Here we are, 18 months into the Obama Presidency. With one third of his term behind us, lets take a look at the progress he has made on his campaign promises:
1 Close Guantanamo Bay within one year. Status: Broken.
2 Create or save 1 million jobs using $25 billion in Federal Funds. Status: FAIL. He spent a trillion dollars, yet the unemployment rate has risen from 7.7% to 9.5% over the last 18 months.
3 All troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Status: Broken. There are still 133,000 troops in Iraq. (85,000 more than are in Iraq)
4. Create secure borders. Status: Broken. He is actually suing people who are trying to secure the borders. Sure, he promised to send 1200 guardsmen, but that is another broken promise.
5. Reform government spending. Status: FAIL. 18 months into his presidency, he spent as much as all presidents prior to George W Bush combined. GW Bush himself was the former record holder, having run a $4.9 trillion deficit during his 8 years in office. Obama has borrowed $2.6 trillion in 18 months.
6. End torture: Status: Misleading. Using the process of extraordinary rendition, where terrorists are taken to countries where torture is legal, and letting THEM do the torturing on your behalf is dishonest.
7. Require new hires to deny cronyism. Status: DO I REALLY have to point this one out?
8. Deliver weekly fireside chats online Status: Broken. Not a single one has been released in the last 16 months.
9. Toughen hate crime laws Status: Broken, also see the next one:
10. Remove discriminatory obstacles to voting. Status: a twofer with the Black Panther case
11. Lift ban on gays serving openly in the military Status: Broken.
12. Penalize vote fraud. Status: Broken, but the voter fraud was all in his favor, so why should he?
13. End American dependence on foreign oil in ten years Status: with his ban on Gulf oil drilling, I don't see this happening. We are more dependent on foreign oil than we were 18 months ago.
14 Ban executive employees from taking gifts from lobbyists. BROKEN.
15 But I can promise you this: I will always tell you what I think and where I stand. Need I say more?
16 Post bills online 72 hours before signing them Status: Congress doesn't even read bills before Obama signs them
17 Increase minimum wage every year Status: Broken
18 Ensure taxes don't go up for families with incomes lower than $250,000 Status: Broken
19 Cut taxes on the middle class Status: Broken
20 Defend Israel Status: Broken
So for those of you out there who voted for Obama, did you get what you voted for? Are any of the above promises the reason why you voted for him? You can't blame the Republicans, they don't have control over Congress.
If not, did you vote for him because of his race? Or because his name wasn't George Bush? What is different? Are you any better off than you were 18 months ago? If not, think about this: We are being betrayed by BOTH parties. They are willing to cheat us to get more power. It is time for this practice to end. This isn't about right versus left, or Democrat versus Republican. This is about being left alone to live our lives.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Why is racial profiling bad?
If you were robbed at gunpoint, and told the police that the man was 6'2", 250 pounds, and black, would it be reasonable for the police to stop all the black men in the area who were close to that description? Or would racial profiling be wrong? Should they also stop tall white and Hispanic men, so that they were not profiling? How about women? After all, we don't want to be sexual profiling.
Of course not. That would be ridiculous. So why is it wrong for a cop in Arizona to ask a Hispanic man driving a Ford Lobo (which is a truck sold in Mexico) who has already been stopped for a traffic violation for proof that he is here legally?
In the wake of the Federal court ruling that state and local authorities cannot enforce Federal immigration laws, I think that the states should refuse to enforce ALL Federal Laws: Immigration, Tax, Firearms, Drugs, and any other Federal Law that states currently enforce. States should no longer house Federal prisoners in State prisons. They have made their ruling, now let's see them enforce it.
Of course not. That would be ridiculous. So why is it wrong for a cop in Arizona to ask a Hispanic man driving a Ford Lobo (which is a truck sold in Mexico) who has already been stopped for a traffic violation for proof that he is here legally?
Deputy Bob Dalton and volunteer Heath Kowacz spotted a driver with a cracked windshield in a poor Phoenix neighborhood near a busy freeway. Dalton triggered the red and blue police lights and pulled over 28-year-old Alfredo Salas, who was born in Mexico but has lived in Phoenix with a resident alien card since 1993.The article says that 600 illegal aliens have been arrested during sweeps in Maricopa County, AZ since 2008. A drop in the bucket.
Dalton gave him a warning after Salas produced his license and registration and told him to get the windshield fixed.
Salas, a married father of two who installs granite, told The Associated Press that he was treated well but he wondered whether he was pulled over because his truck is a Ford Lobo.
