Actually, I was in the process of reading through the Stimulus in order to respond to your challenge earlier. I was aware of the Republican lead effort to pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (senate bill S.1748 and S.1742 - house bill H.R. 2905 ) which was defeated by the people your claiming are against the Fairness doctrine in the first place. It was revived in this year as the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (s.34) which was included into the DC. voting rights bill. It should be noted that the bill originally was a response to democrats calling for the fairness doctrine to be reinstated as a response to the lack of access to the majority of citizens because of the so called media slant in the larger markets.
I'll go into more details about that in my reply to your other post asking me to provide some proof of my claim that it would be implemented in other ways and under different names. Here is a teaser though. It's what Eric Holder (our current AG) said in 2004 at a liberal function using the name American Constitution Society. He said "In a short term, this will not be an easy task with the main stream media somewhat [cowed] by conservative critiques and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner. And you know what I mean there. The means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible." Later during his confirmation hearings he stated that he would support and pursue on behalf of the government any effort it passed or made into law concerning this, the fairness doctrine or anything similar to it.
Obama himself has stated that the same issues could be dealt with by diversifying the media ownership saying he supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets as a means to bring as many diverse viewpoints airwaves and modern communications.
In fact, I would say that the only reason enough democrats in both houses got on board with the legislation and allowed it to pass was because Mark Fowler warned that people were attempting to intertwine the fairness doctrine into the Net Neutrality debate and in effect to control the Interweb. Contrary to the Article's slant on it being a "democrat" push for net neutrality, many republican lawmakers support it too. FCC Chairman Powell stated it quite nicely I think. But many democrats were against net neutrality up until they had to support their leader. This is another area that we should be watching carefully too but that's also another topic.
Woopee, you got me on a grammar error, that defeats ever fucking point I made and solidifies your position right. You mom must be proud of you.
second, as you acknowledge in principle, "the constitution stops the freedoms of it's citizens from being trampled on by it's governments" but NOT IF BUSH IGNORES IT. That's the point you struggle to grasp as you rant on about how terrorists don't have any protections.
Actually, if you listened to his reasoning, it doesn't appear that he ignored it. However, the Supreme court is who will have to determine who is right on that and the democrats don't want to push the issue because they are scared of being wrong.
BTW, it isn't a process of ignoring when you assume a justification consistent with it. Bush supposedly found the powers you think he didn't have through the interpretation of the constitution. That in no way can be considered ignoring it. Even if he was wrong in doing so. But here you are, convinced of something that never happened because someone told you so. Support that someone added 200388593 to the square root of 229543652 in their head, does that mean they ignore math if the got it wrong? Use your fucking brain here as stop with the partisan propaganda that you have been feed.
he problem is, unless you only ever take a break from Fox News to watch "24," the definition of who "the terrorists" are is not conveniently scripted. Your reasoning is specious and absurdly childish.
Christ-- what the hell is it with you propaganda spewing asses. I don't even have cable, how the fuck am I supposed to be watching Fox News. Terrorist are people who specifically target citizens with no military connection in attacks or acts of terror in an attempt to bend political will. It's really simple. If someone is plotting to kill your mom, they are a murderer. If they are plotting to do it to force you to change a law, they are terrorists. But a terrorist doesn't have to be a murderer to be one. I'm not sure how anyone with a functioning brain of cognitive thinking skill can get confused over what a damn terrorist is. A terrorist is basically a criminal who uses violence, the threat of violence, and mass panic to influence something unrelated to the people it us used on.
If we trusted the government to just "do whatever it takes" to provide security and freedom, we wouldn't need a Constitution. The reason we have a Constitution and a revered rule of law is to prevent crooks like Bush and his administration from overstepping their authority in violating the freedom of citizens and violate international law to do things our society has long determined to be inappropriate. That includes picking up citizens and holding them for years in torture concentration camps without even charging them with a crime.
First off, we are a sovereign nation and international law doesn't have a damn thing to do with us. We make treaties for the things we agree with but at no time ever, does one of those treaties put an entity above our sovereign rights.
Second, I never said to give government or Bush the power to "do whatever it takes" now did I? Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I said Bush did something and the differences between him and Obama was where the power was being taken. You may find that offensive, but what troubles me is that your still focused on the ex-president and seem to not care about the current crook at the helm. And yes, if Bush was a crook, Obama is one in the very same right.
As for the torture concentration camps, your fucking crazy. There have been few US citizens held in them and they either found a trial or was released. I'm not concerned with citizens of other nations because our constitution doesn't cover them. I'm also not concerned with what other nations think about us because they don't run this
Wow, I find it amazing that your actually willing to spew this shit outside of your little I hate Bush Camps. Did you forget where you are or are you really that stupid to think your misconceptions would remain unchallenged at a site that is known for the frequent association of smart people.
You should, or the Constitution isn't worth the paper it was written on. If our freedoms can be thrown out whenever radicals stage a terrorist attack (in this case, crashing a plane that resulted in subsequent horrific damage and loss of life, but certainly not an "invasion" by a foreign power and unquestionably not a "rebellion"), then we really don't have any real freedom.
First of all, the constitution stops the freedoms of it's citizens from being trampled on by it's governments. I hope you understand that because a lot of other countries don't have near the same freedoms and the constitution does nothing to give it to them. In fact, it doesn't give freedoms to anyone in the US either. "We the people of the United States" does say we the people plus those terrorists or we the people plus our enemies or we the people of the entire world. It has already been ruled on by the courts that the constitution doesn't extend to foreigners unless a law makes it so. On that same note, a law can also make it not so. And yes, the law your referring to didn't include citizens that weren't involved an act of war against the US would constitution Civil Rebellion by definition.
Don't Republicans make a pretense of upholding the Constitution as a big part of their platform? Or is it only lip service, like the whole bit about shrinking government and being fiscally responsible?
Actually, that would be conservatives in both cases. Don't confuse one with the other just because you saw one that was both. Don't let your own ignorance punish your image by making such stupid statements.
In the last 8 years of nearly unfettered Republican rule, the Constitution was trampled, the government expanded (and not by offering services to citizens, but largely in becoming a militarized taser police state focused on enforcing pot laws through paramilitary raids on citizens), and taxpayers amassed the highest deficit ever, following Clinton's efforts to balance the budget and get the US out of debt.
This is the part that I read and realize you were so brainwashed that you needed to be put in place. The vast majority of the "tazing" police incidents happened in towns controlled by democrat leaders and by local police under their control. The Politician speaking tazing incident was John Kerry's, a democrat not a republican where the security staff tazzed a student repeatedly for asking fucking questions. I think on the paramilitary issue, you are going to find the same answers too, democrats are behind them just as much as any other political entity. You are a damn fool for attempting to claim it was a one sided issue and you are a damned idiot for believing it yourself.
Ad for Clinton's "budget", it was held together by gimmicks and smoke screens unique to several specific years of his administration. The 2000 budget would of had us balanced for the next 10 years too if shit didn't change. Your also wrong about the "8 years of nearly unfettered Republican rule" There has only been 2 of those 8 years that the republicans control the house, senate and the executive and of those 2 years (2003-2005 and of that majority, it was only one by one senator. The entire idea that republicans controlled everything is nothing but a fallacy created by the democrats to excuse themselves of the behavior they are supposedly against. In your enlightened way, you swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Republicans hate America as much as Islamic fundamentalists, and yet Obama isn't rounding up Rush Limbaugh and his party's members and holding them without due process as enemies of the
Lol.. You need to read between the lines. The same type of legislation called equality in broadcasting or any other name can be used. The reason the fairness doctrine was singled out is because it has been explained and too many people don't like it. However, the same shit is being purposed and the same shit is most likely going to be tried under a different name. Perhaps in segments of other bills (riders).
Their is no indication that anything but the name of the fairness doctrine is dead. From the rest of your comment, I can see your drinking the cool aid. Perhaps if you would just pull your head out of your ass and stop repeating the spoon fed shit they tell you, you could actually look around and see this.
There are constitutional limits in what the president can and can't do. It doesn't matter what he claimed to want to do during his campaign or who voted for him. He can change how America does things, but he can't change America from being America.
Screening tests are about maximizing quality of life for as many people as possible, not you in particular. While you may only care about you, your doctor has a responsibility to many people and if he orders an unnecessary test for you, your doctor is necessarily taking resources away somewhere else. I'm talking about maximizing the treatment and quality of life for as many people as possible.
And there lies the problem of socialized medical care. Whether it's government run, HMO run, or the company physician. It's all about what someone else decides that you can sacrifice for others. The very basic concept of freedom would mean in the least, you decide and are only limited by your own resources. Instead, your making decisions on who gets to life a quality life and who doesn't based around what you think other people might need.
We can't fund everything for everybody. There is a finite amount of money and manpower available for heath care. It is economically impossible to provide unlimited health care for everyone. This is an indisputable fact. The question is how to spend the resources we do have most effectively. I realize this makes people uncomfortable (you included apparently) but it is reality.
And you shouldn't fund everything for everyone. You shouldn't fund some things for some people. That is what got us in the mess of people not being able to pay for their own health care to begin with. When the HMO act came about and Nixon (or was it Johnson), created welfare that covered medical, prices skyrocketed in the medical industry. This wasn't because the quality of care increased proportionately, it was because the defining market went from needing to fix prices so people could afford them to fixing the highest prices that the largest companies and or government could pay for. Prices rose and rose until finally in the mid to late 90's, HMOs and government started refusing to pay that much. HMOs started ridding themselves of risk instead of burying it into their models. Government started capping their payment below value and here we are today with people who are either not insurable or otherwise incapable of gaining medical care on their own.
And to whit, you will see all the studies proclaiming that the cost of medical treatment in the US is disproportionately higher then other countries, that's because when we did welfare for the poor and HMOs, they provided public coverage and controlled the systems. The other side effects of that is that the vast majority of medical innovation came from the US where because the government didn't coop the system and think along the lines your did, they had the resources to invest in research and development along side private industry. "If" is a mighty big word, if the dog didn't stop to shit, he would have caught the rabbit, if the rabbit didn't stop to shit, the dog never would have caught him. But acknowledging how hindsight is imperfect while plowing throw the situation, I strongly think that if the government had got involved in the first place and stuck to funding the sciences while maybe creating a fund for the poor to borrow from for medical expenses, we would still have had the same medical innovations and best care money could buy, but almost everyone could afford to buy it which is the big problem with today's environment.
A certain amount of money and manpower is allocated in each society for health care and within that allocation it is a zero sum game. Spend more money and manpower on your MRI and there is less money and manpower available to spend elsewhere. A given test might be an appropriate use of resources but there are very good reasons why we use screening tests.
I have received probably 10 MRIs over the last 20 or so years. Here is the problem with your statement. MRI machines only cost so much. It isn't like the hospital or diagnostic centers have to pay someone for every use. The se
Confidence can be gained in other ways too. Having an unemployment insurance program and maybe a rental or mortgage assistance program can create confidence.
Take Japan for instance, they recently went through an economic crisis. The first wave, Japan hired every unemployed person capable and willing to work to do nothing but dig ditches and fill them back in. The economy rebounded and as soon as half of those people went back to regular jobs, the economy collapsed again, this time much worse. Japan changed their tactics and instead of digging ditches, they invested in infrastructure, development, and research. While this didn't give anyone jobs immediately, it provided a sound base for the economy to rebound which it did.
Roosevelt's jobs programs, some were needed, some was wasted spending, but most had little to no effect other then keeping people occupied so they wouldn't resort to rebellion or crime. What cleaned up the economy was actually world war two. Many European countries were buying supplied from the US which created meaningful jobs before we even though of sending troops to fight. This also had the benefit of helping the US when it joined the war because the ancillary enterprise necessary for a war was pretty much already in place at a time where we didn't keep a large standing army or invest in it's development. The war had the biggest effects on the economy when it took hundred of thousands of the most productive people and shipped them off to die.
We sent or employed in the military service something on the order of 16 million people to war or to protect our borders. With a population of 130.8 million (1939), that's roughly 12 percent of the people removed from the workforce. There was around 17.5% unemployment at the time and the defense effort needed to employ most of those people to support the wars. In 1934, the height of the depression, the unemployment rate was 21.7% on average reaching 25% at one point in the year. In 1938, it was 19%, in 1940, it was down to 14.6%. You can see the drop with the defense spending bill passed in 1939, but now here is a real reduction in numbers, 1942, the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7%, in 1944, it was down to 1.2%. I stayed below 5% until 1954 where it peaked at 5.5% for another 2 years before jumping to 6.8%.
Here is the list of biannual rates I was using. It's clear that the war pulled us out of the depression and it seems to have been used to attempt to control unemployment and economic prosperity a couple of times since then.
It matters what these jobs are. They have to provide a value in the process or at least train people to create a value. Otherwise, it all falls back on their faces as soon as that government dependency is removed.
You forgot: changed the banking rules that to allow direct investment in real estate which created a bubble on property values that played a big role in the S&A collapses as well as the farms being forced to sell out.
I think that's important because it had one of the largest impacts and effected the most people's lives. It drove property values out of the reach of most people while the economy was collapsing around them. It was perhaps worse then it is today- at least now the banks are attempting to sell the property at a loss instead of sitting on them while closing down and locking them into legal limbo in attempts to secure assets in their bankruptcy.
I think the point of that restriction was to bully them into moving to another city. It's not necessarily about stopping sex crimes as much as stopping them near you.
Actually, I think he was talking about Charlie Tree and the bags of Chinese campaign money floating around and the data secretes being stolen at the los alamos labs that lead China turned out to have.
Your explanation of entrapment is a good theory I suppose. All across america every weekend hundreds if not thousands of policewomen dress up as hookers and entice johns into engaging in activity they might not otherwise engage in.
I think the key is "that they wouldn't normally do". Dressing women up as hookers and placing them at a place where prostitution is rampant or expected would mean that the john would be going to that place, able to detect the prostitutes, and engage in the activity. Now, if a girl walks into a bar, goes up to someone saying "you make me hot, I want to screw you", requests money after you go and have sex, I doubt the exclusion would work. It's all about the context.
The courts have routinely allowed evidence based on these encounters, despite the fact that often these men would not try to obtain services from prostitutes if it weren't for them standing on the side of the road. On TV shows where these types of 'sting' operations are displayed, often times the policewomen dressed as hookers even approach cars parked at stop lights which is very obviously entrapment, but they get away with it anyway.
I guess the argument could be made that if a person wouldn't ordinarily engage in that activity, they wouldn't have succumbed to it so easily. It depends on the circumstances, as soon as the john expects to pay for sex, it becomes illegal, but if no payment is expected, it's totally legal for a woman to approach a car and inquire about having sexual relations of some sort.
I have long stated it is my belief that most of those "cop shows" have the goal in mind of convincing people they have less rights then they do in order to cover violations of rights the cops perpetrate on a daily basis in the real world. I mean why would you care that a cop pulled you over for tinted windows and used that as an excuse to search the entire car if you saw it on TV 20 times before. Why would you care that the cops pulled people over for driving while black when you can clearly see that all black people pulled over on TV have guns or drugs and are wanted for various felony warrants. There was one episode of cops where a cop takes the keys out of the ignition and uses it to unlock a console compartment and finds a loaded gun, they arrest the guy and the state supreme court let the guy walk because they didn't have a right to search a locked area when searching the immediate surroundings of a person for their safety. This mirrored a USSC case that said the same, but they still show the reruns of them doing it without any mention to the cops acting illegally.
Watch the cop shows long enough, and you can't help but think at some point in time, "they can't do that can they?"
The "necessity" word you are searching for is duress, and while that defense would work for a lot(even the bank robbery scenario you described), it would be unlikely to work for breaking out of jail.
Duress and necessity may be the same thing, or perhaps part of each other. Duress typically means acting against your own will, necessity can have a willful intent in order to escape a greater harm or evil.
I hate to use Wikipedia as a reference but here is some stuff on the concept of "necessity" and the concept of duress. They are similar in some respects and could likely include each other but as far as I know, they are separate concepts.
I guess a question could be put forth to if the lawyers prosecuting for the recording industry vetted the process that could otherwise be considered entrapment. If the RIAA attorneys prosecuting the case approved of the actions to gather evidence before the cases went to court or where considered or considered cases by approval of that process knowing it's intentions, it may well be seen as entrapment. I think that might be a hard thing to prove though.
Now, knowing that someone entrapped someone else into a crime, lets say by putting an unmanned fruit stand besides a sign that said free refreshments, they would have a lot less standing to recover damages from anyone who grabs a refreshing apple or orange. So the idea or concept of it may prove useful of nothing but to limit the damages.
