This is one of the biggest problems in medicine today and why some class-action lawsuits are justified.  Working as a nurse in both the military and civilian health systems, I saw drug company representatives often.  Very often.  They schmoozed and courted doctors, pharmacists, and nurses.  They always had a ton of goodies (pens, pencils, calculators, clocks, notepaper, keychains, books, calendars, etc...) along with sponsoring "teaching seminars".  These educational opportunities were full lunches and dinners little more than live infomercials for whatever the drug-of-the-moment was.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 10:29:11 | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

There is no better argument I can make supporting a student's right to protect themselves than to point out this story:

But Grady has been praised for preparing the campus police department. He boosted the number of training programs for officers and required they all be certified in first aid.

He had plans for various crisis scenarios, including an on-campus shooting. Grady had ordered his officers to go after a gunman immediately.

This police chief is superbly qualified and made sure his officers were too.  Plans were in place and followed.  The only people who could find fault with his performance would be anti-gun, anti-police moonbats who would say he went too far.  As a matter of fact, he moved from his previous two positions for just that reason... resistance to what he believed were necessary minimums for getting the job done.

He has doubts and guilty feelings over losing five people that day, as any good man would question himself after such a tragedy.  The fact is, he did everything he could to minimize the risk to his folks, then ran toward the sound of the guns when the murderer began killing innocents.  He is a hero in every sense of the word.

Contrast this to what would have likely happened if students were allowed to carry their personal weapons for protection.  Knowing the campus policy, instead of considering NIU a "target-rich environment", the killer may have been deterred from even beginning his attack.  If he intended to die, as it appears, then even one student returning fire would likely have limited the killing.  Even if you intend on dying, getting shot at tends to distract you from killing others.  If that student were well-prepared, and/or joined by other students prepared to defend themselves, the killer might have been stopped before fatally shooting anybody.

It's past time to allow students to exercise their right of self-defense.  If it can happen in a setting with Police Chief Grady there, it can happen anywhere there is a "gun-free" zone.  When seconds count, help is only minutes away... unless you can help yourself.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 23:02:30 | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 2 kb.

1 If that student were well-prepared, and/or joined by other students prepared to defend themselves, the killer might have been stopped before fatally shooting anybody.

As Touchstone said, There's much virtue in an If.

IRL, that would require at least one student with the training of a military sniper, or the equivalent thereof--the ability not just to shoot correctly and quickly at a (possibly moving, possibly hidden) target, but the ability to respond quickly and efficiently (that is, get the gun out and aimed at a moment's notice), and most of all, the volition to actually shoot to kill.   I submit that such abilities are (except in places where military veterans or off duty police are unusually numerous) rare enough to make such a scenario more a fantasy than a probability.

Posted by: kishnevi at 31 March 2008@13:24:14 (zxjPs)

2 Hey kishnevi,

I carry concealed and practice regularly.  Never having touched my weapon in anticipation of using it while out in public doesn't mean that I'm not ready to use it.  When you carry, you are always aware of it.  It doesn't take a military sniper, just someone well-practiced (a matter of degree).  My son is waiting on his permit now and already is practiced in shooting a handgun.  We've discussed school shootings and I have confidence in his ability to respond.  The ability isn't rare, the situation is.  Rare does not mean non-existent unfortunately and if it did occur at his school, I would want him to at least have an opportunity to defend himself.  The probability of getting shot is much higher when the killer is the only one with a gun.

Shooting to kill?  Yep, I've taught him center-mass and empty the clip if you have to until there's no more threat.  Anyone trying to kill innocents forfeits their right to share atmosphere.  If the shooter lives, so be it... I'll take my son back to the range for more practice.  At least he'd still be around.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 31 March 2008@19:13:22 (tarqT)

3 I submit that the ability is rarer than you think it is, and that there are not (as a percentage of population) very many kids like your son.

Also (perhaps I should have been clearer) knowing the theory of how to kill another human is quite different from having the willpower to do so, and probably can't be assessed until and unless such a situation arises in real life.  Your son know how to kill a man; but until he's in such a situation, he may never know if he can kill a man.  (God willing, he should never be in such a situation!)  I don't own a gun because I know I could never get myself to shoot to kill, and if I can't do that, why  should I own one? (Although, ironically, the one weapon I do own would probably require a concealed weapons permit--a Malaysian sword-cane. )

Posted by: kishnevi at 31 March 2008@21:28:57 (gkwrQ)

4 True enough that until a person is in the situation they can't say for certain how they'd react.  Without a weapon however, their choices of how to react are severely limited.  If he (or I) found myself unable to follow through, then the consequences are no different than if we were unarmed in the first place.  I'm pretty confident that, having been tested in other ways, I would not freeze.

Not criticizing, just curious... if you wouldn't kill to protect yourself, why have a sword-cane?  Same principle to me, just a different method of self-defense.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 31 March 2008@21:45:56 (tarqT)

5

People with concealed carry permits are generally good shots. Probably better than your average cop.

How many times do you hear of 5 cops emptying their 15rd, 9mm mags at somebody and the guy being hit like 2 or 3 times? Some 75 rounds go downrange and 2 hit.

For CCW types, it's their hobby. They fire their gun often and they don't mind paying for the ammo, it's fun for them. For many cops, it's their job and they don't feel like spending their money on ammo. Shooting guns is expensive. Depending on your weapon, an hour can cost you $50+.

And besides, one of the points is that the reason murderous iceholes go to a campus is because they are ensured a captive, unarmed audience. If they know that there might be guns there, they'll figure out some other way to get their jollies. After all, you can't top the Columbine killers' score if you get shot dead by the first guy you encounter.

