.

[sfsolutionsllc]

The Importance of Hiring a Personal Debt Collection Agency: Expertise, Resources, and Experience

Managing personal debt can be a complex and stressful process for both debtors and creditors. When unpaid debts start to accumulate, it often becomes necessary to seek the assistance of a personal debt collection agency. These agencies are not only equipped with detailed knowledge of the legal and financial processes involved but also bring years of experience to ensure both parties arrive at mutually beneficial solutions. With resources and strategies prepared for every contingency, personal debt collection agencies play a critical role in navigating the difficult terrain of debt recovery.

A personal debt collection agency offers:

Expert Knowledge and Compliance

Personal debt collection is governed by strict laws, including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) in the United States, which outlines the rights of debtors and the responsibilities of creditors. A personal debt collection agency is well-versed in these regulations and ensures that all efforts are compliant with legal standards. This knowledge protects creditors from lawsuits or fines that could arise from illegal collection practices, such as harassment or invasion of privacy.

Specialized Resources and Technology

Personal debt collection agencies have access to sophisticated resources and tools that are not readily available to the average creditor. These resources allow them to track debtors, understand their financial standing, and determine the most effective way to recover the owed money. For instance, many agencies use specialized software to monitor the status of debts, keep records, and track communications.

Years of Experience Matter

One of the key reasons to engage a personal debt collection agency is their extensive experience in managing various types of debts. Experienced agencies can customize their strategies based on the specific circumstances of the case. Over the years, these agencies have developed effective techniques to encourage repayment, including persuasion tactics, negotiation, and mediation.

Helping Debtors and Creditors Arrive at Mutually Beneficial Solutions

A personal debt collection agency doesn’t just focus on recovering money; they also aim to create mutually agreeable solutions for both debtors and creditors. They understand that an overly aggressive approach can lead to conflict and potential loss of the debt altogether if the debtor declares bankruptcy or becomes untraceable.

Prepared for Every Contingency

Debt recovery can be unpredictable. A debtor’s circumstances can change, making the recovery process more complex than anticipated. This is where the comprehensive approach of a personal debt collection agency becomes invaluable. Personal debt collection agency is prepared for every contingency, ensuring that no matter what unexpected roadblocks arise, they have the strategies and resources to handle them.

The agency’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances ensures that creditors have the best chance of recovering what is owed, even when the path to doing so becomes complicated.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Billboard project

* * * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

September 6, 2024

Heather Cox Richardson

Sep 07, 2024

One of the things that came to light on Wednesday, in the paperwork the Justice Department unveiled to explain its seizure of 32 internet domains being used by Russian agents in foreign malign influence campaigns, was that the six right-wing U.S. influencers mentioned in the indictments of the Russian operatives are only the tip of the iceberg. 

Since at least 2022, three Russian companies working with the Kremlin have been trying to change foreign politics in a campaign they called “Doppelganger,” covertly spreading Russian government propaganda. “[F]irst and foremost,” notes from a meeting with Russian officials about targeting Germany read, “we need to discredit the USA, Great Britain, and NATO.” Through fake social media profiles, their operatives posed as Americans or other non-Russians, seeding public conversations with Russian propaganda.

In August 2023 they launched the “Good Old USA Project” to target swing-state residents, online gamers, American Jews, and “US citizens of Hispanic descent” to reelect Donald Trump. ​​"They are afraid of losing the American way of life and the ‘American dream,’” one of the propagandists wrote. “It is these sentiments that should be exploited in the course of an information campaign in/for the United States.” Using targeted ads on Facebook, they could see how their material was landing and use bots and trolls to push their narrative in comment sections. 

“In order for this work to be effective, you need to use a minimum of fake news and a maximum of realistic information,” the propagandists told their staff. “At the same time, you should continuously repeat that this is what is really happening, but the official media will never tell you about it or show it to you.”

According to the documents, one of the three companies, Social Design Agency (SDA), monitors and collects information about media organizations and social media influencers. It collected a list of 1,900 “anti-influencers,” whose accounts posted material SDA workers thought operated against Russian interests. About 26% of those accounts were based in the U.S. 

SDA also identified as pro-Russian influencers more than 2,800 people in 81 countries operating on various social media platforms like X, Facebook, and Telegram. Those influencers included “television and radio hosts, politicians, bloggers, journalists, businessmen, professors, think-tank analysts, veterans, professors, and comedians.” About 21% of those influencers were in the U.S. 

YouTube took down the Tenet Media Channels associated with the Justice Department’s indictments, and last night, Tenet Media abruptly shut down. In The Bulwark, Jonathan V. Last noted that the Tenet influencers maintain they were dupes, although they must have been aware that their paychecks were crazy high for the numbers of viewers they had. He asks if, knowing now that their gains are ill-gotten, they are going to give them to charity. 

