(Constable James Forcillo, a Toronto police officer was sentenced Thursday to six years in prison for the 2013 shooting death of death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim on a streetcar. In a video, Yatim was holding a knife inside a streetcar by himself, while police yelled, "Drop your knife!" 3 shots are fired. After a pause, 6 more shots are fired while Yatim is lying on the floor of the streetcar. Forcillo testified that he believed Yatim was about to come off the streetcar to attack him.)
Justice [Edward] Then said Thursday that Forcilloâ(TM)s behavior âoeconstitutes a fundamental failure to understand his duty to preserve all life, not just his own,â Then said.
In letting loose a second volley of shots on Yatim, Forcillo committed an âoeegregious breach of trustâ and his sentence must serve as notice to other police officers that they should open fire âoeonly as a last resort,â Justice Edward Then told the Toronto court.
Yup, Nixon's platform had free education for all (not just for the ones making less than $125k, and only in state univs like the dems) and raising the minimum wage by more than $8, unlike the dems. Nixon was totally more progressive.
You're right. One reason for that was that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was his Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
Moynihan and Nixon also floated a plan for a guaranteed annual wage, replacing welfare and other benefits.
I remember hearing Ralph Nader in 2000 making that point. Except in foreign policy, the Democratic Party had moved to the right of Nixon.
The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of âoeputting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,â said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago. Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was âoeredundantâ and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centersâ(TM) budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.
The research into gun violence is under the purview of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The federal agencies keep statistics on actual crime rates and don't try to force conclusions based on an uber-liberal bias.
According to articles in Science and Nature, researchers in gun violence say that the statistics gathered by the Department of Justice and FBI https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t... are worthless for epidemiological investigation into the important questions they want to answer.
For example, much of the statistical reporting is voluntary, which biases the result. And they don't give the identity of the victims or accused, or the reporting officer, as they do in auto accidents for example, so you can't take a sample of cases and track down the causes and associated factors, as that NEJM suicide study did.
When I used to research auto safety, I found many US and foreign studies of auto accidents which would give complete details on hundreds or thousands of accidents -- type of accident, damage to car, type of injury, vehicle speed, weather, cause(s) of accident, etc. From these studies they could figure out what was causing accident deaths and injuries and figure out how to prevent them. For example, they proved that seat belts saved lives, by about 50% or more, and 100% in certain kinds of accidents. Everybody was pretty sure that seat belts saved lives, but lobbyists from the US auto industry were denying it, and congress would't accept or require seat belts in US cars it until engineers published papers demonstrating it in 1967. The result was seat belt laws that saved about 25,000 lives a year. I also used to research medical device accidents, and the FDA had the same kind of reporting system.
In contrast, you can't use the DOJ and FBI statistics for that kind of analysis. Why do people kill each other? How many of those guns were legally bought and how many of them were illegally obtained? Where did they get the illegal guns from? You can't tell from that data.
A: This "Gun History Lesson" is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.
According to your source, homicides did go down after laws regulated guns more strictly.
Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H., Carrie A. Parham, M.S., James Jay Beaumont, Ph.D., Mona Wright, M.P.H., and Christiana Drake, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1583-1589 November 18, 1999 DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199911183412106
Background
There continues to be considerable controversy over whether ownership of a handgun increases or decreases the risk of violent death.
Methods
We conducted a population-based cohort study to compare mortality among 238,292 persons who purchased a handgun in California in 1991 with that in the general adult population of the state. The observation period began with the date of handgun purchase (15 days after the purchase application) and ended on December 31, 1996. The standardized mortality ratio (the ratio of the number of deaths observed among handgun purchasers to the number expected on the basis of age- and sex-specific rates among adults in California) was the principal outcome measure.
