Latest Comments by macawake

macawake 66,479 Views

Joined: Jan 1, '13; Posts: 1,394 (98% Liked) ; Likes: 11,051
from SE
Specialty: 10 year(s) of experience

Sorted By Last Comment (Max 500)
  • 2
    toomuchbaloney and elkpark like this.

    Quote from mtmkjr
    Maybe not as a deterrant, but as a way of upholding the value of life. Through the death penalty we send the message that taking a life is the ultimate crime for which you will lose your own life.
    This is an eye for an eye, isn't it?

    Some of the world's foremost valuers of life and bastions of enlightenment and humanitarianism:



    Saudi Arabia





    Is that really the company you wish to keep?

    My first degree from way back when is in Criminology. I don't argue against the death penalty based solely on my humanitarian values, I also argue against it for practical reasons. It doesn't work as a deterrent, even when used on a larger scale than your country currently does.

    Quote from nehneh14
    I don't believe there is a "humane" way to kill a human being as a punishment.
    I agree 100%. Which is why I won't discuss what particular cocktail of medications is the best to use for an execution. As an anesthetist I could weigh in, but it bothers me to think about the fact that the medications that I use daily to help people, are also deliberately used to take lives.

  • 2
    toomuchbaloney and elkpark like this.

    Quote from CBlover
    Definitely a well explained view and no, never should we inflict on the perpetrator what the former perpetrated on another.
    Quote from CBlover
    I feel like as you said, though, where do you draw the line. In that respect, it really shouldn't happen period.
    I agree.

    Once we as a society cross that line, I think that we're collectively sullied. We've become what we say we condemn. State-sanctioned torture isn't acceptable if we want to think of ourselves as civilized.

    Quote from CBlover
    Man if we didn't treat them so well maybe they'd be less likely to go rape someone's daughter?
    I've found no research that suggests that the having the death penalty as one of the methods of punishment acts as a deterrent. A certain fraction of the population will commit violent crimes. The most vicious criminals I've met, have one thing in common. Almost everyone of them were diagnosed with both anti-social and narcissistic personality disorders in their forensic psychiatric evaluations. A few were also sadists. I doubt that group of violent offenders would be deterred even if we were to implement some real draconian punishments.

    For the rest of the prison population who don't have the personality profile described above, the best option, is what Elkpark alluded to; and what we know actually works. Efforts to rehabilitate prisoners is money well spent. Rehabilitation actually has a positive effect on recidivism rates.

    I am Scandinavian. This following article shows how we do prisons in my part of the world. The article is about a convicted Norwegian mass murderer and I suspect that many people will find his accomodations more than he deserves, considering the atricious crimes he committed.

    Anders Breivik: Just how cushy are Norwegian prisons? - BBC News
    Norway's prison system does have its critics at home, some of whom think it is too soft. Yet it is hard to argue that it does not work.

    When criminals in Norway leave prison, they tend to stay out. Norway's recidivism rate of 20% is one of the lowest in the world. By contrast in the UK it's about 45%, while in the US more than 76% of prisoners are re-arrested within five years.
    Anders Behring Breivik - Wikipedia

  • 5

    Quote from CBlover
    Whoa. I get that to an extent. Yet when you've got a convicted individual who has raped and killed young girls as so many death row inmates have, I don't think that wanting them to experience some pain is necessarily morally equal to what they did. I don't feel as though the perpetrator should experience severe pain at death, however. Once these individuals have reached the point of their execution, though, most of them have been through severe psychological pain and I think most have hit rock bottom and this to me, suffices. I don't think we should torture them at death.
    I realize that I passed a pretty harsh judgement there, but it's heartfelt. Let me explain.

    I think that it's completely human to feel for a brief moment that a person who has committed a vicious, brutal crime against someone else, deserves to be subjected to the same thing they so happily dished out. I used to work in law enforcement and I've had some really dark thoughts about some of the perpetrators of violent crime that I met. Especially when you meet their victims and are confronted with the pain the offender has inflicted. But having a fleeting thought about it, is where it stops. It never goes any further than that. Hammurabi style justice, should in my opinion, be relegated to the distant past where it belongs.

