Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Thoughts of the Day’ Category

We need to have representatives that represent the people, not just bureaucrats that push forward their own agendas — constantly forcing the citizenry to engage in behavior against their free will by stacking these bureaucracies with fellow ideologues. They even prevent “We the People” from making even the barest of decisions on our own or from substantially influencing public policy. The laws enforced are about social control, not public safety. It’s become a system of favoritism, not of equal treatment. And yet, even the favorites can’t rely on being treated well from one moment to the next.

I remember when illegal migrants were being put up in fancy hotels. Apparently, those days are over. Sanctuary cities throughout the country are now evicting migrants from shelters after a set period of time. In a way, it makes sense. There should be an acknowledgement that this unrestricted migration can’t be sustained and that a city can’t afford to house a limitless homeless population. But because this is illegal immigration not legal immigration the structure and resources are just not there to smoothly transition people into an independent life. Once these people are evicted, what will happen to them? And once new people come in and find no support, what will happen to them? In other words, there isn’t enough condemnation of the open border policy itself coming from these sanctuary cities. You can’t simply kick people out on the streets and expect them to manage. How exactly do they think they’re going to get back to the border? Back to their countries of origin? And that’s assuming their countries of origin will take them back. Are the migrants even going to be allowed to cross back into Mexico and Canada? I’m not even sure the sanctuary cities want them to leave the United States, but they just don’t want to deal with the ones who aren’t fortunate enough to get adequate jobs and housing themselves. Their attitude appears to be to let someone else bear the cost; have other states and cities’ societal structures torn apart by the lack of preparation and the lack of structure you get from illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, it isn’t as though these migrants have been being treated well since the fancy hotel days. No, I don’t like the sense of entitlement I’ve seen. To my knowledge we’ve never had an immigration period where people came expecting to be taken care of. They used to want the opportunity for a better life, not to have that better life handed to them on the back of the people already living in the country. And still, it isn’t just the citizens of the United States who are suffering here; it’s also the migrants themselves. This is one of the most cynical, disrespectful things I’ve seen done in the name of humanity — encouraging people through demonstrations and promises of reward to debase themselves in order to come here. Where is the sanitation? And how are these people supposed to afford our inflated cost of living by taking on unskilled jobs when at least one of the reasons they were brought here was to drive down wages?

And the woke people who once upon a time, when they claimed to want the migrants in their cities, tried to feed us the line that these were refugees awaiting an answer to asylum requests. But I don’t see a refugee camp or even a recognizable crisis aside from the chaos created by the sheer number of homeless people they compelled to come here. No, these “refugees” are now being treated like intruders, not victims of a crisis. And they are being treated that way by the same people who encouraged them to come in the first place.

Still, this problem won’t be resolved by shoving people out onto the streets. We need to re-establish legal immigration. People need to be vetted before they are allowed to live here. And the free hotel stays and such to entice people to come here need to stop.

And we need to stop electing people who take all of our power of governance away from us, refuse to represent us, and then refuse to take responsibility for the fallout of their decisions.

Read Full Post »

The Perpetual Attack on the Sensitive Side

Most people are born with a sensitive side. Society increasingly appears to have a pathological hatred of it. It’s possibly because you need God if you have a sensitive side in order to keep your sensitive side alive. Whereas those who don’t have a sensitive side are convinced that they don’t need Him. And perhaps they don’t want to need Him, and they don’t want others to need Him either. Regardless, there is an open antagonism toward sensitivity in our society. Society has encouraged people to have no sensitive side and forgo attachments.

Our socialization process in the school system seems to be geared toward giving children a “thicker skin.” Having a thicker skin is considered a good thing, feelings are not. But without a sensitive side and attachments people become disposable.

And the attack on sensitivity has never been worse than it is now. Now they are going after children sexually. And sex is a very effective way to destroy a person’s sensitive side. But the UN, the WHO, and the WEF are all pushing for the sexualization of children. There are no good reasons to do this — only bad. Reducing sex to an act of mere physical stimulation reduces the odds of incorporating emotional, mental, and spiritual components to the act. People, especially sensitive people, want more than just physical stimulation. But how can you achieve that experience — sex as a part of love — if it’s been made into only a physical reality?

