tvc184

I just read a lengthy and interesting article about cultural appropriation. According to implications of the article, if you like Elvis Presley music, you are guilty of cultural appropriation. In fact Elvis himself is guilty. If you open a pizza restaurant and you are not from Italy or of Italian heritage, you are guilty of the same. Want to make and sell gumbo? Not so fast. Since the etymology of gumbo is believed to come from the African word for okra, unless you are Black you should not cook gumbo to sell or you are guilty of cultural appropriation. Do you like turquoise jewelry? According to the article if you buy from anyone other than a Native American, you’re guilty of cultural appropriation. Like I said, it is interesting…..

And the word Indian not offensive. It is not a racial slur.

I realize it’s a previous chief and said so. Either chief it’s just one man’s opinion. Obviously I’m entitled to my opinion. Otherwise you might as well shut down the forum. I don’t think the PNG people care about the Cleveland Indian‘s or anyone else. If they decide to change, great but that will be their choice, not because of political pressure in my opinion. I obviously cannot speak for the people from Port Neches and Groves but I think they would keep the name Indians merely out of anti political correctness, in your eye type of response. Maybe some people are tired of touchy-feely.

Nothing will improve until the people in charge come to the realization that people from other races or ethnicities or the police are not the problem. Actually I think they have come to that realization but they have convinced the masses otherwise. If a Hispanic guy kills another Hispanic rival gang member in a drive-by shooting, it is because there was slavery in the United States over 150 years ago? It is because there is a white president? It is because of any police officers of any race? The blame game will continue because there is a profit to be made even if that profit is just a political agenda or fame.

Accepted it a little more? A person can keep their mouth shut and accept something. Didn’t the previous chief do something like travel to PNG and present them with an official document? If so that does not sound like acceptance. That sounds more like a blessing. Secondly, I generally don’t like PNG as an arch rival of Nederland. I am not talking about the people from there. I still support 100% the naming of their mascot Indians or at their discretion something else if they wish. Next, the latest chief that overturned what the last chief did has no bearing except one man’s opinion. PNG is not called the Cherokees. They are called the Indians. The current chief of the Cherokee tribe is entitled to his opinion. The people from PNG are entitled to theirs and that includes the naming of their mascot the generic term Indian.

I might have brought this up in this forum before but it is a situation I was involved with in the aftermath of Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey. We had an injured prisoner in custody and we were investigating how he was injured. The emergency room doctor was preparing transportation to another hospital because of the prisoner’s medical condition. That was an issue because he was in custody for a felony. All we needed for our record was, why was he being taken from our custody. It did not need to be a detailed breakdown of the prisoner’s medical records, treatment, prognosis, etc., but simply an answer of what was wrong. Did he have a broken bone, did he have a serious illness, etc.? I was a lieutenant and the ranking commander at the time. The emergency room doctor simply refused to tell us what was happening because he thought it was a HIPAA violation. So the supervisor on scene at the hospital who is also a lieutenant, called me while I was at the police station. I already had the answer saved on my desktop at my work computer and printed it off. When I got to the hospital I introduced myself to the doctor and ask if we could talk in private for a moment. He said sure and we went into an unoccupied treatment room. I told him that we needed to know why we were releasing the prisoner and all we needed was a brief description like I discussed before. I told him do not answer until I gave you some information because I know you were concerned about privacy. I then asked him a question something like ….. Is all you know about HIPAA from about a one day class in medical school were all they said was HIPAA HIPAA HIPAA, you’ll be sued and go to jail. I thought it was a funny question but he said, yes that was about it. So I gave him about a 10 second version of the law verbally but then showed him the federal government response on the document I had. You could see that it came from the Health and Human Services website. I told the doctor please read this information and make your own decision. About 30 seconds later he told me the answer…. then he asked if he could keep the document I gave him. Absolutely. The doctor thanked me in a very sincere way. He told me that he was scared about violating the HIPAA law (which he should be) and he had policeman in his face telling him that he had to give the information. The poor guy did not know which way to turn. I walked out from the room and went to the other officers and told them the answer. My whole interaction with the doctor probably lasted less than two minutes. The other Lieutenant was kind of like, what the heck? We were telling him for about half an hour that he had to blah blah blah… I said yeah, that was the problem. I just walked in, smiled and showed him the law and let him make the decision and it was almost immediate. The point is that HIPAA is between doctors and their patients’ privacy but even then there are some exceptions. Talking about a person’s medical condition is not a violation of the law unless it is with a person involved in healthcare. Even then there are certain limited circumstances where you can get medical information without the person’s consent, mostly through law enforcement investigations.

