Please consider submitting this wonderful 5Cs award winning work to the new DeeZ 5Cs Award Showcase Group HERE
Sheer perfection! Love the darkness surrounding the rose and the touches of light. Congratulations on your feature in Fabulous Flowers – FAVE:>)
Why not have a look at the other featurees “here”:http://www.redbubble.com/groups/bicolor-beautie...
Congratulations with your latest win of this lovely work! You are entitled to enter it in the Prima Challenge #020.
Artist Trudy Golley constructs ceramic forms that capture, obstruct, transmit, and redirect light in order to exploit its many qualities. Working with new materials and technical processes, her recent works produce lustrous surfaces and create light and shadow that extend beyond the pieces. Viewers will experience a sense of discovery while exploring the notions of conceptual and intellectual illumination.
Inducted into the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts in 2002, she is the recipient of grants from the Canada Council, Manitoba Arts Council and Alberta Foundation for the Arts. Her work is represented in numerous public and private collections in Canada, China, Denmark and Australia. Trudy has taught Ceramics in the Visual Art Department at Red Deer College since 2000.
First Image: Detail of Great Wave, 2010, 2010.034.001, artist Trudy Golley. Collection of the Alberta Foundation for the Arts.
Each move would be consistent to the ingame mechanics, i.e. thunder (or the other 5 pp moves like it) would be powerful but less accurate, and usable less often than something weaker but with 20 pp. Any move, not just an attack. I think I would choose agility, or perhaps double team.
Noticed last Sunday that Denna's poop was a little runny and super smelly. I waited until the next time I could take her to the vet which was yesterday. Turned out that she had a bad case of pinworms, but otherwise she's healthy and "spunky" as the vet called her. I bleached her cage, tile, and all of her furniture yesterday and rinsed it really well. Is there anything else you guys think I should do?
Did the vet prescribe meds for Denna? While she is taking them, you might consider giving probiotics. You might find this helpful. You will want to disinfect everything regularly while she is being treated. :)
She wasn't prescribed any medicine, I just have to go back once every 2 weeks for a deworming treatment. Should I give probiotics for that?
It is a good idea to give the probiotics along with the deworming treatment - it will help to prevent appetite issues, which are fairly common during parasite treatment.
Acidophiliz+ is the probiotic that is generally used for beardies. Since Denna is getting doses two weeks apart, you could give her the probiotics during the day (at least 6 hours before her lights go out). I would continue giving them for a week after her last dewormer dose, or longer if she is having issues with her appetite.
During the course of treatment, you should increase the number of baths you give her to keep her well-hydrated.
Yesterday I came across a theory in a comment that in one of his destructive outburst, Bojack may not only try to suicide but also try to make his new-found daughter to suicide with him. I think that's interesting, killing someone must be the lowest point anyone can get to right?
Maybe as a result of his own recklessness, but I don't see him going full-blown premeditated murder on us.
I think Bojack is capable of killing, but only in a very specific scenario. Bojack's entire career is based on his good looks and charm, which is why he struggles so much with validation about his acting ability. Think about it... Herb could have thrown a dart into an open mic night, but he picked his man crush. In Secretariat, Bojack sucks so badly at the job they use his image and replace everything he says and does with CG, and it works. Bojack tries to get creative with Mitch's Life and the show bombs.
If someone were to reveal the truth to Bojack and keep pushing it in an adversarial way, he might snap and kill them rather than realize the truth about himself: Just another pretty face with no skills. Just to be clear, skill in this context isn't just acting talent, but all the other shit that goes along with the job of acting. Let's not forget he got physically violent with a cancer victim over a telescope.
Bojack was replaced in Secretariat because he went AWOL for months. He struggled a bit with the role at times, but everyone seemed to be pretty impressed during the audition and during shoots once he found his groove.
I believe Bojack is a good actor in this show's universe, but his poor self-esteem is what holds him back. A turning point for his character will be when he realizes this.
Going missing for months is not being a good actor, you're missing the point of what I'm saying. The ability to act is only half of the story, if he was a good actor he would be able to cooperate better with people, have some kind of self-discipline involving things like practice, research, or diet, and he's always causing loss for production companies by constantly getting into tabloid shenanigans.
Poor self-esteem isn't holding him back, a lack of development of key skills is holding him back, and he's way too old start now and still be able to compete with his peers. If Bojack has talent, his good looks combined with his laziness prevented him from cultivating it in a fulfilling way.
I don't think he can intentionally kill someone, yet at the same time I want to see if the show could handle him killing someone with intent.
Bojack has a malicious streak sometimes, but it seems to mostly be out of loneliness, fear of losing control or just relishing in being a dick (Todd's video game addiction, undermining Diane's book, deliberately losing the game show and burning the charity money). I don't think he has the capacity to kill someone, but he's terrible at saving them. Something could happen in the sense that he fails to help someone and loses them via bad timing or from his own recklessness, but I don't think he would ever murder anyone.
Maybe if he drives drunk. I can probably see the show going down that path. Other than that, I can't see him actually kill someone.
He spent a long ass time driving blacked out on all kinds of drugs in season three. The fact that he hasn't killed anyone while driving yet kinda indicates the story won't go down that way.
I don't think he's going to kill anyone but if he does I thought it would be something of an accident. So I just used that as an example.
I think you might be missing part of it.... "cantaloupe" (like [can't elope]) versus "can-elope".... so not exactly saying it twice.... but, yes, it's corny
Let me do a quick follow-up to the zany Ed Whelan self-immolation twitter thread. About two hours ago, Whelan denied to The Washington Post that he’d communicated with Kavanaugh, McGahn or “anyone at the White House” about his theory. I would suggest that Whelan’s words should be closely parsed because I’m skeptical that what he claims here is true.
Here’s Whelan’s verbatim statement to the Post: “I have not communicated at all with [White House counsel] Don McGahn or anyone at the White House, or Judge Kavanaugh, about the topic of the Twitter thread.” The Post’s Robert Costa reports that Whelan declined to answer any follow up questions.
As I said, I’m skeptical that this is true. He says he hasn’t communicated with them “about the topic of the Twitter thread.” Well, what’s the topic of the Twitter thread? The Post says that Kavanaugh and his top advisors (of whom Whelan is one) have been planning a defense based on Ford’s confusing him for someone else. So they’ve clearly been talking about something like what he described, if not the specific details or naming the innocent party. But let’s take Whelan’s assertion at face value for the moment. Not mentioned is Leonard Leo, the top guy at the Federalist Society, certainly the most influential player in vetting these nominations and getting them through the Senate. He is at the very center of this process.