And my personal favorite is, "Oh, so you want a crossfire?"

"Well, isn't that better than the rounds only going from the bad guy toward the good guys?"

 

Posted by: Veeshir at 01 April 2008@08:39:04 (ThMnZ)

6 There's a lot of truth to that.  Even in the military where you'd think most people would be able to shoot, if you're job wasn't as a trigger-puller, you seldom got to the range.  Lots of admin, medical, JAG, etc... have trouble even qualifying.

When I was teaching at the Army's Practical Nurse Course, I had two targets taped to the file-cabinet in my office... one from 50 feet and one from 75 feet using my 9mm Ruger.  Just for effect of course. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01 April 2008@13:04:17 (tarqT)

7

And my personal favorite is, "Oh, so you want a crossfire?"

I usually ask for one example of this happening.  Ever.  Nobody has come up with one, but even if they did, the fact that it's so hard to find kind of negates that argument anyway.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01 April 2008@13:07:14 (tarqT)

8 I got the sword cane because I found it in an antique shop, it's nice looking cane, and I thought it was a neat thing to buy.  The legalities/illegalities of concealed weapons didn't hit me until I got home with it. 
Also, in more direct answer to your question, it's actually easier to disable but not kill with a sword than with a gun.  With a gun, you need to make sure you're aiming at the limb and not the torso or head to disable but not kill.   With a sword, you don't need to quite so careful.  You can also, of course, use the flat of the sword instead of the edge, or keep the edge blunted (as is supposed to happen with ceremonial swords).
Plus, if the person is not expecting it, or not used to it, the sight of cold steel  flashing at them from within arm's length can be somewhat intimidating. 
I've had a little amount of training with swords and fencing, certainly enough to be effective against anyone who hasn't been trained,  even if they have a gun (you go for the hand, of course, in that situation.  Unless there's two blokes with a gun.  Then you run.)
I've tried target practice with a gun once, with my stepfather.  After noticing half the other shooters were laughing, and the rest were taking cover, when they saw my lousy aim,  he swore never to take me back.   (He was a gun nut in more than one sense: made his own bullets in the living room closet.  He enlisted underage for the last year of WWII in the Marines, then re-enlisted as a medic for Korea. The Chosin Reservoir left him with frostbite,  a very real case of shell shock, and after a four decade delay, a Silver Star. My mother divorced him after eight years because she couldn't stand his craziness.)

Final benefit to swords vs. guns: you get more exercise practicing with a sword.

My overall contention remains: I don't think there are enough people capable of effectively using (or capable of being effective threats) a gun in such a place to make your idea realistic.   And these killers go to these places because they have a connection with the place where they go on their spree.   I suspect the inability of their intended victims to fire back is much less of a concern than you believe.

Is there anyplace I can locate how many people (as a percentage of population, or whatever) have CCW permits?  That might give an actual number to determine if I'm right or not.

BTW, isn't it true that every member of the Marine Corps has to requalify every year as a sharpshooter, from the  Commandant on down?

Posted by: kishnevi at 01 April 2008@13:31:52 (0gB9X)

9 I got the sword cane because I found it in an antique shop, it's nice looking cane, and I thought it was a neat thing to buy.  The legalities/illegalities of concealed weapons didn't hit me until I got home with it.

Cool thing to have, I've wanted one but never got around to it.

I suspect the inability of their intended victims to fire back is much less of a concern than you believe.

I don't think it can be proved either way since an attack deterred is not an attack.  I'm sure there are stats on CCW demographics someplace... whether they can be trusted or not might depend on who is posting them.  I'm not sure I'd take the NRA's numbers any sooner than I would an anti-gun group.

BTW, isn't it true that every member of the Marine Corps has to requalify every year as a sharpshooter, from the  Commandant on down?

I know it's technically true for the Army, so I'd assume the same for the Marines.  As I said, in the Army that may be the only time someone goes to the range (no practice in between qualifications) and some of the more pathetic shooters (**cough**cough**many doctors**cough) might get a "pity-pass" after three attempts or so at qualification.  I failed to qualify Expert (the highest general qualification) once and had to settle for Sharpshooter... in 24 years of shooting the M16, the .45 cal (M1911), the 9mm (M9), and the M60 machine-gun. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01 April 2008@14:49:01 (tarqT)

10 There's always Google.
I found the following links:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/licensetypecount.html
http://www.bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFStat.html (you'll need to click on PDF links to get the actual stats).
Approximately half a million CCW permits in Florida, for a population estimated at 18 million plus.  Approximately 100k permits for Utah; at the moment I don't know what Utah's population is.  Also, I don't know how many of those other licenses allow the holder to carry concealed without needing a separate CCW permit. If all of them can, we're talking 627k.  But overall percentage is approximately 3% of the state's population.
However, that may be an overestimate.  I found these links through a site that offers to teach and help arrange Utah and Florida CCW for people who don't live in either state, but want to take advantage of the widespread reciprocity offered to holders of those state's permits (http://americanccw.com).  So we have to assume that some of those half million CCW permits are for non-Florida residents, shading it down some. 

But assuming the 3 percent figure is halfway valid,  that's a higher number than I expected, so my initial contention may well be wrong.

Posted by: kishnevi at 01 April 2008@16:10:25 (0gB9X)

11 And there's always Wiki. 
Utah's population is approximately 2.7 million.  The 100k CCW Utah permits then represent just under 4 percent of Utah's population.

