HERBIE1

Decomp or burnt flesh have a lasting aroma. I found that Carmex- applied under the nose, is a very good deterrent to the foul smell. Decomp used to be my nemesis, but after a heat wave here when we saw literally hundreds of dead bodies, I became immune to it. Breathing through your mouth works for me- the smell somehow bypasses the nose. As was mentioned, it depends on the situation. The only time a smell got to me was years ago. I came into work, badly hung over(in my young, stupid, and single days when drinking all night was common) I had to work after being at a particularly "good" party the night before. The very first patient was a younger woman who complained of abdominal pain and nausea. Nothing serious- a simple virus. As we were wheeling her out, she said, I think I am going to be sick. I looked at her and said- only half joking- if she threw up, so would I. She did- and I did, as soon as I saw her. Right on the sidewalk. I was totally embarrassed, she looked at me and asked if I was OK. I said I felt much better now, and she said she did as well. My partner laughed so hard he nearly wet himself. LOL

Nobody thinks Islam is the only religion that can be abused. History has shown- and was pointed out here- that many religions have been perverted and used as "weapons" to justify extreme viewpoints. Problem is, Islam is the religion de jour now. Last time I checked, the folks causing mayhem throughout the world are MUSLIM extremists, not Baptists, Wicans, or Lutherans. The problems with the Catholic church- pedophiles- is an issue that needs to be addressed by the Catholic church. Many folks are straying from that religion because of the way they have handled this issue. That is their problem, but nobody can say that any form of Catholicism justifies or explains this behavior. I have yet to see a priest cite a biblical passage that condones molesting children. The radical Muslims use an aberrant form of Islam to justify their actions. Not even remotely the same thing.

You are talking about establishing a shrine, memorial, remembrance, etc in ANOTHER COUNTRY. Unless the host country also sees that as a pivotal point in their history, I don't see how they could be as willing or responsible for setting up such shrine for another country. With the WTC, this is OUR SOIL, and this location has a lot of meaning for US citizens. It would be akin to the US allowing the Japanese to set up a shrine to WW2 Kamikazi pilots at the site of the USS Arizona memorial in Hawaii. Do those suicidal pilots speak for all of Japanese culture, or their feelings about the USA? Remember, many Japanese Americans fought for the US during that time, so a subset of that culture certainly does not speak for every single Japanese citizen. Of course not, and do you think that we would be foolish enough to let it happen, or the Japanese would even bother to ask us for permission to do such a thing?

Point of information- The National Geographic Channel had a special on the spill-and covered up to 30 days after the explosion. The Coast Guard did NOT put out that fire- it was fire boats from neighboring oil rigs. The USCG was involved in search and rescue. The oil companies contacted specialists who dealt with off shore fires(as is standard procedure), but by the time they got to the site, the fire was out(the rig had already sunk). So, if putting the fire out was a mistake, then it is on the oil companies, not the USCG. The point was, first they were trying to save the workers by putting out the fire, and obviously keep the rig from sinking. The fire was simply too intense- they couldn't get anywhere near the rig before it sank.

Disagree- on so many levels. By making such a comparison, Obama is positioning himself to steer public policy towards his green agenda. Agree with Obama or not, agree with oil companies as being the antichrist or not, this is wrong. This is exactly what Obama's advisers have said in the past: "Never let a good crisis go to waste"- meaning use a disaster to gain a political advantage. 2012 cannot come soon enough.

If the person was on a vent, why wasn't their O2 sats being monitored? Wouldn't they realize the person was "desatting"? The problem with the system is not the disturbing part of this- why didn't the provider monitor their patient?