Now here’s another clue. Yesterday morning, hours before Whelan’s self-immolation, Politico’s Eliana Johnson reported on the rampant speculation about Whelan’s twitter hints that he had blockbuster evidence that would definitively exonerate Kavanaugh. As she noted, his tweets and the chatter around him had ricocheted around Washington and reached top aides at the White House. And then she wrote this: “Three people who have spoke to Whelan and Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo in recent days say they are ‘100 percent confident’ they’ve obtained information that will exonerate Kavanaugh.” Not confident he’d be exonerated but “‘100 percent confident’ they’ve obtained information …”
Eliana Johnson ✔ @elianayjohnson · Sep 20, 2018 Replying to @elianayjohnson Those tweets have reached Kavanaugh’s inner circle in the WH, though even former clerks working w him say they don’t know WHAT Whelan is referring to - https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-confirmation-allegations-rumors-830725 …
Kavanaugh saga sets Washington rumor mill on fire Activists, reporters, and White House officials are consumed with a barrage of rumors, hearsay and tantalizing tips about a Supreme Court nominee and his accuser.
Eliana Johnson ✔ @elianayjohnson But three people who have spoke to Whelan and Federalist Society’s Leonard Leo in recent days say they are “100 percent confident” they’ve obtained information that will exonerate Kavanaugh - https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/20/kavanaugh-confirmation-allegations-rumors-830725 …
politico.com 711 600 people are talking about this Twitter Ads info and privacy We might speculate that Whelan had some entirely separate 100 percent proof of Kavanaugh’s innocence lined up. But this certainly suggests that Leo was in loop on Whelan’s theory and “proof.” 100 percent confident.
"I mean, you call something a war and pretty soon everybody gonna be running around acting like warriors. They gonna be running around on a damn crusade, storming corners, slapping on cuffs, racking up body counts. And when you at war, you need a fucking enemy. And pretty soon, damn near everybody on every corner is your fucking enemy. And soon the neighborhood that you're supposed to be policing, that's just occupied territory."
You're obviously a potential enemy citizen terrorist, We must TSA, NSA, patriot act, RFID, FEMA camp freedom protect you!
I knew about the intricacies of the drug side, I didnt know about how far down the bureaucratic bullshit of the police and government reach.
you know whats fucked up? Back in the days like pre-1970 and shit, people really thought environment bred criminals. That's why cops were so harsh on people in specific neighborhoods because it was assumed 99% of the were criminals because of where they lived.
Also why in LA I think, they used to arrest blacks in the "wrong" neighborhoods after hours and drop them off in the "right" ones.
off-topic a bit but it made me think of that... it's only later with the psychopath research that we starting seeing psychopaths could be born and raised anywhere.
edit: I ask for downvotes, I get downvotes, apparently. But here's to David Simon being a damn genius.
"Most people in Washington are authoritarians ... In some area they are authoritarians; they want to tell other people what to do and they don't think their job is but one thing: and that is the protection of liberty. That is what we should be doing."
More people have had their lives, and their families lives ruined by simple pot/drug charges, convictions, incarcerations, and the stigma of a federal conviction on their record...than people who have actually been harmed by simply using pot.
Cannabis is demonstrably safer than several legal recreational drugs. The largest danger with using it is by far the danger of being arrested.
Drugs are bad, but you know what drugs WON'T do? Burst your door down in the middle of the night, shoot your dog and hold you at gun point.
I know this sounds absurd, but I have made a concious decision that if for some reason my door is ever kicked down by the police for any reason the first thing im going to scream is 'DO NOT SHOOT MY DOG I SURRENDER'.
I've seen way too many stories of dogs being shot because they assume every barking dog is going to attack him.
My dog barks until she finds out what she is barking at is human. Then she just runs up and wants to get pet. The cops would probably shoot her. :(
Same EXACT thing with my dog. But I know that I'll be that guy on the news sobbing about his poor dog getting shot. So, I'm trying to avoid that.
Depends on what you classify as drugs and how much of the violence in Mexico and South America you add to the equation.
I'm sure some asshole prohibition advocate would lump all the tobacco and alcohol deaths into the equation, while hypocritically ignoring them when it suits their cause.
I guess it would have to be defined as those drugs with which we are currently "at war", but it would be interesting if Paul's statement had some actual figures.
If you add in the number of people who've drank and smoked themselves to death, it certainly wouldn't. But then we aren't at war with those drugs. It all makes so much sense.
The point is that statistical data is not needed to back this up. While I believe it to be true, the reason that it is such a powerful message is because of the logistics of the idea. Even if you assume the same number of people die from the drug war than the drugs themselves, it makes no sense to take away the rights of the people to consume what they want. There is no law against me eating poison ivy, but I am simply educated enough to know that that would be a mistake. The same concept should be applied to drugs of any type (imo) just as it is to alcohol.
If he is talking about weed, then I would say he is certainly correct, if he is talking about all drugs, then I doubt it can be proven/disproven though it is likely true.
Well seeing as there are pretty much zero other candidates who are for the legalisation of all drugs I assume you will not be voting for anybody then? I'm assuming you're also against war, bailouts, the patriot act etc. that RP is against?
So where is this candidate that fits more classical Reddit positions than RP? I can understand if your position is that you won't vote for anybody unless you agree with everything they say, that's a principled stand, but if you ARE voting then please do tell me the candidates you support?
Well seeing as there are pretty much zero other candidates who are for the legalisation of all drugs
Allow me to introduce you to a fine fellow: Gary Johnson, who is (or at least was) a MMJ patient, and has an informed, rational, view on the legalization issue. [Fair warning: that link goes to a youtube clip which has Sean Hannity in it. Get any kids out of the room before you play it]
He has a couple issues where he loses me completely (it was either healthcare or welfare, can't remember off the top of my head), but all in all the man seems to have a good head on his shoulders, much like RP.
I think (personal opinion) that he resonates with middle-of-the-line conservatives much better than RP...
He's a REAL Republican though. He's not on par with any of the other Republicans, and definitely not the Dems.
I actually think he could get elected if he wasn't getting stiffed by the establishment. He is more popular than most candidates, yet he receives much less attention from media.
And the attention he receives is crap. I've heard so many one-liners from the late-night comedians lately, "oh there's a Presidential candidate who wants hookers and heroin legal"
Why is this such a hard concept for some people? The fact that you agree on some issues, doesn't mean you agree on all issues. It's not that fucking hard to understand.
I'd prefer a social democratic party, but all we have is two flavors of conservative. Since I'm socially liberal, I'll usually side with the Dems on their rhetoric, but they never follow through in practice. Capitalism and the free market are good for a means of production, but should be heavily regulated to ensure fair practices and to ensure the welfare of society. Society is far more important than any corporation or military action and should receive the vast majority of the federal budget. As it is, the nation is nothing but a source of labor and revenue for corporations and the rich elite.
Ron Paul represents no political party. While I don't loathe him the way I do most other Republicans, my views on social matters are vastly different than his. He's more in line with my view of foreign policy and government's use of authoritarian practices, but I don't view taxation and social services as overreaching for the feds. If there is one function I believe all governments should perform, it's ensuring the well-being of the society that supports it.
Things should be produced by the free market with strict regulations to avoid virtual monopolies and deceitful practices, but anything to do with the people's welfare should not be left to private enterprise. Healthcare, education, housing, nutrition and security should all be government run with tax money (EDIT: Having a private option is fine, but there should be a competent, well-maintained option attainable by everyone). As it is, everything in the US runs on greed and people have no safety net. I'm sick of my selfish countrymen who try to portray social services as somehow selfish. It's beyond absurd to me.