First, let me say I misunderstood some specifics about this case when I made that statement. Thomas originally lost and got a sky high judgment against her. On appeal, they argued against the "Making availible is sharing" (as if placing a pen and paper beside a book would constitute copyright infringement) and it was argued that Punitive or statutory damages in excess of actual damages violated her constitutional rights because any time the government punishes someone through a law, that person was entitled to due process that's present in the criminal systems but not the civil systems.
It was originally my understanding that only the judgment had been vacated and they were redoing that. It turns out that the entire "making availible" argument was as faulty as considering placing a pen and paper next to a book copyright infringement and the entire trial was tossed out. This settlement process is actually part of the new trial not as I originally thought- the ending of the old trial.
With that in mind, you are correct within the facts present. However, in the context of my original incorrect understanding, Thomas would have still had the judgment against her, she just wouldn't have had to pay out anything. If there was false witness or illegal activity or something that wasn't known at trial, it would be grounds for appeal and that process would have had to go first before it gives credence to any other actions.
My misunderstandings made this more confusing then it should have been. I apologize for that.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I saw that but my point was it's useless to make those claims because they don't add anything. It detracts legitimacy from your argument.
I also saw where your comment listed the entrapment that isn't entrapment because of who is involved as a reason you think supports a RICCO charge or finding. That one stretch of the trust almost invalidates the rest of the argument made. When ever you list something that is categorically false or list something in a way to mislead, it removes legitimacy and adds an air of disgruntled blabbering.
BTW, generally when I say you, I'm talking figuratively and not about you specifically even if placing yourself as the intended target makes sense. Don't take it personally.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't capitol V Thomas already decided and this is just the settlement portion that was overturned on appeal?
If that is true, that would mean that all RIAA or the record labels would lose is the settlement. I doubt any class action suits would come about from it.
I agree that the judge is expecting to expose/determine exactly what's going on. The information gained will probably be ammunition for other cases which might make RIAA's future suits harder to get this far. Perhaps even opening a door to get some other judgments modified too.
You realize that what is required of a police officer is completely different in a civil suit right?
The restrictions on police and government typically only apply to criminal cases. This suit and all of the file sharing P2P RIAA suites so far have been civil suits. They are still bound by rules but not near as stringent as there would be for criminal prosecution.
Entrapment can occur when the government or one or more of it's officers (private people working on their behalf can be officers too), entice and convince someone to do something illegal that they wouldn't ordinarily do. When citizens do that, it sort of becomes conspiracy instead of entrapment. Instead of just one person breaking the law, someone conspired to get another person to break the law. It doesn't get you out of trouble like if you were able to prove entrapment. There are also defenses like "necessity" that can get you out of trouble. Necessity is more or less the defense that the necessity of the situation left only the options of breaking the laws to escape the circumstances with your life or someone else. Imagine your in prison and the guards are murdering everyone and you escape, You wouldn't get busted for the escape charge. On the other hand, suppose the prison was run in a way that the living conditions was so deplorable that you feared for you life or health, it's a little harder to prove but you could escape punishment there too. Imagine someone jumped in front of you and a relative pointing a gun at both of you. He then tells you he will kill your mom, girlfriend or whoever is with you in 15 minutes if you don't take an unloaded gun into a bank and rob it then give him the money. If you could prove those conditions, you would have acted out of "necessity" and would likely escape punishment.
Anyways, that's getting way off point. The government is held to a different standard then private people, and criminal cases are held differently then civil cases. Entrapment just won't fit with RIAA and civil lawsuits.
That's true but that does not change the fact that the xray (properly called a radiograph or roentgenograph by the way) is likely the correct thing to try first. A xray is a screening test in this case. It's relatively cheap and the strengths and weaknesses are well understood and quantified. If it discovers the problem there is no reason to do a much more expensive MRI. If the doctor has reason to suspect from clinical indications that the xray wouldn't show anything he certainly can go straight to the MRI when appropriate.
Screening tests are standard and appropriate practice for a a huge variety of conditions. Use an inexpensive and well understood screening test which will catch most of the problems and then move to more complicated/expensive/accurate tests when needed. Thoughtlessly using a gold standard test right off the bat is very often wasteful and unnecessary and probably fraudulent as well. An MRI doesn't diagnose a broken bone any better than an xray and any doctor who orders such unnecessarily expensive tests is committing insurance fraud.
While your probably right about the X-ray in some or most situations, I'm pretty sure that some don't really require it or even require it "first". The link I just provided said that X-rays aren't necessary for some types of back injuries. That's where I was going with this, if the injury is a bulging disc or something along the lines of what an MRI is good at, the symptoms coincide with that, and the reported cause of the injury fits, skipping the X-ray may seem like a wise choice.
I'm not really sure if "costs savings" should be a defining factor. If the symptoms, signs, years of experience in the field and all point to it's necessity or the uselessness of an X-ray, that should be the defining factor. However, there may be people like you suggest who just want to ring up another cost.
Another key question when ordering a test is whether the test results could result in a difference in treatment. There is no point in ordering a more complicated and expensive test if the patient will receive the same treatment in the end anyway.
Here your basically saying that savings is more important then treatment or quality of life. Or at least it sounds like it. Many conditions that can be detected on an X-ray or MRI can also include other injuries that the other won't pick up. Suppose someone fell down a flight of stairs or was struck by a speeding car, An X-ray can detect a broken bone, and a more expensive MRI can detect damage at the joint caused by the impact and jarring of the bone. Now, you wouldn't know that an MRI would effect the treatment until after it was done. If we error on the side of cost, the joint could be damaged and heal up wrong, 6-8 weeks later when the casts come off, you have someone with a healed bone and useless limb. Perhaps now instead of a simple surgery to remove some burrs or reconnect tendons has now turned into knee replacement surgery or worse, irreparable harm.
Should, yes I agree. But if you've ever actually worked with the general public you should realize how foolish the general public can be. Even if they know, they might be unwilling/unable to take action. Furthermore physicians often run into patients (especially older patients) who are, often through no fault of their own, mentally incompetent, psychologically damaged, or just not very bright. You're absolutely right that diet and exercise matter but even motivated high functioning people struggle with controlling their diet and getting to the gym.
The point of that statement wasn't that people are perfect. It was that doctors can reasonably assume that patients aren't willing to adjust, don't have the time to adjust, don't have the will power to adjust, not mentally competent enough to adjust, not psychologically stable enough t
Did I cure the bone spurs, or just feel better? Talk to anyone who has ever had them. You DO NOT simply feel better. The condition is debilitating, unless it is halted and/or reversed.
I'm assuming that some of the people authoring the websites actually had them or have directly been around people with them. I got that idea from those sites.
A note about substance warnings. Oxygen is essential to life - but taken in large dosages, is fatal. Water is essential to life, but often proves fatal, in various ways. Nothing on earth is entirely "safe". One learns to regulate everything in life, or suffer the consequences for failing to learn.
You don't really have people in the interweb praising the miracle powers of Oxygen or water. I think ODing on Calcium or harming your body by taking something that people have just praised as the cure for what ails you might be a little easier in reality. Especially when it's so easy to take too much with a couple of pills verses chugging water too fast or obtaining medical grade oxygen that isn't already at a safe mix. The big concern as I see it is that when you self medicate, you don't really know what your treating. I'm reminded of a story I heard somewhere about a guy who got sick and his family fed him milk shakes to help with the fever he was running and to sooth his stomach which he couldn't keep anything down. Turned out he had salmonellae food poisoning and all the dairy he ate made it worse. There is a real danger there.
Am I smarter than doctors? A doctorate's degree in any discipline is not an indicator of intelligence, rather it is an indication of perseverance, education, and hard work. Am I smarter than doctors? In some cases I am.
I guess the important part would be "on the subject" you are self medicating for.
But, it isn't a question of intelligence, it is a question of motivation. The doctor needs to preserve his practice as much as, or more than, he needs to preserve my life. My need is obvious - my life and health are more important than any doctor's practice. I accept the risks for my actions, as any responsible adult should. To many don't accept responsibility, hence the overloaded medical system and the GROSSLY overloaded court system.
Actually, I think preserving your life is above the rest, the doctor can lose his license very easily if he becomes incompetent and adversely effects you. This is probably why you saw so many tests and procedures as unnecessary. Suppose a doctor failed to run a blood culture for your symptoms and you were actually suffering from something serious which could have been caught with the blood test. But instead he treats you for the obvious thing that comes to mind and you end up spending 4 months in a coma. The doc is probably going to lose his licenses, even if just for a short period of time and you will probable attempt to sue because he should have ignored you and done the test.
