kbordson

From the news story, it sounds like it was an official (high) school function, taking place on school grounds, with official supervision (most likely provided by the school, if those things are still run the way they were when I was in high school). After re-reading it more carefully and with less emotion, I can clearly see that. I was just initially confused by the reference to University of California-Berkeley. There is another thing that sickens me. From an Ob/Gyn perspective, my mind is questioning why she (the victim) is still in the hospital. "She remains hospitalized with non-life threatening injuries. " How bad were the lacerations?

My thoughts on this sad and disgusting situation. The victim: as noted above she's not painted to be overly innocent. But how much blame are you going to place on a drugged 15 year old. (and yes... alcohol is a drug - an ILLEGAL drug in her situation) In my book, she is INNOCENT here. The parents of the victim: Exactly what party was this that this minor child/young adult went to? Was this a high school party or a college party? (sounds like a college party) She had obviously gotten parental approval to go to the party. Did the parent know that there were be alcohol present? Was this young lady instructed on how to act in potentially dangerous situations? When she wasn't at the car at the appointed time, she was called on her phone... didn't answer. What then occurred? Not trying to TOTALLY blame the parents here... but better supervision and better awareness would have been helpful. The rapists: wow... where to begin. Lets start with the alcohol to a minor... and was her drink even further drugged? This is not a case of date rape or "no means no"... if she was totally drunk and INCAPACITATED that is a BIG FUCKING NO! Any one that got close enough to rape her had to KNOW that she was not in a position to make that decision (regardless of if she was of legal age OR NOT) Now... one could argue that maybe those that raped her were drunk too and had limited decision making capabilities.... if your THAT drunk, you typically aren't able to perform... so that throws that excuse out. Those guys KNEW what they were doing was WRONG. PERIOD. The "bystanders": depends on how close they were to the event. If the victim was passed out and not screaming/struggling and the bystanders couldn't see her or tell her age... and they thought "well... she's gettin a few" and just wanted to ignore the public acts... arguable guilt there. Should they have done something or at least called the cops? IMO, Yes. But remember the public sex scene in Crank. How many found that scene to be amusing? So... some public sex is ok... but some is not. How close do you get to determine if this one is or isn't ok? And if they didn't get close enough to see that she was incapacitated or couldn't tell that she was a minor... It's easy knowing the situation to have a feeling of disgust and "why didn't someone help her".... but I'm guessing that most of the bystanders didn't know the situation. (or maybe I'm just HOPING that)

Assumptions: -Deserted island - coconut trees, mangos and papayas. So got the Vit C covered (no scurvy). -Bringing a personal locator beacon or a sat phone isn't going to get rescue any quicker than "exactly one year." That said, this is only a one year camping trip... not a Gilligan's Island Adventure. -Business attire for me - I'll take the scrubs and merrells over the stupid lil skirt and heels. And since I'm in my scrubs... that would also include gloves, a mask and a surgical hat... and there would just *cough* happen to be a Keith needle somewhere in there too. So I need Water, Food (protein... other than bugs) and motivation to enjoy the one year solo camping trip. 1. Clear plastic tarp 2. Knife 3. Mg Fire starter 4. MIL-C-5040H Type IV 5. Pictures of friends and family

a Man-kini?! at the risk of pissing off... well... probably EVERYBODY.... TTIWWOP!!

Oh for Fuck sake Karen - those women couldn't go past a Bull's corral with out the bull giving the "Loser Sign" and calling them cows! Come on, Turtle. You know that I would defend the devil himself if I thought someone had hurt his feelings.

Bear is nice eye candy, but ever since I've started camping, I've thought "Lofty" was The Man. (not a god... but good tips on how to cheat death) Eye candy has it's place. It sells lots of DVD's. And giving the man his due, he DID get into the frozen water to show how to get out. (I wouldn't have gotten in that BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR)

Didn't you want a Sat Phone so you could order the stuff? Or even a pen/pencil to place the order by snail mail? It would be kind of annoying to me to have the catalog but no way to actually order the stuff.

Did you used this flowchart?

No offense taken. There are some who show up to required training and shoot only the required amount and barely qualify. Then there are another group who take their responsibility to heart and practice and often. There are even people who spend their own money and vacation time to go to outside training that is top notch. Then there are the guys (and gals) who are nationally ranked doing things like 3-gun comps and IDPA matches and the like. I definitely know that. And those aren't the ones that I would be concerned about. If they all took such an interest OR if there was a way to verify the level of training. In medicine, not all physicians are board certified... and the people don't even know to ask. Likewise... in the police force, not all should be carrying.... and the people don't even know to ask.

Those women might not be "beautiful" in the classical definition. But they seemed happy and confident and thus "beautiful." There are too many images out there that "define" an unrealistic view of beauty. Those end up pointing out the negatives to the "normal" women. She's too fat. Her eye's are too far apart. She's too ugly. Her smile is too big. She's too.. I think it's nice to have a commercial with happy and confident women, even if they might not be seen as "beautiful" to some.

I hope it all works out well for you.

And I wanted LESS. I detested the nuns CONSTANTLY limiting and restricting my thoughts and deeds. To each... there is a balance.

