Nutters who shoot grey squirrels

The links don't work for me.

Crud, wonder what's up with that? I c/ped the links direct into the profile editor.

http://portableweirdness.ninja/

https://twitter.com/snoozehamilton

There are a few on my blog:

http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/2014/09/new-dead-guys-on-block.html


http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/2016/12/portable-weirdness-at-charlotte-open.html

I can't get em to work either. I may have a photo or two of some of my carving, I am also a flint knapper....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Awesome! Seriously want to see your work! I wanna learn knapping, but if I take on one more project, structural integrity will be compromised and a core breach will be imminent ;0)

Right now I'm just getting points from other people to make into Neolithic style knives, but their stuff is gorgeous. There are pics of a few on the links I posted to Larrabee above, but this one is my fave so far. You can freakin' read through the smoky obsidian.

They had a family on springwatch this year. They're adorable! I know they're up in Scotland, one of the locations for self cater holiday homes I used to work for had a cabin that had them visiting frequently... I think they're reintroducing the Scottish ones down here. 🙂

Love the show, have only seen up to episode 3 for this season so far. Chris Packham is one of my gurus, but they're all excellent. Their coverage a few years ago of the peregrines nesting on a tall building spire (think it was in B'ham) with the juvie male that joined in doing food drops and roosting was one of the things that got me looking up more data on raptor urbanization behavior. The UK is proactive about it where the US tends to disfavor it, and I find that impractical on our part if we won't maintain wild habitat.

Have you seen the show Packham did on burrowers? Great footage:

I think we need an artwork thread! I want to see all the cool things you guys have done! I've got a few I'd share. I loved ceramics back in school/uni.

Cool idea! Would also love to see your stuff. I did a few stoneware and raku classes in like 1988-89, and I'd love to do raku again. And this time I might be less of an idiot and refrain from burning half my hair off  ;0)

The hospital hasn't changed it's opinions on the efficacy of the suggested treatments.  I think they are seriously showing their good intentions by admitting that the courts should be the ones to decide , no matter how silly this new unpublished evidence turns out to be.

I am disgusted by that American "spokesman " who has shown up to exploit the whole thing for his own ends.

The problem is there are no experts on the disease in the hospital. They're disagreeing with the worldwide experts, and they won't consent to second opinions.

I was listening on the radio on the way up from Brighton as they talked about in the UK in medical situations, the desire of the patient or next of kin is taken into account, but ultimately the doctor decided what is in the best interests of the patient and that's what happens, even if it's wrong. Especially in the case of kids. Specifically that society has not just an interest, but greater right than the patient to decide the treatment of the patient.

They illustrated with a story about a massively disabled 10yo girl who is blind, deaf, severely disfigured, extreme ongoing pain... mother wants to remove feeding tube to let her die, hospital disagrees.

That is a fundamental freedom difference between the US and UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's also an honoring thing. Cervids, Bovines, and other ungulates have kept us in food, clothing, shelter, tools, and totemic mythos for all of our known history.

I walk by the White Hart pub every day on the way to work. It is apparently the most popular pub name in England; the words and imagery traceable back through time to the ancients.

I have been reading about the wild hunt for a while....this folk myth which seems to be found all across Europe. The Theosophists and Neo-Pagans have muddied the waters a bit but there does seem to be this strand of totem and folk tale suggesting a developed common heritage.

There are those who suggest that the Inquisition itself was primarily about stomping out the lingering existence of these pagan systems. The horned devil, the witch, the bull/cow statuary....presented from the Christian perspective as evil, may have held different meaning for those that came before (and perhaps up until relatively recent times away from cities). 

The problem is there are no experts on the disease in the hospital. They're disagreeing with the worldwide experts, and they won't consent to second opinions.

I was listening on the radio on the way up from Brighton as they talked about in the UK in medical situations, the desire of the patient or next of kin is taken into account, but ultimately the doctor decided what is in the best interests of the patient and that's what happens, even if it's wrong. Especially in the case of kids. Specifically that society has not just an interest, but greater right than the patient to decide the treatment of the patient.

They illustrated with a story about a massively disabled 10yo girl who is blind, deaf, severely disfigured, extreme ongoing pain... mother wants to remove feeding tube to let her die, hospital disagrees.

