Page 3 of 6
Posted on September 1 at 9:29 a.m.
billclausen - obviously, this is a parody of Huell Howser, who sounds like this all the time, except the sound has been manipulated and the visuals have been altered. Huell is either naturally high or "on something" al the time. lol
Here is a link to an article that I read from one of my mothers' Republican online health newsletters (she is in her 80's):
Prohibition on alcohol didn't work the first time, and it has been more than long enough this time with pot. It's time to wise up and regulate it, tax it, and save untold billions of dollars in law enforcement and prison costs in prosecuting it.
On End War on Marijuana
Posted on August 26 at 7:59 a.m.
Starshine - once again, documentation of selective "feminism". If it gets you what you want, flaunt it. If the shoe happens to be on the other foot, you consider it harassment and "demeaning".
It is opportunistic to prey on the male of the species (we think about sex, like, what - 50 times a minute? It's like shooting fish in a barrel). It's not a level playing field.
I know a particular young woman who has "blinked and smiled" her way out of more traffic tickets than I can count. I am probably just as polite and compliant to the officers as she is, but I always get the ticket, and she never does.
Double standard, and, once again, selective feminism.
On The Dirt on Flirting
Posted on May 12 at 11 a.m.
I know one of the Santa Barbara School District nurses, and I won't embarrass her by mentioning her name, but she is one of the most dedicated and over-worked people that I know. She is always trying to think of an "angle" to improve services, or "find" money. She carries three cell phones with her at all times, and only one is her personal phone. This woman is an RN, who is also blessed with administrative skills, and could earn a much larger salary working for Cottage Health Systems, or some other large medical organization, but she has chosen to dedicate herself to the SB School District while they have decimated her budget, taken away most of her resources, and now, are threatening to take away her job.
It may be a blessing for my friend, because the stress of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear for too many years now has taken its toll on her health. She has sacrificed her own health for the kids in the District who need her. She has been a salaried employee, and easily worked more than 60 hours per week.
To my friend, I say "good riddance" to an employer who does not appreciate what you have done for them, but I know that is not what you are concerned about. You are concerned for the KIDS who, as Ms. Brechwald explains, are going to be left "holding the bag" (in some cases, a colostomy bag), and the District is going to find that the liability that they will incur will be greater than any amount they ever paid to you.
On Nurses Are Needed
Posted on May 4 at noon
Lars, kudos for acknowledging that Obama deserves credit for taking out Bin Laden. Not to drag this out, but, respectfully, I have two questions for you: 1) You did not address the indisputable fact that Bush gave up on actively hunting Bin Laden by invading Iraq, defunding the CIA unit dedicated to that task, and by stating publicly to a reporter's question, "I am truly not that concerned with him (Bin Laden)". 2) What specific (you used the word "specifically") verifiable sources can you cite that ANY information leading Bin Laden's location was obtained through "interrogations begun years ago at Guantanamo", which some others have stated categorically were "enhanced interrogation techniques", which we all know is otherwise known as torture? I know that it has been mentioned on TV and online, but what VERIFIABLE sources can you cite? Nobody outside the intelligence community knows for sure where or how they obtained that information, and the canard that has been thrown out by some (led by Liz Cheney, et. al.) that it was obtained by "waterboarding", cannot be verified. It is just a talking point that those who supported the use of torture are using to now justify it.
President Bush declared definitively that we would get Bin Laden "Dead or Alive", then inexplicably took his eye "off the prize" and focused his attention and US resources to Sadaam Hussein instead. In fact, President Obama had to resurrect that effort after he took office in 2009 which has resulted in the outcome for which we all have been waiting almost ten years.
On Why I Can’t Vote For You Again, Mr. President
Posted on May 3 at 11:11 p.m.
Lars - Bush had Bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora in 2001 and did not listen to his intelligence (I am talking about the "boots on the ground" feeding him the facts, not his mental capacity). He did not make the decision to go in and get him, he wimped out. Later, when pressed by a reporter on getting Bin Laden, Bush said in a interview that , "I am truly not that concerned with him (Bin Laden)". Almost ten years after Bush promised to get him "Dead or Alive", his successor had the resolve and cojones to find Bin Laden and take him out. Only one person in the government has the authority to make the "kill decision" on a high value target, and it is the Commander in Chief, and ours is President Obama. Sure, our elite commandos were the actual ones who pulled off an almost impossible mission, even after losing a helicopter and still succeeding in their mission. I don't think that any other president has ever joined the Special Forces on these missions, so I think it is disingenuous to assert that Obama deserves no credit for this major success. It would be like saying that FDR and Churchill didn't have anything to do with D-Day. They had to "pull the trigger" on an operation that could have been a disaster, as did Obama on Friday. It takes enormous courage and leadership to pull off a mission like this, especially with no loss of American lives.
Posted on May 2 at 1:13 a.m.
This just in - President Obama can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Prior to surveying the savage tornado damage in the South Friday, then flying to Cape Canaveral, and attending and performing at the White House Correspondents' dinner on Saturday, President Obama had already met on Friday with the National Security Council to discuss and evaluate the intelligence that had led them to discover to the location Osama Bin Laden. Before performing all the above-mentioned presidential duties, the President had already given the order to apprehend or kill Osama Bin Laden, which, as we now know, was successful, without one US casualty. Something that his predecessor promised to do, but could not, even when he had him trapped at Tora Bora because he listened to the same morons who convinced him that invading Iraq was a good idea.
