HERBIE1

Folks in history also thought the gods were punishing people every time an eclipse occurred. Folks in ancient cultures also thought if they sacrificed women and infants, it would please their god and bring them good fortune and a good harvest. Before this generation, I submit that if you asked someone how they would define a marriage, you would be met with some strange looks. Whatever. Men and women, men and men, women and dolphins- let's just completely abolish the notion of marriage. Want to "marry" your best friend? Go for it. Before I got married(to a woman), I had a room mate for 8 years. We could have saved big bucks on taxes and benefits by making it a "civil union". Just because something is legal does not make it a good idea. When did so many societal conventions become bad?

Someone can be against DADT and have problems with homosexuality for all kinds of reasons. I submit that the least reasoned(but probably no less strong ) opinion is one based on religion. No logic is necessary, no real defense needs to be mounted- it's simply a matter of faith. Throw in a few bible quotes and the religious feel they have an iron clad defense of their position. I part company with that idea, but I also do not make fun of them. I look at homosexuality as simply a departure in someone's normal development. You can CHOOSE to engage in homosexual behavior, but that is also not the same thing as being born gay. In human development, mistakes happen. People are born with congenital diseases, malformations, birth defects, CP, and a host of other issues. These are also NOT "normal" conditions. Some conditions have a profound impact on someone's life, while others are nothing more than a minor inconvenience. People can CHOOSE to live alone, they can CHOOSE to live with someone without being married, they can CHOOSE to live with family, and they can CHOOSE to live with someone as their partner-same sex or opposite sex. Throughout time however, marriage has ALWAYS been defined as between a man and a woman. ALWAYS. That concept crosses all ethnic and racial boundaries, and is also not necessarily religious based.

I see no problem with offering teaching skills as part of a basic OR paramedic curriculum. Why? Because when we precept new folks, we are actually teaching. It's a good idea to have some background in how people learn, and techniques we can use to help them assimilate their didactic learning with their clinical skills. As for teaching a class- that's an entirely different animal, and not for everyone.

Awesome video.

Like I said before, there is a difference of opinion on this depending on which soldier you are asking. No idea. I call BS here. What about people who object to homosexuality based on their religious beliefs? What about people who are generally concerned that this issue- not necessarily the actual presence of gays in combat- is a distraction? Thanks to the internet and smart phones, many soldiers can be posting on facebook or surfing the web and 30 minutes later be in a firefight with the Taliban. They SEE these things on the news and they become unwitting pawns in the middle of this debate. Look- this is a personal opinion. But these accusations are a typical left wing response- either you agree with our opinion or you are a racist/bigot/homphobe/xenophobe, etc. That is a logical fallacy and a false choice.

Sorry, Doc, but on my list of priorities for this country right now, the issue of gays in the military comes in at around 250 out of 250. I also would NOT consider this a basic human right, as defined by the UN. I heard a number that said since DADT was initiated, 14,000 soldiers have been discharged because of sexual orientation. Me being the cynic that I am- I wonder how many of those folks who were "outed" were actually gay, and how many were looking for a way out of their service. Whatever. So, let's add up what percentage of the total fighting force this actually comprises? I'd guess it's probably statistically insignificant. I am not a soldier, so my opinion of this is completely irrelevant. I've seen polls of soldiers giving completely opposite opinions on this issue- depending on who is doing the asking. Whether it's good, bad, or indifferent to the military, is NOW- while we are still actively fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan- really the best time to repeal this? Is even the potential for such a distraction to our soldiers a good idea?

I will refrain from commenting on the wisdom of such a law, but I will say I'm glad we have our priorities straight. We have no budget, our economy and the housing market are still in the crapper, unemployment is STILL double digits, our national deficit and debt are in the stratosphere, but gays can serve openly in the military. Hoo-friggin-ray! And we wonder why Congress has a single digit approval rating? I shudder to think what the next equally "vital" law that will be passed while Democrats still have control. January 5th cannot get here soon enough.

Welcome. Do a ride along with a crew and see what the job is all about. We have a few NYC providers here who would be able to answer your questions about the job.

I noticed that negative for Mobey too. Apparently someone had their sense of humor surgically removed...

Tasers usually work well, but not always. I saw a guy get tased 3 times and he was STILL fighting well enough to injure 2 cops. Stunning them momentarily usually allows just enough time to at least cuff ,hog tie the perp, and gain control of him/her before they fully come to their senses.

Police, Richard. I don't fight with these idiots- unless I or my partner is in danger. (We also are not allowed to chemically restrain anyone.) If they suddenly decide they want to trash the rig- fine. I'm outta there. I'll wait outside until the boys in blue show up with Tasers, cuffs, and guns. I'll fill out the paperwork later. Now I realize our brothers and sisters who work in rural areas may not have the option of a rapid police back up, but at the end of the day, we are all supposed to go home in one piece.

LMAO

It IS essentially prostitution. She will accept money for a sex act. She's not looking for a boyfriend or a husband, just to lose her virginity. That said-although I am as far from being a liberal as humanly possible, I still think it's her right. Like you said- her body, her choice. I think this IS all about the money- despite what she claimed. If this was simply about "losing her cherry", why announce it to the world and accept money for it? As to her claim she wants to change everyone's opinion about sex? That's a big steaming pile. I also like the dad's reaction- it would be mine as well.