"It's a Mexican truck so I don't know if they saw that and said, 'I wonder if he has papers or not,'" Salas said. "If that's the case, it kind of gets me upset."
In the wake of the Federal court ruling that state and local authorities cannot enforce Federal immigration laws, I think that the states should refuse to enforce ALL Federal Laws: Immigration, Tax, Firearms, Drugs, and any other Federal Law that states currently enforce. States should no longer house Federal prisoners in State prisons. They have made their ruling, now let's see them enforce it.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
My Blog Name
I get a whole lot of hits from folks who Google the term "pharmacist blog" and I want to take a minute and explain where the name of this blog came from.
The term "street pharmacist" is a play on words meaning a drug dealer, sort of like "undocumented immigrant" is a euphemism for illegal immigrants. Those of you who work in EMS know that a substantial portion of EMS runs are generated by people who are seeking free pharmaceuticals, in other words, drug seekers.
A few years ago, my partner and I were sitting around awaiting our next opportunity to save lives and snatch a baby from the mouth of an alligator, and during this lull in the action, my partner was doing his taxes. By the time he got to the end of the absurdly long process, he was pretty annoyed. There is a line at the end of the form which asks for your profession, and it was at this point that I told him that when I was in the military, a buddy of mine had entered "paid professional killer" in that particular part of the form.
Thinking that the above comment was pretty funny (comments like that are always funnier at 2 a.m.) he entered "street pharmacist" as his occupation and we dropped it in the mail. We laughed for the rest of the shift.
and so it became the name of this blog.
The term "street pharmacist" is a play on words meaning a drug dealer, sort of like "undocumented immigrant" is a euphemism for illegal immigrants. Those of you who work in EMS know that a substantial portion of EMS runs are generated by people who are seeking free pharmaceuticals, in other words, drug seekers.
A few years ago, my partner and I were sitting around awaiting our next opportunity to save lives and snatch a baby from the mouth of an alligator, and during this lull in the action, my partner was doing his taxes. By the time he got to the end of the absurdly long process, he was pretty annoyed. There is a line at the end of the form which asks for your profession, and it was at this point that I told him that when I was in the military, a buddy of mine had entered "paid professional killer" in that particular part of the form.
Thinking that the above comment was pretty funny (comments like that are always funnier at 2 a.m.) he entered "street pharmacist" as his occupation and we dropped it in the mail. We laughed for the rest of the shift.
and so it became the name of this blog.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Symbolism, no substance
The Chevy Volt, it was announced today, will cost $41,000 a copy. It gets 40 miles per 8.8KWh charge. At 12 cents per KWh, that means that fueling this vehicle with coal generated electricity will cost about 2.6 cents per mile. That sounds impressive, until you consider that the car costs $20,000 more than a comparable gasoline powered car such as the Honda Civic. Even taking the government subsidy of $7,500 into account, buying the Volt will cost 71.6 cents per mile for the first 50,000 miles. On the other hand, buying a Honda Civic will only cost 53.5 cents per mile over the same 50,000 mile period. The best part? I can buy a Lincoln MKZ Hybrid for only 75 cents a mile for the first 50,000 miles.
For those who believe in the fairy tale of man made global warming, consider this: generating enough electricity for the Volt's 40 mile range will produce about 9.5 kg of CO2. A gasoline burning car, like the Civic Hybrid or Lincoln MKZ, also generates 8.8kg of CO2 to go the same distance.
I predict product fail.
For those who believe in the fairy tale of man made global warming, consider this: generating enough electricity for the Volt's 40 mile range will produce about 9.5 kg of CO2. A gasoline burning car, like the Civic Hybrid or Lincoln MKZ, also generates 8.8kg of CO2 to go the same distance.
I predict product fail.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Communist College Professors
I am taking a class on ethics. The professors at this college are so left wing, it makes me ill. They are constantly quoting Karl Marx, and are teaching from a left wing position. The assignment last week was to review this question:
"You are a reporter who is in a war zone during a war between two fictional countries, North Monrovia, and South Monrovia. The United States is providing support to South Monrovia. The North Monrovian forces offer to take you to a location where there is evidence of atrocities performed by the southern forces. While en route to the scene of the massacre, the Northern force finds itself in a position to ambush an American unit. This brings us to the dilemma: Do you warn the AMerican force, or do you keep quiet and get the story?"
I stated that the reporter is an American first, and that in order to be a member of this society, he needs to participate in that society. How can he expect the members of this society to defend him, if he is not willing to defend others? This is what the professor had to say:
"You are a reporter who is in a war zone during a war between two fictional countries, North Monrovia, and South Monrovia. The United States is providing support to South Monrovia. The North Monrovian forces offer to take you to a location where there is evidence of atrocities performed by the southern forces. While en route to the scene of the massacre, the Northern force finds itself in a position to ambush an American unit. This brings us to the dilemma: Do you warn the AMerican force, or do you keep quiet and get the story?"