Results
In the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers, accounting for 24.5 percent of all deaths and 51.9 percent of deaths among women 21 to 44 years old. The increased risk of suicide by any method among handgun purchasers (standardized mortality ratio, 4.31) was attributable entirely to an excess risk of suicide with a firearm (standardized mortality ratio, 7.12). In the first week after the purchase of a handgun, the rate of suicide by means of firearms among purchasers (644 per 100,000 person-years) was 57 times as high as the adjusted rate in the general population. Mortality from all causes during the first year after the purchase of a handgun was greater than expected for women (standardized mortality ratio, 1.09), and the entire increase was attributable to the excess number of suicides by means of a firearm. As compared with the general population, handgun purchasers remained at increased risk for suicide by firearm over the study period of up to six years, and the excess risk among women in this cohort (standardized mortality ratio, 15.50) remained greater than that among men (standardized mortality ratio, 3.23). The risk of death by homicide with a firearm was elevated among women (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 2.20; at six years, 2.01) but low among men (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 0.84; at six years, 0.79).
Conclusions
The purchase of a handgun is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of suicide by firearm and by any method. The increase in the risk of suicide by firearm is apparent within a week after the purchase of a handgun and persists for at least six years.
The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of âoeputting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,â said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was âoeredundantâ and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centersâ(TM) budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.
If you're willing to possibly have your world view shattered actually sit down and research this
If you're willing to sit down and research gun violence, you won't be able to, because Congress, as a result of NRA lobbying and campaign contributions, prohibited government agencies from doing well-designed research into gun violence.
That's because the studies started to show More guns=more killings.
The study that aroused the NRA's ire and got research cut from the federal budget was a study in the New England Journal of Medicine which compared gun licenses with death certificates. It turned out that people who got gun licenses were more likely to commit suicide than die by other causes. More guns=more suicide.
Our legislators responded by removing gun licenses and cause of death from the public record, so that even legitimate medical researchers couldn't do any more studies like that.
there's absolutely no evidence that gun laws have an effect on gun violence rates.
Assuming ad argumentum that's true, it's because there's almost no evidence on gun laws and violence -- because the NRA stopped all government research. No research=no evidence.
The land was taken in a war, Israel was attacked, and they conquered the areas. By international law, if it were any other country, it would be legally their land.
You obviously don't know anything about international law.
Theodore Meron was the Israeli government's own lawyer and he wrote in 1967 (and still believes) that the occupation of the West Bank would be illegal.
I think you will agree that Meron knows more about international law than you.
Under international law, a country doesn't get legal ownership of territory just because they conquered it in war.
Yitzhak Shapira is an Israeli rabbi who lived in the West Bank Israeli settlement Yitzhar[1] and is head of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva.[2]
In 2009 he published a book (The King's Torah) in which he writes that it is permissible for Jews to kill non-Jews (including children) who threaten the lives of Jews.[3][4] The book states "There is a reason to kill babies [on the enemy side] even if they have not transgressed the seven Noahide Laws because of the future danger they may present, since it is assumed that they will grow up to be evil like their parents."[5] They can be killed indirectly to put pressure on enemy leaders, or if they are "in the way".[6] They can also be harmed if they "prevent a rescue, because their presence contributes to murder". He also writes that children of the king can be harmed to pressure him if he is wicked and harming them will prevent him from acting wickedly. He adds that "it is better to kill one pursuing another to murder him, than to kill others."[7] The book was distributed by Yeshivat HaRaayon HaYehudi in Jerusalem, which adheres to the ideas of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane.[8]
773. At about 12.50 p.m., Khalid Abd Rabbo, his wife Kawthar, their three daughters, Souad (aged 9), Samar (aged 5) and Amal (aged 3), and his mother, Hajja Souad Abd Rabbo, stepped out of the house, all of them carrying white flags. Less than 10 metres from the door was a tank, turned towards their house. Two soldiers were sitting on top of it having a snack (one was eating chips, the other chocolate, according to one of the witnesses). The family stood still, waiting for orders from the soldiers as to what they should do, but none was given. Without warning, a third soldier emerged from inside the tank and started shooting at the three girls and then also at their grandmother. Several bullets hit Souad in the chest, Amal in the stomach and Samar in the back. Hajja Souad was hit in the lower back and in the left arm.