Posted by: kishnevi at 01 April 2008@16:14:59 (0gB9X)

12 I've honestly never looked before.  I'm more concerned with what the local laws that apply to me are than the demographics.  Having a permit with reciprocity is convenient, but knowing the local laws are still very important.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01 April 2008@16:18:39 (tarqT)

13 SQueaK! Hello, Major. I'll bet Gentle Mac could give you website and stats right off the top of his furry little head. There are a couple of good blogs that track stories and stats of civilians using their gun to stop crimes.
Good discussion, as usual. Thank you, Sir.

...see, I did it! Thanks for making this LamerFriendly, Stash

Posted by: sillyblindharper at 02 April 2008@06:24:16 (5+XEL)

14 So glad you could make it Gentle Lady.  Yes, Mac is a fount(font? New Times Roman is my favorite... I take that back, I now have a Buffy the Vampire Slayer font thanks to kishnevi.  ) of information.

One of the best for stories is the "Civilian Gun and Self-Defense Blog".  They cover stories of people using guns to defend themselves whether it goes right (goblin loses) or wrong (innocent loses).  The vast majority of times, the goblin loses... self-defense works.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02 April 2008@10:30:25 (tarqT)

15 Thank you, Sir. I hope you are well today.

Posted by: sillyblindharper at 02 April 2008@13:33:09 (5+XEL)

16 I guess I need a haircut. That should be fuzzy head. I think Prof. John Lott's study is the most comprehensive that I know of but as far back as the 60s the FBI Uniform Crime Reports showed that of the most populous cities in the country the ones with the strictest controls had the most violent crime and the ones with the least gun control had the lowest rates of violent crime.

When the Sullivan Act was passed I believe the crime rate in London was higher than New York. That changed.

The figures in England are deceptive because of the way they report them. If I kill twenty people there that is reported as one crime. It is the same if I break into fifty homes. England and Australia both showed dramatic increases in violent crimes when they passed their latest gun confiscation measures.

Gun control laws can only be based on wishful thinking in terms of crime prevention. Facts show it has the opposite results. In terms of preventing a population from resisting government taking power it is more effective. Perhaps that is the real motive.

Posted by: Machinist at 02 April 2008@15:01:07 (yFIK0)

17 Perhaps?  Who are you and what have you done with our Mac?

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02 April 2008@15:05:51 (tarqT)

18 I'm keeping a low profile. I misplaced my tinfoil hat. 

Posted by: Machinist at 02 April 2008@15:16:38 (yFIK0)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The father of Sergeant Matt Maupin says the Army has informed him his son's remains have been identified in Iraq.

Lt. Lee Packnett, an Army public affairs officer in Washington, confirmed that the Maupins were notified Sunday that their son's remains had been identified. Packnett said an official statement about the identification would be released Monday.

Matt Maupin was a 20-year-old private first class when he was captured April 9, 2004, after his fuel convoy, part of the 724th Transportation Company, was ambushed west of Baghdad.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 22:09:26 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

What do you do when the religious beliefs of parents endanger their children?  I am a strong supporter of parental rights and the freedom to practice religion, but kids have rights too.

The family believes in the Bible, which says healing comes from God, Leilani Neumann said.

If they believe in God and the Bible, where do they think medical knowledge comes from?  If a child breaks a bone, is it a sin to put a cast on?  The parents have three other children who are now staying with another relative while this is being investigated.  I hope the investigation is thorough, but that won't bring Kara back. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 18:04:11 | Comments (38) | Add Comment
Post contains 153 words, total size 1 kb.

1 As painful as these cases are, if we take such decisions,( What is the appropriate role of faith in a family's life? What is the appropriate limit on medical procedures and ethics?),out of the hands of family then who do we give it to? I don't trust Dr.s on the whole to rule against their interests and I sure don't want political expediency or PC fashion to make such value judgments. I think we have seen that neither judges, politicians, or medical professions are fit to hold such Godlike power. I think for now we should continue to give family a great deal of say in these matters and accept that as with freedom the cost will sometimes be tragic.

Posted by: Machinist at 29 March 2008@22:08:27 (yFIK0)

2 Suppose the parents had chosen chelation treatment or some other form of  "alternative medicine"?

Prayer is another form of therapy, and if you believe the way these people believe, it's a superior form of therapy.

Fortunately for me,  my religion says we should pray to God to let the physicians figure out the proper treatment

Posted by: kishnevi at 29 March 2008@22:32:34 (0gB9X)

3 We are on the verge of developing or exploiting a number of medical advances that raise serious ethical questions. Someone will have to make value judgments that reflect ethical and moral considerations that government is not fit to dictate. There is no perfect answer but just as biological diversity is man's best defense against  extinction from new pathogens, perhaps we would best accept a measure of ethical and moral "diversity". The outstanding success of private schools and homeschooling has been of great value to all parents by showing that the propaganda by the public school apologists is not the whole story. I am reluctant to have any government agency set "THE" word on such complex issues (Ever been assigned a Dr that was a TRUE BELIEVER in the powers of garlic over such new fangled ideas as antibiotics?).

Posted by: Machinist at 29 March 2008@23:55:04 (yFIK0)

4 OK, I must admit I had to Google chelation though I understood it once I saw what it was. I R unedumacated.

The Hippocratic oath like the constitution has fallen on hard times. Politicized medicine and politically empowered  doctors and scientists are so much more frightening to me than long shots like rogue comets or climate change.  In their search for objectivity the scientists have tried to find a chelating  agent (HA!)  to remove ethical and moral considerations from their work. While this may be valid from a research perspective it means we must be very careful in letting them set social standards and policy. (Now where did I put my tinfoil hat?)

