|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 16, 2014 17:02:32 GMT -6
Ok, call me stupid, but why is the AG making this sort of statement: hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HOLDER_HEROIN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTIt's not like narcan/naloxone is new or poorly understood by healthcare providers. It is routinely used in known opiate overdose as well as decreased level of consciousness for unknown reasons. Hell, even heroin abusers generally know about this. Some of them keep it on hand in case somebody overshoots. There is nothing wrong with the information here, but of what possible value is Holder's medical opinion? |
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 17, 2014 8:43:51 GMT -6
Ok, call me stupid, but why is the AG making this sort of statement: hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HOLDER_HEROIN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTIt's not like narcan/naloxone is new or poorly understood by healthcare providers. It is routinely used in known opiate overdose as well as decreased level of consciousness for unknown reasons. Hell, even heroin abusers generally know about this. Some of them keep it on hand in case somebody overshoots. There is nothing wrong with the information here, but of what possible value is Holder's medical opinion? Perhaps he's just tired of politicizing law enforcement? Jim |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 17, 2014 11:07:48 GMT -6
Ok, call me stupid, but why is the AG making this sort of statement: hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HOLDER_HEROIN?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULTIt's not like narcan/naloxone is new or poorly understood by healthcare providers. It is routinely used in known opiate overdose as well as decreased level of consciousness for unknown reasons. Hell, even heroin abusers generally know about this. Some of them keep it on hand in case somebody overshoots. There is nothing wrong with the information here, but of what possible value is Holder's medical opinion? Perhaps he's just tired of politicizing law enforcement? Jim Yeah. It's got to get dry after a while. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 17, 2014 11:10:11 GMT -6
Presidential grades during my voting years:
Reagan: D+
Bush I: B-
Clinton: B
Bush II: F
Obama: D (incomplete)
No kiddies, there is no curve in my class.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Apr 18, 2014 8:25:53 GMT -6
Presidential grades during my voting years: Reagan: D+ Bush I: B- Clinton: B Bush II: F Obama: D (incomplete) No kiddies, there is no curve in my class. Hi F.B. I'm curious how you justify the D+ for Reagan, particularly in view of the Bs for Bush I and Clinton. Jim p.s. clarification on edit: I do not disagree with the B grades for Bush I and Clinton. WRT to economic and foreign policies they were not dramatically different than Reagan. That is why I'm curious about the D+ for Reagan. |
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Apr 18, 2014 16:23:33 GMT -6
Presidential grades during my voting years: Reagan: D+ Bush I: B- Clinton: B Bush II: F Obama: D (incomplete) No kiddies, there is no curve in my class. Hi F.B. I'm curious how you justify the D+ for Reagan, particularly in view of the Bs for Bush I and Clinton. Jim p.s. clarification on edit: I do not disagree with the B grades for Bush I and Clinton. WRT to economic and foreign policies they were not dramatically different than Reagan. That is why I'm curious about the D+ for Reagan. I'm not going go through the Reagan report card in gruesome detail, since it is admittedly just my gestalt, but here are the high points: Demerits: 1. Reintroduction of military interventionism--Lebanon, Grenada 2. Arming the Mujaheddin--part of #1, but a line item unto itself. If not the beginning, this set in motion dramatic militarization of fringe Islamic groups. 3. Cold war saber rattling--MX, Pershing, SDI, "evil empire" 4. Iran-Contra 5. Constructive Engagement (Apartheid) 6. Ballooning the deficit in peace time 7. Utter lack of response to AIDS 8. Increasing payroll taxes while cutting marginal income tax rates (tax burden shift to middle class) Gold stars: 1. Rapid reversal of the Carter economy 2. Rekindling an "American spirit" 3. Science investments 4. "Great Communicator"--well, no, not really, but Reagan took politics to the people in a way unmatched until Obama. We always felt like he was talking to us, which is no small feat. Bush I and Clinton were both substantially more fiscally responsible than Reagan, less inclined toward MAD/apocalysis/Armageddon, made more responsible political appointments, worked cooperatively with the family of nations, tailored economic policy with the middle class at LEAST in rhetorical focus (Reagan didn't even try), and so on. If you think about it--and you likely have--there are some natural comparisons to make between Reagan and Obama--inheritors of shit economies, masterful populists, lavish spending on pointless military adventures (Cold War escalation under Reagan; perpetual war on terror under Obama), ballooning debt, etc. Personally, I think the NSA issue puts Obama under Reagan on the scorecard--Obama can't take much credit for expansion of gay rights during his tenure, but he owns the subjugation of them through perpetual surveillance. The only other thing to add is that Obama still has a couple of years to resurrect his presidency. Given the current trajectory, I wouldn't bet on it, but its his house right now, and he does do hope fairly well--perhaps a fraction of it rubs off on me. |
|
