Latest Comments by Sekar

Sekar 2,757 Views

Joined: May 14, '02; Posts: 162 (5% Liked) ; Likes: 8

Sorted By Last Comment (Max 500)
  • 0

    Quote from bukko
    I do serve -- I take care of Americans at a hospital in the center of liberal-world, San Francisco. I'm helping people here, which is what America should be doing. We have to fight terrorism too, but invading the wrong country is not the way to do it. I form my opinions based on lots of sources, foreign and domestic, liberal and conservative. I also base my beliefs on moral principles. They tell me that killing is not the way to bring peace.

    Like you, I'm messed-up due to the military. Only in my case, it was because of bad military doctors, not bad military decisions. (Is it definitive that it was Saddam's nerve gas that caused Gulf War Syndrome, or was it radioactivite waste from the depleted uranium we fired everywhere? I thought the jury was still out.) But I work full-time, pay taxes, and am entitled to vote like a normal American citizen. By your logic, Sekar, even George W. Bush is not entitled to opine on this war because he ducked out of overseas military service.

    (I spent a summer on a kibbutz the first time I went to college. My sweat and a little bit of blood are in the soil of the Holy Land. I've been swindled by slick Arab shopkeepers in Jerusalem. Not like being in battle, though...)

    Just because a person has not been shot at does not mean they should shut up. I see that our leaders have made a big mistake. They insist on making more. It's the patriotic thing for me to try and convince other people to stop the mistakes.

    I sense a lot of bitterness in your posts. Do you think you got shafted by the military? They tried to shuffle Gulf War veterans to the sidelines when symptoms of the syndrome started coming out. Do you see the military creating another generation of damaged soldiers today, just like it did with Vietnam? And for what -- a war that was wrong from the start, which is making the world MORE dangerous for this country, and which we will ultimately lose. (We won't lose because of liberals like me, but because of the millions of gun-toting terrorists we're CREATING). There's a lot to be angry about, Sekar, but I think you should direct your anger at the incompetent administration that's wrecked so many lives and will destroy an uncountable number more if we give it another chance.

    Hiya Bukko, Let's see lots of ground to cover here. Glad to see you've actually been over to that part of the world, it lends more credence to your viewpoint. Which, by the way, I never stated you couldn't have. I merely stated amazement that someone who hasn't volunteered to put their life on the line (civilian relief agency, military, etc...there are many to serve and earn your freedoms) to protect the right to speak out freely should be so rightous sounding. I think it smacks of hipocracy to make loud certain stances for or against issues like the war but not be willing go over and do something about it, but that's just me. Bush, as well anyone who served their country in peacetime, were willing do what was needed as much as those of us who did get called up to fight. Perhaps some folks can merely sound off about a subject and not be willing to pitch in directly to help with it, some of us prefer to take a more "hands on" approach. To each their own I guess.
    Your assertation that I stated folks who did not serve in combat have no right to speak is in error. That is YOUR interpretation of what I said, and a typical liberal tactic. Change my words, change my intent, try and make it look like I said something I didn't say to try and prove your point. You do it well, a tactic truly worthy of your hero, Kerry. Bravo.
    Helping people here in the states is great, I do it everyday myself. But we're discussing the people in Iraq. You seem so embittered, if I may use your term, about the harm being done to them by us "evil americans" that I can't help but wonder why you don't go over there and personally correct some of the "evil" you feel we have done? Speaking of the "evil" we are doing in Iraq; did you know, or even care, that US military medical teams travel all around Iraq treating all manner of illnessness and injuries? It doesn't matter if the problems are war induced or not, the teams treat everyone who comes in for treatment. Many of the individuals are evacuated to other areas, some even back here to the USA to receive treatment. This is standard practice for any area the military sets up in, peacetime or wartime. I've been on several of the missions myself, I found them very rewarding. Of course the press (either liberal or conservative) doesn't publish these kinds of facts, they aren't newsworthy enough I guess. I guess that's going to create plenty of terrorists too. Except for the fact that they were already there and already hated us just for our very being. This war did not create them and they don't need it as an excuse to attack us.
    As to bitterness, I have some but no more than I sense in your postings or those of others who post here. I have little patience with folks who think they have all the answers to this terrorist problem while constantly sitting safe in their homes protected by those who have served in peacetime and wartime both in and out of uniform. Perhaps my irritation at that group of self serving individuals can be mistaken for bitterness, so be it. Any bitterness and anger on my part is directed at any Presidential administration is directed at the previous incompitent administration and not this one. I don't even display my retirement certificate, which I worked so hard to earn, because I'm ashamed of the fact that it has Clinton's signature on it.
    As to my injuries, they were brought on by a batch of idiot engineers who thought you could destroy a nerve agent dump by blowing it up instead of burning the agents. Feces happens, Fortunes of war, that sort of thing. This kind of thing happens and I knew that when I put on the uniform. My various illnesses and injuries are being well treated by highly competent military Physicians, Nurses, and Allied Health Professionals. Would I rather have my health back? Hell yes. I'd trade the disability pay, the Disabled Veteran license plate, and all that stuff back in 1/2 an instant for my health back. But it ain't gonna happen, so I deal with it and life goes on. At least I'm alive, I enjoy freedoms that I EARNED for my years in service. I relish my right to free speech, my right to vote, my right to disagree or agree PUBLICALLY with our leadership or my fellow citizens. I paid the price for those rights with my blood & my health. I'm proud of my service, proud of my country, proud of my fellow Americans (for the most part, there are obvious exceptions) and if you don't understand that or agree with that, well that is your right. I paid the price for your rights too, so did Kerry, so did Bush, and so did literally millions of others. Our gift to you, I hope you enjoy them.

  • 0

    Quote from bukko
    This represents the logical fallacy (in debate terminology) of "all or nothing." In high-school debate class, this was one of the false premises for arguments that Mr. Henshaw would ding us for: either you agree with me, or you would do absolutely nothing. He wouldn't let us get away with it because it was so easy for the other side to demolish our position. They could say "Of course we wouldn't do nothing, we would do THIS" and our class would lose points from the debate judges. That was a long time ago, but my teacher liked to win, and he taught me to make my points effectively.

    Of course we liberals wouldn't do nothing. We would do things like protect our ports. We would keep our military closer to home instead of spreading it out too thinly, where it becomes a TARGET for Muslim extremists. We would fight the people who actually planned the attacks on us, many of whom are still running loose in Afghanistan. And we wouldn't be doing things that create millions more terrorists.

    I'm sorry you did not get to fight. You could always sign up to drive trucks for Halliburton. You would have plenty of opportunities like Thomas Hammill, that Mississippi dairy farmer who had the fight of his life staying alive amidst his Iraqi captors (who didn't treat him nearly as badly as the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were treated...)
    It is absolutly amazing that folks who have never put their lives on the line for things like their country or liberty or the right to vote, can be so righteous. Have you even been in the countries you are expounding so much about? Have you delt with terrorists or Afghans or Iraqis that hate us beyond all reason and hated us before 9-11 and this war? Have you delt with Afghans or Iraqis that appreciate what we have done for them? I have. I have worked with them, binded their wounds, delivered their babies, shared my food with them, been spit at by them, cussed at by them, and shot at by them. I have helped heal our soldiers, our allies, our enemies, and civlians. I have fought terrorists and other enemies of our way of life. I draw my conclusions from first hand observations of that part of the world, the people who live there, our enemies, and our friends. Do you? Or are you just sitting back in your liberal world, getting your information filtered through the liberal press, and passing your judgements based off of other people's observations?
    I understand that you couldn't serve due to disabilities. I'm sorry you suffer from disabilities. So do I, I got mine from nerve gas exposure during the first Gulf War. But those disabilites shouldn't stop you if you feel as strongly as your postings indicate you do about this war. Why don't you volunteer some time in the Iraqi hospitals, once you heal, and work with these people in their country and get to know the situation FIRST HAND before you come sounding so holy? Go work for the evil Halliburton, they hire Nurses. Not your cup of tea? Then go independant and risk your life helping those who hate us "evil americans" so much. The Red Cross, multiple churchs, independant contractors, there are a plethoria of avenues one can take besides the military to assist over there. Just quit sitting here in the USA all safe & snug passing your judgements until you have actually experienced life in that part of the world. Once you have done that, then debate the facts with me. Until such time you are merely debating with some one else's observations and conclusions. That gives your debates about this war a decidedly hollow sound.

  • 0

    Quote from Rapheal
    We have one doc who when done with a central line will ball up all the supplies (sharps and all) and put them in the patient wastebasket. He knows not to do this but still keeps on doing it. If you try to retrieve the tray you risk a stick to yourself, if you leave it you are putting someone else at risk to get stuck. Darned if you do-darned if you don't.

    I wish we could do alot of things different at the hospital (which I am leaving). Staff has gotten away with so much for so long and is resistant to change.
    Time to elevate that problem to the next level. You should contact Infection Control or Infectious Medicine. These folks need to talk with this physician since he won't listen you. This is way too serious to just brush off.

  • 0

    Quote from MellowOne
    We were working with the olive drab tempers. We're not using desert cammo for the field here stateside. That makes sense about the temper floors. I can see how sandy or rocky ground could easily shred them. Not the toughest material that I've ever seen.

    Right now my main strategy for staying sane will be meditation, exersize, and music. Have discman, will travel. Any more insight that you can give is certainly appreciated. Appreciate your service in the last one.

    Be well...

    The Mellow One
    Mellow One, You probably know most of this stuff so bear with me. I'm going to list these as they pop into my head and not in any particular order:

    1. Gallon sized zip lock storage bags are worth their weight in gold. You store your clothes in them and they keep the desert dust and sand out of your clothes.

    2. A couple of decks of cards are always advised. A hand gameboy type thing with interchangable games is good, it's kinda boring most of the time in a warzone.

    3. Lots of drink powders to mix with the bottled water is good; tang, country time, etc.... HOT SAUCE! Garlic powder, onion powder, seasoned salt, any other spice you pack with you.

    4. Condoms (no not for the usual reason) to keep the dust and sand out of your M-16 and you can shoot through them in a hurry.

    5. Bring an insulated, airmattress to sleep on. The insulated ones stand up to the desert rocks better than the standard issue ones.

    6. Thermal underware or a pair of sweats, the desert gets COLD at night.

    7. Body powder for when you have to go without a shower for a week or so. It really helps. A couple packs of baby wipes takes the place of a shower in a pinch and really gets the sand off the body.

    8. Jerky, M&Ms, and trail mix to eat for when you get so sick of T-rations and MREs you can't see straight.

    9. A good, dependable knife for the usual reasons. A Gerber or a Leatherman, also for the usual reasons.

    10. Some 550 cord, way too many uses to cover here and you WILL need it. A roll of 100 mile per hour tape for the same reasons.

    11. THREE poncho liners to hang up around your cot for a tad of privacy. It may just be the illusion of privacy, but it does help when you need it.

    12. Bring a good cassette player that records, for audio letters back and forth. Burn copies of your CDs and take those rather than the originals, no great loss if you have to trash them in a hurried move.

    13. A good footlocker to put all your stuff into. You're in a CSH, you'll have the lift for it. Talk to your wardmaster, he or she can find room for it in the milvan for your ward.

    I swear they ought to print a book of this stuff. Let us know when you're going to ship out and give me your mailing address so I can keep in touch. Letters from home help keep your sanity.

    MSG (retired) Kurt Moore, AKA Sekar

  • 0

    Quote from spacenurse
    http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/complian...17n_nurses.htm

    Fact Sheet #17N: Nurses and the Part 541 Exemptions Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
    The FLSA requires that most employees in the United States be paid at least the federal minimum wage for all hour worked and overtime pay at time and one-half the regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. However, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA provides an exemption from both minimum wage and overtime pay for employees employed as bona fide executive, administrative, professional and outside sales employees. Section 13(a)(1) and Section 13(a)(17) also exempts certain computer employees. To qualify for exemption, employees must meet certain tests regarding their job duties and be paid on a salary basis at not less than $455 per week.
    Nurses
    To qualify for the learned professional employee exemption, all of the following tests must be met:

    The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis (as defined in the regulations) at a rate not less than $455 per week;

    The employee's primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominantly intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment;
    The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; and
    The advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.
    Registered nurses who are paid on an hourly basis should receive overtime pay.

    However, registered nurses who are registered by the appropriate State examining board generally meet the duties requirements for the learned professional exemption, and if paid on a salary basis of at least $455 per week, may be classified as exempt.

    Licensed practical nurses and other similar health care employees, however, generally do not qualify as exempt learned professionals, regardless of work experience and training, because possession of a specialized advanced academic degree is not a standard prerequisite for entry into such occupations, and are entitled to overtime pay.
    Watch out! We have facts posted here! This is intolerable. Who allowed the facts to be posted? Where is the hype? Where is the fear? Where is the propaganda? :chuckle

    There are the facts folks, read them and be at ease. Your overtime pay is safe.

  • 0

    Test Post, I seem to be having trouble and I want to see if this gets through OK.

  • 0

    Quote from Blackcat99
    :stone The "Bush" commercial says that Kerry is against things that would help our military heroes. The "Kerry" commercial says that Kerry has a purple heart and wants to help our military heroes. Which candidate do you think will help our military men and women the most? Thank you.
    All fecal matter aside, research the issues that are important to you. All of the issues, not just nursing. See which candidate or party best meets your stance on the issues. That should be the candidate you vote for in the upcoming election. You probably won't find anyone who meets all of your needs, so you'll have to settle for the one who comes the closest. I could use this time to plug for my candidate, but I won't do that. I just urge you to do the research and vote according to your best judgement, don't let your precious vote go to waste. So many have fought, bled, & died to give that right to vote. Please use it.

  • 0

    Quote from Jaaaman
    Overtime Pay

    Kerry's Claim: 8 million workers will lose overtime pay.

    The Truth: 6.7 million workers earning less than $23,660 will have their overtime protections guaranteed. For workers in the middle, the final rule is more protective, or at least as protective, of their overtime rights than the old rule.

    The "8 million" number comes from a study conducted by the Economic Policy Institute, a nonprofit think tank whose board includes the heads of several major labor unions and which the New York Times cites as being left leaning. It is not a serious, scientific study and includes numerous technical flaws. The study's author even admitted that the figure is inflated since it includes 1.5 million part-time workers who aren't currently eligible for overtime hours (Source: "The Facts and Fallacy Surrounding the Department of Labor's Proposed White Collar Regulations", Department of Labor, 2003 & House Education And The Workforce Committee, "Fact Sheet: Proposed DOL Regulations Protect And Ensure That Low-Income Workers Receive Overtime Pay," 7/21/03; "Would Bush Eliminate Overtime Pay for 8 Million?", FactCheck.org, 4/5/2004).

    Kerry's Claim: "Blue collar" workers will lose overtime pay.

    The Truth: The final regulation clearly states that "blue collar" workers are entitled to overtime pay. (Section 541.3(a))
    http://www.georgewbush.com/economy/Read.aspx?ID=2459
    Jaaaman, you are wasting your time. You are attempting to clear things up by posting the facts. But, you are quoting facts and the last thing the liberals on this board are interested in is facts. They dress up propaganda, half-truths, and fear as facts and tout that mess around to try and get their candidate elected. Go read the "Nurses for Bush" threads and you'll see what I'm talking about. Emotions ran rampant and the facts posted by the conservatives were generally ignored or worse, turned into personal attacks that were touted as "facts" by the liberals. Sadly the bulk of our profession appears to be made up of liberals, at least from what I see on this board. That being the case, it's no wonder we never seem to get ahead as a profession. Oh well. Wear your flak vest and Kevlar helmet, you're going to need it to protect you from the incoming liberal fire you're going to receive. I'd loan you mine, but I need them.

  • 0

    Quote from bukko
    My sympathy goes out to all the horribly wounded servicemen and women. At least they have the comfort of getting good care.

    Let us also remember the Iraqis who are being mangled. I'm sure there are 10 of them wounded for every U.S. soldier/airman/Marine, when you count in the terrorist car bombs, airstrikes and violent crime that's crushing the country we "freed." The Iraqis have to endure the same sorts of wounds described in those stories without adequate analgesics, antibiotics or even air conditioning. How many of them die from primitive, pre-civilization causes of death like sepsis, dehydration and starvation because they can't even eat or drink because of the pain?

    May God forgive us for what we've done in the name of "liberation," because I don't think history will...
    When I was in the first Gulf War we provided medical care not only to the wounded Americans & Allies, we also provided to the wounded enemy, and the civilians who were wounded by the war (yes, sadly it happens) and those who were brutalized by their own people. That is standard practice for military field medical facilities, and still in practice today. In fact we saw far more of that last catagory than other catagory of patients while we were there. We cared for their wounds, delivered their babies, and fed them our rations so that they would have something to eat. These people weren't brutalized by us "evil Americans" but by the Iraqi government. What I saw dealt out by Iraqis to Iraqis was horrible beyond all the war inflicted wounds I treated. How can a government treat its own people like that? How can anyone question removing a demon like Saddam Hussein from power? Now it's not a government but the "insurgents" (translated terrorists) who are doing it their own people. I don't think we need God's forgiveness, they do. I think history is going to judge us somewhat differently than some here do, but then I've seen alot of it with my own eyes, not filtered & distorted through the liberal media. Put the blame where it is due, on the terrorists and religeous fanatics who feel it their right to wantonly murder & terrorize their own people, and not on us. Our soldiers are the best in the world and they are doing a very difficult job in nearly impossible conditions. They will get the job done if given the support they need, both from our government and our people.

  • 0

    Quote from MellowOne
    He's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack...

    Pardon my absence, folks. Just spent two weeks in the field setting up a hospital, doing mass casualty drills, and tearing the hospital back down. Days were long, work was hard, but morale was high.

    New info says our unit is slotted to relieve another Combat Support Hospital somewhere in theater. Don't know when, don't know where. Scuttle says probably around the first of the year if not sooner.

    But for now...here we are...

    Be well...

    The Mellow One
    Welcome Back Dude. Y'all still using pumpkin colored TEMPER tents? I love the way they glow in the dark on a cool desert night in Iraq. Those subfloors and floors get all chewed up by the desert ground in real short order. Y'all better pack at least one set of spares for the entire hospital, speaking from experience. We wound up making a wooden frame to brace the flooring above the ground because the rocky terrain just ate up the flooring too badly. If MEDCOM & FORSCOM are anything like they were before I retired, they haven't addressed that problem yet. Drop me a line and I'll send you some hints on staying sane in the desert. You can write me at wolfstar@direcway.com Don't forget to register for your absentee ballot before you deploy. You don't want that vote to go to waste.

  • 0

    Quote from ScottmRN
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ScottmRN
    Anyway, Scott, you are missing the point, again. Speaking out is not the problem, as I've stated repeatedly in this thread, IT IS HOW one speaks out that constitutes the problem.
    I think Kerry is bad for this country, his voting record and past actions haven't show me otherwise nor has all of your liberal propagada and Bush bashing.
    Sekar


    Sekar-I think you may be somewhat confused on the free speech issue in this country. You see our founding fathers of this country designed our Constitution so that everyone can speak freely, regardless if it is in support of what our government is doing or against it, this is what makes our country so great. You can't have it both ways by saying "okay, you can speak out now, but you can't talk about X or Z"-It is called censorship to say to say the least-it is what they do in communist countries. Basically from your viewpoint anyone who is tired of Bushwick's policies is constituting a problem.

    Regardless of what you may think about Kerry being a veteran, he did serve his Entire enlistment and served his nation proudly in wartime-which is far beyond anything Bush ever did. Why is Kerry bad for this country? Is it because he is for supporting workers, unions, and nurses , or is it because he for trying to clean up some of our rivers and polluted air?
    If anyone should ever be labeled as selling out veterans it is Bush-If he truly did make a war against terrorism, then why are we not going into Saudi Arabia-you know, the place where almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from.
    The Bush administration says that not showing flag draped coffins is out of respect-If they Really respected our soldiers right now they would be for providing some type of financial benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, right now families of soldiers killed in action get peanuts. But hey, I geuss those tax cuts to the top wage bracket earners are more important for Bush.

    I enjoy and welcome a good debate, but instead of just posting opinions, why can't Bush supporters describe how they arrived at their opinions? I'm having a rather difficult time understanding how they can support a candidate who is against any organized labor groups that ask for better pay, devises a plan that could force workers to work unpaid overtime, and lessens penalties so that industrial businesses can continue to pollute rivers and air. I welcome that debate, but seriously doubt it will ever come. Until then, check your voting registration, plan your route to the nearest official voting poll, and be ready to cast your ballot for a candidate who has real plans to help average Americans-John Kerry!.

    God Bless You All, (even you little people that don't call the
    shots for major oil companies)

    US Army veteran,

    Scott B.


    Sekar

    I appreciate your honesty on being a Republican and disagreeing with the Bush administration's refusal to show any of the flag draped coffins coming home-the flags have no names on them, so it is very troubling as to how one could label this a privacy issue.

    This thread is full of opinions, everyone has one and is entitled to their own. We can post our OPINIONS all day long on this thread, but will posting just opinions ever accomplish anything? I try to at least provide some type of factual information to go along with or support my OPINIONS, I wish you that you could do the same. Your choice to take not check any FACTS before offering your Bush credo is your decision. I wish we lived in a world where we could all take everyone for their word, including the president, but unfornately that is not reality.

    I urge all nurses to not just take my word on how the Bush administration is moving to do away with overtime, but check on the issue themselves. Here is the governmental number for the proposed wage rules-
    1-866-4USWAGE.

    Sekar, class is dismissed.

    US ARMY VETERAN,

    Scott B.




    Disputes fester over overtime rules
    WASHINGTON (AP)
    Karen D. Smith, a former Labor Department wage and hour investigator, said the new rule "artfully weakens the current regulation in very subtle but significant ways that will surprise employers and employees."
    She said nurses, nursery school teachers, cooks, computer and financial industry workers and others making between $23,660 and $100,000 would be adversely affected.

    The Bush Administration has said that only workers earning less than $23,660 a year would be guaranteed the right to overtime pay. Everybody earning more than that amount could be caught up in several other changes to eligibility rules that take away overtime pay. For nine months, the Administration has been fighting tooth and nail to kill legislation approved by both houses of Congress that would do nothing more than prohibit overtime cuts. The Senate and House already voted once last year to prohibit overtime cuts, but the White House strong-armed Congress to prevent that overtime protection from becoming law.
    Low-income workers

    The Bush Administration has been loudly exaggerating the benefits of a helpful but woefully inadequate change that would expand overtime coverage for some workers. This group is extremely small because most workers who might be helped don't need the help. They are already guaranteed overtime pay through other criteria, based on their job responsibilities.

    Overtime cuts kill jobs

    The Bush overtime cuts will hurt the economy. By taking away workers' overtime rights, President Bush is discouraging job creation. He is encouraging businesses to overwork their existing staff (for no extra pay) rather than hire new workers. The overtime statute was originally intended to encourage job creation.

    Overtime cuts are pay cuts

    The new Bush overtime regulation is a pay cut for American workers. When workers are stripped of their overtime rights, their employers can now force them to work overtime for no extra pay. Overtime pay makes up one-fourth of the weekly earnings of workers who earn overtime, an average of $161 per week.

    Bush has a credibility gap on overtime.

    Over the past year, Administration officials have repeatedly misrepresented their proposal and its effects on workers. The Department of Labor (DOL) routinely claimed that only 644,000 people would lose overtime protection, when its own economic analysis concluded that an additional 1.5 to 2.7 million people would be affected. We also know that DOL inflated the number of low-income workers who would benefit, and in fact DOL admits it has no way of knowing how many would benefit, if any.

    "I try to at least provide some type of factual information to go along with or support my OPINIONS, I wish you that you could do the same. Your choice to take not check any FACTS before offering your Bush credo is your decision."

    OK Scott, You failed to check YOUR facts when accusing me of failing to check mine. This is the second time you have directly attacked me when I chose to disagree with the liberal dogma. According to you I'm confused (lacking in intelligence), I fail to check the facts (lacking in integrity), ANY of the facts before posting. Frankly I'm getting tired of your personal attacks. You are confusing my not POSTING facts on this thread with my not checking the facts. That is a grievous tactical error on your part. There are dozens links listed in this thread alone. I went and read all of them. In earlier postings, I urged folks here to do the same. I simply saw no reason to post the data again when it is so readily available elsewhere. However, since you have called my integrity & basic intelligence into question, here are few of the facts I dug up the waffle iron himself John Kerry. This is just a quickie list I threw together; it is not by any means comprehensive. Witness the two faces of John Kerry on just a few of the issues:

    On Trade with China

    First one face:
    In 1991, Kerry Supported Most-Favored Trade Status For China. (John Aloysius Farrell, "Kerry Breaks Party Ranks To Back China Trade Status," The Boston Globe, 6/15/91)
    In fact in 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00, Kerry Voted Yea)

    Then the other:
    Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China. (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)


    On the Iraq War

    First one face:
    Kerry Voted For Authorization To Use Force In Iraq. (H.J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea.) In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President's Action In Iraq. (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)

    Then the other:
    Now, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. KERRY: "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 1/6/04)


    On supporting the "working family"

    First one face:
    Kerry Said He Will Fight To Keep Tax Relief For Married Couples. "Howard Dean and Gephardt are going to put the marriage penalty back in place. So if you get married in America, we're going to charge you more taxes. I do not want to do that." (Fox News' "Special Report," 10/23/03) Said Democrats Fought To End Marriage Penalty Tax. "We fought hard to get rid of the marriage penalty." (MSNBC's "News Live," 7/31/03)

    Then the other:
    But, In 1998, Kerry Voted Against Eliminating Marriage Penalty Relief For Married Taxpayers With Combined Incomes Less Than $50,000 Per Year, Saving Taxpayers $46 Billion Over 10 Years. (S. 1415, CQ Vote #154: Rejected 48-50: R 5-49; D 43-1, 6/10/98, Kerry Voted Yea)

    On Welfare Reform:

    First one face:
    In 1993, Kerry Voted To Kill Bipartisan Welfare Work Requirement. In 1993, Kerry and Kennedy voted against a welfare-to-work requirement that was supported by many Democrats, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) (H.R. 2118, CQ Vote #163: Rejected 34-64: R 1-42; D 33-22, 6/22/93, Kerry Voted Yea)

    Then the other:
    But In 1996, Kerry Voted For Welfare Reform. (H.R. 3734, CQ Vote #262: Adopted 78-21: R 53-0; D 25-21, 8/1/96, Kerry Voted Yea)

    You wanted some facts Scott; well there they are in John Kerry's own words, as he is covered by the press, and by his voting record. Shall I dig up some more or does this prove the point? The data is readily available all over the Internet on both candidates. There are links imbedded throughout this thread alone. There is no need to constantly re-invent the wheel by posting the same data over & over again.
    In the future you may want to be a bit more cautious on calling someone's integrity & intelligence into question, sir. Just because some disagrees with you doesn't mean that they are dishonest or stupid. As to your class being over, I need from you sir, no classes. You perhaps could use a class in debate etiquette. Now can we debate the issues sans the personal attacks or not? If so, great let's debate the issues. If not, and you still feel the need to personally attack me, then let me know so I can cease debating with you.

  • 0

    Quote from ScottmRN
    Anyway, Scott, you are missing the point, again. Speaking out is not the problem, as I've stated repeatedly in this thread, IT IS HOW one speaks out that constitutes the problem.
    I think Kerry is bad for this country, his voting record and past actions haven't show me otherwise nor has all of your liberal propagada and Bush bashing.
    Sekar


    Sekar-I think you may be somewhat confused on the free speech issue in this country. You see our founding fathers of this country designed our Constitution so that everyone can speak freely, regardless if it is in support of what our government is doing or against it, this is what makes our country so great. You can't have it both ways by saying "okay, you can speak out now, but you can't talk about X or Z"-It is called censorship to say to say the least-it is what they do in communist countries. Basically from your viewpoint anyone who is tired of Bushwick's policies is constituting a problem.

    Regardless of what you may think about Kerry being a veteran, he did serve his Entire enlistment and served his nation proudly in wartime-which is far beyond anything Bush ever did. Why is Kerry bad for this country? Is it because he is for supporting workers, unions, and nurses , or is it because he for trying to clean up some of our rivers and polluted air?
    If anyone should ever be labeled as selling out veterans it is Bush-If he truly did make a war against terrorism, then why are we not going into Saudi Arabia-you know, the place where almost all of the 9/11 hijackers came from.
    The Bush administration says that not showing flag draped coffins is out of respect-If they Really respected our soldiers right now they would be for providing some type of financial benefits to the families of fallen soldiers, right now families of soldiers killed in action get peanuts. But hey, I geuss those tax cuts to the top wage bracket earners are more important for Bush.

    I enjoy and welcome a good debate, but instead of just posting opinions, why can't Bush supporters describe how they arrived at their opinions? I'm having a rather difficult time understanding how they can support a candidate who is against any organized labor groups that ask for better pay, devises a plan that could force workers to work unpaid overtime, and lessens penalties so that industrial businesses can continue to pollute rivers and air. I welcome that debate, but seriously doubt it will ever come. Until then, check your voting registration, plan your route to the nearest official voting poll, and be ready to cast your ballot for a candidate who has real plans to help average Americans-John Kerry!.

    God Bless You All, (even you little people that don't call the
    shots for major oil companies)

    US Army veteran,

    Scott B.
    Scott, Scott. How many different ways do I have to explain it to you? Let me try one more time. I'm not confused about the free speech issue at all. Kerry is free to say whatever the he wants to say. I have objections to how he said them. I'm also free to say whatever I want to say, or did you forget that fact? I'm free to say that his actions following the Vietnam war were a slap in face to fellow veterans at best and traitorous at worst. What part of that freedom of speech do YOU not understand? But Kerry is now running for President, and now all of those actions are going to be held to public scrutiny. You liberals like to put Bush under a microscope and scream "foul" when Kerry is placed under the same microscope. He can't hide pull stunts like he did and then act like he did nothing wrong. You don't think he did anything wrong, fine, that is your opinion. I think he did alot wrong and has alot to answer for and that is my opinion. Opinions are an intrinsic part of politics and you can't cut them out to fit your agenda. There are your facts for debate.
    For the record, for the FOURTH time, I've never said being anti-Bush is remotely related to being anti-American. What is with that "you're calling me anti-american" garbage anyway? Is it some kind of liberal knee jerk reaction to having the liberal dogma challanged? It must be, I've seen it out of so many of the liberal posters on this thread that I'm beginning to think it must be the liberal rallying cry.
    On Kerry supporting the working person, well I might have an opinion on Kerry supporting something if he could actually make up his bloody mind and take a solid stance. He chances his stance so frequently that he must be part waffle iron. The man has a serious credibility issue in my book. First the issue with his medals (excuse me his latest excuse is that he threw his RIBBONS), then his voting record, I get dizzy trying to follow exactly what good all of you Kerry fans are saying he has done for this country. He neutralizes himself with his own voting record. I saw quote on this thread that summed it up nicely

    "No one is questioning Kerry's service in the military but rather his honesty about what he did with his medals, he has 4 different stories, why would someone need 4 different stories, why not just one? This all goes along with a credibility issue, flip/flopping and voting for something then against it."

    I don't consider supporting unions to be supporting the working person or a good thing, but that is a different debate for a different thread.

    To this day I will never understand a person who has served in the military supporting a liberal candidate. That's like saying "please cut my pay, please cut funding for my equipment and training, please cut back on the manpower so that I don't have enough people at my side when time comes!" It is incomprehensible to me.

    On the overtime issue, go to the Department of Labor website, read the law, and quit spouting conjecture. It specifically addresses Nurses and overtime, as well as everyone else who can get overtime.

    I can't say that I agree with Bush on the coffin issue. I think that he, and the DOD, are way off mark on that one. There is no invasion of privacy in seeing a flag draped coffin. The bodies are handled with the utmost respect and I felt the pictures are a good image. Unlike most Kerry fans, I can admit that Bush has his faults. I just think he has less of them, and certainly less fatal ones, than Kerry does.

    Finally you and I are in agreement about one thing, there won't be any debate on this thread about the facts.

    Master Sergeant Kurt Moore
    US Army Retired

    Don't buy the liberal dogma. Vote Bush.

  • 0

    Quote from 3rdShiftGuy
    Let me also clarify, I'm not in California with a mandated staff ratio, so perhaps this is why I'm not really bothered by the 12 patient assignment between two professionals, because it's so common here.

    Moral: Don't move to Florida.
    I have to agree with tweety here. A Med-Surg floor, 1 RN, 1 LPN, 1 CNA with 12 patients just doesn't seem to be that big a deal. I've certainly covered far more patients with the same staffing on Med Surg floors. I'd find that a problem in an ICU, to be certain, but not a Med Surg floor.
    I find it odd that in "team nursing" they each took x number of patients and provided total care to those patients. That kind of negates the idea of team nursing. In true team nursing they would have worked on all of the patients as a team. I don't think that in a true team nursing environment, this incident would have as great a chance of happening as it did in a total care environment. Regardless, the LPN in question accepted assignment for a certain number patients to provide total patient care to those patients. That makes her responsible for those patients, end of discussion. She was sloppy, she failed to check on the patient for 3-4 hours and the patient died because of her failure to do her job. She is, or was, a licensed nurse and fully responsible for her own duties and deserved to be fired. The RN, who certainly has questionable supervisory skills, got reprimanded probably in her permanent record and perhaps even had the incident report to the BON. She deserved the reprimand she got but does not deserve to get fired over the screw up of another licensed nurse. One could easily put two RNs into this story, with one of them being the Charge Nurse. The punishments in that case should be the same as in the stated case. The supervisor does not receive the same punishment as the person who screwed up, PROVIDED that the assignements were made properly. It seems that, given what few facts we have, the assignments were probably correct. The GI bleed patient in question does not appear to be beyond the capabilites or scope of practice of a LPN to handle. Of course, we don't have the facts in this case, so conjecture is going to fill in the gaps.

  • 0

    Quote from orrnlori
    Geeeeezzzzz. I think some are getting their panties in a wad when the details are not clear yet. While I know hospitals are not always the brightess bulbs in the fixtures I still think they have a little grasp on reality here.
    Why start thinking and acting clearly now? That's never been a pre-requesite to posting before. :chuckle

  • 0

    Quote from Ms.Nurse
    I have been in the Navy now for almost 4yrs, and honestly I am very disappointed. I feel like the training that I was given (as a new nurse) is far less superior to the new grad programs that my civilian friends had experienced (even though people say the opposite). My preceptor at my first job had only been a nurse of 6 month - come on. I am having difficulty as they say "finding your nitch" because I keep getting slotted for labor and delivery, and quite honestly, I think if I labor another patient I will just scream (always having the remember the needs of the Navy). Not to mention that my friends all seem to enjoy their jobs very much.

    I have had a FEW nurses who I did admire and learned a lot from, but the majority of senior officers seem to be thinking of how to get to the next promotion vs. being a mentor and a true leader.

    I would like to stay in the Navy, but I feel that the limitations - things out of my control, are seriously putting a damper on my attitude and overall happiness - such as job assignments.

    I have been considering all the pros and cons in regards to retirement and such, but I am not too sure that I am willing to be in a job that I don't like for the next 16 yrs. One things people always tell me is, this is only one duty station, things will be different at your next command - do I want to take the chance?

    What is so bad about civilian hospitals? What makes the military better? Because right now I don't see how the military is all that better, except for retirement. Please help shed some light.
    Why don't you try this one? Go moonlight at some civilian hospitals. Take some leave if you need to, it will be worth the time. Then you will have first hand experience to compare. The extra bucks won't be bad either. Why plan in a vacuum? Don't take our word for it, go find out for yourself. Just be prepared, that old saying of the "grass being greening on the other side of the fence" is VERY, VERY true. I've worked both, gee that was a rather obvious statement wasn't it, civilian and military environments and I'll take the military hands down.


close