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@00:08:30 (yFIK0)

5 Unfortunately, this was something easily diagnosed and treated... if the parents had taken her to be seen.  That's the problem here in my mind... while I can easily understand belief in the healing power of prayer, what responsible parent makes that their first treatment option?  I don't have a problem with parents making informed choices about their children, even if it's not the same choice I would make.  This was not an informed choice... it was willful ignorance.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@02:11:01 (tarqT)

6 They are considering criminal charges. How does government draw the line? Had it been diagnosed would they have been required to accept treatment? How do you stop bureaucrats from deciding that having a gun in the home is child abuse, as an example. We have not seen a comforting tendency towards restraint I am afraid. 

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@02:23:30 (yFIK0)

7 Had it been diagnosed I would lean much more towards the parents, while vehemently disagreeing with them because the treatment is so well-established.  If a kid breaks their arm, you get a cast... not a priest.  Government intrusion into parental rights is problematic, I agree.  This isn't one of those times, in my opinion.  Kara died because her parents neglected basic parental care.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@02:36:28 (tarqT)

8 But who decides what is basic and what is optional? Will parents have to be able to show they had all possible tests done in order to protect themselves, as doctors now do? Must we become a nation of hypochondriacs? 

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@02:49:27 (yFIK0)

9 Wherever the line is drawn sir, I would contend that basic certainly entails "something" rather than "nothing".  Just sayin'

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@03:08:54 (tarqT)

10 I guess I just have a problem with the government deciding if they can trust the parents with the childrens' welfare. Short of abuse I am reluctant to give the government that authority. What has set our constitution apart from all others that have been patterned after it is the concept of birthrights. Almost all others show rights given by the government, unless the government decides it must take them away. A fundamental difference. History has shown the great wisdom of our founding fathers in seeing this.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@03:22:00 (yFIK0)

11 Mac, I also think government should largely mind their own business most of the time.  When the child dies because the parents didn't do anything beyond praying, I have to say that's well beyond abuse... it's negligent homicide.

Wouldn't you agree that a parent who failed to get their child's broken arm casted (or did the equivalent themselves even) and just prayed for the fracture to heal would be guilty of abuse?  I worry about where the line should be drawn and favor the parents' rights over the governments, but who ensures the rights of the child when the parents won't?

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@03:35:57 (tarqT)

12 "Wouldn't you agree that a parent who failed to get their child's broken arm casted (or did the equivalent themselves even) and just prayed for the fracture to heal would be guilty of abuse? "

As much as I would like to agree, I can not. I would love to see a reasonable line drawn but our government has shown that they will not accept any reasonable level of restraint on their own power to dictate these matters so I feel they must be cut off completely. Only when there is actual abuse by the parents or the parents allow actual abuse should it be a criminal matter. To say that they did not purchase enough medical services and therefore are criminals is to open a horrifying Pandora's Box.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@03:47:40 (yFIK0)

13 Neglect is a specific form of abuse. If they don't feed the child, clothe the child, shelter the child, or protect the child from harm... that's neglect/abuse. If the child falls on something sharp and is in danger of bleeding to death because the parents believe the healing power of prayer will stop the bleeding, should everyone just stand by until the child dies before charging the parents with abuse? Cutting government out completely is not the answer, although emotionally tempting.

If the parents molest or prostitute the children, the government should have the power to protect the child. If the parents are drunks and insist the children become intoxicated with them, the government should have the power to protect the child. If the child is in danger of starving because the parents believe in fasting as punishment or that it will "purify" the child, the government should have the power to protect the child. Where to draw the line is problematical, I agree... but not all parents do well by their children.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@04:06:42 (tarqT)

14 All of your examples in the second part I agree are abuse and warrant government action. But your examples in the first paragraph are mostly involve subjective  opinions of what is enough, appropriate, or proper. Some in our government have suggested that teaching children Christian values and beliefs is abuse. A judge ordered a mother to buy her daughter a boombox when she sold her daughters as punishment. When these were considered a parents business there were certainly cases of children being hurt but I might suggest we did rather well as a society. Perhaps better than we do now with our more enlightened outlook.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@04:20:14 (yFIK0)

15 Failing to provide any medical care at all, whether by the parents themselves or through seeing a doctor, is neglect.  If the child is sick to the point of dying and the parents do nothing beyond prayer to even find out what the problem is, someone has to protect the child from that level of stupidity.  They're not fit to be parents and the other three children are forever at risk if returned to the home.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@04:32:22 (tarqT)

16 If they had gotten a doctors diagnosis and decided to treat it themselves would this be different?
-- Should any parent who does not take their child in for a full battery of tests at the first sign of symptoms be charged with abuse and jailed? I understood that her signs came on in a matter of a few days.

--Are we to judge these matters from hindsight? Had the girl had flu and recovered should we still prosecute the parents for not having taken her to the ER at the first signs of illness, just in case?

--I fear we will give medical professionals the kind of abusive power, backed by government force, we have given lawyers. Tort abuse has had a very bad effect on our freedom, our society, and our economy. This could be far worse. Without some way to limit this power grab I am afraid to let the government camel's nose under the family's tent. (clearly I'm too late here, much more than the nose is inside already).

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@04:54:01 (yFIK0)

17 If they had gotten a doctors diagnosis and decided to treat it themselves would this be different?
Yes.
Should any parent who does not take their child in for a full battery of tests at the first sign of symptoms be charged with abuse and jailed? I understood that her signs came on in a matter of a few days.
Unlikely at best.  The girl was 11 years old and hadn't seen a doctor since she was 3.  Her signs most likely developed over a period of weeks, if not months.

My dear friend, this is not the case to make the stand that government is too intrusive... we both agree on that.  This underscores the need for a balance between government intrusion and parental autonomy.  A healthy skepticism of government motives and reach is always warranted, but they do have a role in protecting members of our society unable to protect themselves.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@05:11:34 (tarqT)

18 But who protects us from them?

Even the family members who called in the police said a few days, less than a week.

