GeorgiaDon

Hmm. What do you mean by that? I suppose it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

California Civil Code section 1714.2 reads: There is no affirmative duty to rescue anybody (not even the government has that duty, as has been demonstrated time and again). But, so long as a person is trained that person gets some immunity. Problem is, guys like me just have to allege "gross negligence" and it ends up being $100k spend to defend it with lawyers, experts, etc. Thus, thanks to people like me, people aren't willing to help. I understand it, actually. So, do you have any ideas about how the situation could be improved? Or is this another case of "That's just America, love it or leave it"? Of what value are laws such as the one you cite if people who have "completed a basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation course which complies with the standards adopted by the American Heart Association or the American Red Cross for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiac care, "and who, in good faith, "render emergency cardiopulmonary resuscitation at the scene of an emergency" are still subject to being sued? The language of the law seems plain, except I suppose to a lawyer. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

She did not have such an order. The decision to not attempt CPR was based entirely on the policy of the facility. It seems the tenants were aware of the policy, at least the woman's daughter (who is a nurse) felt her mom received good care while living there. An "assisted living facility" is not a nursing home, and is not intended for people who need medical care. It is a place where your meals are prepared for you, housekeepers make your bed and tidy up, social activities are arranged, etc. Which is not to say that I agree with their policy of not rendering first aid, and I don't know how someone who is a registered nurse could stand by (company policy or not) and watch a resident die without lifting a finger other than to call 911. I wonder if there will be some conflict with her professional license. But it seems the residents knew about the policy, and the fact that they chose to live there and didn't move somewhere else implies that they accepted it. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