That is a fundamental freedom difference between the US and UK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wasn't under the impression that the American doctors know all that much as they have only done studies on a few babies and mice with similar conditions, but certainly not exactly the same.  They certainly haven't examined Charlie and I think they angered the judge with their testimony that he wasn't suffering when they plainly had no idea. 

The doctors certainly know wether he is suffering or not, that is easy.  His parents might mean well but know nothing about this.

You are correct that courts here are required to hold the interests of any child as paramount in cases like this.  As far as I am concerned this is correct, somebody must protect Charlie from grand standing anti abortion zealots who's main interest is attention seeking and parents who are easily manipulated in their grief. 

I don't understand how you are framing this as the rights of society vs the individual.  Nowhere is that argument relative to this case.  It's not about public money.  Once again, you have taken a British problem and framed it within an argument that Americans like to have.  This is not a case of society denying Charlie his right to live, it is a case of society protecting Charlie. 

I wasn't under the impression that the American doctors know all that much as they have only done studies on a few babies and mice with similar conditions, but certainly not exactly the same.  They certainly haven't examined Charlie and I think they angered the judge with their testimony that he wasn't suffering when they plainly had no idea. 

The doctors certainly know wether he is suffering or not, that is easy.  His parents might mean well but know nothing about this.

You are correct that courts here are required to hold the interests of any child as paramount in cases like this.  As far as I am concerned this is correct, somebody must protect Charlie from grand standing anti abortion zealots who's main interest is attention seeking and parents who are easily manipulated in their grief. 

I don't understand how you are framing this as the rights of society vs the individual.  Nowhere is that argument relative to this case.  It's not about public money.  Once again, you have taken a British problem and framed it within an argument that Americans like to have.  This is not a case of society denying Charlie his right to live, it is a case of society protecting Charlie.

The exact same condition is extremely rare, as is the broad class of diseases generally. The treatment is experimental, but has worked on similar conditions with astonishing results.

I mean look, it says doctor on my diploma, but very definitely not the medical sort. I know enough to figure out most of the worldwide experts on the condition are in the US. The culmination of their life's work is this drug/treatment that is having good results in similar conditions. Medically it should work on this condition too, but that's not proven as it's still experimental. For those doctors, it'd be catastrophically bad if it does not have positive results. It'd significantly set back testing and limit approval for wider use. Their reputations would take a big hit. Yet, they're so confident they want to bring the kid to be treated with the best people around. If not that then they're willing to send the drug with instructions and consult on the case.

If competent doctors are saying there's a chance of success, then that choice has to be for the patient (or next of kin) to make. Not some other doctor inserting their judgement in place of the patient. Certainly not for a judge to intervene in.

I've been shot a couple times, broke my back, a few other things. I think I've felt a little taste of suffering. I certainly know people who have endured so much worse. There is absolutely a point beyond which I wouldn't care for the quality of life. But that's my choice, and if I can't make it then my next of kin's choice. A doctor shouldn't be telling my next of kin he's going to be in this vegetative state forever and no wife you aren't allowed to pull the plug. And they also shouldn't be saying we don't see any hope and we refuse to listen to second opinions from better qualified experts so we're going to pull the plug against your will.

I get that the reality is this kid isn't going to heal up and have a normal life. If it was me in that state, I'd rather not live like that. If it was my kid, I'd probably pull the plug. But it's not my choice to make.

If this is a state based on individual rights from which the people are sovereign, then that choice belongs to the parents absolutely. If they want to move hospitals and it's medically possible to do without unreasonably endangering the child, then no one on earth can tell them no. If they want to pursue some treatment with whatever chance of success, as long as competent doctors are saying yes, then that's their choice. You may recall the case of the girl out in California I think it was who became brain dead after a botched root canal or whatever it was and doctors there were insisting the vegetative body be taken off life support when the parents didn't want to. I mean that case the patient is actually dead but not legally so and still those parents were able to move her to another facility that was willing to keep her going.

Versus the UK (which I do in a lot of ways love by the way), where the queen/govt is sovereign and rights emanate from the top down. In that sort of system, the judgement of society outweighs judgement of the individual, even in matters of self determination. So instead of the authority of the patient/parent being absolute (short of abuse and due process to terminate parental rights), it is just one source of input alongside that of doctors left for the state to decide the fate of a patient.

I hope you see the differences in those two systems.

This case is tragic, and I feel for everyone involved. But, I hope you can also see the implication if you wanted to move from a hospital that you thought misdiagnosed you and they wouldn't permit it, or they decided on a cancer treatment you didn't agree with or denied you treatment you and some other set of doctors believe you need. Or maybe they don't give you all the information because they've decided you won't understand it and so won't be able to see the logic of the course of treatment they've decided on for you. It is troubling to me there's a circumstance where those choices could be taken out of your hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I walk by the White Hart pub every day on the way to work. It is apparently the most popular pub name in England; the words and imagery traceable back through time to the ancients.

I have been reading about the wild hunt for a while....this folk myth which seems to be found all across Europe. The Theosophists and Neo-Pagans have muddied the waters a bit but there does seem to be this strand of totem and folk tale suggesting a developed common heritage.

There are those who suggest that the Inquisition itself was primarily about stomping out the lingering existence of these pagan systems. The horned devil, the witch, the bull/cow statuary....presented from the Christian perspective as evil, may have held different meaning for those that came before (and perhaps up until relatively recent times away from cities).

Yeah, among PHAs** we have people who are interested in building or rebuilding pagan belief systems based on Pre-Abrahamic spiritualities with what we have available of credible archaeological and anthropological data for informed inspiration. And then there's the rest of them . . . . the phrases "fluffy bunny" and "new age rhymes with sewage" exist for solid reasons and they're not remotely exclusive to Wiccans or BTWs.

One of my other interests is folklore correlation across disparate cultures, and cervids are pretty prominent. One of the seven Ani-yun-wiya(Cherokee) clans was/is Ani Kawi, the Deer Clan, and there were/are plenty of other tribes that named clan or family groups or important places after them. The Hunt legends being all over the place is another example I throw out there of mythos evolving and still being valid or useful rather than having to be static dogma to have value.

There's a good argument for elements of pagan belief being recast badly to suit this or that agenda from someone in organized medieval Christianity; Don Rimer and others have made loads of money doing it just in the last 30 years. But so much of the post-Roman expansion organized Church's power play agenda had far more to do with money, real estate, and politics rather than any idea of piety that I can't blame all the propaganda just on religious bigotry. And it's not as if nobody else ever played those kind of nasty games throughout history.


**http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/2013/11/phas-mdgs-cms-msds.html

The exact same condition is extremely rare, as is the broad class of diseases generally. The treatment is experimental, but has worked on similar conditions with astonishing results.

I mean look, it says doctor on my diploma, but very definitely not the medical sort. I know enough to figure out most of the worldwide experts on the condition are in the US. The culmination of their life's work is this drug/treatment that is having good results in similar conditions. Medically it should work on this condition too, but that's not proven as it's still experimental. For those doctors, it'd be catastrophically bad if it does not have positive results. It'd significantly set back testing and limit approval for wider use. Their reputations would take a big hit. Yet, they're so confident they want to bring the kid to be treated with the best people around. If not that then they're willing to send the drug with instructions and consult on the case.

If competent doctors are saying there's a chance of success, then that choice has to be for the patient (or next of kin) to make. Not some other doctor inserting their judgement in place of the patient. Certainly not for a judge to intervene in.

I've been shot a couple times, broke my back, a few other things. I think I've felt a little taste of suffering. I certainly know people who have endured so much worse. There is absolutely a point beyond which I wouldn't care for the quality of life. But that's my choice, and if I can't make it then my next of kin's choice. A doctor shouldn't be telling my next of kin he's going to be in this vegetative state forever and no wife you aren't allowed to pull the plug. And they also shouldn't be saying we don't see any hope and we refuse to listen to second opinions from better qualified experts so we're going to pull the plug against your will.

I get that the reality is this kid isn't going to heal up and have a normal life. If it was me in that state, I'd rather not live like that. If it was my kid, I'd probably pull the plug. But it's not my choice to make.

If this is a state based on individual rights from which the people are sovereign, then that choice belongs to the parents absolutely. If they want to move hospitals and it's medically possible to do without unreasonably endangering the child, then no one on earth can tell them no. If they want to pursue some treatment with whatever chance of success, as long as competent doctors are saying yes, then that's their choice. You may recall the case of the girl out in California I think it was who became brain dead after a botched root canal or whatever it was and doctors there were insisting the vegetative body be taken off life support when the parents didn't want to. I mean that case the patient is actually dead but not legally so and still those parents were able to move her to another facility that was willing to keep her going.

Versus the UK (which I do in a lot of ways love by the way), where the queen/govt is sovereign and rights emanate from the top down. In that sort of system, the judgement of society outweighs judgement of the individual, even in matters of self determination. So instead of the authority of the patient/parent being absolute (short of abuse and due process to terminate parental rights), it is just one source of input alongside that of doctors left for the state to decide the fate of a patient.

I hope you see the differences in those two systems.

This case is tragic, and I feel for everyone involved. But, I hope you can also see the implication if you wanted to move from a hospital that you thought misdiagnosed you and they wouldn't permit it, or they decided on a cancer treatment you didn't agree with or denied you treatment you and some other set of doctors believe you need. Or maybe they don't give you all the information because they've decided you won't understand it and so won't be able to see the logic of the course of treatment they've decided on for you. It is troubling to me there's a circumstance where those choices could be taken out of your hands.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't buy your assertion that American doctors must be the "best people around ", apparently for no other reason than they are American.  Certainly, any medical testimony from the Vatican is absolutely worthless as their main authority is an imaginary man in the sky, not science.  America is a big place, they could have found any nutcase doctor to say anything.  However, there's no reason for us to argue as the judge will decide if this doctor is worth his salt by the end of the week .

I'm also not sold on your idea that treatment is like horseshoes: Close Enough , one hereditary condition is as good as another.

You are arguing this from the point of view of the parents, as if their rights to determine their child's treatment are being curtailed.  Thankfully, in this case, the person whose rights are paramount is Charlie.  I'm happy with the way his rights are being dealt with.  Society is protecting him from everyone else who is not holding his best interests at heart.  I don't see why you think a judge can't do this if necessary.

I'm not troubled in the slightest that the courts are protecting him, other than the additional suffering he is being forced to endure.

Certainly there would be a different set of arguments if it was about an adult, with the courts seeking to direct treatment, and indeed courts are hearing cases about voluntary euthanasia today.  However, it's not relevant to this case.

I don't buy your assertion that American doctors must be the "best people around ", apparently for no other reason than they are American.  Certainly, any medical testimony from the Vatican is absolutely worthless as their main authority is an imaginary man in the sky, not science.  America is a big place, they could have found any nutcase doctor to say anything.  However, there's no reason for us to argue as the judge will decide if this doctor is worth his salt by the end of the week .

I'm also not sold on your idea that treatment is like horseshoes: Close Enough , one hereditary condition is as good as another.

You are arguing this from the point of view of the parents, as if their rights to determine their child's treatment are being curtailed.  Thankfully, in this case, the person whose rights are paramount is Charlie.  I'm happy with the way his rights are being dealt with.  Society is protecting him from everyone else who is not holding his best interests at heart.  I don't see why you think a judge can't do this if necessary.

I'm not troubled in the slightest that the courts are protecting him, other than the additional suffering he is being forced to endure.

Certainly there would be a different set of arguments if it was about an adult, with the courts seeking to direct treatment, and indeed courts are hearing cases about voluntary euthanasia today.  However, it's not relevant to this case.

Did I say American doctors are better? Much less because they are American? Did I say these specific doctors are the best because they're American? No. In fact, I said no such thing. What I said is this specific team that happens to be from America is the best. They are the best because they are the most focused on and experienced with this condition doing the most advanced research with the best resources.

You have the neighborhood hospital with no particular expertise in a condition refusing a second opinion from the worldwide experts, then asking a judge with no medical knowledge or capability of competently differentiating the between the quality of information from one side or the other to make a choice that has very little to do with law. That's not good.

While I'm not the worldwide expert on the family of conditions or their treatment, when the worldwide expert says there's effective treatment to cure similar conditions and it can cause dramatic improvement in this case, then I respect that information.

If a patient is not able to make their own treatment decisions because they're unconscious or out of their mind or a minor, then that decision belongs to the next of kin, not the doctors. Doctors can provide emergency stabilizing care with implied consent, but that ends when the patient is stable and the patient or next of kin is able to consent.

Even in the UK people can refuse a blood transfusion or other treatment on religious grounds, even if that would cause their death. While you may think that's a misguided set of morals based on an "imaginary man in the sky," that is in fact their civil/human rights you're so cavalierly stepping on to impose your own moral judgement on someone else's life against their will. That's not going to work.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Did I say American doctors are better? Much less because they are American? Did I say these specific doctors are the best because they're American? No. In fact, I said no such thing. What I said is this specific team that happens to be from America is the best. They are the best because they are the most focused on and experienced with this condition doing the most advanced research with the best resources.

You have the neighborhood hospital with no particular expertise in a condition

Who says these Americans are the worldwide experts?  I'm not convinced and neither is the judge.  I don't think you know any better than I do, but referring to Great Ormand Street Hospital as a "neighbourhood hospital " shows your level of ignorance.  You might want to Google that .

While I'm not the worldwide expert on the family of conditions or their treatment, when the worldwide expert says there's effective treatment to cure similar conditions and it can cause dramatic improvement in this case, then I respect that information.

He's not even saying that, he's saying there's a %10 chance of clinical improvement (whatever that means) based on mouse trials for a different disease. 

Even in the UK people can refuse a blood transfusion or other treatment on religious grounds, even if that would cause their death. While you may think that's a misguided set of morals based on an "imaginary man in the sky," that is in fact their civil/human rights you're so cavalierly stepping on to impose your own moral judgement on someone else's life against their will. That's not

But this case isn't about adults. 
As far as I am concerned, you can refuse any treatment you like even if directed to do so by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  You can't do it for your kid, unless it is in their best interest.  You getting into heaven isn't a reason. 


 

Who says these Americans are the worldwide experts?  I'm not convinced and neither is the judge.  I don't think you know any better than I do, but referring to Great Ormand Street Hospital as a "neighbourhood hospital " shows your level of ignorance.  You might want to Google that .
He's not even saying that, he's saying there's a %10 chance of clinical improvement (whatever that means) based on mouse trials for a different disease. 


But this case isn't about adults. 
As far as I am concerned, you can refuse any treatment you like even if directed to do so by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  You can't do it for your kid, unless it is in their best interest.  You getting into heaven isn't a reason.

Compared to Columbia & Mayo, I'm pretty comfortable saying neighborhood hospital. Sorry if you think that overstates the case, but it's not the same class.

The name of the doctor is publicly released now. Here's his story:

http://people.com/human-interest/us-doctor-michio-hirano-examining-charlie-gard/

You'll note he says 11-56% probability of improvement and that he doesn't seem to be in significant pain nor is he being harmed or suffering in any way by being on a ventilator.

Again though, I am not the medical expert to be deciding between doctors on one side versus doctors on the other. That's not the function of lawyers & judges. That decision, though neutral, can only be arbitrary & highly prone to ending up wrong. Whereas, the right of a patient or next of kin to control their own fate, that is something the law can competently handle. That's the thing I care about. That decision can't be transferred from the individual to the state.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

People Magazine?  And it's not even first hand from them, they seem to be quoting something from CNN. 

Here's a recent story from a real news outlet: 
Charlie Gard: US doctor meets Great Ormond Street medics
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40630462

Here's some important bits:


The hospital (GOSH) added it had treated more than 1,000 patients with mitochondrial disease and offered pioneering treatment, including nucleoside treatment, where appropriate.
"Despite all the advances in medical science made by GOSH and the other hospitals around the world, there remain some conditions that we cannot cure and we cannot ameliorate."
The hospital said it remained the unanimous view of its doctors that withdrawal of ventilation and palliative care were all the hospital could offer Charlie.
It said his treatment team and all those from who the hospital obtained second opinions were of the view Charlie had "no quality of life and no real prospect of any quality of life".

I believe that in the last hearing, the judge was angry that this doctor was testifying that Charlie was in no pain and not suffering from being on a ventilator without ever examining him.  We'll get the answer to that in a few days. 

If you are arguing that this case is an example of where the parents should be given the right to decide what to do, you picked the wrong one.