Well, you all seem to think I look crazy.. And given most of you would know what you're talking about.. I'm guessing maybe I need to change my pictures!!! I think looking for advise from this crew is maybe a bit crazy! +1 - and for some more advice that might be a bit crazy; don't change it. I think you look HAPPY in that picture. Ain't nothing wrong with that!!

By the responses from the right: quite a few. I hate to interrupt your high-fiving, but public education costs are largely funded by state and local property taxes, which means if you went to the schools, you paid for it. Or, more accurately, your parents paid for it And they also paid for the public option EVEN IF they chose to send their child(ren) to a private school. So for 8 years, we paid for the "free" public education, but didn't personally receive a direct benefit.... until I actually begged to go to the public High School. (I didn't thrive very well in the Catholic grade schools) And honestly, I was VERY appreciative of that "free" education and made it a point to get as much out of that as possible (as proven by GPA)

shhhh... it was a reference to Operation Paperclip. The brains of von Braun... brains v braun. ok... I just messed up. BUT . . . I have completely hijacked this thread.

I LOVE mine! I got mine at Scandia Down on the plaza in KC. This link addresses most of the questions that you might have. My main learning point - they're a LOT warmer than what you expect. Start lighter rather than heavier.

No intended offense to AggieDave here... but I've seen the range after the cops had "training." I don't even want to ask about some of the holes in the ceiling, walls, skips off the floor.... When discussing the "person" of the police officer, I'm generally not afraid of him/her ... but as an armed group, that could be different. I could ABSOLUTELY see the hesitation to increase the number of those with firearms, especially if I had concerns about proper training and competence.

Nah... you're not weird. You just need to redefine "normal."

No. Medical care should be a willing choice that is made on the part of the patient. If you are a competent adult, you should not HAVE TO see anyone. Regardless of if he/she has insurance or if "the government is paying for it." The patient should still have complete autonomy of his/her health and well being. That is actually one of my (many) concerns with making health care coverage "mandatory" - do those organizations then have the "right" to demand that someone goes to the doctor. In some ways it would be good for the people. While in Peru (where they have Universal coverage), one of the ladies that I saw had cervical cancer. That is not a disease that happens over night... it had been YEARS since this woman had been to a doctor. I decided not to ask why she hadn't gone, because I didn't want her to blame herself. But... had she gone regularly, it should have been caught prior to becoming a cancer. It's much easier and cheaper to treat "dysplasia" than it is to try to treat cancer... so in that situation, would it have been "good" to have mandated appointments? Another thing to consider is health and culture. Some people don't truly consider pregnancy a "sickness" and wonder why we would go to a doctor for a healthy cycle of life. But we should find out what the barriers are for her for the last 12 years. If you had the opportunity to build a trusting relationship with her, I bet that you would find a history of rape or abuse in her past. And her way of coping with that situation is to avoid feeling "violated" again. Offering help to fix that barrier is what she needs... not a visit from the cops. (I would flag her chart as high risk though... "late prenatal care", "substance use", and probably "advancing maternal age" - guessing as her last child was 12 years ago)

Oh. Sorry. Yes... he might have made that many (but it's not worth the effort to support or refute that argument) I only cared when I thought you were putting words in my mouth But I still don't think that getting upset about his golf stats is worth it.

#1: What is your point? So he took 2.4 days off a month. Several of those were probably with visiting dignitaries. There are many things that he is doing that I don't agree with. This isn't one of them. #2: I "suck" at search function?! Read above on my post again: all of MY POSTS... which means that in the section "Only show posts made by:" I put MY name. and there were only 5 posts where "golf" was mentioned. So... explain how I get a 5% and WTF that even means?

Nope. I did a search of all my posts with "golf" and there were only 5 (four in the bonfire and one in SC... none of those about former President Bush and golf) 24 rounds of golf in 10 months. That's only 2.4 rounds/month. I know that as a President that he's busy with much more important things to do, but so he takes 2.4 days to destress in nature. So what.

I read the article. I thought you were talking about the US and in general though and not the specific case. I can't really speak to the issues in GB and this specific case. They may have some other weird crap going on in this specific case as well we're not privy to, like maybe it' a matter of mistaken identity / people with the same name ect. Any time there is a huge program involving humans there will occasionally be errors. My guess was the woman's case is a mistake and the article just latches on to it to pump up the anti-government paranoia, which is a great way to sell papers. I wasn't specifically trying to just justify or attack this case, but when you commented that "there is simply not a rats chance in hell the government cares all that much about the average individual", then I didn't know if you had been about to read about this "rats chance." But, you are right. I didn't just want to make it about this case, but in general, should the government be ALLOWED to spy on people?

Were you able to read that article in the NYTimes, or was my link blocked? The story was about a single individual and how she had been personally targeted. She didn't call the wrong person. She didn't communicate to anyone about any 007 secrets. She just enrolled her daughter in school.

Britons Weary of Surveillance in Minor Cases This isn't an attack on England... it's just where the story came from. This could have happened in so many other places.... so lets not take this to a U.S. v. England Instead I am wondering about the discussion of what Privacy and Freedom should we have from Government.