![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 28. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 5:59:38
USMLE Step 1 review (and maybe also Pathoma) says you don't give kids asprin (risk of Reye disease)...
Unless...
They have Kawasaki disease.
In which case -- you give them aspirin.
I wondered if this 'new' disease (I forget what it is called) that is supposedly like Kawasaki disease (affects the vasculature and heart like Kawasaki disease) was similarly responsive to aspirin.
You know, to help with the vascular clotting problem that some people were having.
But sure. Ibuprofin. Good idea. Kudos. Genius. Medsci 101.
Yeppers.
I don't understand...
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 6:03:50
In reply to ..., posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 5:59:38
Oh, I guess it is about trying to get a new medication to market. Comparing it to 'treatment as usual'. You know, once you have made sure that 'treatment as usual' is 'uneffective as possible'.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 20:02:59
In reply to Re: ..., posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 6:03:50
He said something along the lines of how there will be justice for Floyd.
He said something along the lines of how his death will not have been in vain.
What?
Was Floyd's desire for his life that he would be a matyr for a cause? Was that what he wanted? Did he choose to give up his life for a cause?
What is so f*ck*ng terrible about it is that he wasn't given a choice. He didn't choose to be a matyr. That was something forced on him. That's what's so f*ck*ng tragic.
There is no such thing as justice. He life was stolen from him and it isn't the sort of thing that can be given back.
There is no justice for that.
There is only prevention of re-offending.
But there is no putting it right.
What has been done cannot be undone.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 20:05:30
In reply to the thing I didn't like, that Trump said:, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 20:02:59
It's just more...
Condescending.
To think that fame... Matyrdom... Is 'justice'. Is compensation.
To think...
Something along the lines of: 'they will have achieved more than they would have achieved if they had have lived the life they wanted for themself'.
It's condescending.
I don't suppose anybody knew or cared what he wanted to accomplish with his life.
That's the true tragedy.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 20:14:41
In reply to Re: the thing I didn't like, that Trump said:, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 20:05:30
soceity is really good at that. at being dismissive.
Damos had a quote from somewhere that he emailed...
about how when you speak -- nobody listens. you shout -- nobody listens. you scream -- nobody listens. you start smashing things up...
of course people would rather that you stayed in your houses so they didn't have to look at you.
just shelter in place while the nation opens up it's borders so the rich foreigners can come into the country (into their bolt-hole) to flee the epidemic... just stay in level 4 or level 3 lock-down so that a few of the 'chosen white' (either themselves or people of color chosen by them for their having agreed or been seen to work for the primary benefit of the chosen white) can continue to profit at their expense...
there was a lady... I can't remember her name. she wanted the euthanasia law changed so that she could have control over timing of her own death in the context of terminal illness (brain cancer). so her doctor didn't need to give her a lethal injection (on her doctors terms) while pretending it was for something else ('i'm too stupid to understand that a dose that will alleviate your pain the very same as a dose that will end your life... so stupid... i'm so stupid... i must be a ''chosen white'' doctor to be as stupid as that!')
point is: lucinda?? something like that... did not get what she wanted. she wanted the law to change. because of something she did. she was a lawyer. she devoted her life to the law. she wanted her life to make a meaningful difference in that way.
so of course: denied.
then later the law changes. in such a way that she is denied what she wanted with her life.
because this is a land where everybody must be as deprived as we can possibly keep them. just because. it's how we like to live. it's how we like to express our pathology.
withholding.
it isn't about the money. the resources. it is about everything else.
it isnt' that there isn't enough. we intentionally set about ENSURING that there isn't enoguh. we intentionally set about FORCING conditions of deprivation.
floyd likely DID NOT WANT to be a matyr. that's why he's being matyred.
and so on...
Posted by sigismund on June 4, 2020, at 2:39:42
In reply to the thing I didn't like, that Trump said:, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 20:02:59
>He said something along the lines of how his death will not have been in vain.
In front of the church? I don't remember where, but when he announced his re-election strategy I couldn't continue watching. I remembered 68 and 72 and Queensland then
Things can never be undone.
Everything is in vain, isn't it? 'Vanity, vanity, all is vanity' all the more true in this case. I so love Ecclesiastes.
Some are already implying that creation was never good enough for them. I hope they ship off to Mars and see what it takes to turn rock into soil. Humanity creates God in its own image, as we see here. And they are choosey about the reflections of themselves they wish to see.
Civilisational failure not seen in my lifetime.
Posted by sigismund on June 4, 2020, at 2:44:19
In reply to Re: the thing I didn't like, that Trump said:, posted by sigismund on June 4, 2020, at 2:39:42
>because this is a land where everybody must be as deprived as we can possibly keep them. just because. it's how we like to live. it's how we like to express our pathology.
>withholding.
10/10
Easy and effective? So much easier, as Tony Blair said to say yes rather than no. (I suspect the truth is the opposite.)