Well, I disagree about the emotional part of this. I think emotions are an important part of this. Emotions are what drive human behavior- and unless we all become automatons, they always will. Obviously we should temper our emotions with logic and rational thought, but to dismiss them out of hand is wrong. Emotions are what caused the colonists here to rise up against England when we were a fledgling nation. Think about the "logic" of sailing across the ocean to get away from an oppressive ruler. Think about how irrational it was to think they could sail halfway across the world and start their own nation. The emotional element of our beings is what separates us from animals. The key is controlling those emotions and use logic to achieve a desired result. Emotionally, ground zero will ALWAYS be "scared" ground to many Americans. Think about it- ANY site of an important moment in a society can be considered hallowed ground. Yes, rationally we know it's only a location, and our memories and historical records will never let us forget these historic dates and sites, but does that mean we should ignore the physical reminder of the event? For those who are spiritually inclined, many feel ghosts/spirits/energy still reside in these locations, and anything that would desecrate these locations is an affront to those who may have perished there. I think having a location to focus our memories, grief, pride, sadness, anger, outrage etc- whatever the appropriate emotion for that event- is vital. It allows people to come to terms with what happened, to remember, to move on, and to hopefully not repeat the same mistakes we made.

OMG Thanks to you Mike, I had to wipe off my lap top- I sprayed coffee all over the screen. The funniest part- the product description at the end. Hysterical.

I will side with Linuss on one thing here: These folks are NOT, and never have been, law abiding citizens. They broke the law to get here. PERIOD. From that point forward, every day they stay in the country illegally, they continue to break the law- regardless of what they do the rest of their lives. Getting away with something for a long time does not mean you should get a pass. Is there a statute of limitations on this? The whole issue gets sidetracked when people say- they're just here to make a living, support their family, build a better life, etc. That's fine, but does the end justify the means? Does that mean we can all ignore any laws we don't like- as long as we have good intentions? And the whole issue of blaming companies for hiring illegals- well of course they should be punished, BUT- they are also not the "cause" of the illegal immigration problem. That's like a rapist blaming his victim because she dressed too provocatively, or a burglar blaming a homeowner because their home was too easy to break into. This is Mexico's problem to fix. It's their economy that's in the toilet, the corruption in their government makes us look like rookies, other than tourism, they have nothing to offer of their own, and they have a huge drug cartel problem. How does that become a United States problem to solve? If we are supposed to solve another nation's problems, then let's simply annex the country and be done with it.

I heard a possible explanation for the intensive fury of those fighting this law. Someone pointed out that the bill provides jail time for not only people who are coyotes(human smugglers), but includes family members who harbor/enable the illegals. Makes sense. The illegals cannot do this on their own- they need help, and if the families are part of the problem, this law makes it risky for them to abet the criminals. No wonder they are scared to death.

We need to determine liability in terms of company policy- depending on what that is- and the system's medical policies. In the eyes of my department, I am responsible for everything that happens on the rig- I am the officer. Even if I do not violate a system medical policy, I can still receive discipline if my partner does something stupid- mouths off to a patient or nurse, or violates a department policy. Another example- since I always am with the patient, my partner drives. If he gets in an accident and it's determined to be his fault, then I may receive discipline, depending on the type of accident- ie at an intersection.

Stories like this make me smile. Congrats to the Ruffs, and enjoy that little bundle of joy. Before you know it, they get big REAL FAST and you wonder when it happened. I'm looking at my 13 year old daughter right now and it seems like yesterday when she was born.

Maybe strange is too strong of a word. The whole vibe was quite different than any ceremony I had been to. The celebrant/pastor/vicar(whatever they are called) wore a dark flowing robe, reminiscent of a high priestess. The music was old Celtic. I recall the couple even had a program that explained the ceremony and symbolism used- I wish I had saved it. It actually was quite serene and spiritual in it's own way. I worked with both of these folks- she is 110% Irish(hence the Celtic Druid roots) and was always a rebel. She grew up Catholic, but as an adult, she did her own thing. This was the groom's 2nd marriage, he was also different. He had a mulitcultural background, believed in a lot of fringe ideas. Both very good friends. Sadly, he and his son were killed a few years later in a horrible accident on Christmas day- major irony there. A few years after that, the bride remarried and came back to her traditional Irish Catholic roots. I'm not denigrating the idea- it was actually very cool and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Just VERY different.