Physical sex alone also suffers from the law of diminishing returns. Like a drug addiction, over time the high diminishes and you require something additional such as drugs or violence (such as sadomasochism) to keep things interesting. This flies in the face of the argument that training children to engage in sex as a mere physical act is a good thing. In reality, the sooner you start, the sooner you will lose interest. Which brings us to the real reason why there is a push to sexualize children: pedophilia. For some adults traditional sex no longer holds any interest. Only debauching the innocent and the sensitive seems to turn them on. So, they are seeking access to a victim pool. They are looking to normalize it into society. They are trying to convince people that reducing sex to a mere physical act at a younger age is a good thing for children — when clearly it is not. It’s all about insensitive people trying to find stimulation because they are cold and jaded. Because you can’t be satisfied with anything without a sensitive side. And unless you have an irrational aversion to sensitivity and a hatred of God, why would you want to destroy that element in any human being — let alone a child? In the end, by introducing children to sex as an act of mere physical stimulation you are preventing them from experiencing it as an act of love. Children need to spend their formative years learning who they are as a total person, which includes mental, emotional, and spiritual development. Sex at an early age could also potentially kill a child’s sensitive side. We need to stop catering to adults looking for more and more sexual stimulation. It’s gone too far already. But for those who have convinced themselves that sex among children is no big deal, I will submit that this need for stimulation in the adults who advocate for it could still progress even further. What’s to stop torture and murder from coming next?

At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

And Jesus called a little child unto Him, and set him in the midst of them,

And said, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.

“Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

“And whoso shall receive one such little child in My name receiveth Me.

“But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in Me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

“Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!

“Wherefore it thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.

“And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of My Father which is in heaven.

“For the Son of Man is come to save that which was lost.

“How think ye? if a man have an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray?

“And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.

“Even so it is not the will of your Father which is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” (Matthew 18: 1-14)

Fournier, Dan. “The UN, WHO, & WEF seek to Sexualize, Exploit, & Decriminalize Sex with School-Aged Children.” Dan Fournier’s Inconvenient Truths, 19 May 2023, https://fournier.substack.com/p/the-un-who-and-wef-seek-to-sexualize?nthPub=501

Geller, Pamela. “EVIL: UN Report Calls for Legalizing Sex Between Adults and Children.” Geller Report, 18 April 2023,

Read Full Post »

Tick Tock … What’s The Point of This Clock?

When I was in art school, there was a clock — just a generic one you could hang on the wall. It was low enough that anyone could reach it. I didn’t discover the time was off until I stayed after class to work on an assignment. Then, I headed to my next class. Only I heard the sound of the clock tower ringing while en route. The clock in my last class was five to ten minutes slow. How could this be? The time was then fixed on the clock the next day, and I assumed the problem was over. But, lo and behold, the clock ended up five to ten minutes slow again. The professor suggested that the clock might be winding down. I pointed out that clocks that are winding down don’t keep a consistent time. My theory was that someone was setting the clock backward intentionally, so that they would have extra time to arrive to class without being counted as late. Who cared how it affected the rest of us?

A girl in my class challenged me with the, “Why do you care so much?” argument. She was offended apparently by my desire for rules and structure — as so many people are. I pointed out to her that she had a class right after this one in which she told me had a strict tardiness policy. So, really, it affected her far more than me. But she was more offended by my attitude than by the actions of the person getting her into trouble. Because ironically our release time from class was being determined by the time on this clock that everyone now knew was faulty. The professor also didn’t seem to be bothered by the faulty clock. Once the onetime reset was done, nothing further was attempted to fix the problem. And yet, he still insisted on having us be in class “on time,” or we’d be counted as absent. He also continued to release us from class “on time” — all based on the faulty clock.

What I learned from this experience is that some people really hate rules and standards applied to themselves. And they are more invested in shutting down people who have standards than in their own best interests. Yet, those same people don’t mind insisting that other people be made to live under their rules and standards.

Eventually, I just relied on my watch. I could afford to be released late. If people who couldn’t afford to be released late would rather see my quest for consistency and standards fail than fix the problem, so be it. But really, what is the point of a clock with the wrong time?

Read Full Post »

It’s Booming! Part 4: Those Pesky Prices!