    While I understand the feelings of anger or even rage at the offenders, and that that anger combined with feeling compassion for the victim and their loved ones can lead to thoughts of exacting revenge, I do judge a person who actually wants to make the fantasy of revenge, a reality. Advocating for torture is bloodthirsty to me. It actually is as morally repugnant to me as the bloodthirst that generated the original crime. Once you cross that line, it is my belief that you no longer have a right to sit in judgement of the violent offender.

    I find actually wanting to implement the practice of having human beings tortured as punishment for crimes committed, a moral failing. And on a societal level, the ramifications are grotesque. Is the state actually going to pay people who's job it is to kill people and take extra care to make that killing painful? That job would erode the moral core of any decent person, even though I must say that I doubt a decent person would accept that job. Where does it stop?

    If a drunk driver kills someone's daughter, should the legal system have drivers who will deliberately run over the drunk driver's offspring, so they really get to experience the same pain they inflicted on someone else? And how does one punish rapists? Should the legal justice system hire people who's job description is serial rapist? CBlover, I know you don't think so. I'm just outlining why I think the idea to punish an offender with the same kind of pain they inflicted on their victim, is morally reprehensible.

    Quote from AnnieOaklyRN
    I am a believer that if they truly killed someone, proven by significant evidence, then why not make them suffer, they made the person they killed suffer. Karma!
    For as long as innocent people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit and for as long as people get executed for crimes they didn't commit, the standard I bolded is completely useless. I would hope that in all the cases where people have been sentenced to death, the legal system considered the crime proven (beyond a reasonable doubt). I have to assume that the decision to execute someone isn't taken lightly, yet history proves that sometimes judges and juries get it wrong.

  • 8

    Quote from AnnieOaklyRN
    Either way the patient is overdosed on multiple drugs to make sure they die, painlessly which is unfortunate. I am a believer that if they truly killed someone, proven by significant evidence, then why not make them suffer, they made the person they killed suffer. Karma!
    Where do you propose to recruit individuals with psyches sufficiently effed up to be fine with making a living as torturers?

    I've drawn blood and broken bones on more than one occasion in self-defense. The way I live with that is that I know it was necessary to protect my own or someone else's life.

    Supporting the deliberate killing of another human being, while making sure that pain is inflicted in the process, is in my opinion a stance that can be expected in countries like this one, governed by a repressive, oppressive and backwards regime:

    Iranian man flogged 8 times for drinking alcohol as a child - BBC News

    When someone supports the painful killing of human beings as punishment, how are they morally superior to the criminal being punished? The answer is; they're not.

  • 6
    Sour Lemon, brownbook, Daisy4RN, and 3 others like this.

    Quote from Horseshoe
    Well, he didn't say they produce "less urine," he said they don't produce urine while they sleep. I don't know what he meant, only what he allegedly said, but if she is quoting him correctly, he was being an idiot. Anyone who has worked the night shift with a patient with a foley knows that patients continue to make urine while sleeping. Less urine than during the day, more concentrated, sure, but they do continue to make urine. Especially if they are receiving IVF.
    I understand what you're saying and I'm sure you realize from my post that I'm aware that we produce urine even during sleep. I don't see how anyone can make it through med school without realizing that, so while I guess it is possible that the physician fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down, I do wonder if this wasn't just some type of misunderstanding/miscommunication between the nurse and resident. The post I quoted said "low flow" urine, not "no flow", which made me suspect that the resident considered it normal "nocturnal output" and saw no cause for alarm. But of course I don't know that and I don't know exactly how low the flow was. I wasn't there.

  • 10

    Quote from monkey205
    I worked in ICU and a resident was covering - patient's urine was low flow via catheter and I advised him - he told me "well, she's sleeping, you don't produce urine when you sleep!"
    I must be having a blonde moment What am I missing? While it isn't accurate to say that you don't produce urine (at all) during sleep, a smaller, more concentrated urine output is normal due to antidiuretic hormone (ADH) being released by the posterior pituitary during sleep. Isn't it possible that's what the resident meant?

    Of course, I don't know exactly how "low flow" your patient's urine production was, so there may well have been cause for concern, but I guess I don't find the physician's comment laughable.

    Quote from broughden
    "Vaccines do more harm than good."

    Its not just ridiculous its dangerous. People who believe this make my blood boil.
    Me too. It's bad enough when a layperson says that, but when a nurse says it I find myself having to control the urge to rip their nursing licenses out of their hands, and shred it into a gazillion little confetti pieces Just argghhh!!!

    Quote from brownbook
    I hate to open Pandora's box, but nurses who say they aren't getting the flu vaccine, last time they got it they got the flu.

    Quote from psu_213
    Is she the start of the urban legend of the nurse that gave two Vitamin B 6's since there was no B 12? At least I hope that is urban legend.
    That is hilarious

  • 4
    RainMom, brownbook, NuGuyNurse2b, and 1 other like this.

    Quote from TwoLayi
    We do not have a pharmacy or ADU onsite, so meds for new admits are not delivered until after midnight, on NOC shift.
    Quote from TwoLayi
    During a meeting we were told to "Hold" the meds that weren't available and document "waiting on pharmacy for delivery" and endorse the administration to NOC shift.
    Quote from TwoLayi
    Well many of the nurses "borrow" the first dose from other patients. I feel uncomfortable doing this especially since we have a clear written policy against it, so I always hold the meds.
    I think the parts I've bolded is the problem. Am I correct in understanding that what you were told in the meeting, isn't an existing written policy? I should be, if that's how management wants you to deal with these types of situations. If there is a clear written policy that states that a nurse can't borrow meds, then there should also be a clear written policy that states what the nurse should be doing to solve the situation.

    Quote from TwoLayi
    I was orienting a new grad and taught the new admit medication procedure to her. When she was on her own, she got a verbal warning for not administering a medication we didn't have.
    That's sounds absurd. What does the written policy say that a nurse should do when the medication isn't available? Where, according to the person who gave the new nurse a verbal warning, was the new nurse supposed to have found the medication?

    Quote from TwoLayi
    I feel personally responsible and not sure if I should speak up or let it go.
    I don't see how you're responsible unless you've given your new coworker inaccurate information. If the written policies are incomplete, I guess you could have informed her, just as a friendly heads up, about the policy being a bit vague on how you're supposed to solve a problem if you don't have the medications a patient needs.

    Personally, I expect my employer to have clear written policies and if they weren't in place, I would bring it to their attention.

  • 2
    Rose_Queen and traumaRUs like this.

    Quote from traumaRUs
    From the WHO:

    Double gloving in countries with a high prevalence of HBV,
    HCV and HIV for long surgical procedures (>30 minutes), for
    procedures with contact with large amounts of blood or body
    fluids, for some high-risk orthopaedic procedures, is considered
    an appropriate practice.
    I don't think that anyone here has been arguing that double gloving for surgical procedures isn't recommended by various organizations. I think we all agree that it is. I just found the OP a bit vague on exactly when it's recommended to double glove. I would also like to see references for the stats presented by OP.

    Here's a Cochrane Systematic Review from 2006.

    Double gloving to reduce surgical cross-infection - Tanner - 26 - The Cochrane Library - Wiley Online Library

    Authors' conclusions:
    There is no direct evidence that additional glove protection worn by the surgical team reduces surgical site infections in patients, however the review has insufficient power for this outcome.

    The addition of a second pair of surgical gloves significantly reduces perforations to innermost gloves. Triple gloving, knitted outer gloves and glove liners also significantly reduce perforations to the innermost glove.

    Perforation indicator systems results in significantly more innermost glove perforations being detected during surgery.
    Quote from Ansell
    It's a fact: studies indicate that double gloving reduces the risk of inner glove perforations by 71 percent over only single gloving.
    Hi OP. This is a prime example of something you'd need to support with evidence if you want to make a claim like this to a bunch of nurses. We're not trained to just accept any claim, quite the opposite really. We would appreciate seeing the supporting evidence. That way we can evaluate the study design and any weaknesses it might have. It is absolutely possible that your figures are accurate, but I still need to see the research that you base your claim on.

    Also, the logical next question is the one that hhern brought up. I want to know what benefit a 71% reduction of inner glove perforations has for me and/or my patients. So I need to know, how often do inner gloves perforate? That way I can assess if the 71% reduction is meaningful. If the inner glove perforates once in a blue moon, then the benefit is obviously less, as opposed to if inner glove perforation happens once in every five surgeries.

    I also want to know what the risk is to me and/or my patients on the occasions that the inner glove does perforate. Does an inner glove perforation mean that pathogens are indeed transferred between healthcare professionals and patients and if it is, how often does it happen. Is it 1:4 or 1:852 or 1:30,000? Do we know?

    Only when we know how often inner gloves perforate and how often that perforation actually leads to transmission of blood/bodily fluids, is it possible to fully evaluate the risks to patients and healthcare professionals and the benefit of the 71% reduction.

    Yes, I am somewhat giving you a hard time here. The fact is that my feathers do get a bit ruffled when I'm expected to just accept a statement at face value.

    Quote from Ansell
    And what if the outer and inner gloves come in different colors - say, a semi-transparent outer glove and a green inner glove? That would allow any tears to the outer glove to be readily visible.
    I'm not in the U.S., but during my eleven years of nursing we've always used dark green or dark blue gloves as an inner glove and a semi-transparent outer glove. I'm sure that some people might find your product helpful as it removes the need to don the second glove, but personally I think having the ability to choose sizes on the inner and outer gloves respectively, is a good thing. I work in anesthesia so I don't normally double glove, but I have noticed that the surgeons and OR nurses I work with combine their inner and outer gloves differently sizewise.

  • 10

    Quote from DextersDisciple
    I heard they allow up to a year maternity leave. Macawake can you weigh in??
    It's a bit complicated, but I'll try to explain how the system works. Yes, we do have very generous paid parental leave. It's 480 days paid leave (=15 months), but the law says that you have a right to stay at home for 18 months with each child. So either you get paid for all of the 15 months or if you choose to stay at home for the full 18 months, it will be at a slightly lower pay level. (You basically stretch the 15 months pay to last for 18). After the 18 months are up you have a right to return to your old job/position.

    Out of the 480 paid days, 90 days are exclusive to the mother and 90 days are only for the use of the father. It's a "use them or lose them" type of thing. If one of the parents chooses not to use the 90 days that are exclusive to them, they lose the pay for that time. They don't lose the time though. The parent who stays at home with the child still has a right to be home for the full 18 months. They'll just get paid less.

    The mother also has a right to stop working seven weeks prior to the expected delivery (with pay). Earlier of course, with sick pay, if a doctor says it's medically necessary. After the child's birth both parents have a right to stay at home for ten work days (two weeks) together. The remaining 480 paid days of parental leave is taken by one parent at a time.

    The most recent statistics I could find are from 2013 and then 75% of paid parental leave was used by mothers and 25% was used by fathers. The percentage of paternal leave has increased somewhat since then, by I don't have the exact figures.

    You also have right to have shorter workdays until your youngest child turns eight. You can choose to work 80% of fulltime = six-hours days. That however isn't paid, but an employer can't discriminate against you when it comes to promotions etc. if you choose to utilize this option.

    If your child is sick (short-term cold/flu etc. or longer periods for more serious conditions), you can also stay at home to care for them. In this scenario you receive your full pay. Not from the employer, but from one of the social safety programs.

    Quote from Horseshoe
    Some friends of ours were vacationing in Sweden, and their son was hit by a car. They said the Swedish medical system was the best they had ever experienced. Their daughter just got her MD here in the US and has matched for her residency in my city. She says she was inspired by the Swedish medical care her brother received!
    What crummy luck to be hit by a car when vacationing. I hope the son made a full recovery!

    I'm happy to hear that the care he received inspired the daughter to go into the medical field I am actually quite proud of our healthcare. Like virtually all Swedes, I fully support the idea that healthcare is a human right and that it should be available to all citizens at an affordable cost.

    Healthcare here is different from the U.S. Most facilities and hospitals aren't as nicely decorated as the U.S. hospitals I've been in. If you visit a hospital here that was built in for example the 1950s, it shows The equipment is state of the art and the staff are highly trained, but no one really feels it's a priority to make the facilities look like "hotels". The decor is very basic, they slap on a fresh coat of paint when needed, but that's about it.

  • 3

    Quote from DextersDisciple
    Are you from the UK? I thought I read that in one of your posts before.
    I'm Swedish Eleven years of nursing and despite having administered analgesics by the gallon, I haven't administered a single dose of hydromorphone.

    Quote from DextersDisciple
    Dilaudid is given during procedure many times as well. I'd say the typical single dose of the drug is 0.5mg (during THIS procedure) and goes in increments of 0.5mg (0.25 mg is lowest dose). The friend admitted to doing this every 6 mins for the pt bc she "thought" she needed it. Friend was educated on the severity of their actions and the purpose of the PCA. I won't go into specifics but the results of her actions extended the pts recovery time significantly as a result of the reversal.

    The dose was given over the 3 hrs so the pump functioned correctly. All of this made my jaw drop!
    No need to get into the specifics, it's probably best not to. I can imagine what the consequences of having to administer an opioid antagonist might have been for the patient. I was only thinking out loud when I mentioned not knowing the specifics of this patient's case. I don't need to know them, I was just trying to make sense of why many posters seem to agree that the PCA pump had been programmed incorrectly.

    It's my opinion that PCA's are a very good way of managing post-operative pain. When patients have control over their own pain relief, it alleviates a lot of stress/anxiety and they usually end up using less opioids than when they have to ring a call bell and hope that the nurse will get there "in time".

    As I said, I don't have experience with this particular medication but I don't think the allowed hourly dose of 2 mg (= 0.2 mg every 6 minutes) seems wildly excessive. Towards the high end perhaps, but there could be a number of patient-specific circumstances that would affect what would be considered a suitable dose. It's not my place to second-guess.

    I guess my main point is that PCA's have a built-in safety apart from the maximum allowed doses and frequency (the lock-out function), and that's the patients themselves. When they get really sleepy/drowsy they won't keep pushing the button. But that "built-in" safety feature doesn't work if a family member/friend/visitor overrides it.

  • 9

    Quote from klone
    They said that the friend was pressing the button every 6 minutes, not that the PCA was set to every 6 minutes.
    Quote from AnnieOaklyRN
    I realize that, but the PCA should be set to lock out the button once a safe maximum dose has been reached, and in this case that was clearly set WAY to high!!
    Quote from DextersDisciple
    Lol no this was the standard PCA dose used daily throughout the hospital. Lockout is 2mg an hour.
    Hmm.. I don't work in the U.S. and in my country hydromorphone is pretty much only used in palliative care. So I'm not familiar with dosage and also, I have no idea what type of surgery or procedure this patient had done, or how opioid tolerant they are or if they have any other pain issues unrelated to the surgery/procedure.

    Since I'm not familiar with Dilaudid, I looked at an equianalgesic dosing table and it seems that IV Morphine: IV Dilaudid is approximately 7:1. So the 2 mg per hour maximum allowed by the PCA sounds like a pretty hefty dose, and I wouldn't expect that most patients would need that much. That however, doesn't in my opinion necessarily translate to the PCA being incorrectly programmed.

    In order to be certain to have doses that are low enough and lock out time periods that are long enough, that NO patient would ever suffer from respiratory depression when SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE PATIENT keeps pressing the button even long after the patient is asleep/resting comfortably, the result would be that many patients wouldn't have their pain adequately managed.

    It's called PATIENT-controlled analgesia for a reason. It's not a family-controlled analgesia pump and it's not a friend-controlled analgesia pump. No one else than the patient should be "dosing" the patient. (For that reason, PCA's are only a suitable method of analgesia for patients with the physical ability to push the button and the cognitive ability to understand that pushing the button is what they need to do when they need pain relief).

    The patient wouldn't have kept pushing the button for as long as the awake friend did. From what I understand of the situation, it sounds as if the friend who was continuously giving the patient more doses, is the likely cause. I'm hoping it was done out of misdirected kindness, wanting to keep their friend pain-free. But that person really needs to be educated on how dangerous it is to do what s/he did. Well, after the naloxone, I guess they figured it out.

    OP I'm curious, did that friend actually sit their and press the button every six minutes for over three hours to get to a dose of 7 mg? Was the lockout total 2mg/hour or was there a continuous basal rate programmed as well, on top of the patient-controlled doses? (I have no idea if you normally would or not, I'm only trying to figure out if this took three and a half hours or if the 7 mg were administered during a shorter time-frame).

    People never cease to amaze me It's a reminder to always educate and inform, because people can do some very strange things. We can never be too vigilant.

    (OP, I couldn't answer the poll. My answer would be; no, not that I'm aware of).

  • 6
    NurseBlaq, Mr_Edwino, herring_RN, and 3 others like this.

    No one asked for my 0.02 but since I'm an opinionated ****, here they are.

    Quote from Mr_Edwino
    Junior Nel's contribution to the thread in a nutshell. What were you saying about critical thinking?
    You are backsliding. I have seen that you are quite capable of making intelligent posts without resorting to this kind of crap. No need to call Lil Nel, "junior" and no need to mock her about critical thinking. If you disagree with something she posts, by all means make a post outlining what you disagree with her about and why.

    Quote from Lil Nel
    Keep bringing on the stupidity. It is so easy to refute.
    Quote from Lil Nel
    Geez. This is why this thread is so much fun!
    Quote from Lil Nel
    See, you keep me laughing!!!!
    This is in my opinion not helpful or constructive.

    Quote from Lil Nel
    True racism, or discrimination, occurs over things a person cannot change, and did not choose such as skin color, ethnicity, sexual oriention, country of origin.
    I agree with this 100% but I'm unable to "like" the post because of the general tone of the rest of the post.

    You are an intelligent, eloquent person. I know you are quite capable of refuting things that are wrong and explaining your own opinions in a neutral and factual manner.

    Quote from Lil Nel
    How long do you think this thread will stay open, before it is shut down, for the same reasons as the last?
    If this thread gets shut down, it will not be the fault of one single poster, and it won't be the fault of only one side of the political divide.

  • 6

    Quote from Mr_Edwino
    Oh what have we here, a derogatory racist remark involving the color of someone's skin? Do you call Obama Cocoa Castro? Sounds racist AF doesn't it? This is why racism still exists, because of comments like yours. This is by far the most racist comment I've seen in this entire thread; and you MEANT it.
    Okay, I've already admitted to having a strange sense of humor. I actually laughed at Cocoa Castro. I don't know if it's the alliteration, but it's actually quite catchy.

    Seriously though, do you actually find Orange Mussolini, racist? I personally don't think that the orange is in reference to Trump's race, but just like Elkpark wrote, it's poking fun at his rather strange looking and obviously unnatural tan. There isn't such a thing as an orange race, so I don't see how this is racist.

    Trump is caucasian but I don't think the name Orange Mussolini is at all aimed at him being white. Isn't the real insult of the name, being likened to Mussolini? I think Orange Mussolini is used to imply that he has fascist ideations, not that a person using it has racial prejuduce towards white people.

    I think it's perfectly understandable to become upset over the fascist part if you happen to feel it's an unfair accusation, but that weird orange hue his skin has, is likely just an inexplicable "primping" choice he's made. It is of course within the realm of possibility that his complexion might be affected by a skin condition like for example rosacea, which could be a contributing factor to the strange look. But come on, that skin color is not an act of nature alone

    The bigger question here I think, is should we be calling each other names? I don't think it's helpful, but I do believe a lot of the blame for its frequent usage belongs squarely with your current President. Calling people names seems to be a thing he enjoys judging from how often he does so in tweets and during speeches. Honestly, I think his example is dragging people into the gutter. In my opinion he has legitimized and normalized incivility and boorishness.

    If I'm completely honest, I think a person who systematically calls other people derogatory names and seems to to it with such relish, the way he does, no longer have the right to expect to be addressed with respect themselves.

  • 7
    Mr_Edwino, BCgradnurse, nursej22, and 4 others like this.

    Herring_RN, I'm so very sorry that happened to you!

    (Obviously my "like" for your post is meant as support, not "liking" the story).

    It's sad when police officers do that. First of all it's a poor interviewing and interrogation strategy to ask leading questions like that, and yes, it also shows bias.

  • 7
    Mr_Edwino, nursej22, NurseBlaq, and 4 others like this.

    So many posts to respond to, so little time. So here's a random selection...

    Quote from Daisy4RN also different than judging someone on behavior and making public statements re: the "interpretation" of said behavior. The problem arises when the "interpretation" is wrong.
    Quote from Daisy4RN
    I also find being a racist to "certainly not be an appealing trait" (to put in mildly!) but at the same time I don't think it is right to publicly call someone that based on "interpretation" because I find it to be a serious accusation.
    Thanks for your response. I understand not wanting to make serious allegations about a person's character when you aren't sure that they've deserved it. I think not pointing a finger unless you're sure is a sound "default" position.

    However since a specific individual is the topic of this thread, I do have some additional thoughts on the matter. I'll start off with a question. Is it your position that one should always adhere strictly to one's standards even when others don't? When the other displays behaviors that is the exact opposite of civility, kindness and grace should you just continue to give them the benefit of doubt? Do they deserve generous and kind interpretations of their behavior, when they in turn offer no kindness and show no proof of classy behavior? That's the moral side of the whole thing.

    I don't necessarily think there's a right or wrong way to answer the above. Some like Michelle Obama will urge people to take the high road when others go low. My personal opinion however is that when people are being complete ****s, I'll push back and I won't be as forgiving towards them as I am towards someone who conducts themself in a more civil and decent manner.

    Think about it Daisy. The person whom you are reluctant to say anything judgemental about, is happily tweeting and saying at rallies that a member of Congress is; low-IQ. He's not civil at all.

    On a more practical level, at what point does defending someone start to make you look foolish rather than open-minded? If a person time after time demonstrates behavior that most people agree is rude, mean, bigoted, petty and vindictive, how long can you cling to the belief and defend the position that there might be innocent and benevolent explanations for that person's behavior?

    Personally, I think there comes a time when a person either starts to appear spineless when they fail to condemn objectionable behavior, or it will look like they condone the behavior and sympathize with the message.

    Daisy, I have a question for both you and Mr _Edwino. The reason I'm addressing the two of you is because neither of you seem to think that Trump's comments and behavior has anything to do with bias towards different races or ethnicities. (If I've interpreted either of you incorrectly, please set me straight).

    When Trump said about Mrs Kahn that "she had nothing to say, she probably, maybe, wasn't allowed to have something to say", why do you think that his brain and mouth instinctively went there?

    There could have been any number of reasons why her husband spoke at the rally, but she didn't. She could be shy and an awkward public speaker. It is possible that her English isn't the best. It could be that speaking about the death of her son was too emotional for her, and she didn't think that she would be able to keep her composure.

    All these things could be true, yet his mind instantly jumped to the stereotype of Muslim women being subservient and kept on a short leash. Why do you guys think that is? Why is this in your mind not indicative of bias on his part?

    Not only did his mind jump straight to the least flattering interpretation of what transpired, but he also failed to just put a sock in it, and obviously felt the urge to share his conclusions with the world. In my opinion he doesn't give a **** that he's saying hurtful things about a mother who's lost her son in the service of their country.

    Quote from Daisy4RN
    You are correct that racism is not always overt, it those situations yes it may be obvious. But it is the covert ones that we need to be careful not to judge and callout as racist unless we know for sure.
    You keep mentioning the standard "unless we know for sure". I'm real hazy on what knowing "for sure" means. Does anything short of killing ten people while screaming "I'm doing this solely based on the color of their skin or ethnicity", qualify as knowing for sure? I realize full well that was a ridiculous example, but it's really frustrating to see you bring up a standard over and over again, without managing to define what that standard actually is.

