Lone Star

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'...

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

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: 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. 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/

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

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. 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. 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? 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! 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.

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 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. 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? 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. 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.

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"? 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. 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’…..

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! 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! 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.

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). 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’? 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….

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

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! 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… 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!

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'!

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.

This has got to be the most assinine statement I've ever heard in my life! 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 mysogynist, 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. I fail to see how this method of behavior proves ANYTHING. Wasn't Thomas Jefferson accused of being a racist simply because he was a slave owner? But yet, he supposedly slept with more than one of his female slaves. Did this absolve him from being a slave owner, and therefore negate the accusations of being a racist? I'm sure there were other slave owners that also took such liberties as well; does this mean that the whole concept of racism is non-existant, since white guys have been banging black women for ages? And before you pop off with 'Whitey was raping the slaves!', unless you have definative PROOF that these trysts weren't consentual, I suggest that you keep that 'knee-jerk reaction' to yourself. 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. My biggest question for Crotchity is this: Do you REALLY belive the garbage you spout on a regular basis, or do you just enjoy 'stirring the pot' and hope that no one gets mad enough to want to kick your teeth in?

Nah, we all know that 'company based education' only serves to protect and promulgate 'the company way'....roflmao

I SERIOUSLY doubt that any "covered entity" is 'transmitting health information in connection with transactions' on ANY form of 'electronic social media' (i.e. facebook, myspace, twitter, youtube, etc) There's no need to be 'intentionally obtuse'!

This video was shot in New Orleans as a TSA agent pats down a 6 year old little girl. Needless to say, it's caused quite the stir online. The video has gone viral, and the parents are claiming that the patdown amounted to nothing more than a 'grope session'. Is TSA taking this too far? If TSA IS taking this 'too far', what would you suggest as a logical option/remedy?

Best of luck, Bieber. If your postings here are any indication of what you showed them during the interview; you're a 'shoe-in' for the spot! Being part of the 'Third Shift Goon Squad' isn't as bad as it sounds, the only 'drawback' to working nights on an extended schedule, is that you'll begin to fear the sunlight. Relax, it only hurts for a minute. ROFLMAO I recently had to schedule 5 shifts to 'ride along' for the start of my clinical rotations. I picked Friday nights, 1900-0700, simply because of the fact of dealing with the drunks and the 'bar rush'. I may have to 'reschedule' at least one shift because I'm required to do at least one shift in 'rural America'....

As TCripp stated, HIPAA prevents you from yapping about your patient to every Joe Schmoe and John Q. Public, but relating this information to the floor nurse, physician, or even protective services would fall under 'continuum of care', since he/she was your patient, and he/she DID personally turn to you and let you know of his/her depressed state. I would feel that there was a duty to act, and by passing on the information to those that are directly involved in his/her day to day care is only being an advocate for this patient. Also as '93 said, those that are serious about 'giving up' are the ones that won't say anything until it's too late to do anything to prevent/stop them.