HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » NYC_SKP » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »

NYC_SKP

Profile Information

Name: N/A
Gender: Do not display
Hometown: The Golden State
Home country: www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&f
Current location: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1243&pid=30906
Member since: Thu May 29, 2008, 11:43 PM
Number of posts: 61,894

About Me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12593371#post1 [div class=excerpt]http://www.democraticunderground.com/124384291 http://www.democraticunderground.com/124384554 1. It need not be unanimous. But there must be the consensus. I tend to think that if one person is strongly opposed to a lock, and is making that stand based on some principle they are able to articulate, then that position should be respected and consensus does not exist. But if some people are just-kinda-meh-not-sure opposed to a lock, then you can assume that consensus exists. But I think the bigger picture is that if everyone is doing the job in good faith and being polite to each other, then it should not be very hard to determine if consensus exists and act accordingly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595617 [/div] ~~~~~~ Hi Jerry!!! :thumbsup:[font color=blue][b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|Visit the new DU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Progressive Media Resources Group\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"][/font size][/font color][/b]:thumbsup: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012937-11-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg :thumbsup:[font color = blue][b][link:http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1269|Visit the new DU \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Progressive Media Resources Group\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"][/font size][/font color][/b]:thumbsup: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/121223012937-11-obama-face-1223-horizontal-gallery.jpg

Journal Archives

Garrison Keillor on "Interventionist versus Laissez Faire" approaches to threat management.

I think the dynamic applies to the battle over gun control legislation, but also to other questions about where responsibilities rest.

I was listening to the Prairie Home Companion on Sunday and Garrison Keillor told a tale about a woman, Irene Bunsen, who was gardening when a bear came along, so the rangers were called.

The rangers said that they could come tranquilize the bear and then take it miles away but it would cost $1,350. But who would pay the cost?

The story goes on to discuss the two sides of the matter of what to do: The Interventionist versus the Laissez Faire approaches.

--- The Interventionists say "But what if there was a child, is a child not worth $1,350?".

--- The Laissez Faire people say, "Teach your children to watch where they're going. The world is full of bears."

Garrison noted that both sides are right, it's not often that you get an argument like that where you get two sides that are absolutely right yet disagree completely.

It's a short piece and really worth the few minutes: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/apm-prairie-home-companions/id215352157?mt=2


In case it's not self-evident, the analogy here is that some on the left would look to laws and government to be responsible for preventing calamity, to prevent irresponsibility, to "ensure" safety, while others among us prefer the notions of self-determination, responsibility, access to the tools to take care of ourselves, and training our children and family members to be aware and to be safe.

Well, neither side is completely wrong (except to any extent to which we insist the other side is completely wrong); the solutions probably exist in the universe that treats BOTH sides as valid arguments.

Most of us who support the Second Amendment also support UBCs and strict penalties for misuse and violent used of firearms, and most on the gun control side see a place for education and awareness and grant that some ownership rights are beneficial.

In any event, I really loved the piece on radio and hope you'll all take a listen to it. I'm sorry I couldn't find a written transcript.

And remember:

The world is full of bears.


Limiting gun ownership to solve gun violence is like limiting books to solve illiteracy.

You really don't get the analogy, do you?

I try, that's all I can do.

Krogers. Has anyone actually seen a gun nut with a rifle in a Krogers?

Or a Target, Starbuck, or Walmart?

And if you did, what did you do?

I'm, frankly, suspect of any Bloomberg funded mission like this latest one to intimidate Krogers to create a new meaningless policy.

As mayor, he authorized "Stop and Frisk", an unconstitutional policy that disproportionately targeted people of color.

His PR person, Sharon Watts, formerly represented Monsanto. She's a pro and pros are slick, sometimes dishonest.

So, one or two Open Carry gun nuts walk into a Kroger, or maybe the pics are staged, and we're supposed to BOYCOTT them now?

Kroger has 2,640 stores employing more than 310,000 employees, 75% of them are UNION employees.

Here is Krogers' statement on this latest desperate move by Bloomberg Watts, and I think it's solid:

"our long-standing policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws. ... We know that our customers are passionate on both sides of this issue, and we trust them to be responsible in our stores."


Individual stores remain free to ask anyone to leave and may create, if they like, a policy of no guns for that store.

/rant


Pro Tip-- In case you really think this will make anyone more safe, studies show that most murderous gun nuts will disregard store policies. Just sayin'.


PS, I personally think Open Carry protesters are fools, and do nothing but scare people without purpose. Not sure if they're even legit and put me to mind of James O'Keefe.



Map of US counties and what they have taken in military surplus gear.

Including numbers of:

Aircraft, Armored vehicles, Body armor, Grenade launchers, Night vision, and Assault rifles.

My county has refused everything except night vision equipment.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=0

Thanks!

SKP is short for 'escapee', inspired by Barney Fife.
I came to NYC sight unseen for university and work, then got out before it became Disneyfied!

Dear DU. Please, don't be distrated by the other more recent events. FOCUS!