Earlier this week, former Fox News Channel personality Tucker Carlson hosted Holocaust denier Darryl Cooper on his X show, where Cooper not only suggested that the death of more than six million Jews was an accidental result of poor planning, but also argued that British prime minister Winston Churchill, who stood firm against the expansion of fascist Germany in World War II, was the true villain of the war.

Cooper’s argument puts him squarely on the side of Russian president Vladimir Putin and Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, who insist that democracy undermines society. During the recent summer Olympics, Cooper posted on social media an image of Hitler in Paris alongside another of drag queens representing Greek gods at the Olympic opening ceremonies, an image some on the right thought made fun of the Last Supper of Jesus and his disciples. “This may be putting it too crudely for some,” Cooper wrote, “but the picture [of Hitler in Paris] was infinitely preferable in virtually every way than the one on the right.” 

The idea that Churchill, not Hitler, is the villain of World War II means denying the fact of the Holocaust and defending the Nazis. It lands Carlson and Cooper in the same camp as those autocrats journalist Anne Applebaum notes are “making common cause with MAGA Republicans to discredit liberalism and freedom around the world.” Elon Musk promoted the interview, saying it was “very interesting,” and “worth watching,” before the backlash made him delete his post. The video has been viewed nearly 30 million times. 

Carlson told Lauren Irwin of The Hill that the Biden administration is made up of “warmonger freaks” who have “used the Churchill myth to bring our country closer to nuclear war than at any moment in history.” Carlson is on a 16-day speaking tour, on which he will interview Trump allies, including Republican vice presidential nominee J.D. Vance and Donald Trump Jr. 

Trump today continued his effort to undermine the democratic American legal system in a “news conference” of more than 45 minutes, in which he took no questions. Although Judge Juan Merchan, who oversaw the election interference case in which a jury found Trump guilty on 34 counts, decided today to delay sentencing until November 26 to avoid any appearance that the court was trying to affect the 2024 election, Trump nonetheless launched an attack on the U.S. legal system and suggested the lawsuits against him were election interference. 

He spoke after he and his legal team were in court today to try to overturn a jury’s conclusion that he had sexually assaulted writer E. Jean Carroll, a decision that brought his judgments in the two cases she brought to around $90 million. He began with an attack on what he said was a new “Russia, Russia, Russia” hoax, and promised he had not “spoken to anybody from Russia in years.”

Aaron Rupar of Public Notice recorded what amounted to close to an hour of attacks on the American Justice Department and the laws of the country, and also on American women (he not only attacked Carroll, he brought up others of the roughly two dozen women who have accused him of sexual assault). He attempted to retry the Carroll case in the media, refuting the evidence the jury considered and suggesting that the photo of him and Carroll together was generated by AI, although it was published in 2019.

Attacking women was an interesting decision in light of the fact that he will need the votes of suburban women if he is to make up the ground he has lost to Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris and vice presidential nominee Tim Walz.

For her part, former representative Liz Cheney (R-WY) appears to see this moment for what it is. Although a staunch Republican herself, she is urging conservative women to admit they’ve had enough. Referring to both Trump and Vance in a conversation sponsored by the Texas Tribune, she said: “This is my diplomatic way of saying it: They’re misogynistic pigs.” She assured listeners, quite accurately, that Trump “is not a conservative.” “Women around this country…we’ve had enough.” “These are not people that we can entrust with power again.” 

Her father, former vice president Dick Cheney, agreed that Trump “can never be trusted with power again” and announced today that he will be voting for Harris. “As citizens, we each have a duty to put country above partisanship to defend our Constitution. That is why I will be casting my vote for Vice President Kamala Harris,” he said. Eighty-eight business leaders also endorsed Harris today, including James Murdoch, an heir to the Murdoch family media empire. Citing Harris’s “policies that support the rule of law, stability, and a sound business environment,” they said in a public letter, “the best way to support the continued strength, security, and reliability of our democracy and economy” is by electing Harris president.​​

Meanwhile, at his event with Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel yesterday, Trump embraced the key element of Project 2025 that calls for a dictatorial leader to take over the U.S. That document maintains that “personnel is policy” and that the way to achieve all that the Christian nationalists want is to fire the nonpartisan civil servants currently in place and put their own people into office. Trump has tried hard to distance himself from Project 2025, but last night he said the way to run the government is to “get the right people. You put the right person and the right group of people at the heads of these massive agencies, you’re going to have tremendous success, and I know now the people, and I know them better than anybody would know them.”       

