I don't see what the big deal is with the porn case, it was obviously an accident, I really can't see a 40 year old woman lookign up porn while she is substituting. I'm pretty sure that most seventh graders know enough about porn not to freak out. We are just a bit to sensitive about sex in this country, methinks.
The fucked up part is that she's already been convicted and is waiting for her sentence at the time of the article. It says that police never even bothered to check for spyware! It's time for her defense lawyer to appeal that shit.
Playing Devil's Advocate, she claims it was a pop-up. Students complained, and the history of visited sites showed porn. But, they didn't check the teacher's story thoroughly.
We also don't know for what the computer was really being used. What was she doing when the porn came up. What if there were multiple windows open and the porn was there before she returned, under the hair-style web-site. I bet one of the kids did it.
Of course one of the kids did it. It says that they were looking at hair style pages, and they clicked a link to another hair style page, and that page had links to pornographic websites.
I mean, sure, the teacher could have done a little more to keep that off the screen, but the police could have done a hell of a lot more to find out what really happened.
I don't mean to be mean but, "She says she used the computer and went to the bathroom, returning to find the permanent teacher gone and two students viewing a Web site on hair styles." is the only information about what actually happened. How do you get "they were looking at hair style pages, and they clicked a link to another hair style page, and that page had links to pornographic websites."?
Huh. I could have swore that it said that before, but it appears that I must have heard that elsewhere. Sorry about that. But now I'm gonna be bothered trying to figure out where the hell I got that idea from.
BAKERSFIELD - A family is turned away by a local pediatrician, they say because of the way they look.
The doctor said he is just following his beliefs, creating a Christian atmosphere for his patients.
Tasha Childress said it’s discrimination.
She said Dr. Gary Merrill wouldn’t treat her daughter for an ear infection because Tasha, the mother, has tattoos.
The writing is on the wall—literally: “This is a private office. Appearance and behavior standards apply.”
For Dr. Gary Merrill of Christian Medical Services, that means no tattoos, body piercings, and a host of other requirements—all standards Merrill has set based upon his Christian faith.
“She had to go that entire night with her ear infection with no medicine because he has his policy,” Tasha Childress said.
Merrill won’t speak on camera, but said based on his values and beliefs, he has standards that he expects in his office.
He does that, he said, to ensure the patients he does accept have a more comfortable atmosphere.
According to the American Medical Association and other doctors, he reserves that right.
“In the same sense that any other business person has the opportunity to decline service, be it a restaurant if they’re not dressed properly, be it any other type of business,” said Dr. Ronald Morton, Kern County Medical Society.
Morton said certain ethics apply if a person’s life is in danger, but besides that, there is no requirement to serve anyone they don’t approve of.
“I felt totally discriminated against, like I wasn’t good enough to talk to,” Tasha Childress said, “like he didn’t have to give me any reason for not wanting to see my daughter because I have tattoos and piercings.”
17 News found other patients who had a different experience with Merrill.
“I have tattoos, actually, and no, nothing’s ever been said about it,” Brandi Stanley said, Merrill’s patient.
Childress’ insurance company, Health Net of California, who referred her to Merrill, said in a statement: “We provide our customers with a wide breadth of doctors that meet certain medical quality standards … If a customer doesn’t feel comfortable with a particular physician, it is our responsibility to provide that customer with access to another doctor who does meet their needs.”
But that’s not enough for Childress who wants the policy changed immediately and an apology from the doctor for making her feel like an outsider.
“Really, it didn’t matter what he didn’t want to see us for. It isn’t right,” she said.
If you have a story idea, mail it to 2120 L Street, or submit it at KGET.com by clicking on “Your Stories.”
Merrill said he will continue to enforce the rules he has in place, which even include no chewing gum in his office.
He said if they don’t like his beliefs, they can find another doctor.
