We have yet another child criminally charged for something that at one time would have been treated as a mere conduct issue warranting a note to a parent. In Pikesville, Maryland, a 13-year-old will be charged with second-degree assault for kissing a 14-year-old girl on a dare. This absurd case began with school officials calling police who pursued the minor on criminal assault charges.
The child is now facing a second-degree assault charge as a juvenile.
There is no question that this warrants discipline but a criminal charge?
What do you think?
Great Britain did not simply “look with amazement” at Gulf War II and the Afghanistan war.
British troops participated in both.
That “selective sampling” is revealing.
Tom Nash
NRA Poll: The Membership want to keep guns I guess.
I think the Clinton position is that the time for talking is over and action is forthcoming. If this is the case there seems little point in going over and over the same information.
As Einstein said “stupidity is doing the same experiment over and over again and expecting different results”.
Ninian…there are at least a dozen organizations which support stricter gun control legislation. Most of the American public do not belong to the NRA, and they aren’t involved with gun control lobbying groups.
There were numerous laws passed in the wake of the JFK, RFK, and MLK assassinations of the 1960s.
Violent firearm crime soared for the next 20-25 years after these laws were passed.
The Einstein quote is relevant.
niniian – Hillary can get rid of her Secret Service detail at any point. So can Obama.
Ninian…..You stated the “It is reported than 90% of Americans are denied the gun reform they desire”.
I don’t know where that was reported, but you can go to recent Gallup polls, or polls from CNN, USA Today, or Pew Research.
As I’ve stated before, they all show a fairly when split on the issue of additional gun control laws. Most of the polls actually show a small majority OPPOSED to stricter gun control.
Tom Nash
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-gun-control-we-had-80-90-country-agreed-it
80% to 90% really? He lied on most of his campaign promises as well. Very few people I know are in favor of gun control so Obama’s friends, mostly bureaucrats and wealthy donors and my friends mostly in the private sector amazing have differing opinions. Obama and Hilary are protected by people with guns but don’t want others having those same protections. Does hypocrisy mean anything to you.
If true, it also goes to show you why all democracies and democratic republics fail over time. Out of all the current Presidential candidates, there are only a few that support both limited government and the total protection of individual rights. One Republican and all those running for the nomination for the Libertarian Party.
Ironic that the one Party that has it right, is the one constantly criticized by the main stream media and the political pundits. Must be coincidental.
Ninianpeckitt. You appear to have been so brainwashed by the socialist mentality and agenda that I find it hard to believe anything you write and I’ve read most of you posts. You should perhaps start learning the underlying principles of libertarianism so that you will at least have a greater perspective on the influences of social policy on our society. You almost always appear to support government social programs over protecting individual rights and you ignore the affect of all the government polices over our lifetimes. Dig deeper my friend, the policies and results are devastating the middles classes in both our countries.
Hskiprob: This isn’t about me.
Gun control is being planned.
I am just digging up information and presenting it.
ninian – gun control is always being planned and it is always being fought against.
This has been being done since the early 1880’s. Nothing (k)new. I can’t remember the case name in the 1930’s or 40′, but the issue ended up being if a sawed-off shotgun was considered armament, as in arms. The Judiciary of course said no it isn’t, maintaining that the military had no such weapon as this in their arsenal. Today sawed-off shotguns remain illegal in most States. That was just one in the long line of losses of freedom at the hands of the ruling oligarchy and those they pay-off in government.
Perhaps those in power see a civil war as a means of maintaining their powers as the economy deteriorates. Remember that it is highly unlikely that the US can turn itself around economically because of many factors. As the middle and lower class get squeezed, they oligarchs are having to plug many holes in the damn because of the lost revenue and increased welfare costs. It’s squeezing the amount of funds available to them that would normally be accessible through the treasury and government contracts; less revenue and increased costs mean less available money and the printing presses are weary. lol
They spurred on the civil war in 1850s in numerous ways, so it is conceivable that they may be willing to do the same things. Many of the gun and bullet manufacturers have already been bought up by just a couple of major corps which have restricted sales of certain type bullets and weapons. They obviously do not care what happens to our society, as long as they control the commerce and are protected, which they surely have the money to do. When one of the heirs of Rockefeller fortune was asked why they do it, he alleged said, because we can.
The article from the Washington Post, surprisingly was excellent. Pass that one around instead. I can’t find it on this tread, must be on another.
You may be correct. That gun control is being planned and there is enough opposition to fuel a conflict. The current mentality of the police is surely adversarial. Being stuck between poor policies they must inforce and an increasingly rebellious citizenry a the potential fuse.
hskiprob
No one wants conflict. No one wants a society of fear.
If there is a problem it needs to be admitted by all parties and engagement is the best way forward rather than a vitriolic range war.
People want to be armed with guns because of fear. And this fear is real. And it’s not what the Constitution intended in its pursuit of happiness for Americans.
If disarmament was possible between the World Powers, disarmament is possible within the borders of the USA.
The biggest problem is this issue of individual freedom which is counterproductive if you think about it carefully. The individual freedom of one citizen can impact on the individual freedom of another. The result is that neither reach this mirage.
This is the most fundamental problem America has to face. It can result in the handing over of power to groups few support – and this is dangerous.
I have every confidence that political evolution will continue to develop in the USA. But contrary to the President’s position, democracy is not the backbone of America. At least not yet. And there are Americans that definitely don’t want democracy. They place their own self interests above those of the country and their fellow citizens.
An alternative is the creation of a Police State with armed malitias patrolling public places. Stop and search. Restriction of human rights. Shoot first and ask later….. and there are some who want this. And there is an element of this already. The drift into fascism is but a small step.
Is this what the Founding Fathers intended?
More importantly is this really what the majority of Americans want?
And if America can’t sort out its own problems, what chance does it have on the World Stage?
Doesn’t it go someway to explain the naivety of foreign policy? The latest worry for the US appears to be the Russian influence increasing in the Middle East at the moment and a potential new US Saudi agreement. The mess just gets more and more complicated.
When the US went into the Middle East all my American friends said they were going to kick some but. I emailed back saying this would all “end in tears”….
Ultimately common sense will prevail but there is the possibility that America will rip it’s heart out on the road to true freedom and real democracy.
And none of us want to see this happen…
ninian – you still have to get past the 2nd Amendment. The Founders wanted us to be armed.
Paul C. Schulte.
Second Amendment:
The word “armed” does not appear
The word “Arms” is used and the term is not defined. The right to bear Arms could be a good defence against the introduction of Sharia Law.
The word “Guns” also does not appear in the second amendment.
ninian – the right to bear arms means the right to carry weapon of offense.
The word “Arms” is not defined in the second ammendment and there is no mention of “guns”. Those are the facts.
The main issue is that the constitution can be changed.
The Constitution contains within itself the process for changing it. The amendment process is described in Article 5. Amendments can be proposed in Congress when 2/3rd of both Houses agree. The states can play a role in proposing changes to the Constitution as well: 2/3rds of the state legislatures must call Conventions to propose amendments. Whether amendments are first proposed by the states or Congress, 3/4ths of the states must ratify (or approve) them before they become a part of the Constitution—the Supreme law of the land.