My last physical was 43 years ago and I have not seen a doctor in over a decade.

This is a tragic case but I think parents have a far better record with children than government. It's a flawed system but better than the alternative.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@05:24:37 (yFIK0)

19 I'll bet on you over Hillary, anyday!

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@05:26:05 (yFIK0)

20 Sorry, why would you require they consult a state approved doctor but not require they follow his advise?

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@05:31:13 (yFIK0)

21 Tarnation! I saw a doctor when I broke my shoulder last year. I am going to bed now.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@05:34:34 (yFIK0)

22 The family members had been trying to convince the parents to get help for several days.  The symptoms started well before that or the extended family wouldn't have been so concerned.  The parents never did call, the family members called on their own.

In the end, only a sister-in-law's call to police led to intervention.

Even the mother admits the child felt poorly for at least two weeks before sharply declining (I'd bet it was longer than that knowing something about the subject).  Old farts like us deciding not to see the doctor is our own responsibility.  Children cannot take that responsibility for themselves.  For a child to not see a doctor, not once even for a checkup, from age 3 to age 11 is neglectful almost to the point of criminality itself.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@05:39:41 (tarqT)

23 Sorry, why would you require they consult a state approved doctor but not require they follow his advise?
The difference between informed choice and willful ignorance.

Tarnation! I saw a doctor when I broke my shoulder last year. I am going to bed now.
Goodnight sir, rest well (still can't sleep yet... but Mom's up so maybe soon)

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@05:43:59 (tarqT)

24 You are better informed than I am about this case. I found this a sad case but until someone can show me a mechanism to prevent the government, left or right, from protecting the children by taking them away and making them Little Octoberists or Hitler Youth, or reaching into our homes and controlling us "For the children" I am very concerned about this open ended intrusion of the state into the home and family. Napoleon taking personal responsibility for the education of the puppies to insure their proper upbringing.

We have already seen government confiscating Rush's book from a student and disciplining him and his parent, controlling the religious and moral teachings  which can be taught in the home, forcing  genital examinations on girls whose parents had indicated in writing they did not want school personnel doing these exams, questioning of students about their parents activities and gun ownership, rulings that parents have no say over political indoctrination of their children in government schools and so much more.

I do not think we have better parenting today than we did fifty years ago, or a hundred.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@11:11:17 (yFIK0)

25 I do not think we have better parenting today than we did fifty years ago, or a hundred.
My point exactly sir.

Anytime sometime justifies anything with it's "for the children" I have to question whether this is cover for a grab for more control over our lives.  In some cases (such as this one), it's actually true... that's why it's so effective for the power-grabbers.

Fifty or a hundred years ago neighbors had much more influence over how children were raised.  Either a neighbor husband would have a "chat" with the substandard parents, or the community would largely shun parents who neglected their kids.  Now, neighborhood "chats" would be prosecuted and shunning is largely ineffective as neighborhood influence waned with easy transportation and internet (less inter-dependency).

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@15:34:26 (tarqT)

26 I think government has had a very bad effect on parenting by encouraging single parenthood and irresponsible hedonism and enabling addicted and criminal parenthood. It has also made it very hard for young people to get out of a bad home situation without being put in very bad, often penal, institutions or going underground on the street. A 15 year old supporting himself on a minimum wage job is bad but the same minor living by drugs or prostitution on the street or confined in a "gladiator academy" is worse.

I have some once removed experience with both Christian Scientist caregivers and misguided government intrusion into the family. Both had bad effects but without a hard stop on the bureaucrats I would have to consider government to be a cure that is worse than the disease it treats in this area. I certainly recognize that there is room for reasonable disagreement, but I am much more concerned about bad or misguided government than I am about bad parents. A safety net should not be a straight jacket, but always will if bureaucrats are not  reined in. Currently I feel the last stop has been passed and like a collapsing star we are on a non stop ride to a black hole.

Should I point out here that I think 85% to 90% of our federal government should be eliminated? The states should also be cut back but it is the feds that have really made a doormat of our constitution, and I don't mean the executive branch. It is the most accountable and therefore the least corrupted of the three.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@17:06:00 (yFIK0)

27 The Commerce, Equal Protection, Privacy, Appropriations, and other components of the Constitution have all been warped out of shape (or made up whole-cloth) to forward a social agenda.  Notwithstanding the hand-wringing of the Left, I agree the Executive Branch is the least distorted of the three branches. 

That said, there should be some recourse before a child is neglected to the point of death.  Punishing the parents after the child dies is fine, but letting them kill the child through ignorance would be a very high price to pay for restraining government.  Too high for me.  

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@18:03:11 (tarqT)

28 Too many people died winning those freedoms and too many men, women, and children have been killed by government abuse.

Without a hard stop of some kind it is just too big a blank check of power to trust them with. Each and every freedom we have will be eliminated or "regulated" to "protect the children". It is racing ahead already with the government reaching ever deeper into our lives and homes to protect our children from us. They are claiming the right and need to control religion, speech, eating habits, discipline, morality, politics, and so much more, in our homes, because parents can't be trusted. Experience has shown this power is much more likely to be used against religious or conservative parents than abusive ones.

The people who want this power are almost never the people who should have it or will use it with restraint. We already see this.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@19:45:03 (yFIK0)

29 Some parents are unfit.  I would rather tolerate some level of intrusiveness than read another story like Kara's.  As I said, if the parents had made an informed decision it would be different.  Blindly trusting in the power of prayer to heal all things is delusional... there is no basis in medicine or religion supporting this belief.  I don't feel sorry for the parents at all, just the siblings, other family members, and Kara.  The parents should step in front of a train for the safety of their remaining children.