My point - while some of you grouse about inane details ("show me your papers!") that have no bearing on the Presidency, Obama is actually out there doing the job, even when we are not privy to every little detail. All we hear about are the talking points that we get from the media from both sides. I recommend that instead of whining about what could have been, or what should have been, why not examine what HAS been accomplished, and ponder what the alternative would have been if one of the Seven Dwarfs who covet his job would have done. Based on the former president's track record, we'd already be a third world country, if we are not already there. Try to shake the unimaginable image of the fact that he is a black man out of your heads and try to focus on what has actually happened in the last two+ years. In spite of a Congress that has fought everything he has proposed, he has accomplished more than any president since Roosevelt, or at least Johnson. I personally would have liked some additional things accomplished, like single payer health care or the expiration of the tax reductions for the wealthy, but I also understand the concept of compromise. As the Rolling Stones so wisely said, "You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need". We need someone who can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Posted on January 22 at 12:25 p.m.
"Mental health evaluations are supposed to be made within 7 to 10 days, but the timeliness of care can be a problem." Is this a typo? It should read "... 7 to 10 HRS! The fact that this is the "standard" should reveal a lot about this company, and our County, who pays them
Being mentally ill is not a crime, however, once a mentally ill person finds him or herself in the jail system (for whatever reason, be it a "5150", acting out due to unavailability of meds, or just "acting strangely"), many can never get out of it, many are seriously injured (either by progression of their disease, or by violence inflicted on them by inmates and guards), and many just give up and die, by whatever means available to them.
There just is no coordination of these services, and there is a lack of will on the part of the Sheriff's department to change it, despite what he says. What does the contract with PHS pay for their "services"? Could this money be better spent on proactive care for the mentally ill, rather than triaging them ("triage" is probably the wrong word, since the standard for intervention is 7-10 days, and "triage" implies a sense of urgency, which is severely lacking in this county's approach to mental illness.
The mentally ill are among those least able to speak up for themselves, and, lacking family or friends to speak up for them, they languish within the 'system" until they "go away".
The article states that, mentally ill persons are asked a series of medical questions, including questions about medications. If the officer recognizes the person’s mental health to be an issue, a nurse is called. How is a deputy assigned to a jail qualified to make such a decision,? Only a mental heatlh professional can do that. Some mentally ill people can appear "normal" when they are not, and it takes a particular skill set to determine that.
Shame on the Sheriff for "outsourcing' this long-standing problem to a for-profit company that obviously has the "bottom line" as the guideline for what constitutes appropriate care of these persons.
How much has the County had to "pony up" in lawsuits for mistreatment of mentally ill patients in the past five years? I would imagine that it is just a fraction of what it could be if these extremely vulnerable persons felt like they could fight "the system" for which they are dependent on any care at all.. My experience with these types of lawsuits (and even just protestations with out legal involvement) is that the County requires the patient to never be able to get services from the County in the future, even if their diagnosis changes for the worst.
Again - shame!
On When Prisoners Are Patients
Posted on October 28 at 10:29 a.m.
AZ2SB - I beg to differ - it seems to me that they both are "whacked", especially Mrs. Quaid.
On Quaids Flee 'Star Whackers'
Posted on October 15 at 12:28 a.m.
I agree with the above comments. Someone on another article suggested that there might be some hanky panky concerning accounting for every gram of cannabis that has been confiscated this year, both in residential, urban, and public property grow sites. When you are out in the wild, and there are all those plants, and all that evidence - I'm just sayin'.
My expectation as a citizen is that literally every gram, ounce, pound, kilo, or ton - whatever - must be accounted for. There are chain of custody protocols for all evidence, especially drugs and cash - both present in large quantities this summer - and I wish someone credible who could, would assure the public that these raids have not only made political points for or against the "Drug War", but have not enriched the very people who crusade against this "evil scourge".
It wouldn't be the first time, and we are talking of millions of dollars in "product" and cash. When you're making $70K a year and are being asked to take a pay cut by the very people you serve, maybe you can make it up "on the side'.
I'm just saying ........
On Cannabis Club Raids Continue
Posted on October 13 at 12:41 p.m.
Last night, I saw a "Yes on Measure S" commercial on local TV. It was a group of prominent local people in positions of power and/or influence from both the Republican and Democratic parties, all of whom say that they support Measure S.
The thing that I feel is both intellectually and morally dishonest about this ad, it that it NEVER describes WHAT Measure S is. Mayor Schneider says that "$5 Million will be spent on (and I paraphrase) mental health or rehabilitative issues". The Sheriff says that "it will make SB County safer". The others simply state their political affiliations and comment how they all can agree on the efficacy of Measure S in spite of their political differences. Again, the fact that there is a tax increase to build a jail is NEVER disclosed. If this commercial is the only thing that a voter sees or reads about this, they would have no clue as to what the measure is about, other than people of both parties support it, $5M goes to mental health issues, and that residents will be "safer".
I would hope that most voters take the time to educate themselves on what these local "measures" or State propositions mean, but, unfortunately, there are all to many who do not. I personally know several people who vote strictly along party lines (both Republicans and Democrats), or on what they have "heard" about local measures. Sadly, many people with whom I have talked won't even think about them (local measures and State propositions) until just before they fill out their ballots.
The fact that some measures and propositions are deliberately written to confuse voters into voting against their own beliefs (Measure T and Prop 23 are two glaring examples), where voting "yes" is "no", or vice versa. To compound that with deliberately misleading or incomplete advertising is, at a minimum, dishonest, if not unethical.
The issue of building a new jail in the North County is fraught with many issues that transcend just needing more space to house "criminals", as illustrated in this article. This has been a local political hot potato for a long time, and I think this ad just shows that a straightforward discussion about this issue won't stand up, and those who want the jail will support deceptive advertising to get what they want politically.
On Expecting Different Result?
This inspiring human rights advocate, UNICEF Advocate for Children Affected ... Read More
Previous Month | Next Month