Questions you want answered (P&C Edition)

As to the school lawsuit, I note that several of the people there have said that the teachers followed procedures based on drills they had done, as did the kids - hiding and such. I just wonder how you "reasonably prepare" for an intelligent, well-armed madman shooting his way through a window into a classroom? Seems like that's your physical security breached right there, but unless you turn the school into a fortress, I fail to see how a teacher stops that or has an initial reaction other than "everyone get down!" Even with a weapon, the teacher just becomes the first target.

I remember watching video of a bank robbery from the 80's where the robber came in and immediately fired shots into the ceiling to intimidate the people inside. It's amazing; some people just hit the ground at the sound of the first shot, others are looking where they were, clearly thinking "WTF?" and one was even standing unconcerned after a full volley of shots, just looking at the gunman (while a person nearby crawls towards a door.) It's really hard to predict what people will do, even when they are trained, but especially if they are not. How this would be improved by arming random people of all training levels, I don't know.

I think Americans tend to equate gun possession with tactical expertise. They just assume that when a mugger pulls a gun on them, they'll be able to whip out a pistol and take control. It can't be said enough - this year, 47 policemen were killed by gunfire in the line of duty, 5 in stabbings, and one in an assault. They are far better trained than you and I will ever be, and yet they get taken down at a rate of one a week. And we are supposed to believe that citizen volunteers will make the situation safer?

The Connecticut Attorney General, who would have to defend the state against Pinsky's lawsuit, just said that "we are aware of no facts or legal theory under which the State of Connecticut should be liable for causing the harms inflicted at Sandy Hill Elementary School" and that the state's Claims Commission is the wrong venue for such a lawsuit to begin with.

What's worse than hiring an ambulance chaser? Hiring an *incompetent* ambulance chaser...

Why do we continue to limit the House of Representatives to 435?

I wondered about this when I posted the article about the House killing the Violence Against Women Act, which noted that the average lilly white and male House member didn't feel comfortable expanding the law. We know from our Founding Fathers that the House was designed to reflect the will of the population and the only thing the Constitution says about the actual number of Reps is that there can't be more than one Rep for every 30,000 citizens.

I had to look it up, but now we're at one Rep for every 725,000 citizens. Congress capped it at this level with a law passed in 1911, back when there was one Rep for every 216,000 Americans. And the 1st Congress had one Rep for every 62,500 citizens.

It seems greatly increasing the number of Reps would be a good thing for the country, one that would get us a legislature that better reflects the demographics of America and one that makes it a bit harder to gerrymander.

OG_slinger wrote:

It seems greatly increasing the number of Reps would be a good thing for the country, one that would get us a legislature that better reflects the demographics of America and one that makes it a bit harder to gerrymander.

Would it? Or would it just mean many more cases of gerrymandering, and even more white dudes in a big room? Genuinely curious - not sure which was that one goes.

OG_slinger wrote:

It seems greatly increasing the number of Reps would be a good thing for the country, one that would get us a legislature that better reflects the demographics of America and one that makes it a bit harder to gerrymander.

I think this past election demonstrates why certain people would view that as a bad thing.

I agree it should be expanded. I forget where I read it but there was a study that showed the more citizens a lawmaker represented the more it wasn't really a democracy and was more beholden to special interest. I think set it at 1 for every 100,000 or 200,000 citizens and it would be a lot more of a house for representatives of the people.

It would destroy the current Republican power base. Three times as many reps would necessitate three times as many Congressional districts, and that redistricting would bring in far more non-white Representatives who would reflect the demographic losses the Republicans have so far staved off. It would also greatly increase the delegations from states with large populations, which tend to be urban and liberal rather than rural and conservative.

But that change will happen anyway, in the next few years.

Robear wrote:

But that change will happen anyway, in the next few years.


Not until the next census, unfortunately.
This last round of gerrymandering was pretty epic.

No, sorry, I was referring to the demographic change that is pushing the white male Republican constituency into irrelevancy on the national scale.

Under most nationalized healtchare programs would services such as drug rehabilitation programs be covered as well or is it strictly for traditional medical healthcare?

Kehama wrote:

Under most nationalized healtchare programs would services such as drug rehabilitation programs be covered as well or is it strictly for traditional medical healthcare?

It completely depends on the nation in question, and largely depends on that nations approach to drugs, as well as the nation's approach to evidence-based medicine (i.e. if it can be shown that it's cheaper in terms of societal cost to provide rehabilitation services than not, then you do it).

That said, given that substance dependance is classified in the DSM, why wouldn't rehabilitation programs be classed as traditional medical healthcare?

Jonman wrote:

That said, given that substance dependance is classified in the DSM, why wouldn't rehabilitation programs be classed as traditional medical healthcare?

*shrug* all the (private US) health insurance I've ever had covered a certain amount of mental health and substance rehab. It may not have been much, because anything inpatient is expensive, but it's a health service that isn't elective like plastic surgery.

Kehama wrote:

Under most nationalized healtchare programs would services such as drug rehabilitation programs be covered as well or is it strictly for traditional medical healthcare?

My sister-in-law's boyfriend just "finished" an in-patient rehab program for the nth time and Medicaid paid for it.

I just ran across an issue where Blue Cross Blue Shield was denying coverage for a nationally recognized rehab program because they classified it as "intensive outpatient" or "Partial inpatient" therefore it did not meet their coverage criteria of being either "inpatient" or "outpatient" though they would cover a limited portion of a higher and far less effective private rehab program. That issue just made me wonder how some national health coverages handled that kind of treatment.

BC/BS has a terrible track record when it comes to mental health and addiction treatment. No matter how many lawsuits, they continue their practices.

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

mudbunny wrote:

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

Is it raining?

Demosthenes wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

Is it raining?

Doesn't matter really as the overhang above the doors is large enough that they can stay outside the no smoking zone and still be under cover. But it should not make a difference in the end. No smoking is no smoking, whether it is raining or not.

mudbunny wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

Is it raining?

Doesn't matter really as the overhang above the doors is large enough that they can stay outside the no smoking zone and still be under cover. But it should not make a difference in the end. No smoking is no smoking, whether it is raining or not.

They feel that they can ignore it, because apparently they can ignore it.

Take a picture with your phone of the people with the sign, e-mail it to someone who should do something about it.

mudbunny wrote:
Demosthenes wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

Is it raining?

Doesn't matter really as the overhang above the doors is large enough that they can stay outside the no smoking zone and still be under cover. But it should not make a difference in the end. No smoking is no smoking, whether it is raining or not.

More a question in the vein of seeing if that could be a contributing factor. When I worked at a local cable company's call center... this was pretty common during inclement weather, as there was really nowhere else to go than the overhangs (there were actually doors within 50 feet of each other the whole way down the buildilng, so there was no 50 feet away from the doors except to go out into the parking lot).

I would say a company having a designated smoking area can assist with this. The grocery company call center I currently work for has a smoker's hut that's kind of like a bus stop so that smokers don't have to get drenched/blown over by the wind on their breaks. No one smokes near the door since they put that up.

Another contributing factor, who are the smokers at your place of business? If one of them is a manager and he or she does it. Bam, rule is effectively over as far as perception amongst other smokers is concerned.

To stop that Mudd, my last place of employment put in a smoker's shack. It more or less looked like a bus stop, 3 glass walls, some metal benches, at the state required distance. Having a few people reprimanded, and another fired also helped.

But if the man or lady signing the checks does not care, not much you can do.

Look, they've already chosen to invite emphysema, lung cancer, and heart disease—now you want them to catch the sniffles, too? With their heavily compromised respiratory systems?

Gravey wrote:

Look, they've already chosen to invite emphysema, lung cancer, and heart disease—now you want them to catch the sniffles, too? With their heavily compromised respiratory systems?

Gravey's sig quotes were chosen well.

mudbunny wrote:

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

Because they are assholes.

LeapingGnome wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

Because they are assholes.

IMAGE(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/420834_371067672982346_306633518_n.jpg)

Aww. Dude...Gnomey, I thought we were cool.

Hah! That's awesome, King.

KingGorilla wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

Because they are assholes.

Aww. Dude...Gnomey, I thought we were cool.

We're cool, just don't stand outside my door with it.

KingGorilla wrote:
LeapingGnome wrote:
mudbunny wrote:

Why the f*vk do the smokers at my work feel that they can ignore the "No Smoking within 50 feet of door" signs and smoke right next to the door?

Because they are assholes.

IMAGE(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/420834_371067672982346_306633518_n.jpg)

Aww. Dude...Gnomey, I thought we were cool.

I have no problems with people who smoke in designated areas. I have large problems with people who smoke in front of the door, right underneath the sin that says no smoking within 50 feet.