The IDF refused to let an ambulance bring them to the hospital, so they walked. Amal and Souad died. Samar had a spinal injury and was left paraplegic for life. The Israeli government never investigated this event or prosecuted the soldier responsible.
Seriously? When was the last time anyone held the Palestinians to any kind of behavioral standards? They can bomb, knife, stone, shoot, or otherwise harass anyone they want anytime they want and "international peace organizations" say nothing about it.
The deadly attack on civilians at a Tel Aviv shopping and restaurant complex last night displayed a stark contempt for human life, Amnesty International said.
Two Palestinian gunmen opened fire at the Sarona market in Tel Aviv on Wednesday evening, killing four civilians and injuring others. Several of those wounded were still hospitalized on Thursday morning. Israeli forces apprehended the attackers, wounding one of them.
"This heinous attack flouted fundamental principles of humanity," said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.
"There can be never be any justification for deliberately attacking civilians."
Who's rules. What makes those external rules law? I thought war and losing makes the law. As far as I see, all the land that Israel got after 1963 is the result of the arabs fucking up. So, tough. I am not jewish, christian or muslim. But I am a realist.
There actually are rules of war, and there is international law. The Geneva Conventions cover the rules of war.
So, if if the Nazis confiscate the home of a Jewish woman, and the Nazis in turn are defeated by the Soviets, the Soviets don't own her home. And in fact the Soviets did respect property claims by Jews. The Jewish woman or her descendants could come back and claim her home (although because of the documentation and other requirements it wasn't easy).
The Israelis can decide that they won't recognize the Geneva Convention, or international law, which they have effectively done.
But then why should anybody respect their lawsuits against so-called terrorists?
There's considerable question as to how much of Israel was taken illegally.
Well, according to Theodor Meron, who was chief legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967, it was illegal under international law for Israel to take any of the lands seized in the 1967 war (beyond the Green Line).
Typical propaganda and typical Anti-Semetic bullshit. The actual charter for Hamas calls for actual "Genocide". You know, the "peaceful muslims".
Well look at what your founding documents say:
Deuteronomy 20:16-17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)D
16 Only in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 But you shall [a]utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the Lord your God has commanded you,
Can't these things be limited and the risk factors investigated without a physical exam?
Well for one thing, if you get a physical exam, you'll get a blood test. A blood test will tell the doctor a lot of things.
A patient might have a blood coagulation disease that she wasn't aware of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... That entry gives an incidence of 0.2%. But that's a simplification.
There's a difference between a checklist that asks, "Do you have a blood coagulation disease?" and a blood test that actually measures your blood coagulation.
I was addressing your comment, "If it doesn't work for you, go to a doctor. You're no worse off than before."
If it doesn't work for you, you could have a stroke which could leave you paralyzed, cognitively disabled or dead. That's a lot "worse off than before."
Let me clarify my point. I think that everybody needs a doctor who knows their medical history and has a good rapport with them. That includes women of reproductive age, who have lots of medical needs, for example getting pap smears regularly (I think the pap smear recommendation is now every 2 years). Most people have medical concerns and want to be able to talk to a doctor. Every other developed country has free health care, and if the Bernie Sanders movement continues, we'll have it here too.
A competent doctor won't just go through a checklist. A competent doctor will already have a medical history of the patient, including a family history, and will know if there are any possible risks that aren't on the checklist.
A competent doctor will also be around if the birth control fails and you need a safe, affordable abortion. Or if you have other problems like STDs and depression. Or if you want to continue with a pregnancy. Would you rather go to a nurse or medical technician that you found on the Internet and never spoke to before, or to a doctor that you and your family know and have been seeing for the last 10 years?
The broader point is that in a good health care system, a doctor is a human being who takes responsibility for your health. That's very different from a contractor with an MD (or RN, or LCSW) who talks to you on the Internet for 15 minutes or half an hour. And it's even more different from an app run by an algorithm that works 90% or 99% of the time.