The article, “Inflation is slowing. Here’s why prices still aren’t going down” by Charlotte Morabito, is about inflation and seeks to answer why prices aren’t going down. The author makes the following points: “Historical data suggests a key factor in bringing down prices is a slowdown in consumer spending. Despite nearly half of Americans reporting they’re in a worse financial situation than five years ago, they’re still spending. Retail sales were up 2.1% year over year in the first quarter of 2024 and consumer spending jumped in February and March.” (Morabito, 2024)
The article explains the difference between disinflation and deflation. Disinflation is when the rate of inflation growth is slowing down. Deflation is when the prices go down. “There’s an important difference between inflation increasing more slowly — a phenomenon called disinflation — and inflation reversing itself, which would lead to prices coming down. Economists call the latter deflation, which is typically associated with a shrinking economy and potential recessions.” (Morabito, 2024) So, the prices going downward is actually a bad thing? Good to know.

Apparently, they have a new term for those who have a problem with the higher prices: “money illusion.” ‘“This cycle is a concept called money illusion,” said Sabrina Romanoff, a clinical psychologist. “People with money illusion … don’t take into account the level of inflation in an economy,” she said. “So they wrongly believe that a dollar today is worth the same amount that it was the year prior.” ’ (Morabito, 2024)

Yes, it seems those of us who actually expected an improvement in their personal circumstances are suffering from some sort of mental syndrome. It reminds me of the term money dysmorphia in the Dickler article, which describes how some people don’t see how great they have it since they are too busy comparing themselves to others.

Now we are mentally questionable because we expected the higher interest rates to drive prices down.

Also of note in the article is the following: “Wage-increase data may also seem inconsistent with consumer experience. Wages have been rising since January 2022, but the pace of the increase has been slowing down and, on average, it is just keeping up with rising prices. An analysis from Bankrate estimates the gap between inflation and wages won’t fully close until the fourth quarter of 2024.” Once again we’re supposed to believe that it’s the rate of increase that matters, not the cumulative inflation increase in comparison to the current wage.

The fact is the article reinforces the theory that domestic demand is responsible for the inflation. Both the article and the prevailing theory coming from the woke media seem to ignore global demand, such as from China, for our resources; cuts in supply for things like food, energy, and housing; as well as the printing of money coupled with excessive spending by the federal government. Unless these issues are addressed, how can the inflation be resolved? Instead, the article’s author is content blaming the consumer for continuing to spend. What are they supposed to do, not eat? Not pay their rent? 

Their utilities? Where does this attitude we’re buying luxury (unnecessary) items come from? And what are we supposed to do, hope that people tap out of their credit and can’t pay their bills, so they’ll stop spending money? The implication from the article seems to be that that’s the only way we’ll see a reduction in prices. And one might conclude it’s the only way they’ll lower the interest rates on credit cards as well.

(Dickler, 2024)

Dickler, J. (2024, March 13). “Nearly half of young adults have ‘money dysmorphia,’ survey finds. Here are the symptoms.” CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/13/nearly-half-of-young-adults-have-money-dysmorphia-survey-finds.html

(Morabito, 2024)

Morabito, C. (2024, May 12). “Inflation is slowing. Here’s why prices still aren’t going down.” CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/12/inflation-is-slowing-heres-why-prices-still-arent-going-down.html

Read Full Post »

In the past, the general understanding of inflation was that the demand for a good or service exceeded the supply. The implication was that any increase in the supply of money was in the hands of the consumer. In this case, the money is in the hands of the government and whatever special interests and agendas it decides to fund. There is no generalized proportional increase in wages for the workers, despite what the media says.

Instead, they are bringing in cheap foreign labor to undercut already proportionately low wages. This is to prevent a wage-price spiral — where the corporations would be forced to pay higher labor costs to compensate for the increased cost of living. They say preventing a wage-price spiral is good for everyone, but in reality it’s mostly good for the corporations. Bringing in foreign labor doesn’t just freeze wages, it can also reduce them. It also manages to drive up demand, putting pressure on price inflation. The corporations are also using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the foreign labor workforce — pay for their housing, food, healthcare, education. The taxpayer is paying the social costs of these workers while the corporations are just reaping the benefits of the cheap labor. This is a fascist system.

Meanwhile, in economics ideal price is determined by a bell curve. At the center of the curve is a price sweet spot. Free market systems are interested in that sweet spot since it allows companies to maximize profit. It shows the intersection where demand plus price can yield the maximum profit. Increasing the price has a tendency to decrease demand while decreasing the price has the tendency to increase demand in most things. Any price above or below that ideal price will decrease the profit. But in the fascist ideologically based system, supply is being artificially cut in areas such as housing, food, and energy, so that corporate profits can be somewhat maintained — though not at the level they were at under the free market system.

This keeps demand artificially high in comparison to the supply. That way they can keep prices and profit high while providing less. In other words, people can’t live without food, even if they can’t pay for it. And the few who can pay will pay whatever they have to in order to be able to eat. By targeting inelastic goods — essential items — for supply cuts they can force people to pay more for the item and thereby partially compensate for the reduction in quantity sold.

There is no intention to supply the world’s population with what they need to survive.

That way they can starve out the general population of necessary resources while still reaping some profit in the bargain — a compromise between greed and ideological fervor — and well in keeping with depopulation goals.

Read Full Post »

One of the things I’ve noticed lately is that about the only people you can’t deny having a relationship with are psychopaths. If they want you or want what you have, that’s it apparently. And really, it’s counterintuitive but it seems as though the worse a person treats you, the more you’re obligated to relate to them. Part of it is people’s warped idea of the concept of forgiveness — which in this case is more like masochism. You can forgive people from afar. You don’t have to have or start a relationship with them. Not only are there a lot of unrepentant people in the world who have no intention of changing their behavior, who continue to feel entitled to having their will at other people’s expense and are all too willing to use violence or the threat of violence in order to have their way, there’s also the loss of trust and post-traumatic stress to consider. Sometimes the damage to a relationship is far too great to recover from.

But the sympathy rarely goes to the victim of abuse. The perpetrator is allowed to be angry. But as the victim, if you’re angry you’re the problem. You’re a worse person than the perpetrator because you won’t forgive — which really has been redefined by our society to be the same as reconcile. And if you have to be angry as a self-defense mechanism, people take for granted that you have other feelings, too. You are hurt; you are grieving; you possibly loved this person. You’re afraid.

But in a way it makes sense. Psychopaths and malignant narcissists would rather just be themselves without having to put on a show. They want to treat people however they please without those people running away from them. And what better way to get someone to keep taking their abuse than to convince them that they don’t have the right to reject them?

In the end, you’re not supposed to focus on how your abuser treats you but rather how they feel. And how they feel is apparently a justification for whatever they do.

Read Full Post »

Why Woke People Will Never Be Satisfied

On the soap opera, The Bold and the Beautiful, there is a character named Hope. She was reared with the adults around her buying into her fantasy life, largely shielding her from the disappointments of reality. Then, she grew up and, lo and behold, the greater reality didn’t match what she wanted it to be. Early on, she managed to find a man who was willing to playact that her reality was real. His reward seemed to be the childlike enthusiasm she would display when her admirers, including him, would present her with the façade they had created for her. Only Hope isn’t a child anymore. She also isn’t delusional. She is aware of reality; she just doesn’t accept it. She might act enthusiastic from time to time in order to manipulate those around her into letting her have her way — often at their own expense — but fundamentally, she is a bitter, angry person who will never be satisfied with the reality that actually exists. The reality she wants is one where her will triumphs over everyone else’s — where her thoughts and feelings matter more than anyone else’s do and everyone appreciates her the way she thinks she should be appreciated.

The similarity between the Hope character’s worldview and the woke worldview is that they want to and feel entitled to force compliance to their will on the rest of the world. They also want to and feel entitled to change reality to suit themselves.

The woke seem to believe that if they can get all people to buy in to their greatness then they’ll be happy. But people who expect total approval are rarely ever happy. And who can control every living person and what they really think? And even if they could silence those who don’t see their greatness, their efforts will fail because the woke themselves are not delusional. Fundamentally, they are narcissistic, not delusional. And a peculiarity of narcissism is that while narcissists believe they are great, they are aware that this greatness isn’t reflected in reality. And at the end of the day, that’s what the woke want — to change reality. And yet, scarily, the woke seem to think if they can get 100% compliance to their version of reality — even if they have to kill to do it, then they can alter reality. But they can’t. The only Being who has the power to alter reality with a word is God. And reality will always be whatever God says it is.

Read Full Post »

The War Against Talent

5/12/24

If talent wasn’t the deciding factor why someone won a competition or became successful in the world, we at least believed that it was. Now it’s almost a disadvantage to be talented, for talent comes from God. Satan can’t give anyone talent. What he can do is temporarily offer prosperity and reward to people who serve him. He can also have it declared that you have talent and have earned your way to the top. But really the reward is based on ideological servitude to Satan, not on talent. It’s interesting to note how invested people have become in this newfound pecking order. If one’s rise to success can be traced back to God, then anger and possibly even violence ensues. It’s also interesting to note that some unfortunate celebrities have given Satan undeserved credit for their ability, and one has to wonder if this isn’t so they won’t be blocked from reaping the rewards from their God-given talent. For the narrative has to be that allegiance to Satan and/or the increasingly woke world system is the way to achieve success in this world. And people who have no talent, or even one’s who do and lie about the source of it, have to give credit for their achievements to Satan or at least to the world system. So, you see, the people who are in the position to make winners and losers in the world can’t allow the talented to win if it means giving credit to God. Now even talented people have to choose between moral integrity and success. If it was ever true that you can succeed in this world merely on talent, it no longer is.

Read Full Post »

Miss Kitty Syndrome

I call it Miss Kitty Syndrome. Miss Kitty is a character on Gunsmoke. On the radio show version it was strongly implied that she was a prostitute. For most of the TV series, they attempted to obscure that fact. Instead, she served drinks in scantily clad outfits and earned a lot of money from male patrons both those passing through town as well as locals. She had lots of possessions: designer clothes, carriages. Eventually, she seemed to run the place — whatever that place was. I remember her complaining that the local women didn’t like her and judged her. I mean, can she really blame them? Their husbands were spending most of their paychecks on Miss Kitty and her wares — whatever those were. Meanwhile, while they were dressed in tatters living hand to mouth, Miss Kitty was dressed to the nines floating around in her carriage. But Miss Kitty didn’t want to be judged, and if she had her way everyone would like her, and she would still have her opulent lifestyle. But is that really realistic?

If what she did wasn’t frowned upon or probably illegal, wouldn’t she have a lot more competition? The fact is most people have an external locus of control, meaning they are more driven by punishment/reward than by conscience. So, if you remove the consequences from Miss Kitty’s occupation so she can feel better about herself, then more women are liable to think that parting men from their hard-earned money is a great way to make a buck for themselves. Then suddenly, Miss Kitty’s niche is flooded with competition, and what she can earn goes drastically down. No more fancy dresses and carriages for her.

It’s the same dilemma that people are finding in this world now. They are attempting to get rid of the social sanctions and laws surrounding so-called vice crimes such as prostitution, drugs, and theft. People who purvey in such things can theoretically be seen with less of a critical eye, or at least the criticism won’t be as openly expressed. And they are less likely to see any jail time. But once again, legalizing crime tends to increase the number of people engaging in it. And in reality, in a practical sense, there are only so many johns with money to spend nowadays and people with possessions left worth stealing. And since those are the two major ways drug addicts can finance their drug habits, then the drug dealers will eventually not be getting paid either. So, while it may make the Miss Kittys of the world feel good about themselves not to be judged by the people they’ve trespassed against, the reality is society can only handle a certain proportion of the population being Miss Kitty. It simply can’t handle it if the majority turns to vice for fast money rather than earning slower money in a more constructive way.

Read Full Post »

Why Do Government Policies Seem to End in Death?

One of the fallouts from people’s discretionary income being taken away from them due to inflation is that things regular people used to do to support society through charity and responsible pet ownership also goes away. Back in the time of Henry VIII, Henry VIII declared himself the head of the church then raided the monasteries. The monasteries supported the poor; Henry VIII and elites who profited from the money seized did not.

It seems every time the government volunteers to replace the philanthropy of the people and do the job itself, it fails. They don’t want to use the money for the people it was allocated for — they want to use it on themselves and for their own agendas. Very quickly it becomes their money. The intended recipients become a burden they can’t afford to support. Soon, like a corrupt person who takes money in the form of a loan from a third party, they begin to think if that person weren’t around they wouldn’t need to repay. You can see that in healthcare and in Social Security. In health care, there are the POST (POLST) and MOST (MOLST) forms in most states all over the country, which encourage the chronically ill or those not anticipated to live past a set period of time to forgo things like antibiotics, food, and water. For example, New York’s MOLST form states, “This Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (MOLST) form is generally for patients with advanced illness who require long-term care services

and/or who might die within 1-2 years.* The MOLST may also be used for individuals who wish to avoid and/or receive specific life-sustaining treatments.”