Yep.

Things are not simply illegal. Nothing is illegal unless a law says it is. HIPAA covers doctor and patient relationships. HIPAA does not cover private people or companies. It breaks no law for your employer to ask why you are sick and not coming to work or if you have had the Covid vaccine. It absolutely breaks the law if your employer calls your doctor and your doctor tells him. A healthcare professional cannot disclose (most of the time but even that is not absolute) your medical records with anyone without your consent. If a relative of yours tells me that you had some medical procedure, there is no violation of any HIPAA law. If your relative got it from a healthcare professional or your relative is that healthcare professional, that would be a violation. So this person tells me about your medical history and I get on this forum and make a comment like I hate what happened to you and you got this procedure. I hope it works out OK. Again, that is not a HIPAA violation. If you find out your neighbor has Covid and you go tell your other neighbor, guess what, there is no HIPAA violation. I repeat this over and over in person and on forums, HIPAA must be one of the most misunderstood laws ever. This is directly from the federal government Health and Human Services website. The link to this page is below the quote. “In general, the HIPAA Rules do not apply to employers or employment records. HIPAA only applies to HIPAA covered entities – health care providers, health plans, and health care clearinghouses – and, to some extent, to their business associates. If an employer asks an employee to provide proof that they have been vaccinated, that is not a HIPAA violation, and employees may decide whether to provide that information to their employer.” [Hidden Content]

I think it is a HIPAA violation to ask what vaccine someone has taken. I know that is completely false but I love reading that on various forums. I like the comments such as, if your employer asks you to take the vaccine, he is violating HIPAA and you can sue. That has to be the most misunderstood law ever and people draw it like a gun. “You can’t talk about that!! HIPAA!!”

I used to love chess until I found out that I really had no clue what I was doing. I learned which way to pieces moved when I was about five years old and played with my father at that age. All the way to high school I could easily be a random person that “knew how” to play chess, which was (like me) how the pieces moved. Then I found out there were named strategies and named attacks. That’s when I basically gave it up. Now we have the Internet but 50 years ago I did not feel like reading several books and playing enough games to learn how to be really good at it. I did beat the high school chess champion one time. I played my typical, I know which way our pieces moved and I tried to anticipate his next move. After I won he kind of laughed and said I had the most difficult method to beat. That was the random, I have no clue what I’m doing but smart enough to anticipate. He had taken years to learn to counteract certain strategies and that all goes out the window when the other person has no strategy. 😂

Not liking the law is a right. It follows the Constitution however in particular Article III.

The US Supreme Court says otherwise.

Clickbait?

The hits just keep on comin’!!! [Hidden Content]

I have to do some more digging because the story just broke I think. I have found it on a couple of websites but not a major new source yet. If it is true it is outrageous. According to the story a democratic congressman from Pennsylvania has authored a bill that will prohibit any ammunition purchases without a photo ID. [Hidden Content]

Noise canceling ear buds with your favorite YouTube, movie or music channels.

As SM said, no unless you’re raising them, probably under a permit, for food. Wild animals are not livestock. This is the Texas Penal Code definition of livestock: (5) "Livestock animal" means:(A) cattle, sheep, swine, goats, ratites, or poultry commonly raised for human consumption; (B) a horse, pony, mule, donkey, or hinny; (C) native or nonnative hoofstock raised under agriculture practices; or (D) native or nonnative fowl commonly raised under agricultural practices.