There is an old joke in the fire service where the wanna be's and pretender FF's allegedly "cook "their fire helmets in ovens to make it appear they actually had fire experience. Not entirely a joke- I know several who have probably done this. Problem is, when the crap hits the fan, it IS a dangerous job, and I count many FF's as close friends who would gladly put their lives in danger for someone else. Because fires are way down, many have gone into the fire service because of the benefits, job security and pay, knowing full well the worst fire they may ever see is rubbish or an auto fire. We have plenty of posers in EMS too- "inspector gadget" types who carry more crap on their belts than many people stock on their rigs. In almost every case, the more someone talks about their experiences, the less they really have seen. True heroes don't talk about it, they just do it. They want no accolades, they want no atta boy's, they simply do their jobs. As to those who worked at Ground Zero, they DID risk their lives and their health. My question is- if not them- WHO would have done what they did? Yes, I'm sure shortcuts were taken in terms of PPE, but as Ug said, initially they were working RESCUE, and at that point, you may not take every precaution when you are trying to save a comrade or civilians. This attack was unprecedented- it was this generation's Pearl Harbor, and NOBODY could have predicted what ultimately happened that day. This was not just an attack on the WTC, the Pentagon, and Pennsylvania, it was an attack on our entire country. I would also like to think that- gawd forbid- if something like this happens again, we- first responders and civilians alike- would do things differently. Are some of the people scamming the system? I'm sure- it's human nature, even for us, but the VAST MAJORITY of these folks are seriously ill because of the sacrifices they made that day. Should we take care of them financially? Abso-friggin-lutely. . When I think of all the crap we waste BILLIONS of dollars on every day, the thought of balking at putting out money for this is disgusting to me.

Even to an untrained eye this was a dangerous situation. In fact, I would say that training- or more correctly- not enough training- led to this disaster. Tunnel vision caused people to die needlessly- the rescuers and LEO saw someone who needed help and disregarded their surroundings. A lay person would probably have been more cautious approaching a scene like that..

I have chills. Sounds like this did you a lot of good. Looking forward to the pictures.

Sounds like that perk is yet another victim of the lousy economy. Crappy- yes. I would at least present an argument to the powers that be that shows the negative impact this will have on your service. Word of warning- You ARE volunteers, and as such do not receive compensation, and this may be the attitude you run up against. Notice, I do not begrudge this perk- I think it's a small token of appreciation that probably goes a long way to appeasing vollies. Something is better than nothing, and something like that does not cost much to provide.

Well, I suppose I should have prefaced my comments with the statement that the teacher SHOULD have given a warning about what was coming, and I certainly disagree with using gore to weed out folks on the first day of class, but I still see no problem with showing this stuff. Problem is, how often do we get a warning in the field that we may encounter a horrific crime scene, a horrible case of child abuse, or a nasty self inflicted GSW? I recall a situation where we were called for an injured victim, and it turned out to be a triple homicide- 3 people with their throats cut ear to ear. Shocking? Damn right. According to the OP, this was the last class. At this point, students should realize what may be in store for them. I assume they already had ride alongs/clinicals, so this should not have been their first exposure to anything gory.

I am at a loss here. Why are people vilifying the coroner or the school here? This class was designed for people who will be working in this field. They will see things like this and possibly much more. If this coroner whipped out this slide show at a high school class or for some other non-medical audience, then I agree it would be inappropriate. As a provider or a prospective employer, I would much rather know NOW if someone can handle the horrors we sometimes see on this job. These things are part of the job. What is inappropriate about showing them? Now I have no problem with the school or instructor pulling a student aside and having a heart to heart with them. Make sure they are OK, but also ask some tough questions. To me, this is like a firefighter who is afraid of going into a burning building. It's at the core of our job, and we need to not only deal with these things, but push our feelings aside to mitigate whatever situation we were called to handle. Not everyone can do this, and that's why those in this field are a special breed. Better to know now than after you've been hired and realize you made a huge mistake.

Lilabean- I'm sorry that this upset you, but I'm going to be a bit harsh. I see nothing inappropriate about that lecture- especially if it was the last one of the class. I also see nothing wrong with your reaction, but I'm thinking this is probably your first exposure to such nastiness. Better to flip out a bit now vs in a public place, in front of family and/or a patient. I would not say your reaction means anything- yet. What do you want to do now? How do you want to proceed? How do you feel about the business now? Does this change anything for you? I'm sure you realize that those horrific calls are few and far between, but they generally seem to come when you least expect them and/or when you at your most vulnerable personally.. Depending on where you work, you may see so much of this stuff you won't even bat an eye. Regardless of where you work, you will see various degrees of perversion and weirdness and hopefully you will find ways to adapt to it.

Nice job, Anthony!

LMAO Good point. Especially the new telemetry docs and RN's. For some reason many do not understand the concept of pressing the transmit button BEFORE they start talking.

Uh oh- Dwayne- you've been called out... LOL

I don't mean to be a pain in the arse, but here's also another piece of the puzzle. You can be eminently qualified on paper to be a manager/supervisor, but there are also a host of other factors you need to consider, depending on where you work. Clout issues, politics, affirmative action, nepotism, or just plain bad luck- all possible obstructions to your career path. Trust me- been there, done that, got the T-shirt. LOL It can be frustrating. Sounds like you have a plan. Good luck with it.

As was noted above, that's an impossible question to answer in general terms. Too many variables, and each system is so different. One system may use strict seniority, another may use an appointed system, another may be required to take a written and oral test- especially in the case of civil/career service systems. To answer your question-you need to narrow down WHERE you are talking about and ask someone currently working there. It also depends on your definition of "supervisor". Is this a person who still works the streets and responds to larger incidents, assists in care, solves problems, or is it someone who flies a desk and does scheduling and training. Maybe it's someone who is on a quick response vehicle. Maybe it's simply the senior member on an apparatus. Degrees and certifications are great, but to be an effective supervisor/trainer/proctor, you need to have a certain baseline level of experience in the business. Obviously the amount of time would vary greatly- in a busy urban area, you could see more in a week than some rural service deals with in an entire career.