Lone Star

After pulling two clinical rotations over the weekend (Friday and Saturday nights), I'm sitting here filling out the required paperwork for my instructor. Part of the packet must be filled out by the preceptor and part of it must be filled out by the student. The preceptor evaluates the student, and the student evaluates the preceptor. I find that I'm having some difficulty filling out a critique form for one of the preceptors.

There were things that I witnessed that strikes me as just plain 'wrong', but since one of the preceptors over the weekend is also an adjunct instructor for my class, I'm worried that if I give less than a 'glowing evaluation', I'll be left holding the dirtiest end of the proverbial 'shit stick'.

Knowing my instructor, I know that if I take my concerns to him, he will have a chat with the preceptor/adjunct instructor and I'll end up back on that dirty end again.

I also know that I'm supposed to fill out all the paperwork for my clinicals, but I really don't need to be dodging the retribution bullet for the rest of my class (I've still got a year to go).

This one has me in a real bind. My concience is telling me to slap the bull and the horns be damned.....but my logical side is telling me that if I say anything, I'll be committing 'educational suicide'.....

I live, and have been living all my life, in the Belle Harbor section of the Rockaway Peninsula area of Queens County, New York City, New York State, United States of America, North American Continent, Planet Earth, third planet orbiting the star known as Sol, in the Milky Way Galaxy. With that pinpointing, if you cannot find me, you're so lost!

My 7th grade Geography teacher would have a fit because you left out which hemisphere you reside in......lol

I work in Detroit, and no one around here is issued, or wears body armor (that I've seen).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When I was stationed in Highland Park, had a partner who lived in Mt. Clemens come in wearing body armor. I couldn't ever afford it....

I have to agree with Dust on this one, those things are hideous and there's nothing 'professional looking' about them. Even the shirts that appear to be 'button downs' with the hidden zipper look far better than those!

And if you're cold, try putting a jacket on, or wearing thermals under your uniform...

Next question: DKA is a fairly common condition that we run across. It produces a special kind of metabolic acidosis called an anion gap acidosis. Can someone tell us about DKA and how exactly it produces an anion gap acidosis (and what that is exactly!).

DKA

What I know about DKA:

Diabetic Ketoacidosis is a result of the body metabolizing fat stores instead of glucose for energy. This occurs because there isn't sufficient glucose stores, or the body isn't producing enough insulin. By metabolizing the fat (I believe this anerobic metabolism), it produces lactic acid.

Because the body isn't using the glucose stores (as in Type I diabetes), one of the signs is polyuria, leading to dehydration. Because of the dehydration, bicarbonate levels are low in the blood. This increases the acidity levels of the blood, and because of the volume drop (dehydration); sodium levels are elevated. This diffference between the cations (positive ions) and the low bicarbonate levels (one of the body's "buffer systems") produces the anion gap.

What I've learned:

While I don't fully understand lab values and osmolarity, I did learn that DKA treatments by using sodium bicarbonate is highly controversial as a treatment. I've also learned that it affects the immune system, and the DKA patient is highly susceptible to infections.

I found an article here that does a pretty good job of trying to explain it to dummies like me!

Can someone explain the actions of the heart during each segment of the EKG cycle?

A sea burial is entirely appropriate as no nation would want the body on their land lest it become a permanent shrine, tribute, whatever and cause way more problems than ever imagined.

It is much easier to dispose of the body where no official burial place can be recognized.

Will shrines be built, yes, but officially they will be nothing...which is what is needed.

Did we really toss the body overboard...I doubt it but I fully support the "official body dumping" into the sea.

I disagree, there should be a shrine/memorial for Bin Laden.. it should be a public toilet at concert.

Yeah, clearly some of those things are ‘weapons of ASS DESTRUCTION’!!

I'm personally going to keep my reaction 'guarded' until I see actual photographic PROOF that Osama bin Laden is dead. After all, they've allegedly killed Ayman al-Zawahiri more than once, and he's STILL alive!

I'm also going to keep a sharp eye out for 'retribution attacks'; this isn't going to bode well knowing the vengeful nature of al Qaeda!

Hi ya'll, I'm new to this site and the EMS life lol, I am currently in the application process to become an EMT. I'm waiting on my background check and it's killing me! I just want the next step to start! Here's where I need some help; I find it kinda nerve racking to just go to the fire house and hang with the other volunteers. I don't want to be a pest or in the way, but at the same time by not going will they think im not interested or committed? I'm hoping to get some advice on things to do until the next step happens. Like books to read, ways to show them im serious about becoming an EMT, and just hanging out with other EMT's/ Fire Fighters I will be working with lol Thanks and I hope you have a beautiful day!

As far as hanging out with the Firefighters/EMT's that you would be working with to prove your seriousness and dedication....would you hang out at the local assembly plant and hang out with all the 'line rats' while you were waiting on them to complete whatever background checks and such?

If you're looking for books to read while you wait, I suggest "Human Anatomy and Physiology" by Marieb. If nothing else, it's good educational material for when you either get hired or continue to move up the EMS 'food chain'...

Just because the Courts views it as lawful or something just. As citizens we can not disagree? Quoting that the USSC Ruled it; is irrelevant to the Court of Public Opinion. We are members of this unsanctioned Court. All of us have that voice; that opinion; it maybe not be mainstream but it is still an opinion. Our opinions stem from our values, our core beliefs, & our experiences. Many of you agree with the USSC; that porn (happy; it's has been lower cased) is a right of an individual to view in the Public Library. Some do not. Just because it's lawful doesn't necessarily mean it's right.

I've taken the liberty to bold a couple things in the above post. The whole point is this: we may all be members of the Court of Public Opinion, but to date, it IS an 'unsanctioned court', therefore you can bitch all you want...it's not going to change a thing! Any 'ruling' from the Court of public Opinion may be supported by members of the general public, but unlike the U.S. Supreme Court, it has no power, therefore any 'ruling' it (the Court of Public Opinion) may hand down is irrelevant!

The next logical question has got to be, "Why do you keep insisting that your personal values and morals should usurp constitutional law?".

Ultimately, the end result is this: If nudity (regardless of WHERE it's viewed) offends you, then by all means exercise your right to not view it! Your argument is falling apart fast, and it appears that you're trying to grasp at straws to try to save your sinking ship....(which is why you're clouding the conversation by drawing imaginary corollaries between the 'porn issue' and the actions of that former chief).

*edited to correct spelling error

So we're defending PORN in the Library as a 1st Amendment Right.

http://www.emsworld.com/article/article.jsp?id=16924&siteSection=1

Then what's the difference in this case?

Are you asking this question because you seriously cannot figure it out, or are you just lashing out because you got checked to the boards in Act I of this thread?

Obviously, we’ve established that what you’re attempting to define as ‘pornography’ is protected as free speech by the U.S. Supreme Court and that it IS legal to view not only in public libraries, but pretty much in public.

What this guy is charged with is called harassment. It could further be included in the definition of sexual harassment, both of which are illegal.

The legal definition of harassment is as follows:

Harassment is governed by state laws, which vary by state, but is generally defined as a course of conduct which annoys, threatens, intimidates, alarms, or puts a person in fear of their safety. Harassment is unwanted, unwelcomed and uninvited behavior that demeans, threatens or offends the victim and results in a hostile environment for the victim. Harassing behavior may include, but is not limited to, epithets, derogatory comments or slurs and lewd propositions, assault, impeding or blocking movement, offensive touching or any physical interference with normal work or movement, and visual insults, such as derogatory posters or cartoons.¹

Based on the allegations in the article, one would think that this guy would have realized that his behavior is unacceptable and therefore would amend such behaviors before they get him into more trouble; obviously that isn’t the case here.

I’m curious as to why you’re implying that these two examples are even remotely related. The implied corollary is that since pornography in public is protected as ‘free speech’, then what this guy is charged with should be protected as a demonstration of free speech. Unfortunately (at least for him) what he’s done is considered a criminal act, and there is no precedence of the U.S. constitution protecting criminal activities.

Why do you capitalize porn?

And if you can't see the difference between defending a persons right to free speech and equal access to information whether or not one can afford a home computer, and another hosemonkey being inappropriate and unprofessional while on duty, then you just simply don't have the intellect to understand this discussion I'm afraid.

And yes, that is a serious comment, not an attempt to insult you for sport....though these types of posts make the latter so very tempting....

Dwayne

I have to agree, it's very tempting to deliver a 'Gibbs slap to the back of the head' just to get him to start thinking....(blatant and shameless NCIS plug)

1. http://definitions.uslegal.com/h/harassment/

Just a general question for anyone who has a straight forward answer about those who live with adult ADHD. The question is for all EMS who can share a few things on either how/if you address the issue and ways to use it in a positive way.

Also leave a comment on what it means to be in the same room with an obvious ADHD person.

I just feel uncomfortable in EMT because i always HAVE to be doing something... or making noise... and i can't help but feel that people just hate ADHD. They think "it's just another excuse for being annoying" (quoted by a fellow student) . But in reality, i try harder (and apparently fail) at NOT being annoying...

Thank you

joe

First off, are you being treated for ADHD? Are you being medicated, if so what meds and what is the dosage? Have you spoken to your primary care physician about this? If you are taking meds, how do they affect you, (do they 'amp you up', or do they slow you down?)?

Always having to do something doesn't mean that it HAS to make noise while doing it... there are other outlets that are less annoying to your fellow crewmembers. For example, if you're playing video games while they're trying to rest, use a headset...

LS

This is your question: Since you're so keen on those particular social values, and that way of life; let me ask you this in all seriousness….if your wife/girlfriend/significant other gets a little bit 'mouthy', do you crack them in the teeth to show them the 'errors of their ways'? If not, then please explain why not; after all, it was ACCEPTABLE ‘back then’…..

How should I take a statement such as this? It's a direct question, asked in "all seriousness."

I’m not one to beat around the bush on something that I seriously want to say (I would have thought that would be fairly evident by now). If I HAD wanted to imply or infer that you actually committed acts like this, I would have come right out and said it. I used the phrase “in all seriousness” to highlight the example. Furthermore, if I HAD been attempting to imply or infer that you DID that, I wouldn’t have left you an ‘out’ or a chance to explain your position.

So it's all or nothing? Jim Crowe, no women's rights- there was nothing good about society, and it's all lumped together? I think you know better than that. Solid work ethic? Manners? Common courtesy? Decorum? Standards of behavior? Appropriate public conduct? I'm anxious to return to a time when it was OK to label aberrant behavior as such, when God or religion were not four letter words, when teachers were tasked with teaching instead of being surrogate parents, when a parent was responsible for raising their kids, not the government, a village, or the taxpayers.

You are the one that wanted to revert back to that time period, not ME! I really don’t need a history lesson on what the mentality was back then. I’m well aware of the mindset of that era entailed. It seems that for every positive value, there were at least as many (if not more) negative values.

Clearly you did not read the definition I posted of pornography.

BTW- a USSC ruling depends on the composition of the bench at the time of that ruling. Their ruling only means it's their interpretation of the Constitution, and highly dependent on the political ideas of the sitting justices. In other words, depending on the prevailing political winds, the same issue before the USSC could result in 2 very different outcomes, depending on the composition of the courts. It means it's the opinion of the USSC, not necessarily of the majority of the people. Subtle, but important distinction. Think Roe v Wade. The debate rages on decades later- despite USSC rulings. (Just for the record here, I am pro choice) Think the Death Penalty.

I read your definition, and looked at several other sources for their definition as well. Unfortunately, if a Supreme Court Justice cannot define pornography any better than what Justice Potter Stewart did, how can you expect to be able to nail down a ‘rock solid definition’? Aside from shouting “FIRE!” in a crowded theater, inciting to riot, causing libel or slander, or otherwise defaming someone, the interpretation of the first amendment has fundamentally been unchanged. Roe v. Wade has been held inviolate since the ruling was first handed down, despite how violent the pro-choice/pro-life war has gotten. Even capital punishment has been deemed constitutional, despite all the protesting of its opponents. There will always be someone somewhere that doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court’s rulings, but the point is moot. The Supreme Court has ruled, that’s the way it’s going to be.

You mention abortion and capital punishment; have you noticed that when those two subjects come before the Supreme Court, that there are one or more that will abstain from offering an opinion on the subject? Could it be that they realize that even though they don’t agree with the topic, that their opinion on the matter would be based more on their personal morals and values than on the letter of the law?

I disagree with the celebrity opinions on the gun control issue, but I do take notice that their arguments DO remain the same. Same with me- I can wholeheartedly disagree with how lax our societal standards have become, and regardless of how the laws may change, I take heart in knowing that my opinion is not from a lunatic fringe. Estimates say that 20% of our country identify with a liberal ideology, and around 40% say they are conservative. Funny, but our policies have actually become more liberal, despite the fact that twice as many folks disagree with that ideology. In other words, a vocal minority is driving our policies. But I digress- but only slightly.

Societal change is inevitable and necessary for the evolution of that society, and its members. I don’t fully agree with every change, but as long as the foundations of those changes are supported by law and they do not infringe upon the rights/freedoms/liberties guaranteed by the U.S. constitution, tilting at windmills isn’t going to change a damn thing.

Yes, society in general has become more accepting of certain things, but they’ve become far less tolerant of others. No, change isn’t always a ‘good thing’, but change is necessary in order for the society to grow. Since the political views, social norms and personal morals/values/beliefs cover a wide spectrum, not everyone is going to be behind any one topic. Hell, most people who rally against politics, Supreme Court rulings and the actions of our elected officials haven’t even taken the time or initiative to get off their duff and vote in the first place! There are a large number of ‘protesters’ against the actions of the military, but yet couldn’t be bothered to serve a DAY in uniform, or in defense of this country! It’s far too easy to sit back and bitch than it is to stand up and do SOEMETHING to change what they don’t like!

I can only hope we return to more traditional social values. What about all the post 9/11 issues related to travel? The Patriot Act? Are you in favor of these things, which many believe infringed on our Constitutional rights?

If you feel that your constitutional rights have been violated, it’s up to YOU to gather the facts necessary to prove and defend your position. In this thread however, you have espoused your personal views, values and moralistic objections; but have offered little in the way of cold, hard FACTS to support your position. In no way am I belittling your stance, I just expected more than a ‘knee-jerk reaction’….

The bottom line is, even though you're offended by the topic and the outcome of that article, there's little you can do about it. Yes, patrons of the NY Public Library system STILL have the right to view images that you consider pornography, and it's STILL protected by the first amendment.

I meant to write, "Horrible act anywhere but there?"

Apologies...

You're still implying that Egyptians condone this behavior. Nowhere in that article have I seen ANY shred of evidence that supports this claim.

I seriously hope you are not suggesting this behavior is something I condone or engage in. I'm not liking the tone or insinuation in that last passage.

I neither insinuated nor implied anything. You're so anxious to return to the 'value system' of the 1950's, so let's look at that 'value system' and all its dirty little nuances. After all, you cannot advocate the return of those values without fully understanding ALL of the 'values' that you're embracing.

Read the definition of pornography. The term never existed before the mid 1800's, and It certainly does not apply to classical art. We have no way of knowing the intent of the artists who made those nude paintings and sculptors, nor do we really know how their work was perceived by their peers.

So it has to be deemed ‘disgusting’ through ‘peer review’? Do you think Larry Flynt (Publisher of Hustler Magazine) looks at Playboy and tells everyone that Hugh Hefner has crossed the line of ‘good taste’? Do you think Renoir, Monet, Van Gogh, et al looked at some woman and thought to himself, “I want to capture her beauty to show future generations!”; or do you think he might have been using his skill as an artist to get some woman naked?

The definition of militia was one of the main legal arguments about whether or not gun bans violated the 2nd amendment. The issue certainly did gain traction with the anti-gun left, which actually proves my previous point. Do you really think the views expressed by the celebrities you mentioned are representative of most Americans, or those of a vocal minority?

Regardless. Did that deter the anti-gun crowd, or are they still making the same arguments? Did they simply accept the USSC ruling?

Actually, the legal argument involving the definition of militia was used to SUPPORT gun bans, not to see if they violated the second amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the posession of firearms is an individual right, not one exclusively held by militias. As far as the views expressed by the listed celebrities and those not listed seem to have resonating effects with a good portion of Americans, otherwise the ‘Million Mom March’ wouldn’t have been as successful as it was.

No, they have NOT been detered. They’re still making the same arguments.

Call me narrow minded, a prude, paranoid- a right wing lunatic, a throwback- whatever label you wish. Guess what? I still believe there is NO REASON why we should allow pornography in a public library where children are present. None.

Unfortunately, the constitution of the United States and the opinion of the United States Supreme Court states that while you feel your beliefs are valid, they however do not have the support of the legal system.

Let's try a different tactic here. Think back on what was considered to be offensive over the years. Let's keep it simple- just the past 100 years or so. Think about what was deemed acceptable vs offensive or vulgar, and compare it to today. Think about what we would tolerate on TV, on the radio, in print, and in the movies. Think about societal standards for conversations and personal interactions.

Look at how things that were considered ‘offensive and vulgar’ back then were handled as well. Look again at “Catcher in the Rye”. It was considered too risqué and vulgar for children, yet it was given as a book for required reading. The response it got was all the copies were pulled from the school, and burned. Now look at the uproar that was going on when the Westboro Baptist Church proposed burning the Quran in protest for the Muslim Center being placed too close to the site of the Twin Towers. Is this an acceptable ‘throwback to days gone by’?

Maybe we should also ban works of art by Monet, Michalangelo, Van Gogh, da Vinci, Picasso, Rembrandt, et al simply because they went through a period of painting nudes! Some of those could also be constrewed as 'vulgar' because they could be interpreted as 'sexual images'...again, just where are you willing to draw the line between 'good nudity' and 'bad nudity'? Or is it simply 'acceptable' because those images hang in a museum and are called 'masterpieces', as opposed to being viewed in some mass produced 'offensive magazine' like "Hustler", "Playboy", "Penthouse"?

My point is, just because something is pervasive does not mean it's a good thing, or that we should simply adopt it as the new "norm". The Constitution has not changed over all these years, but our interpretation of it certainly has. Think about gun laws. Think about how our views on gun ownership have evolved. Has the 2nd amendment changed, or have we changed in our interpretation of it? Guns are actually banned in many places based in large part on our current interpretation of what defines a militia.

Actually, the pervasive attitude on guns ISN’T from the interpretation of what defines a militia. It’s due in part to the overabundance of the ‘anti-gun crowd’ like Ellen deGeneres, Rosie O’Donnell, Sarah Brady, Oprah Winfrey and others; along with the multitude of lawsuits suing the gun manufacturers because their product was used to kill another human being.

The U.S. Supreme Court actually ruled in favor of the second amendment and upheld the interpretation that gun ownership was in fact, a personal right…not one solely reserved for militias.

Saying that someone has the "right" to view pornography in a public library? How well do you think that would have gone over back in the 50's?

Since we’re now 60 years past that time frame, there’s no need to continue with the narrow-mindedness that was ever pervasive at that time. We (hopefully) have ‘moved on’ from that mindset and advanced as a civilized population. Maybe we should start hunting for the ‘red menace’, the ‘yellow hordes’ and rounding up everyone that we can think of and label them as ‘subversives’?

Since you’re so keen on those particular social values, and that way of life; let me ask you this in all seriousness….if your wife/girlfriend/significant other gets a little bit ‘mouthy’, do you crack them in the teeth to show them the ‘errors of their ways’? If not, then please explain why not; after all, it was ACCEPTABLE ‘back then’…..

Lone, I'm not forcing my morals on you so I don't expect you to force your morals or values on me or my children. I never said that this stuff needed to be banned from the library, i said I didnt think it should be there but I do not believe that it should be banned. It's first amendment rights and I would never want to give that right away. REmember, once we start to give away rights we find it very very hard to get those rights back.

Ruff,

I believe sir, that we have a miscommunication error here. I didn't mean to imply that you were forcing anything on me. I asked that question to illustrate my point about 'it takes a village to raise a child'.

From discussions on the many subjects that we've covered, I'm convinced that you, Dwayne and others are excellent parents. That being said, I'm also convinced that when it comes to 'the village' forcing their morals and values on your children, you and the other parents wouldn't hesitate to put an end to it.

I agree with your assessment of giving up rights and not being able to get them back once they've been stripped away.

Wasn't it Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who said "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"?

This is a poor litmus test on porn or any other 'offensive material'!

The point of comparing internet porn to the classic paintings and statuary was to show how this whole mess can escalate out of control, and once we start down this road, it may be difficult to impossible to put the brakes on it. You start by banning access in public to internet nudity, then you have to include “Venus de Milo” and Michelangelo's “David”. Once that starts, just where do you draw the line as to what is ‘bad nudity’ and ‘good nudity’?

The reason that this is a RIGHT is because I and many others like me have stood at the door, ready to lay our lives on the line to protect “The parchment paper with the Old Engrish and fancy writing said so.”(sic). I’ve also stood to protect your right to complain about things that you don’t particularly like.

Once we sart changing the content and context of the constitution, we’ve resigned ourselves to giving up any and ALL freedoms that it contains.

As far as I’m concerned, the rights that are laid out in that document are inviolate and absolute. This means that when you take a stance on trying to limit freedom of speech, you are essentially violating the very rights that I was prepared to die to protect.

Last I checked, ‘whipping it out and rubbing one off in public’ is against the law. If a person is that ‘hard up’ and has no compunction against it, they DESERVE to be arrested.

The whole point here seems to be that you’re trying to protect these children from the dirty underbelly of society. Unfortunately, if you protect them too much, they won’t be able to function in the ‘real world’ where they’re exposed to it on a daily basis.

The whole concept of “It takes a village” is pure bunk! It takes two parents that actually give a damn to raise these children. Because of the former mentality, this is why we’re expecting teachers, principals and other school officials to turn out functional members of society; and are sorely disappointed when they don’t or cannot. It’s time we stop relying on ‘the village’ and step up as concerned involved parents!

I'll take my chances. If some pervert is doing this around my kids, the FCC and ICC will be the least of his worries.

It isn’t the guy at the library that has to worry about the FCC and the ICC, its YOU! Not to mention violating his civil rights as well!

I prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to kids. If a parent thinks it's perfectly acceptable for their kids to see internet porn, they can buy them an online subscription to Boobs R Us, or something similar. As disgusting as it may seem to most folks, they ARE the parents. We cannot control that, but it seems to me that protecting kids in a public library is a no-brainer.

Who are you to usurp the authority of the parents of ‘that other kid’ in the first place? How are your morals and values more important than theirs?

I noticed that when Ruff and Dwayne chimed in, they spoke for their children only, not every kid that’s out wandering the streets and hanging out at the library unsupervised.

The whole point here is this: if it’s legal, (I.e.: not prohibited by law, such as beastiality, child pornography, necrophilia) and is protected under freedom of speech; there is NO reason why it cannot be viewed in public. It violates no laws, and isn’t really hurting anyone. No one is going to start spontaneously bleeding from wounds that are inflicted by some guy (or gal) looking at a nice pair of tits on a computer screen! OK, your sensibilities may have been insulted, and your personal moals and values may have taken a bruise…but seriously, how many deaths has looking at naked people online in public REALLY caused?

Herbie, while your intentions may be noble, you deciding what children other than your own should or shouldn't see is nothing more than dictatorial censorship. Look at the brouhaha that erupted when Newt Gingrich tried to cut funding for public television because he believed that the "Teletubbies" were exposing children to homosexual propaganda. Look at the push by the 'Million Mom March' to try to ban firearms in deference to the second amendment...

Ruff, Dwayne, (and any other parents reading this):

Just how long will you let me force my morals and values on your children, before you punch me in the face and tell me that I've stepped on your toes long enough?

*Edited to correct grammatical and spelling errors.

We're talking about Constitutional Rights, right? Apparently, we can do what we want; regardless. The parchment paper with the Old Engrish and fancy writing said so.

I'm having EMS Week at the local Library: Porn and Guns. Plz RSVP....

With my concealed pistol license, I just might have a gun in the library...and yes, it IS legal!

If you're referring to pictures and other images of the naked female form as 'porn', then you're on a mission to close or censor 7/11, the local art museum, and any other place that this 'porn' is viewed, sold or otherwise purveyed.

Now that you've eliminated the kid’s access to the 'evil porn', (outside of subscriptions and 'adult bookstores'), what's next? Are we going to have public book burnings? Has "Catcher in the Rye" been put back on the 'torch list'?

Once you start down this road, you're not only violating the first amendment rights of companies like Playboy, Penthouse and others; you're also now interfering with interstate commerce (which I believe is a federal offense).

I guess we hang around in different circles. The vast majority of people I know would never think it's a good thing to allow someone to check out porn at a public library. In fact, I submit that most people would agree with this and 99% of them would have no fear that our entire society would crumble and we would become a military dictatorship. It's not censorship, it's common decency.

Look at some of the ‘offensive stuff’ that has been deemed ‘art’ and funded by federal money from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA)…

Should we start banning works by Édouard Manet, or Picasso simply because of the fact that the nudity involved in their paintings? What about the other ‘classics’?

Maybe we should start banning access to images like this, based simply on the medium used?

Where do you draw the lines on what is ‘allowable’ and what isn’t?

Furthermore, how is it NOT ‘censorship’ when you’re stifling the ‘creative processes of one or more simply because your personal morals are ‘offended’? Isn’t that what censorship is?

How arrogant is it to presume that YOUR morals and beliefs are the ONLY ones that are ‘just and right’ while everyone else’s is ‘warped and wrong’?

Agreed about the Starbucks comparison-it was stupid. Blame it on fatigue- long shift yesterday.

I will reiterate that if my kids are in a public library, and they tell me there's some pervert surfing porn while they are there, I WILL be paying visit to that library and explain to him my "right" to make it difficult for him to continue surfing the web.

You don’t have the ‘right’ to interfere, and your actions COULD find you not only in criminal court (for assaulting the library patron), but you COULD find yourself facing federal charges as well! Look at the federal charges that have been levied against hackers for violation of (I believe) FCC and ICC laws….

Besides, when you start tweaking individual Constitutionally protected rights, who's to say something you like won't be next on the chopping block because somebody else didn't like it?

Well, there goes the right to watch Barry Manilow clips on youtube....

Since I’m attending a college where whites appear to be a minority, I’m thinking of presenting this to a group of people on Monday. If nothing else, it will start an interesting conversation at the smoking gazebo…

Just by bringing this up to your black smoking buddies mkes you racist because you are white. If you were black then it wouldn't be racist.

Well, I've presented this enigma to 3 different groups of mixed company. After explaining this in as much detail as I could, I presented 'the test' to them. Surprisingly, not one person agreed with this 'test' proving ANYTHING other than what a PIG the person who's intention is to 'conquer their racist tendencies' by sleeping with someone of a different race really is.

I’ve attempted to reply to this post several times. Each time I try, it ends up sounding like an abusive rant, which is NOT what I intended.

After reading the article, it seems that no matter which way management goes, someone is going to get pissed off. But in the grand scheme of things, it’s only copasetic if minorities are promoted over whites simply based on ethnicity. Whatever happened to promotions based on things like QUALIFICATIONS?

It’s been said many times that standardized testing is slanted against blacks. Crotchity has made the statement that blacks don’t know what a saucer is because of cultural differences. Here’s MY take on it…

It seems that rather than fight against “conforming to Whitey’s educational system”, far too much effort devising ‘separate language skills’ (i.e.: ‘black English’ and ‘Ebonics’).

Common logic would dictate that once a deficit is noted, those who are deficient would strive to better themselves rather than demand that the bar for excellence be lowered. The only way that ‘lowering the bar’ levels the playing field is by simply creating a generation that is less educated than the one before it! Yes, we have more technology at our disposal, but personal intelligence has been proven time and time again to be on the decline.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2010/section3/table-sde-1.asp

Based on the table provided, out of the 3 highest groups of dropouts, only 2 of those groups are crying ‘foul’ when it comes to standard testing and discrimination when it comes to advancements based on qualifications and knowledge alone. Rather than continue basing advancement on entitlements because of ethnicity or a community’s ‘social make-up’, we MUST work together to hold those groups that are deficient to higher standards, thereby creating a more level playing field for all. We’ve all had our difficulties in school, but those that have attained the end result of graduation should NOT be penalized for staying the course!

I like how Ruff saw the need to cover his tracks and protect his reputation by ending his quote with, I havent slept with any of the above, which is kind of the point. You are not what you say you are, you are not what you hope to be, YOU ARE WHAT YOU DO. And when you choose to not date a race of people, it shows how racist you are.

And we all see how you fail to defend your positions with something called FACTS! It seems that you only come to the forums to see how much shit you can stir up, and then when you've created mayhem and chaos, you magically 'disappear' to watch the festivities without ever facing the firestorm you've created.

Your actions are reprehensible at best, and it negates your ability to pass judgment on those who have a different perspective than your own.

It's people like you that have an uncanny ability to negate any and all progress toward racial harmony in a matter of a few lines in an internet forum!

And you sit back and wonder why terms like 'troll', 'hypocrite’ are used to describe you…

as long as it is against someone white, it is all good.

So you’re actually ADVOCATING racism, just as long as it never gets pointed back to your particular in-group? So sorry to inform you, but you CANNOT have ‘racial equality’ while still advocating racism, elitism, separatism (which amounts to nothing more than modified segregation), or any other form of ‘it only applies if it benefits us’ mode of thinking!

Most everyone in this room is racist, but can't admit it. Here is a little self-test that I have mentioned several times, but cant get anyone to fess up to. To see if you are racist, ask this question to yourself: If I am white, have i ever dated or made love to an african american ? If you are african american, have I ever dated or made love to a white person ? If the answer is no, you are a racist. Even if you are non-racist enough to have done the deed, you would never admit it in this forum for fear of how you will be judged ? Which may make you more racist than the person that never has.

By Crotchity's logic, if I go out and bang some black woman, I'll PROVE that I'm not a racist. Seems to me that in the process of proving that I'm not a racist, I've become a misogynist, and can STILL be accused of being a racist simply because I've used an innocent black woman for nothing more than to 'conquer' my racist tendencies.

Rather than solve anything, it appears that his 'test' only creates more opportunity for me to be treated as a pariah, and castigated for my insensitivity.

I had to go to the local cable provider's office to return some equipment on Thursday. The Customer Service Representative that I spoke to turned out to be a very attractive 20-something black woman. As part of the conversation, I had inquired about a local interruption in service the night before. After she apologized for any inconvenience that it might have caused, I explained to her that I was in the middle of replying to the most inane statement that I'd ever heard in my life.

Partly due to the confused look on her face, and partly in my eternal quest for knowledge and understanding, I explained the ‘test’ that Crotchity has posed. I also went on to give her my impression of the test, and its potential outcome.

After I explained the ‘test’, she rolled her eyes and burst out laughing. When I related what I had posted, she not only agreed with it, but also agreed that the ‘test’ is the biggest steaming load of the final stage of nutrient ingestion she’s ever heard!

Since I’m attending a college where whites appear to be a minority, I’m thinking of presenting this to a group of people on Monday. If nothing else, it will start an interesting conversation at the smoking gazebo…..

ColinW,

You've no doubt heard the expression, "Perception is reality"; especially when dealing with the pediatric patient. Unfortunately, this concept also applies to the general public's impression of EMS. One chucklehead with a poor attitude, bad driving skills, etc; and the whole EMS system in that area (if not ALL EMS systems) is branded by that chucklehead's behavior.

You, as a student MUST take this to your instructor. I'm sure that the habits and attitude of this preceptor is NOT what his/her students should be exposed to. It doesn't matter if "that's the way he is", or "That's what he's always done".

I had a similar experience with a medic preceptor, who made it VERY clear that he and the instructor were 'great friends'. He spent the whole shift with his 'paragod attitude' and letting me know that as an EMT-I, I was 'beneath him', and spent the shift talking down to me and busting my chops every chance he got.

With him making it clear that he was 'great friends' with the instructor made it very difficult to report this guy. My medic instructor made it VERY clear that if there are 'problems' that we MUST bring it to him so that he can evaluate the medic's behavior and see if thats the type of preceptor he wants for his students.

It's far too easy to dismiss this as a 'one time only' situation, but ultimately if you DON'T say something, you're only cheating yourself in your education. Be 'proactive'!

Point of Order!!!

Thomas Jefferson WAS a slave owner, and was, if I recall my readings (which I am unable to document at this time), wanting to extend the Declaration of Independance to include Negro slaves, but was coerced by those from "slave" states, as they viewed it as stealing their farm and house "laborers".

Historians and medical scientists have proven Jefferson did have sex with at least one of the slave women, but the attitude of the times was, slaves were property, and owners could do what they wanted with them.

Your Point of Order has been acknowledged. While it supports my contention, there were no 'conditions' placed on the 'test'. Crotchity simply stated that to prove that one is not a racist, one must have slept with someone of another race (i.e.: a white man with a black woman). Since President Jefferson did in fact sleep with a black woman, he must not have been a racist. This brings me back to the question posed: Since President Jefferson had slept with a black woman, does this negate the allegation that he was in fact a racist because he was a slave owner? The fact that slaves were kept as 'property' isn't relevant to the test that Crotchity posed, only that President Jefferson slept with a black woman.