And just for informational purposes in reference to wild or feral cats and dogs being protected even though they have no owner and may be on your property, The law says it is unlawful to kill an animal without consent of the owner or to torture the animal. The question becomes, what is an animal? This is a quote from the Texas Penal Code in reference to cruelty to non-livestock animals: "Animal" means a domesticated living creature, including any stray or feral cat or dog, and a wild living creature previously captured. “Including any stray or feral”’is significant

It is a felony to kill a cat or a dog if it is not yours without the consent of the owner. If it is a wild animal (feral), it has no owner and is a felony. As B13 stated, you can kill an animal in self-defense or if it is attacking your livestock. I believe you would have a hard time trying to say you killed a cat in self-defense. If a Rottweiler, Doberman, Chow, etc., was attacking a person, I am sure It would justify shooting it. So if you shoot that wild neighborhood cat sleeping on top of your car with a pellet gun and get caught and prosecuted, you could potentially do time in prison. In my opinion and knowing Texas law.

Let’s see, I’m a convicted felon so I’m going to drive on a public street and shoot a dog. He gets a two for one deal there. It is a felony to shoot the dog and then another felony for processing the firearm to begin with.

All rights are the same whether under arrest or not. You do not have less rights when you’re not in custody or more rights when you are. The rights listed under Miranda do not appear because of an arrest. You have the same rights as Miranda sitting there making this post. Those are from the 5A and 6A and say that you have the right to attorney and you have the right to remain silent. The only thing that an arrest does is it requires the police to tell you that you have those rights if you were in custody AND being interrogated. There is no court ruling that requires the reading of Miranda after an arrest. It only requires the Miranda warning if an officer intends to question the arrested person about a crime. Even if a person states that he wishes to remain silent and/or wishes to speak with an attorney, that goes away after 14 days after the person has gotten out of jail. So you have the same Miranda rights reading this forum but a police officer does not have to tell you that because he is not questioning you while you’re in custody. Questioning a person about a crime does not require Miranda. Having a person in custody does not require Miranda. Questioning a person while he is in custody does require Miranda or as we teach it, during custodial interrogation. As far as the motto it is… a motto. It is a general purpose for the police and not a direct order or law. There are very few laws that require any police officer to do anything. It means there are very few laws that require an officer to act. Probably the most important four words in criminal law are and/or and may/shall. The and and or are important either in a single sentence or at the end of a list because it tells you if any one of those items stands alone or if it requires all of the above. An example is that some laws will say a person commits a crime if he does A, B and C. In that case you would have to prove a person did A and B and C or no crime happened. If the law says a person commits a crime if he does A, B or C, it means that any one of those requirements stands alone. If you could only prove B, it is a crime. I think a majority a criminal law at some point has the word and or the word or in the statue. The other critical words are may and shall. When a law says the word “may” it means that the officer’s actions are voluntary or discretionary. When it says “shall”, it means that the officer has no choice. There are very few shall act in law-enforcement or criminal law.

Bill Burr has a really funny YouTube skits from his standup routines. YouTube Bill Burr gold digging…. But be language prepared on all of his videos.

Maybe you misunderstood my post. I never mentioned greed by word but it is all over what I wrote. I do agree that it exist but therein lies the problem. The greedy people at the top of Socialism have convinced the masses at the bottom that greed does not exist. That’s why I talked about the group hug and everybody being together. That is a fallacy and always will be. Nobody is together in most situations except to look after their own interest. I also call it incentive. Most people are driven in most situations to do tasks that benefit them. Why do people work overtime? Because they make extra money. I don’t call that greed, that is incentive for bettering your life. I was answering the question (which I highlighted), what motivates Democrats to push it. Motivation is the people (Democrats) at the top wanting control (which is greed) convincing the people at the bottom (voting Democrats) that the greedy people at the top are not really greedy and only looking out for the people at the bottom. When people push the notion that we are “all in this together“, it is many times covering the fact that the people pushing it simply wants to control the people at the bottom. Republicans, conservative, free-market capitalist, etc., also want to be at the top. They simply realize that free enterprise and capitalism drives the ability to do that.

For the people at the top it is about control. For the minions at the bottom, it is the belief that “this time”, Socialism will work. The other thousand times it has been tried in the world and failed was because “it was not us”. I think it is from the virtuous belief that if we all group hug, we will all get along and it was just a few people that are hampering this world wide collective. It would probably work with a bunch of pre-programmed robots making them like minded.

The United States Constitution, which created this country we now have (as a follow-up to the Articles of Confederation) , was enacted for the very reason to not have states united. That was the entire point of the articles and ultimately the Constitution.