    Quote from Daisy4RN
    You don't know why someone crosses the street, gets fired or doesn't get the job, so are we just to let bad employees stay, or hire unqualified employees just because of the color of their skin, You want a MD to be your Doc if he only got into medical school and/or the job because of the color of his skin.
    Isn't there a middle ground where you can acknowledge that racism exists without the only other possibility being that we start hiring unqualified employees and accepting incompetent doctors?

    You WOMAN/MAN/IT/OTHER are starting to frustrate me.

    Quote from Daisy4RN
    The point re: the ma'am statement was that you interpreted/assumed I am female, how do you know that is true or not true. (Its not semantics)
    About that.... No one here knows who anyone else is. Frankly, so far it's been my impression that among Trump supporters on this site, male posters are over-represented compared to the percentage of male posters on this forum in general. This is a nursing forum after all, but at least half of the posters supporting Trump so far have struck me as being xy. It wouldn't shock me if you too happened to be male, but you have to realize that when you choose a username like Daisy, most people will probably assume that you're female. If I stereotype a bit, I do get a female vibe from your posts, but I'm willing to accept that you're male. Does it matter one way or the other?

    Quote from Mr_Edwino
    What if that person who crossed the street was a woman and was raped or beat up by a young black man in the past? Her fear is irrational? What if the person who is crossing has a destination that was on the other side of the street, would it be ok to cross the street then? What if the young black man was an evangelist or street vendor and they just didn't want to engage them and "find Jesus"? So now I can't cross the street even if that's where I need to go, just because there is a black person coming? I have to wait to prove that I'm not racist or fearful, because if I cross, FOR WHATEVER REASON, I am automatically racist?
    You're right of course, there could be innocent explanations for behavior that on the surface looks racist. When a rape or assault victim avoids any and every young black man because their attacker was young and black I'd say it's irrational, but completely understandable. In most cases it would not imply racism on the crime victim's part, but rather the result of being traumatized/PTSD.

    But after reading your list of possible explanations for why behavior that looks racist might not be, aren't you attempting to downplay all those instances when people's behavior is actually motivated by racism, and racism alone? I mean, racism is a real thing and I actually think you agree with that after reading your "@#$%#$" post.

    Quote from Mr_Edwino
    All of those examples that you provided could ABSOLUTELY be racism, or they could be ABSOLUTELY be nothing at all. Maybe the hispanic applicants were not the best qualified, maybe HR was a bigot. WE DON'T KNOW, but we can't just chalk it up to RACE every single time, because it may not be. I want you to answer these questions.
    Again. No, we can't say that racism is the cause EVERY SINGLE time, but in my opinion we'd all be extremely dishonest if we didn't acknowledge that quite often it is blatant racism.

    Quote from Mr_Edwino
    I'm still traveling. I drove along the Cali-Mexico border through Arizona. I couldn't help but notice the mountain divide between the countries. So after the Mexican migrant hopefuls cross the mountains, they will encounter a piddly little wall and that is supposed to stop them from crossing? After crossing MOUNTAINS? I doubt the idiotic Trump wall will be MOUNTAIN-SIZED. There is also border patrol just about every mile of fencing (and there always has been every since Clinton and Bush days).
    I agree with you.

    He clearly has no experience of law enforcement or protecting a border. That whole wall thing is just ridiculous. I don't think it's ever been anything other than so called "red meat" for the "baser" portion of his so called base.

    Quote from Mr_Edwino
    I spent the day near a Navajo Indian reservation on the fourth of July. I didn't exactly plan that, but I found a beautiful Air bnb that I couldn't pass up, and I took my boy to a nearby park where he played with 3 Navajo children for 2 hours while I chatted with their grandmother. We talked about so many subjects behind those vast mountains, I forgot all about race and politics, and it reminded me what Martin Luther King's speech really meant, and the dream that he had.
    This really does sound like a nice trip Sounds like you spent some quality time with your son.