The Rampant, Irresponsible Political Thread

[Jan]

Wow, a visiting policy that treats everybody equally. Stunning. You might want to re-read your link.

Perhaps you forgot what you were denying? My point was that the partner of a gay person would be denied visitation in ICU because they weren't 'family'. The policy linked to specifically says:

Critical Care Areas
Visitors are limited to members of the immediate family and two at a time may visit. Visitors under the age of 12 will be permitted to visit by the discretion of the nursing staff. To provide adequate time for rest and treatment of your family member, we ask that you limit your visit to 15 minutes every hour during posted visiting hours. There is a waiting room for your family to use while you are waiting to visit.

Emphasis mine.

There is not a hospital on Earth that gives family members special visiting rights they don't give others. If the patient requests it, they allow it.

Ah. I don't see that in the policy. Can you point it out?

Jan

[Der Mike]

I've personally had girlfriends stay with me overnight in hospitals.

You simply ASK and they'll do it.
-=Mike

[WorkerCaste]

Wow, a visiting policy that treats everybody equally. Stunning. You might want to re-read your link.

There is not a hospital on Earth that gives family members special visiting rights they don't give others. If the patient requests it, they allow it.

I read it. I reread it. Did you?

Critical Care Areas
Visitors are limited to members of the immediate family and two at a time may visit. Visitors under the age of 12 will be permitted to visit by the discretion of the nursing staff. To provide adequate time for rest and treatment of your family member, we ask that you limit your visit to 15 minutes every hour during posted visiting hours. There is a waiting room for your family to use while you are waiting to visit.


No Critical Care or Intermediate Care visitation will be allowed during the following times:

7:00-9:00 a.m.

3:00-4:30 p.m.

7:00-8:00 p.m.

We also ask that phone calls be restricted during these times so that the nursing staff can obtain reports on your family member and form a plan of care for the days activities.

That is a written, published policy of a hospital. It says "immediate family". Period. While most (only an omniscient being could say all) hospitals will allow a waiver if the patient requests it, as I said before, if the patient is unconscious or incoherent such a request cannot be made. What's so hard about this? On this point you are simply wrong, and unlike your statements, I have provided an actual source to prove my contention.

I've simply shot down the theory that it is legally unequal, which is incorrect.

You've simply attempted to shoot down the theory. I have provided several points of inequality which you have not answered, answered one aspect of, or only answered with blanket assertions that you have no possible way of truly knowing for sure. I will not accept that you are intimately familiar with inheritence and torte law from all 50 states or policy from every hospital in every state. People have contradicted you with personal experience and you discount these statements. Are you saying that the people are lying or that you have better knowledge of the events in their lives? As for only caring about the process, you are selective in the process you care about. Legislative and Constitutional Amendment processes are two, but Rule of Law and Judicial process are no less valid under our system of governance. If you would applaud people who got legislative action, why would you not applaud people who use the courts to clarify and properly use existing law and the Constitution of the United States? These processes were built for a reason. Also we are not a democracy. We are representative government. Part of the reason the government was created that way is because sometimes the right thing is not the popular thing. Whether you have truly shot down anything at all is, really, up to the individual readers.

[Jan]

Unless, of course, the person you ask just feels like throwing hir weight around. Or the supervisor just came down on the staff for for being lax with policies?

You just don't get it, do you? The point is, that marriage bestows a whole lot more in the way of unquestioned rights that are being denied to same-sex partners. You can claim that it's otherwise until you're blue in the face but that's not going to make it so.

Jan

[Jan]

Another complete waste of time. Unfortunately, this one might get someplace. Not that it has any hope of ever getting ratified.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee gave a nod Thursday to a constitutional amendment to protect the American flag from desecration, moving it to the Senate floor where vote-counters on both sides say it could be within one vote of passing.

CNN news



Jan

[Karachi Vyce]

Now this is an amendment I can get behind.

Sorry, hippies. Looks like you won't be able to shit on the flag for much longer.

