Headlines I Wish I Hadn’t Seen

Comments (8)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Evan Carr says:

    Feinstein gun control bill to exempt government officials

    This really sickens me! It totally skirts the entire history of republican law if laws are not made for ALL people. Yet policymakers continually exempt one group or another from certain new laws that the rest of the electorate must abide by. Constitutionally, I think exemptions are very hard to defend. What is good for one should be good for all in a democratic society. Just because Congress men/women represent their constituents doesn’t mean that their collective vote to exempt their friends, families and donors from onerous regulations is the will of the majority, or probably even the largest minorities.

    Couple that nurses baby deer back to health was committing a crime.

    This is a perfect example of letter of the law versus spirit of the law. If you go back and ask the legislators who passed the law, it was probably to prevent some type of deer farm for hunters. The Counceller’s are far from criminal as their actions were made in good faith. The dangers of the domestication side of the argument hardly outweigh the fact that this couple acted with empathy towards another living being. Regardless of what happens, I bet karma will reward them for their good deed.

  2. H. James Prince says:

    Found in the comments on the deer article:

    “Natural selection will surely work in determining the deer’s future. Unfortunately, that mechanism seems to have failed in the case of the folks exercising prosecutorial discretion in regards to the Councellers [Edit – family name of the couple who cared for the fawn].”

  3. Andrew O says:

    “Couple that nurses baby deer back to health was committing a crime.”

    The end of the article mentions an academic detailing the dangers of domesticating a wild animal. True, perhaps the couple acted somewhat ignorantly, if not irresponsibly. However, to punish this family as criminals is beyond me. Moreover, I do not think there is any evidence they have harmed anyone by their actions, which is what the law was attempting to ultimately prevent.

  4. Devon Herrick says:

    Veterans study: more primary care leads to more hospital readmissions.

    Only a doctor can admit a patient to a hospital. A person cannot admit themselves; neither can a hospital admit a patient absent a doctor’s order.

    Thus, it may seem counter-intuitive, but more contact with a doctor can easily result in more care at a hospital.

    I can easily see how Medicare patients could be fobbed off on hospitals when primary care physicians don’t want to treat a sick senior with complex problems in an ambulatory setting.

    My neighbor used to complain his wife’s primary care doctor would refer her to a specialist for every problem she presented with. If my neighbor’s wife was sicker, I bet she’d be sent to the hospital where a hospitalist would be stuck with her.

  5. Tyrus says:

    “Feinstein gun control bill to exempt government officials.”

    – It’s mind boggling to even begin to try and comprehend the bills that come out of Sen. Feinstein’s office.

  6. Jordan says:

    The VA study was based on 20 year old information.

    Feinstein… “Congress shall pass no law..”

  7. Gabriel Odom says:

    We often base scientific studies on older information.
    The 2009 census data is going on 5 years old now, but social scientists still use it because it is comprehensive. There will always be a lag between social phenomena and applicable studies – sometimes by years or even decades.

    Even so, 20 years is a bit much…

  8. Kyle says:

    Well the census data contributes to reliable projections. Mine and other published methodologies are a good example.

    In this case, it’s trash.