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 3:04:07
In reply to Witholding, posted by sigismund on June 4, 2020, at 2:44:19
I am not sure where he said it. I think it was part of a relatively short speech.
He started out by validating that his death seemed grotesque. And then trying to reassure people that there would in fact be a proper legal investigation into what happened there.
And then he turned his concern to the small business owners who were experiencing looters decimating their businesses. And by-standers who were being caught up in violence.
And then he said he would deploy the military to keep the peace.
But that very first part... I understand that his intention was good.
But he did in fact say that his death would not be in vain.
But his death was in vain.
There can be no justice for a wrongful death.
I mean. The courts can do their thing... So justice in that sense...
But nothing can ever undo the loss of a life.
That's what is to tragic about it.
I know he didn't mean to imply that... But it was an unfortunate phrase / thing that he said.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 3:36:46
In reply to Re: Witholding, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 3:04:07
because i believe that everybody has the right to be self-actualised. i believe that every homo sapiens is unique
(also every animal)
every form of life...
there is this tension, always between the uniqueness and irreplaceability and specialness of individuals... and something about the role or function they play -- which is replaceable...
but every individual deserves the resources and support and so on that they need to be the very very best version of themself that they can be (according to them). to choose what they want for their lives... to pursue that... to take some knocks, don't get me wrong. to respond to things like market forces, don't get me wrong.
to be encouraged to bend. don't get me wrong.
but the right not to be broken.
the right to work for and earn the things that matter to the individual. simply because they matter to the individual.
i don't understand when people seem committed to otherwise
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 3:48:06
In reply to Re: Witholding, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 3:36:46
Dinah used to say that therapists were not like washing machines. To try and express how her particular therapist was a person she was particularly attached to. How no other would do. How it wasn't just the role he played (therapist) in her life... There was something particular and special about their relationship.
And I had trouble with that (I remember) because I thought 'therapist' was a role...
And I'm still not entirely sure what I think about that. Though maybe I was in fact certain before that therapists were more like washing machines than Dinah wanted to admit / acknowledge...
But I'm 100 per cent certain that Floyd isn't, himself, a washing machine.
And suppose what he valued in life was, I don't know. Being a 'bum'. Even if so -- it's what he valued in life. I just mean to say that what is particular about him (I know not what) is now gone. And likely there were things that he had the potential for that were knocked out of him by the school of hard knocks from a very very very very very young age (whether in the name of realism for his own good or whatver it doesn't matter). His light...
Instead of shining his potential for the world.
THe world exterminated it.
And there we go.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 3:54:14
In reply to Re: Witholding, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 3:48:06
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 4:15:29
In reply to Re: Witholding, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 3:54:14
sh*t talking is what you doooooooooooooo in boxing / mma etc:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqcQL_vNo7g
i'm gonna show yoooooooooooooooou how great i am!
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 4:20:52
In reply to Re: sh*t talking, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 4:15:29
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 5:08:57
In reply to Re: sh*t talking, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 4:20:52
You look at the orientation of the black and white stripes on the referees / officials...
And you look at the orientation of the black and white stripes on the chain gang...
It's not irony. It's something else.
I only know about chain gangs from here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLUqtkAUaZY
and it's odd because their chain gang is actually white... but y'know.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 5:14:28
In reply to Re: sh*t talking, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 5:08:57
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D60xjyiHCD0
awwwwwwwwwwwwww jolly jumper
Posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 5:40:51
In reply to Re: sh*t talking, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 5:14:28
oh my. its like 'The Simpsons'. Made in Belgum.
Posted by beckett2 on June 4, 2020, at 13:21:34
In reply to dismissive, posted by alexandra_k on June 3, 2020, at 20:14:41
>because this is a land where everybody must be as deprived as we can possibly keep them. just because. it's how we like to live. it's how we like to express our pathology.
withholding.
it isn't about the money. the resources. it is about everything else.
it isnt' that there isn't enough. we intentionally set about ENSURING that there isn't enoguh. we intentionally set about FORCING conditions of deprivation.
_____________
This is difficult to understand. There is enough. Withholding is the main expression of power. Or it is the symptom of that power? I ponder upon this often.
Maybe someone here has some insight?
Posted by sigismund on June 4, 2020, at 15:25:48
In reply to Re: dismissive, posted by beckett2 on June 4, 2020, at 13:21:34
One thing is that withholding is easy. As against more active measures.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2020, at 8:13:58
In reply to Re: dismissive, posted by sigismund on June 4, 2020, at 15:25:48
i don't know.
i guess i thought it was an expression of pathology.
people were cruel to them when they were growing up -- so they grow up to be cruel to others.
of course some people don't. some people say they will never inflict on others what was inflicted on them. but those people seem to be in the minority.
i don't know.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2020, at 19:26:53
In reply to Re: dismissive, posted by beckett2 on June 4, 2020, at 13:21:34
I just remember:
'Those who have power to do harm, who do none. They shall inherit the earth'.
From someplace in the Bible.
Some rulers are just. Benifecent. Kind. Some shepards. Some people who own animals. Some people who have children. Some teachers, police, doctors. Some people use their power to help -- not harm.
Not saying they are perfect. But refraining from overt cruelty is an obvious start.
There is something about how power corrupts. And about how absolute power corrupts absolutely.
But I don't see that that is inevitable.
It depends on the kind or nature of the power, perhaps.
It would be one thing being a judge in the welfare tribunal. Where you are dealing with 'they didn't give me a $20 food voucher when I needed one' kinds of claims that are small potatoes in the larger scheme of how much money there is set aside so that nobody needs to starve in this country...
Another thing entirely to be in the position of deciding whether or not to send in the troops (whether such intervention is likely to help more than harm on balance). I am not meaning to say that decisions such as those are not hard.
But things like... Refusing to give someone a Degree when they have met the criterion or conditions for that. Refusing to blind grade students work in order to ensure that the chosen white are provided with all the very best grades and training opportunities... Or the best stuck ups. Or the kids who you don't think can function independently from you. Or the kids who you think nobody else will want... Those kinds of things...
Strike me as overt cruelty.
I mean... Lots of people wouldn't even treat their dog like that.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2020, at 19:28:19
In reply to Re: dismissive, posted by sigismund on June 4, 2020, at 15:25:48
> One thing is that withholding is easy. As against more active measures.
I suppose so. Passive agression. Denial. Meanness.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2020, at 19:33:24
In reply to Re: dismissive » sigismund, posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2020, at 19:28:19
Recently we have been hearing about cases of animal cruelty in NZ (in the media, I mean) and they have started prosecting people for acts of cruelty against animals. Instead of turning the blind eye that they usually do, I suppose.
There was very recently a case where someone went into a field, I think, where there was a pet minature horse. Stabbed him 15 or 20 times, I forget. They horse died.
The guy who did it apparently went to the owners house and said he did not do it (I think they were suspecting him or something). He said the person must be crazy who did that.
He drank some home made whiskey and fell asleep at home that night, he reckoned.
Anyway...
People are sort of (but I suppose not really) like 'how / why / what on earth would make anybody do that kind of a thing?'.
And likely the answer is in what people did to him when he was growing up. Or what people did to people he cared for when he was growing up. And of course it doesn't excuse it, at all. But it makes what he did understandable. In the sense of understanding why someone would do something like that.
Because people act out their pathologies. Mostly.
You have people who can't do well in multiple choice tests. People who don't have basic reading comprehension. People who feel like it is always random between 2 options. And so they think they are making a good multiple choice test when they design it in such a manner. When it is random. Because it is random. Because that's the way it's supposed to be -- right?
Posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2020, at 19:40:45
In reply to Re: dismissive, posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2020, at 19:33:24
But it's good to see some of Singer's basic insights start to catch on. Or start to be conveyed to people via the media.
It was only a year or so back that some people from the Lower Hutt council, I think it was, went out with a gun and shot some chickens (I think a few hens) that were being a little too free-range by the road through town.
Recently we hear about some chickens being free range out by the library in West Auckland. Rooster. Baby chickens, even. Population expanding... They interviewed a few people . Interesting that the guys were both 'Get a gun, that'lll fix it. Or call Tegal'. The women were more... Anyway... They are trying to think about what to do... Netting them or something. To relocate them somewhere.
And of course it does seem silly in a sense that we are about the lives of these chickens and not the lives of the chickens who never even got to go outdoors who only know life in their battery cage... But that doesn't make violence the answer to the problem okay. It should instead get us rethinking our farming / animal research practices...
Of course it's not okay what happened to the pony.
And of course it's not okay what happened to the kid, either.
That's right. It's not okay.
I guess that's the idea. What he needed / wanted to hear. That it's not okay. Just to check that people were horrified. People are horrified -- right? The person who did that to the kid should have been locked up for a while? Right?
Just living out pathology...
Posted by beckett2 on June 6, 2020, at 14:53:42
In reply to Re: dismissive » beckett2, posted by alexandra_k on June 5, 2020, at 19:26:53
>>'Those who have power to do harm, who do none.
'First do no harm' is part of the modern Hippocratic oath I think.
This is also part 'Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.' Wow, even back then (in ancient Greece) it was an issue.
>>I mean... Lots of people wouldn't even treat their dog like that.
I tried to find the source for this, but I read recently that civil rights protestors in the sixties were advised by someone not to harm the dogs sicced upon them because white people often had more sympathy with the dogs than fellow humans.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 7, 2020, at 1:59:21
In reply to Re: sh*t talking, posted by alexandra_k on June 4, 2020, at 5:08:57
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Politics | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.