I'm sorry we couldn't find common ground here my friend.  I don't like overly intrusive government either, but recognize that there is a limited role appropriate to the situation.  A good example is the toilet-seat lady whose boyfriend was charged.  Completely inappropriate as she is an adult who is allowed to make stupid choices.  He didn't have to enable her choice and could have left, but that shouldn't be the requirement.  This would be an example of overly-intrusive government. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@21:05:15 (tarqT)

30 Regardless Sir, I could not have more respect for you. If there were people like you in government I would be less concerned.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@21:18:08 (yFIK0)

31 I'd rather see your idea of cutting 85-90% of government and letting the best people do the jobs that were left.  Having to settle for the lowest common denominator has gotten old.  Government service should be a burden, not a career.  I think that would solve a lot of the problem regarding intrusiveness.  The few left in office would be too busy to get involved to that degree.  It's large government trying to justify it's size, power, and budget (and grow ever larger) that has time to play nanny-state.  Term-limits at all levels should be the standard and most government positions should be what we in the military call "extra duties" instead of full-time jobs.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@21:49:15 (tarqT)

32 Meanwhile, there is this.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@21:51:43 (tarqT)

33 And this.

Has this been happening all along and I'm just now noticing it? 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@21:55:45 (tarqT)

34 It's been going on longer than my lifetime, Sir. I remember news stories and TV programs about this as a child.

Look into how many children die from neglect and abuse in welfare homes where the single mother is on drugs and selling herself and possibly her children to support her habit. How many crack babies are born. How seldom are these children taken from the parent?

These tragedies are much, much more common but do not get the coverage that a religious based death does. Not PC enough.

Now look at the figures for children in the protective services custody. As I said, these powers will not be used against the worst offenders but the OK to attack groups.

Please don't think from what I said earlier that I am less bothered by these deaths than you are, Sir. I just believe government will be worse for kids overall unless some check is put on their power.

Children will suffer and die either way. I think parents are the better way if it must be unfettered government or unfettered parents.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@23:37:06 (yFIK0)

35 I have no numbers to support this but I believe it is less common today than it used to be.

Posted by: Machinist at 30 March 2008@23:39:18 (yFIK0)

36 I understood that Mac... if I gave the impression I thought you were being heartless I sincerely apologize. Far from it, I know how big your heart is and understand your reservations about intrusive government agencies, as I hope you have seen mine. I think we just have different ideas on where to draw the line. Having seen how abuse and neglect impact (not determine) mental health, my perspective is different than yours... not better or more correct, just different. That's okay because between the two of us, we can help keep both sides in check.

Cutting back on government until they're too busy to get involved at the family level would allow neighbors to have those "chats" I spoke of earlier. As a beneficiary of "wall-to-wall" counseling when I was a Private, I understand how it can help someone "get their mind right" (I know, that's a lotta scare-quotes... but oh well )

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 30 March 2008@23:55:17 (tarqT)

37 None called for, Sir. In truth I am very cold blooded about some things. Children are not one of them. I must often fight to stay rational where children are concerned. It seems they always are and always have been preyed upon so I look for what seems best for the most. Most of the time I catch myself being hypocritical it involves children.

I guess my problem is that I don't see a line except at the extreme ends. If action is taken I much prefer local action, either by local government or something less formal. I suspect we would have little problem cooperating at that level. I might even surprise you.

I assumed you had professional experience that gave you considerably more insight than I and a good perspective on the problem, so this does not surprise me.

Posted by: Machinist at 31 March 2008@01:48:50 (yFIK0)

38 We certainly agree that keeping it at the local level is preferred.  That's true for any problem... always try to solve it at the lowest level possible.

Kids are a button-pusher for most people, that's why "It's for the children!" is used so often.  Too often it's effective where it shouldn't be, hence the appeal to emotion in hopes of over-riding reason.  Some of these parents should be waterboarded until they are able to verbalize some insight into their own poor parenting, and that's before they do any lasting harm to (or kill) their own children.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 31 March 2008@09:40:10 (tarqT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I love when simple things are used in new ways that make you say, "Dang! I should have thought of that!"  This article just started me wondering about other technologies that have been around for decades might be useful in unique ways.

As decibels rise, the colors on the new monitoring system change from green to yellow to red, hushing chatty parents or doctors so the babies get the rest they need to develop.

It will be interesting to see some longevity studies on the efficacy of these monitors.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 16:57:43 | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 94 words, total size 1 kb.

So the last quarter growth was down to 0.6% of GDP, which is much lower than the previous quarter's "sizzling" 4.9% growth.

The Commerce Department reported Thursday that the gross domestic product, or GDP, increased at a feeble 0.6 percent annual rate from October through December. The reading, unchanged from a previous estimate a month ago, provided stark evidence of just how much the economy has weakened. In the previous three months, the economy had a sizzling 4.9 percent growth rate.

The GDP measures the value of all goods and services produced in the United States and is the best barometer of economic health.

If last quarter's growth was so "sizzling", why were we getting the doom-and-gloom stories throughout the past year?  Why should anyone doubt that the media has been spinning the economic news for the past 7 years?  We still haven't had a single quarter of negative growth and the talk of a recession has been non-stop.  It's disgusting how the media's hatred of the Bush administration has dominated the coverage.  If this were a Democrat in office, this last quarter would have been the "blip" or "market" correction and seen as temporary.  Since it's not, the media deciders inform us that it is just a portent of things to come.

That's not all however, down further in the article we get this:

In a second report, fewer people signed up for unemployment benefits last week, although that did not change the broader picture of a deteriorating job market. The Labor Department said jobless claims fell by 9,000 to 366,000, a better showing than many economists forecast. Still, unemployment is expected to rise this year given all the problems affecting the economy.