TL;DR: I'm socially liberal and fiscally responsible, so I agree with the Dems more. Both fail miserably on the fiscal side and Ron Paul does not represent the Republican platform. Like I said, I agree with some of his views, but fundamentally disagree with his view of the role of the federal government and the importance of protecting society.
I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative and I support Ron Paul. I can't see another candidate right now who can help right now.
I wouldn't call my political view fiscally conservative. That's why I said "responsible". The money has to be spent, but the focus should be on society instead of corporations and the military.
Without endless wars, our coffers would be overflowing with money to help those in our country who need it the most.
No, he wants to cut back on everything, including social services and protections. I vehemently disagree with his views on healthcare, abortion, equal rights protection, personal income tax and his views on church and state worry me. I don't want social services cut. I want them expanded. He is about as far from my point of view on social matters as he can be.
That's because you're a democrat/liberal/socialist. It is what it is. But I personally think America is too big to be social like that of European countries. It's a whole 'notha ball game. In any case, since American is so huge, he'd let each state decide for itself what they want. Just like what Vermont did with socialized health care.
It's all a part of black liberation theology where they (you know, those people), get together, sing Kenyan songs, hate on America, and worship a false idol: Black Jesus.
If Obama says he's Christian because of a façade, does that mean Ron Paul is also Christian because of a façade?
I am just wondering... why does him not believing in evolution a make or break in terms of voting but not religion.
Ron Paul knows there is a distinction between his personal religious opinions and political laws. Wouldn't that apply the same to his opinions on science and the education system?
Everyone has their own personal views; Ron Paul advocates not imposing your views on anyone else, and he practices what he preaches.
He doesn't understand the distinction between his unwavering states' rights position and the effect of theocracy on reproductive choice, marriage equality, or science-based education.
There is a lot of stupid shit politicians across the political spectrum believe in - his views on evolution don't stand a chance making headway in national politics, but his views on the economy, the Patriot Act, decriminalization, etc do.
He believes that Roe V Wade has a work around in state govt with executive backing and though I am pro choice I believe that each state has the right to decide for itself.
The right to choose is not something that should arbitrarily start and stop at state lines. The reality is that some states are liberal enough that in a confederalist framework they would still have legal abortions, so we can agree that somewhere in the US abortion would still be legal if Mr Paul had his way. This would effectively create a "tax" on abortions; those wealthy enough to buy a plane ticket or otherwise get to a state with legal procedures would be able to have them done quickly and safely.
I agree it shouldn't, but the federal government does not have the authority to regulate abortions. If anyone looked at what he was saying he doesn't have these as "ideas" he is following the constitution. Libertarians are very keen on private property rights, and almost every single one would agree no one especially not the government owns any part of you, your body is the thing that noone should be able to tell you what to do with- because it is yours. That is why he is for legalization of drugs etc, same idea really. It is the non-aggression principle that is sacred to libertarianism, if you do not take away the rights of another (including health etc out god given rights), you should not be imprisoned for it. The system right now is turning everyone poor, if we can negate that and return america to how prosperous it was before a central bank and laws that guaranteed monopolies and corporatism there would be no poor unless it was caused unto themselves. Libertarians are against wars that are not to protect our rights and country, and libertarians are very keen on allowing small businesses to thrive, among keeping your constitutional rights which the republicrats clearly could give a fuck less about. These things people always look over.
If anyone looked at what he was saying he doesn't have these as "ideas" he is following the constitution.
The constitution is an ambiguous document authored in the 18th century. Over the past 200+ years, the ambiguity has been refined and re-refined by our judicial system, exactly as intended.
People who "follow the consitution" are like people who "follow the bible" -- they're convinced their particular brand of interpretation is the correct one, that this is obvious, that there are no gray areas, and anyone who doesn't reach the same conclusions they do is purposefully perverting the intentions of the original founders -- whose supposed opinions of course are deeply relevant to today's most pressing issues, most of which had no analog in their time.
Yes -- in other words, they are statists who advocate theft from individuals (through taxes) in order to spread the cost of property law enforcement over the whole population, when only the small percentage of people who own capital really benefit from these laws. At least anarcho-capitalists are brave enough to suggest that the rich should pay for their own security.
Libertarians are just smart enough to realize that world capitalism cannot exist without the state, so they keep just enough of what's oppressive about that institution around in order to propagate global corporate hegemony.
The system right now is turning everyone poor, if we can negate that and return america to how prosperous it was before a central bank and laws that guaranteed monopolies and corporatism there would be no poor unless it was caused unto themselves.
Actually, that's not what they say, the Supreme Court says that nobody can regulate it due to the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment prohibiting the States and the Federal government from taking a person's liberty, they also say that it must be balanced against protecting prenatal life and protecting the mother's health. Pithy sayings that are wrong don't help you win an argument.
The constitution is an ambiguous document authored in the 18th century. Over the past 200+ years, the ambiguity has been refined and re-refined by our judicial system, exactly as the system intended.
You start off really good, but then in the next paragraph, you go on to screw with this good start. Frankly, most of the Constitution does only have one interpretation, though not all, but to ignore the intentions of the writers would be ridiculous. You say it's OK because times have changed, and frankly that's crazy, you're right, times have changed, however the Constitution has mechanisms for dealing with this, they're called Amendments, twisting the words to make your own false interpretation of the Constitution isn't one of those mechanisms. If you have a problem with the Constitution, advocate an amendment, don't advocate ignoring it.
Everything you write after this is complete bullshit, and you seem like you're intelligent enough to know it. So unless you're advocating no public police force (which BTW, some libertarians advocate, so I guess those libertarians don't fit into your nice box) or that the police should offer no protection from theft (which, and I say this as a lower class class individual that has issues with theft in my area, is complete bullshit as well) why even say this crap?
Yeah, protection from theft is clearly oppression, thank you for advocating that such protection should only belong to the rich!
You're right, protected monopolies and oligopolies are so good for the poor, thank you so very much for advocating for them!
The supreme court is wrong as they have been before- here is what I was referring to constitutionally: article 1 section 8 http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html People who "follow the constitution" as you put it I would say do take it quite seriously as its design has made us the most prosperous country with the least amount of oppression, this has started to change as we started removing the separation of powers and limiting innovation.
This is possibly the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Property does not restrict to land, it means anything you own. I have no problem with people being arrested for stealing do you? This prevents people with a lot of money and power from stealing from people unable to defend themselves. Seems to work ok. And if you can show me a non free market that has ever fared better than america then be my guest, but you wont, and you are blind the facts that corporations buy government to guarantee themselves business. That defies all of my mind that you cannot see that but I guess we all have differences of opinion.
Specifically, he favors the removal of federal protections on abortion and returning those powers to the states, which I am against. His supreme court appointments would reflect those kinds of views, which I am also against.