So the Constitution can be changed and if those wanting change exceed 75% then change can happen.
With reference to guns (not necessarily Arms) it appears that circa 90% of American voters want new gun restriction laws.
The problem is that America is a Republic not a Democracy and the Government of the People by the People doesn’t happen and has perished from this earth. We know this as the democratic majority of 1.5million votes is not translated into a majority of seats. So to change the law a democratic landslide would be required. With 50% of Americans with no savings and another circa 20% with $1000 in the bank the time seems right for a move to the left as we have seen in other countries facing bankruptcy.
So I am arguing that not only change IS possible it is likely.
Time will tell if this is right
Ninian…..There have been over 10,000 proposed constitutional amendments, and 27 amendments actually made it into our constitution.
Tom Nash: Constitutional Change
So it can be done…..
Ninian….Speaking of change in government, “Britain should get rid of the monarchy, says U.N.” -The Telegraph, June 13, 2008.
The U.N. report also recommends (that Britain)…”needs a written constitution with a bill of rights”.
So there is hope for the archaic, crumbling British structure of government.
Tom Nash
It’s nice to see I have won the argument at ladt and you are now training your guns on the UK rather than some schoolchildren.
There’s no doubt about it. Britain has lots of problems. But we have an ability to change, which America lacks.
The Monarchy is popular at the moment. We tried being a Republic under Oliver Cromwell after a Civil and this failed. The Monarchy was reintroduced in constitutional format. Our Monarchs reign not rule a notion Americans don’t (want to) understand.
On the whole, with the exception of the 1870s, the system has worked well. We don’t have American problems related to guns and the same level of abuse of the destitute, although attempts to introduce American market values have met wit disaster. We are not yet fully democratic and gerrymandering is still a problem. This will change if it is unjust and the people demand such change.
We are an imperfect Nation that recognises its historical wrongs, its faults and the faults of others, and retain an historical character of standing up to bullies in the name of democratic freedom.
The United States needed to be attacked to do the same thing….
I come from a country where you CAN speak out about injustice and oppression; and from a country that stood alone against real tyrrany and sacrificed an Empire rather than make peace.
I come from a country that looks on in amazement at a once Great Nation, as it descends into ridicule on the World’s Great Stage with respect to regular mass murder of its citizens that remains unaddressed; a foreign policy of a comedy or errors e.g. invasion of the wrong country to execute an enemy without trial; waging war on the basis of non existent weapons of mass destruction; facilitating the development of ISIS and losing intiatives to the Russians in Syria
I come from a country not hampered by an unworkable and manipulated Constitution and whose freedoms have not been redefined and have perished from the face of this earth.
The recommended changes to the British government came from the U.N.
So the U.N was “training its sights on” Great Britain.
Tom Nash: When Britain is wrong it rightly deserves criticism. As I have stated it is still far from perfect.
When America is wrong it gets away with it.
That’s the difference.
At the moment….
“The assessed intelligence has established beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein continues to produce chemical and biological weapons”. -Tony Blair
Tom Nash
UN wants urgent measures on gun control in America
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/21102-un-wants-urgent-measures-to-control-guns-after-charleston-killings
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Tony Blair:
Britain is just as guilty as the US in this issue. Some say we are the lapdog of the United States and there may be some truth in that. We are certainly tarred with the same brush and there is nothing to be proud of in that accolade.
America has demonstrated it can do some fantastic things. But political judgement isn’t one of them.
ninian, The UN and other government agencies have been promoting gun control for many years and gun rights advocates have long been fighting back. Despite the social results, there are some intelligent people in this country. Sadly, the big mouth minority whose voices are amplified by the main stream media make us look like a bunch of idiots. The “silenced” majority is not only not being heard, our votes are most likely not being counted. You know who counts the votes in the Country don’t you?
It is easier for government to run roughshod over their Citizens if gun ownership is prohibited. Government has always had a propensity to take away the rights and property of it’s Citizens. Most of the atrocities of the world were all promulgated by theft of property. You don’t think the Church and State really cared if people were witches, heathens, infidels or blasphemers. Religion is and always has been used to increase power and wealth of the State. They just wanted their property and once accused and put to death, the property went to the church and state. How convenient. You don’t really think the major religions got their wealth by voluntary donations. They have used force and coercion throughout the ages. Who do you think coined the age old meme, “we must have government”, the thieves in government and their financiers who we now know. The international banking cartel is now know by everyone who cared to read. The BIS in Basil Switzerland is their headquarters, where the various central bankers from each county around the world meet every two months.
The soul purpose of foreign aid is not democracy building it is to foster nation states in their confiscatory roles whereby the financiers, the (central bankers) I call the “oligarchs” can skim the money off the top of each of the nation state Treasuries. The use and control a vast array of international corporations as government contractors to control the commerce within each country. That is why they will support a Taliban led government like in Afghanistan against the Soviets one minute and oppose them the next. Not every government wants to play their games and those that become adversaries become the targets rather than allies. They will then invade those country trying to look for political leadership that will go along with the plans of the central bankers. Obviously, this is not as easy as it appears and in many ways, there is a growing opposition to them. The US Government sadly is a prominent player in this system and our Citizens are being extremely abused economically because of our governments and many of our corporations participation.
A lot of people know this stuff but obviously not enough and there are always those unwilling to do anything to change the status quo because they perceive themselves to be well off under the existing system.
Another civil war would be a good exist strategy for the oligarchs but it will be hard to get the American people in my opinion, especially at this point in time to go to war against one another. There is surely a huge riff between the democrat and republican political agendas and that is of course being propagated, under the proverbial “divide and concur” strategy for the oligarchs to maintain their controls.
The question is; how many people are falling for their strategy or do not care? Those are the ones we must fear because they will just go along to get along.
hskiprob
I have every sympathy with your frustration. Its your sureity of diagnosis with which I have a problem. There is no evidenced that an armed general public promotes freedom and liberty.
There is evidence that it promotes armed power bases and the rule of law by the gun rather than through a Republic or even a democracy.
Armed conflict is seen in Middle East for a thousand years. Same in Europe, Russia, Far East. The examples are endless. So it is strange that America.
It is not possible for any thinking person to argue that Armed General Public has worked especially when there is an indicattion that the majority don’t want this. So those clinginging to the engrained sanctity of this document are never going to admit any error. This would be too great a cross to bear.
You pounce on every word in every sentence I use to try and discredit the argument when my argument is obvious. This is a sign of clutching at straws of a lost cause that is gone with the wind.
We are not talking about a Nation disarming itself. This is the argument of hysteria programmed by the creed of an anachronistic Constitution. The Founding Fathers wanted to control free thinking and they succeeded in spades.
The world looks on in horror at what is happening in America which is counterbalanced by extraordinary claims of Freedom Liberty and all the rest of it when gun violence is accepted without remorse by pro gun lobbyists. You must understand how this looks like Insanity.
look up The Great Northfield Raid
hskiprob – ninian is not aware that every time Obama or Clinton pushes for gun control there is a spike in gun sales. I am go out and get an extra couple myself.
ninian – we, unlike you, have no ‘rotten boroughs. We don’t let the President decide who is going to be in the Senate as you do with the House of Lords. We have only had one civil war. And we got engaged in two world wars to save you butts.