As an aside- Ever been to a Druid type wedding? I have- VERY strange.

Pedophile priests are not a subset of Catholicism- they are an aberrant group of individuals who engage in a deviant and criminal behavior. As far as I know, they do not unite under a common title, nor do they justify their actions with a biblical passage. They do not claim they are justified in their actions- they are simply sick, twisted, and criminal. Radical Muslims use a bastardized version of Islam, they unite under a common cause, and justify their actions in the name of Allah. I did not understand the reference. You set up a separate issue, attributed it to someone, and then attack it. That is building a strawman. This isn't about PUNISHING anyone, it's about reciprocating the tolerance and understanding we are all supposed to practice in regards to the Muslim religion. We are not supposed to condemn an entire group for the actions of a "small" group among them. Agreed. So, where is this tolerance and understanding from that mosque? Nobody is denying them the right to build this "shrine", just questioning their choice of locations. It's not WHAT they want to do, it's WHERE they want to do it. Is that so unreasonable? Again- comparing pedophile priests to this situation is crazy. I NEVER said it was the government's role to step in and stop this. NEVER. I said just because something is LEGAL, does not make it wise. My opinion, but it makes perfect sense- If this Muslim group is truly concerned about encouraging tolerance, honoring those who died on 9/11, then there is NO way in the world they would be proposing this idea in the shadow of the WTC's. Personally, I don't buy it for a moment. Every religious group- and every nation for that matter- have "sacred" places that denote historic moments in their histories. We have monuments like the USS Arizona, Catholics, Muslims, Catholics, etc all have places they consider vital to their history. They can be places of great joy and triumph, or of great sadness. Why can't this Muslim group respect this? As for the racist flyers- bad analogy. If you commit a crime against a minority, whatever offense you are charged with can be escalated simply because of the hate crime laws. EVERY action has consequences- whether they be tangible or implied. We don't know what may happen, but does it take a psychic to figure out that a whole bunch of people would be majorly PO'd if this mosque/shrine was built. Everything from protests to vandalism, to much worse is entirely possible, and even likely. This isn't about punishment, it's about being sensitive to a country's feelings regarding a pivotal point in their history. Think of the thousands of years of battles being fought over places that one religion feels is their "sacred" grounds, or a vital part of their history. Can you honestly tell me that these folks do not understand objections folks have over this? Another strawman. I NEVER said anything about denying rights. NEVER. I NEVER said they should not build this structure, I questioned the wisdom (and their reasons) for the LOCATION they chose. If we are to believe their stated intentions, then what is the problem with erecting this shrine somewhere else? Why is it so important to build this within the shadow of a place where 3000 people were murdered? The terrorists are winning battles all the time, but not the war. We still do not abide by Sharia law here, Islam is still not the required religion, and women are still not considered property or second class citizens. THAT is their stated goal- to destroy our society and all infidels. The war rages on, and I see no end in sight.

I do not understand the comparisons between things like the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, and what the fanatical Muslims are doing now. Society was much more primitive and uneducated back then. The radical Muslims are generally well educated, so they do not have that excuse. I really don't think it's fair to make such comparisons. As for people like David Koresh- he was a sociopath. a narcissist, and had a God complex. He thought he was a prophet. I agree that religion is the cause of many of our problems- wars have been fought over it, many have died, insane policies have been justified by it, and since this is about "faith" and not fact, no amount of logic can dissuade the hard core folks from their beliefs, and the process continues until the next big thing.