We only need one win.

ONE WIN.

Eye on the prize, baby, but please quit promoting the huffpost theme.



I recommend that you don't confuse Pro-2A DU members with other gun fans on the Internet.

We are not like many of them, on DU you'll see insults come at us far more often than from us.

On other sites, not so much, poo is flung in both directions, and I avoid those sites.

Sites I don't avoid include The Liberal Gun Club: http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/

Progressive Gun Owners: http://www.progressiveguns.org/

American Gun Culture Report: http://www.americangunculturereport.com/

Liberals Gun Corner: http://www.liberalsguncorner.com/

Liberals With Guns: http://www.liberalswithguns.com/

Shoot from the Left Hip: http://shootfromthelefthip.com/

Blue Steel Democrats: http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/

Pink Pistols: http://www.pinkpistols.org/









In case you're new and would like to become a host, the concept of "consensus" is bound to arise!

Hosts have discussed this, and admins have replied to the question. Here:

It need not be unanimous. But there must be the consensus. I tend to think that if one person is strongly opposed to a lock, and is making that stand based on some principle they are able to articulate, then that position should be respected and consensus does not exist. But if some people are just-kinda-meh-not-sure opposed to a lock, then you can assume that consensus exists. But I think the bigger picture is that if everyone is doing the job in good faith and being polite to each other, then it should not be very hard to determine if consensus exists and act accordingly. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12595617
~~~~~~

My emphasis is here:

I tend to think that if one person is strongly opposed to a lock, and is making that stand based on some principle they are able to articulate, then that position should be respected and consensus does not exist.

Just back from a "Debridement" surgery following a brain surgery. ACA covered. Ask me anything!

First and foremost: If you have been treated for hypertension, don't drop the meds unless you're told to.

I picked up my exercise and dropped 30, improved my eating habits last December and quit my $1,350 COBRA plan for similar ACA coverage under same provider, Anthem.
BUT, it took time for cards and I never picked up with my PCP for testing and refills of cholesterol and BP meds.

Big Mistake.

On 5-17 I became dizzy and fell, continued dizziness after a short unconsciousness took me to an ER, and a brain scan indicated possible brain bleed so was flown to Stanford and had a cranial angio, then brain surgery to treat a minor aneurism, then another angio and release.

The surgical site deal heal well and I went in last Tuesday and they checked me in, opened me back up (but didn't have to remove the skull piece again, thankfully) and sent me home today with a PICC and IV meds to be self administered for the next six weeks, pretty intensive but likely to prevent a relapse.

The jury is still out about coverage, but I know my $6,350 max out of pocket and deductible are covered (all that on the first day, easily).

I hope and pray for good health, but also hope that the ACA Silver Plan will cover everything, this is a costly deal.

Just some of the costs:

Ambulance: $2700
LifeFlight to Stanford: ~$25,000
Angiograms: $60,000 - $80,000 each for total of maybe $160,000
Cranial surgery: I have no idea, thinking at least $100,000 (I have one bill for one doctor alone that's $25,000)
Room and Board in ICU/Neurology at Stanford Hospital and Clinics: No idea, great care, five star staff and surgical crew.
Cost for return visit and second CT Scan and Surgery: No idea.
Six weeks of home health care, PICC system meds and other prescriptions: No idea.

I'm thinking this is at least a $250,000 medical event, possibly twice that, all for about $500 and month plus the max out of pocket.

I'm grateful for the medical team and for the providers.

Lesson learned: I take my hypertension meds, I check my BP with a decent device that has a memory that stores the values. A few minutes ago I was at 109/83... much better than the numbers I had when admitted!!!

Needless to say, there are other measures (reduce sodium, chill out) to manage stress; meds aren't the only way to reduce tension.

But I'll bet I'd not have had the problem had I not so cavalierly dropped them.

Be well, DUers!

*** BLM Says It Will Prosecute Illegal ATV Riders at Recapture Canyon ***

Background story here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024936993

(audio at the link)

BLM Says It Will Prosecute Illegal ATV Riders at Recapture Canyon

May 12, 2014

BLANDING, Utah - The federal government says it plans to prosecute everyone who illegally rode an ATV on federally protected lands in southeastern Utah over the weekend. Juan Palma with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says his agency will "pursue all available redress through the legal system to hold the lawbreakers accountable."

Motorized vehicles have been banned in the area, which contains ancient Native American cultural assets, since 2007.

State Sen. Jim Dabakis says the BLM took the right approach by avoiding any escalation with the alleged law-breakers.

"I'm grateful there was no violence, and apparently there were not a lot of guns displayed, the way that there was in Nevada. So, I guess that's something to be grateful for," Dabakis says.

- See more at: http://www.publicnewsservice.org/2014-05-12/public-lands-wilderness/blm-says-it-will-prosecute-illegal-atv-riders-at-recapture-canyon/a39300-1#sthash.J9E8PBOe.dpuf


NYC_SKP adds, "Hey, asshole, FUCK YOU!"



Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next »