Sometimes stupid loses

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Bowser, Mar 23, 2011.

  1. Bowser

    tony cooper Guest

    Each county has a County School Board, and the members are elected.
    There is also a Florida Department of Education.

    The County School Boards deal with budget, text book choice, and
    curriculum setting. Certain counties in Florida have a strongly
    religious right population majority, and other counties have a more
    liberal base. A text book approved in Duval County might not be
    acceptable in Polk County. The science curriculum in those two
    counties have differences.

    The state FDofE has some say-so in basic carriculum, but the school
    board really run the show. Teachers best be careful to refer to
    evolution as "one theory" in some counties, but creationism is not
    taught anywhere in public schools as far as I know. Some schools will
    bring it up as "a different theory", but not teach it.

    There is one state-wide teacher's union, but some cities have local
    unions. Since Florida is a "right to work", teachers are not required
    to belong to any union.

    (snip and continue in another post)
     
    tony cooper, May 7, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bowser

    tony cooper Guest

    As you've described it, there is no reason for NYSUT to exist and no
    reason for any teacher to belong.

    Play the devil's advocate and explain why NYSUT exists and what they
    do that benefits the local teacher. I understand that you don't think
    they should exist or that they provide any benefit to the local
    teacher, but there must be another side to this story.

    According to:
    http://www.nysut.org/cps/rde/xchg/nysut/hs.xsl/about.htm
    There is a function to NYSUT.
    This is always tricky ground. Not abortion rights, but the problem of
    an organization taking a stance on a political or social issue. If
    the organization does take a stance, there will always be members that
    have strongly differing views. If the organization doesn't take a
    stance on anything, then the organization is wasting its clout and
    power to effect political or social change.

    Additionally, it's tricky for the organization draw the lines of what
    is, and is not, within the organization's purview in attempting to
    effect political or social change. The lines are not as easily drawn
    as you might think at first glance.

    While I don't see the abortion issue as a teacher's union issue, there
    are many issues that are not specifically education issues that are
    legitimately within the lines.
     
    tony cooper, May 7, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bowser

    tony cooper Guest

    Depends. If it falls under the need for immediate treatment, the
    doctor can't refuse to treat anyone if his/her training is sufficient
    to treat the patient. However, this:
    effectively allows him/her to decline to accept a non-emergency
    patient.
     
    tony cooper, May 7, 2011
  4. Bowser

    PeterN Guest


    I am assuming we are discussing medical ethics for which a doc can be
    disciplined, as opposed to morality.
    A doctor sees a car accident in which a person is injured. Does he have
    an obligation to perform first aid?
    In NY he does not.
    However, I know lots of doctors on a personal level. (friends, former
    clients and through camera club.) Only one bastard would refuse to give
    first aid.

    Yes! but there is a difference. If a new patient calls for an
    appointment and is immediately told the
    doctor isn't accepting new patients; and
    if a new patient keeps an appointment or fills out the medical form in
    the Internet; and is then told.
     
    PeterN, May 7, 2011
  5. Bowser

    tony cooper Guest

    I see little difference between morality and ethics. Ethics are how
    we apply our sense of morality. Ethical standards, or a Code of
    Ethics, are just written summations of how we expect to apply our
    sense of moral responsibility. I can't imagine a ethical issue that
    contradicts our sense of morality.
    I think he has a moral/ethical responsibility everywhere. Legal
    responsibility may vary by jurisdiction. The doctor who pretends not
    to see is usually one who fears being sued on some trumped up case.
    That's why many places have Good Samaritan laws.
    Because he can't be bothered, or because he fears some negative
    repercussion of being sued or having to testify in some subsequent
    case?
    You're into the "What if...?" area. If we do the "What if...?s long
    enough, we can paint any picture we want.
     
    tony cooper, May 7, 2011
  6. Bowser

    PeterN Guest

    Codified ethics = codified morality, sometimes. There are always
    borderline circumstances. Fee splitting is considered unethical. Yet,
    when an insurance carrier hires a doctor for the purpose of denying
    treatment or liability, how is that morally different. there have been
    independent contractors, hired by insurance carriers, who act as an
    employment agency for doctors who are biased towards a carriers POV.
    These employment agencies were paid by the doctors and the medical
    boards brought actions claiming that the doctors were engaged in
    unethical fee splitting. In reaction, the carriers paid the agencies and
    the doctors less. This was not fee splitting. IMHO that is a distinction
    without a difference. If fee splitting is immoral, disguising it to
    achieve the same economic goal, is also immoral. Yet one complies with
    codified ethical practices.