In a generation, we've given up a health care system that was run by human beings, and now some entrepreneurs are trying to give us commodity 15-minute online conversations with anonymous doctors, or nurses, or even algorithms. Is this supposed to be their replacement for having your own doctor?
I'm saying that it isn't.
And I should clarify that the risk of a stroke or death from birth control pills is fairly low, about 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 per year. But (1) if you multiply that by the 10 million women using the pills, it's more deaths than I think are acceptable and (2) if you add all the other diseases that can be caught and treated with regular medical visits, that adds up to a significant savings of lives.
The unspeakable truth is that we need a single payer health care system. That way, people wouldn't have to worry about deductibles and copayments, doctors wouldn't worry about getting paid for phone consultations, and you could find one doctor that you trust and keep for most of your life. These online apps are an unacceptable substitute. If you can't see your own doctor, you're getting third world health care. Even Cuba has a better health care system than that.
I give more weight to information in peer-reviewed medical journals than to information in political opinion magazines.
But even giving Stusser the benefit of the doubt -- in developed countries, the miscarriage rate after 21 weeks is about 0.5%. So even if you counted miscarriages after 21 weeks as infant mortality, the difference would only be 0.5%, and Cuba would still have infant mortality comparable to the US.
Slashdot Mirror
You could open a restaurant, right?
That's not the law in Canada.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Toronto police officer sentenced to 6 years in teen shooting
By Associated Press
July 28 2016
(Constable James Forcillo, a Toronto police officer was sentenced Thursday to six years in prison for the 2013 shooting death of death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim on a streetcar. In a video, Yatim was holding a knife inside a streetcar by himself, while police yelled, "Drop your knife!" 3 shots are fired. After a pause, 6 more shots are fired while Yatim is lying on the floor of the streetcar. Forcillo testified that he believed Yatim was about to come off the streetcar to attack him.)
Justice [Edward] Then said Thursday that Forcilloâ(TM)s behavior âoeconstitutes a fundamental failure to understand his duty to preserve all life, not just his own,â Then said.
In letting loose a second volley of shots on Yatim, Forcillo committed an âoeegregious breach of trustâ and his sentence must serve as notice to other police officers that they should open fire âoeonly as a last resort,â Justice Edward Then told the Toronto court.
Yup, Nixon's platform had free education for all (not just for the ones making less than $125k, and only in state univs like the dems) and raising the minimum wage by more than $8, unlike the dems. Nixon was totally more progressive.
You're right. One reason for that was that Daniel Patrick Moynihan was his Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
Moynihan and Nixon also floated a plan for a guaranteed annual wage, replacing welfare and other benefits.
I remember hearing Ralph Nader in 2000 making that point. Except in foreign policy, the Democratic Party had moved to the right of Nixon.
No, the NRA did not lobby to stop government research on gun violence.
According to the NYT, the NRA did lobby to stop government research on gun violence.
The research into gun violence is under the purview of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The federal agencies keep statistics on actual crime rates and don't try to force conclusions based on an uber-liberal bias.
According to articles in Science and Nature, researchers in gun violence say that the statistics gathered by the Department of Justice and FBI https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t... are worthless for epidemiological investigation into the important questions they want to answer.
For example, much of the statistical reporting is voluntary, which biases the result. And they don't give the identity of the victims or accused, or the reporting officer, as they do in auto accidents for example, so you can't take a sample of cases and track down the causes and associated factors, as that NEJM suicide study did.
When I used to research auto safety, I found many US and foreign studies of auto accidents which would give complete details on hundreds or thousands of accidents -- type of accident, damage to car, type of injury, vehicle speed, weather, cause(s) of accident, etc. From these studies they could figure out what was causing accident deaths and injuries and figure out how to prevent them. For example, they proved that seat belts saved lives, by about 50% or more, and 100% in certain kinds of accidents. Everybody was pretty sure that seat belts saved lives, but lobbyists from the US auto industry were denying it, and congress would't accept or require seat belts in US cars it until engineers published papers demonstrating it in 1967. The result was seat belt laws that saved about 25,000 lives a year. I also used to research medical device accidents, and the FDA had the same kind of reporting system.