Paul C. Schule: Rotten Boroughs ceased to exist after the Reform Act of 1832 about 30 years before your Civil War. You still have gerrymandering and Rule by a Minority in the America. The Constitution was deliberately set up to make this happen. This is the American equivalent of the Rotten Borough no one has done anything about it, as yet. You have a badly written consititution that does not define its terms, and terms of reference, that is blindly followed by reactionaries who are unable to think for themselves and rule by virtue of their decibels.
You have a system in which a boy is arrested for kissing a girl, making a clock, and a young child killing a gun instructor with an automatic weapon (uzi) and a child allegedy shooting another over arguments about puppies. You see nothing wrong with this by virtue of your silence and continue to engage in a banal debate over increasingly ridiculous breaches of human rights on this blog, which become more extreme and bizarre with every week that passes. These issues are treated as “normality” with the finer points of law debated in earnest, instead of a more appropriate referral to a Psychiatric Institution.
So my suggestion is to hand in your gun before you hurt someone. Statistics indicate this is more likely to be yourself than a “Baddie”.
As a Country America has commited some fax pas; an inability to invade the correct country and assassinate enemies without declaration of war nor trial which is in breech of your constitution is an absolute classic.
You have no understanding of the House of Lords and its advisory capacity to an elected Parliament. Your politicians are not elected by a majority vote either. Your understanding of monarchy is risible, and motivated by a desire to ridicule something you detest by virtue of ignorance.
America entered the second World War because she was attacked. And she made a great contribution to the freedom of others that was being defended by Britain alone until the invasion of Russia. It’s one of the most decent things America has done and saved us from being “bailed out” as you put it by the Soviets, who defeated the Germans at Stalingrad in 1942.
With respect to the British, they let many of these things happen to their shame. They sold out Czecheslovaia, they went to war to protect the soverignty of Poland and then let FDR and Stalin throw Poland to the wolves. So much for America’s protestation of Liberty and Freedom. Its all nonsense and everyone knows it.
But the most interesting thig of all is how Paul has avoided declaring any remorse for the large numbers of American killed by guns. This is very telling and a snapshot of a certain aspect of Amercian character.
Continued efforts to chage the subject will only keep me on track with the hope that my provocative words will encourage readers to think for themselves.
ninian – we are not the ones with the debtors prisons, workhouses, etc. We are not so weak we cannot defend ourselves, although Obama is working on that. I would never give up my gun to the government. I would give it to a relative.
BTW, it was an armed public that kicked your arses during the American Revolution. And it was only that people had personal weapons that Britain was armed at all after Dunkirk.
BTW. why don’t you write the ‘perfect’ Constitution and Bill of Rights for us. You seem to know so much about it.
Paul C. Schulte
I note still no remose is forthcoming about the gun anarchy on the streets.
Some would say the violence on Amercian Streets is a Civil War already.
American remains in a Real Mess. The Constitution will have to change to make things better. I sympathise with the difficulties but these are of your own making.
This is the matter for the American People to decide.
I think what isn’t understood it the state of flux in politics. Nothing stays the same forever and when the American People have had enough, change will happen, hopefully by the ballot box.
ninian – don’t believe what you read.
Paul C. Shute
Dont believe what you read. Very true. Especially if posted by you !
ninian – what is known as a Constitution convention scares the crap out out of both sides. Right now we cannot get 2/3s of the Senate to pass major bills.
Here is an interesting article on US Constitutional Reform
http://www.theglobalist.com/need-u-s-constitutional-reform/
The author states that “Such reform would not be difficult”, referring to changing the U.S. constitution.
He then acknowledges that there are only 27 anendments to the constitution. (Nearly half of those amendments were passed over 200 years ago).
He seems to be optimistic about the ease of changes to the constitution, while at the same time he notes the very small number of amendments.
He seems unaware of political realities in the U.S., and should look at the process involved, and the high hurdles that need to be cleared for amendments to pass.
ninian – do you know how hard constitutional reform is? Nobody in their right mind wants to go there unless they think they can control to convention.
ninianpeckitt wrote: “People want to be armed with guns because of fear. And this fear is real. And it’s not what the Constitution intended in its pursuit of happiness for Americans.”
No, fear is not the primary reason for a person to arm themselves. It is a rational response to an armed enemy. If we get these wacko students who want to kill others with guns, then it would be wise that we are prepared to defend ourselves by arming ourselves. It is dumb to bring a knife to a gunfight. Security is the intention of the Second Amendment.
ninianpeckitt wrote: “If disarmament was possible between the World Powers, disarmament is possible within the borders of the USA.”
What nation ever disarmed themselves, as in get rid of all their firearms? That is a dumb idea. It would never happen.
davidm2575
Gun control in Britain was passed in stages, beginning just after World War I and continuing with increasing strictness through the 1990s. By 1997, and virtually all handguns were banned via the Firearms Act.
This was how it was done in the UK.
America will choose its own pathway in this matter. But something will be done……
Again I have to say the lack of empathy for the victims by bloggers is very disturbing.
Ninian…….”the lack of empathy for the victims” you claim to detect is probably due to the inherent moral superiority (you feel you have)as an advocate for gun control.
The main reason for your claim of being pounced on for every word you write is your endless stream of unrealistic “solutions to” America’s problems.
Sanctimonious unsolicited advice from you does tend to draw sharp responses at times.
Paul C. Schulte and Tom Nash
We don’t have workhouses and your economy doiesnt depend on slavery. About $750bn of US economy today is illegal drug related.
The Revolutionary War was part of a global conflict which saw the creation of an Empire on which the Sun never set. The loss of the Colonies was a casualty of this conflict from the British Perspective.
The Americans fought in an alliance with the French Spanish and Dutch in a colaition against the British. The victory was a lot more complex that a load of farmers with pop guns taking on probably the biggest army in the world. Still it’s good fun to say that the Patriots kicked some butt, but it wasn’t really like that. Not that any of this matters today. The point I am making is that privately held Arms did not defeat the British. It was the help of the French and Spanish especially the Navies which secured victory and ended the war. So the notion of an armed minutemen malitia defeating the British is a Fairy Story. But it is a useful parable for those with their own motives to use in shaping American Public opinion.
The consequences for France were disatrous. The country became bankrupt primarily through their support of the Colonists. This of course was to America’s advantage in the later Louisiana Purchase in 1803.
The French Revolution decapitated Louis XVI, the Chief American Ally, and the British Empire prevailed. None of this would have happened if the French had not sought revenge for their defeat in the Seven Years War. So the loss of the colonies resulted in greater gain for the British and the bankrucy of France was to be the greatest advantage to the Americans, who never really reciprocated assitance to France and Napoleon.
The notion that armed citizens can challenge and defeat a modern army is quite ridiculous. It never happened in 1776 and can not happen in 2015. The argument is sheer lunacy, designed to implant fear into the public to influence rational opinion.
