More indoctrination

When arriving at work this morning, I found this in my mailbox:

I want to you take a close look at what the schools want teachers to do:

- Organize discussion groups in class or after school to talk about and promote homosexuality.
- Bring up homosexuality in conversations with friends and in class discussions.
- Put up posters and wear items promoting homosexuality.

Here is my feeling on this:
- I teach chemistry. Promoting homosexuality is not a part of my course content. I won't do it. I am not going to tell underaged teen boys that it is acceptable to suck dick, or underage teen girls that they should be out there licking pussy. I am just not going to do it.

- From a biological standpoint, if homosexuality were to become the norm, our species would cease to exist, as it interferes with reproduction. This by definition makes homosexuality a behavioral disorder. That isn't to say that people who are homosexual should be mistreated or bullied in any way, nor forced into treatment, but I don't feel that it needs to be celebrated or promoted any more than does flatulence, halitosis, or coronary heart disease.

- As far as transgenders: just because you believe yourself to be a woman does not make it so, any more than I would be a chicken if I claimed to be one. If you believe yourself to be of a sex other than the one which you biologically are, you have a mental disorder. Treatment should be offered for this, but not forced upon transgenders, unless that transgender belief endangers you or others.

However, professing the above beliefs and opinions would get me terminated if it were to become known amongst my coworkers. Free speech, my ass.

600-pound pig was seen at a polling place in New Hampshire

The headline read: "600-pound pig was seen at a polling place in New Hampshire"

My first thought was "Michael Moore got out of the hospital?"

Elections have consequences

I came across this piece, and I agree.

Back in 2008, when then-candidate Obama promised Joe the Plumber and the rest of America that he intended to spread the wealth around, most democrat and liberal voters embraced the notion of wealth redistribution under the guise of equality. A universal health care plan, that would be free for all Americans, was the promise from the candidate of hope and change.
Tens of millions of Americans jumped on the bandwagon waving their flags, fainting at his appearances, and fawning over his every word.

There's more:

You, and the rest of the 50 million people who elected Barack Obama to not one, but two terms, deserve the pain that’s coming.
You asked for it. Now bask in it.

Go. Read the whole thing.

21% raise

So the employees of Orlando, Florida haven't had a raise in three years, and 4 years ago, they got a half a percent raise. The public at large has seen falling pay, while the economy has tanked. So it makes perfect sense that the elected leaders of the city should get a 21% raise.

Half an hour can last forever

Thirty minutes. That is how long the shooter in DC had to kill before police caught up with him. It was seven minutes before the first cops even entered the building. This is not a criticism of police, it's just that they cannot be everywhere. I feel like they did what they could, and did it well. You are responsible for protecting yourself and your loved ones. Own a gun, and learn how to use it. Thirty minutes can be the rest of your life.

Cooking the books

I will no longer post about the country's national debt. That number, as reported by the treasury, is no longer accurate. According to the US treasury, the national debt has remained the same (it is actually about $700 million lower) since May 31, at $16.738 trillion. Are you telling me that the Federal government has not spent any money in the past two months?
The books are either being cooked by changing accounting methods in a way that would have a private sector accountant thrown in jail, or the government is monetizing the debt like nobody's business, meaning that inflation, and lots of it, is on the horizon.
Either way, those figures are now meaningless.

Government destroying the auto industry

I was recently looking for a compact pickup truck. Something small. After looking, what I found was that the smallest trucks are what used to be called mid-sized trucks. I wondered why the smaller compact ones were no longer made. It turns out that the answer is: government.

The biggest stumbling block is the chicken tax. Passed in 1963, this law is a protectionist tariff imposed by the U.S. in 1963 after Germany tripled the duty on frozen U.S. chicken products coming into that country.If a small truck is imported into the US, it is subject to a 25% tax. This has a big effect on not only "foreign" car makers, but the domestics as well. Why? Because it is a tax based on where the truck is MADE, not where the company is based. (After all, Toyota USA is a domestic company.)

One is Ford Motor Co.’s Transit Connect small van, which the firm builds in Turkey and wants to sell in the US. Another is a compact diesel pickup truck that Indian manufacturer Mahindra wants to offer U.S. buyers. The problem is that small vehicles that are subject to this tax cannot compete with larger, midsized trucks, because a $12,000 truck when imported becomes a $15,000 truck, and is now in the price range of the midsized trucks. 

The tax started in a classic trade war between nations but now is a powerful protectionist tool for U.S. interests. The hefty levy forced Honda, Nissan and Toyota to build trucks here, but Ford and Mahindra have other ideas until they can prove the market is ready for their products.

But what about building them here? Well, you can thank CAFE for that.  CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) came as a result of the 1973 oil embargo, as a means to mandate fuel economy targets for cars and light trucks. Over the last four decades, the standards have evolved, with the latest iteration being the targets set for fuel economy in the year 2025. The 2025 targets were released this summer, and comprise 1,944 pages full of legalese.

One of CAFEs biggest impacts in recent times has manifested itself in how auto makers classify products. Under CAFE, vehicles can be labeled “passenger cars” or “light trucks”, with the latter category required to meet less stringent standards for fuel economy and CO2 emissions. A decade ago, the Chrysler PT Cruiser was the most egregious example of this. The PT Cruiser was designed to meet NHTSA standards for classification as a light truck, for the express purpose of raising Chrysler’s light truck average fuel economy. At the time, the minimum fleet average for passenger cars was 27.5 mpg CAFE, while for light trucks it was 20.7 mpg CAFE. A small, four-cylinder vehicle like the PT Cruiser was effectively a “ringer” for Chrysler’s fleet average. The year 2000 CAFE targets discussed above translate to 21 mpg IRL for passenger cars and 15 mpg IRL for light trucks.  A “light truck” like the PT would obviously have no trouble surpassing these standards.

 On the surface, the footprint requirements can be viewed as logical; a compact, fuel-efficient car like the Honda Fit, should be able to hit tougher targets, by virtue of its small size, aerodynamic profile and powertrain choices. It manages a respectable 28/35 mpg. The Ford F-150 has a very different mission; it must be large, durable, powerful and able to meet the needs of a full-size pickup, and will naturally be less conducive to achieving the kind of fuel economy that a Fit can.

Unfortunately, the footprint method has the opposite effect; rather than encouraging auto makers to strive for unprecedented fuel economy in their passenger car offerings, it has incentivized auto makers to build larger cars, in particular, more car-based crossovers that can be classified as “trucks” as used to skew fleet average figures. Compact trucks have become nearly extinct as a result.

 Because of these regulations and taxes, it costs $1 billion at minimum to design and test a new model. So this is why we get so few new cars that are truly new. What we mostly get is minor changes to existing designs, and they slap a new name on it. So the small truck has either been taxed or regulated out of existence. Now you know...

Fairness

Scott Cate is a man who has everything you would want: A yacht, a private jet, a speedboat, and other toys. He also is passionate about the athletic program of the High School where his sons went to school, where he volunteers to coach football. As a self-made millionaire, he made a pile of money when he sold the company that he built from the ground up and retired. He decided to spend his time coaching high school football as a volunteer, and also funded many projects to help the school. He built $4 million worth of projects: A turf field, a weight room, a press box, and other projects.

He also funds an after school program that tutors high school students. In short, he is the kind of guy that the school system should be delighted to have as a booster. 

How did the school district thank him? They passed a rule prohibiting him from volunteering his time. It seems that many parents accuse him of doing this to build an all star team around his son. The problem with this accusation is that he has not had a child in school since 2006. It seems that the real problem here is that other schools in the district didn't like the fact that the school was successfully recruiting athletes from other schools because of the successful tutoring and athletics programs.

On any given afternoon, players can be found in the study hall with former college stars like Kaufusi. Cate retains the tutors, who double as assistant coaches, with a personal services contract. He pays for their advanced degrees or teaching certificates if they agree to spend five years working at any high school.

 The man says that he will take his time and his money, and donate it somewhere that it will be appreciated. Another case of class warfare and jealousy making equality more important than excellence. The idea here is that other schools were jealous that they did not have their own donor, so to make things "fair" decided to deprive the school of a substantial source of support. Never mind that this school was taking failing students, and turning them into A students.

Bills counted 11 players living within the Kearns boundaries on rival Hunter High's sideline during a lopsided loss this season. "You don't mind getting beat," he said, "but you hate getting beat by your own kids."

Certain schools are magnets for parents who think their children can thrive athletically and possibly earn college scholarships. Recruiting allegations have swirled for years, most notably around perennial power Skyline.

Lately, talk has shifted to Cottonwood, a team that until last year endured 17 straight losing seasons. The Colts lost in the 4A championship game last November and are poised for a state title run this season. The team's star running back, Stanley Havili, lives outside the area as do several other top players.

This is the end goal of socialism: to place everyone on the same plane, even if that plane is at the bottom. This is what "fair" looks like.

Misfit

When people I know ask me which political party I consider myself a part of, many are surprised to hear that I do not consider myself a Republican because I own guns. As if gun ownership is the exclusive domain of the Republican party. However, I have done a lot of soul searching and decided that there is no political party for me.

I cannot be a Democrat, because I do not believe in taking money from one person and giving it to another, for no other reason that the rich have more than the poor, and because I am a gun owner who believes that gun ownership should be far less restricted than it is.

I cannot be a Republican because I believe that people should be able to marry whomever they choose, and that includes bigamy, homosexuality, and incest. As long as you are an adult, it should be your choice. It is none of my business what other adults do with their lives.

It is at this point in the conversation that many friends will thoughtfully say to me, "It sounds like you should be a Libertarian."
I cannot be a Libertarian, because because they think that immigration should be free and open, and there should be no borders. Libertarians also believe that services like police and fire should be private subscription services, but I would counter that these services are a part of the defense that causes mankind to form communities in the first place. (Although I will admit that many police and fire departments are much larger than they have to be.) In fact, I think that many people who attempt to claim to be Libertarians are actually confusing anarchy with that particular philosophy.

That brings to mind that anarchy will not work for me, either. I still think that we need police, fire, courts, and jails. We need national defense, but nowhere near the levels that we have now.

I do have to say that I really like the thoughts here, and they mirror many of my own beliefs. In short, I think that I am going to have to say that I am very Jeffersonian in my beliefs. I have read Adam Smith and John Locke, and I have come to the conclusion that it doesn't matter what niche I fit into, because I am a political black swan.

Endorsement

After thinking about my choices, I have decided that I am done with half measures. I am always voting for the lesser of two evils, and we seem to keep heading for the cliff. In light of this, I am just going to vote to get it over with.

Shut up

The next republican that tells me how important it is to vote for Republicans because of the Supreme Court nominations, I am going to flip the fuck out.

Certification versus licensure

One of the most frequent memes in EMS is that paramedics are certified, while nurses are licensed. The people who say this are misinformed. To understand why, we need to look at what the terms mean.

Certification, as it relates to this case, is the process whereby a person is said to have met a standard by a certifying authority. Certification is the process of publicly attesting that a specified quality or standard has been achieved or exceeded. Usually this standard includes education, experience, and an exam of knowledge, skills, and abilities needed to perform the job. When an individual meets the standard, he or she receives certification from a certifying agency. The credibility and integrity of the certifying agency determines whether the agency’s certification means anything to the public. Certification is usually a voluntary process.

Licensing is an involuntary process, whereby a governmental authority grants permission for an entity to perform a given act. Licensing it always based on the action of a legislative body. Once a licensing law has been passed it becomes illegal for anyone to engage in that occupation unless he or she has a license. The health care professions are typically licensed at the state and/or local level, but not usually at the federal level. The license may or may not require that the person seeking the license meet a standard. Requirements for licensing vary from state to state. For example: Driver's licenses only require that a standard be met on initial issue, a fishing license has no requirements for a standard, and a Concealed Weapons permit usually requires meeting a standard.

This makes paramedic a license, just as nursing is a license.

Irony

The government, through the Department of Agriculture, is distributing more food stamps than at any other time in history.
Meanwhile, the Park Service, another branch of the government, tells us not to feed the wild animals in the park, because they will become dependent and lose the ability to fend for themselves.

Our course is set

I am not a Ron Paul supporter, in the sense that I don't run around actively supporting him as a candidate. In fact, there are places where he and I do not agree. Now, I am not going to use this post to extoll the virtues of one candidate over the other. What I AM going to do is point out where we are.

We are on the train to national insolvency and dictatorship. The left claims that they need to tax the rich to pay for all of their programs and ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the national economic pie. They ignore the fact that they are spending us into insolvency.

The right claims that they want to control the left's spending, but never seem to do so. They claim that we need to cut spending and taxes. Just not defense. Oh, yeah, and we need to go to war with everyone until they all bow down to us as Americans. The chief war cry of the right is: if you don' t vote for the party hack, it is the same as voting for the other guy. Except, they forget that it won't matter which one you vote for, because other than the D or R behind his name, there is not a real difference between them.

Lest you forget, our last Republican president brought us a 9 year long war in Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11; the Patriot Act; the TSA and their intrusive searches; secret prisons; torturing prisoners for information; and added more than $4,900,000,000,000 to the national debt in 8 years.

Our current President has expanded the powers left for him by his Republican predecessor and begun executing assassinating Americans without trial, forced people to buy products that they don't want, and has expanded the national debt by $4,800,000,000,000 in just 4 years.

The reason why I would vote for Ron Paul isn't because I always agree with him, it is because I already know what I am going to get with the others, and I know it isn't working. I do believe, however, that it doesn't matter who we vote for, as our course is set. We aren't voting our way out of this. It is only a matter of time before we sink our national ship under the weight of financial irresponsibility.

Santorum is a wanna be religious dictator

The choices left to us in the presidential race this year are not palatable choices. Let's take a look. Here is what Rick Santorum had to say in 2006:

“This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone … [that] government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. … Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone.”

Does that sound like another freedom loving presidential candidate?

When we got organized as a country and we wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to Americans, it was assumed that the Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly.... [However, now] there's a lot of irresponsibility. And so a lot of people say there's too much freedom. When personal freedom's being abused, you have to move to limit it.

Do you remember who said that? It was Bill Clinton. More from Santorum, from a 2003 interview with USA Today :

And that's sort of where we are in today's world, unfortunately. The idea is that the state doesn't have rights to limit individuals' wants and passions. I disagree with that. I think we absolutely have rights because there are consequences to letting people live out whatever wants or passions they desire.

Gingrich is no better. He proposed a bill in congress 1996 that mandated the death penalty for people who deal in marijuana. Under this draconian proposed law a mandatory death penalty would have applied to anyone convicted more than once of importing two ounces or more of marijuana or other controlled substance across the U.S. border. About his own marijuana possession and smoking days, Gingrich explained:

“That was a sign we were alive and in graduate school in that era.” “See, when I smoked pot it was illegal, but not immoral.” “Now, it is illegal AND immoral. The law didn’t change, only the morality… That’s why you get to go to jail and I don’t,”

Here is Newt in 1993:

I am for people, individuals—exactly like automobile insurance—individuals having health insurance and being required to have health insurance. And I am prepared to vote for a voucher system which will give individuals, on a sliding scale, a government subsidy so we insure that everyone as individuals have health insurance.

And here is Newt in 2007:

Our federal government should take the lead on this vital issue, an effort that may require strong incentives to encourage enterprise and drive the formation of private-public economic partnerships.

Romney? You have got to be kidding.  He has stated that the theory of anthropogenic global warming is real. In 2005, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney imposed strict state limitations on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. In a memo issued by Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Kerry Hale, the Romney administration bragged that it was "the first and only state to set CO 2 emissions limits on power plants."

 In December, Romney told Fox News that he stands by the health care at gunpoint plan implemented while he was governor of Massachusetts. "The plan is not perfect, there are things that I'd change in it, but I'll stand by the things we've done," he said, defending the plan.


The right is no different from the left. The criticism of Ron Paul centers around his views on foreign policy. They can't believe that someone wants the USA to mind its own business. We NEED to intervene in everyone's lives. Their hatred of Ron Paul is only exceeded by their love of war, militarism, and the police state.

Explain to me how there is any difference between Democrats and Republicans.

The gun question

As you know if you have been reading this blog, I am in school to earn my Masters Degree and become a Physician Assistant. We were recently in a class on how to conduct an exam, and were talking about the questions that we are required to ask a patient. One of the questions that they said we are required to ask is whether or not they own a gun, and whether or not that gun is kept in a secure location. Then we should use this as an opportunity to talk to them about the dangers of having a firearm in the home. I spoke up and said that I did not feel like that was a valid medical question, and the answer that I got was that this was about safety.