[Jan]

Yeah, right. If they didn't manage to pass the silly thing back when flag burning was actually popular, it ain't gonna happen now. It's a piece of cloth, nothing more.

Unless...waitaminit...would all those poor flags unravelling on people's car antennas be desecration? Yeah! Arrest them all! Make it a felony!

Wanna talk bandannas? Shirts? Bumper stickers? Whoo-baby, maybe you're right, Vyce, let's ban all of that!

A sig I've always been fond of:

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all. -Wes S. - alt.Callahans

Jan

[Karachi Vyce]

Yeah, right. If they didn't manage to pass the silly thing back when flag burning was actually popular, it ain't gonna happen now. It's a piece of cloth, nothing more.

An attitude I have nothing but utter contempt for.

[Dr Maturin]

I don't care about the flag, really. I care more about the ideals behind it, and no, I don't mean the imagined ideals that the left dreams up. One time I put a flag on the floor and my mom freaked out. It's just a flag. Besides, letting people burn it is a convenient way to spot traitors.

[Der Mike]

Unless, of course, the person you ask just feels like throwing hir weight around. Or the supervisor just came down on the staff for for being lax with policies?

You just don't get it, do you? The point is, that marriage bestows a whole lot more in the way of unquestioned rights that are being denied to same-sex partners. You can claim that it's otherwise until you're blue in the face but that's not going to make it so.

Jan

There is nothing it provides that cannot be provided by other means.

Again, the same group that can legalize abortion cannot handle the concept of contracts?
-=Mike

[David Panzer]

I don't care about the flag, really. I care more about the ideals behind it, and no, I don't mean the imagined ideals that the left dreams up. One time I put a flag on the floor and my mom freaked out. It's just a flag. Besides, letting people burn it is a convenient way to spot traitors.

And I thought the traitors were those disgruntled CIA employees who give secrets to other countries for copious amounts of green paper

[Jan]

An attitude I have nothing but utter contempt for.

Which, along with a couple of bucks will buy you a cup of coffee (more at Starbucks, of course).

If you don't have any objection to the other 'uses' I named for the flag, what IS your criteria for desecrating it? You can't object to burning since the last I heard, that's the prescribed method of disposition.

Let my tell you a secret: Destroying or desecrating the symbol for something doesn't hurt the concepts and ideals the symbol stands for. It doesn't matter if the symbol is a flag or Crucifix or Star of David or anything else. The symbol doesn't matter, only the concepts and ideals.

The entire thing is election year posturing and doesn't have a chance of actual ratification.

Jan

[WorkerCaste]

An attitude I have nothing but utter contempt for.

I don't mean this in any way to be sarcastic -- I'm honestly looking for your thoughts. What did you think of the Danish cartoon controversy? Desecration seems to be in the eye of the beholder. What about cartoons depicting desecration of the flag?

To me, I find people who neglect flags worse than people who use them for political speech. If I see someone desecrating the flag as commentary, I'm likely to think "idiot" and not think about it any more. The statement made by such acts may be graphic, but they're not effective to me. I prefer an articulation of thoughts. That gives me something to think about. Destroying a flag can't touch what it represents. No different than someone standing there saying that the US sucks -- gross and unconvincing in any way. But, when I see a tattered flag flying unlit at night, it bothers me much more. This is supposedly a person or organization that believes in the ideals but can't be bothered with knowing and/or following the protocol. I'm willing to concede that I'm weird but that seems a lot worse.

[frulad]

Another complete waste of time. Unfortunately, this one might get someplace. Not that it has any hope of ever getting ratified.



CNN news



Jan

Hey, the Supreme Court already passed a ruling earlier this week that crapped all over the 4th Ammendment. It's time to get working on some of those other pesky things in the ever increasingly inconvienant Bill of Rights.

[frulad]

And I thought the traitors were those disgruntled CIA employees who give secrets to other countries for copious amounts of green paper

No, the traitors are those who publicly disclose CIA agents names for their own political gain.