As for the internet connection - no, that doesn't make me smarter than a doctor. My knowlege, intelligence, and decision making ability are largely rooted in the fact that I started reading about 1960, and never stopped. I know how to find information, on and off the web. That isn't necessarily intelligence, but it IS smart.
Ehh, the internet comment was more or less a warning for others who will be reading this. It's obvious that you have your head screwed on tight enough, even though I disagree with a couple of opinions you hold. Imagine others reading our conversation and harming themselves by taking too much calcium or Vinegar or something.
I didn't think you were harsh, I just didn't think it was something to get bent out of shape for. I'm not sure why you got modded troll. Perhaps it's one of those accident mods with the new UI issues that everyone complains about? Perhaps not.
But next time you probably should put the words back into the third party's mouth, like "my doc said that....".
Duly noted.
However, I seriously wasn't aware he steered me wrong on it until after you pointed it out.
When you talk about only rich or wealthy people providing jobs, it starts to sound like a caste system. I don't think that's what you meant, but the argumentative bastard in me had to note it.
Well, No. That wasn't what I meant at all.
It takes money to do things. It takes money to make money. It takes more money to do more things. It takes money to provide jobs. When you take all that money away from the people who have it, they don't do things, they don't create jobs in the hopes of making more money. That being said, I believe the structure should as free as possible so anyone can use the value of their efforts, their ingenuity, their persistence, and the resources they have availible and create wealth from it. This wealth is then traded for money and the money creates jobs in some sort of way. In a cast system, If I understand it correctly, your have classes of people and those classes pretty much can't change around. For instance, a lower class person could obtain as much money as a wealthy class person, but he would never belong to the wealthy class of people.
In reality, I'm just acknowledging that the people with money have the means to the end. The government taking that means in hops of providing the ends somehow other then they would be, would create inefficiencies in the effectiveness of the money plus create a dependency on the government to continue to provide those ends. When they can't or stop doing it, it all falls apart. On the other hand, when a private citizen fails to provide those ends, a much smaller amount of people are effected and those people can either through transferring the value of their labor or ingenuity or connections to each other as a resource, step up and replace that private citizen or simply fill the needs of other private citizens in other industry.
I went a little into ideals there, but I hope I demonstrated what I think the differences are. It's easier said then done, especially when you have to spend 50k on an environmental impact statement, another 3-5k on licenses and permit fees, 50k on lawyers to make sure every T's are crosses and I's are dotted before you can even break ground and build a new business or modify an existing business to suit your needs.
Also, arguing that innovation costs jobs, without mentioning any benefit from it, is an argument for stagnation in my book. I'm personally not too concerned with increased efficiency in this, that, or the other, if that means that a bunch of people end up dying ten years earlier than the would have had that efficiency not been introduced. Again, I don't think you're advocating innovations in reducing quality of life.
I only meant to mention that in passing as an opposition to the idea that innovation creates jobs. Innovation really makes makes jobs easier or none existent, it makes products cheaper and profits higher. Unmolested by excessive regulation or poisoned by failing to enforce regulation while assuming your standards of living doesn't increase, it means you won't be working as hard to make the same living, it means that the barrier to entry in your own enterprise will be lower and you or anyone should be eventually able to create jobs by grasping opportunities presented by the innovation. However, there is and will be a lag of several years if not decades between the creation of jobs.
The end effect with real innovation is that you can live how you are today for less money. If I told your that your monthly budget expenses would be cut by 20 percent, would you care much if a rich person made 20 percent more or that the socio-economic mobility scale seems further down the road? When we talk about socio-economic mobility, we are really talking about disparages in wealth and income levels. What ends up missing from this is where you get the benefit of $100,000 increase in wages today with only an increase of 50, 60, 70, or 80 thousand dollars increase or possible no increase at all. The
I don't think I touched the science in this case other then the impossibility to test global warming by carbon alone. I argued a specific thing.
As for the science of global warming, yea, it's politically motivated, inaccurate, and most likely wrong because of it. Almost every time someone points to a "what about this", after months or years of fighting it, they find that they had to account for it. It happened for the solar output, water vapor, the oceanic decadal oscillations which seem to be connected to sun spot activity. Currently, there is a paper that can explain the observed warming by ocean surface temperature alone. We have had all the melting polar ice caps turn out to be drift on the sensors, not after begging people to explain how they were melting at the rate claimed when the air temp wasn't going about the freezing point, but after normal people used Google earth and asked how they can make the claims of disappearing Ice shelves when they are clearly visible in satellite imagery.
Face it, we just don't quite have it right yet. The science isn't settled. It is because of this massive politicizing of the situation that has caused it to be wrong and severely lacking.
You have to be careful about using home remedies, some of them can have worse side effects then others. Some can masque the severe symptoms of an illness making you think it is better without it actually being better. I will attempt to answer your other points and questions.
Alright - a couple things. Why do doctors prescribe name-brand drugs - but when you get to the pharmacist and ask, he will admit that a generic brand has the exact same ingredients for a fraction of the price?
Well, there are a few generic medications that for whatever reasons, don't work quite as well as the brand names. I'm not sure how prevalent that might be nor do I know if extends outside the pyco active drugs.
However, I'm willing to bet that the conditions name the name brands in the treatment book I mentioned. It's probably one of those things where they just prescribe the name brand and don't even bother themselves with the details of generic drugs.
Acid reflux, mentioned further down in another guy's post. I suffered with it for awhile. I happened to watch a health care documentary thing, in which the whole acid reflux scam was revealed. Your stomach is NOT to acid, rather it is either not acid enough, or producing the wrong kind of acid. Suggested fix? Drink vinegar. I tried it, it worked. No more prescription for me. And, those pills were EXPENSIVE!
There was a doctor from Australia (I think) who discovered bacteria growing in the human stomach. He found that a combination of two drugs, an antacid and a powerful antibiotic killed the bacteria and this turned out to be a cure for the majority of ulcers out there. The problem is that no one would believe that something could live in the acid in the digestive system and it took a while before he could present it to anyone willing to verify the claims. Now, the test to see if you have an ulcer it actually more expensive then a run on the pills.
Anyways, the digestive system is a complex thing. That being said, I have to ask if vinegar will work for both conditions you mentioned and will it have the same effects on everyone? It would seem like it would work for one or the other, perhaps both, and perhaps in some cases neither. Drugs like Prilosec, Zantac, Tagamet, Mylanta, and other antacids which is commonly used to control upset stomachs, actually control or attempt to control the acid production and limit conditions that cause discomfort. That is how they used to treat ulcers that weren't chronic bleeders before they started adding antibiotics to the mix. In other words, is it safer to introduce acetic acid (vineger) in order to change the chemistry of the stomach or would it be better to control the acid output to begin with. Of course we have changed that chemistry with Calcium Carbonate and Magnesium hydroxide which are common ingredients in Rolaids and Tums antacids. I guess a question might be, what it so special about vinegar that other antacids that work in the same ways can't take care of? Vinegar can be dangerous to the body and even cause death if taken in excess, I don't think this little amount would approach that dangerous amount though.
That restless legs syndrome? Exposed on primetime news. The doctors aren't ALL that stupid. They are making money off of these scams, plain and simple. Along with the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, salesmen, and politicians. Sure, some doctors may be fooled by the advertising hype, but not all. Not even half, I would say.
I don't watch drug news so I'm not exactly sure what your talking about with all the hype. I do know that standard treatment is to increase Iron levels in the blood, to limit caffeine, alcohol and smoking, to check other drug interactions that may be causing it from the start. If those don't work, they look for oth
Try to check if you actually know something before opening mouth. Or did you think that the Slashdot crowd wouldn't understand the word "inflammation" and went for the car analogy: "lubrication"?
Honestly, that is exactly how the doc explained it to me. I thank you for the information you pointed me too. I think the docs actual words were something like the shots will relieve the pain, reduce the swelling, lube the joints and let the discs heal up. So he did mention inflammation and I'm pretty sure he said it would lube everything up and make my range of motion better but didn't want me to extend myself for a couple of months.
Anyways, I was providing anecdotal evidence to anecdotal evidence and what I have come to know from my own experience. I play stupid when I go to the docs. I ask a bunch of questions which I think everyone should, but it could be that in my playing stupid, the doc just dumbed the answer down so I could understand it.
I'm so afraid that I will end up convincing the docs into looking in the wrong direction or something. I mentioned being treated for sciatica instead of ruptured discs. I was in a lot of pain and attempted to more or less walk it off. I was focusing on the pain in my leg and the feelings of someone kicking me in the nuts when I stepped on my left foot. I guess that led them to miss the discs and do the sciatica thing. The pain in the back was short bursts of sharp pain that would last from a couple of seconds to a couple minutes at a time and once dropped me to my knees because I lost control of my legs. I don't know if I literally lost control or if the pain dropped me, I guess they were talking to me for about 45 seconds before I even realized it and don't exactly remember going down. This was just before I was referred to the specialist. I'm think I down played the pain because I didn't want to stop working and may have concentrated on the pain in the groin and the leg which they the original doctor off.
Now I just ask questions and make sure I can explain everything that's "wrong" and then ask them to explain why. But seeing how I'm not a doctor and don't plan on being one, I don't memorize the medical terms and such I think they dumb the answers down for me. I'm fine with that, but it seem that you are. I'm over it, I hope you can be too. I see this mistake as a minor error and still stand by what I posted. I was not however, attempting to pass myself off as a doctor or medical specialist.
There are a couple of issues with your complaints.
My GP ordered two MRI's for my back after an injury rather than an X-ray first (the correct standard of care), then an MRI if warranted.
There are some types of injuries to the back that an X-ray will not show. Similarly, there are some back injuries where the initial discovery will (not can but will) mean that the sooner it's effectively treated, the better the chances for recovery and being absent of pain will be. Things like damaged discs won't show up in simple X-rays and the extent of the damage can be permanent if the disc starts healing improperly. Sometimes going for an MRI from the start, depending on the symptoms and stated causes, is the best approach because it will mean the best recovery. I myself suffer from scar tissue in a disc that gives me all sorts of hell and my specialist doctor told me if we caught it in time, it wouldn't be there. Instead, the original doctor treated a ruptured disc as Sciatica for 5 months before referring me to a specialist who then suspected it on the first examination but couldn't prove it without an MRI.
My GP would happily prescribe blood pressure and cholesterol meds without suggesting that, maybe, I should eat better and lose some weight.
In this day and age, you should already know about weight and diet. Your general practitioner will have pamphlets all through his lobby on it, there are numerous PSA on TV and radio about it, you can't hardly go through a checkout line at the market without seeing something on a eating right to lower blood pressure and so on. Depending on the blood pressure at the time, controlling it with meds until a diet is established is probably better then telling you to stop eating salt. BTW, I know several people who having high blood pressure and diet changes were always part of their treatment. And yes, they take pills and went to different doctors.
A orthopedic specialist wanted me to get an MRI to confirm a knee diagnosis. When I mentioned the expense, he suggested an injection of cortisone in the knee the next time it swelled.
This isn't as insidious as you might think. A doctor will want to see if the problem is what they think it is before treating you the wrong way. Ideally, an MRI would have been warranted but if you couldn't afford one, he had to go with other options. Cortisone shots don't fix anything, they just relieves the pain and lubricates the joints while your body heals itself. There could be a number of things that might be wrong in your leg, a torn tendon or ligament won't heal like a muscle will and you won't be able to tell (unless it's completely torn) without an MRI. Sometimes they have to go in and sew the thing back together, sometimes, they can heal on their own. What you got was a savings in payment but not fixed like you should have been.
BTW, there already is a sort of best practices book out there. It lists all the generally accepted treatments for a variety of injuries. It's the same book that the government uses for Medicare/medicade treatment, workers comp claims, and the insurance companies use it for treatments on claims with them. Hell, even the courts use it for allowing compensation for treatments. I forget the name of it, but I have heard it referred many times in the treatment for my back. Your doctor can't get your insurance to pay for anything that isn't listed with your diagnosis and often needs to get authorization. IF it's listed in the book, they can't deny it, if it isn't, you might need a hearing to get approval.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, I was in the process of reading through the Stimulus in order to respond to your challenge earlier. I was aware of the Republican lead effort to pass the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007 (senate bill S.1748 and S.1742 - house bill H.R. 2905 ) which was defeated by the people your claiming are against the Fairness doctrine in the first place. It was revived in this year as the Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2009 (s.34) which was included into the DC. voting rights bill. It should be noted that the bill originally was a response to democrats calling for the fairness doctrine to be reinstated as a response to the lack of access to the majority of citizens because of the so called media slant in the larger markets.
I'll go into more details about that in my reply to your other post asking me to provide some proof of my claim that it would be implemented in other ways and under different names. Here is a teaser though. It's what Eric Holder (our current AG) said in 2004 at a liberal function using the name American Constitution Society. He said "In a short term, this will not be an easy task with the main stream media somewhat [cowed] by conservative critiques and the conservative media disseminating the news in anything but a fair and balanced manner. And you know what I mean there. The means to reach the greatest number of people is not easily accessible." Later during his confirmation hearings he stated that he would support and pursue on behalf of the government any effort it passed or made into law concerning this, the fairness doctrine or anything similar to it.
Obama himself has stated that the same issues could be dealt with by diversifying the media ownership saying he supports media-ownership caps, network neutrality, public broadcasting, as well as increasing minority ownership of broadcasting and print outlets as a means to bring as many diverse viewpoints airwaves and modern communications.
In fact, I would say that the only reason enough democrats in both houses got on board with the legislation and allowed it to pass was because Mark Fowler warned that people were attempting to intertwine the fairness doctrine into the Net Neutrality debate and in effect to control the Interweb. Contrary to the Article's slant on it being a "democrat" push for net neutrality, many republican lawmakers support it too. FCC Chairman Powell stated it quite nicely I think. But many democrats were against net neutrality up until they had to support their leader. This is another area that we should be watching carefully too but that's also another topic.
Woopee, you got me on a grammar error, that defeats ever fucking point I made and solidifies your position right. You mom must be proud of you.
Actually, if you listened to his reasoning, it doesn't appear that he ignored it. However, the Supreme court is who will have to determine who is right on that and the democrats don't want to push the issue because they are scared of being wrong.
BTW, it isn't a process of ignoring when you assume a justification consistent with it. Bush supposedly found the powers you think he didn't have through the interpretation of the constitution. That in no way can be considered ignoring it. Even if he was wrong in doing so. But here you are, convinced of something that never happened because someone told you so. Support that someone added 200388593 to the square root of 229543652 in their head, does that mean they ignore math if the got it wrong? Use your fucking brain here as stop with the partisan propaganda that you have been feed.
Christ-- what the hell is it with you propaganda spewing asses. I don't even have cable, how the fuck am I supposed to be watching Fox News. Terrorist are people who specifically target citizens with no military connection in attacks or acts of terror in an attempt to bend political will. It's really simple. If someone is plotting to kill your mom, they are a murderer. If they are plotting to do it to force you to change a law, they are terrorists. But a terrorist doesn't have to be a murderer to be one. I'm not sure how anyone with a functioning brain of cognitive thinking skill can get confused over what a damn terrorist is. A terrorist is basically a criminal who uses violence, the threat of violence, and mass panic to influence something unrelated to the people it us used on.
First off, we are a sovereign nation and international law doesn't have a damn thing to do with us. We make treaties for the things we agree with but at no time ever, does one of those treaties put an entity above our sovereign rights.
Second, I never said to give government or Bush the power to "do whatever it takes" now did I? Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say. I said Bush did something and the differences between him and Obama was where the power was being taken. You may find that offensive, but what troubles me is that your still focused on the ex-president and seem to not care about the current crook at the helm. And yes, if Bush was a crook, Obama is one in the very same right.
As for the torture concentration camps, your fucking crazy. There have been few US citizens held in them and they either found a trial or was released. I'm not concerned with citizens of other nations because our constitution doesn't cover them. I'm also not concerned with what other nations think about us because they don't run this
You just keep being the good little robot sitting in the corner and parroting what your masters tell you then. No skin off my teeth.
Wow, I find it amazing that your actually willing to spew this shit outside of your little I hate Bush Camps. Did you forget where you are or are you really that stupid to think your misconceptions would remain unchallenged at a site that is known for the frequent association of smart people.
First of all, the constitution stops the freedoms of it's citizens from being trampled on by it's governments. I hope you understand that because a lot of other countries don't have near the same freedoms and the constitution does nothing to give it to them. In fact, it doesn't give freedoms to anyone in the US either. "We the people of the United States" does say we the people plus those terrorists or we the people plus our enemies or we the people of the entire world. It has already been ruled on by the courts that the constitution doesn't extend to foreigners unless a law makes it so. On that same note, a law can also make it not so. And yes, the law your referring to didn't include citizens that weren't involved an act of war against the US would constitution Civil Rebellion by definition.
Actually, that would be conservatives in both cases. Don't confuse one with the other just because you saw one that was both. Don't let your own ignorance punish your image by making such stupid statements.
This is the part that I read and realize you were so brainwashed that you needed to be put in place. The vast majority of the "tazing" police incidents happened in towns controlled by democrat leaders and by local police under their control. The Politician speaking tazing incident was John Kerry's, a democrat not a republican where the security staff tazzed a student repeatedly for asking fucking questions. I think on the paramilitary issue, you are going to find the same answers too, democrats are behind them just as much as any other political entity. You are a damn fool for attempting to claim it was a one sided issue and you are a damned idiot for believing it yourself.
Ad for Clinton's "budget", it was held together by gimmicks and smoke screens unique to several specific years of his administration. The 2000 budget would of had us balanced for the next 10 years too if shit didn't change. Your also wrong about the "8 years of nearly unfettered Republican rule" There has only been 2 of those 8 years that the republicans control the house, senate and the executive and of those 2 years (2003-2005 and of that majority, it was only one by one senator. The entire idea that republicans controlled everything is nothing but a fallacy created by the democrats to excuse themselves of the behavior they are supposedly against. In your enlightened way, you swallowed it hook line and sinker.
Lol.. You need to read between the lines. The same type of legislation called equality in broadcasting or any other name can be used. The reason the fairness doctrine was singled out is because it has been explained and too many people don't like it. However, the same shit is being purposed and the same shit is most likely going to be tried under a different name. Perhaps in segments of other bills (riders).
Their is no indication that anything but the name of the fairness doctrine is dead. From the rest of your comment, I can see your drinking the cool aid. Perhaps if you would just pull your head out of your ass and stop repeating the spoon fed shit they tell you, you could actually look around and see this.
There are constitutional limits in what the president can and can't do. It doesn't matter what he claimed to want to do during his campaign or who voted for him. He can change how America does things, but he can't change America from being America.
And there lies the problem of socialized medical care. Whether it's government run, HMO run, or the company physician. It's all about what someone else decides that you can sacrifice for others. The very basic concept of freedom would mean in the least, you decide and are only limited by your own resources. Instead, your making decisions on who gets to life a quality life and who doesn't based around what you think other people might need.
And you shouldn't fund everything for everyone. You shouldn't fund some things for some people. That is what got us in the mess of people not being able to pay for their own health care to begin with. When the HMO act came about and Nixon (or was it Johnson), created welfare that covered medical, prices skyrocketed in the medical industry. This wasn't because the quality of care increased proportionately, it was because the defining market went from needing to fix prices so people could afford them to fixing the highest prices that the largest companies and or government could pay for. Prices rose and rose until finally in the mid to late 90's, HMOs and government started refusing to pay that much. HMOs started ridding themselves of risk instead of burying it into their models. Government started capping their payment below value and here we are today with people who are either not insurable or otherwise incapable of gaining medical care on their own.
And to whit, you will see all the studies proclaiming that the cost of medical treatment in the US is disproportionately higher then other countries, that's because when we did welfare for the poor and HMOs, they provided public coverage and controlled the systems. The other side effects of that is that the vast majority of medical innovation came from the US where because the government didn't coop the system and think along the lines your did, they had the resources to invest in research and development along side private industry. "If" is a mighty big word, if the dog didn't stop to shit, he would have caught the rabbit, if the rabbit didn't stop to shit, the dog never would have caught him. But acknowledging how hindsight is imperfect while plowing throw the situation, I strongly think that if the government had got involved in the first place and stuck to funding the sciences while maybe creating a fund for the poor to borrow from for medical expenses, we would still have had the same medical innovations and best care money could buy, but almost everyone could afford to buy it which is the big problem with today's environment.
I have received probably 10 MRIs over the last 20 or so years. Here is the problem with your statement. MRI machines only cost so much. It isn't like the hospital or diagnostic centers have to pay someone for every use. The se
Confidence can be gained in other ways too. Having an unemployment insurance program and maybe a rental or mortgage assistance program can create confidence.
Take Japan for instance, they recently went through an economic crisis. The first wave, Japan hired every unemployed person capable and willing to work to do nothing but dig ditches and fill them back in. The economy rebounded and as soon as half of those people went back to regular jobs, the economy collapsed again, this time much worse. Japan changed their tactics and instead of digging ditches, they invested in infrastructure, development, and research. While this didn't give anyone jobs immediately, it provided a sound base for the economy to rebound which it did.
Roosevelt's jobs programs, some were needed, some was wasted spending, but most had little to no effect other then keeping people occupied so they wouldn't resort to rebellion or crime. What cleaned up the economy was actually world war two. Many European countries were buying supplied from the US which created meaningful jobs before we even though of sending troops to fight. This also had the benefit of helping the US when it joined the war because the ancillary enterprise necessary for a war was pretty much already in place at a time where we didn't keep a large standing army or invest in it's development. The war had the biggest effects on the economy when it took hundred of thousands of the most productive people and shipped them off to die.
We sent or employed in the military service something on the order of 16 million people to war or to protect our borders. With a population of 130.8 million (1939), that's roughly 12 percent of the people removed from the workforce. There was around 17.5% unemployment at the time and the defense effort needed to employ most of those people to support the wars. In 1934, the height of the depression, the unemployment rate was 21.7% on average reaching 25% at one point in the year. In 1938, it was 19%, in 1940, it was down to 14.6%. You can see the drop with the defense spending bill passed in 1939, but now here is a real reduction in numbers, 1942, the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7%, in 1944, it was down to 1.2%. I stayed below 5% until 1954 where it peaked at 5.5% for another 2 years before jumping to 6.8%.
Here is the list of biannual rates I was using. It's clear that the war pulled us out of the depression and it seems to have been used to attempt to control unemployment and economic prosperity a couple of times since then.
It matters what these jobs are. They have to provide a value in the process or at least train people to create a value. Otherwise, it all falls back on their faces as soon as that government dependency is removed.
You forgot: changed the banking rules that to allow direct investment in real estate which created a bubble on property values that played a big role in the S&A collapses as well as the farms being forced to sell out.
I think that's important because it had one of the largest impacts and effected the most people's lives. It drove property values out of the reach of most people while the economy was collapsing around them. It was perhaps worse then it is today- at least now the banks are attempting to sell the property at a loss instead of sitting on them while closing down and locking them into legal limbo in attempts to secure assets in their bankruptcy.
I think the point of that restriction was to bully them into moving to another city. It's not necessarily about stopping sex crimes as much as stopping them near you.
Actually, I think he was talking about Charlie Tree and the bags of Chinese campaign money floating around and the data secretes being stolen at the los alamos labs that lead China turned out to have.
I think the key is "that they wouldn't normally do". Dressing women up as hookers and placing them at a place where prostitution is rampant or expected would mean that the john would be going to that place, able to detect the prostitutes, and engage in the activity. Now, if a girl walks into a bar, goes up to someone saying "you make me hot, I want to screw you", requests money after you go and have sex, I doubt the exclusion would work. It's all about the context.
I guess the argument could be made that if a person wouldn't ordinarily engage in that activity, they wouldn't have succumbed to it so easily. It depends on the circumstances, as soon as the john expects to pay for sex, it becomes illegal, but if no payment is expected, it's totally legal for a woman to approach a car and inquire about having sexual relations of some sort.
I have long stated it is my belief that most of those "cop shows" have the goal in mind of convincing people they have less rights then they do in order to cover violations of rights the cops perpetrate on a daily basis in the real world. I mean why would you care that a cop pulled you over for tinted windows and used that as an excuse to search the entire car if you saw it on TV 20 times before. Why would you care that the cops pulled people over for driving while black when you can clearly see that all black people pulled over on TV have guns or drugs and are wanted for various felony warrants. There was one episode of cops where a cop takes the keys out of the ignition and uses it to unlock a console compartment and finds a loaded gun, they arrest the guy and the state supreme court let the guy walk because they didn't have a right to search a locked area when searching the immediate surroundings of a person for their safety. This mirrored a USSC case that said the same, but they still show the reruns of them doing it without any mention to the cops acting illegally.
Watch the cop shows long enough, and you can't help but think at some point in time, "they can't do that can they?"
Duress and necessity may be the same thing, or perhaps part of each other. Duress typically means acting against your own will, necessity can have a willful intent in order to escape a greater harm or evil.
I hate to use Wikipedia as a reference but here is some stuff on the concept of "necessity" and the concept of duress. They are similar in some respects and could likely include each other but as far as I know, they are separate concepts.
I guess a question could be put forth to if the lawyers prosecuting for the recording industry vetted the process that could otherwise be considered entrapment. If the RIAA attorneys prosecuting the case approved of the actions to gather evidence before the cases went to court or where considered or considered cases by approval of that process knowing it's intentions, it may well be seen as entrapment. I think that might be a hard thing to prove though.
Now, knowing that someone entrapped someone else into a crime, lets say by putting an unmanned fruit stand besides a sign that said free refreshments, they would have a lot less standing to recover damages from anyone who grabs a refreshing apple or orange. So the idea or concept of it may prove useful of nothing but to limit the damages.
First, let me say I misunderstood some specifics about this case when I made that statement. Thomas originally lost and got a sky high judgment against her. On appeal, they argued against the "Making availible is sharing" (as if placing a pen and paper beside a book would constitute copyright infringement) and it was argued that Punitive or statutory damages in excess of actual damages violated her constitutional rights because any time the government punishes someone through a law, that person was entitled to due process that's present in the criminal systems but not the civil systems.
It was originally my understanding that only the judgment had been vacated and they were redoing that. It turns out that the entire "making availible" argument was as faulty as considering placing a pen and paper next to a book copyright infringement and the entire trial was tossed out. This settlement process is actually part of the new trial not as I originally thought- the ending of the old trial.
With that in mind, you are correct within the facts present. However, in the context of my original incorrect understanding, Thomas would have still had the judgment against her, she just wouldn't have had to pay out anything. If there was false witness or illegal activity or something that wasn't known at trial, it would be grounds for appeal and that process would have had to go first before it gives credence to any other actions.
My misunderstandings made this more confusing then it should have been. I apologize for that.
Perhaps I wasn't clear, I saw that but my point was it's useless to make those claims because they don't add anything. It detracts legitimacy from your argument.
I also saw where your comment listed the entrapment that isn't entrapment because of who is involved as a reason you think supports a RICCO charge or finding. That one stretch of the trust almost invalidates the rest of the argument made. When ever you list something that is categorically false or list something in a way to mislead, it removes legitimacy and adds an air of disgruntled blabbering.
BTW, generally when I say you, I'm talking figuratively and not about you specifically even if placing yourself as the intended target makes sense. Don't take it personally.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't capitol V Thomas already decided and this is just the settlement portion that was overturned on appeal?
If that is true, that would mean that all RIAA or the record labels would lose is the settlement. I doubt any class action suits would come about from it.
I agree that the judge is expecting to expose/determine exactly what's going on. The information gained will probably be ammunition for other cases which might make RIAA's future suits harder to get this far. Perhaps even opening a door to get some other judgments modified too.
You realize that what is required of a police officer is completely different in a civil suit right?
The restrictions on police and government typically only apply to criminal cases. This suit and all of the file sharing P2P RIAA suites so far have been civil suits. They are still bound by rules but not near as stringent as there would be for criminal prosecution.
Entrapment can occur when the government or one or more of it's officers (private people working on their behalf can be officers too), entice and convince someone to do something illegal that they wouldn't ordinarily do. When citizens do that, it sort of becomes conspiracy instead of entrapment. Instead of just one person breaking the law, someone conspired to get another person to break the law. It doesn't get you out of trouble like if you were able to prove entrapment. There are also defenses like "necessity" that can get you out of trouble. Necessity is more or less the defense that the necessity of the situation left only the options of breaking the laws to escape the circumstances with your life or someone else. Imagine your in prison and the guards are murdering everyone and you escape, You wouldn't get busted for the escape charge. On the other hand, suppose the prison was run in a way that the living conditions was so deplorable that you feared for you life or health, it's a little harder to prove but you could escape punishment there too. Imagine someone jumped in front of you and a relative pointing a gun at both of you. He then tells you he will kill your mom, girlfriend or whoever is with you in 15 minutes if you don't take an unloaded gun into a bank and rob it then give him the money. If you could prove those conditions, you would have acted out of "necessity" and would likely escape punishment.
Anyways, that's getting way off point. The government is held to a different standard then private people, and criminal cases are held differently then civil cases. Entrapment just won't fit with RIAA and civil lawsuits.
While your probably right about the X-ray in some or most situations, I'm pretty sure that some don't really require it or even require it "first". The link I just provided said that X-rays aren't necessary for some types of back injuries. That's where I was going with this, if the injury is a bulging disc or something along the lines of what an MRI is good at, the symptoms coincide with that, and the reported cause of the injury fits, skipping the X-ray may seem like a wise choice.
I'm not really sure if "costs savings" should be a defining factor. If the symptoms, signs, years of experience in the field and all point to it's necessity or the uselessness of an X-ray, that should be the defining factor. However, there may be people like you suggest who just want to ring up another cost.
Here your basically saying that savings is more important then treatment or quality of life. Or at least it sounds like it. Many conditions that can be detected on an X-ray or MRI can also include other injuries that the other won't pick up. Suppose someone fell down a flight of stairs or was struck by a speeding car, An X-ray can detect a broken bone, and a more expensive MRI can detect damage at the joint caused by the impact and jarring of the bone. Now, you wouldn't know that an MRI would effect the treatment until after it was done. If we error on the side of cost, the joint could be damaged and heal up wrong, 6-8 weeks later when the casts come off, you have someone with a healed bone and useless limb. Perhaps now instead of a simple surgery to remove some burrs or reconnect tendons has now turned into knee replacement surgery or worse, irreparable harm.
The point of that statement wasn't that people are perfect. It was that doctors can reasonably assume that patients aren't willing to adjust, don't have the time to adjust, don't have the will power to adjust, not mentally competent enough to adjust, not psychologically stable enough t
I'm assuming that some of the people authoring the websites actually had them or have directly been around people with them. I got that idea from those sites.
You don't really have people in the interweb praising the miracle powers of Oxygen or water. I think ODing on Calcium or harming your body by taking something that people have just praised as the cure for what ails you might be a little easier in reality. Especially when it's so easy to take too much with a couple of pills verses chugging water too fast or obtaining medical grade oxygen that isn't already at a safe mix. The big concern as I see it is that when you self medicate, you don't really know what your treating. I'm reminded of a story I heard somewhere about a guy who got sick and his family fed him milk shakes to help with the fever he was running and to sooth his stomach which he couldn't keep anything down. Turned out he had salmonellae food poisoning and all the dairy he ate made it worse. There is a real danger there.
I guess the important part would be "on the subject" you are self medicating for.
Actually, I think preserving your life is above the rest, the doctor can lose his license very easily if he becomes incompetent and adversely effects you. This is probably why you saw so many tests and procedures as unnecessary. Suppose a doctor failed to run a blood culture for your symptoms and you were actually suffering from something serious which could have been caught with the blood test. But instead he treats you for the obvious thing that comes to mind and you end up spending 4 months in a coma. The doc is probably going to lose his licenses, even if just for a short period of time and you will probable attempt to sue because he should have ignored you and done the test.
Ehh, the internet comment was more or less a warning for others who will be reading this. It's obvious that you have your head screwed on tight enough, even though I disagree with a couple of opinions you hold. Imagine others reading our conversation and harming themselves by taking too much calcium or Vinegar or something.
I didn't think you were harsh, I just didn't think it was something to get bent out of shape for. I'm not sure why you got modded troll. Perhaps it's one of those accident mods with the new UI issues that everyone complains about? Perhaps not.
Duly noted.
However, I seriously wasn't aware he steered me wrong on it until after you pointed it out.
Well, No. That wasn't what I meant at all.
It takes money to do things. It takes money to make money. It takes more money to do more things. It takes money to provide jobs. When you take all that money away from the people who have it, they don't do things, they don't create jobs in the hopes of making more money. That being said, I believe the structure should as free as possible so anyone can use the value of their efforts, their ingenuity, their persistence, and the resources they have availible and create wealth from it. This wealth is then traded for money and the money creates jobs in some sort of way. In a cast system, If I understand it correctly, your have classes of people and those classes pretty much can't change around. For instance, a lower class person could obtain as much money as a wealthy class person, but he would never belong to the wealthy class of people.
In reality, I'm just acknowledging that the people with money have the means to the end. The government taking that means in hops of providing the ends somehow other then they would be, would create inefficiencies in the effectiveness of the money plus create a dependency on the government to continue to provide those ends. When they can't or stop doing it, it all falls apart. On the other hand, when a private citizen fails to provide those ends, a much smaller amount of people are effected and those people can either through transferring the value of their labor or ingenuity or connections to each other as a resource, step up and replace that private citizen or simply fill the needs of other private citizens in other industry.