You know, that actually sounds like a very un-Christian attitude, from what I remember of Sunday School. If nothing else, the doc should have tried to "bring them into the faith." God cares about your heart, not your appearance.
But this guy will get his. People will see the news and he'll lose patients.
I wish that were the case, but this is how I see it:
1: Red State businessman (or in this case, doctor) pulls an asshole move.
2: News media picks it up, he loses three patients
3: Twenty redneck families catch wind of this "hero who stood up for morality" and promptly herd their fat little children to this office. Ka-ching!
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- An 84-year-old woman who confessed to having sex with an 11-year-old boy in her foster care reached a deal with prosecutors and pleaded guilty Thursday to attempted sex abuse, officials said.
Georgie Audean Buoy will serve 36 months in prison, said Leslie Wolf, chief deputy district attorney for Wasco County. She was originally charged with six counts, including attempted rape, for which she faced eight years in prison, Wolf said.
In a taped confession, Buoy admitted to having sex with the boy while he was in her care in 2004, Wolf said. Her age and lack of prior criminal convictions played a role in the plea deal.
Buoy's attorney, Andrew Carter, did not return messages Thursday.
Buoy, of The Dalles, was a longtime member of her church and volunteered at the county jail, Wolf said.
She must register as a sex offender after serving her sentence at a women's prison, and must pay $5,000 to the victim, as well as up to $7,500 in restitution for counseling.
Oh, never mind the poor sick child. If the mother has a damned tattoo, who cares if the child gets better? That asshat deserves to have his medical lisence revoked.
As much as we may not like it, medical care is a business in the United States. As owners of an establishment and providers of a paid service, doctors can reserve the right to refuse service. The mother and child could easily go to another doctor that had no such reservations. If that doctor in turn receives more business, the one with the scruples may reconsider his practices in order to get more customers. That's how business works!
"MY daughter HAD to go the night with an ear infection blah blah blah"
What the hell? You didn't take the kid somewhere else?
Edit: This event took place in Bakersfield, California. Now, I won't claim to be an expert on the locale, but I'm pretty damned sure they have more than one doctor in town, and at <i>least</i> one clinic/hospital that specializes in pediatrics, and would be open after normal business hours.
The knee-jerk reaction is to rip on this discriminatory doctor, but I'm pretty sure these parents are just as big of assholes as the Doc and his office staff(well, the ones that support that specific priniciple).
You forget the other mother in the article who has a tattoo and is still allowed service, making the doctor guilty of discrimination. The rules have to apply to all or to none.
A Bartow County couple will go before a magistrate judge today to see if they will be arrested for allegedly stalking a Kennesaw police officer by installing cameras to track neighborhood speeders.
Lee and Teresa Sipple spent $1,200 mounting three video cameras and a radar speed unit outside their home, which is at the bottom of a hill. They have said they did so in hopes of convincing neighbors to slow down to create a safe environment for their son.
The Sipples allegedly caught Kennesaw police officer Richard Perrone speeding up to 17 mph over the speed limit. Perrone alerted Bartow authorities, who in turn visited the Sipples' home to tell them Perrone intended to press charges against them for stalking.
We don't know why he's discriminating against the woman. We only know it's not because of the tattoo. There's probably something else the article isn't sharing.
As for the policeman speeding... Duh? Police speed all the time. What was that couple thinking?
Well, I'll sacrifice my sanity and be the only one to acknowledge that an 84 year old woman statutorily (or otherwise) raping an 11 year old under her legal care is one of the MOST fucked up things I've heard in awhile. Congrats, Serephel. *shiver*
Only 17 over the limit? I've seen cops get away with a lot worse, my personal favorite being the guy that turned his lights on to run a red light without even slowing, and then promptly turned them off.
Well, I'll sacrifice my sanity and be the only one to acknowledge that an 84 year old woman statutorily (or otherwise) raping an 11 year old under her legal care is one of the MOST fucked up things I've heard in awhile. Congrats, Serephel. *shiver*
Only 17 over the limit? I've seen cops get away with a lot worse, my personal favorite being the guy that turned his lights on to run a red light without even slowing, and then promptly turned them off.