The lack of empathy for those murdered by gun anarchy on the streets is really chilling in this discussion.
I have given lots of opportunity for statements to be posted in response to my criticism and no gun adbvocate has said anything about the mass shootings.
This reveals a latent and sinister culture within America which is chilling.
And it will be a matter for Americans to address should they so wish.
As we are starting to cover old ground, I will end my blogging on this subject now by saying that, action is planned, action will be taken, outcomes may take many years to be seen.
But it will happen.
Ninian……your country has been shortchanged in these discussions, in that there has not been enough contributions/advice from commentators in these exchanges
on reforming the UK’s disfunctional government.
In the true spirit of reciprocity, I’ll try to make more recommendations on what the UK needs to do.😉
Tom Nash UK
If a new posting is started I am happy to discuss the UK issues.
You may find I agree with a lot of your criticisms.
I just saw this news flash:
Spencer Stone, one of the Americans heros who overpowered a gunman on a Paris-bound train, has been stabbed repeatedly in the torso. He is said to be in a stable condition following the late-night incident in Sacramento, California. Sky News Diplomatic Editor Dominic Waghorn said: “What we’re hearing is that he was stabbed several times in the chest last night at midnight.
“What’s not clear is whether this is connected to what he did or whether it was a random incident.”
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/france-train-attack-hero-stabbed-reports/ar-AAfeCrj?li=AAaeUIW
Im sure we all hope and pray for a speedy recovery for Spencer and that the assailant is caught.
I have no idea if he was armed, but if he was, it didn’t do him much good did it…….
Was the knife registered?
ninian – thanks for the note on the Spanish, that is new to me. However, the militia stuff is true. The Battle of Breed’s Hill is a perfect example. Lexington and Concord. During the winter at Valley Forge some of the regulars were taught to become regulars like the Brits and started fighting that way. There were still militia armies that were added and used.
Professor Ninian Peckitt wrote: “By 1997, and virtually all handguns were banned via the Firearms Act. This was how it was done in the UK.”
I understand that, but that is not a nation disarming itself. You still have British Soldiers fighting wars and they use guns. The nation is still armed, even though its citizen sheep are not.
Professor Peckitt wrote: “America will choose its own pathway in this matter. But something will be done…”
The problem is that people have different ideas about what should be done. You live in an island country that disarmed the citizens and you think that is a proper response. We still have a lot of open country here and we are not so ready as a nation to disarm. Generally, those people who live in a city want to disarm, but those who live in more rural areas do not.
As an individual, I just want to keep my right to protect myself and my family with equal force against an aggressor. If a Muslim terrorist is attacking my friends and family with guns, I want to keep my right to pull out my own gun and defend them. If a student enters the classroom with guns, I want the right to meet that force with my own gun. I should not have to be put into the position of just letting him kill us all.
You keep asking for statistics, but statistics don’t mean squat. It really comes down to the fact that if someone is coming at my loved ones with a gun, I want the right to have my own gun to stop him. It really is as simple as that.
If keeping my gun means we will have more school shootings, I am good with that. However, I think what would be proactive is training students in the use of firearms and encouraging them to carry their firearms to class. From my perspective, it would not be long before school shootings were but a distant memory.
In the United Kingdom, I understand that violent crime is much higher than in the United States, and robberies are much more frequent while the home is inhabited. I guess knowing that they will not face a homeowner with a gun makes British robbers much more comfortable with just robbing people while they are home. I am not comfortable with that.
david – do you know what you call a country that disarms itself? Conquered.
Tom Nash
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9160LW20130207
If I can’t back things up I don’t make the statement.
You should know that by now.
Hillary Clinton gives the impression that the time for talking is over and action is required.
So don’t shoot the messenger. …
The second paragraph of the Reuters link is especially interesting.
Tom Nash
Second paragraph of Reuters article is an example of selected sampling.
Initiative 594, requiring background checks for in purchases, passed by a 60% margin in Washington State. On that specific issue of the gun control debate, one of the most liberal states got 60% for background checks.
ninian – the world socialist worker is not an acceptable source.
The stories being posted are gut wrenching and illustrate illusions of right and wrong (whatever that might mean) in the Real World.
Religious belief is a personal matter and citizens are free to believe what they want to believe. This is protected in your Constitution. I am not proposing to impose any beliefs on religious groups. But I am proposing that human rights of the individual to believe is a basic freedom and needs to be enshrined in Law. It is clear that this does not always happen.
I have not imposed my beliefs on anyone. In fact I have not revealed what I personally believe about termination of life. I have only asked difficult questions about individual rights to decide, for which there are no uncontroversial answers.
I have emphasised that what may be “right” for one person may not be right for another depending on circumstances. In particular I have not told people how they should think; rather I have said that they should be allowed to think and in your constitution it is alleged that they have the right of freedom of thought.
There is no legal right to coerce individuals to think in a certain manner, and yet this is what is happening.
The issue is about legality and what is, and what is not, constitutional. I have deliberately separated religion and constitutional legality for this purpose, but included religious belief in “choice” to accommodate all parties.
A DNR is only part of this issue. This implies that if a fatal event occurs resuscitation is not to be carried out. But there are circumstances in which DNR could be difficult to apply for example in persistent vegetative state and decisions still have to be made. Withdrawing of food and drink is a controversial option which has given rise to considerable criticism in some quarters. This is not synonymous with DNR. The issue at stake is whether this is legal or not. Whether it amounts to euthanasia or not is also an issue and if it does amount to euthanasia – what is the difference between this type of long drawn out euthanasia and the euthanasia propagated by organisations such as Dignitas in Switzerland. If we are talking about compassion and dignity in death has Dignitas got it right? Or have they got it wrong. Is it anyone’s business what the Swiss decide? Have they not got the freedom to decide their own legal issues?
More close to home, is the management of the terminally ill to be the subject of family feuds and animosity? Could a well thought through Law defuse this potential cause of friction? I am sure that readers understand the complexities of these issues and that fact that there is no single solution.
Death and its management is a very private matter. Or at least it should be. But it isn’t. Patient confidentiality goes out the window. Families Doctors and Lawyers may take over in cases where an individual’s rights and wishes are contested. There are numerous cases of prolonging life.
On January 4, 2006 Ariel Sharon suffered a haemorrhagic stroke. After two surgeries lasting 7 and 14 hours, doctors stopped the bleeding in Sharon’s brain, but were unable to prevent him from entering into a coma. Subsequent media reports indicated that Sharon had been diagnosed with cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA). Sharon underwent a series of subsequent surgeries related to his state. He remained in a long-term care facility from November 6, 2006 until the time of his death. Medical experts indicated that his cognitive abilities had likely been destroyed by the stroke. His condition worsened from late 2013, and Sharon suffered from renal failure on January 1, 2014.
After spending eight years in a coma, Sharon died on January 11, 2014.
