Jump to content
I've seen a couple of your comments about this guns and trucks thing. I drive a pickup truck and I own guns. I've written many pro-gun and pro-2nd Amendment columns. So I really don't understand why you think I'm being derogatory.
At the auction you mention, the guns were the featured items. When you pull into a parking lot and see 100 pickups with Bass Pro Shop and Ducks Unlimited stickers in their back windows, it doesn't take a detective to figure out that the guns are going to be popular items to bid on. I was just surprised at some of the stuff they bought and what they paid for it. (What is any serious gun guy going to do with a bright, neon blue and white .25? And even if you wanted it as a novelty, why would you pay nearly $200 for it?)
So I promise you, I have nothing against guys in trucks who own guns. I am that guy.
I didn't steam over it for five days to work up the courage, and I promise you, I in no way feel threatened by you. I didn't notice your comments until then, because the truth is I don't normally pay you any attention. Kind of like when your neighbor's dog barks so long that you finally don't hear it anymore.
And no, you don't get my point, "NewsReader," and obviously you're never going to because you don't want to. You want to be adversarial. An irritant. A rock in a shoe. You're retired? And you don't have anything better to do than to tell everyone how stupid they are? Seriously, have all the fish been caught? Is the Grand Canyon or the Pacific Ocean not still available for sightseeing? Retirement should be more fun.
Your No. 4 response proves that you are delusional about how this works. We move stories off the home page for no other reason than to make room for more that are more timely. It really is that simple. Yet you see a conspiracy of some sort, a group of journalists who gather together in some dark conclave wearing black robes to plot the destruction of free society. It just doesn't work that way, and it gets old trying to explain it to people.
You also impart power on me that I do not possess. I write a weekly newspaper column. Some people like it. Some don't. I don't feel like I'm king of the world or that I preach the gospel. I have no illusions about making any grand changes in public policy.
I'm very lucky to have this platform, and I enjoy putting my opinions out there. I enjoy debating people who disagree. I do not enjoy debating people who disagree just because they don't understand and don't want to.
But what I really loathe, the bane of my professional life in the 21st century, is keyboard courage, the anonymous lurkers who prowl the bowels of the Internet like trapdoor spiders, just waiting to come out of their hole and pounce on somebody, to wrap them in their web of caustic nonsense just to feed their need to feel superior. They won't sign an email or a letter, won't put a face with a name, won't take responsibility for all the opinions for which they seem to be so proud. It's gutless, pure and simple. And it's why I usually ignore people like that.
And since I just don't have the time for this anymore, I will now reinstate the policy of ignoring you. I guess it would be too much to ask that you do the same.
1) You don't get the point of my column. Period. PLEASE go back and read it again and try to understand that my point is not to circumvent the will of the patient or the family. My point is the facility should have a policy that it tries to save lives when people don't wish to die. As is, if this lady had wanted to live, she would still be dead because that's the company's policy, to do nothing.
2) I don't have a problem with fair criticism at all. I actually like hate mail when it makes a point. What I have a problem with is people who make knee-jerk comments based on what they THOUGHT they read. I never said, "Save 'em all anyway, whether they like it or not." I said, "Don't have a corporate policy that saves no one, ever, whether they like it or not."
3) Don't talk to me about heat and kitchens when you're not even in the kitchen in the first place. You hurl all your self-righteous thunderbolts at this website from the anonymity of cyberspace. I would think you'd want the credit. Yet you post no photo or name. You're just a phantom with a computer. And what exactly is your motivation for your limitless, anonymous commenting? Changing the world? Or just stirring the pot and being as big an irritant as possible? If it's the latter, I pity you.
4) We don't remove columns. They are on the web forever. We simply replace the top stories every day, sometimes multiple times a day, in an effort to keep the website current. But the columns are there, I assure you. Search my name, and they'll all show up. Or go here: http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/news/analysis_opinion/columns/nate_mccullough/
The point is not that THIS lady preferred to go out that way. The point is it was the company's policy to not administer CPR no matter what, even if she had wanted to live. Listen to the 911 tape and then imagine that Bayless wanted to live. Better yet, imagine your mother or grandmother lying there gasping for breath. She'd still be dead because no one would've been willing to help. That's the point, which I thought I made clearly.
I swear I'm going to quit writing columns.
Sadly, I fear the answer is C.
This phrase on his Wikipedia entry remind you of anyone else?:
"free-spending, authoritarian populist"
You hit on several key points: 1) It's going to take a JFK — a visionary — to truly transform America's energy policy. We seem to be lacking in that area right now. 2) Not only do we lose ground to China every day, but the very fact that they're outpacing us is what makes their demand for oil go up, which drives up prices. 3) Oil companies do not deserve subsidies. But take them away and watch that cost get passed on to the consumer. And don't forget government taxes that are keyed to price increases —cost goes up, the tax goes up —add a chunk onto the price of a gallon. 4) The answer is technology. In 2012, it makes no sense to have so many people on the road driving to jobs they could do from home. Employers have to start studying the facts — that people tend to be more productive at home — and quit clinging to the idea that if someone is not physically present then they must be goofing off.
And I've been saying that about the sun for years. If it can burn my skin from 94 million miles away, you'd think we'd figure out how to power our houses with it in a cost-effective manner. Unfortunately, the debacle over the half-billion-dollar government loan to Solyndra is going to color people's opinions against developing that sort of technology. They will throw the baby out with the bathwater.
How in the world did I take you "out of context?" I printed your whole comment verbatim.
A great first entry! Keep 'em coming.
Last login: Tuesday, March 11, 2014