Republicans and democrats don't understand each other

[Alan Klein]

I think that regardless if you are conservative or liberal or libertarian, I think all us Americans can agree ...

the USA team shutting down the Netherlands was a beautiful thing. 

Sorry Bart.

+1.  Not that I have any animosity toward the losing team.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I think that regardless if you are conservative or liberal or libertarian, I think all us Americans can agree ...

the USA team shutting down the Netherlands was a beautiful thing. 

Sorry Bart.

Not just Bart but I've been a Dutch football supporter for family and sporting reasons ever since Cruyff laced up his boots in 1974.  Today was the 45th anniversary of that WC loss to West Germany and now the Dutch have played in four WC finals without a win.  One of these years they will get the first star to put on their orange shirt.  US had the better team today but I don't consider it a beautiful thing.  Bitter year for me with Ajax making it to the semifinals of the Champions league only to lose in the last five seconds of the match against Tottenham.  The sun will still rise in the east and set in the west irrespective of sporting results (for which we almost always are disappointed).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I think that regardless if you are conservative or liberal or libertarian, I think all us Americans can agree ...

the USA team shutting down the Netherlands was a beautiful thing. 

Sorry Bart.

Hi Joe,

No problem, congratulations. The USA had the better team, but it appeared harder to beat the Dutch team than they thought it would be.

But at the same time, it's also the best result for the Dutch Women's soccer team ever. And they've earned a place at the Olympics, so they'll have some time to grow even better by the time they meet again.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

I know that because (a) his representation of the facts is incorrect; and (b) that he has not denied my assertion that he has failed to read the facts.

It's a judgment, not an opinion.

Then you are entitled to form a different view from mine. I wholly disagree, of course.

Jeremy

Jeremy: I read the judgment and disagree.  While the court's decision may comport with British law, it doesn;t comport with American law.  First off, unlike the hospital there, hospitals here are not run and managed by government other than those run by the Veterans Administration for Veterans.   All of ours are private as far as I'm aware.  So in the first instance, we have British government deciding and challenging the parent's custodial rights.  Private hospitals here wouldn;t challenge a parent's decision to remove the child to another hospital.  They refused to return the child to the parents.   So regardless of the so called "facts" there, this should never have happened.  The parents should have made the decision.  Government control of these things may be acceptable in Britain.  But not here.  Frankly, it's government interference with our freedoms.

In the judgement, par. 6, the justice contends that parents no longer have custodial rights like they use too in days past.    That gave the hospital the right to keep the child and not return custody to the parents.  That the habeas corpus demand by the parents does not apply because custodial rights passed to the government. Another government interference with our freedoms. 

But all of the "facts", except one, have no bearing on my position.  That one fact is that the parents were denied making the decision to pull the plug or to attempt to get further treatment for their child.    Maybe the Brits are accustomed to handing over personal rights to an all encompassing government.  So they're more comfortable with government making life and death decisions for them.  But where I stand in America, I hope that's not a path we go down.

In any case, I can understand your opinion on this is different than mine. I also appreciate your strong views on the matter.  I hope you can understand my points as well so we can move on from this without any ill will between us.  Alan.

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/in-the-matter-of-alfie-evans-court-order.pdf

[faberryman]

State governments and the courts in the United States take away the custodial rights, indeed the parental rights, of parents every day in cases of abuse and neglect, in other words, when they deem it in the best interest of the child. There is no controversy.

[JoeKitchen]

Hi Joe,

No problem, congratulations. The USA had the better team, but it appeared harder to beat the Dutch team than they thought it would be.

But at the same time, it's also the best result for the Dutch Women's soccer team ever. And they've earned a place at the Olympics, so they'll have some time to grow even better by the time they meet again.

Cheers,
Bart

Till next time.   

[Alan Klein]

State governments and the courts in the United States take away the custodial rights, indeed the parental rights, of parents every day in cases of abuse and neglect, in other words, when they deem it in the best interest of the child. There is no controversy.

Transferring a child from one hospital to another is not considered abuse and neglect.  The government would not get involved.  You've created a straw man.

A hospital in America would not object to the move. The problem in Britain is that the hospital is the government and has to follow its rules.  In addition, it appears that those rules include the loss of custodial authority of the parents if the governmental hospital considers the child at risk.  In America, people can discharge themselves even at risk if they sign a waiver for the hospital that they've been warned of the risk but will assume the responsibility.  It's really to protect the hospital against being sued knowing the patient is sick.  Once the waiver is signed, the hospital will discharge you.  I'm not aware that this process is any different for children as the parent custodian has the authority to sign the waiver. 

[jeremyrh]

The problem in Britain is that the hospital is the government and has to follow its rules.  In addition, it appears that those rules include the loss of custodial authority of the parents if the governmental hospital considers the child at risk.  In America, people can discharge themselves even at risk if they sign a waiver for the hospital that they've been warned of the risk but will assume the responsibility.  It's really to protect the hospital against being sued knowing the patient is sick.  Once the waiver is signed, the hospital will discharge you.  I'm not aware that this process is any different for children as the parent custodian has the authority to sign the waiver.

Do you never get tired of spouting absolute complete and utter tripe? "The hospital is the government"? Is that a new wrinkle of the "three arms of government" that Slobo and Russ were so anxious to school me on a couple of days ago?

[RSL]

Is that a new wrinkle of the "three arms of government" that Slobo and Russ were so anxious to school me on a couple of days ago?

I gave up, Jeremy. Time for Slobodan to give up too. It's obviously beyond you. Oh, and it's "three branches" of government in the U.S. Not three arms.

[Rob C]

Do you never get tired of spouting absolute complete and utter tripe? "The hospital is the government"? Is that a new wrinkle of the "three arms of government" that Slobo and Russ were so anxious to school me on a couple of days ago?

Jeremy, save your breath; only Slobodan can "understand him" as they used to say in the olden days.

I really wonder if he does, or whether it's just a matter of team spirit, much as I had for the Tories until the disgraceful display over Brexit and of naked, personal ambition at any price.

:-)

[Robert Roaldi]

Transferring a child from one hospital to another is not considered abuse and neglect.  The government would not get involved.  You've created a straw man.

A hospital in America would not object to the move. The problem in Britain is that the hospital is the government and has to follow its rules.  In addition, it appears that those rules include the loss of custodial authority of the parents if the governmental hospital considers the child at risk.  In America, people can discharge themselves even at risk if they sign a waiver for the hospital that they've been warned of the risk but will assume the responsibility.  It's really to protect the hospital against being sued knowing the patient is sick.  Once the waiver is signed, the hospital will discharge you.  I'm not aware that this process is any different for children as the parent custodian has the authority to sign the waiver.

I realize that a lot of this stuff is hyperbole for effect. But it must be a complete and total mystery to you how the 7 billion people on earth who are not American get by each day. They build bridges, buildings, highways, grow crops, feed themselves, go to work, pay taxes, get sick, get healed, manage global corporations, conduct research, etc. They even manage to get through life without watching 4 hour long NFL games. Imagine that.

[jeremyrh]

I gave up, Jeremy. Time for Slobodan to give up too. It's obviously beyond you. Oh, and it's "three branches" of government in the U.S. Not three arms.

It was so beyond me that I provided a clear reference to point out your error. Time to get your specs fixed.

[Alan Klein]

I realize that a lot of this stuff is hyperbole for effect. But it must be a complete and total mystery to you how the 7 billion people on earth who are not American get by each day. They build bridges, buildings, highways, grow crops, feed themselves, go to work, pay taxes, get sick, get healed, manage global corporations, conduct research, etc. They even manage to get through life without watching 4 hour long NFL games. Imagine that.

I don;t watch 4 hour NFL games either.  Who has time?  I'm stuck at this damn computer and these forums.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I gave up, Jeremy. Time for Slobodan to give up too...

I am trying sooo hard to resist the urge to respond to the nonsense, Russ... wish me strength!

[Robert Roaldi]

I don;t watch 4 hour NFL games either.  Who has time?  I'm stuck at this damn computer and these forums.

Apologies for this off-topic tangent.

Back in 1987 or 1988, my employer sent me to London, UK for a couple of days to train some guys on changes we had made to some in-house software. I remember one of them telling me how much he liked NFL football and I made the comment about how the games were too long for me, especially the last "2 minutes". He looked at me in confusion and said, "What do you mean, they're only about an hour long." Which confused me. Turns out he used to watch a game summary broadcast where they only showed the actual plays, not the huddles, not the penalty calls, not the "2 minute" drills at the end of each half. If all you see are the 3 to 5 second long plays, then yeah, the game goes by pretty quickly.

Other than some cycling I don't watch pro sports much, but when I did I found that it was much more interesting with the sound off.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Apologies for this off-topic tangent....

Heck, even baseball is interesting if you watch a 5-second summary

[RSL]

It was so beyond me that I provided a clear reference to point out your error. Time to get your specs fixed.

What error was that, Jeremy?

[jeremyrh]

What error was that, Jeremy?

Short term memory problem?

[Jeremy Roussak]

I am growing tired of simple-minded, abusive comments in this thread which serve only to insult, and I shall not tolerate them any longer.

Jeremy

[James Clark]

Apologies for this off-topic tangent.

Back in 1987 or 1988, my employer sent me to London, UK for a couple of days to train some guys on changes we had made to some in-house software. I remember one of them telling me how much he liked NFL football and I made the comment about how the games were too long for me, especially the last "2 minutes". He looked at me in confusion and said, "What do you mean, they're only about an hour long." Which confused me. Turns out he used to watch a game summary broadcast where they only showed the actual plays, not the huddles, not the penalty calls, not the "2 minute" drills at the end of each half. If all you see are the 3 to 5 second long plays, then yeah, the game goes by pretty quickly.

Other than some cycling I don't watch pro sports much, but when I did I found that it was much more interesting with the sound off.

What I want to know is how the hell some of y'all stand multi-day cricket matches.    . Actually, maybe someone could explain cricket to me in general.  For the life of me I can't figure it out, even after reading up on it.