Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#36 – Nice Dune reference. Kull wahad!
#55 – Monty Python rocks!
And yes the Angelina Jolie wannabe is definitely wacko and won’t be able to singlehandedly take care of 14 children. It’s too bad for the kiddies, hopefully the state will place them with loving families.
For a moment I thought another Rush Limbaugh alien was going to burst out of her. And head for the kitchen. Isn’t that how it works?
For some reason the term “welfare mother” seems to have disappeared from society’s vocabulary. I wonder why? It wasn’t acceptable when some poor black women were having children to get on public assistance. I don’t blame them, as much as I blame the system that encouraged them. But not only is it acceptable for this woman (Because she’s what? White, or an immigrant?). There’s a medical industry at her disposal, willing to get her this pregnant, on credit.
She is delusional at best and needs to ave all her children placed in homes that can actually care properly for them and not just think the state government will. She does not even know what wellfare is? Well, she’s been working it for some time!! Wake up California!!
The upshot of this is, her vagina is now so wide that the highway department has decided to use it to relive traffic congestion in the greater Los Angeles area 🙂
relive = relieve
why does this d*ck feel she has the right to ask for OUR money for something that was HER choice in the first place?
#46, Cow-Patty,
Yes, collecting disability (physical) when she wasn’t disabled.
Since when did you also have a medical degree? Second, and along with that, when did you examine her. Then third, you do realize you are violating her right to privacy and HIPPA if you are revealing her medical information.
In other words, you don’t know and are substituting your own morals and opinions on what she may do with her uterus.
So far, and there won’t be, there is no information on who will pay for this. That is between her and her insurer. It is a private and personal decision. It would be illegal to reveal that information. So all this “Well it costs $1 million” is just bullshit.
If you want the right to interfere with her body, the State should also have the right to staple your tongue to the roof of your mouth.
Imagine if each of her babies is as screwed up as she is and breeds as productively? =8|
Most of these comments are about the current economic crisis Do you think eight more children is even remotely statistical significant in Cal caid budget. I do think the implanting physician should be made to pay child support for gross negligence. The comment hoping they all will not survive was going too far. I was hoping we could self police this board to keep it civil and mature. I’ve seen dead babies, and it kicks you in the guts every time.
# 68 Mr. Fusion said, “Since when did you also have a medical degree? ”
Irrelevant. It doesn’t take a doctor to bust someone for that in CA. It just takes an investigator video taping her doing something contrary to her claim.
Again, get an education.
#71, Cow-Patty,
You want to over rule a medical diagnosis. You need proof. Even a video tape of someone doing something is not necessarily proof. If a person has been diagnosed with a disability, then it is that specific disability that must be refuted.
There is not a single case where a court has said the victim must be 100% totally disabled, bed ridden, and cared for 100% in order to qualify for Workers Compensation. You have no proof that even posing for this picture did not cause her extreme pain and discomfort. More than if she had not been disabled.
I’ve been down that road before and seen your theory shot all to hell. Great right wing nut lie, but not reality.
# 72 Mr. Fusion said, “Even a video tape of someone doing something is not necessarily proof. ”
In CA it is.
Seriously though, is that shit even healthy? I mean, the belly’s all purpley and veiney. That cannot possibly be healthy for the children, let alone the mom.
#74, Alex,
Seriously, you are correct. That size of litter at one time is extremely dangerous to the mother. She must feed each fetus with nutrients from her body.
The danger to the kids come from the induced premature birth to alleviate the mother’s condition. The babies, though cramped, are not in serious danger.
#73, Cow-Patty, legal know it all.
Can you point to one effen court case or decision where a video outweighed a physical exam from a medical expert?
I don’t think you will. You will however, come up with some stupid comment about “go google it”.
# 76 Mr. Fusion said, “Can you point to one effen court case or decision”
I’ve won about 20 of them in front of ALJs… My company won hundreds of these cases for S.C.I.F., a client.
Have you EVER worked in the area of WC or SDI in CA?
#77, Cow-Patty,
So, if you had experience handling these cases you would have some case law to back up your contention. As usual, however, you can’t back any of it up. Do you even understand what “Case Law” is?
And now you are claiming law experience too? If your company appeared for third parties in a legal manner, they would have to be licensed lawyers.
You must really think we are gullible.
# 78 Mr. Fusion said, “So, if you had experience handling these cases you would have some case law to back up your contention.”
You’re babbling again. There is no PB specifically about video.
#78 Confusion said, “If your company appeared for third parties in a legal manner, they would have to be licensed lawyers.”
Wrong again McFly. When you go before ALJs in these matters you don’t need to be an attorney.
Get a real education.
#80, Cow-Patty,
If you represent another person before a tribunal, you must be licensed. Otherwise that is considered practicing law. The exceptions are very narrow
# 81 Mr. Fusion said, “If you represent another person before a tribunal, you must be licensed. Otherwise that is considered practicing law.”
Wrong again.