I personally saw that happen two nights ago, about 3 miles from my house. It was hilarious.
Now, as for the 80-something woman raping the 11 year old: This simultaneously blows, scars, and calls my mind a dirty pig.
"MY daughter HAD to go the night with an ear infection blah blah blah"
What the hell? You didn't take the kid somewhere else?
Edit: This event took place in Bakersfield, California. Now, I won't claim to be an expert on the locale, but I'm pretty damned sure they have more than one doctor in town, and at <i>least</i> one clinic/hospital that specializes in pediatrics, and would be open after normal business hours.
The knee-jerk reaction is to rip on this discriminatory doctor, but I'm pretty sure these parents are just as big of assholes as the Doc and his office staff(well, the ones that support that specific priniciple).
You forget the other mother in the article who has a tattoo and is still allowed service, making the doctor guilty of discrimination. The rules have to apply to all or to none.
We don't know why he's discriminating against the woman. We only know it's not because of the tattoo. There's probably something else the article isn't sharing.
OR the other patients didn't have obviously visible tatoos. You can't just assume he's using the tattoos as an excuse because he has some other problem. If he doesn't like tattoos in his office because he's trying to make a pleasent atmosphere for his other patients, then it's up to him to decide what is or isn't an acceptable tattoo. If you go to a nice restaurant that requires jackets and ties and you show up with a crappy sports jacket and really tacky neck-tie, they may not let you in, even though you technically followed the sign. He doesn't have to follow his written rules to the ltter if he chooses not to. It certainly doesn't have to apply to "all or none".
Comments
"What the f*** is that?!!".
The fucked up part is that she's already been convicted and is waiting for her sentence at the time of the article. It says that police never even bothered to check for spyware! It's time for her defense lawyer to appeal that shit.
I mean, sure, the teacher could have done a little more to keep that off the screen, but the police could have done a hell of a lot more to find out what really happened.
Listen up, Mary, I can kick whoever I want out of my practice here.
But this guy will get his. People will see the news and he'll lose patients.
1: Red State businessman (or in this case, doctor) pulls an asshole move.
2: News media picks it up, he loses three patients
3: Twenty redneck families catch wind of this "hero who stood up for morality" and promptly herd their fat little children to this office. Ka-ching!
What the hell? You didn't take the kid somewhere else?
Edit: This event took place in Bakersfield, California. Now, I won't claim to be an expert on the locale, but I'm pretty damned sure they have more than one doctor in town, and at <i>least</i> one clinic/hospital that specializes in pediatrics, and would be open after normal business hours.
The knee-jerk reaction is to rip on this discriminatory doctor, but I'm pretty sure these parents are just as big of assholes as the Doc and his office staff(well, the ones that support that specific priniciple).
edit: and inconsistency
As for the policeman speeding... Duh? Police speed all the time. What was that couple thinking?
Still, caught is caught. They weren't targeting that one cop, it was a general thing, so I hope his stalking charges don't stick.
Woo!!!
I personally saw that happen two nights ago, about 3 miles from my house. It was hilarious.
Now, as for the 80-something woman raping the 11 year old: This simultaneously blows, scars, and calls my mind a dirty pig.
OR the other patients didn't have obviously visible tatoos. You can't just assume he's using the tattoos as an excuse because he has some other problem. If he doesn't like tattoos in his office because he's trying to make a pleasent atmosphere for his other patients, then it's up to him to decide what is or isn't an acceptable tattoo. If you go to a nice restaurant that requires jackets and ties and you show up with a crappy sports jacket and really tacky neck-tie, they may not let you in, even though you technically followed the sign. He doesn't have to follow his written rules to the ltter if he chooses not to. It certainly doesn't have to apply to "all or none".