In contrast, you can't use the DOJ and FBI statistics for that kind of analysis. Why do people kill each other? How many of those guns were legally bought and how many of them were illegally obtained? Where did they get the illegal guns from? You can't tell from that data.
Wintemute is widely regarded as an objective researcher, and has often criticized pro-gun studies for drawing unjustified conclusions.
There are scientists who follow the facts and change their opinions, as Carl Sagan said.
Your source says:
A: This "Gun History Lesson" is recycled bunk from a decade ago. Murders in Australia actually are down to record lows.
According to your source, homicides did go down after laws regulated guns more strictly.
Actually, Australian crime statistics show a marked decrease in homicides since the gun law change. According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, a government agency, the number of homicides in Australia did increase slightly in 1997 and peaked in 1999, but has since declined to the lowest number on record in 2007, the most recent year for which official figures are available.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/1...
Mortality among Recent Purchasers of Handguns
Garen J. Wintemute, M.D., M.P.H., Carrie A. Parham, M.S., James Jay Beaumont, Ph.D., Mona Wright, M.P.H., and Christiana Drake, Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 1999; 341:1583-1589
November 18, 1999
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199911183412106
Background
There continues to be considerable controversy over whether ownership of a handgun increases or decreases the risk of violent death.
Methods
We conducted a population-based cohort study to compare mortality among 238,292 persons who purchased a handgun in California in 1991 with that in the general adult population of the state. The observation period began with the date of handgun purchase (15 days after the purchase application) and ended on December 31, 1996. The standardized mortality ratio (the ratio of the number of deaths observed among handgun purchasers to the number expected on the basis of age- and sex-specific rates among adults in California) was the principal outcome measure.
Results
In the first year after the purchase of a handgun, suicide was the leading cause of death among handgun purchasers, accounting for 24.5 percent of all deaths and 51.9 percent of deaths among women 21 to 44 years old. The increased risk of suicide by any method among handgun purchasers (standardized mortality ratio, 4.31) was attributable entirely to an excess risk of suicide with a firearm (standardized mortality ratio, 7.12). In the first week after the purchase of a handgun, the rate of suicide by means of firearms among purchasers (644 per 100,000 person-years) was 57 times as high as the adjusted rate in the general population. Mortality from all causes during the first year after the purchase of a handgun was greater than expected for women (standardized mortality ratio, 1.09), and the entire increase was attributable to the excess number of suicides by means of a firearm. As compared with the general population, handgun purchasers remained at increased risk for suicide by firearm over the study period of up to six years, and the excess risk among women in this cohort (standardized mortality ratio, 15.50) remained greater than that among men (standardized mortality ratio, 3.23). The risk of death by homicide with a firearm was elevated among women (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 2.20; at six years, 2.01) but low among men (standardized mortality ratio at one year, 0.84; at six years, 0.79).
Conclusions
The purchase of a handgun is associated with a substantial increase in the risk of suicide by firearm and by any method. The increase in the risk of suicide by firearm is apparent within a week after the purchase of a handgun and persists for at least six years.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01...
N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: January 25, 2011
The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.
Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of âoeputting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,â said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was âoeredundantâ and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centersâ(TM) budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.
If you're willing to possibly have your world view shattered actually sit down and research this
If you're willing to sit down and research gun violence, you won't be able to, because Congress, as a result of NRA lobbying and campaign contributions, prohibited government agencies from doing well-designed research into gun violence.
That's because the studies started to show More guns=more killings.
The study that aroused the NRA's ire and got research cut from the federal budget was a study in the New England Journal of Medicine which compared gun licenses with death certificates. It turned out that people who got gun licenses were more likely to commit suicide than die by other causes. More guns=more suicide.
