Obama is as big an idiot as Bush

The press just ignores it.

When I was young, just got out of college, I had to buy auto insurance. I had a beat-up old car. And I won’t name the name of the insurance company, but there was a company — let’s call it Acme Insurance in Illinois. And I was paying my premiums every month. After about six months I got rear-ended and I called up Acme and said, I’d like to see if I can get my car repaired, and they laughed at me over the phone because really this was set up not to actually provide insurance; what it was set up was to meet the legal requirements. But it really wasn’t serious insurance.

Now, it’s one thing if you’ve got an old beat-up car that you can’t get fixed. It’s another thing if your kid is sick, or you’ve got breast cancer.

The president is an idiot. Since he had just gotten out of college, he was a lawyer. One would guess that any competent lawyer would know the difference between liability insurance and collision insurance. One would also assume that an attorney would know that being rear-ended means that the person doing the rear-ending is liable and should pay for repairs.

This quote, and his story, illustrates the problem with government mandated insurance- the companies will offer the minimum amount of coverage under the law, whether it is worth a crap or not, and many people who can't afford the good coverage will buy that minimum coverage. Of course, the insurance the president really wants to mandate would not be able to refuse you for a preexisting condition, meaning that you will not have to buy insurance to fix your car until AFTER you have an accident. How anyone thinks the insurance companies will be able to stay in business under those conditions is beyond me.

I am still undecided as to whether any human being can be as stupid and naive as Obama is, or of this is a deliberate attempt to destroy the country.

The Stupid- it hurts

I was sitting in a restaurant yesterday when I overheard the table next to me talking about the Chile earthquake. One of the women at the table said that it seems like lately there have been a lot more earthquakes than usual. The other responded that it is because the earth is mad that we are creating so much pollution, so it is trying to show its displeasure.

Aside from the obvious stupidity, here is the historical earthquake count for the last two decades, courtesy of the US Geological survey:

Someboy's watching you

or the Eye in the Sky. Rockwell. Alan Parsons Project. Whatever.

They are watching you. So, since even a teen who sends a nude picture of herself to a boyfriend via her cell is considered under the law to be distributing child porn, and the boyfriend in possession of child porn, then someone needs to explain to me how the school officials are not going to jail.

Not only that, but isn't this a violation of the Third AND Fourth amendment rights of the children and their parents?

Here it comes

The Fed just announced that they are increasing the discount lending rate half again- from .5% to .75%. Here comes phase two of the economic crisis. The US Government last year had a record deficit, increasing the debt by 16% during the last 12 months, despite interest rates dropping 13%, from 3.811 to 3.326 over that same period.

What does this mean? The government paid $383 billion in interest on the debt in 2009. If rates were to rise to pre-recession rates at say 4.188% (the rate for September 2008) interest payments on the debt would rise to over $550 billion. Obama's projected deficit of $1.5 trillion would balloon to $1.7 trillion, further increasing interest rates and the nation's debt.

Hello inflation.

Made of Win

From the website FML:

Today, I tried convincing my Valentine-hating boyfriend to send me a card, by explaining how important it is to me. He finally agreed and sent me a card. I opened it up, and it wished me ‘harmony and well-being on Lupercalia’. What is Lupercalia? It’s an ancient Roman festival where men run down the street naked, whipping people with goat skins to encourage fertility. FML

One of the replies:

THE ONLY THING I EVER LEARNED IN LATIN, BUT IT WAS WORTH IT BECAUSE LUPERCALIA IS AWESOME.

I LIED, LATIN REALLY WASN’T WORTH IT. AT ALL. BUT LUPERCALIA IS A WIN. WHICH REMINDS ME OF THE REAL BEST HOLIDAY EVER: GRENDELSMASH.

I have been sitting here for 20 minutes reading these.


Ohhh- or this one:

Today, my boyfriend wanted to have Valentine’s Day sex. He then remembered it was unlimited pancakes at IHOP.

Team Mascot Eats Cheerleader

Bestiality? Sex? Nope, just me going for the cheap hits, being the post whore I am.




Tip of the hat goes to the Innocent Bystanders

Law, medicine, education

There was a time when law and medicine were affordable in this country. There was a time when nearly anyone could become a lawyer or a doctor. That was before our colleges changed the system.

Abraham Lincoln was admitted to the State Bar of Illinois in 1837 after spending 3 years reading and studying Blackstone's book, Commentaries on the Laws of England. Lincoln had a total of 18 months of formal education in his entire life. Now it takes a minimum of 19 years of formal education to become an attorney, 7 of that in a University.

If you want to make something (anything) cheaper, you need to either increase supply or decrease demand. The way to increase the supply of either doctors or lawyers is to make becoming a doctor or lawyer easier without hurting the quality.

Four years of this education is spent getting a Bachelor's degree. Anyone who has a degree will tell you that the first two years of the four required to earn a Bachelor's degree is spend studying subjects that have exactly zero to do with being a doctor or lawyer.

The standard excuse is that you become a more well rounded person when you study the unrelated subjects. My response to you is that when I go to the doctor, or hire a layer, I do not care how well rounded you are, I only care whether or not you are a good doctor or lawyer.

That credit conspiracy again

Want to know why the number of foreclosures isn't dropping?

Video Marketing and Mortgage News Designed for Mortgage and Real Estate Sales

Credit conspiracy, indeed.

Women, the Military, and using your kids to get out of duty

Remember when I put up this post concerning women using pregnancy to get out of doing what they are supposed to be doing? Here is another example of a woman using her vagina as a reason to escape duty.

When I was in the military, I was told: "If we wanted you to have a family, we would have issued one to you."

I hated it at the time, because the saying was used to justify any petty order they wanted to stick on you- including pointless after hours work details (and most peacetime military work is pointless). In this case, though- this is a scheduled wartime deployment, not a pointless training exercise or work detail. Let this become common, and readiness is compromised.

Her 13 month old child was born AFTER she entered military service in 2007, between 26 and 37 months ago. Think of this:

When military women become pregnant, they are transferred to commands that fit certain criteria, such as being close to a medical center. The length of that assignment changed in June 2007, when the DOD extended the postpartum tour from four months after a child’s birth to 12 months. Combined with a nine-month pregnancy, that puts expectant mothers on limited duty for up to 21 months.

Picture this: This young woman joined the military, and finished two months of Boot Camp, followed by 4 months of school. She got her orders, and reported to her first command: She had been in the Army for 6 months, and had not contributed to the mission one bit. She then got pregnant, and sat on limited duty for up to 21 months. Now she has been in the military for 27 months- more than half of her 4 year enlistment is over, and has yet to do anything to earn the money she has been paid, and the taxpayer has paid for her medical care and training.

It finally comes time for her first deployment- (23 to 35 months into her enlistment), and she says she can't go because she is a single parent.


Hmmm. Good use of taxpayer funds, there.

Public Pictures

Here are some stunning pictures of the WTC on 9/11. The photographer snapped them while on duty as a police detective, flying in a police helicopter. He complains that some of his pictures were published without his consent, and also states that he may publish the rest in a book.

I say:

The public owns those pictures, as they were taken while you were on duty, being PAID by the public, in a helicopter paid for by tax dollars. Just what were you doing, taking pictures, when you should have been doing your JOB?

Fine, publish them. However, you should be billed for the helicopter time, the pilot's time, the fuel, your pay should be returned to the taxpayers, and you should be charged with dereliction of duty. Did anyone die that day, while you were taking 3,000 pictures for your own profit?

The increasingly worthless Constitution

In response to yesterday's post about the Obama administration's policy of authorizing the assassination of American citizens who are suspected of being a terrorist threat, I get the following email:

This is nothing new. The CIA has always had the "first strike" right to kill. Just as a Police Officer does and you and I do if threatened. It is my understanding though that there is no legal ability in our justice system to take a terrorist off a plane and shoot him in the head. Did you read that post I put up the other day. It is what the Judge said to the shoe bomber after his trial. It puts all this "trial" talk into to perspective. For the record I would prefer if the terrorists would just be killed before trial. It's cheaper. If we fail to accomplish that then legally our only other option is our justice system. If we can send nazi's to trial surely we can handle these goat herders.

There are a number of things that are incorrect about the above statement:

1 The CIA (or any other government agency, for that matter) does not have rights. They have powers. LARGE difference.

2 The Obama administration has been bleating on about how terrorists have RIGHTS, and should be allowed access to lawyers, fair trials, etc. Or did they only deserve that when Bush was in charge?

3 Note also that the CIA has never had the authority to operate inside the United States.

4 First kill suspected terrorists, THEN try the survivors in the Justice system because it is CHEAPER? Really?

5 Here is the same question I asked during the Bush administration: just who decides what a terrorist is? The Homeland Security Secretary?

6 There is a very large difference between assassinating a person who you think MAY be a terrorist, and shooting a person because they present an imminent threat to the health and safety of others. The fact that there is time to get the approval of the Justice Department is evidence that there is no imminent threat. Imagine, if you will, a police officer calling the Mayor to get permission to kill a suspected bank robber.

Democrats and Republicans both need to stop all this bickering, and stop being apologists for their parties. This is why I am not in either party- I see no difference between the two- they are both willing to oppress the proles in order to advance their agendas.

Several times in my life, I took an oath to defend my nation against all enemies- foreign AND domestic. I am beginning to wonder if that makes me a potential target for assassination.

Due process

Our Constitutional rights are under attack every day. Anyone who has followed my blog knows that I frequently write about the Second and First Amendment.

I have written about the third amendment, and how that right applies to us today.

the same goes for the Fourth.

Last May, I wrote a post about Ashton Lundeby, the 16 year old being held without trial, or even access to an attorney. At the time, I wrote this:

When the Patriot Act was passed, many Americans warned that this law would be abused. We were told that we were being ridiculous and paranoid. "Everyone deserves their day in court," we said. We were told that terrorists didn't deserve constitutional protections. "But what happens when the definition of terrorist is expanded?" we asked. "That won't happen," we were told, "stop being paranoid."

Well, here we are. First, it is kids calling in bomb threats. Then, it will be some other demographic that fits some legally technical definition. It will not be long before people who own evil assault rifles are declared to be terrorists.

(Remember that the Obama administration has already said that veterans are potential terrorists.)

Here is the next step down that slippery slope:

The director of national intelligence affirmed rather bluntly today that the U.S. intelligence community has authority to target American citizens for assassination if they present a direct terrorist threat to the United States.

There is more:

According to U.S. officials, only a handful of Americans would be eligible for targeting by U.S. intelligence or military operations. The legal guidance is determined by the National Security Council and the Justice Department.

Where does the Constitution grant that power?

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.- Amendment V, United States Constitution.

Funny, I don't see anything in there about summary executions by the so-called Justice Department. I wonder how long it will be before the execution list is as inaccurate as the no-fly list, and how long it will be before the Second Amendment proves its value.

Crisis

A paramedic comes to me and shows me a monitor strip of a patient in new onset Aflutter at a rate of 180. The patient was unstable, and the medic treated the patient by cardioverting him at 50joules. The patient converted, and transported to the hospital in a SR with all symptoms resolved.

An hour later, the duty supervisor comes in and begins telling the medic that he should not have cardioverted the patient, and instead should have given the patient adenosine. This touched off a discussion where I pointed out that adenosine will not work to correct Aflutter, and that studies have shown that adenosine can, in some cases, even CAUSE Afib or Aflutter. Since we no longer carry cardizem, I told the supervisor that cardioversion was the correct thing for this medic to have done. He replied, "Well, adeosine wouldn't have hurt her. What's the big deal?"

Now keep in mind this is the same supervisor who happened upon a code, and had to call another medic on his cell phone and ask him "What drug comes after epi in an asystole code?"

$3.83 trillion

That is the proposed Obama budget for FY 2011, that is the fiscal year that begins October 1, 2010. A whopping $3.83 trillion. That staggering sum is following the $3.72 trillion for the fiscal year we are currently in. Assuming that Obama doesn't ask for, and Congress doesn't approve, any other spending, and assuming that tax receipts hold true to predictions, and assuming that interest rates don't rise, the US government will show a $1.56 trillion deficit in 2010, and a $1.27 trillion deficit in 2011, bringing the national debt to about $15.2 trillion by the end of FY2011.

There are quite a few assumptions there. I am sure that something else will happen in the next two years to force the administration to spend more than predicted. After all, when has the government ever done anything under budget?

When Obama took over the presidency, we were $10.6 trillion in debt. We are now $12.3 trillion in debt. We are budgeted to be $15.2 trillion in debt by the end of next fiscal year. This is change?

I think we have reached the point of no return. There is no way we can pay back the money we owe, even if we had the will to do what is required of us, and we don't have the will to stop spending.