Unemployment goes down, so of course that means unemployment is going to go up.  George Orwell ain't got nothing on the MSM.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 19:11:47 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

I'm so glad the internet, and especially YouTube, didn't exist when I was a kid.  My Mom was one of those who loved to take pictures of us making a mess of ourselves while eating, taking a bath, or any other generally embarrassing activity kids do just because they're kids.  So if YouTube had been around, this could have been me:

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 02:59:37 | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

In the thread about McCain twice almost switching over to the Democrats, DRJ brought up a great point:

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01:45:31 | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 616 words, total size 4 kb.

1 My own personal impression is that voters don't take the same effort to make a correct decision as jurors. 
1) People take a decision more seriously if they are one of twelve peopel deciding the guilt or innocence of a person in front of them than if they are one of several million casting a vote to decide the person who will decide for them for the next x number years what to do about whatever problems that come up, foreseeable or unforeseeable.
And note how liable juries in civil trials are to vote their emotions, and not according to the facts.
2) Jurors are at least minimally vetted to get rid of people who decide solely on the basis of race, etc. alone.  And when that sort of person does get on the jury, he or she already knows he's not supposed to decide that way.
Then there is the quality of information.   In a trial, at least one side will be attempting to get the information the jury needs to make a decision in front of the jury.   In an election, that is, in our days at least, not the case. In fact, the people who run campaigns seem to go on the theory that the less facts and more emotion they can latch onto, the better.

Also, there is a difference between deciding as a juror and deciding as a voter based on ethnic/religious/gender/party  factors: in an election, where information is lacking, they provide  a very rough guide to what can be expected of the candidates.   For instance, if you are presented with a Democrat and a Republican about whom you know nothing, you can at least make a reasonable guess that the Republican will have more views that accord with yours and make more decisions that would you would agree with, than the Democrat.
I'm Jewish.   For most of my life, I voted for Jewish candidates in an election where I wasn't familiar with the candidates, not because they were co-religionists of mine, but because I could reasonably guess that, coming from the same general background, they would decide things the way I would decide if I was in that position.  And since my political views transformed into libertarian, I've stopped voting for Jewish candidates because I can reasonably assume their opinions are too leftist for my liking.

Posted by: kishnevi at 26 March 2008@10:47:49 (aOQZ3)

2 I am not as convinced that voters do the right thing more often than not, partly for the reasons that kishnevi gives. But also because sometimes they are not presented with the best options. Let me explain.

Jurors are generally presented with their legal options for verdicts be they criminal or civil (let's ignore the juror propensity to overdo punitives). So they know that the options they're deciding between are constrained by the law and the facts of the case. That gives their decision legitimacy no matter what they choose. You don't often find jurors who have to "hold their nose and vote."

Voters, on the other hand, are often presented with choices that are less than satisfactory. Yes, there is always going to be a "most right" or "least evil" option, but that is small consolation for many people. They may also be aware of candidates or initiatives that didn't make it to the ballot. That changes their behavior and not always for the better. Indifference is a serious problem for voters.

However, the key difference between voters and jurors (and forgive me if someone wrote this in the earlier discussion, I'm just coming in now off of doubleplusundead's link) is that jurors do not have a direct stake in the outcome. In fact, the link between a juror and the outcome of a specific case is intentionally attenuated. That is not necessarily the case when it comes to voters. They often have a personal stake, either because they gave money to a candidate or cause or because a specific candidate or initiative promises to impact their life in a specific way. That does not always lead to smart voting (I'm thinking of single-issue voters as an example).

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 26 March 2008@13:44:04 (9wqGc)

3

kishnevi, very good points about the differences between them.  I would note that a responsible voter should have more information than just the candidates party affiliation or they're not all that responsible.  Getting the information out there reliably is going to be the problem (as you said) because so much dirty campaigning goes on... with and without the campaign's knowledge.

Gabriel, welcome... thanks for coming.  If that self-interest predominates in a majority of voters for a particular election, then they will likely win.  If it impacts negatively on enough others, they will organize enough to win a majority the next election.  You're always going to have disinterested, selfish, and/or ignorant voters (unfortunately) who don't vote responsibly.  I agree with DRJ that they're usually a minority though... the others are just too pigheaded to see it my way. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 26 March 2008@20:36:31 (tarqT)

4 It certainly is nice to have someone carefully read and respond to what I said.  I'm flattered, Stashiu.

Now that I've gone out on a limb and compared voters with juries, I want to note one difference.  Voters have access to all sorts of relevant and decidedly irrelevant information about the people they vote for. If they want, voters can find out about a politician's platform on the issues as well as his or her family, friends, upbringing, church, work, and financial dealings.  Voters can gossip about politicians, watch them on TV, read about them in the newspaper, and even talk about them with people who aren't voters.

On the other hand, juries only hear what the court lets them hear and it's never the "whole picture" because the only evidence they hear is that which is relevant to the charges that have been filed.  Nevertheless, juries still take many different factors into account in making their decisions.  In a hypothetical criminal case, jurors listen to the evidence but they also notice the defendant's actions and appearance, his/her attorney's actions and appearance, and even what the defendant's family members are like.  Juries notice what the judge does and what the prosecutor does, and they use their common sense.

Now to the meat of the discussion:  Unless a juror or a voter is truly and completely biased against a particular race or religion, I think it's extremely rare that s/he bases their decision solely on one issue. In some ways, it's like the internet.  I don't know what anyone really looks like or if they are what they seem to be or what they say they are.  People don't know if I'm what I appear to be or say I am, either.  But as we get to know each other, we can and do make judgments and those judgments are based on a range of factors and not just one thing.