It is up to individuals to decide whether this sort of management is in the patient’s interests and whether individuals consider this type of care as appropriate, compassionate and/or would want this aggressive care for themselves and loved ones. One also has to think what pressure, if any, was brought on the doctors and also what might have been the wishes of the family. But maybe the most important issue is what the patients would want for himself. Please note I am making no judgment, but I am asking you to judge. Because someone has to judge whether this sort of thing is “right”. Is it right to give a chance to a patient whose cognitive functions are more likely to result in a stroke.
This morning we learned of another College Gun Massacre in Oregon and in making your own personal deliberations I would ask that you consider the contradictions in Society and the Constitution
1. The Individual Rights of Freedom and Liberty
2. The Right to Live
3. Abortion
4. A Right of a terminally ill patient to choose to Die in Dignity?
5. Terminal Care Management Pathways – e.g. withdrawal of food and water
6. Aggressive care of the terminal patient
7. The Second Amendment and the Right to Kill
8. The Death Penalty
9. Religious Beliefs and the Law
Thanks again, Paul
Thanks, Paul C. May I ask which way he was “tilted”…. I.E., ” pull the plug”, or recommending hopeless continued treatment. (Nick alluded to the latter in having to fight against inserting a feeding tube).
Tom – there was already a DNR in place and he wanted to know if I wanted to over-rule it. I told them to treat aggressively and if he crashed, don’t resuscitate.
Paul C Schulte..
In the DNR decision you mentioned, did you feel that the attending physicians gave you even handed assesments and advice re the patients prospects, or was it somewhat “tilted”?
Tom Nash – I think the doctor was “tilted” but I very clearly laid out EXACTLY what was to happen. 🙂
ninian, I’m becoming a rarity, I do not believe in abortion, euthanasia or capital punishment. My beliefs founded in my Catholic upbringing and education, however, I am not evangelical. Regarding abortion, we men tend to harden the debate so I tend to take a back seat to women who can speak more righteously than myself from a personal perspective. Interestingly, science is changing the debate as unborn babies become viable @ earlier ages. I do not judge women who have abortions. I can never know the angst.
As you know, I have worked in one of the worst penitentiaries in the US, Leavenworth. I worked as an investigator for the Kansas City Prosecutor’s Office. So, I have helped put very bad men in prison[a few women as well] and supervised some of the baddest of the bad. You know me well enough to know I am no bleeding heart. But, I do not believe the govt, should kill people. Again, I don’t talk about my belief all that much. I am not evangelical. I understand the argument for capital punishment and I know very good people who believe in capital punishment. The practical implications of my belief are I would never be allowed to sit as a juror on a capital murder trial. The odds of that being an issue are extremely remote.
Euthanasia is for me the most complex. Again, my beliefs are based on religion. However, I do not practice religion and actually have come to be derisive of organized religion. NOT the people who practice it, just the hierarchy. But, there is much about the Catholic faith in which I was raised that still are my core values. Obviously, Thou Shalt not kill is the pertinent commandment on all three topics. However, I also see how screwed up our culture is regarding death. I’ve dealt w/ death personally and professionally. I’m comfortable w/ it. I don’t use euphemisms like “passed on.” I say someone died. Hell, it’s something we all have in common. Now, the religion in which I was raised considers suicide a sin. I do not. If a person takes their life, it is their life. We prolong life needlessly. The hardest thing I had to do in my life was to tell my father’s doctor to not prolong his life. My mother was lost in worry and grief. Here’s the story. My father had a TIA and was hospitalized. The clot was dissolved, the prognosis was good, and he was going to be discharged the following day. My father called me from his hospital bed. He was an introvert and HATED to talk on the phone. I am the same way. We talked sports for a bit but it was obvious he called me for a reason. I asked my father what was on his mind. He told me his roommate was on life support. His body was shaking and it was just ghastly to watch. My father cried hoping the man was not suffering. He said, “I never want that.” I told him I would make sure his wishes were known. This was the 80’s and living wills were not mainstream. However, I knew about them and should have gotten my dad to sign one. A few months later my dad had a massive stroke. i consulted w/ his doctors, I got a second opinion from another doctor. He was not going to recover. However, I had to fight to see that a feeding tube was not inserted. I had to fight w/ one of his brothers who said I was killing my father. So, I know the reality. He died after 8 days. He was heavily sedated. I could not abide assisting his death. But, I knew not prolonging his life was what he wanted and no one was going to stop me from seeing his wishes honored.
A much longer comment than usual from me. But, a very important topic.
Paul C. Schulte …very unpleasant situation to have to make those calls, even when the patients’ wishes are known and there is no reasonable expection of recovery.
I can answer these since I have had real world experience with this issue. Some back story. My mother was in a severe auto accident and was in a coma for over 6 months and the prognosis was not good. We were told that she would likely be severely incapacitated if she ever did revive. Not only did she revive, she was moderately incapacitated, required extensive physical therapy. She ultimately recovered after many years to be able to travel with my father, go bowling and see her grandchild born.
Fast forward and in 15 years another accident. She was sustained major brain injuries and was in critical condition, on life support.
1st Question? Do you think it is immoral to keep people alive longer than nature would on it’s own?
Your question is too simplistic.
Do you mean heroic measures like artificial breathing, intubation feedings? Or do you mean using medical procedures such as doing surgery for say an infected appendix from which in nature, that person would likely die a long and lingering death. Do you mean withhold medications to help diseases such as Type 1 diabetics (children). Do not develop or distribute vaccines or antibiotics? Don’t bother setting compound fractures? No blood transfusions? Without those types of treatments nature would have its way and people would die on their own.
In some cases I do think it immoral, especially when there is no hope, zero chance of ever recovering. In that case “heroic” measures should not be taken. In the case of my Aunt who had lung cancer, they did do some treatments for about a year or so, until it was certain that there was no chance of recovery. Instead of continuing on and grabbing an addition 6 to 12 months of painful existence filled with chemicals and basically either unconscious or in pain……, she opted to go home, have hospice care, ceased treatments. Got her affairs in order. Visit with family and friends. Sit on the deck and listen to the birds and classical music. There was pain medication at the very last in order to be merciful.
Premise: We have the capability to keep people alive when their brains are no longer functional. They’re clinically dead.
2nd Question? When do you pull the plug?
In our case, we literally had to make that decision, to pull the plug on my mother’s breathing machine and other machines that were only keeping her alive. The brain injuries were so severe that there was no chance of recovery. She was brain dead as far as any one of the experts could say. Badly mutilated as well.
We considered these: 1. there was no hope. 2. She would not want to live in this state of being brain dead but breathing by machinery. 3. It had gone on long enough. 4. What would she want and this status was not it.. 5. Would she want to go through this again? 6. As a deeply religious woman, my mother would not want to continue in this limbo state as a piece of meat when in her beliefs the soul has already gone on. Would she be kept from “going to God” by forcing her body to exist without a soul? (Her beliefs not ours were to be considered)
The angst of course is, are you making the right decision?. What if there was a miraculous recovery as in her first auto accident. How long do you wait to make the decision knowing that that by all expert opinion, there is not any chance of recovery. What if we are wrong?????
It was the hardest family decision that any of us had to make.
DBQ:
The story you tell illustrates the turmoil of the consequences of critical injuries and illness.
You can never be 100% sure that the care is appropriate. No one can predict the future with absolute accuracy. It is a question of probability. But even the figures are problematic. It is no help to be told of a 90% chance of dying. What we need to know is if the patient is going to be in the 10% that survives. And this is not possible to predict with any certainty.
In the case of brain death in which there is zero chance of recovery decisions are easier to make.
What is more difficult is to decide on the management of a peristent vegetative state where some brain function is present but not enough to independently sustain life. An example of this might include locked in syndrome in which the patient can hear and maybe understand but cannot show any nervous response with brain stem death. This is the most difficult of cases.
Each case must be taken on its own merits. Compassion is the key issue. The patient comes first then the family but the doctors and hospital need the support of the patient and family.
Finally there needs to be compassion in the legal system which needs to serve the interests of the patient and family and understand the difficulties of health care providers.
So the best management is through consensus……
ninian – in the USA they ask us to have on file DNR orders (yes or no) for emergencies. This puts the families, doctors, and courts at ease.
Hski…..I’ve been involved in three end of life decisions. In two of those cases, there was advanced medical directive_ and I was named agent.
The advanced medical directive, and knowing the patients, and the patients’ terminal conditions, made that a relatively easy call.
The first question that I asked is if the patients had a realistic chance of regaining consciousness. That appeared to be a remote possibility, but my objective was to see if the patients themselves would be in a position to make the call.
With the advanced medical direct, and knowledge of the patients’ views on quality of life, etc.., the decision was made to discontinue treatment. The specialists involved gave a realistic, unbiased view of the patient’s condition, and odfds of recovery with continued aggressive treatment.
After consulting with other family members, treatment was discontinued.The third decision was more troublesome, given the absence of an advanced medical directive, and the E.R. physcian talking to me instead of the still- lucid patient. So I emphasized that he need to “lay the situation out”…. Treatment options, chance of recovery, etc. to the patient, who did refused to be placed on a ventilator.
I guess these are a couple of ” real world ” examples of how decisions might be made re end of life decisions.
Tom Nash – I have only had to make a DNR call once. I did not feel the situation was so far gone as to let it kick in yet.
Ninian….sorry….I see that your last post was not addressed to me.
Ninian…..since I did not mention abortion, what ( specifically)do you find “confused” about my thinking?
It appears ninian has a 2 front war on population control, kill the unborn and those pesky expensive elderly. It is a brave new world.
Nick Spinelli
I fight no wars. I am explaining to you that to be free, to have personal freedom, you cannot impose your views to crush the personal freedom of others.
And this is exactly what you are doing. And it illustrates why the US concept of freedom cannot work. Except when you choose when it works for YOU and ignore it when it doesnt work for somebody else. You are quite happy to blow someone away with a gun under the second amendment and yet this amendment allows you to bear Arms but not to use them. How crazy is that?
So if abortion, which is a form of euthanasia, is legal why isn’t euthanasia legal? I am not passing a judgment – I am asking a question.
I’m not asking what Nick or anyone else thinks about the rights and wrongs. I am not asking for a religious opinion. I am asking why abortion is LEGAL and euthanasia isn’t. And if euthanasia is legally available for foreignets in Switzerland what is the US going to do about this?
ninian – you are trying to force your opinion on the rest of us. That is very high-handed of you. Yet you claim the rest of us are doing it to you. Maybe you just do not understand the rules of the game.
Ninian…..I’m not disputing your numbers as to amount spent on patients in the final year of life. I think that there is in fact a disproportionate amount of money spent on the oldest,and most ill,
patients.
Dollarwise, any system would save money if treatment was denied to those of a certain age, or those with “the most expensive” illnesses.
ninian…..while I don’t think the situation is as bad as it was a generation or two ag
o, there is a good deal of arrogance to be found in MDs. I don’ t stick around very long if I see that chacteristic in a practitioner.
I’ m not sure if this is the accurate medical term, it ,” going ape sh–” is a likely reaction from me.
If given the opportunity, there are MDs and systems that facilitate these “quiet pathways to death”. This is a legitimate concern, especially in single payer systems were ” covered” care and “end of life” decisions are more concentrated.
I seen individuals mocking the idea that “death panels” could exist in the American heart care system, then list the ailments THEY think should be treated, and not be treated.
It’s not inconceivable to me that actual “death panels” do exist in some health care systems, and could be adopted on the U.S.
I’ m not talking about a lucid patient with ALS who requests assisted suicide…I’m referring to potentially treatable conditions where the patient and family is not given a clear, unbiased assessment of options available.
Tom Nash
To think that doctors do not do what is required to ease a patients suffering at the end of life is unrealistic. This should not be confused with euthanasia, which is the intention to end life.
But in alleviating suffering – this in itself may shorten life – and this is the payoff.
The formalisation of this type of care into “death panels” and “end of life pathways” has done much to harm to the care of the dying. And I would argue that this in itself causes greater suffering. And the legal profession had much to answer for in this respect. They have not always helped these patients nor the doctors who have a difficult enough job.
This matter is really between patient and doctor with secondary family support and consent.
If we get this wrong the suffering can be dreadful to the point of extreme. You really have to witness it to see how bad it can be. And valiant attempts to preserve life at all costs just exacerbate the tragedy.
So this care needs to be between patient and doctor + family in an informed and humanitarian manner. The welfare and privacy of the patient is paramount.
Outsiders have no moral nor constitutional right to force their opinions on the liberty of a dying patient.
“60,000 patients put on quiet death pathway without being told”. 12-30-2012 UK Daily
Death Pathway: The article is from 2012 and caused an outcry in the UK with allegations of institutional murder to create more beds. As I explained the Liverpool Care Pathway was discredited and abandoned. But it illustrates what our new managed market NHS (loosely baded on the US system) has become.
I have already posted a statement on the management of dying….. and the wishes of the patient must be respected.
In the United States estimates in 2006 show that about 27% of Medicare’s annual $327 billion budget ($88 billion) goes to care for patients in their final year of life. This represents 22% of all medical spending in the United States, 18% of all non-Medicare spending, and 25% of all Medicaid spending for the poor.
So this is a major issue and needs to be handled with sensitivity and compassion.
The preservation of life can involve inhuman suffering and few doctors accept that life should be preserved at all costs. What matters most of all is what the patient wants. And we have no right to impose our own personal views on an another individual at the end of life.
In the UK patients are having travelling to Switzerland for Dignitas euthanasia and to obstruct this is patronising and inhuman.
ninian – that is not true. I get the same from my doctors for free. It is a portal to my medical records. In fact, I just open my portal for my GP today. I also have on for my cardiologist. It allows me to contact my clinic for minor things, but for the most part it is my medical records.
I do not know why david’s drs are charging him for the same service I get free, but that is free enterprise for you.
The Liverool Care Pathway is one effective cost control element in Great Britain. Ostensibly created as a hospice-like system, patients are put on “death pathways” without treatment, or permission, or possible treatment options.
There was an assisted suicide measure on the ballot in Washington State years ago. One MD commented “I could use this all the time”.
Liverpool Care Pathway was discredited and is no longer used.
But I would say this dying is a process that needs to be managed well to alleviate suffering of the terminal patient.
I think euthanasia is a personal issue and the State and Lawyers should have no right to interfere with a patient’s right to choose the manner of their fate.
There will be people who disagree with me and that is their choice. But they must be prevented from imposing their own choice on others.
Especially in “The Land if the Free”
I think assisted suicide is murder and the doctor should be imprisoned. People who disagree with me must be imprisoned as well.
Paul C. Schulte: Yes Assisted suicide is regarded as murder in many countries. But there are signs this is starting to change. It is interesting that your concept of individual freedom doesn’t include euthanasia. Imposing your views on others is fascism.
For example euthanasia is practised in Switzerland. If a US patient legally dies by Euthanasia in Switzerland, I don’t think the US could do much about it?
It is interesting that euthanasia is outlawed but abortion isn’t.
So your thinking is inconsistent and confused. But I defend your right to this opinion. But not your right to force it on others, who don’t share these views.
Nevertheless, one day euthanasia will be accepted like abortion and will save many from inhuman suffering.
So it doesn’t matter what you or I think. What matters is what happens.
Euthanasia is available for those who want it and to obstruct this is inhuman
Questions for everyone:
1st Question? Do you think it is immoral to keep people alive longer than nature would on it’s own?
Premise: We have the capability to keep people alive when their brains are no longer functional. They’re clinically dead.
2nd Question? When do you pull the plug?
Hskiprob: Morality on Life and when to pull the plug
These are good questions.
Society decides on the morality and a democratic decision is made. Transplant organs must be kept alive after “death” so the question is very complex.
I’m sure there will be US protocols on this with respect to the diagnosis of brain death. But this does not necessarily make it moral in religious terms. There will be occasions when the family and doctors disagree about switching off life support for religious or other reasons and courts may become involved. This sort of thing needs to be avoided.
I think that morals can be very difficult issues. I remember my G.P. father saying something to me many years ago when as a young idealistic medical student I became upset when a patient died and I couldn’t understand why more couldn’t be done to save this life. I felt that this was such a waste. My father sat down with me and we talked and talked. Then he said ” you know sometimes it isn’t just the job of the doctor to cure people they sometimes have to manage the suffering of dying”. So I don’t think “morals” is quite the right word. It’s about compassion -at least that’s what it us for me. And your manner and persons conveys this to the patient and family. And that’s the most important thing. To get everyone through this as gently as possible and with dignity.
I actually prefer to use the term ethics and I should have but in this case moral and ethic mean the same thing to me.
Kind of an interesting subject in and of itself. I use morality as my own belief; that which is the moral code I live by, the rules that I have set for myself to live by. They do not apply to anyone else. Whereas ethics is how I treat you and you treat me. Politic to me is about ethics, how we treat one another. As you probably understand I believe that taxation is unethical yet I also believe that not contributing to the welfare of the less fortunate, if you have the means is also unethical. The key part for me is force. If you must force someone to give then that is unethical as well. One group should not be allowed to force another group, a the point of a gun, to do what they believe is right.
Because I am talking about my actions in my questions and how it affects others it is a moral decision for me yet an ethical one as well because it would affect another person.
You are right that ethics should incorporate compassion but we also have a responsibility of not wasting money on dead people when limited resources could help a living person. I see people putting flowers on graves and I wonder why they are doing this. They’re not doing it for the dead person their doing out of selfishness to make themselves feel better. It’s all about themselves and appearances. I guess they are trying to convince themselves or someone else that they were a good ________ to the dead person. Fill in the blank with what ever relationship they had. Rather then spend the money on live people, people appear to often spend their money on dead animals, caskets, flowers, animal clothing etc. Don’t get me wrong, a memorial to a life is not a bad thing, but we have huge parcels of land where we put dead folks in the ground in some sort of ritual tradition. Why not still build more pyramids?
We are a very unethical society and very few like to admit it. Government could care less about the people yet every 4 years a group of people, lying through their teeth, take a year are so to try to get elected to positions that gain themselves power and money, at the expense of everyone. It is a most intriguing performance by people whom we know are lying yet we try to choose who is lying the least. You can go down the list of the last 10 Presidents and all but a few did as they promised in their campaign speeches and they were probably not reelected. lol
Political evolution involves change to meet the challenges of a deleloping world. If change cannot match this society collapses. We have seen this in the Communist Block, China, and the Welfare State Systems of most of the Western Democracies.
The ability to change is an inherent qualot for survival and with the creation of large populations social issues become relevant and the weakest link on the chain.
A way has to be found to address these issues. The replacement of State Funding for Social Services and healthcare by the private sector has not been successful wherever it has been tried. In fact it has confounded the problems.
The other solution of leaving the sick, poor and destitute to their own devices has implications for the rest of society as effects of an underclass and discontent permeate throughout the system and lead to social unrest and even revolution.
So a way must be found to manage this situation so that the talent that is there can be harvested. This means nor playing to the lowest common denominator but to provide opportunity for people to help themselves. That is what America is supposed to be about. It is why migrants crossed the Atlantic to the Land of Opportunity. Why you are ALL there actually. The Pope made this clear recently. Amercia is a Nation of Immigrants…..
It’s not about Liberalism or Republicanism. It’s about decency and making America strong and successful.
And this doesn’t happen when people are dying on the streets in abject poverty.
ninian – why don’t you spend all your time making England strong.
Paul C. Schute
That’s not what this blog is about!
ninian – it is not the purpose of this blog either.
A couple of updates
Economist Intelligence Unit:
End of Life care in the UK has been rated as the best in the world in a study of 80 countries.
Top 10 are in order:
UK Australia New Zealand Ireland Belgium Taiwan Germany Netherlands United States France
California is to become the 5th State to pass a right-to-die bill.
As yet we have no right-to-die legislation in the United Kingdom. A recent vote was against this in Parliamenet recently.
This is bound to change in due course.
ninianpeckitt wrote: “And this doesn’t happen when people are dying on the streets in abject poverty.”
Where is this happening? Certainly not in America. The poor here are richer than middle class people in other countries. Nobody starving in the streets here.
I’m helping two homeless men right now. They eat far better than I do. They get food stamps and are always bringing me T-Bone steaks and eating like kings. I have to tell them stop because they are making me get fat. They laugh about it and the next day they are bringing me more food. I gave them a refrigerator and they have it stocked full of food that they can’t fit anything more in it. All at the taxpayer’s expense.
Dying on the street
NIH paper
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1829423/
ninianpeckitt, the link you provided said nothing about dying on the streets in abject poverty. Why can’t you admit that you made that up. It is not happening in America.
I did find this anecdote that I thought was interesting:
“When she (my mom) got sick, they put her in a nursing home, and they denied me access…she deteriorated, she lost her hair, she was almost comatose…I never got to see her. What they did to her I’ll never know. One thing I knew—when she saw me she said, ‘Call a taxi; get me out of here.’…So everything right now is in a nightmare. I’m trying to find out how she died…nobody told me…In my mind I’m thinking she’s still alive…I never thought I’d lose my mom, or not in this way, not this hideous mess that happened that I can’t understand.”
What I found interesting is that this experience has nothing to do with poverty or being homeless. We experienced the same situation when my wife’s father became sick and was put in a nursing home because his very old wife trusted her lawyer friend who said he should be put there. We were not allowed to take him out for visitation. Because the wife’s lawyer filed for guardianship and to have him declared incapacitated, we had to go to court to try to get him out of there. He had the same fears of not wanting to die alone. The only way we could make this happen was to hire a lawyer and ask the court to grant guardianship to my wife. A few days after my wife was given guardianship, her father died. It was all very sad. The thing is, this had nothing to do with being homeless or dying in the streets. It had to do with the crazy privacy laws the health community has, and the way they invest authority in one family member who was too old to make proper decisions. It had to do with a judge not hearing family members at a hearing. It had to do with government assistance through Medicare and other forms and people in the health profession wanting that money. Without the insurance system, Medicare, etc., my father-in-law would have been at home with family members who loved him and wanted him, which is where he belonged. He would have died at home with family members who loved him. Instead, Medicare and insurance took him away from us. This is another reason I am against nationalizing health care. There will be many more sad stories like this as we take health care decisions out of the hands of the consumers who utilize it.
Dying on the streets Cincinnati
http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2015/02/14/dying-streets/23377583/
ninian – have you decided that the homeless are your next cause?
260,000 violentvdeaths of Black Americans since 1980
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/a-matter-of-black-lives/399386/
This ia about the size of the town where I was born
ninianpeckitt ……….262,000,000 deaths of people by their own governments in the 20th century. What’s your point. Compared to the rest of the world we’re doing good.
Government creates conflict. What are you going to do about it? How do you stop government from causing so much conflict and killing this many people?
Ohhhh…..more government.
hskiprob:
When you lack empathy you lose the very quality that makes life worth living. This is the biggest problem with “Me” not “We” Society.
America is as strong as its weakest link and cultures of promoting superiority always generate a self destructive arrogance.
A little humility goes a long way and helps to create an all inclusive Nation.
The reality is that America is in chaos with extreme views of the minority taking advantage of a Republican System created to oppose legitimate democracy.
This is a form of fascism and it is to he noted that democratic votes outnumber Republican by about 1.5 million but this is bit reflected in the majority of seats and the Republican Majority.
If these issues cannot be addressed the prognosis for America is grave and the country will not survive in its present form.
A great conflict is looming as a consequence of intransigence lack of education, arrogance and denial of democratic freedom.
There is anarchy on the streets, public disorder and serious police issues. These are all signs of an impending collapse of infrastructure treated with considerable amusement by radial factions especially. There is certainly a culture if fear and hopelessness in large sections of society.
These attributes affect other Western States but those democratic nations have a degree of protection but no absolute protection.
Economic crises promote the rise of extreme opinions of the right and left and this is happening in many countries.
This is a very dangerous situation as the departure from common sense becomes more apparent.
America is in a dangerous situation especially because of an inherent arrogant surety of its position in the world and does not see its loss of respect by other Nations. Nor does it cate.
It is very sad to see a Nation that has achieved so much and made so much sacrifice, go down the toilet.
ninian – hopefully we will never be as Socialist as you want.
Paul C. Schulte
I got an email circular from the White House this morning stating that “Democracy is the backbone of American politics”.
We all know this is nonsense. That America was intentionally set up as a Republic to crush Democratic Rights. This diagnosis is agreed by your colleagues.
The most bizarre posts, which could have been scripted for a Jerry Lewis movie, are regularly made and treated with all seriousness. From arresting a young boy at school for kissing a girl, another for making a clock, from judges stating they want to shoot policemen, sentencing a felon to marriage, another more recent story about an official drinking goats blood. Mass shootings especially of children are an accepted way if life. Derision of poverty, fierce opposition to “affordable care” produce the most vitriolic comments. Dismissal of legitimate discussion and posting of facts by hardliners that just aren’t true and known not to be true to try strengthen a fictitious argument through which a kindergarten student could drive a coach and horses.
This is the picture of life painted in America and it is dysfunctional as the arguments presented.
Any argument that is considered by Paul as left of centre is invalid, not necessarily because of its factual content but because of an inability to appreciate the Big Picture. Similarly any “Un-American” comment, whatever that might mean, is not permitted in the Land of Freedom of Speech. But this is nothing new and is nothing but an extension of the stupidity of Un-American McCarthyism.
Your attitude to firearms has no place in a civilised world. It is reported that 90% of the American population are denied the gun reform they desire, primarily because of gerrymandering in this undemocratic Republic, in which Republicans hold the majority of seats but not the majority of votes…..Some Backbone of Democracy.
The Constitution is a revered document, accepted without question. In fact it is not permitted to question its legitimacy. It is confused contradictory, unworkable and badly written – not defining key terminology as is normal in legal documents – and has created in essence what is now a Failed State, an oppressed and disenfranchised majority, a collapsed financial system, in which frightened citizens are armed to the teeth professing a collective delusion paranoia, whilst simultaneously professing their freedoms and normality.
It is a State which invaded the wrong country looking for Bin Laden and then invaded another to collect the bounty and execute without trial. At least that’s how the Islamic World views it – not that any of this matters to Paul and like minded colleagues. The only thing important is what they think, and what they think other people think, about America.
The most worrying thing of all is the attempt to rationalise this lunacy. For this is how America is seen by othere bother frind and foe.
The abject failure to sort this out will continue to alienate and ultimately destroy America from within, as President Lincoln predicted. Quite simply, America isn’t taken seriously anymore and as Chinese economy overtakes the US as predicted, the pecking order will change.
For those Americans, who are able to think independently, this must be a terrible thing to behold. For the reactionaries, whose prime concern is “self” there is an oblivious argument of banality.
These are the problems America faces.
The Civil War never really ended.
ninian – that was quite a rant. Do you actually have a topic?
Paul C. Schulte
It is no more than you deserve.
ninian – so, you don’t have a topic.
Paul C. Schulte
The topic is obvious for anyone capable of thinking for themselves
https://youtu.be/qO0Bn_H4C3M
ninian – there are at least four potential topics in there. Which one is the real topic and what is rant?
Tent city of New Jersey
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2021173/Americas-city-broken-dreams-50-jobless-destitute-people-set-forest-community-New-Yorks-doorstep.html
I am not aware of poverty on this scale in the UK
Poverty related deaths in the 875,000 deaths in 2000 (36% of all US 2.45 million deaths)
American Compassion?
In 2002 there were 110,000 people in the state of Oregon with Medicaid insurance. Budget cuts reduced that number to just 19,000 by 2008. Rather than return eligibility to the roughly 90,000 who lost coverage, the state decided to add only 10,000 to its rolls. Since nearly 90,000 applied for the coverage, the state resorted to a lottery to pick the 10,000 who would be offered insurance.
This is an example of how NOT to run something.
I think this report below is very disturbing and shows a side of America that is bizarre and dysfunctional and shows no respect for human beings sho have been treated like cattle.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/07/pove-j13.html?view=article_mobile