One of those people appears to be X owner Elon Musk, whom Trump has promised to put at the head of an “efficiency” commission to audit the U.S. government. 

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln, then a candidate for the Senate, warned that the arguments against democracy and in favor of a few people dominating the rest were always the same. In his era, it was enslavers saying some people were better than others. But, he said, those were the same arguments “that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world…. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent.” 

In our era, Indiana Jones said it best in The Last Crusade: “Nazis. I hate these guys.” 

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON

[evidence-based-activism]

Hello, I really appreciate how you take the time to research and debunk clear attempts to drag women down with men?

Whats your opinion on this article?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/09/22/rape-cdc-numbers-misleading-definition-date-forced-sexual-assault-column/16007089/

It claims men are raped by woman just as much as women are raped by men. The only reason we don't know why is because they go underreported.

If that's the case, regardless of societal pressure men would be talking about this anways, and never bringing it up when provoked. As in, when women speak out against their assaults.

If that's the case, I think men would actually be taking precautions to be safe from women, I think men would talk about this more rather than the so called "male loneliness epidemic..."

According to,

https://www.healthline.com/health/mens-health/mens-suicide-rate#causes

Men are killing themsleves due to loneliness (at older ages) now the USA today article never claimed males were killing themsleves due to rape but I figure if it's just as common we would hear about it lot considering men love to bring up their own suicide rates.

Basically, the article doesn't reflect society. Then again, it's from 2014. While looking through some crime statistics too on Wikipedia apparently in 2016 there was an increase in female rapists, that just kinda tells me though men were reporting it and women were being convicted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime#:~:text=Men%20accounted%20for%2080.4%20percent,those%20arrested%20for%20property%20crime.

By the way, is USA today a credible source?

Thank you.

Hello! So, the short answer is this article is nonsense and also factually inaccurate. The long answer has many parts which I enumerate below:

First, what does the article claim?

The primary argument in this article is that we should be counting "made to penetrate" (i.e., as in a woman forcing a man to penetrate her vagina with his penis, or other similar sex acts) as a type of rape. They argue that if you do so then statistics show that as many men as women are raped.

The conclusion of this argument (that statistics indicate as many women as men are raped) is factually inaccurate, even if we agreed to count "made to penetrate" as a form of rape. However, I will extend on this later, as first:

What is (and isn't) rape?

Depending on your jurisdiction (country, state, etc.) there may or may not be an actual crime called "rape" in the criminal code. In the USA, each state and Washington, DC has its own criminal code, in addition to the federal criminal code and a uniform code of military justice (UCMJ) for each branch of the armed forces. Beyond that, various agencies devoted to criminal statistics (FBI, CDC, BJS) all record data in slightly different ways.

The definition discussed (poorly) in the article, is from the CDC. The CDC publishes results from "The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey", which goes into significantly more detail than other reporting agencies [1].

The categories of sexual violence categorized by the CDC (rewritten slightly to simplify) are:

Rape -- completed or attempted unwanted vaginal, oral, or anal penetration through the use of physical force or threats to physically harm and includes when the victim was too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent (stats for each collected individually). They also note that penetration can be completed with a penis, fingers, or object; except for oral penetration which must be done with a penis.

Being made to penetrate -- when a victim was made to, or an attempt was made to make them, sexually penetrate someone without the victim’s consent because the victim was physically forced or threatened with physical harm, or when the victim was too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent. Examples include a victim being made to penetrate someone vaginally, anally, or orally with his penis or being forced to perform oral sex on a woman.

Sexual coercion -- is unwanted sexual penetration (either direction) that occurs after a person is pressured in a nonphysical way.

Unwanted sexual contact -- unwanted sexual experiences involving touch but not sexual penetration (e.g., being fondled, groped).

Sexual harassment in a public place -- verbal harassment in a sexual way that made the victim feel uncomfortable.

They also aggregate responses for the first four categories into "contact sexual violence".

The author of the USAToday article argues that "made to penetrate" offenses should be reclassified as "rape". This is a gross misunderstanding of the CDC classification system. They have made a very deliberate choice here to break these types of sexual violence down into distinct categories in order to better demonstrate differences between groups.

You'll note that the CDC's definitions are gender neutral such that both a man and a woman could be perpetrator or victim, with the exception of "made to penetrate" which is only asked of men. They are careful to emphasize this in their report, explicating how each offense may apply to a man or a woman.

Is the CDC's definition of rape the "right" one?

That depends entirely on what you mean by "right". The CDC's definition of rape aligns with historical definitions with adjustments to make the crime gender-neutral (i.e., encompass penetration with things other than a penis). The CDC's definition also aligns with the FBI's definition of rape "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".

Other sources report only on a broader classification of sex crimes, usually either a measure equivalent to the CDC's "contact sexual violence" measure or a measure that combines rape, sexual coercion, and made to penetrate.

The US code criminal code and accompanying sentencing guidelines detail two categories of sex crimes: sexual abuse which includes criminal sex acts (roughly corresponds to CDC items 1, 2, and 3) and abusive sexual contacts (roughly corresponds to CDC item 4). In addition, they specify assaults are aggravated when they involve force, threat of death/serious bodily harm/kidnapping of the victim or another person, or forcible/unknowing administration of intoxicant to render the victim unconscious or nearly so (roughly corresponds to CDC items 1 and 2).

I will not be going through each state's criminal codes but the ones I did look at appear to either: follow the federal code's example or create separate offenses (e.g., rape, sodomy) and then classify them as the same "degree" of offense.

Ultimately, in reference to criminal proceedings the determining factors for sentence length guidelines appear to be: if the victim is a child, if the offense is aggravated, if the victim is grievously injured, and if the offender is a repeat offender. Considered alone, a crime being rape vs made to penetrate doesn't appear to make a difference in sentence length.

So, why is the author of the USAToday so bent out of shape?

They appear to be angry about the "expansion" of the rape definition to include non-forcible offenses. (Although, based on the premise of the article, I imagine they would have been equally upset if the old definition "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will" was retained.)

I am very curious to know which of the "expansions" they specifically object to. The expansion to include anal or oral penetration? To include threats of physical harm? To include penetration of objects other than the penis? Or maybe just the inclusion of "when the victim was too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent"?

There's also an important note here, that despite common claims to the contrary, being "too drunk, high, drugged, or passed out" does not include "sex while a partner is intoxicated" unless that partner is unable to consent, which most commonly means the victim was either unconscious or very nearly so. In some jurisdictions, even this will only apply when the intoxicant was either forced or unknowingly given to the victim, known as the voluntary intoxication caveat [2]. It’s inconceivable to me that someone would genuinely be trying to argue that having sex with someone while they’re unconscious isn’t rape, so I assume the author must not have actually read the legal codes/CDC definitions. (Side note: there's also generally rules defining sexual acts with individuals unable to consent due to mental disability or age as rape. The CDC didn’t include this in their definition because their results are based on surveys of adults in the US.)

All in all, I'm hard pressed to imagine which of these situations the author would genuinely like to claim isn't rape.

And with all of that: the author's first misinterpretation/misrepresentation of CDC data. They appear to think the CDC is counting coercion and intimidation in the "rape" data rather than in the "sexual coercion" data. I assume they simply did not actually read the report they are attempting to analyze, since I imagine you'd be hard-pressed to miss this otherwise.

Okay, but I think that the definition of rape should include everything the CDC calls rape, sexual coercion, and made to penetrate. If we look at all of those offenses together do we see equal rape rates for men and women?

No :) this brings us to misinterpretation/misrepresentation of the data #2. Let's look at the most recent (2016/17 report, published in 2022) CDC sexual victimization report.

The issue with trying to compare total counts for these three categories is that summing them gives you a significant over-count of victims. This is because many people report victimizations of more than one crime. For example, 27% of women report experiencing rape in their lifetime. Breaking that up we see: 22% experienced completed forced penetration, 16% experienced attempted forced penetration, and 17% experienced alcohol/drug-facilitated penetration. If we didn't have that overall 27% figure, summing these values would have suggested that 55% of women experience rape (or 39% when we exclude attempted rape). Obviously, this is a significant over count.

So, what can we compare?

Well, we can can compare across single offense categories for men and women. With this we see that, in their lifetime:

27% of women and 4% of men experience rape

11% of men are "made to penetrate" (not estimated for women, previous estimates put the percentage around 1%)

24% of women and 11% of men experience sexual coercion

48% of women and 23% of men experience unwanted sexual contact

30% of women and 11% of men experience sexual harassment in a public place

To make a striking point, let’s create a possible range of prevalence estimates using the summing method (where the floor is the highest percent for any single category and the ceiling is the sum of each category), the expanded definition of rape from above would apply to anywhere from 27% to 52% of women and anywhere from 11% to 26% of men. Based on this, the ceiling estimate for men (26%) would still be lower than the floor estimate for women (27%).

A more accurate comparison would be between contact sexual violence experiences (includes CDC items 1, 2, 3, and 4 and would encompass both sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact per the US legal code). This measurement is 54% for women and 31% for men.

The article's claim that women and men reported rape and made to penetrate at the same rate relied on the 12-month prevalence estimate. This measurement is much less robust, and I generally just ignore it for prevalence estimates; it's best used, I think, for comparisons across time. As an example of this, the data I'm reporting from reports a 12-month prevalence difference of 2% for rape for women and 1% for made to penetrate for men. Clearly, these 12-month estimates are less stable for estimating prevalence, if the women’s rate can be nearly identical to the men’s rate one year and double the men’s rate another year.

In addition to this, the proportion of male victims reporting only female perpetrators was much lower than the proportion of female victims reporting only male perpetrators. (I have previously discussed the issues with obtaining perpetrator prevalence rates from victimization data, so I won't go into this further.)

Okay, what about the rest of the article?

Well, the author references a study using non-probablity/non-random sampling to try and suggest there's a much higher rate of sexual victimization among men than previously found. I've talked before about why this is a problem. The authors of that study are actually not the worst, since they explicitly acknowledge in their discussion that "recruitment strategies ... were not random, thus limiting generalizability". So, bad USAToday author for misrepresenting their study.

The one actually interesting point is about sexual victimization at juvenile detention centers. I would need a whole other post to appropriately dive into that complicated (and sensitive) topic however. Suffice to say that his commentary on this is also partially inaccurate and definitely misleading.

The rest of the article is anecdotal, un-sourced, and essentially seems to be him railing about feminists and also anti-rape initiatives on college campuses.

---

For the rest of your ask:

Is male-on-female rape under-reported/wouldn't we see people talking about this?

I've discussed how female crimes aren't under-reported in the past. Rape in general is under-reported, but female-on-male rape is not significantly under-reported in comparison to male-on-female rape. In general, I agree that if there was a substantial number of men being victimized by women, we'd see an effect of this on/in society.

"While looking through some crime statistics too on Wikipedia apparently in 2016 there was an increase in female rapists" -> I am not able to find this in the Wikipedia article? If you meant to say 2014, observed changes in statistics may have been impacted by the FBI's (extremely belated, like, behind every single other agency ever) change in rape definition from "carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will" to "penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim".

What about male suicide rates? The male loneliness epidemic?

Men are more likely to commit suicide, as described in the article you linked to. However, women are either equally or more likely to attempt suicide and have suicidal thoughts. (Also discussed in the same article, specific rates vary by source).

Loneliness is a pretty serious problem, particularly among the elderly. However, it's not a "men's problem", it's a "human people problem" [3]. The specific statistics vary by age group, but, overall, women and men appear to experience loneliness at similar rates.

"By the way, is USA today a credible source?"

Depends on what you mean by credible. mediabiasfactcheck.com rates USAToday as left center and mostly factual due to "editorial positions that slightly favor the left" and "editors missing fabricated stories in the past". Of course, reliance on this rating requires you to trust the people behind mediabiasfactcheck. I've found them to be ... somewhat credible. They do best with sources that are firmly (USA) democrat or republican oriented, however. For example, they also rate Feminist Current as "mostly factual" for the "promotion of transphobia" despite no failed fact checks in the past five years. Further cases like this one and related issues damage their credibility. Unfortunately, I really don't have a special way to determine credible sources. My best advice is honestly to look at many different sources, including ones you don't agree with, and critically engage with the content of each of them.

In reference to this article specifically, the more important factor in this case is the "opinion" article flag at the top of the page. This means that someone, who doesn't have to be affiliated with the source, wrote an article that the source is hosting. There's many reasons why they would agree to do so, so speculating isn't very helpful. Researching the author can help establish professional credibility (is he a reporter? a public offical? just some guy?), but it's important not to stray into ad hominem attacks (i.e., check out the author to determine credibility, but focus arguments about article on the content of the article).

In this case, the author is "Glenn Harlan Reynolds" a law professor at the "University of Tennessee College of Law" and writer of the "Instapundit" blog. mediabiasfactcheck rates it as a "questionable source" for "promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, the use of poor sources, a failed fact check, and a lack of transparency with ownership". Reynolds has also been disciplined for the "promotion of violence" over social media. This suggests to me that he lacks credibility, an opinion I'd support by his clear misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of data sources.

References under the cut:

Basile, K.C., Smith, S.G., Kresnow, M., Khatiwada S., & Leemis, R.W. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2016/2017 Report on Sexual Violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Teravskis, P. J., Grossman-Kahn, R., & Gulrajani, C. (2022). Victim intoxication and capacity to consent in sexual assault statutes across the united states. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online. https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.220032-21

von Soest, T., Luhmann, M., Hansen, T., & Gerstorf, D. (2020). Development of loneliness in midlife and old age: Its nature and correlates. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(2), 388–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000219