Even in relatively short jury trials, there is a bonding process that also works that way.  That's why jury consultants aren't consistently helpful.  You may know certain facts about a potential juror's background, but how those facts combine into one person and whether you can successfully use those facts to predict what that person will do is a completely different matter.  As individuals, people aren't as predictable as some may think.

Of course, groups of people can be predictable but they have to be large groups of people.  For instance, I can generally predict how my fellow Texans will vote and even how certain cities will vote, but they aren't always predictable and on an individual basis they might really surprise me.

Bottom line:  I agree with to the extent people vote (as citizens or as  jurors) based solely on one discriminatory factor, but they don't.  People are much more complicated than that.

Posted by: DRJ at 26 March 2008@22:00:39 (wE7Og)

5 Sorry, I omitted a couple of words in my last sentence.  It should read:

Bottom line:  I agree with your point to the extent people vote (as citizens or as  jurors) based solely on one discriminatory factor, but they don't.  People are much more complicated than that.

Posted by: DRJ at 26 March 2008@22:03:47 (wE7Og)

6 I said my piece on what motivates people.  Now I want to address your remaining points.

Maybe I've been a lawyer too long or I've tried one too many cases before a jury, but I what I learned from those experiences is that you have to live with the results, whatever they are.  (That's probably why my approach is more pragmatic than ideological.)  In other words, if you win a jury trial or a political vote, don't worry if some jurors or voters decided in your favor for the wrong reasons. Here's why:

One of the beauties of 6 or 12-member juries and also of mass voting is that the system doesn't require perfection.  If all trials were decided by a judge, it would really matter if the judge was biased or corrupt.  Multi-person juries makes it much harder for bias or corruption to taint the process.  Yes, it's true one juror might base his or her decision on a questionable or even discriminatory reason, but the chances that all of them will is remote in today's system.  I think the same is true of voting.  Whatever imperfections there are will probably be canceled out by the numbers and the diversity of opinions.

When it comes down to it, I think your post is about deciding at what point the perfect is the enemy of the good.  For a lot of people, McCain, Clinton, and Obama are so imperfect that they don't want to participate.  For others, one or other of these candidates is good enough, while still other people think a specific candidate is perfect.  Overall, I think it balances out. 

Finally, FWIW, I don't believe in the theory that the pendulum has to swing far to the left in order for another Reagan to appear.  A Reagan-like candidate doesn't happen because people suddenly decide they want a conservative. Good conservative candidates have to be developed.  The GOP needs more grassroots work to bring candidates into the field, the cream will rise to the top, and the voters will respond.

Posted by: DRJ at 26 March 2008@23:35:44 (wE7Og)

7

I think the same is true of voting.  Whatever imperfections there are will probably be canceled out by the numbers and the diversity of opinions.

I also think this is usually true in large-scale elections. 

Everyone has made excellent points and I think the voter vs juror analogy works well for certain points but breaks down in others as kishnevi and Gabriel noted.  I appreciate the feedback.

Like DRJ, I don't think it's true the country has to swing far left to get a Reagan... I just hope it's true in this case.  I'm certain a lot of conservatives are going to be pretty disappointed with the next administration and hope there are some who will step up because of it.  I'll admit that I'm not one of them because I don't want to be a public figure.  Nor do I have the patience needed to be a good politician (if that's not an oxymoron these days).

Thanks again everyone, sorry the response took so long.  I'm staying with my Dad who just had surgery, my wife and I just had our 23rd wedding anniversary (same day as Dad's surgery), and my youngest daughter's birthday is today... so it's been busy here.

 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 28 March 2008@14:28:25 (tarqT)

8 A surgery, anniversary and birthday all at once is quite a handful.  I hope everything went well for your Dad and best wishes to your family.

Posted by: DRJ at 29 March 2008@21:07:45 (wE7Og)

9 Thank you.  I'm staying with Mom & Dad because it's too hard for Mom to take care of him.  Fortunately, we only live a few blocks away (planned that way, we bought them a house here and moved them close).  I'll be here full-time at least a week, then come by daily for a month or so to help out during the day.  This is his second major surgery since November, but I expect he'll do well from this point.

Nice to be retired and able to spend the time.  My wife and kids come over often, so everybody's pretty happy with the arrangements. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 29 March 2008@21:21:45 (tarqT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Hugo Chavez continues to accuse others of wanting war after he moved troops to his border with Colombia.  Now, it's John McCain.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 01:20:53 | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.

Hugo Chavez is upset again with Columbia, this time because the Defense Minister made a public statement that their raid into Ecuador that killed the #2 leader of FARC was justified.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 03:11:46 | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

1 He's probably upset with Colombia as well. Touch'e!

Posted by: Machinist teh knucklehead at 25 March 2008@03:22:57 (yFIK0)

2 Yep.  Just about to drop off and realized what I had written.  Figures you would have caught it, heh.  Karmic justice. 

Corrected now. 

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 25 March 2008@04:06:01 (Q5ggV)

3 Columbia has brought in Interpol to check the harddrives in the laptops they recovered in the raid.  Once Interpol verifies the data is legit, we'll have actual, solid evidence that Hugo actively supports terrorists...

Posted by: swj719 at 25 March 2008@14:58:34 (xNyOl)

4 As opposed to his meetings with Cuba, Iran, Russia, Belarus, Iraq (under Saddam), etc...?  Interpol is going to find a ton of legitimate information connecting Chavez to FARC and terrorism... what remains to be seen is what will come of it.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 26 March 2008@01:59:53 (Q5ggV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment