Not really, there are actually quite a few. The trick is getting physicians to prescribe them, as the feds keep pretty close tabs on them and may investigate doctors who they feel are writing to many prescriptions for them. Many hospitals and practices also have policies against writing pure narcotic prescriptions.
Some examples though are morphine (ms contin is the extended release version), oxycodone (oxycontin is just the extended release version), fentanyl (in transdermal patches, suckers, buccal tablets), Hydromorphone (dilaudid), tramadol, oxymorphone (opana) and probably many others.
Ask your doctor about fentanyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl). It's a very, very, VERY powerful pain killer that is metabolized outside of the liver. It can also be delivered using a 72 hour transdermal patch, making it very easy for the patient to use.
Absolutely right. And, at least in the U.S. and in my very limited experience, it is also a huge problem with juries. I recently finished jury duty in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, Ohio), one of the most impoverished areas in the country and not generally considered to be a county with a high percentage of government/police supporters. I was absolutely shocked by the attitudes of many people on the jury - some even stated that they thought that the detectives on the case wouldn't waste time and investigate or bring charges against innocent individuals! They also expected the accused to prove their innocence (present alternative scenarios, accuse others of the crime, etc) rather than have the prosecution actively prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So in many of the jurors eyes the defendant was guilty simply by virtue of his being accused and before we even saw any evidence. And it was then the job of his (public defender) lawyer to prove his innocence.
And what really got me is that the people who felt this way didn't seem stupid, intellectually lazy, overly gullible, etc. They simply could not comprehend that it didn't matter if the defense proved innocence, it only mattered if the prosecution proved guilt. They didn't seem to be able to comprehend that the police can make mistakes, witnesses can be wrong or have an agenda and sometimes shit just happens.
After this experience, I sincerely hope that I am never accused of a crime. I have next to no confidence that a jury of my peers will really look at the evidence and decide whether or not the prosecution proved guilt rather than simply convicting since only guilty people end up in court.
Will anyone else give them a loan for the amounts they need on terms even remotely similar to what their getting from the government? If not, then it's a bailout regardless of whether or not they have to pay it back and are charged interest.
Of course, there could be many reasons that ATT and others aren't seeing many repeat offenders after forwarding takedown notices. Personally, after a "friend" received one such notice, they very quickly learned about using IP tables and exclusively connecting to encrypted peers when using bit torrent. A year later, and my "friend" still hasn't received another notice so it seems to be working very well. Of course, it isn't for the reason the RIAA and the ISP would like.
All I can say is good luck with that. I commend you for trying and I'm sure doing a very good job, but there can/will always be things your children are doing that you will not be aware of. I had two very involved parents who did a fabulous job of raising me; they were very involved with my life, knew all of my friends, attended the same church, knew many of my teachers, I was excited to share my life with them, etc.
However, there were still many things that I did that they never found out about that would have gotten me in MAJOR trouble had they discovered them. And it wasn't that they were bad parents or I was a bad kid; rather, I was a kid and needed time grow up. Part of that maturation process is doing stupid things and discovering exactly who you are. Hopefully along the way you also discover that you are not a stupid person who enjoys doing stupid things, which I definitely discovered about myself. But if you never have the opportunity to do stupid things, you might not be able to discover that you don't like them until you are out of the developmental period and you are expected to not do stupid things.
Why in the world is "haha lookit my rockit go!" not a valid purpose? I would wager that for many a future engineer, physicist, astronomer, etc model rocketry is what set the hook of their interest in their future profession. I guess if we want everyone to be writers (and not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm one) we don't need to encourage private experimentation and exploration and the sciences. But if we ever aspire to be more than that, we sure better encourage more kids to "haha lookit my rockit go!"
You know, the torture going on isn't just waterboarding, humiliation, koran desecration, human pyramids, being threatened with dogs, or "not getting the right jail." It includes what acts that are unarguably torture, including being beaten and chained up until dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim)). Even when the sadistic bastards believed the detainee was innocent.
Some other examples of "not really torture" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse):
* Urinating on detainees
* Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
* Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
* Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
* Sodomization of detainees with a baton
* Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
And some other forms of torture, with real torture names that can really kill you, like strappado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi). Although folks like you, Rush Limbaugh and all the other right wing nuts seem to prefer the doublespeak term "stress positions."
And I guess because some soldiers were just so stressed out and needed to blow off steam, some prisoners were just tied up, put in sleeping bags and beaten to death (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html).
But you're right, waterboarding isn't torture and it was only 4 guilty as hell terrorists anyway.
Where is that "independent after the fact oversight and examination of the choices" policy today? It was a part of FISA with the 72 hour after the fact warrant provision, but with the new legislation it no longer exists. They SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSELY took out the part that provided for after the fact oversight, examination and consequences. Until this is amended, it is a policy that has no oversight, no examination and no consequences. And this is apparently by design.
I never meant to imply that we should hold and torture foreigners, only that they aren't guaranteed the same constitutional protections. I agree that torturing anyone, foreign or otherwise, is a horrible crime and should never be acceptable under any circumstances in the United States or anywhere else.
There are, however, legal differences in spying on foreigners and US citizens and if we are talking about the rule of law it is important to note those distinctions.
Actually, this is indeed an "anything goes with no consequences, ever" policy. If there is no oversight, then no one looks and no one ever discovers wrongdoing. Therefore, there are no consequences. Ever.
Why can't we save lives and follow the law? What was so desperate that we couldn't change the laws during the 8+ years that this was going on?
This program was against the law and the constitution of the United States of America. Period. This is not in serious dispute, that's why the immunity deal was necessary. Immunity was granted to prevent this from ever going to trial and bringing out the facts of the case. If everything was above board, why not prove it in a court of law?
And you are right, there is little in my post about terrorism. It wasn't about terrorism. It was about our government and how they are trampling the laws and traditions of this country.
The choice is not breaking laws to catch terrorists or doing nothing and letting them kill Americans; that's a false dichotomy. We can, and have for many, many years, held to the rule of law and protected our citizens. We can continue to do so.
The choice is protecting our citizens while adhering to the rule of law or not. This government has chosen not to. If the laws were insufficient, they had the option of trying to change those laws. They chose not to. This is completely unacceptable in any society that wishes to be considered democratic and those responsible need to be held to account.
I'm a pretty big fan of the "ter'ists have no constitutional rights" thing too and how they completely miss the point of the issue at hand. Of course terrorists don't have the same constitutional rights as US citizens (provided they are indeed foreign and on foreign soil and all that), the point is that they are trampling the rights of US citizens. The government is trampling my rights, your rights, gun nut rights. Why they think this is about terrorists is just beyond me.
1. Yes, eavesdropping can save lives if done correctly. No one is disputing this. What is at issue is compliance with the laws and traditions of this country - if you wish to do something against the current laws, you had best change them BEFORE you do that something. That's how democracy works; we all get to weigh the pros and cons of changing the laws, the government DOES NOT get to just tell us that the broke the laws for our own good.
2. There is a real cost to simply breaking the laws to suit whatever the government wants to do at the time. At the least, it is a gross breakdown of democratic principles and the rule of law. We, as citizens in a democracy, have a right to know the laws we are all held to account to. We also have the right to hold our own government to those same laws. There is no president/king exemption. This isn't a slippery slope, or it could be; the point is that if our government simply ignores laws it finds inconvenient, and is allowed to so, we don't know what the laws are and who is really compelled to follow them.
Further, the government is not a collection of pure hearted do-gooders. It is made up of individuals just like you and me. Can you honestly say that there isn't a Nixon at the NSA using data illegally obtained from domestic spying for political purposes? Or to blackmail a neighbor? Or to steal credit card numbers? Or who the hell knows? Without oversight, we just don't have any idea.
3. Illegal domestic spying is also a tremendous waste of resources, as the recent revelations of NSA employees listening in on US soldiers' phone sex conversations. While they were illegally getting off, they could have been doing real work in the war on terror. Instead, they were listening in on conversations that had nothing to do with terrorism made by people who were suspected of nothing. Good going NSA, keep up the good work.
One of the most important things about requiring warrants is that it enforces some level of discipline. Not only are we relatively confident that the people being spied upon have something to do to with a criminal or terrorist act, we can also be relatively confident that valuable intelligence resources are not being wasted. Without warrants, we have neither. Without warrants, we are neither safer from terrorists or from our own government.
And as long as he filed his paperwork no later than 72 hours after starting surveillance, there would be no problem under FISA. This "we need every power imaginable with no oversight or you're a pot smoking terrorist loving liberal commie bastard" false dichotomy has just got to stop. FISA was more than enough as it was and this new legislation is a power grab, plain and simple.
The great thing about science and everything in this universe of ours is that it doesn't give a shit what you think. Just because you think evolution is morally wrong and unjust and you don't want to live in a world with evolution, does not mean that evolution isn't fact. It simply does not matter what you think or how evolution makes you feel.
And how exactly could evolution ever be the guiding principle in anyone's life, atheist or otherwise? Atheism is the absence of belief in god, christian or any other kind. Just because an atheist does not believe in a christian god does not mean they have to find one somewhere else, so they aren't substituting evolution for god. Atheism doesn't worship anything, because there is nothing to worship.
I'm also curious how christian "morality" has conquered anything. I'm even more curious how hiding behind an old book even approaches morality, rather than having to think about your values and forming your own based on what you think. That takes real work while "christian" morality requires the ability to read.
And I'm sure the press conference, photo op and international coverage was just a mistake. After all, Bush didn't want anyone thinking that the whole Iraq invasion was a success, just the carrier's mission.
Exactly. Verizon is covered because it costs the government almost nothing, no matter how many billions are wasted. They can always tax more, sell more treasuries, print more money or just steal it. It's not their money in any case, so why worry about a billion here or there?
You might want to look into Fascism. Sometimes, it pays best to toe the government line. "So, Verizon, you want the contract to provide new data lines to the NSA headquarters? You know, while we're discussing this contract that you want, maybe we can discuss some other services of yours WE are interested in..."
Slashdot Mirror
Not really, there are actually quite a few. The trick is getting physicians to prescribe them, as the feds keep pretty close tabs on them and may investigate doctors who they feel are writing to many prescriptions for them. Many hospitals and practices also have policies against writing pure narcotic prescriptions.
Some examples though are morphine (ms contin is the extended release version), oxycodone (oxycontin is just the extended release version), fentanyl (in transdermal patches, suckers, buccal tablets), Hydromorphone (dilaudid), tramadol, oxymorphone (opana) and probably many others.
Ask your doctor about fentanyl (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fentanyl). It's a very, very, VERY powerful pain killer that is metabolized outside of the liver. It can also be delivered using a 72 hour transdermal patch, making it very easy for the patient to use.
Absolutely right. And, at least in the U.S. and in my very limited experience, it is also a huge problem with juries. I recently finished jury duty in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland, Ohio), one of the most impoverished areas in the country and not generally considered to be a county with a high percentage of government/police supporters. I was absolutely shocked by the attitudes of many people on the jury - some even stated that they thought that the detectives on the case wouldn't waste time and investigate or bring charges against innocent individuals! They also expected the accused to prove their innocence (present alternative scenarios, accuse others of the crime, etc) rather than have the prosecution actively prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. So in many of the jurors eyes the defendant was guilty simply by virtue of his being accused and before we even saw any evidence. And it was then the job of his (public defender) lawyer to prove his innocence.
And what really got me is that the people who felt this way didn't seem stupid, intellectually lazy, overly gullible, etc. They simply could not comprehend that it didn't matter if the defense proved innocence, it only mattered if the prosecution proved guilt. They didn't seem to be able to comprehend that the police can make mistakes, witnesses can be wrong or have an agenda and sometimes shit just happens.
After this experience, I sincerely hope that I am never accused of a crime. I have next to no confidence that a jury of my peers will really look at the evidence and decide whether or not the prosecution proved guilt rather than simply convicting since only guilty people end up in court.
Right, Bush is one of those slick greasy MBA types. Completely different I'm sure...
Will anyone else give them a loan for the amounts they need on terms even remotely similar to what their getting from the government? If not, then it's a bailout regardless of whether or not they have to pay it back and are charged interest.
Of course, there could be many reasons that ATT and others aren't seeing many repeat offenders after forwarding takedown notices. Personally, after a "friend" received one such notice, they very quickly learned about using IP tables and exclusively connecting to encrypted peers when using bit torrent. A year later, and my "friend" still hasn't received another notice so it seems to be working very well. Of course, it isn't for the reason the RIAA and the ISP would like.
All I can say is good luck with that. I commend you for trying and I'm sure doing a very good job, but there can/will always be things your children are doing that you will not be aware of. I had two very involved parents who did a fabulous job of raising me; they were very involved with my life, knew all of my friends, attended the same church, knew many of my teachers, I was excited to share my life with them, etc.
However, there were still many things that I did that they never found out about that would have gotten me in MAJOR trouble had they discovered them. And it wasn't that they were bad parents or I was a bad kid; rather, I was a kid and needed time grow up. Part of that maturation process is doing stupid things and discovering exactly who you are. Hopefully along the way you also discover that you are not a stupid person who enjoys doing stupid things, which I definitely discovered about myself. But if you never have the opportunity to do stupid things, you might not be able to discover that you don't like them until you are out of the developmental period and you are expected to not do stupid things.
So if I buy fire insurance on your house, am I gambling? Well, I guess if I torch it I'm not...
And that's the point - MOST of AIG's customers were buying insurance on CDOs that they didn't even own. Pretty much gambling in my book.
Why in the world is "haha lookit my rockit go!" not a valid purpose? I would wager that for many a future engineer, physicist, astronomer, etc model rocketry is what set the hook of their interest in their future profession. I guess if we want everyone to be writers (and not that there's anything wrong with that, I'm one) we don't need to encourage private experimentation and exploration and the sciences. But if we ever aspire to be more than that, we sure better encourage more kids to "haha lookit my rockit go!"
Yes - earn an MBA and presto! Instant NPD!
Oh, I don't know, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, etc. Sure wish those foreigners would just get out of the US! It's not like we need their factories anyway!
You know, the torture going on isn't just waterboarding, humiliation, koran desecration, human pyramids, being threatened with dogs, or "not getting the right jail." It includes what acts that are unarguably torture, including being beaten and chained up until dead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(torture_victim)). Even when the sadistic bastards believed the detainee was innocent.
Some other examples of "not really torture" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse):
* Urinating on detainees
* Jumping on detainee's leg (a limb already wounded by gunfire) with such force that it could not thereafter heal properly
* Continuing by pounding detainee's wounded leg with collapsible metal baton
* Pouring phosphoric acid on detainees
* Sodomization of detainees with a baton
* Tying ropes to the detainees' legs or penises and dragging them across the floor.
And some other forms of torture, with real torture names that can really kill you, like strappado (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manadel_al-Jamadi). Although folks like you, Rush Limbaugh and all the other right wing nuts seem to prefer the doublespeak term "stress positions."
And I guess because some soldiers were just so stressed out and needed to blow off steam, some prisoners were just tied up, put in sleeping bags and beaten to death (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/02/AR2005080201941.html).
But you're right, waterboarding isn't torture and it was only 4 guilty as hell terrorists anyway.
If we go to war and China decides to stop sending us cars, then what exactly happens to our economy?
What happened when the Germans decided to bomb Pearl Harbor?
Where is that "independent after the fact oversight and examination of the choices" policy today? It was a part of FISA with the 72 hour after the fact warrant provision, but with the new legislation it no longer exists. They SPECIFICALLY and PURPOSELY took out the part that provided for after the fact oversight, examination and consequences. Until this is amended, it is a policy that has no oversight, no examination and no consequences. And this is apparently by design.
I never meant to imply that we should hold and torture foreigners, only that they aren't guaranteed the same constitutional protections. I agree that torturing anyone, foreign or otherwise, is a horrible crime and should never be acceptable under any circumstances in the United States or anywhere else.
There are, however, legal differences in spying on foreigners and US citizens and if we are talking about the rule of law it is important to note those distinctions.
Actually, this is indeed an "anything goes with no consequences, ever" policy. If there is no oversight, then no one looks and no one ever discovers wrongdoing. Therefore, there are no consequences. Ever.
Why can't we save lives and follow the law? What was so desperate that we couldn't change the laws during the 8+ years that this was going on?
This program was against the law and the constitution of the United States of America. Period. This is not in serious dispute, that's why the immunity deal was necessary. Immunity was granted to prevent this from ever going to trial and bringing out the facts of the case. If everything was above board, why not prove it in a court of law?
And you are right, there is little in my post about terrorism. It wasn't about terrorism. It was about our government and how they are trampling the laws and traditions of this country.
The choice is not breaking laws to catch terrorists or doing nothing and letting them kill Americans; that's a false dichotomy. We can, and have for many, many years, held to the rule of law and protected our citizens. We can continue to do so.