I then pointed out that we shouldn't stop there. After all, if this is about safety, why not ask them if they are gay, and of so, lecture them on the dangers of homosexual activity? Of course, the reaction I got was how inappropriate that was. I pointed out that more people die each year from AIDS than are murdered by firearms.

I then asked if I would be penalized in any way for refusing to participate in a politically charged topic like this. They relented, and I will not be penalized in any way for refusing to ask that question.

History repeats

In 1940, the Republican party was in disarray. A confused mixture of internationalists, New Dealers, isolationists, and minimal government types, the Republican party had no real direction, no coherent philosophy, and no real platform.

FDR's approval rating hovered around 60%, and he was running for his third term. The Republicans figured that they would nominate Wendell Wilkie, a New Deal Republican who was little different from FDR in policy. Since they were so alike, the Wilkie campaign focused on trying to beat FDR in a personality contest. However, FDR had a compliant press, and no one was going to beat FDR in a personality contest.

There are many parallels to this year: The Republican party is in disarray, and they are appointing an Obama clone as his opponent (Romney). This will be a personality contest, which Obama may well win, to which I say: good. If I am going to have to face four more years of a tax and spend Keynesian in the Whitehouse, I would just assume that he has an unfriendly congress to deal with.

Chickens roosting

A have a point to make, but first some history:
In 1951, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, grew tired of the British Empire's monopoly on Iranian oil reserves, and nationalized the oil industry. The Brits needed that oil, so Churchill got Eisenhower to overthrow the Iranian government during Operation Ajax in 1953. This placed Shah Pahlavi in charge as an authoritarian dictator. That's right- the US made the world safe for democracy by overthrowing a democratically elected government and turning it into a dictatorship. Iran was supplied with military weapons by the United States until 1979.

In 1979, the Islamic revolution overthrew the dictatorship and placed Ayatollah Khomeni in charge. In the process, the Iranians raided the US embassy and took the occupants hostage. The American people were outraged. Also that same year, the United States began training and equipping a force to overthrow the Russians in Pakistan and Afghanistan. That force was led by a man named Osama bin Laden.

Iran became a thorn in America's side, and needed to be reined in. A perfect ally was found in Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq. The CIA supplied him with weapons and other aid, so that he could fight Iran. Reagan removed Iraq from the list of terrorist nations, and began selling arms to them. A list of the supplied aid:
Helicopters, intelligence, war planning, machine tools, computers, instruments, and other goods to support missile and WMD development, howitzers, bombs, and other military hardware, along with billions of dollars in foreign aid. This aid continued until 1990.

In 1990, the US sent troops to Saudi Arabia to counter the ambitions of Saddam Hussein. This infuriated bin Laden that foreign troops would be in his country, and he turned his attention to the west.

Terror attacks increased, culminating with the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001. Our non-stop meddling in the affairs of the middle east led us to this point.

In a way, Reverend Wright had it correct, America's chickens had come home to roost. Ron Paul also has it correct: it is time that we as a nation stop interfering with other nations. This mantra that we have in this nation of never ending war has got to stop.

The seeds of a totalitarian state

This is why I have no respect for Republicans. They are for big government just as much as the Democrats. Do you REALLY think that the military arresting people and holding them without trial is the wise thing to do?

Politics in America are not about ideals. Instead, the Democrats and Republicans are merely fighting over who gets to be the dictator.

Stop it!

I keep hearing the right bleat on about how this country is a Christian nation. They are wrong. John Adams, Sr. (one of the founders) wrote in the Treaty Of Tripoli, which was unanimously approved by Congress, and became law in 1797:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims),—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Yet, the Republicans are constantly trying to worm religion into every corner of American life, by using the coercive power of the state to do so. For example, wanting to alter the WW2 memorial to add a prayer to it, or passing resolutions about posting the phrase, "In God We Trust" in public buildings. (Even though the phrase was not a US motto before 1957)

Look, I don't care if you worship any particular god, but using government to force others to listen to your version of "the way" is not proper. Show me in the Constitution where it says that we are a Christian nation.

A religion is like a penis- it's great that you have one, but rude to try and cram it down other people's throats.