Jump to content

1989NDN

Members
  • Posts

    481
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by 1989NDN

  1. WO-S has won 80% of its games over a 40-year period. Think about that for a moment. Impressive. Plus, they have a nice collection of what really matters, championship hardware. Strong resume from a strong program. Tip of the cap to Newton. Solid argument for the #2 slot. Go Indians. Peace.
  2. +1...agree 100% about taking care of the elderly, working poor, and children. Go Indians. Peace.
  3. In general, true. Individual legislators come and go, i.e., voted out, resign, die, but both major political parties are to blame for pork barrel legislation. (R) and (D) share the blame for the problem.
  4. The national debt results from pork barrel legislation; it's not the fault of Medicare alone. I agree the federal government can, should, and must do better with the taxpayer's checkbook. At least from the study conducted by USC, the Medicare program is paying claims competitively with private insurance. Perhaps that's a start. Go Indians. Peace.
  5. What are the specific differences in Medicare in 2007-2012 vs. 2014, 2015, 2016 or 2017? Cite a study that compares the pros and cons. How did Obamacare affect or change Medicare? The point of the study was the payment of claims. In this particular study, the Medicare program competed about equal with private insurance (at least where federal law allowed competition; cf., prescription drugs where Medicare, by law, can't compete with private industry). The study had nothing to do with enrolling the underinsured or uninsured. This study represents the basic premise that there is one program where, after years of practice, the government seemingly got it right. Is it perfect? No. Is it a total failure? No. It's somewhere in the middle. It proves that if Americans work together, we can find a system that provides basic healthcare to the elderly, working poor, and children. The Left goes too far with their platform and so does the Right. Find common ground and move forward. Go Indians. Peace.
  6. Correct...keep reading...that is where the regulatory function comes into play. We can reel in the pay of those non-innovating CEOs...let's give it to the workers in R&D. They can use it to pay high premiums. Now, I gotta go. Wife is tapping her foot asking me to get things ready for tomorrow's flight. Go Indians. Peace.
  7. Historical norms are industry norms over time. If Apple made life saving medications and those products were not affordable to the elderly, disabled, working poor, and children, then I would make the same argument against it. To me, people matter more than money. You may disagree. If so, we can agree to disagree. I'm not advocating for government control of private business. I don't want bureaucrats setting price. I don't want the government overtaking the free marketplace. I do think the government and public interest groups should have a regulatory function and/or some voice in the debate. For example, the FDA, OSHA, EPA, CDC, Consumer Product Safety Council, and the SEC, are examples of worthwhile government agencies and public interests groups that help industry and the public. As with most things, public/private interests can share the stage. Who defines each role on the stage, I agree that is where most of the debate gets rowdy. I don't claim to have all the answers, but I don't want anyone excluded from the debate, e.g., private business, government agencies, public interest groups, etc. Not a fan of ObamaCare. The private insurance market had its problems, too. People were left with medical care. ObamaCare has not been the answer. It's a failure. But, we as a society should not just throw out the baby with the bath water. There has to be a way that our society can create and a fund system to take care of the elderly, disabled, working poor, and children. I know the majority on this message board don't want any of their income/wages/salary/profits spent on such programs. I'm not opposed to paying taxes to help those in need. I don't want a bloated government system that gets robbed by welfare kings and queens, but in an ideal world, I would like a system where those that need care can get it. Politics = good healthy discussion/debate. Off to vacation with family. Back to reviewing the board in 2-weeks. Go Indians. Peace.
  8. I would link the video, but I don't know how. Go to FoxNews or You Tube. It's there. Go Indians. Peace.
  9. [Hidden Content] Excerpts from the article at the link above: During the stop, Castile volunteered, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Yanez told Castile, "OK, don't reach for it then" and "Don't pull it out." On the squad-car video, Castile can be heard saying, "I'm not pulling it out," as Yanez opened fire. Prosecutors said Castile's last words were, "I wasn't reaching for it."
  10. [Hidden Content] Excerpts from the article at the link above: The dashboard camera shows the shooting itself -- unlike the Facebook live video that was filmed by Castile's girlfriend Diamond Reynolds in the aftermath of the shooting. The video shows Yanez following Castile's car, then pulling it over. Yanez approaches Castile's car and asks for a driver's license and proof of insurance. Castile then gives the proof of insurance to Yanez through the driver's side window. Castile is then heard saying, "Sir, I have to tell you, I do have a firearm on me." Castile had a permit to carry his weapon. Yanez then reaches for his own gun, pulls it from the holster and tells Castile not to reach for his gun. There is shouting, and Yanez screams "Don't pull it out!" before he fires seven shots into the car. Yanez's defense attorney argued the officer "did what he had to do" when he shot Castile. Yanez testified that he feared for his life after Castile refused to put his gun away.
  11. Those that are interested can actually read the opinion written by Justice Alito at: [Hidden Content] Under the Recent Decisions tab, click on: 06/19/17 - Matal v. Tam or try: [Hidden Content]opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf The total opinion, majority and concurring, is 39 pages long. Worth a read.
  12. I agree. - Price matters; - Innovators should reap a profit (if the innovator is a CEO of a privately held company, then so be it; if not, then give that profit to those who deserve it, i.e., the innovators and/or the investors); - The pharmaceutical industry might find itself on safer ground politically if it remained closer to historical norms for the harvesting of social value; and, - Higher drug prices spur more drug discovery, but they still don’t know how much discovery is enough or how high prices need to be. Nowhere in the article does it advocate for drug companies to rip off consumers so CEOs can reap $10M-$20M or more. If your telling me that the CEO is an "innovator", my response would be prove it. If the CEO is not the "innovator" then give that profit to those who deserve it, e.g., R&D or the investors who made the R&D possible. My complaint is not about a corporate entity recovering its R&D investment and making a profit. The complaint comes when the recovery is outside of the historical norms for harvesting of social value...just as the article above points out. 3...2...1...the response will be that the marketplace will control the bad apples like Gilead Sciences. Maybe, maybe not. But, public scrutiny and government regulations have a place in the discussion. Without public scrutiny and push back, maybe Gilead Science would charge $5,000/pill instead of $1,000/pill. Go Indians. Peace.
  13. The PD throwing Yanez under the bus is speculation. Possible, maybe probable, but unknown. Ms. Reynolds said Castille told Yanez that he had a gun, Yanez asked Castille for ID, and Castille reached for his wallet. That is based on what a witness (Ms. Reynolds) heard at the scene. More than pure speculation, but not conclusive evidence. It is some evidence. That is why I said in my first post that the jury must have seen or heard something more. Regarding the standard: Reasonableness of a particular force, including deadly force, is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than someone with 20/20 hindsight. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) (reasonableness must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation). An allowance for split-second decisions is just that, an allowance, or part of the equation. An allowance for split-second decision making is not a blank check for the officer to use deadly force and then say, "I had to make a a split second decision, thus, I'm not at fault." Reasonableness is the issue. Was it reasonable for Yanez to shoot Castille? None of us know with certainty. All I have to evaluate is what Ms. Reynolds said in her video. I would like to see additional evidence, but I was not on the jury. The jury must have seen or heard something more than the video. Revisiting a standard that allows someone to be shot when reaching for a wallet is not nonsense. The Supreme Court has overruled precedent in the past. It's not commonplace, but it has happened. Plessy v. Ferguson used to be the law of the land; it's not now. Illinois v. Gates overruled Aguilar v. Texas regarding the test to be used for determining probable cause. Before the Miranda, an officer was not required to read anyone his/her rights. Like you, I would like to see conclusive evidence one way or the other. I do believe that constitutional protections apply to police officers. I do not want the guilt of anyone based on innuendo or wishful thinking or politics; and, I don't want citizens getting shot when reaching for their wallets. Go Indians. Peace.
  14. Therein lies the rub: the standard of "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer." Some officers disagreed with Officer Yanez's belief about his life being in danger, i.e., the police department for which he worked. They must have disagreed with him because they let him go from the police force. The standard is flawed if it allows an officer to shoot a citizen reaching for his wallet after being asked to produce his ID. It would be interesting to read the testimony from the expert witnesses regarding Yanez's actions in light of the standard "reasonably believes it was necessary" and "viewed from the eyes of an officer." I'm guessing each side had expert witnesses and their views were different depending upon who retained and paid them for their opinions. Did any of the officers on the scene testify? If so, I wonder if they were asked about fearing for their lives? I guess they did not fear for their lives, they didn't shoot Castille several times. Go Indians. Peace.
  15. The video I saw was the girlfriend's recording (Diamond Reynolds). Yes it was after the shooting, but Ms. Reynolds gave an accounting of what happened. She was there; she's an eye witness. Castille was shot reaching for his wallet. On video, you can hear Yanez saying, "I told him not to reach for it." Ms. Reynolds said Yanez asked Castille for his ID. Nothing on video about Castille pulling a gun from his pants. Seems to me that Castille did nothing to escalate the situation or to warrant getting shot multiple times. I don't have Yanez's testimony about his explanation for why he felt his life was threatened, but the video and Ms. Reynolds' commentary are out there in the public domain and that is what the public is thinking about after hearing that Yanez has been acquitted. I'm not anti-police and there must have been some evidence to support Yanez's actions, but I have not seen it. I'm guessing the jury did see or hear such evidence. They returned a unanimous verdict. The police department did not agree with Yanez's actions. They agreed to a work separation with him. The prosecutor must have felt the video was enough to disagree with Yanez's actions because he went forward with a trial. Perhaps we will hear from the jury in a 20/20 or Dateline episode. Your comment above: "As far as they're being no gun or not seeing a gun, there is never a requirement for a weapon even to be produced in order to lawfully use deadly force." If that is true, then we need to revisit when an officer can lawfully use deadly force. It should not be OK to use deadly force when a citizen reaches for his wallet after being asked to do so by that same officer. Go Indians. Peace.
  16. I did. I thought the video released to the public was strong evidence against the officer. What evidence did the jury see or hear that the public did not? Not being a smart alec; serious question. He told the officer that he had a gun, a license to carry, and when asked for his ID, he was shot as he reached for his wallet. And, it was on video. Officer Yanez told him not to reach for his gun; Castille was reaching for his wallet. BAM. Five shots. The gun was never pulled by Castille. No video evidence of the gun being pulled from his pants. Again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not? That video was a high hurdle to overcome. Ten Anglo jury members and two African-American. I read where the jury verdict was unanimous. So, I ask again, what did the jury see or hear that the general public did not? It must have been something. I hope the discussion of this topic does not meltdown to name calling, or a racial back-and-forth blame game. I hope the discussion sticks to the evidence and how the jury viewed/interpreted it. I wonder what the explanation was from Yanez as to why he feared for his life? No gun was pulled; it was his wallet? Go Indians. Peace.
  17. Do you have cites to peer-reviewed literature to support that opinion? Any studies to support that executive pay based on shareholder value and social consciousness would not affect price structure? Maybe they exist, maybe they don't. I'm not arguing for socialism. It's an argument for finding a place in this world for both corporate profit and social consciousness to co-exist. I think we need to examine all theories. We are an advanced society and creating access and affordability of medical care and medicine should be on the radar screen of our priorities. The value of life matters...for those that are elderly, poor, disabled, children, on death row, and inside a woman's uterus. All life matters. Surely that concept can co-exist with corporate profit. Go Indians. Peace.
  18. Sources confirm: Reports of Cherokee on US HWY 290 and US HWY 71 heading from Port Neches - Groves to Round Rock. Purple and White Mojeaux on the war path and coming to Dell Diamond soon! Smoke signals say...PN-G Indians are going to win the state championship in Class 5A baseball. Go Indians. Peace.
  19. Coach Frey...my 0.02 cents...go with your current hometown, Port Neches - Groves. Go Indians. Peace.
  20. Left 0.85 Libertarian 0.67 Interesting Quiz, thanks for sharing. Go Indians. Peace.
  21. At the Nederland secret spring game, was Larry Neumann secretly in the press box still secretly coaching the team? Was the secret spring game on the secret field? The new turf field? Did the team run any secret plays this spring? Did the new secret QB play in the secret spring game, you know the guy who is 6' 4" and 220 lbs with a rocket arm? Did the secret D-linemen play? The new, secret, move-ins that go 6' 6" and 290 lbs.? Any other secrets from the secret spring game this year? Was it touch football or did Nederland go all out and secretly conduct spring training with a full contact spring game? I'm guessing its a secret to keep the UIL out of Jefferson County. Is that enough chatting about the Nederland secret spring game? Do we need to alert that Phil Klien guy and his area newspaper team to investigate the secret Nederland spring game? He's the guy that loves to investigate the Nederland Heritage Festival. Maybe the secret spring game will pique his interest? We all need to find some humor somewhere. I've been hearing about the Nederland secret spring game for about a decade, maybe longer. Perhaps PN-G, PAM and Vidor need to jump on this new idea for a secret spring game. Hmmmmm. Go Indians. Peace.
  22. In my best voice imitating the late, and creatively talented, Johnnie Cochran: If the shoes don't fit, you must acquit.
  23. Carlos Correa with a 2-run HR to start things and Jake Marisnick with the assist to Brian McCann to tag out Jacoby Ellsbury to end things. A great way to open the series vs the NYY. Is Aaron Judge a prototype of the next generation's baseball player? 6' 7" and 280 lbs. He can hit, run, and play right field. I wonder if, eventually, he will make the move from right field to first base? It would be hard for an infielder to miss a big target at first base standing 6' 7".
×
×
  • Create New...