Go read the Sanctity of Life Act he supported. It strips jurisdiction from the supreme court and hands it to the states. If you don't believe the federal government should decide abortion, and author a bill to remove their jurisdiction, I don't see how that translates into federal appointments to ban abortion. Your concern is unfounded.
What are his views on evolution, exactly? Does he even make a distinction between evolution and natural selection, or is he like most of the great unwashed? There are plenty of religious people that accept evolution, for the most part, but reject the chance mutations aspect of natural selection, believing instead that God is directing these changes. Moreover, most religious people think there is something distinct about human beings and their creation, and that's apart from the idea of their having immortal souls.
I wonder exactly what Ron Paul believes. We'll never know unless someone questions him properly. Funny thing though, I would bet you that most of our politicians believe something that is either close to what Ron Paul believes, or which would still horrify most of us thinking people.
I think he meant that the general public are christain creationists and wouldn't vote for someone who believes in evolution.
God dammit I hate when people just name a fallacy instead of explaining exactly what it is that is illogical about an argument, it's lazy. Not all of us just got out of PHIL 1101 you know.
Sorry about that. A strawman argument is when someone sets up a false argument for them to then refute. See, OP claimed that people don't like Paul because he's a Christian, which I haven't seen anyone against Ron Paul say. What they say is what I said: that he doesn't believe in evolution, which is a different argument.
Not believing in evolution is the same as believing in Jesus's miracles (which all the candidates claim to). They're both stupid opinons but as long as you keep them to yourself they shouldn't matter. What matters is government policy.
Luckily he just wants to give young people the chance to opt out and wants to end the corporatism that has taken over and allow small business to compete, oh and do something about the financial systems we have in place that are in bed with the bad guys and have done nothing to prevent the depression. But ya know- I guess you could call it that (:
The poster never said "I'll be voting for Ron Paul in November 2011" or "next November" or anything such..
In order for him to be running in November, he would have had to win the Republican nomination in April next year.
Find out if your state has an open or closed primary/caucus. If your state's is closed, you must register Republican to nominate him.
Lest anyone call Ron Paul a racist, modern blacks living in the US are hurt far more by the drug war than they ever could be by racist business owners.
Its a similar situation in Northern Ireland, where there are some former paramilitary vigilante groups who are against drugs (or so they say)... but they have injured and killed far more people (mostly small-time drug dealers - some of them young teenagers) than drugs EVER have.
Alcohol is our first drug and probably our most important drug. Of course they would have to include alcohol.
My Father, who was as Conservative as they come, always thought the War on Drugs was insane. He always thought we should just legalize drugs and then tax the shit out of it like we do with cigarettes. Less death. Profit. It makes sense.
Yeah. I'm not sure "Conservatives" actually understand what being conservative, in this country's context, means. It's unfortunate.
omg if ron paul was our president that would be just great. i want my freedoms back in my ownership.
If you include fatalities from the drug war in Mexico and South-Central America there is absolutely no comparison at all to overdoses, secondary effects are a little hazier. Even nasty junk like meth doesn't usually kill you outright. So within the United States solely, possibly not, we don't kill as many people as we incarcerate.
Look at it this way: In 2007 27,658 unintentional drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States. However, this statistic is muddied by the fact that the majority of those deaths were caused by opioid analgesic's, aka prescription drug overdoses. Prescription drug deaths have been rising to an all time high each year now, and will continue to be on the rise. Now take into account other legal substances that kill people, like alcohol - 23,199 induced deaths a year, which EXCLUDES unintentional injuries, homicides, and other causes indirectly related to alcohol use as well as deaths due to fetal alcohol syndrome.. and tobacco, which kills 443,000 people in the US by itself, and one starts to wonder...
If the whole purpose of the War on Drugs is to improve the welfare and lives of US citizens by fighting against dangerous substances that destroy the lives of their users; then why are the most dangerous drugs in America legal and readily available for use and abuse? Consider also that it's almost impossible to die on other schedule 1 drugs including marijuana, LSD, MDMA, mushrooms, DMT, salvia, etc.; and one starts to have less wonder and more anger. Because the reality is that legal drugs (booze, Rx-meds, and cigarettes) have killed, and will kill, far more people than the entire War on Drugs, and the drugs that it fights against, combined.
TL;DR - Illegal drug overdose deaths are a moot point when you consider that legal drugs kill far, far more.
Very few people who ingest a known quantity of a pure drug overdose on that drug. Generally overdoses occur when a drug is purer than the user is used to, and thus that death is a result of the drug war, not the drug itself.
The same goes for tainted product. Without the black market created by the drug war, that wouldn't be an issue, so those deaths are also the result of the drug war, not the drug.
Drug related health issues are mostly due to tainted product. You can shoot up pure heroin for decades and suffer nothing more serious than a case of the runs. They proscribe pure meth to children with ADHD with little negative health effects due to the fact it wasn't made in a bathtub by a hillbilly.
It's common because virtually everyone drinks. The rate is extremely low, with most cases occurring in older people who can no longer metabolise alcohol as well. An amount that lead only to a severe hangover when they were young could now be lethal. Among the young, the rate is amazingly low given that younger people tend to drink more.
The deaths come from the jacked dealers getting revenge, the gangs stealing from each other, and the firefights that come with both.
The illegal aspect of the black drug market is the worst part, that's where the danger and distrust comes in. Everyone knows they're out for themselves in the end, and it's probably going to be a short ride so you gotta protect yourself.
Doing away with the FDA and other federal regulatory bodies? eh... not so much. There was a time when the consumer was absolutely at the mercy of large, monopolistic production companies (more-so than they are now). Read The Jungle or look up muckrakers if you haven't already. The FDA and others were created in order to combat consumer abuse on a monstrous scale.
Ron Paul's little quip about drinking non-homogenized milk is laughable when taken in this context. Sure, drinking raw milk from your local farm probably won't hurt you. But would you trust non-homogenized milk from a large-scale industrial dairy? What about uninspected meat from a similar megafarm (granted, there are some definite low standards in the food industry)? How would you feel if the drugs you took didn't have a modicum of guarantee from the Federal Government?
Ron Paul is against all federal regulation. Full Stop. I don't care how appealing his other platforms are, that shit scares me.
That is because you are taking it out of context. He is against all Federal Regulation, because he believes it is the jurisdiction of the individual states. Honestly I can't fault him with that, though I do think there are several areas that require Federal Regulation. Our Constitution was set up to limit Federal Power so we didn't end up where we are now. With a big bureaucratic monolith that does whatever the fuck it wants without any repercussions. The States were supposed to be the check and balance to that, but the Federal Government ground them under. The Federal Government is operating under extremely questionable interpretations of our Constitution and Law, without which almost everything Ron Paul screams about would be regulated at the State Level.
Ron Paul would sit down and have a logical talk about what needs to be done, and he has already proven he will change his position when given a logical reason to do so. Meanwhile the rest of the political establishment basically spouts, "Fuck You, opposing a failed drug war will cost me votes".