    Closer to home, it is unlawful for a non-doctor to touch a patient
    during surgery. It is common practice for the manufacturer of an
    implantable to have a technical representative present during the
    procedure. In the event the doctor ran into a problem, the
    representative used to assist and do the actual connection of the
    implant. For the rep to do this is illegal. IMHO if the doc is running
    into trouble, such practice is not immoral.


    It is illegal to kill someone, when you are not in any danger and do not
    think you are in danger. Yet is a mercy killing also immoral?
    I intended to draw a borderline example to illustrate the fine line
    distinction. Of course the determination is purely one of facts and
    circumstances.
     
    PeterN, May 7, 2011
  7. Bowser

    tony cooper Guest

    This is a nit-pick, but all patients are routinely touched during
    surgery by several non-doctors. Scrub nurses (which my wife was when
    we met) are allowed, surgical technologists are allowed, physician's
    assistants are allowed, and nurse anesthetists are allowed. Midwives
    are not doctors. Surgery wouldn't happen if only MDs touched
    patients.

    When I had my by-pass, a surgeon did the heart surgery but a
    physician's assistant removed the section of vein from my lower leg
    which was used for the graft. Standard procedure.

    What you mean is "non-medical personnel".
    That "rep" was me for several years, but not with joint implants.
    I've spent hundreds of hours in surgery with surgeons in connection
    with my job selling surgical instruments and devices. I don't recall
    ever actually touching a patient, but I did provide on-going
    instructions for the use of products by surgeons using them for the
    first time. I have held retractors, though.

    Examples would be the first staplers introduced to the market for
    anastamosing internal organs, embolectomy catheters, and cryosurgical
    extraction instruments used in eye surgery. I once spent five hours
    in surgery manually moving the body of an operating microscope up and
    down while a surgeon reconnected four fingers to a patient that was a
    bit clumsy in using a meat cutting saw. The microscope had been
    ordered by the hospital, but not yet set up, when the patient was
    brought in.

    A salesman for an orthopedic implant company (I think it was DePuy)
    ruined it for the rest of us. He was in surgery for the first time a
    surgeon used a particular style of hip implant that was held in place
    with a fast-drying methylmethacrylate cement. The surgeon botched the
    procedure and the implant was not placed correctly. The surgeon had
    the salesman remove the wrongly placed implant; a very long and
    difficult job. The surgeon finished the job of re-placing the
    implant.

    The salesman ruined for the rest of us because he mentioned what
    happened to too many people. A newspaper reporter got wind of it, and
    a lawsuit came out of it. After that, it became much more difficult
    for salesmen to get into surgery. It was a big-deal case in my
    profession.

    To the best of my knowledge, there is not - and never has been - a law
    prohibiting non-medical people in surgery. Participating, though, is
    a different thing.
     
    tony cooper, May 7, 2011
  8. Bowser

    PeterN Guest

    Yes, indeed it is a nit-pick. BTW I used to be on the board the the
    company that manufactured implantable neuro-stimulator for use in
    spasticity control. At the time they all had RF control.

    I sit corrected. But, as you well know the tech rep is often more
    qualified in that limited area than the doc.
    I think HIPPA required my consent for the rep to be in the OR when my
    defibrillator/pacemaker was installed.
     
    PeterN, May 8, 2011
  9. Bowser

    tony cooper Guest

    I don't really agree with "more qualified", but I would agree with
    "more experienced". Many aspects of surgery are rather mechanical and
    don't require the training that a MD receives. Consequently, these
    functions are turned over to technically trained people. The MD
    remains the most qualified (by training), but may be less experienced
    in the specific function.

    Regardless of who does the function, the MD is still responsible for
    the outcome. Anything done by a non-MD is done under the supervision
    of the MD, though that supervision is not always detectable. If
    things go balls-up, it is the MD that carries the can.
    That may be the case now, but it was not the case when I was directly
    involved. Of course, when I was directly involved we could light up a
    cigarette in the surgeon's lounge. Been awhile, and there have been
    changes.
     
    tony cooper, May 8, 2011
  10. Re: Sometimes stupid loses;
    You're very welcome! Thank you.
    --Doug

    The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
    The rational change their world view to fit the facts.
     
    Doug Bashford, May 11, 2011
  11. in Usenet Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,
    rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
    about: Re: Sometimes stupid loses;


    ................big snip



    You are very polite. Here in the USA we call people immersed
    in doublethink like that; Republicans. It's like hypocrisy,
    except it's orchestrated and encouraged by an arm of the
    government.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
    "Doublethink, a word coined by George Orwell in the novel
    Nineteen Eighty-Four, describes the act of simultaneously
    accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct , often
    in distinct social contexts.[1] It is related to, but distinct
    from, hypocrisy and neutrality. Its opposite is cognitive
    dissonance, where the two beliefs cause conflict in one's mind.
    Doublethink is an integral concept of George Orwell's dystopian
    novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The word doublethink is part of
    Newspeak."

    What you observe is how the little people react to it.
    Their masters train them to hate a regulatory function
    (in this case the INS,) then they partially defund or
    (in this case) ruin it, then because it's dysfunctional,
    destroy it. ...the Rich Boy silently celebrates, even
    as [schoolyard bully analogy] he grows to despise the
    little people gleefully handing him their lunch money
    in this way.

    Bill Graham is *actively* aiding and supporting
    illegal immigration even as he rails against it.
    This is typical of them. Rhetoric speaks louder than
    actions, he will be *actively* aiding and supporting
    the politician that loudest supports his own rhetoric,
    their actions; inconsequential.

    It's all spelled out here:

    What the Conservative leadership is hiding:
    The true Conservative philosophy.
    Check it out!

    The founding fathers of modern Conservatism:

    Edmund Burke(1729-1797) (favored maximum wage laws)

    Leo Strauss (1899 1973)

    Russell Kirk (1918 1994)

    ....they distrusted and feared "the little people", and individual
    thought, and believed in Natural Aristocracy that no constitution
    or other human force can eliminate. They believe in
    using Religion and lies to rule these little people and to erase
    the individual.
    Thus they fear and distrust representative government.
    They didn't hide their world views, check it out.
    If actions speak louder than rhetoric, Not much has changed, huh?
    So how long before the GOP declares the Founding Fathers
    like Jefferson as Evil liberals? Well I think that depends
    on how long Doublethink holds. It might, forever.



    ....nor, in this case, taxes to fund the INS....

    What has happened in American politics, the avalanche started
    in 1988, is the concentration into the Republican party of
    all the low aspects, the doggie instincts via a direct appeal
    in that direction. This concentration is made worse by
    Dems who can't help shouting "doggie" and "bow wow" at them,
    while Repubs wisely coddle them. When the scum finally fills
    the barrel and rises to the top, BINGO: GW Bush. It's
    a herd of frightened bunnies and free lunchers shaking
    their fist (in a manly way) at wimps and free lunchers.
    Did I mention "irony?"

    The insane twist the facts to fit their world view.
    The rational change their world view to fit the facts.
     
    Doug Bashford, May 11, 2011
  12. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    I was already aware of the results of modern DNA sampling. Hence, I
    should've written:

    "Well, my view of British history, is that the Anglo-Saxons completely
    obliterated England's Celtic cultural heritage."

    Do you refute the above statement, also?
    Really? Then, why are the present populations of all those places, so
    overwhelmingly English-speaking?

    Whatever became of Gaelic?
    Totally irrelevant! Right and wrong don't change, with the passage of
    time.
    War has "happened" >everywhere<, for millennia; the various Indian
    tribes, themselves, often fought each other.
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  13. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    Guns and cameras, both have "barrels" -- no?
    My angling experiences were largely limited to little "bluegill" fish, which
    I always put back into the water, after catching them.

    I even made my own barb-less hooks (out of straight pins); they facilitated
    safe removal, from the animals' mouths.

    Now, I ask you...was that humane of me, or what?
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  14. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    PeterN wrote:


    I believe our own "Savageduck" would soundly agree with you,
    on that very last point.
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  15. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    tony cooper wrote:


    Hey, what about cameras? They "shoot" people, too!
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  16. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    Bill Graham's idea is so laughable! If Germany decided against invading
    Britain (only needing to cross the relatively narrow English Channel),
    why does he think Japan ever contemplated overrunning the continental
    United States?

    (Furthermore, the Germans would've encountered very few armed British
    civilians!)
    During World War II (and somewhat beyond), no country was an immediate
    threat to the U.S. homeland.

    It was only a decade or so later, after the U.S.S.R. developed nuclear
    weapons and the full capabilities of delivering them (i.e., long-range
    bombers and ICBM's), that serious dangers existed.
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  17. Bowser

    John Turco Guest


    Nein! Herr Schicklegrubber's name has not been invoked. (Bill Graham's cryptic
    comments, above, don't count.)
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  18. Bowser

    John Turco Guest

    I've contributed my fair share of articles (40), to this sprawling subject
    thread.

    Yet, unlike the vast majority of authors, I never cross-posted to either
    of the following newsgroups:

    <
    Does anybody, here, know what the all-time Usenet record is?
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  19. Bowser

    John Turco Guest


    I imagine that's what Peter could've had in mind.
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
  20. Bowser

    John Turco Guest


    "The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming" (1966)

    Or, as Archie Bunker might have said: "Are doze dirty Commies havin'
    organisms or somethin'?"
     
    John Turco, May 12, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.