Our legislators responded by removing gun licenses and cause of death from the public record, so that even legitimate medical researchers couldn't do any more studies like that.
there's absolutely no evidence that gun laws have an effect on gun violence rates.
Assuming ad argumentum that's true, it's because there's almost no evidence on gun laws and violence -- because the NRA stopped all government research. No research=no evidence.
(1) I don't know all the facts about Russia taking parts of Georgia and Ukraine.
(2) Texas left Mexico before modern international law was established, including the Geneva Conventions that Meron cited.
The land was taken in a war, Israel was attacked, and they conquered the areas. By international law, if it were any other country, it would be legally their land.
You obviously don't know anything about international law.
Theodore Meron was the Israeli government's own lawyer and he wrote in 1967 (and still believes) that the occupation of the West Bank would be illegal.
I think you will agree that Meron knows more about international law than you.
Under international law, a country doesn't get legal ownership of territory just because they conquered it in war.
I'm not trying to figure out who the good countries and bad countries are any more. There don't seem to be any.
But if you're trying to figure out a solution, international law is a good way to sort things out.
I think -- and Theodore Meron thinks -- that Israel would have been better off if they had followed international law.
The Likud created their own problem and they're dragging us down with them.
I used to work in Israeli public relations, so I can do a better job than you of making up arguments to defend Israel. And I know they're bogus.
I'll never convince you.
But for the benefit of anyone following this argument, I'll point out the central fact -- you won't even condemn the murder of a 3-year-old child.
You go back 3500 years ago to get that?
OK, here's something more recent.
Name three acts of terror committed by the State of Israel...
Just search through the Goldstone report three times for "white flag".
The IDF refused to let an ambulance bring them to the hospital, so they walked. Amal and Souad died. Samar had a spinal injury and was left paraplegic for life. The Israeli government never investigated this event or prosecuted the soldier responsible.
Seriously? When was the last time anyone held the Palestinians to any kind of behavioral standards? They can bomb, knife, stone, shoot, or otherwise harass anyone they want anytime they want and "international peace organizations" say nothing about it.
How about last Saturday.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/lat...
The deadly attack on civilians at a Tel Aviv shopping and restaurant complex last night displayed a stark contempt for human life, Amnesty International said.
Two Palestinian gunmen opened fire at the Sarona market in Tel Aviv on Wednesday evening, killing four civilians and injuring others. Several of those wounded were still hospitalized on Thursday morning. Israeli forces apprehended the attackers, wounding one of them.
"This heinous attack flouted fundamental principles of humanity," said Philip Luther, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Amnesty International.
"There can be never be any justification for deliberately attacking civilians."
Who's rules. What makes those external rules law? I thought war and losing makes the law. As far as I see, all the land that Israel got after 1963 is the result of the arabs fucking up. So, tough. I am not jewish, christian or muslim. But I am a realist.
There actually are rules of war, and there is international law. The Geneva Conventions cover the rules of war.
So, if if the Nazis confiscate the home of a Jewish woman, and the Nazis in turn are defeated by the Soviets, the Soviets don't own her home. And in fact the Soviets did respect property claims by Jews. The Jewish woman or her descendants could come back and claim her home (although because of the documentation and other requirements it wasn't easy).
The Israelis can decide that they won't recognize the Geneva Convention, or international law, which they have effectively done.
But then why should anybody respect their lawsuits against so-called terrorists?
There's considerable question as to how much of Israel was taken illegally.
Well, according to Theodor Meron, who was chief legal counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry in 1967, it was illegal under international law for Israel to take any of the lands seized in the 1967 war (beyond the Green Line).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I will NEVER understand why any Jew is a liberal.
https://youtu.be/BUh-djbgRx4?t...
Mir vern gehast un getribn
mir vern gepflogt un farfolgt.
un alts nor derfar vayl mir libn
dos oreme shmakhtnde volk.
We are despised and driven away,
We are tortured and dispersed;
And why? For only one reason:
because we love the poor.