He is against all Federal Regulation, because he believes it is the jurisdiction of the individual states
Don't you see that as a step backwards? Why devolve the legislature? What benefits should we expect from that?
No, I don't see it as a step backwards. As to benefits, well the War on Drugs would basically end. Sure many States would continue harsh laws concerning it, but others would decriminalize and eventually legalize. Which would eventually lead to the end of the Drug War. No more DEA raids. No more Federal Tax money being sent to militarize our police force.
States would retake control of their local airports, no more TSA and politically required nude machines. I would love to see some states begin trying new educational models, I can't stress enough how big a failure our educational system is.
Some things would remain Federal, and we would have to take a good look at those programs to decide the distribution of responsibility. Probably we would have to write a couple Amendments to the Constitution to settle everything at the end.
Sure, some states would regress, and everyone would point their fingers at them and laugh until they get a clue, but other States would move forward. They would compete with each other and the best ideas would be copied by still more states.
Instead the Federal Government sits there and wastes trillions of dollars for shit that is completely fucking pointless, and often counter-productive. And no one does anything, because the Feds have proven they will fucking cut off your money and send G-men to raid your legal dispensaries.
We fought a revolution to avoid having a far off government tell us how to do everything. 200 years later we are back at the starting point. How many repeats of this cycle do we need before we agree that an overpowering Federal Government is not a good idea?
Sure many States would continue harsh laws concerning it, but others would decriminalize and eventually legalize. Which would eventually lead to the end of the Drug War.
I see it as a regressive step for US legislation. In Europe we are building up our Union because of the benefits that arise from convergent legislation. It seems amazing to me that Americans would want to break theirs down over something as trivial as drug laws.
Regressive step for legislation. I really don't care about legislation I just care about self governance. And if we can't agree on the rules on a national level why not break it up. Let each area run themselves as they see fit.
Well you won't have that even if the federal government were to disappear entirely. You would still be governed by your state government.
What about all the benefits of convergent legislation? What about the federal tax dollars that poorer states receive from richer state? How would they operate without that money? Why should poor people in some states get a worse deal than poor people in other states? Why should rich people get a better deal in some states than in other states? I would have thought that, as an American, you would firmly believe that all citizens should be equal before the law. Do your fellow Americans not deserve to be governed by the same laws by which you are governed? Why should they be more or less fortunate in that regard simply because of where they were born or where they got a job?
Well I don't think all cultures want the same government and I don't want to force it from the outside. If the people want to have certain rules let them make their own.
You mean besides the states voting to decriminalize marijuana? You mean besides the Federal threats to take away tax money which keeps the prohibition system in place?
Without the Federal Government pushing a war on drugs, we would never have taken this half as far as it has gone.
Why can't this move be made at a Federal level? Why should Americans seek to dismantle an entire government over something as trivial as drug laws?
Well the Federal Government is full of people elected by the people of the United States. You can vote them out of office if you don't like the approaches they take. If your state does not vote for representatives who oppose the drug war, then how can you expect the Federal Government's position on this to change?
Because it won't be done at the Federal level. Furthermore the interpretation of the ICC with which the Feds pursue the Drug War is entirely Un-Constitutional. When they went to outlaw alcohol, they had to write a fucking Amendment to the Constitution to do so. They thought about the ICC, but everyone agreed it was patently unconstitutional. A few decades of the "living, breathing Constitution", and suddenly the Judges were ready to legislate away States rights. The Constitution isn't a living, breathing entity. It is a set of rules which were written in plain english so that the Federal Government wouldn't overstep its bounds and replace a far off British Government, with a far off US Government.
As to Drug Laws being trivial. Wow. You do realize we jail more people than anyone in the world, right? You did read a history book about the violence of the Prohibition Era, and what happens when you outlaw something and drive it into a Black Market. The Death, the violence.
Wow. Trivial. The militarization of the police force. Trivial. The thousands dead in Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Bolivia, all because of the Drug War. Trivial. We won't even count the toll in the USA. You read about it every single day.
If you are going to seize power illegally, you damned well better do the right thing with it, or that shit is eventually going to turn on you.
I'd love to vote them out of office and put people in who would amend the Constitution to deal with election laws. How's that fucking working out for us?
Many states do vote for people against the Drug War, but its big fucking money. Why don't you go research Karen Ignagni and the HR debate if you want to understand why I don't think we should have to deal with a corrupt government to deal with a situation they don't actually have the power to have started in the first place.
so that the Federal Government wouldn't overstep its bounds and replace a far off British Government, with a far off US Government.
You are misrepresenting the Constitution. It has nothing to do with how 'far away' your government is. It has to do with whether you can vote for representatives in that government, which you most certainly can.
Drug laws are trivial in the scheme of government. You are letting yourself get distracted by a non-issue. Taking power away from the Federal Government because of drug laws would be counter-productive on many other more important fronts, such as tax legislation.
I'd love to vote them out of office and put people in who would amend the Constitution to deal with election laws.
Then do that. Encourage other Americans do to likewise. That is how you must change the face of Federal Government.
I suspect there is so much money going into it because it keeps people like you distracted from real governance issues. While all the angry politicised young people are trying to get their drugs legalised, you are missing other, far worse corruption and nepotism.
I'm sorry, I thought the last hundred years of history provided plenty of examples supporting my position. I pointed out the HR debate for a reason fyi. That was a test case by Obama to see if our country could still fix big problems
You really have no idea what is happening in this country or South America. I almost hope you end up being one of those people that a SWAT team accidentally breaks down the wrong door and shoots over 60 times, while executing your pet dog for no reason at all. Enjoy the 100 mile constitution free zone the Federal Government has declared by the borders.
As to telling me how we must change the face of the government, why don't you tell that to the millions of Americans who sent the Democrats to Congress with a massive majority and were repaid with Bush policies. As to far worse corruption and nepotism, I would guess you are referring to the fact that Congress now blatantly flaunts its sell out to Corporate America. They fucking pass out checks from the tobacco industry openly in Congress. They no longer even try to keep up appearances.
With the Citizens United Decision, Corporations are now free to spend freely on attack ads. Why don't you ask Obama how that worked out for him when the Health Insurance Industry decided to drop $100 million in negative ads against him for getting mad that they reneged on their promises to support reforms in exchange for a mandate and killing the public option....
Nothing will change short of a revolution. The political leadership has closed off all other avenues of approach. Even the attempts at calling a Constitutional Convention have failed.
If a state dares to threaten to do something like end the failed drug policies, like California was trying to do, the Federal Government begins threatening to withhold tax dollars and send in the DEA.
Mainly, why the fuck should we play a game against a stacked deck when the dealer is freely telling everyone he is cheating and that you cannot win.
Not true. Ron Paul is all for the constitution and for sticking to constitutional principles. Please take a look at Article I Section 8 Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes
There are legitimate areas where the federal government must regulate, such as allocating radio frequencies (as done by the FCC). You wouldn't want neighboring states to allocate the same FM channel to 2 different broadcasters, because then it would be a mess.