While your attached pic may purport to put the sequestration into perspective, it does so in a way deliberately designed to obscure things. It doesn't outright lie, it just leaves out so much that it gives a seriously misleading impression. What is left out? Well for one thing the baby boomers are now retiring and qualifying for social security/medicare, so that segment of the population is increasing far faster than the overall working population. However medicare and social security were shielded from sequestration, as was things like interest payments on the debt. You may well argue that the overall budget is still increasing, but if social security/medicare/interest payments are growing at a substantially faster rate and they are protected, then all of the sequestration will have to come out of "discretionary spending" including the military, border security, medical research, food safety inspections, air traffic control, the judicial system, and all the other services we have come to depend on. Over time, unless the cuts are also applied to entitlement programs, everything else will have to go. Many will say "good, let it go". Well, some of the effects will be visible, though primarily as a nuisance, in the short term. It'll maybe take a year, and cost a couple of hundred dollars, to get a passport, instead of the several months and $100 it costs now. Airport hours will be curtailed as there aren't enough air traffic controllers to maintain staffing, so flights will be less convenient. Incidents of food poisoning will become more frequent, more crimes won't be worth prosecuting, and so on. In the longer term, sectors of the economy, such as biotech, will move offshore as it becomes harder and harder to find qualified American scientists and engineers. As other countries invest in their own populations and economies, the US will become more and more of a backwater, focused on nothing but an aging non-working population and a bloated military incapable of protecting us against the real threat, economic irrelevance. What would take real balls would be an assessment of what government programs contribute in a measurable way to things the government should actually be worried about. I would argue that should include a reasonable level of defense and border security (coupled with a realistic immigration policy that addresses the actual needs of the country), investment in people and infrastructure in a way that actually leverages real economic growth at a national level, and protection against criminal activity (including poisoning of the air and water we all need) and public health threats. As a nation, we should also be able to do something to care for the most unfortunate amongst us, such as those who are so disabled that they have no hope of being able to support themselves. Really what is needed is a discussion of the cost/benefit/constitutionality of each and every program. Truth to tell, though, I suspect that such an analysis wouldn't turn up as much as most people think it would in terms of wasteful spending. Unless, of course, you define "wasteful spending" as "spending that doesn't directly benefit me in a totally obvious way, right now". At any rate, such an effort would require a lot of time and a real willingness to be objective (i.e. to leave politics out of the discussion), not these month by month exercises in brinksmanship our political "leaders" so like to play around with. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I agree with you. However, the problem is that the reason for the level of US spending on the military long ago became dissociated from the idea of protecting anyone, much less the Belgians and the Brits (and lets throw the Canadians in for good measure). None of those countries have faced any serious military threat in a long time. Military spending has become the teat that a very large segment of the US economy suckles from, either directly or indirectly. It is the primary mechanism of transferring wealth from some areas (largely blue states, as it happens) to others (largely red states). Notice how much squealing and bleating accompanies any suggestion of closing redundant military bases. Does anyone think this country would be able to sustain the current aerospace manufacturing industry if it weren't for military contracts? The military is the epitome of economic welfarism, and the country is totally addicted to it, as Eisenhower warned of long ago. I also wonder if the tradeoff you suggest would occur even if the opportunity arose. Decisions at the national level about access to health care is a direct reflection of the moral values held by a society. Every other country with the resources to deal with the issue has decided that it is morally reprehensible for people to suffer, be incapacitated, or die because they are too young to have saved the money to pay for medical treatment, or work in a low pay/no benefits job (as most jobs seem to be these days in the US anyway). Only in the US does a substantial chunk of the population seem to think that access to health care is a commodity no different than buying a yacht. Hmmm, I've got $300,000 to blow, should I buy a yacht or get cancer? Does anybody really think people make such choices? Or do they just not give a fuck about anybody except themselves, and maybe their own kids (on a day when they are feeling magnanimous)? It's perverse that the only "national health care system" in the US is restricted to the retired, so money is taken from working people to pay for health care for the retired/elderly. Working people pay for health insurance they have no access to themselves, so they have to go and buy more insurance (if they can afford it) to cover themselves. But it's OK, because if you can make it to 65 then you'll have insurance (well, sort of). What a country! So, while it may be true that the wealthiest country in the world can't afford to ensure access to health care for it's citizens, because it would prefer (for economic reasons, not defense) to support a military machine that has metastasized out of all reasonable proportion, even if the money were to be deflected from military spending I doubt it would be spent on health care access. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Out of curiosity, what would that policy change be? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Interesting process they have there. I wonder how many American prosecutors would be prepared for what was essentially a mini-trial just a couple of days after the crime? Over here it takes substantially longer than that to even get to a grand jury, where the prosecution doesn't have to contend with defense lawyers. Given that Pistorius could hardly go anywhere without being recognized, he's probably not much of a flight risk. Bail doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I find the defense argument that this whole incident is just an unfortunate accident quite disturbing. Does anybody really think that it's OK to shoot someone through a locked door? How can anyone reasonably claim they felt in immediate danger for their life based on noises on the other side of a locked door? Here's another case from South Africa where someone opened fire on a suspected thief. In this case the guy heard a car start in the driveway early in the morning (5 AM), assumed the car was being stolen, opened his bedroom window, and opened fire at the car as it drove away, killing the driver. The driver was his 19-year-old daughter, on her way to surprise her boyfriend with a present on his birthday. Using a firearm on someone should be a last resort, when you are sure your life is in immediate danger and no alternative action is available, not the first choice as it seems to have been for Pistorius and for the guy who killed his daughter. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yes. In fact, that's precisely how it works. Programmed at what level? Much of our aversion to hurting other people is socially conditioned, not genetically programmed. People who are indoctrinated as young children into groups such as the Lord's Resistance Army, for one example, feel no sense of guilt or revulsion as they use their machetes to hack off the hands, or heads, of those their leaders designate as enemies. Their behavior would be outrageous in our society, but it is perceived as quite normal within the LRA. How can it be that behaviors that are indicative of mental illness in one context are normal in a different context? It's not like you can rid yourself of cancer by moving to a different place, anywhere on the planet. Disease shouldn't be dependent on context. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Apart from the obvious wrong, which is that the shooting occurred at all, I'd want to know more about the "history of mental illness" before jumping to any judgements. According to the revised DSM, you can be diagnosed with depression (a mental illness) if you continue to show symptoms of sadness, loss of appetite, and such for more than two weeks after the death of a spouse or child. Such a broad brush renders "mental illness" virtually meaningless. Is someone with obsessive-compulsive disorder a threat? Delusory parasitosis? On the other hand, someone who has severe paranoia might be dangerous, as is someone who is actually unable to control their anger, as can happen due to frontal lobe damage. So, while I agree that we need to keep guns away from people who have a mental illness that impairs their ability to distinguish non-threatening from threatening situations, to control their actions, or to appreciate the consequences of their actions, I think that an anecdotal report of "mental illness" in a newspaper article is too vague to draw any sweeping conclusions. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So, is the problem (at least to some extent) the one-size-fits-all inflexibility of the system? Is it that once you have been deemed to be "mentally ill", the consequences are life-long? I certainly would agree that this is a big problem. Would it help if there was some mechanism available for a short-term "emergency hold" that could be placed by a judge, acting on the recommendation of a trained mental health specialist, and after that short term (say, a month) if no action is taken to extend the hold it disappears and no record is kept? I can easily imagine circumstances where one might want to keep a person away from access to guns due to a transient event that will likely resolve given a few days or weeks, such as when a person is extremely despondent over the death of a spouse or child. There seems to be no good reason why that should haunt someone for the rest of their life. Why is it that the legal system seems to be incapable of such nuance? Personally I'd like to see a more nuanced approach in other directions as well. For example, I see no reason why someone who is convicted of a non-violent felony should be denied the right to vote, and their 2nd amendment rights, for life. If they stay out of trouble for a reasonable period of time after they have served their sentence, say 5 years as an example, restoration of such rights should be automatic (in my opinion anyway). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

