Page 1 of 6
Posted on November 18 at 12:47 a.m.
On Cottage Employees Required to Get Flu Shot or Wear Mask for Five Months
Posted on November 17 at 3:41 a.m.
Okay, JohnTieber, I'll bite. Understand that any chance of convincing anyone with your fear-mongering lost all credibility with this gem:
"traditional western medicine, now the third leading cause of death in the USA ( http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~lakes/ia... )."
Don't get me wrong, our health system is in serious need of overhaul, and for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical companies are a major cause of our woes, but come on. And on a side note, don't quote editorials as scientific evidence, it just makes you look silly.
But for the sake of discussion, let's give you the benefit of the doubt, and say it's all a sham by 'big pharm' to make money. It would be illogical, then, for them to fill the vaccines with a "cocktail of industrial waste, cancer viruses, heavy metals, and/or GMO insect proteins and dog kidney cells". One, if it's only for profit, why not a cheaper placebo formula? Second, why use harmful toxins and risk injury to patients, risking expensive lawsuits? Third, how could they get such an allegedly useless yet toxic substance past the FDA? And you can't say bribes and lobbyists, because if it were that easy, we'd be inundated with new, expensive medications all the time.
Posted on November 16 at 10:53 p.m.
"I agree with most of what Sothep has to write until the last line. This proves bilid's assertion that the mask indeed becomes the scarlet (letter) mask. Just because someone didn't get a flu shot you are willing to base all future medical needs of a loved one on this? " - sharpen123
Don't read anything I write too literally; that last line was intended to provoke a response, which it certainly has.
That said, I do stand behind the basic idea therein - modern medicine is ever-changing, and is increasingly successful because of evidence-based over anecdotal practices. The refusal by a clinician to follow what evidence-based practice indicates makes the quality of care that clinician provides suspect.
Does it automatically mean she's a bad doctor? No, of course not, but it does raise an eyebrow. If a traffic cop didn't know the speed limits in his beat, it doesn't mean he's a bad cop, but it should make you question his ability to accurately enforce other laws.
Posted on November 14 at 10:35 p.m.
As a healthcare worker, you should understand the principles of evidence-based practice, and get your flu shot.
The actual, documented risk associated with not getting your vaccines far outweighs the miniscule and largely imagined risk associated with the vaccines themselves.
I'm glad the hospital is making them wear masks... if I or a loved one end up in there, it helps identify the doctors, nurses, etc I don't want.
Posted on September 5 at 10:20 p.m.
Those criticizing the officer have obviously no experience or training in weapons or the use of deadly force. From all accounts this officer reacted appropriately to protect himself, and now has to bear the psychological trauma the rest of his days.
I am grateful that the officer is safe, and grateful to him that he was there instead of innocent civilians who could easily have been killed.
On Police Shooting Suspect Had Extensive Criminal History
Posted on August 30 at 9:45 p.m.
Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with assuming a passive defense. If a defense attorney can discredit evidence/testimony presented against the accused, then guilt cannot be proved, thus the person is innocent.
Sounds like you're making your own presumptions.
On Jail Guards Plead Not Guilty
Posted on August 22 at 10:36 p.m.
ALLEGEDLY beating the stuffing out of him.
The two duputies have only thus far been accused; you can put away the torches and pitchforks.
On Jail Guards Gone Rogue?
Posted on July 20 at 9:44 p.m.
We need seatbelts why?
Because we really don't. Oh, unless something goes horribly wrong and not at all like we planned, that is.
Snide retorts aside, the purpose of the militia (or at least, the ability for one to be formed as needed) is as the same two-fold rationale as with any violent capability, be it the homeowner with a shotgun or a nation with a standing army: 1) Deterrence, first and foremost. 2) Need, should deterrence not suffice.
I'm not one of those paranoids preparing for revolution, but I understand the thought process behind it. Taken to less extreme ends, it's the motivation behind why we brush our teeth, pay our premiums, and wear our seatbelts.
On Arms and Other Rights
Posted on July 19 at 10:47 p.m.
Hehe thanks Ken, I will take that complement.
I'm not against regulation, it's just that I want smart, meaningful laws that are well enforced, not 87 bazillion worthless ones that are ineffectual at actually reducing crime. Of course that statement could be applied to every single aspect of our legal system....
The problem is we get more useless laws as a knee-jerk reaction anytime some scumbag does something criminal. These do little but punish law-abiding citizens; criminals are typically not hindered (or at least, far less so). Another analogy (I love analogies, even silly tangentially-relevent ones): every time anyone is given a speeding ticket, the speed limit is lowered.
Posted on July 18 at 10:47 p.m.
The argument is occassionally made that the Second Amendment should be limited to the black-powder, bore-loading muskets and rifles of the era in which it was written. The rationale being that was what the authors were addressing, and certainly not the weapons that came later.
That logic fails with the understanding that those crude-by-our-standards weapons were the military tech of their age. The authors gave the citizen the same capability to defend themself that any aggressor could bring to the fight. By that standard, current firearms rights are distinctly more limited than those at the time of their initial writting due to the significant discrepancy between civilian and military firearms (despite rhetoric and misnomic buzzwords, eg "assault weapons").
To look at it another way, consider the First Amendment. Protection to free speech is granted regardless of its medium, as we interpret it today. Consider if it was limited to only the technology of its original era? No protection for radio, tv, film, anything recorded, email or anything electronic or internet-based, et cetera.
This band uniquely accesses multicultural sound that has allowed them ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month