Like I said- I had no problem being pulled over. If an area is 99.9% black, then a white guy driving around there is clearly out of place. Whether or not he is doing something wrong remains to be seen, and can quickly be determined. I had a license, had proof of insurance, was not DUI, my car was legally registered to me, I broke no traffic laws, I had no broken taillights, had no outstanding warrants or criminal history, and I was not behaving suspiciously- I was doing nothing wrong. I was questioned, I provided satisfactory answers to those questions, and I went on my way. Let's say I was a clueless tourist, who happened to end up in the middle of the ghetto. I would be very happy if an officer pulled me over because I was wandering aimlessly in a dangerous area. Happened more than a few times when I worked out there- a major highway ran through the area and we would see folks obviously lost. They missed an exit, thought they could simply get off and get back on the highway, but became lost. They had no idea they were in a very bad area. We even escorted a couple folks back onto the highway- especially in the middle of the night. They were quite grateful for the help. I recall about 20 years ago when my sister- who was around 21 at the time, was pulled over by cops in front of a well known housing project in the area. She had no idea where she was, this was long before everyone had cell phones, had taken the wrong turn and could not find the highway. The cops explained where she was and she began to cry. They calmed her down and escorted her back to the highway. She even called the station and thanked the officers when she got home.

First, I happen to agree with you on this- BUT. Based on a post you made in another thread about profiling, do you not see any hypocrisy here? In the American SW, there is a HUGE Hispanic population. Depending on the area, and proximity to the border, you may have a hard time finding people who are NOT of Hispanic origin. So, comparing this with the idea of DWB, how can you offer 2 contradictory opinions on this?

Essentially the only thing this law does is reiterate what has already been established. Penalties for employers are spelled out, procedures for reporting companies who employ illegals, penalties for human trafficking of illegals, etc. And yes, there are provisions for establishing probable cause for stopping and questioning a suspected illegal. Traffic violation means they can stop someone and ask for identification. If the person is illegal, then obviously, unless they have already established a new identity, they cannot produce a drivers license, proof of insurance, etc. They can be detained. Profiling is part of being a cop. Behavioral patterns, physical traits, location, and yes, things like race and gender are part of that profile. Racial profiling means the only reason someone is detained or targeted is their race/ethnicity. The law does NOT allow that. Here's the deal- I have been profiled- at the time I was in my mid to late 30's. One day, when I was working in the ghetto, I was on my way to pick up my paycheck, when I was stopped by the police. Since I was probably the only white male within 5 miles of where I was- an area known for drugs, violence, prostitution, and gangs and I fit the profile of someone looking for some dope or looking for a quickie. When I produced my ID, explained who I was, and why I was in the area, the officers apologized, but the reason they stopped me was because I did not belong in that area. So does that mean I was guilty of DWW in the ghetto? (Driving While White) Yep, and I deserved to be pulled over.

Of course it's LEGAL for them to build a mosque there. If this group cannot see the problems associated with building a mosque near the WTC site, then I honestly think this has NOTHING to do with promoting understanding and honoring the victims of that day.

Well, if the Druids suddenly decide they will become fanatical and suicidal and take down a couple skyscrapers, then I'll be first in line to tell them they cannot erect a shrine(a tree, a rock, or whatever they worship at). Until then, I will object to an Arab group wanting to build a shrine at Ground Zero.

What are you suggesting? The higher the training, the less likely someone would be to stop, or vice versa?

Too many to cite them all. None stand out as the "worst"- they were all scary as hell at the time. LOL Upon arriving at the upper floor apartment in a high rise housing project- complaint unknown. Knock on the door, announce ourselves as EMS, and ask if anyone called for help or needed medical attention. Voice on the other side of door: "Whoever this m-fer is that's knocking on my door, nobody called, nobody wants help, and you have exactly 5 seconds to get the f*ck away from my door." We were already turning to leave when we heard the sound of a shot gun being cocked... Well, we channeled our inner track stars and made it down 14 floors in world record time. I kept expecting to hear a shotgun blast at any moment.

Actually, ideas such as these do not appear in the original text of the Koran. Radical extremists cite a different, bastardized version of the Koran that condones and justifies their extreme viewpoints.

For anyone who is a Stephen King fan... "Under the Dome". Long- around 1100 pages, and similar in tone and topic to The Stand.