I went a little into ideals there, but I hope I demonstrated what I think the differences are. It's easier said then done, especially when you have to spend 50k on an environmental impact statement, another 3-5k on licenses and permit fees, 50k on lawyers to make sure every T's are crosses and I's are dotted before you can even break ground and build a new business or modify an existing business to suit your needs.
I only meant to mention that in passing as an opposition to the idea that innovation creates jobs. Innovation really makes makes jobs easier or none existent, it makes products cheaper and profits higher. Unmolested by excessive regulation or poisoned by failing to enforce regulation while assuming your standards of living doesn't increase, it means you won't be working as hard to make the same living, it means that the barrier to entry in your own enterprise will be lower and you or anyone should be eventually able to create jobs by grasping opportunities presented by the innovation. However, there is and will be a lag of several years if not decades between the creation of jobs.
The end effect with real innovation is that you can live how you are today for less money. If I told your that your monthly budget expenses would be cut by 20 percent, would you care much if a rich person made 20 percent more or that the socio-economic mobility scale seems further down the road? When we talk about socio-economic mobility, we are really talking about disparages in wealth and income levels. What ends up missing from this is where you get the benefit of $100,000 increase in wages today with only an increase of 50, 60, 70, or 80 thousand dollars increase or possible no increase at all. The
I don't think I touched the science in this case other then the impossibility to test global warming by carbon alone. I argued a specific thing.
As for the science of global warming, yea, it's politically motivated, inaccurate, and most likely wrong because of it. Almost every time someone points to a "what about this", after months or years of fighting it, they find that they had to account for it. It happened for the solar output, water vapor, the oceanic decadal oscillations which seem to be connected to sun spot activity. Currently, there is a paper that can explain the observed warming by ocean surface temperature alone. We have had all the melting polar ice caps turn out to be drift on the sensors, not after begging people to explain how they were melting at the rate claimed when the air temp wasn't going about the freezing point, but after normal people used Google earth and asked how they can make the claims of disappearing Ice shelves when they are clearly visible in satellite imagery.
Face it, we just don't quite have it right yet. The science isn't settled. It is because of this massive politicizing of the situation that has caused it to be wrong and severely lacking.
You have to be careful about using home remedies, some of them can have worse side effects then others. Some can masque the severe symptoms of an illness making you think it is better without it actually being better. I will attempt to answer your other points and questions.
Well, there are a few generic medications that for whatever reasons, don't work quite as well as the brand names. I'm not sure how prevalent that might be nor do I know if extends outside the pyco active drugs.
However, I'm willing to bet that the conditions name the name brands in the treatment book I mentioned. It's probably one of those things where they just prescribe the name brand and don't even bother themselves with the details of generic drugs.
There was a doctor from Australia (I think) who discovered bacteria growing in the human stomach. He found that a combination of two drugs, an antacid and a powerful antibiotic killed the bacteria and this turned out to be a cure for the majority of ulcers out there. The problem is that no one would believe that something could live in the acid in the digestive system and it took a while before he could present it to anyone willing to verify the claims. Now, the test to see if you have an ulcer it actually more expensive then a run on the pills.
Anyways, the digestive system is a complex thing. That being said, I have to ask if vinegar will work for both conditions you mentioned and will it have the same effects on everyone? It would seem like it would work for one or the other, perhaps both, and perhaps in some cases neither. Drugs like Prilosec, Zantac, Tagamet, Mylanta, and other antacids which is commonly used to control upset stomachs, actually control or attempt to control the acid production and limit conditions that cause discomfort. That is how they used to treat ulcers that weren't chronic bleeders before they started adding antibiotics to the mix. In other words, is it safer to introduce acetic acid (vineger) in order to change the chemistry of the stomach or would it be better to control the acid output to begin with. Of course we have changed that chemistry with Calcium Carbonate and Magnesium hydroxide which are common ingredients in Rolaids and Tums antacids. I guess a question might be, what it so special about vinegar that other antacids that work in the same ways can't take care of? Vinegar can be dangerous to the body and even cause death if taken in excess, I don't think this little amount would approach that dangerous amount though.
I don't watch drug news so I'm not exactly sure what your talking about with all the hype. I do know that standard treatment is to increase Iron levels in the blood, to limit caffeine, alcohol and smoking, to check other drug interactions that may be causing it from the start. If those don't work, they look for oth
Honestly, that is exactly how the doc explained it to me. I thank you for the information you pointed me too. I think the docs actual words were something like the shots will relieve the pain, reduce the swelling, lube the joints and let the discs heal up. So he did mention inflammation and I'm pretty sure he said it would lube everything up and make my range of motion better but didn't want me to extend myself for a couple of months.
Anyways, I was providing anecdotal evidence to anecdotal evidence and what I have come to know from my own experience. I play stupid when I go to the docs. I ask a bunch of questions which I think everyone should, but it could be that in my playing stupid, the doc just dumbed the answer down so I could understand it.
I'm so afraid that I will end up convincing the docs into looking in the wrong direction or something. I mentioned being treated for sciatica instead of ruptured discs. I was in a lot of pain and attempted to more or less walk it off. I was focusing on the pain in my leg and the feelings of someone kicking me in the nuts when I stepped on my left foot. I guess that led them to miss the discs and do the sciatica thing. The pain in the back was short bursts of sharp pain that would last from a couple of seconds to a couple minutes at a time and once dropped me to my knees because I lost control of my legs. I don't know if I literally lost control or if the pain dropped me, I guess they were talking to me for about 45 seconds before I even realized it and don't exactly remember going down. This was just before I was referred to the specialist. I'm think I down played the pain because I didn't want to stop working and may have concentrated on the pain in the groin and the leg which they the original doctor off.
Now I just ask questions and make sure I can explain everything that's "wrong" and then ask them to explain why. But seeing how I'm not a doctor and don't plan on being one, I don't memorize the medical terms and such I think they dumb the answers down for me. I'm fine with that, but it seem that you are. I'm over it, I hope you can be too. I see this mistake as a minor error and still stand by what I posted. I was not however, attempting to pass myself off as a doctor or medical specialist.
There are a couple of issues with your complaints.
There are some types of injuries to the back that an X-ray will not show. Similarly, there are some back injuries where the initial discovery will (not can but will) mean that the sooner it's effectively treated, the better the chances for recovery and being absent of pain will be. Things like damaged discs won't show up in simple X-rays and the extent of the damage can be permanent if the disc starts healing improperly. Sometimes going for an MRI from the start, depending on the symptoms and stated causes, is the best approach because it will mean the best recovery. I myself suffer from scar tissue in a disc that gives me all sorts of hell and my specialist doctor told me if we caught it in time, it wouldn't be there. Instead, the original doctor treated a ruptured disc as Sciatica for 5 months before referring me to a specialist who then suspected it on the first examination but couldn't prove it without an MRI.
In this day and age, you should already know about weight and diet. Your general practitioner will have pamphlets all through his lobby on it, there are numerous PSA on TV and radio about it, you can't hardly go through a checkout line at the market without seeing something on a eating right to lower blood pressure and so on. Depending on the blood pressure at the time, controlling it with meds until a diet is established is probably better then telling you to stop eating salt. BTW, I know several people who having high blood pressure and diet changes were always part of their treatment. And yes, they take pills and went to different doctors.
This isn't as insidious as you might think. A doctor will want to see if the problem is what they think it is before treating you the wrong way. Ideally, an MRI would have been warranted but if you couldn't afford one, he had to go with other options. Cortisone shots don't fix anything, they just relieves the pain and lubricates the joints while your body heals itself. There could be a number of things that might be wrong in your leg, a torn tendon or ligament won't heal like a muscle will and you won't be able to tell (unless it's completely torn) without an MRI. Sometimes they have to go in and sew the thing back together, sometimes, they can heal on their own. What you got was a savings in payment but not fixed like you should have been.
BTW, there already is a sort of best practices book out there. It lists all the generally accepted treatments for a variety of injuries. It's the same book that the government uses for Medicare/medicade treatment, workers comp claims, and the insurance companies use it for treatments on claims with them. Hell, even the courts use it for allowing compensation for treatments. I forget the name of it, but I have heard it referred many times in the treatment for my back. Your doctor can't get your insurance to pay for anything that isn't listed with your diagnosis and often needs to get authorization. IF it's listed in the book, they can't deny it, if it isn't, you might need a hearing to get approval.