The milk thing to which you are referring involve a recent incident near the Washington DC metropolitan area. People in Maryland and DC were seeking out a Pennsylvania Amish farmer because he was selling raw milk. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/ The customers knew the risks and were willing to accept those risks of their own free will. Ron Paul proposed legislation to allow people to buy raw milk if they want to. By no means is he advocating the abolishment of pasteurized milk. There is a high level of demand in the marketplace for pasteurized milk, so it won't be going away anytime soon.
Sorry, maybe I should have said "Ron Paul is against most federal regulation, including the clean air/water acts, the FDA, anti-trust regulation..."
But good point. Would you consider the Food and Drug industry "inter-state commerce"? Cause I know I'm not growing pineapples and oranges in my backyard. Nor am I buying my Synthroid from the factory down the street.
I might have jumped too hard on the milk thing, but what I was really trying to get at is that he wants to do away with the FDA.
I did a little investigating to try and figure out why you're making this claim that RP is against the FDA. I came across this article http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi72.html
Cherry (the fruit) producers found some scientific studies that said that cherries possess anti-inflammatory properties. When the cherry producers began citing these scientific studies, the FDA threatened regulatory action and would go so far as to label cherries as drugs. In cases like these, I think Congress should restrain the FDA to common sense. Cherries are fruit and not drugs.
I do consider the Food and Drug industry to be inter-state commerce. Most food and drugs are produced in one state and shipped to another. If states would like to regulate intra-state food and drug sales, then that's their decision as well.
The market itself does do some filtering out of bad products on its own. For example, take a look at pasteurized milk. Suppose all of the sudden it was no longer legally required for farms to pasteurize their milk. Would pasteurized milk still be on the shelves? Absolutely, because the majority of people prefer pasteurized milk to raw milk, even if it were more expensive than raw milk. Because people want it, milk suppliers are willing to provide it, because if they only sell raw milk then they're going to be missing out on a lot of sales.
On a more personal note, it's interesting that you take thyroid hormone; my wife had her thyroid surgically removed and she'll be taking thyroid hormone the rest of her life.
was associated with the deaths of an estimated 20,000 Americans, mostly due to mortal heart attacks.
What do they mean by "associated"? Is it that to say that they were taking the drug when they died of a heart-attack? What are they suggesting? My mother actually worked in pharmaceutical sales at the time, selling a competing drug (which wasn't technically labelled as a COX-2 inhibitor, even though it actually was one, but whatever) and I vaguely remember hearing about this case. If it had been credibly linked to 20,000 deaths, that would have been huge news in my household, if not the entire nation.
Secondly, the article says that the Health Freedom Act would require the government to supply proof that a supplement doesn't work, rather than the supplement manufacturer having to prove that it does work. This is in fact how the FDA's policy on supplements has always operated, so I'm not sure what he's talking about. This policy is also one of the reasons I'm skeptical of any and all supplements.
Now, that's not to say that the FDA/gov't in general isn't riddled with problems. But relying on self-regulation of the industry is a dubious prospect. Like you suggest, manufacturers will do what the market demands, and if the market demands lax inspection of meat in order to cut costs, then, in the absence of regulation, this is what they'll do.
Yeah, the reason that I'm so adamant that regulation is a good thing is that I take synthroid every day, and I will be doing so for the rest of my life. The dosage is measured in micrograms. Any error there will reduce the quality of the drug that I'm taking and, in the long run, will drastically decrease the quality of my life. I've been hypo-thyroid (ie: off my pill) before, and it's not a pleasant experience, not to mention the long-term health effects. Without regulation, I don't doubt that drugmakers would fudge as much as they could (even 5-10 micrograms wouldn't be noticeable immediately, based on personal experience). Even if they fudge just one batch in 100, what if I get pills from that batch? Of course, regulation isn't totally going to solve this problem, but it goes a long way. Compare drugs here to drugs in India (where I was born), which are highly unregulated. Shit ain't so great.
Anyway, good luck to your wife and you, and make sure she takes her pill with plenty of water and at least 30-40 minutes before she eats! It makes a difference for me at least. Other than that, she'll be able to live a normal, healthy life for a relatively small cost. In fact, I'm a runner and my times actually improved after I started taking synthroid!
The article is dubious, but it's all I could find on Ron Paul vs the FDA. I couldn't find any statement from Ron Paul that advocated the abolishment of the FDA. If you have found such a statement, please let me know.
I think the purpose of this Act is to treat Cherries like dietary supplements (as opposed to being treated like drugs as the FDA initially threatened). I think Cherry producers should be able to say that Cherries contain a compound that acts as an anti-inflammatory agent as shown in these independent studies, and that the FDA shouldn't harass them for this claim. Instead, the FDA should take the initiative to confirm or disprove this statement. Synthetic drugs are a completely different animal, and they should go through testing before being sold to the public.
In your proposed scenario where a lot of meat didn't get inspected, I think there would be a few meat producers that would inspect their meat (or pay for third-party inspections, etc.) and then they could claim on the label "SAFEST MEAT ON THE MARKET; APPROVED SAFE BY ###" where ### is the organization that did the inspection. I would consider this akin to organic fruits and vegetables that are at nearly all grocery stores. It would be just as expensive as meat is today (the uninspected stuff would undoubtedly be cheaper). Or it may happen that grocery stores and pharmacies themselves would do the inspecting/testing themselves, because it is bad for their business to sell bad product since that may lead to boycotts.
In any transaction, both parties must be honest, otherwise the dishonest party is liable for damages. (I think this is universally agreed upon.) If a hormone pill is off by 5-10 mcg, then there should be a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer, which would effectively shut down their business. That's an incentive to keep the manufacturers honest, and an incentive for pharmacies, law firms, and even consumers to do randomized testing on their own. (In today's society, does the FDA do randomized testing on dosages for each batch of pills from each manufacturer? I would assume they don't, but I don't have all of the facts.)
Good luck to you as well. As I'm sure you're aware, I am a Ron Paul supporter. I like his views on non-interventionist foreign policy, monetary policy (sound money), the restoration of our civil liberties, lower taxes, and government that is limited by our constitution. You may have a differing opinion, and I respect that, but we could go all day debating which side is better without any hope of reconciliation. I just want to make sure that the facts about RP aren't misportrayed. If you have any evidence that he would like to abolish the FDA, or "all federal regulation" as you initially claimed, please share it.
I thank you for this debate and for being civil. I hope that you consider my responses civil as well.
P.S. There was no cancer, thank goodness. She had hyperthyroidism for about a year before the surgery. The surgery was about a year ago, and she's still trying to pin down the correct dosage of thyroid hormone. Thank you for your concern.
You're right, I may have been assuming too much about Ron Paul's stance on the FDA. However, I think one can reasonably infer that he thinks the FDA is unnecessary, as he believes that Americans should be able to choose what they put into their bodies and he trusts the free market to regulate/quash bad practices.