The choice is protecting our citizens while adhering to the rule of law or not. This government has chosen not to. If the laws were insufficient, they had the option of trying to change those laws. They chose not to. This is completely unacceptable in any society that wishes to be considered democratic and those responsible need to be held to account.
I'm a pretty big fan of the "ter'ists have no constitutional rights" thing too and how they completely miss the point of the issue at hand. Of course terrorists don't have the same constitutional rights as US citizens (provided they are indeed foreign and on foreign soil and all that), the point is that they are trampling the rights of US citizens. The government is trampling my rights, your rights, gun nut rights. Why they think this is about terrorists is just beyond me.
Ok, many things here:
1. Yes, eavesdropping can save lives if done correctly. No one is disputing this. What is at issue is compliance with the laws and traditions of this country - if you wish to do something against the current laws, you had best change them BEFORE you do that something. That's how democracy works; we all get to weigh the pros and cons of changing the laws, the government DOES NOT get to just tell us that the broke the laws for our own good.
2. There is a real cost to simply breaking the laws to suit whatever the government wants to do at the time. At the least, it is a gross breakdown of democratic principles and the rule of law. We, as citizens in a democracy, have a right to know the laws we are all held to account to. We also have the right to hold our own government to those same laws. There is no president/king exemption. This isn't a slippery slope, or it could be; the point is that if our government simply ignores laws it finds inconvenient, and is allowed to so, we don't know what the laws are and who is really compelled to follow them.
Further, the government is not a collection of pure hearted do-gooders. It is made up of individuals just like you and me. Can you honestly say that there isn't a Nixon at the NSA using data illegally obtained from domestic spying for political purposes? Or to blackmail a neighbor? Or to steal credit card numbers? Or who the hell knows? Without oversight, we just don't have any idea.
3. Illegal domestic spying is also a tremendous waste of resources, as the recent revelations of NSA employees listening in on US soldiers' phone sex conversations. While they were illegally getting off, they could have been doing real work in the war on terror. Instead, they were listening in on conversations that had nothing to do with terrorism made by people who were suspected of nothing. Good going NSA, keep up the good work.
One of the most important things about requiring warrants is that it enforces some level of discipline. Not only are we relatively confident that the people being spied upon have something to do to with a criminal or terrorist act, we can also be relatively confident that valuable intelligence resources are not being wasted. Without warrants, we have neither. Without warrants, we are neither safer from terrorists or from our own government.
And as long as he filed his paperwork no later than 72 hours after starting surveillance, there would be no problem under FISA. This "we need every power imaginable with no oversight or you're a pot smoking terrorist loving liberal commie bastard" false dichotomy has just got to stop. FISA was more than enough as it was and this new legislation is a power grab, plain and simple.
He knows it so well that he voted for their immunity? Yeah, good thing Obama's coming into office, I'm just sure he's going to do something!
The great thing about science and everything in this universe of ours is that it doesn't give a shit what you think. Just because you think evolution is morally wrong and unjust and you don't want to live in a world with evolution, does not mean that evolution isn't fact. It simply does not matter what you think or how evolution makes you feel.
And how exactly could evolution ever be the guiding principle in anyone's life, atheist or otherwise? Atheism is the absence of belief in god, christian or any other kind. Just because an atheist does not believe in a christian god does not mean they have to find one somewhere else, so they aren't substituting evolution for god. Atheism doesn't worship anything, because there is nothing to worship.
I'm also curious how christian "morality" has conquered anything. I'm even more curious how hiding behind an old book even approaches morality, rather than having to think about your values and forming your own based on what you think. That takes real work while "christian" morality requires the ability to read.
And I'm sure the press conference, photo op and international coverage was just a mistake. After all, Bush didn't want anyone thinking that the whole Iraq invasion was a success, just the carrier's mission.
Exactly. Verizon is covered because it costs the government almost nothing, no matter how many billions are wasted. They can always tax more, sell more treasuries, print more money or just steal it. It's not their money in any case, so why worry about a billion here or there?
You might want to look into Fascism. Sometimes, it pays best to toe the government line. "So, Verizon, you want the contract to provide new data lines to the NSA headquarters? You know, while we're discussing this contract that you want, maybe we can discuss some other services of yours WE are interested in..."