. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
"Chuck Norris doesn't read books; he stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of them."
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Well at least you're not this guy.
. . .
I think what the hospital and the police are doing to this woman is criminal. She gave painkillers within prescribed limits to terminal patients and they fired her for it. Opiates slow breathing and pulse. When you get to a certain level enough morphine to kill the pain gets real close to fatal. So should you let people die in agony? People are so afraid of addiction and shit like this that it's real hard for sick people to get adequate pain control.
When my grandma was dying she was delirious from pain, but she was already on a high dose of morphine and so the doctor decided not to give her another shot. The nurse gave him such a look. For a minute I thought she was going to go ahead and give the shot anyway. Had she done so, alleviated the suffering of an 80 year old woman with cancer expected to die that day, had she done that she would likely be facing what this woman is. Bullshit.
I often think that if any of my loved ones are in that situation I might just go find some heroin.
. . .
This is simply hysterical. It's always interesting to see which professors try to spout bullshit wrapped in science. It's easier to do with psychology than with other disciplines.
"BERKELEY – Politically conservative agendas may range from supporting the Vietnam War to upholding traditional moral and religious values to opposing welfare. But are there consistent underlying motivations? Really, what can you say to that? Conservatives= Evil. Liberals= Good. Dress it up as a meta-analytic calculation based on 88 previously published studies and it's still wishful thinking. I cannot believe it passed peer-review and got published by the APA.
Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:
* Fear and aggression
* Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
* Uncertainty avoidance
* Need for cognitive closure
* Terror management
"From our perspective, these psychological factors are capable of contributing to the adoption of conservative ideological contents, either independently or in combination," the researchers wrote in an article, "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," recently published in the American Psychological Association's Psychological Bulletin.
Ten meta-analytic calculations performed on the material - which included various types of literature and approaches from different countries and groups - yielded consistent, common threads, Glaser said.
The avoidance of uncertainty, for example, as well as the striving for certainty, are particularly tied to one key dimension of conservative thought - the resistance to change or hanging onto the status quo, they said.
The terror management feature of conservatism can be seen in post-Sept. 11 America, where many people appear to shun and even punish outsiders and those who threaten the status of cherished world views, they wrote.
Concerns with fear and threat, likewise, can be linked to a second key dimension of conservatism - an endorsement of inequality, a view reflected in the Indian caste system, South African apartheid and the conservative, segregationist politics of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-South S.C.).
Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini, and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described the same way.
The researchers conceded cases of left-wing ideologues, such as Stalin, Khrushchev or Castro, who, once in power, steadfastly resisted change, allegedly in the name of egalitarianism.
Yet, they noted that some of these figures might be considered politically conservative in the context of the systems that they defended. The researchers noted that Stalin, for example, was concerned about defending and preserving the existing Soviet system."
. . .
Ooof. Hangover: not fun.
. . .
. . .