Lee B

You come upon the following pairs. Choose one to team up with and one to send on his or her way. Have some fun and feel free to elaborate. Explain some of your choices.

1) A - Barak Obama with his signature hope and change; B - Ted Nugent with a bow and arrows and a .45 ACP w/ammo to spare

2) A - Woody Harrelson with a banjo and a bong (sorry, no weed); B - George W. Bush with a chainsaw and ax

3) A - Bono; B - Sean Penn

4) A - Dave Navarro with a battery powered tattoo gun and acoustic guitar; B - An aging veterinarian that is also an experienced farmer

5) A - Scott Ian and his infant child; B - An aging fellow who knows how to repair engines

6) A - Joel Osteen; B - Pamela Anderson

7) A - Your closest, dearest friend/lover/sibling; B - Chuck Norris

I work in the mental health field. My agency staffs homes for folks with developmental disabilities. All rent and utilities are paid for by the individuals; the agency only provides staff... these are not agency "sites." It appears that some staff, professionals and agency administration come and go as they please. This behavior is then repeated by other folks served by the agency... it's like seeing Kramer clones busting in.. This troubles me; it shows a lack of respect and indicates a certain "ownership" of the individuals served by the agency.

Beyond my immediate family, I would never tolerate this behavior. In fact, I would become hostile in response to such assumed familiarity. How might you react? I believe you lead by example and I believe you do unto others as you would have done unto you.

Whichever you deny is out... the other two would never lead to the other in this hypothetical scenario.

These placements are court ordered... deputies can't just take you to such a facility (unless AZ law deems that this in no way violates the Bill of Rights). Anybody have details? They're lacking in all the stories I can find.

A criminal act doesn't alone warrant consideration for placement at a secure mental health facility. Someone had to petition for this action after Fuller was arrested. Anybody know who specifically it was?

Read the article:

http://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/springfield...

Oh, please, defend this insanity. The comedy gold to be reaped from this is immeasurable.

My brother rabbit hunts and has a male (not neutered) that won't pick up spores (will run with the other dogs after a rabbit is jumped), but prefers to hang around people. Very friendly and healthy. I care for the dogs while my brother works away... I can't take another dog (have two big dogs of my own) and don't want Misfit to go to the pound. I plan to advertise locally, but would really like to find a responsible owner/safe home for the fellow... he's too much of a charmer to just be discarded.

Per the BBC and British Home Office: 126 million pints of beer or ale served per week in the UK; pint glasses or bottles reported as factor in ~ 5,500 crimes per year (I could find no fatalities).

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2009/09/british-gove...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/education/12disc...

So this little guy is now a criminal. This may reflect upon the quality (or lack thereof) in the U.S. education system. I am curious to see what parents and school personnel think about such an example and also to hear any defense of the zero tolerance mindset.

I enjoyed the flick and the story is obviously left wide open to go in several directions. Curious to know what others think and what they'd like to see if a sequel is considered. Thanks for your time. Later.

...that's not what's gonna happen (rationing... weeding out 'undesirables') per Obama? If Obama wants me to know him by the people (Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Kathleen Sebelius, et al.) he surrounds himself with, then I know he believes in rationing for the bottom line and human lives can be graded for worth by the govt. (...by who is more 'productive'). Which Obama message should be believed? Hmmm...

Yahoo! Answers is a diversion to me. I enjoy reading the questions and the answers... good and bad, intelligent and, shall we say, from the less informed. I pick up a general tone that many folks take this forum a lot more seriously than some may believe is appropriate or healthy.

I have yet to find anything in this forum that so offended me that I wanted to lash out at the poster or considered not coming back. I don't care if you don't agree with me... I may even take something away from your argument. There are the expected nimrods... so what... ignore what you find offensive and move on. Many people seem to NOT be able to do that. That's fine, but none of this activity should be taken too seriously. Yes, there are some serious topics brought up from time to time, but raging over any question just may indicate a lack of maturity/tolerance/reason (take your pick).

Just curious...

Fired from job as service coordinator (WV Title 19 MR/DD program) for letter to editor published in local paper RE: substance abuse. Letter only identifies me by name and general address, does not identify my profession or employer and does not disparage any person, agency or concern. Employer presumed that letter was grounds for termination due to company policy RE: employee conduct. Employer alleged the letter reflected negatively on the unidentified agency and (prospective?) consumers. Letter takes a libertarian view on substance abuse. Printed in June 23rd issue of Grant County Press.

I understand that WV is an "at will" state, but I was fired because the executive director concluded that somehow my opinion as a private citizen in a public forum reflected negatively on an unidentified entity.

I can cite and produce witnesses who can support the following:

1) HIPAA compliance officer knowingly discussed a consumer's case with an LPN at a funeral they both happened to be attending. The agency's executive director excused the violation because "the LPN started the conversation". This is a violation of company policy for which other employees have been fired in the past.

2) Substance abuse counselor who works as a bartender in a strip club. This is known by peers and consumers. The general consensus is that this is ridiculous and does indeed reflect negatively on the agency.

3) Residential supervisor who knowingly stated the agency's MR/DD residential consumers deserve nothing more than "three hots and a cot". This was reported by me to my immediate supervisor. This is in direct opposition to the Title 19 MR/DD Waiver's guideline of normalization. Also, the employee in question has a history of bullying families and consumers.

All three employees are still at the agency. I was know for my honesty and efficacy as service coordinator. I can provide written statements and witnesses that speak to my high quality of work and honesty.

Do I have grounds for a civil case against my former employer based on discrimination? FYI, I am male and the three employees I referred to are all women. I believe that policy is being applied subjectively to me, while three other agency employers have violated policy and there is no question that there was a HIPAA violation, conduct that reflects negatively on the agency, and statements that are disparaging to consumers receiving active services. I believe I have been discriminated against. I welcome questions and comments. Thank you for your time.

As far as I'm concerned, this is modern day phrenology. I would enjoy hearing from folks who've been subjected to graphology or who are graphologists.

We are moving to a society that the only opinion you can voice will be govt. approved. The govt. presumes to legislate the hate out of us. That means if your beliefs are contrary to another person's beliefs, you could possibly be fined or jailed (it's happening in Europe and the U.S. is following those countries' model).

On college campuses, free speech is restricted to designated areas. The thought police are here. Will we collectively roll over and accept this nonsense?

This should scare the hell out of everyone. Forums such is this one will be monitored and the U.S. government will use its resources to find and punish you.

I believe there is... to hell with what any government or entity says. According to the United Nations Human Rights Council Subcommittee on Human Rights there is no human right of self defense. Basically, per the UN, your option when attacked is to roll over and die.

No government can defend you on a moment's notice. When you condsider the source of this decision, it makes sense. The "great unwashed masses" are seen as a collective... losing a few of us here and there isn't a tragedy, it's to be expected. What matters is the armed protection of governing (or, if you like, dictating) bodies.

I am curious to hear what my fellow peons think about this matter. Thanks for your time.