And on the whole I'd rather a person be imprisoned instead of on the streets to possibly do me harm. Turns out, though, that taking people's freedom as a prophylactic measure has a nasty history. Back in the 40's, there were plenty of people who would rather not worry about the Japs getting them. Out of curiosity, what's your opinion of Typhoid Mary? Should it ever be permissible to subject a person to involuntary quarantine just because they are a known carrier of a disease that is frequently fatal, they refuse treatment, and insist on working in a job that ensures that lots of unsuspecting people will be exposed? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Update: pilot now charged with criminal negligence causing death. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

There is an interesting discussion of the origin of this parable

So, he charged it just enough to theoretically make it to the next station, based on a hypothetical range assuming ideal driving conditions that never exist in the real world, left himself no reserve whatsoever, took no trouble to acquaint himself with the location of charging stations beforehand, and then he is shocked (so to speak) when he runs out of energy a few miles short. Also, as a journalist his job is to get details correct. His story contains many inaccuracies and discrepancies with the telemetry data, curiously enough all slanted in a direction to make the Tesla look bad. If I were to publish a research paper with so many inaccuracies, I would be forced to publish a retraction, and I would likely be barred from receiving research grants. Here is an account from a different reporter who made the same trip, and encountered none of the problems allegedly experienced by Mr. Broder. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Why would engineers have any particular expertise in climate science? Why would their opinion be any more informed than, say, that of chiropractors? I am a molecular biologist and sometime paleontologist; do you care to hear my (uninformed) opinion on string theory? I suspect not. In fact, I rather suspect that engineers would tend to have a bias in favor of existing technologies that they are familiar with. Similarly, "geoscientists" cuts a broad swath. Paleontologists can be expected to have knowledge of past climates. Geochemists and geophysicists, not so much. Amongst the paleontologists that I know, none deny that the climate is warming. All of them are aware that there have been periods in the past when temperatures have been warmer than they are today. None of them have a specific non-anthropogenic explanation for the current warming, and none of them believe things happen without any cause, as if by magic. Some of them believe that the case for anthropogenic warming is not yet iron clad, and although none of them believe that global warming will be the "end of the world", they are all aware that past warmings have led to mass extinction events. At any rate no-one believes that a significant rise in sea levels, displacing hundreds of millions of people, would be a good thing. Anyway, even you can see that "98% of climate scientists" is not at all the same thing as "36% of engineers and geoscientists". Once again you resort to misdirection and false comparisons to support your gas and coal worshiping religion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Is this journalist Brent's twin brother, by any chance? I'll be curious to see if there are any adverse consequences to this "journalist" for outright lying, essentially making a story up. I know what should happen if he worked for an employer who actually valued their reputation. So, brenthutch, what do you think would happen if I continued to drive my gas-powered car when the gas gauge showed empty, driving past gas stations even as warning lights are blinking and alarms are sounding? The Tesla continued for 19 miles after the point where the gauge showed no power remaining. If I continued to drive a car on empty, driving past gas stations on the way, until it finally ran out, would that constitute proof that gas engines are an experimental technology, not ready for prime time? Will you now advocate that we have to go back to horses as the best proven technology? But, what happens if we don't feed the horse? Maybe we all have to walk in brenthutch's world. At least that would be good for global warming, not to mention the obesity epidemic. Brenthutch, do you think it might be relevant that in an article last year Mr. Broder (the "journalist" who did the "test drive") wrote: "Yet the state of the electric car is dismal, the victim of hyped expectations, technological flops, high costs and a hostile political climate.” Sounds like Mr Broder is a high priest of your live-in-the-past religion, and you swallowed his shit load lock stock and barrel. What does it say about the veracity of your ludditist views that time and again you have to turn to fabricated "evidence" for support? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

My great-grandfather had a hay business, back in the 1940s when milk and ice, was still delivered by horse-drawn carts. Year by year, as more and more of his clients traded their horses for trucks, and business declined steadily, my grandfather insisted that these "horseless carriages" were smelly, dangerous, and just a passing fad. He continued to believe that even as he went bankrupt. For that matter, to the day he died he didn't believe in airplanes. Although he could see them overhead, he insisted they were illusions sent by the devil to tempt him. Sometimes, slavish devotion to the ways of the past can come to border on insanity (at least in the sense that Quade uses the word). Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Needless to say, no gas powered vehicle has ever suffered a locked parking brake, or indeed any sort of mechanical failure whatsoever. Sheesh! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Chuck doesn't need to use his shoulder. He just fires it single handed like a handgun! And also held sideways, for the "badass gangsta" effect. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

He did not report the "police brutality" at the time it allegedly occurred, but rather weeks later and only one day after he had received a poor evaluation regarding his performance during his probationary period as a new candidate for the police force. His version of the events was directly contradicted by three hotel employees who were present during the arrest, when the abuse was alleged to have occurred. Dorner has proven himself to be someone who will do literally anything, including the murder of police officer's children, to get what he wants. And you say you "understand" his anger and rage? Really? Why would give any credibility to anything this guy has to say? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Corruption and/or bias aside, what you're in practical effect describing would the the judicial trial AND sentencing-to-death of an un-represented defendant in absentia. If that were to happen in the United States of America, I would fight tooth and nail against it; and if the procedure were confirmed by the Supreme Court, I just might very publicly resign my license to practice law in protest. Or organize a mass strike of like-minded lawyers and judges. You want to see a revolution? American lawyers would make it happen. By way of comparative example, look at the fairly recent mass strikes by lawyers in Pakistan and judges in Egypt. Even between non-similar legal systems, we're a brotherhood, and we don't take that kind of shit lightly. Honestly, I'm just thinking out loud, not putting anything out as well-thought out. However, I still think I prefer some sort of judicial review as opposed to the none that is in the act now. I do, too, when it's bona fide. But when it's a facade to veil a breach of the rule of law, I react... as I have. The only judicial analog I can think of under the American system of law are when search warrants and arrest warrants are issued by judges with only the police or prosecutors present. And usually, they're just pro-forma rubber stamps. But there, the worst that could happen would be a wrongful arrest or search. That's a FAR CRY from a DEATH WARRANT issued secretly, unilaterally and otherwise without further due process, even if by a judge. IMPO, any American judge that would do such a thing should be impeached from office and disbarred. Andy, I agree with you on this. I do wonder if there is any "in absentia" process you could imagine, such as an actual trial with real representation for the defense, that would satisfy the need for due process? Or do we really just have a choice between "suck it up" or declaring war on yet another country when a terrorist (or allegedly terrorist) organization sets up shop in a place where the local government is unwilling or unable to apprehend them? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

We make a good faith effort to make an arrest, and if we are able to do, then we give them a fair trial. Sometimes the accused will resist arrest, and sometimes that resistance will involve them threatening or killing LEOs, hostages, innocent bystanders, etc. We don't permit such actions to continue unabated, allowing the casualties to mount as we wait for an opportunity to make an arrest. We don't ask LEOs to "take a bullet" rather than defend themselves, lest we deny the defendant due process. Although the potential for abuse exists, we allow LEOs to make judgements about what actions to take to protect their own lives and the lives of other potential victims, and somehow the sky hasn't fallen. That former Seal who was murdered at a gun range the other day claimed over 150 kills as a sniper. I doubt that any of those 150 were offered a trial, or were represented by competent legal counsel. Did anyone even bother to check their citizenship papers? Also, I do not recall a formal declaration of war against the governments of Iraq or Afghanistan. Who will deny that the US military was acting as an agent of the US government in Iraq and Afghanistan? So was that Seal a murderer? Should we demand that the military implement ROIs that mandate that no enemy combatants be killed, but rather that no number of US casualties is too large a cost to ensure every enemy is taken alive to stand trial? How are drone attacks materially any different than a sniper? I asked if any procedure were conceivable that would balance the need for due process with the country's need (I would argue right) to defend itself against attack. I got "We gotta suck it up." There seems to be a lot of that going around lately. Delusional Joker wannabes with the firepower of a small army? Gotta suck it up. Convicted felons buying guns on the street? Gotta suck it up. I agree, and I'm sure we also agree that rights are only rights when they apply to the unpopular as well as the popular. I also agree that this is a power that shouldn't just be delegated to an unaccountable government official. I'm envisioning a process akin to a real trial, in which the accused is represented by a real defense, not just a "grand jury" style process. I'm not a fan of government actions that have no judicial branch oversight, such as warrantless wiretaps. But, I'm also not a fan of the idea that we are barred from defending ourselves against attack. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Open question to anybody who cares to venture an answer: what would constitute "due process"? Imagine, for example, a US citizen who is known (based on solid intelligence) to be 1) training agents to carry out a biological warfare attack on the US, 2) is operating a facility to provide would-be attackers with biological warfare agents, and 3) is doing so from a country that will not permit US troops on their territory under any circumstances. One option might be to allow the fellow to continue to operate, and hope to be able to intercept every single agent before they are able to reach their target and release their biological weapon. If a few slip through here and there, each one launching an anthrax attack on a major city, well that wouldn't be as bad as the alternative (targeting the facility for destruction without due process). Another might be to invade the country, fight past that country's military, and hope to reach the installation and somehow find all the people still there to be potentially captured. Basically, launch Afghanistan II, then Afghanistan III, IV, V, whatever it takes, regardless of the number of soldiers killed and $trillions spent, until the guy is caught or killed by conventional forces? Or use drones to destroy the facility and the capability to launch attacks on the US? What actions would be permissible, other than sparing no expense/number of troops killed to capture the guy alive, read him his Miranda rights, etc? What actual course of action would you guys order, if you were President, to replace the current policy? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In Georgia you can't get plates to drive a car on public roads with a salvage title. There is an inspection process so you can make repairs and convert the salvage title to a regular title, in theory, but my experience left me feeling the process is a scam. I was given a car that had been damaged by a falling tree branch; the damage seemed minor to me, just a shattered windshield, a slight bend in the pillar that connects the roof to the body on the front passenger side, and because of that the passenger door didn't seal when closed. The car was older and written off by the insurance company because repairs were more than the blue book value. I straightened the pillar, fixed the door, and replaced the windshield,and took it for inspection. Unfortunately, the inspection is done by a local auto body repair business; they are licensed to do this by the state, and are the only place to go if you live in this area. They failed the car, because I hadn't filled in a dent in the pillar. They also offered to repair the dent, for $800, far more than the car was worth. Also they did not return the salvage title, but sent it to the DMV, so then I didn't even have a salvage title. To get the title back, I would have had to have the repair done by a licensed auto body shop (basically, them) and send proof to the DMV in Atlanta. What a scam! In the end, I towed the car home and sold it for parts. I'll never touch a salvage title again! Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

How about you call up some of those parents in Newtown and tell them their kids are statistically insignificant. I'm sure they'll see the light and realize they have nothing to feel bad about if you explain it to them. You'd really be doing them a favor. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)