Also our corruption problem here is FAR worse than in the US.
Pretty much any country dealing with corruption has far worse corruption than us.
Also our corruption problem here is FAR worse than in the US.
Pretty much any country dealing with corruption has far worse corruption than us.
I think that comparing corruption levels of different countries is unhealthy, either way, corruption (in any form) is bad for a country and something that anyone who wants a healthy democracy must fight to combat it.
Pretty much any country dealing with corruption has far worse corruption than us.
Well probably not anymore.
It's probably just a joke, but…
http://www.cbr.com/dwayne-johnson-teases-2020-presidential-run-i-wouldnt-rule-it-out/
@Monkey:
Well probably not anymore.
…............Urghhhh.
It's probably just a joke, but…
http://www.cbr.com/dwayne-johnson-teases-2020-presidential-run-i-wouldnt-rule-it-out/
…Seriously, what the hell??
Wonder if it still holds if you immediately divorce. If you even can divorce. I can see the part about "to prevent girls who have sex under the age of 18 from feeling ostracised by their community" but yeah, there is no way for this law to not be abused if it actually passes.
Oxford's word of the year: post-truth
Wonder if it still holds if you immediately divorce. If you even can divorce. I can see the part about "to prevent girls who have sex under the age of 18 from feeling ostracised by their community" but yeah, there is no way for this law to not be abused if it actually passes.
This act more or less legalise marrying girls to their rapist. It's supporting the rapist while punishing the girls for having premaritial sex even if it was rape. Because a girl worth is her virginity. If she's not a virgin, she's used good & need to be quickly married off "to protect her pride". While nobody bats an eye if a guy have premarital sex & is encouraged to!:getlost:
But this is Turkey, I shouldn't be suprised.
How in the world can Dubai both have a vibrant clubbing scene and a reputation for abusing people who drink and fornicate.
NASA's experimenting with a drive that creates thrust without fuel. Instead it bounces microwaves around a specially shaped container and that for some reason creates thrust (at least in their tests) even though it defies Newton's third law about equal and opposite reactions. They haven't tested in in space yet though (they're planning to soon), which would be a full vacuum, but they have tested it in a near vacuum and it still works. If it actually continues to work it would be significantly lighter than rockets that use fuel and they wouldn't have to worry about using fuel at all, they would just need to supply the drive with power.
It's not a new thing but it just had a peer reviewed paper published about it which pushes it one step closer to being actual reality.
It's not a new thing but it just had a peer reviewed paper published about it which pushes it one step closer to being actual reality.
I hope this turns into something, I remember hearing about it before the paper was peer reviewed.
This has been in the news for about a day or two in the U.S. Some asshole bus driver was driving recklessly and crashed the school bus into a tree killing 3 children and hospitalizing about a dozen others.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pictured-9-10-old-children-215324468.html
I hope the kids recovering in the hospital make a speedy recovery and my condolences to all the families. Especially the ones who lost.
http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2016/11/15/493680/Obama-to-veto-bill-to-block-Iran-plane-sales
Why are they going to stop iran from getting new planes ?
This has been in the news for about a day or two in the U.S. Some asshole bus driver was driving recklessly and crashed the school bus into a tree killing 3 children and hospitalizing about a dozen others.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pictured-9-10-old-children-215324468.html
I hope the kids recovering in the hospital make a speedy recovery and my condolences to all the families. Especially the ones who lost.
" The officials described a chaotic scene after the crash, with many of the victims too young to provide basic information such as their parents’ names.
Several students said their mother’s names were “mama.” "
The incident is tragic enough as it is, but that line sends fresh pain through my heart. Jeez…
I can't imagine the hell all those parents are going through.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Well, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
One of the involved men had a pregnant girlfriend and discussed plans with another man to sexually abuse the child once it was born, police said.
Some of the accused men also live-streamed their abuse online and performed atrocities with their own children.
@MDL:
" The officials described a chaotic scene after the crash, with many of the victims too young to provide basic information such as their parents’ names.
Several students said their mother’s names were “mama.” "
The incident is tragic enough as it is, but that line sends fresh pain through my heart. Jeez…
I can't imagine the hell all those parents are going through.
And to make it worse now it's probable the whole thing was done on purpose.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Well, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
I feel very, very sick.
The incident has revived a debate about whether there should be a federal law requiring school buses to be equipped with seat belts.
Wait, school buses aren't required to have seat belts? WHAT?
ummm
is this really happening
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?CMP=twt_gu
Wait, school buses aren't required to have seat belts? WHAT?
I've never been on a school bus with seat belts, ever. Even now when I supervise a field trip and we get a school bus it doesn't have seat belts. I've just kinda been used to it for my whole life and the thought has passed through my head from time to time of, 'Why are there no seat belts?' but I never put much thought into it. Why aren't seat belts required on at least school buses?
ummm
is this really happening
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/nov/22/nasa-earth-donald-trump-eliminate-climate-change-research?CMP=twt_gu
Welcome to Donald Trump's America.
http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=43000&page=618&p=3725563&viewfull=1#post3725563
This update on Standing Rock was from yesterday but didn't see anything here. It covers the assault on Sunday. I had heard about the use of water canons on protesters during freezing temps, but didn't hear the assault was worse than that… much worse!
Over 300 protesters needed medical attention. Beyond the ones suffering from hypothermia due to the water canons; some of the critically injured included an eye injury that could lead to permanent damage, and woman lost her arm!
@huff-post:
Sunday night, on a bridge just north of the Standing Rock Sioux Indian Reservation, Morton County police, backed up by the North Dakota National Guard, unleashed a sub-freezing-weather barrage of water cannons, mace and tear gas canisters, 40mm rubber bullets, concussion grenades, 12-gauge bean bag rounds, and other projectiles on hundreds of people demonstrating peacefully against the North Dakota Access Pipeline.
….
..........
By nights end, many activists and reporters on the scene also reported that they believed police purposely targeted journalists and medics, as well as aimed to maim by shooting 40mm canister rounds directly at peoples’ bodies and targeting peoples’ heads, necks, and extremities with less than lethal projectiles, as opposed to shooting for participants and observers center mass.
...
.....
The police assault on the unarmed, peaceful demonstrators lasted until nearly three o’clock in the morning.
How is this not making more outrage among people? How can this not be seen as an assault on American citizens?
…. oh wait, maybe because its not a 'affluent white area' that's trying to protect their land?
I'm sure my last line is going to anger some. You have to admit it that its true. If that pipeline was going through a white neighborhood who was peacefully protesting it because they feared it would pollute their drinking water, there would less violence against them.
Heck .... did the feds give this much assault on the white guys that staked out on federal lands? You know the militia boy, Ammon Bundy and friends who had their armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge then got acquitted.
While one was killed (shot when he was seen reaching in a pocket that later found a gun in), they didn't get the same hostility the protesters at Standing Rock has, from the harassment to water canons, tear gas and mace and body disfigurement (remember the grenade that cost a women her arm?)
Terrible.
Nazi requests no black nurses tend to his newborn at a hospital. Hospital complies.
If they make sure to accommodate requests for a specific religion or gender, race doesn't seem any different to me.
Terrible.
Nazi requests no black nurses tend to his newborn at a hospital. Hospital complies.
I think hospital accomodate any request as much as they can without putting the patient at risk.
If they make sure to accommodate requests for a specific religion or gender, race doesn't seem any different to me.
I think hospital accomodate any request as much as they can without putting the patient at risk.
A hospital should not accommodate racist demands, period.
The accomodatuons you two are talking about are sensible. You're looking for a gynecologist? It makes sense you'd probably be more comfortable with a woman. Do you need a place to pray? Here's a prayer room set up by the hospital. You want a white doctor and only a white doctor? Sorry, go fuck yourself.
Funny story. Our country is having a major demonetization move in progress and the Prime Minister set out a survey aimed at urban population to see how much they love or hate it. One of the questions below
It's hilarious how the question has systematically removed the obvious negative options and has concentrated only on the positive and neutral ones lol. Now they have released a statement that 90% of the population is happy with the move lmao
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
@xan:
Funny story. Our country is having a major demonetization move in progress and the Prime Minister set out a survey aimed at urban population to see how much they love or hate it. One of the questions below
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161124/3353a88285454cefe4e3411233a8aa68.jpg
It's hilarious how the question has systematically removed the obvious negative options and has concentrated only on the positive and neutral ones lol. Now they have released a statement that 90% of the population is happy with the move lmao
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
this is like saying : people please start a revolution we are getting tired
A hospital should not accommodate racist demands, period.
The accomodatuons you two are talking about are sensible. You're looking for a gynecologist? It makes sense you'd probably be more comfortable with a woman. Do you need a place to pray? Here's a prayer room set up by the hospital. You want a white doctor and only a white doctor? Sorry, go fuck yourself.
I think the religion example was about a patient of certain religion requiring a doctor/nurse of the same religion and not about places to pray.
A racist turning away all non-white doctors is unnacceptable but honestly I think all the other examples are kind of bad too even the gynecologist one. Completely understandable and certainly not as big a deal as the case in the news, yes but it's still a form of discrimination and shouldn't be normalized.
There are some countries where expectant fathers are so opposed to letting their spouses be treated by male obstetricians that they will rather let the baby and/or mother die than allow them to get proper treatment. It's especially problematic because these sorts of countries are also woefully low on female doctors, for various reasons.
@xan:
Funny story. Our country is having a major demonetization move in progress and the Prime Minister set out a survey aimed at urban population to see how much they love or hate it. One of the questions below
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20161124/3353a88285454cefe4e3411233a8aa68.jpg
It's hilarious how the question has systematically removed the obvious negative options and has concentrated only on the positive and neutral ones lol. Now they have released a statement that 90% of the population is happy with the move lmao
Sent from my XT1068 using Tapatalk
well yeah,the Modi app is a joke,ane even if the questions weren't loaded,the person who uses the app is more likely to be one of his supporters.
related,there was a proper survey done by C-voter which largely paints a positive picture also.here
keep in mind the sample size is very low(around 1000 weighted)
but well,the UP elections will paint a more clearer picture on the public response
A hospital should not accommodate racist demands, period.
The accomodatuons you two are talking about are sensible. You're looking for a gynecologist? It makes sense you'd probably be more comfortable with a woman. Do you need a place to pray? Here's a prayer room set up by the hospital. You want a white doctor and only a white doctor? Sorry, go fuck yourself.
I don't know the context of the other requests. I can understand wanting a female gynecologist but to me, if the request is a doctor or nurse of a certain faith, that is just as much discrimination as wanting one of the certain race and if they accommodate for one they should accommodate for the other too.
A hospital should not accommodate racist demands, period.
The accomodatuons you two are talking about are sensible. You're looking for a gynecologist? It makes sense you'd probably be more comfortable with a woman. Do you need a place to pray? Here's a prayer room set up by the hospital. You want a white doctor and only a white doctor? Sorry, go fuck yourself.
A racist turning away all non-white doctors is unnacceptable but honestly I think all the other examples are kind of bad too even the gyneI think the religion example was about a patient of certain religion requiring a doctor/nurse of the same religion and not about places to pray.
cologist one. Completely understandable and certainly not as big a deal as the case in the news, yes but it's still a form of discrimination and shouldn't be normalized.
I wouldn't mind someone saying they are of X religion and asking if there any doctor that is same religion to treat them. What I don't like are hospitals that force their religious views on the patients. There are a slew of Catholic hospitals in the US and they don't advertise they are a Catholic hospital. Don't think it's a problem? Catholic hospitals do not give out abortions - even in if mother's life is in danger. Even if its ectopic (entopic?) pregnancy which has NO chance of baby surviving or growing. Nor do they do sterilizations or contraception.
Samantha Bee Skewers Catholic Hospitals For Putting Women In Danger
The problem, though, is that once these facilities are sponsored by the Catholic church, they are obligated to provide care that is based on the church’s religious principles.
A hospital should not accommodate racist demands, period.
The accommodations you two are talking about are sensible. You're looking for a gynecologist? It makes sense you'd probably be more comfortable with a woman. Do you need a place to pray? Here's a prayer room set up by the hospital. You want a white doctor and only a white doctor? Sorry, go fuck yourself.
Well I always considered the reason the accommodation are made are because the well-being is the only thing that matter inside of the hospital. Morals, politics and the rest stay on the outside. The hospital isn't a place for moral debate but simply the caring of the patient in the best condition possible. That's my interpretation anyway.
I think the religion example was about a patient of certain religion requiring a doctor/nurse of the same religion and not about places to pray.
I'm not familiar with this happening. I've heard of patients requesting caregivers from the same culture because they feel more comfortable with them but doctors/nurses of a specific religion? You're going to have to provide examples of that.
For example this article on possible accommodations for the Muslim community in America show 3 key areas that should be looked at in providing care for Muslim patients. It's under key results.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3358400/
"Participants reported stigmatization within the healthcare system and voiced the need for culturally competent healthcare providers. In addition, they identified three key healthcare accommodations to address Muslim sensitivities: the provision of (1) gender-concordant care, (2) halal food and (3) a neutral prayer space. Gender concordance was requested based on Islamic conceptions of modesty and privacy. Halal food was deemed to be health-promoting and therefore integral to the healing process. Lastly, a neutral prayer space was requested to ensure security and privacy during worship."
I can't find anything about hospitals allowing patients to turn away doctors based on the doctor's specific religion. And that's the distinctive problem here. A request vs. an accommodation. A patient can request whatever the hell they want but it's up to the hospital to determine whether it's reasonable not only to the patient but their employees. Even if patients do request a caregiver of a specific religion are those requests accepted and accommodated for? And how? Because that's where this hospital screwed up. They got an unreasonable request and they accepted it without input from the nurse on duty.
I will repeat something I said to Sakonosolo below.
(If, I repeat if, the hospital does provide accommodations for patients asking for doctors of specific religions or race it should be up to the caregivers/physicians to decide amongst themselves whether or not to meet that request because they're the ones doing the job and being requested of. It should not be up to the hospital as was the case for this hospital.)
A racist turning away all non-white doctors is unnacceptable but honestly I think all the other examples are kind of bad too even the gynecologist one. Completely understandable and certainly not as big a deal as the case in the news, yes but it's still a form of discrimination and shouldn't be normalized.
That's right, it shouldn't be normalized. In fact, it should be discouraged except in special circumstances. Any professional capable of the job should be allowed to do their job regardless of sex, religion, ethnicity, or race.
But there's a clear line between accommodating culturally sensitive requests and accommodating racist requests.
There are some countries where expectant fathers are so opposed to letting their spouses be treated by male obstetricians that they will rather let the baby and/or mother die than allow them to get proper treatment. It's especially problematic because these sorts of countries are also woefully low on female doctors, for various reasons.
See, this is an example of a request that should heartily be denied.
I wouldn't mind someone saying they are of X religion and asking if there any doctor that is same religion to treat them. What I don't like are hospitals that force their religious views on the patients. There are a slew of Catholic hospitals in the US and they don't advertise they are a Catholic hospital. Don't think it's a problem? Catholic hospitals do not give out abortions - even in if mother's life is in danger. Even if its ectopic (entopic?) pregnancy which has NO chance of baby surviving or growing. Nor do they do sterilizations or contraception.
Samantha Bee Skewers Catholic Hospitals For Putting Women In Danger
This is especially off putting because of the growing number of Catholic hospitals and some areas only having a Catholic hospital as a viable option for hospitalization due to proximity. They do great work but there are some areas of improvement.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I don't know the context of the other requests. I can understand wanting a female gynecologist but to me, if the request is a doctor or nurse of a certain faith, that is just as much discrimination as wanting one of the certain race and if they accommodate for one they should accommodate for the other too.
They really shouldn't. And if, I repeat if, the hospital does provide accommodations for patients asking for doctors of specific religions or race it should be up to the caregivers/physicians to decide amongst themselves whether or not to meet that request because they're the ones doing the job and being requested of. It should not be up to the hospital as was the case for this hospital.
Well I always considered the reason the accommodation are made are because the well-being is the only thing that matter inside of the hospital. Morals, politics and the rest stay on the outside. The hospital isn't a place for moral debate but simply the caring of the patient in the best condition possible. That's my interpretation anyway.
Doctors and nurses are all about morals and ethics. It's a cornerstone of their profession. I'm sure you've heard of the Hippocratic Oath. It's why a doctor will not do anything to their patient they believe is morally wrong like assisted suicide even if it's requested. Some doctors refuse to provide abortions.
I think the only time its acceptable to discriminate race in hospitals is not race at all, but language. I can understand an elderly Indian woman who speaks mostly Hindi asking if there are any Indian doctors that can help her on basis of language and being familiar with her culture. But asking for a preferred race when language isn't an issue, nope nope nope.
The only case i could see for it would be if it would in any way endanger the persons health. Like if the racist in question would get physically or emotionally worked up to such a level that the stress effect on the body could harm the surgery/recovery. And even then as a very, very, VERY sparesly used option. Like unless you are screaming, shaking and fuming to the level of going into genuine cardiac arrest over a black woman touching you then you can just suck it up.
See, this is an example of a request that should heartily be denied.
Unfortunately, these people aren't making requests. They simply don't take the mother to a doctor unless they know that the doctor's female. They'll keep the mother home and let her have birth out of a hospital if they can't guarantee that another man won't see or touch her somewhere that they're uncomfortable with.
If hospitals start denying people their requests on moral grounds like this one, then all you're going to do is make more people avoid getting necessary medical care, or prevent their loved ones or the people that they care for from seeking or receiving the help that they need.
Unfortunately, these people aren't making requests. They simply don't take the mother to a doctor unless they know that the doctor's female. They'll keep the mother home and let her have birth out of a hospital if they can't guarantee that another man won't see or touch her somewhere that they're uncomfortable with.
If hospitals start denying people their requests on moral grounds like this one, then all you're going to do is make more people avoid getting necessary medical care, or prevent their loved ones or the people that they care for from seeking or receiving the help that they need.
Hospitals already deny requests like this because not everything can be accommodated.
What people do at home is their own business but if they take their business to the hospital and put their wife and child under the care of that hospital then it should be up to the cargivers to provide what care is neccessary first. Preferences second. Again, if they want to accomodate the patient, ok, but ultimately it should be a choice made by the hospital staff and not the hospital or the patient telling them if they can do their job or not (because of preferences). Especially if it's an emergency and they don't have time to switch out a male for a female doctor, or have the specific available staff, because it's the hospitals job to provide neccessary treatment regardless of preferences.
Not all accommodations are necessarily bad, like we have already pointed out, but it should be understood that a patient's health comes first and any professional capable of doing the job should be allowed to do so professionally. The culture you're talking about sounds like they're comfortable with accommodating their patients. That's their choice but ultimately it might degrade the field making it so gender specific enforcing stereotypes and hindering flexibility in the field.
Doctors and nurses are all about morals and ethics. It's a cornerstone of their profession. I'm sure you've heard of the Hippocratic Oath. It's why a doctor will not do anything to their patient they believe is morally wrong like assisted suicide even if it's requested. Some doctors refuse to provide abortions.
Yes but those are about the lives of the patient. Not question of lifestyle and the likes which I don't think healthcare is suppose to concern himself with. If Hitler end up in your table, you swallow how much you hate his guts and cure him anyway. If a racist come to your clinic, his viewpoints sucks but you still do your best to take care of him including give him a white doctor if you have available and won't endanger other patients. I mean I think it is allowed for witness of Jehovah to not take blood based on their faith.
I think all of this should be up to the doctor, honestly. A strict policy either way would only inhibit doctors' ability to treat patients.
Yes but those are about the lives of the patient. Not question of lifestyle and the likes which I don't think healthcare is suppose to concern himself with. If Hitler end up in your table, you swallow how much you hate his guts and cure him anyway. If a racist come to your clinic, his viewpoints sucks but you still do your best to take care of him including give him a white doctor if you have available and won't endanger other patients. I mean I think it is allowed for witness of Jehovah to not take blood based on their faith.
You treat the patient to the best of your ability regardless but you shouldn't have to provide a specific caregiver unless you choose to. If you believe that'll increase their care or you don't want to go through the hassle then you can do so at your own discretion but ultimately it's the hospital staff's decision.
I'm curious though, does the culture of paid medical help in the US have an impact on this?
Over here like there's no care or worry about who you get when you go to the doctor or hospital. There's no concern about costs at all except medication if you don't have insurance, so i don't really see people being choosy unless it's about getting care regarding a specific condition they have.
Like, I've had surgery a couple times. They were male surgeons every time, and though it was a tad uncomfortable since I was awake during surgeries, in the end I'm like whatever because my health is what matters first. I know a ton of conservative Muslims here and they didn't request a female doctor for childbirth. Perhaps in cases of feminine health before that, but no demands made at the hospital. The attitude is that you get what you get here in Canada and shyness of being seen naked by a male doctor isn't an issue cuz he's a Doctor and your health comes first.
It definitely varies from place to place, individual to individual. Maybe in the U.S. because it's so expensive (health care) people are more picky with who they want but it also might have to do with our culture. I really don't have the answer.
I've never been on a school bus with seat belts, ever. Even now when I supervise a field trip and we get a school bus it doesn't have seat belts. I've just kinda been used to it for my whole life and the thought has passed through my head from time to time of, 'Why are there no seat belts?' but I never put much thought into it. Why aren't seat belts required on at least school buses?
edit: i had heard that it was more of a safety thing, in case the bus caught on fire
My buses always had seatbelts; they were sorta obtuse to use but they worked.
Of course no one ever actually wore them but the thought counted.
I find the concept of a designated school bus strange.
When i was at that age we took the public transportation like everybody else
This really wasn't the type of wreck that seat belts are designed for.