It's impossible to tell whether the free-flow of information that we enjoy now (with the internet etc) would be sufficient to deter bad practice in the Food and Drug industry. I tend to think no, but, like you said, we'll have to agree to disagree.
If you're interested, this list posted by someone else contains many of the reasons I dislike Ron Paul. However, there are some things on that list that I think are definite good ideas.
The Jungle was a fictionalized book meant to discuss the plight of the workers in meat packing plants. The real goal of the book was to improve workers' rights, not improve food. The Progressive cause of the early 20th Century latched onto the book as a means to increase government regulation to cartelize the food industry. Upton Sinclair himself said that the Pure Food And Drug Act of 1906 was nothing more than a corporate giveaway. The word muckraker was a term of scorn originated by Teddy Roosevelt himself. The FDA was not created to combat consumer abuse, but to make competition harder in the food and drug market.
Ron Paul is against the privileges which allow for the creation of large megafarms and the corporate food industry. These are the regulations which you defend. These are the subsidies which you don't mention.
How would you feel if the drugs you took didn't have a modicum of guarantee from the Federal Government?
You mean like how the federal government still claims that marijuana is worse for people than cigarettes or alcohol. You mean like how the US government gave its guarantee that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or that there was such a thing as a Gulf of Tonkin incident? A government guarantee is worthless. I'd take a doctor's guarantee over the government's guarantee anyday, which is actually pretty interesting when you realize that thousands of terminally ill people die each year because they are denied access to innovative medicines and techniques because your loving government says they aren't safe. In other words, the government says something might kill someone who is already going to die, so there's nothing that can be done.
Ok, but the end effect was government regulation in order to end the abuses that the muckrakers exposed. Whether one (or more) figure in government scorned them isn't the issue. The fact of the matter is that the regulatory bodies put in place served the direct function of protecting consumers.
The FDA was not created to combat consumer abuse, but to make competition harder in the food and drug market.
How can you back up this claim? The FDA's legal foundation is a bunch of laws which focus on the protection of the consumer. Now, regardless of whether or not the FDA has been 100% effective in pursuing this legal mandate or whether it unfairly limits certain competitors, it has resulted in a net increase in health standards in the US food/drug industry.
I agree with your point on subsidies, but they're not the issue. The issue is the actual regulation of the Food and Drug industry.
That's simply not true. Certainly Ron Paul is against special privileges and subsidies for big business. But let's not conflate the handouts of subsidies/privileges with the regulations that I'm defending. You're suggesting that since the government subsidizes certain industries (perhaps unjustly), government regulation is useless. Where's the logical bridge between the two issues. And before you jump, reddit, yes, I recognize that subsidizing and regulating the same industry is questionable. That doesn't mean the regulation itself is bad.
A government guarantee is worthless. I'd take a doctor's guarantee over the government's guarantee anyday, which is actually pretty interesting when you realize that thousands of terminally ill people die each year because they are denied access to innovative medicines and techniques because your loving government says they aren't safe.
Again, you're making the perfect the enemy of the good. Federal regulation is imperfect. Terribly so, in some cases. But the government still needs to at least try to protect the welfare of its citizens. Reforms are needed, yes, but to do away with the whole system because every alternative cure isn't approved is just... silly.
How can you back up this claim? The FDA's legal foundation is a bunch of laws which focus on the protection of the consumer.
Nope. Look into the 1906 PFDA. The plain requirement was for an increase in regulatory compliance to ensure the Big 4 Chicago Meat Packers couldn't be bothered with competition from upstarts. I don't know how you can quantify a counterfactual about the impact of the FDA. If you want more information about this, check out Gabriel Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism.
Yes, they are. You want bad food to be grown? Subsidize it. Subsidize ethanol, subsidize feed grain for animals which causes them to be unhealthy for consumption, subsidize antibiotics which get into your food.
You're suggesting that since the government subsidizes certain industries (perhaps unjustly), government regulation is useless.
Nope. Government regulation is useless because government regulation is useless. Subsidies are bad economics and lead to unintended consequences. There is no causality in there.
Nope. Look into the 1906 PFDA. The plain requirement was for an increase in regulatory compliance to ensure the Big 4 Chicago Meat Packers couldn't be bothered with competition from upstarts.
Please point out where this is "the plain requirement" in the text of the PFDA. OR explain to me how the debate surrounding the issue indicated that. Also, the FDA was created much later than the PFDA, with a different legal basis.
I'm talking about bad food in the sense that it's got bad bacteria in it. You're talking about something else. Anyway, those subsidies are run by the Department of Agriculture.
You're right. I can't quantify it. Shame on me for using a counterfactual. But, before FDA --> lots of consumer abuses. Post FDA --> lots less.
But we will likely have to agree to disagree. Have a look at Kolko's Triumph of Conservatism sometime though.
His work comes from other sources, obviously, such as Upton Sinclair making the same declaration in 1906.
No, in fact I would not be surprised if Ron Paul has never done any illegal drugs in his life. He seems like a pretty clean guy to me.
I'm glad Paul is telling the truth about our idiotic drug war (I'm glad when ANYONE tells the truth about the drug war, but it almost never happens).
With how our economy is set up and the history of how entrenched wealth is among a select few, liberals believe ( or make us think they believe) that only government has the power to even the hand for of the middle class and poor. what they don't know is that the reason there is entrenched power is that the business elite and the political elite are the same people. Liberals are often beneficiaries of the same system that they criticize, and they foolishly believe that we live in a democracy when we all know that we live in a poorly functioning republic at best. They will never free up the market or the social sphere, while on the other hand conservatives argue in favor of private interests. Conservatives often think that people can have discrete private interests that never intersect. Really? Of course they can that is why people and corporations petition the government and the judicial system. This is also wrongheaded because power i.e. access to resources and liberties inside or outside your personal property or the public is not monopolized by the government but rather an adversarial or cooperative arrangement between many different actors. This means that screwing people is an equal opportunity occupation not just the job of the government but also other powerful interests. conservative ideology fails as well because of this long convoluted arrangement and how the the arbitrary success of someone or some company does not indicate moral fiber just an ability to make profit which is not an ethical category. Power or wealth does not mean you should grovel for the scraps of your "betters". If somehow someone purchased 1/3 of the US and told every one living there to leave or be shot would that be acceptable? what if china purchased the US in 2022 would you be cool with that because its absolute property rights? of course not. There has to be limits to rights of property rights especially if its millions of acres and not just a private residence. Conservative use of the word property usually invokes a sense of "homestead" or family farm and of course it should be defended, but again property is also things like computer code or ideas or even water.
Does he share this opinion on all drugs, or just soft drugs like marijuana? Is there a website I can read about his personal opinions on the entire war on drugs or his entire policy on drugs in general?
It's funny because the government experiments with new drugs all the time, and gives them out to their pilots, soldiers etc. The CIA helps facilitate the drug trade for black money and political influence. Our government is the biggest drug dealer around, I guess they don't like competition.
Not that I live in the US, but it'd be nice to know his views on universal healthcare. His comment on how he thinks people should take the consequences of their actions, while being a fairly agreeable notion, has some undertones that suggest he does not think healthcare ought to be provided as a right.
This is a compelling sound bite but one wonders if it is more clever phrasing than fact. Whether it is or not, the global commission report on the failure of the war on drugs sets up an interesting possibility. Obama will not expend the political capital necessary in an election year to take this issue on. The downside for him is greater than the upside because of the inference that a liberal African American Democrat (whatever the reality of two of those three labels) is vulnerable to charges of weakness and pandering.
If sticking with the current corrupt economic system built upon the endless printing fiat currency for the benefit of mega-rich bankers is sane, then I choose insanity.
Even if someone things Ron Paul's economic ideas are nuts (which they are far from), to say the current system is anything better is the definition of insanity itself.
There are a lot of posts about Ron Paul's other stances, but these tend to be upvoted more often to the front page, because a lot of people in /politics are still unfortunately under the influence of failed socialist ideas.
what a stupid fucking sensationalist quote. What is this based on? Did he do a research on this? Did he count all the overdose suicides as well as all the people who died from collateral damage from drugs? i.e. be junk-sick and rob a bank then get killed in a police shootout?
I mean, this is completely unverifiable. And what's with all the Ron Paul dick riding on reddit? Whoever is in charge of the team should tell the group to tone it down, it's getting obvious.
As a police officer i 100% agree with everything he says...on the same note I also am going to continue to arrest people and seek out people who break the drug laws. Even though my personal views don't agree with what the government has in place I believe that laws must be enforced. I would like to see these laws repealed but until then I must do my job. I also can speak for many of the people that i work with and that we all have a very similar opinion.
A lot of countries got rid of slavery without resorting to wars and bloodshed. So, it can be argued that the Civil war was not necessary.
The Civil War was not fought to end slavery. It was fought to preserve the Union. PLEASE learn your history, not to be a jackass.
There was no war to end slavery. The northern slave states and the portions of southern slave states that didn't rebel got to keep their slaves.
SS9 got hurt at school. School nurse called to have him picked up, suggested take him for x-ray. BM is refusing : stepparents
SS9 got hurt at school. School nurse called to have him picked up, suggested take him for x-ray. BM is refusing
DH got a call from school saying that SS9 was in nurse's office. He ran into ...something... at recess and smashed his nose. There was bleeding, which eventually they got under control. School nurse said to come pick him up, and suggested he get taken for x-ray.
SS is with BM Sunday night through Friday morning, with us every Friday after school through Sunday night (plus all summer and every school break, but that doesn't matter for this I suppose), so she does school stuff. We live about an hour from BM and his school.
She picked him up from school, but is refusing taking him for x-ray. Instead, she'll "bring him in to the doctor tomorrow, since she has to bring her newborn for a well baby visit anyway". That clinic doesn't even have imaging. DH called that clinic to explain what happened at the school, what the school nurse suggested, and even they suggested he be brought somewhere today that has x-ray capabilities.
DH works nights, but is willing to take the time off work tonight to go there and bring SS to have x-ray. She's refusing that even. Saying "it's illegal for you to come here and take our son, it's my custody day". Obviously that statement is off her rocker. But DH doesn't know what to do here...
Does he seem ok? If so, it’s probably not urgent. She can use her judgement. They’ll be going tomorrow and he can get checked out then. I don’t see a problem with this.
If he isnt bleeding you can wait on x Ray's. It isnt preferred of course. I broke two bones. Both times my parents took about 3 days before we realized something was wrong. The school nurse has to cover herself and say go get checked.
But she can be called on for negligent. Save the text messages of her refusing. I don't think I would unless this is a habit.
If the bleeding is stopped and his nose isn't obviously broken (he would be in a good bit of pain) then having him examined the next day will be fine. Most likely just smacked it on a playground bar or something and got a big nosebleed from it.
My pediatrician has told me unless it's a really bad break they like to wait a day or two for x-rays.
Funny, quirky love stories have always had a unique place in Tamil cinema, and a few directors have managed to pull off the fine balance between hilarity and angst.
Director G Boopathy Pandian, who's given movies like Thiruvilaiyadal Arambam and Malaikkottai, tries to tread the same path with S 3 Films' Kadhal Solla Vandhen (I Came to Tell you My Love). He does run into a few problems, though.
It's all fun and games, to begin with. The story's set in Trichy, and you have flaky, fun-loving youngster Nanu Prabhu (Balaji), stepping into college from school with his friend Petha Perumal (Sabesh Karthik), and the freedom of it all blows him away.
Born into a carpenter's family (R Sundarrajan is his father), for Prabhu, it's as though life has begun all anew. And then, he catches sight of the beautiful Sandhya (Meghna Sundar) as she stands underneath a tree and flowers shower on her. Its love at first sight and he waltzes in new-found happiness, singing to the melodious Oh Shala until he finds out that she's older to him by a couple of years.
But Prabhu is persistent. Ignoring the dictates of his friends, he tumbles headlong into romance, finding ways to turn away Sandhya's other suitors. These sequences are amusing; it's rather nice to watch the lanky kid outwitting others stronger than him.
Sandhya is amused by him, indulgent, and obviously fond of him -- a little too much, judging by her body language. But then, the path of love is never tranquil, and difficulties soon pop up: Sandhya's people have brought her an alliance, and she seems to fall in with their wishes as well.
Up to this point, everything is good. The screenplay's fairly racy, and you're caught up in Prabhu's antics enough to wonder what's going to happen. Post intermission, however things begin to fall apart steadily.
Balaji (from the TV series Kana Kaanum Kalangal) is a neat find; he certainly can carry out the tasks he has been assigned with reasonable fluidity. His eyes dance with mischief and he plays the part of the irrepressible youngster part well, but he does lack screen presence, and can't carry the story on his own. The problem is compounded by the script too.
Meghna Sundar looks mature, pretty, and resembles Nayanthara at certain points, thereby giving away which movie the director has been inspired from, at several points.
Sabesh Karthik, with his antics and one-liners sets the aisles rolling in laughter, while several others appear in blink-and-miss roles.
Director Boopathy Pandian has obviously been influenced by Selvaraghavan: the first half's quirky appeal and mischievous moments have his touches everywhere. Angst and emotion is often alleviated by humour and it looks like the director had no very clear idea about where one ended and the other began. So you have silly conversations suddenly pop up in the middle of serious situations.
Movies like Manmadhan, Kadhal Konden, 7G Rainbow Colony, Yaradi Nee Mohini have all been liberally inspired from, and the climax, which is supposed to shock you, doesn't.
Yuvan Shankar Raja's music is hum-worthy: Enna Enna Agiren is another delightful addition to Oh Shala. The background score passes muster.
Raana's cinematography is peppy and quick; giving the swiftness necessary for a movie like this, while Praveen-Shrikanth, in charge of the editing, try to make sure the movie progresses reasonable fast.
Now, if only the director had shown some logic and rationale in the story instead of re-working several other earlier films, this movie might have lived up to the promise it generates in the first half.