Criteria differs per state. Many require some sort of signature from the patient, even if it’s just an e-signature. Some states like Alaska and Tennessee only require the physician (or in some cases certain other health care professionals) to sign the form. In Tennessee, the criteria for signing away a patient’s life by a health care professional is that the professional wouldn’t be surprised if the patient died within a set period of time. The Tennessee POST form reads: “POST is not for everyone, but is designed for seriously ill or frail patients who wish to limit treatment in some way. To determine whether a POST should be considered, clinicians should ask themselves: “Would I be surprised if this patient died or lost decision-making capacity in the next year”? If the answer is, “No I would not be surprised,” then a goals-of-care discussion and advance care planning with POST is appropriate to consider. Each treatment on the form should be evaluated and discussed based on what, if any, benefit it has for the patient.”

Some of the forms, even those that insist on a patient’s signature, nevertheless allow the frail or the chronically ill to opt for euthanasia on the basis that basically their lives are just not worth living. Needless to say, I expect pressure is applied to these people to opt for death. It really was a macabre experience when I stumbled across this information. These forms managed to make it through state legislatures through most of the states in the county without my being aware of them. I personally would never want to live in a state where the patient’s signature is not required. But I’m dubious of e-signatures as well. If a signature doesn’t have to be witnessed and/or can’t be verified then what good is it?

The Tennessee form includes the following:

“The POST form is not intended to replace an advance directive, but can be used for seriously ill patients, even if they do not have an advance directive. It is recommended that patients with a life-limiting illness have two (2) documents: Advance directive that includes appointment of a health care agent (also called a power of attorney for health care (3) and scenario-based treatment directives POST (Physician Orders for Scope of Treatment)”

Notice the words are intended and recommended not required.

Tennessee POST form reads:  “The POST from may be prepared by any health care professional. To be valid, the form

must be signed by a physician, or at discharge from a hospital or long term care facility by a nurse practitioner (NP), clinical nurse specialist (CNS), or physician assistant (PA). Verbal orders are acceptable with follow-up signature by the physician in accordance with facility/community policy. The preparer should fill out the health care professional information on the front of the form. The professional who signs the POST form is assuming full responsibility for the medical orders and attests that these orders are an accurate reflection of the patient’s current treatment preferences.”

Tennessee POST form reads: “Patient or Surrogate Signature

Tennessee is one of a few states that does not require the patient or surrogate to sign the POST form. However providers are strongly encouraged to have the patient or surrogate, as appropriate, sign it, due to increasing concerns about Tennessee POST forms not being honored in states requiring patient signatures.”

“Health care facilities are also required to honor specific orders contained in the POST. The POST form itself can serve as the order set, or new orders consistent with those on the POST form can be written, per facility policy.

Specifically for first responders, the Board for Licensing Health Care Facilities has defined the Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and Para-Medic Scope of Practice so that Tennessee-certified First Responder or EMT are required to comply with POST forms appropriately executed if signed on discharge from a hospital or long term care facility (by a physician, nurse practitioner, clinical nurse specialist, or physician assistant).”

You can read more about the Tennessee POLST form here:

Here are the signature requirements per state, which was last updated on February 28, 2022:

Meanwhile, people are abandoning their dogs in dog parks. And the number of strays is increasing. The shelter system is overwhelmed. People increasingly can’t afford their own pets, can’t afford to adopt pets, and I suspect can’t afford to fix their pets. Eventually, they will begin rounding up these cats and dogs and putting them to death — if they haven’t already. Death is the solution that is their ultimate answer to everything. Let the problem get so bad that the public just wants the problem to go away. Then, they introduce death as the solution. Increasingly, it’s becoming a solution people are willing to live with.

(Gibson, 2024)

Gibson, K. (2024, January 9). “Animal shelters are overwhelmed by abandoned dogs. Here’s why.” CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/animal-shelters-overwhelmed-by-abandoned-dogs/

Michaels, 2023)

Michaels, D. (2023, December 12). “Owner Dumped His Dog Alone In The Park With A ‘Heartbreaking’ Note.” I Heart Dogs. https://iheartdogs.com/owner-dumped-his-dog-alone-in-the-park-with-a-heartbreaking-note/

(Molina Acosta, 2023)

Molina Acosta, C. (2023, January 4).  “Pets are being given up by people who can’t afford to keep them.” NPR. https://www.npr.org/2023/01/04/1146866246/pets-are-being-given-up-by-people-who-cant-afford-to-keep-them

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »