12-21-2007, 07:27 PM | #41 (permalink) |
Banned
|
*comes back in and reads everything since his last post all at once*
Wow. dk, A few quick observations: 1. I'm sorry that "implied consent" gets in the way of your personal beliefs. However, there are options available to you in the form of what's called an Advanced Directive- a living will. In it, you may indicate as broadly or specifically as you desire exactly what sort of medical treatment you authorize or do not authorize to be performed on yourself. Examples: You may say you authorize intravenous access for giving medication, but NOT for drawing blood. This would allow medical personnel to give you medicine, but would disallow a blood draw. You could have it say you don't wish any intravenous access whatsoever, though I wouldn't recommend that, because if you were ever in an accident and needed blood or fluids, you'd be screwed. You can even drill it down and say something like you will allow IV access ONLY for the administration of fluids, blood, or medicine, but not for any sedative/hypnotic drugs. This would prevent them from giving you any chemical restraints, or anything to "put you down". Depending on your state, a living will (or "advanced directive") may or may not need to be arranged by a lawyer, and may or may not require the signature of your physician. Once that's obtained, it's a simple matter of keeping the document on you. That may sound a bit cumbersome, but lots of people do it. Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, often have them because they are barred by religion from receiving any blood products, and must be able to indicate that on paper, should an emergency situation arise. So you do have solutions to your concerns, regarding unwanted medical procedures. You DO have a right to say what is and isn't done to your body, you just need a *tiny* bit more patience to do the necessary research into it. (Footnote: a court order can still override it, if let's say you were suspected of driving under the influence, a judge could issue a warrant for your blood to test for alcohol. But this would not be determined by a police officer, this would take a little time and come from a judge. If you don't drive, then this wouldn't really apply to you.) Now that I'm done helping... 2. Sheeple? You, Mr. "I know my rights better than anyone and the gestapo is jack-booting them all into the stratosphere", don't know your rights when it comes to medical procedure. Don't fucking talk to me about violation of rights, you haven't a single goddamn clue what you're talking about and it pisses me off that you've translated your ignorance of this subject into a hatred. Ladies and gentlemen, a perfect example of ignorance breeding hate. You don't have anything to hate- as I've outlined above, there are ways to specify what medical care you give consent to when it's deemed you're unable to give consent. You're too busy bitching, whining, complaining, and otherwise being a vocal nuisance to even look into your personal rights on this matter. Everything you've said about a lack of rights is misguided and lacking in education on the subject, because you're making wild claims about the government's ability to force things on you. You obviously have no education on the subject- so I recommend you get some, get an advanced directive so the big, bad nurses of the world can't "violate your rights" and draw some blood, and stop ranting about things on which you're totally clueless. Plain and simple, you are wrong here. You were unaware of your own rights, which you DO have in the form of an Advanced Directive, and you took the ignorance of your rights in this matter and parlayed it into hatred. Nothing, not even blaming me for the Jewish holocaust, will change the fact that this time, you are totally and unquestionably wrong. I wish you luck on obtaining an Advanced Directive. |
12-21-2007, 07:42 PM | #42 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
you HAD rights, you gave them up. I'm NOT wrong, plain and simple. very few people i've ever come across have been able to realize just what it is that they've lost because they've let others dictate for them what rights they have and what rights don't exist. This is YOUR fault for not overlooking what you've been told and discovering for yourself, through the documents of our history, what it is you actually hold. I can't help you anymore in this. Many people have pointed you in the direction you need to go, if you refuse to acknowledge that, you're beyond the help you need.
I'll agree to disagree with you, but it's your loss.
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." |
12-21-2007, 08:00 PM | #43 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
This isn't about DUI?
Sorry, if it isn't, you're going to have to recast this whole thread. Please, even if you need to bring in some Thomas Paine, do something to save this thread.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
12-21-2007, 08:08 PM | #44 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Yeah, you're still wrong. You have rights, and don't know how to exercise them.
It's ok though. Pretty much every day in my line of work, there exists a handful of people whom I (indeed, all people in a medical field) attempt to educate, knowing full-well it will be totally ignored. They either don't want to hear it because they're set in their ways, or just want a "quick fix" and to be on their way. I'll be there when they want to get patched up, and I'll be there when those lines of thinking end up killing them earlier, and with less healthy years, than they could have lived. And I'm fine with all that. Helping people does not rely on them actually following your advice, just that the advice is imparted in good faith; that sometimes, people really think about it, and take positive steps towards their well-being, and live a longer, fuller life. People do it all the time, and you can never know who might turn their life around on any given day. So, now you're armed with information- something a thousand times more powerful than anything in your personal armory. |
12-21-2007, 08:10 PM | #45 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: bedford, tx
|
No BG, this isn't JUST ABOUT DUI. This is about people deciding that giving up their personal private rights to lower a crime rate is ok, as well as letting 'authority' abrogate their rights through judicial edict. It goes even further than that when people try to tell us that a right not specifically articulated in the constitution and bill of rights is a right that doesn't exist.
This is about becoming a virtual slave to the government, for thats where we are headed by simple virtue of people believing that we need to in order to lower crime. Quote:
__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him." Last edited by dksuddeth; 12-21-2007 at 08:11 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
12-21-2007, 08:18 PM | #46 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
In fact, I specifically went out of my way to follow every use of the word "ignorance" or "uneducated", or other form of indicating a lack of knowledge, with "on this subject", "in this matter", "on this topic", etc. to very clearly and specifically indicate I only meant regarding this exact topic. So, my apologies if my efforts were not sufficient to head off misunderstanding- I do not think you're stupid. You do seem quite intelligent, regardless of what opinions we share or do not share. I simply meant your knowledge base, as it pertains solely to this topic, is insufficient. I hope restating that, in its own context, has assuaged your feelings of insult. |
|
12-21-2007, 08:28 PM | #47 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Okay, so this isn't just about DUI, so I guess this isn't just about New Jersey, either. So, is it about the Fourth Amendment, then?
This could be interesting. Let's focus on this pre-revolutionary amendment within the context of post-9/11 America. There is a lot to discuss here. So, we have a topic of privacy and government intervention via policing and court orders. In this case, it is DUI and the issue of forced blood samples. But even before these recent cases, we also have the issue of suspended rights to privacy with illegal wiretaps in the context of counter terrorism. Personally, I'd be more afraid of wiretaps and other forms of tech-based government surveillance than I would be about blood samples if I were to be caught while driving impaired. (Think mobile technology, the Internet, and ways of tracking things such as retail patterns and library usage, etc.) Mandatory blood tests on suspected drunkards doesn't concern me. If they start doing that to other groups, then we just might have a problem.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
12-21-2007, 11:05 PM | #48 (permalink) | |||
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
A slippery slope: It's an idea that if one thing happens, it stands to reason that another more serious thing will happen. The problem, of course, is that you said people suspected of DUI will be forced to have a blood test, and it stands to reason that a holocaust will follow: Everyone else in the world disagrees, and here's why. Blood being drawn forcefully from people suspected of a DUI could result in people suing the police department and losing. That could lead to more blood being drawn because some officers might abuse this. That's the worst case scenario in this, not the systematic killing of an entire race of people. Maybe you can give us a reasonable chain of events that starts with this DUI thing and leads directly to a holocaust? Quote:
Quote:
Having your blood not taken isn't a legal right (as I've said before). A "right" that's not supported by law isn't a right that the state has to recognize. Therefore, the state does not have to recognize the right to bodily fluids. |
|||
12-21-2007, 11:21 PM | #49 (permalink) | |
Upright
Location: Everett, WA
|
Quote:
|
|
12-22-2007, 12:31 AM | #52 (permalink) | |
Walking is Still Honest
Location: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
But then, the government isn't treating those rights like they are rights. The legal resemblance is closer to 'privileges'. Perhaps that is dk's gripe and the source of his insistence that he's not wrong. Or something like that, because I've the sneaking suspicion that you two are arguing different arguments. (Then again, a default setting of "let nurses draw blood when you're incapacitated" kinda makes sense if you're of the mainstream, drawing-blood-isn't-evil, drawing-blood-won't-land-me-in-jail, yes-of-course-I'd-want-medical-diagnostics-done mindset. So I'm leaning toward your position anyway.)
__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome. |
|
12-22-2007, 12:35 AM | #53 (permalink) | |
Upright
Location: Everett, WA
|
Quote:
Way to be completely neutral. |
|
12-22-2007, 04:58 AM | #56 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
12-22-2007, 05:10 AM | #57 (permalink) | ||||||||||
Banned
|
Quote:
and, in the last quote box: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
on this thread, except by dksuddeth. . A treatise on C. Wright Mills: Quote:
Quote:
The Society for the Study of Social Problems established the C. Wright Mills Award in 1964. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 12-22-2007 at 08:20 AM.. |
||||||||||
12-22-2007, 06:06 AM | #58 (permalink) |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
host quit hating my mouse wheel, what has it ever done to YOU
Yes its all corporations now, things were much better in the past where the government respected our rights. Now if you will excuse me my habeas corpus rights have been suspended by Grant, and I need to visit a friend of mine down at the internment camp for some sushi. I'm hoping the colored boy down the street caught some fresh fish for it, there have been some riots in his neighborhood but the nation guard has been called in and after a few shootings I'm sure things will calm down. I'm going to be paying the beat cop for some confiscated alcohol, and have a real party, after all I've been drafted.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
12-22-2007, 06:32 AM | #59 (permalink) |
Banned
|
I've expended the time and effort to lay out what should be regarded as a thought provoking argument that the country is in the grip of authoritarian leaning special interests. I lean on the experience and research of Lamont, Mills, and the more contemporary Chambliss to support the ideas that there is no leftist counter influence to the military, corporatist, law n order penal systen driven conservative capitalism invested in permanent rearmament. I point out that in such a climate, dksuddeth is a reasonable voice.....e tu...Ustwo, what are you doing? Is it sincerely discussing, or is it your usual?
on edit...don't you find it the least bit odd that there isn't a REAL left reacting to what I've described? Is a country with the highest per capita incarceration rates in the world, with 1/3 of all black males in the justice system, with a Gini # of 46.9, a foreign policy like ours, and treatment like Lamont and Black Panther party leaders received from authorities....does that seem like a place without a left? What other countries have politics devoid of a committed left faction? The names on a list them would be an eye opener..... Last edited by host; 12-22-2007 at 07:27 AM.. |
12-22-2007, 01:29 PM | #62 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Quote:
My research.... has unearthed this comparatively recent work. I think the crux of it is that "the right" is committed to the defense of the status quo to the point that it evolves into a police state, and when that happens, it crushes "the left", because it is the perceived threat to the status quo that "the left" evolves to deliver, that justifies the move to a repressive, "individual rights reducing", police state. I think that this orientation motivated such a backlash against dksuddeth's OP, which compared to the burgeoning "penal colony" and "Power Elite" prioritized entrenchment that defines (overwhelms?) the US today, is but a fruit fly when compared to the "800 lbs. gorilla" that is American conservatism in late 2007. Two right oriented political parties and a bunched up "center" that, along with the right dominated parties, are ardent defenders of the "status quo". Quote:
|
||
12-22-2007, 08:38 PM | #63 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
Being my mind is a bit addled by cold medications, I decided to read all that and it really added, well nothing to the discussion. We have links about the semi-marxist C. Wright Mills, worried about the 'power elite' whoever the hell they really are, and wanting to join all the leftists in some grand movement to overthrow them. Typical socialist dream, but Mills can be forgiven as this was the 1950's, socialisms follies were not fully understood. This also has very little to do with 'your rights' unless you want to stretch a drunk getting hurt by cops when he refused to submit to a blood test with the 'power elites'. Then it ties into corporations as the true 'power elites' so now the drunk guy getting hurt is due to McDonalds, great. Then it all ties in declining crime rates and William J Chambliss's work to show that of course things are worse now than better, even though I don't see anything in Chambliss's work to support that. Noting a problem does not mean the problem is worse now than in the past. So no, he didn't contradict me, he brought in a bunch of 6 degrees of separation related links, and got upset when he was called on it. I mean does anyone think the cops would have been NICER to this guy in 1950 if he was acting the same way about something similar? That you would have even heard about it?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
12-23-2007, 08:55 AM | #64 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
ustwo--a debating tip--you aren't going to be in a position to call anyone on anything if your main tactic is to declare, before anything else, that you didn't read the post.
your case is not helped when you provide a totally incoherent flea=circus bit about c. wright mills. knowing now that occasional agreement on something is a vague possibility, and that neither of our heads will explode if it happens... ========================== there is a (methodo)logical problem with host's post above, but it mostly has to do with simply not explaining the linkage between the claim that the u.s. is an oligarchy, the militarization of police forces, the expansion of the notion of subversive speech, the "prison-industrial complex"----and procedural irregularities involving the meaning of implied consent in new jersey. there is a way you could do it---say that a dimension of conservative tactics of social mobilization is the creation of a series of Enemies that operate at different social registers. these Enemies are drunk drivers, people who kidnap children, "terrorists" and other political adversaries....which are grouped as "social deviants", threats to the phantom integrity of the body politic of the Us--because the principle function of designating an Enemy is to designate a community that is threatened by this Enemy, which you do at the same time. but this would require voyaging through the climate of social hysteria, its origins, its functions and uses. so on the one hand, you could connect stuff like "america's most wanted" the burgeoning hysteria of the 1980s-90s concerning children (remember all those milk cartons with images of lost children printed on the sides?)......to stuff like the construction of drunk drivers as bearers of chaos and potential death....to something of the notion of "terrorism" in that all are random threats, all are abstract threats, nothing to be done really...political dissent, processed through right revisionist pseudo-history of the vietnam period gets turned into another Persecuting Adversary, an Outside Element geared around Creating Danger and Disorder Amongst/Within the Right-Thinking Community of Perecuted Petit Bourgeois Types. you'd have to track the fashioning and migration of these memes across differing registers of cultural production, show the linkages between, say, the image of the Phantom Other Who Waits to Steal Your Child, the clamp-down on dui as an expression of social deviance (and not as an expression of the workings of a kind of social safety valve generated in part by a paranoia-as-politics approach to solidarity building)---the migration of these memes from the stream of ordinary debris into elements of political narrative by way of any number of conservative institutions whose function was (still is?) to provide the illusion of constant updating of the Ideological Product that is populist conservatism...and the effects of this migration/reframing. so you could maybe show a relation between the rise of fear of the "Abstract Figure Who May or May Not Exist But Who Will Maybe Kidnap Your Children If He Does Exist so you Better Watch Out" and the creation of a consituency willing and able to vote for Order uber alles and who cam maybe rationalize away this committment to order uber alles on the grounds of self-defense. but you'd have to show how this process worked. you can't simply say "there are procedural irregularities that test the limits of implied consent happening in new jersey" and then say "c. wright mills outlined a description of the united states as an oligarchy" then string together a series of features of the world the right has made and leave it at that. this because without such work, you imply a conspiracy of some kind that in fact runs the show within which we live---you say "power elite" and then point to a sequence of more recent factors and don't fill in the middle term, and you say, basically, that nameless elements within this elite determine what is seen and how it is seen politically/media-wise. i dont buy it, simply because the dominant economic class in the states is deeply divided, is not working with an understanding of its own class interests. so you have factions within the dominant economic class that align with the far right, and others that align with the moderate right (which includes most of the democrat "front-runners" of the moment)... and i dont buy it because assuming such a conspiracy exists bypasses the need to think about the looser-less formalized circuitry of ideological adjustment that the conservatives had fashioned and which worked quite well until the overwhelming foulness of the bush administration effective junked the machinery....for now anyway.... a cynical fellow might be inclined to think that the origin of this Persecuting Other that conservative politics feeds on is the figure of the Poor or Dispossessed, which would be the imaginary cypher filled in my the consequences of neoliberal economic and social policies, which at one time "expressed itself" through political dissent from the left (as an imaginary construction)....so you can maybe connect conservative revisionist narratives of the vietnam period to the figure of Political Opposition as Persecution to the series of other Persecuting Others that have been floated into the hysteria mill of american "culture" since the reagan period. but you'd have to make this kind of argument, it seems to me. o yeah--and i wouldn't count on much agreement from the right about mill's basic idea. just as it is possible to shear off consideration of the poor from the ideological mill, only to have them resurfacing in displaced form as a Persecuting Other, so it is possible to have the actually existing class fractions that back and which stand to benefit from conservtive politics be sheared off, only to reappear in as the Happy Face Other of the Entrepreneur, Hero of Markets, Genius of Linguistics, Conqueror of Happiness and Friend of the Children, the Embodiment of Rationality in Chaotic Times.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
Tags |
jersey |
|
|