We are shot and hanged,
robbed of our lives and our rights,
and for only one reason:
because we demand freedom for downtrodden slaves.
Put us into iron chains,
tear us apart with blood;
you can only kill our bodies;
not our ideas.
You can murder us, tyrants,
but new fighters will come in our place;
we will fight, fight until
the entire world is free.
Typical propaganda and typical Anti-Semetic bullshit. The actual charter for Hamas calls for actual "Genocide". You know, the "peaceful muslims".
Well look at what your founding documents say:
Can't these things be limited and the risk factors investigated without a physical exam?
Well for one thing, if you get a physical exam, you'll get a blood test. A blood test will tell the doctor a lot of things.
A patient might have a blood coagulation disease that she wasn't aware of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... That entry gives an incidence of 0.2%. But that's a simplification.
There's a difference between a checklist that asks, "Do you have a blood coagulation disease?" and a blood test that actually measures your blood coagulation.
I was addressing your comment, "If it doesn't work for you, go to a doctor. You're no worse off than before."
If it doesn't work for you, you could have a stroke which could leave you paralyzed, cognitively disabled or dead. That's a lot "worse off than before."
Let me clarify my point. I think that everybody needs a doctor who knows their medical history and has a good rapport with them. That includes women of reproductive age, who have lots of medical needs, for example getting pap smears regularly (I think the pap smear recommendation is now every 2 years). Most people have medical concerns and want to be able to talk to a doctor. Every other developed country has free health care, and if the Bernie Sanders movement continues, we'll have it here too.
A competent doctor won't just go through a checklist. A competent doctor will already have a medical history of the patient, including a family history, and will know if there are any possible risks that aren't on the checklist.
A competent doctor will also be around if the birth control fails and you need a safe, affordable abortion. Or if you have other problems like STDs and depression. Or if you want to continue with a pregnancy. Would you rather go to a nurse or medical technician that you found on the Internet and never spoke to before, or to a doctor that you and your family know and have been seeing for the last 10 years?
The broader point is that in a good health care system, a doctor is a human being who takes responsibility for your health. That's very different from a contractor with an MD (or RN, or LCSW) who talks to you on the Internet for 15 minutes or half an hour. And it's even more different from an app run by an algorithm that works 90% or 99% of the time.
In a generation, we've given up a health care system that was run by human beings, and now some entrepreneurs are trying to give us commodity 15-minute online conversations with anonymous doctors, or nurses, or even algorithms. Is this supposed to be their replacement for having your own doctor?
I'm saying that it isn't.
And I should clarify that the risk of a stroke or death from birth control pills is fairly low, about 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000 per year. But (1) if you multiply that by the 10 million women using the pills, it's more deaths than I think are acceptable and (2) if you add all the other diseases that can be caught and treated with regular medical visits, that adds up to a significant savings of lives.
The unspeakable truth is that we need a single payer health care system. That way, people wouldn't have to worry about deductibles and copayments, doctors wouldn't worry about getting paid for phone consultations, and you could find one doctor that you trust and keep for most of your life. These online apps are an unacceptable substitute. If you can't see your own doctor, you're getting third world health care. Even Cuba has a better health care system than that.
Point taken.
But it sounds like it would be appropriate for you to call your doctor and ask for a new prescription.
If I were refilling my prescription on the phone, I'd rather use my doctor than an app.
I give more weight to information in peer-reviewed medical journals than to information in political opinion magazines.
But even giving Stusser the benefit of the doubt -- in developed countries, the miscarriage rate after 21 weeks is about 0.5%. So even if you counted miscarriages after 21 weeks as infant mortality, the difference would only be 0.5%, and Cuba would still have infant mortality comparable to the US.
The biggest problem I could identify with those apps is that the most effective contraceptives require a doctor's visit.
The most effective contraceptives are the implant with a failure rate of 0.05% per year. The pills are pretty far down with 5-10%. https://www.cdc.gov/reproducti... http://www.ashasexualhealth.or...