I stated that the reporter is an American first, and that in order to be a member of this society, he needs to participate in that society. How can he expect the members of this society to defend him, if he is not willing to defend others? This is what the professor had to say:
On the other hand, a reporter has an important job, a job that keeps our democracy working (such as it does) by keeping the citizenry informed. Would reporters be able to be embedded to do that job if it is known that they will warn American troops? I am reminded of a report on a Gulf War video we were not allowed to see (the first President Bush knew how to keep the press under control during war): It showed Iraqi soldiers in the desert being literally cut in half by machine gun fire. A U.S. general commented that if the American public were allowed to see this footage, they would never go to war again. There is another difference that a fellow student points out: “If you knew a murder was going to take place, would you let the person know, or the Authorities know?” I believe this analogy works, yet not entirely. The victim generally does not have the potential of killing the prospective killer. American soldiers would. The American soldiers are not “innocent victims”; they are armed combatants in enemy territory, are trained to deal with surprise enemy attacks—and are there to kill the enemy in a war situation. Maybe an American reporter has to decide not to be embedded with enemy troops in the first place. Of course, that would sacrifice the role of the press.First, in every assignment so far in this class, this professor has found a way to slam someone from the Bush family. Second, what does this say about the education that your children are receiving while away at college?
Thursday, July 22, 2010
There are no quotas
But every cop knows that if you don't write enough tickets, your career is in danger.
It seems like there are more and more dirty cops.
It seems like there are more and more dirty cops.
There are many who bemoan the 12,000 homicides that are committed by citizens with firearms in the United States each year. These citizens ignore the fact that the private ownership of firearms cause far fewer deaths than governments with firearms.
The megamurdering states of the 20th century have been:
U.S.S.R. (1917-1987), 61,911,000;
Communist China (1949-1987), 35,236,000;
Nazi Germany (1933-1945), 20,946,000;
Nationalist (or Kuomintang) China (1928-1949), 10,076,000
These are followed by the "lesser" megamurdering states:
Japan (1936-1945), 5,964,000;
Cambodia (1975-1979), 2,035,000;
Turkey (1909-1918), 1,883,000;
Vietnam (1945-1987), 1,678,000;
North Korea (1948-1987), 1,663,000;
Poland (1945-1948), 1,585,000;
Pakistan (1958-1987), 1,503,000;
Mexico (1900-1920), 1,417,000;
Yugoslavia (1944-1987), 1,072,000;
Czarist Russia (1900-1917), 1,066,000.
For the 20th century, 169 million civilians were killed by government action. If you include combat deaths, that number rises to 203 million.
The world population in 1991 is estimated to have been approximately 5,423,000,000. In 1991, Europe's population was about 502,000,000. The United States in 1990 had a population of about 249,000,000. This means that governments killed about 3.7 percent of the human race in this century, or an equivalent of over 40 percent of all the people in Europe, or a number equal to over 80 percent of all the people in the U.S.
So European governments killed 87 million citizens in the 20th century, largely because the citizens couldn't fight back. The armed citizens in the US, where large scale government massacres were almost unheard of, killed fewer than 600,000 during the same time period. Which system works better?
I have heard "What if they gave a war, and no one showed up?' When the real question should be "What if the government gives a war, and they are the only ones with weapons?"
The megamurdering states of the 20th century have been:
U.S.S.R. (1917-1987), 61,911,000;
Communist China (1949-1987), 35,236,000;
Nazi Germany (1933-1945), 20,946,000;
Nationalist (or Kuomintang) China (1928-1949), 10,076,000
These are followed by the "lesser" megamurdering states:
Japan (1936-1945), 5,964,000;
Cambodia (1975-1979), 2,035,000;
Turkey (1909-1918), 1,883,000;
Vietnam (1945-1987), 1,678,000;
North Korea (1948-1987), 1,663,000;
Poland (1945-1948), 1,585,000;
Pakistan (1958-1987), 1,503,000;
Mexico (1900-1920), 1,417,000;
Yugoslavia (1944-1987), 1,072,000;
Czarist Russia (1900-1917), 1,066,000.
For the 20th century, 169 million civilians were killed by government action. If you include combat deaths, that number rises to 203 million.
The world population in 1991 is estimated to have been approximately 5,423,000,000. In 1991, Europe's population was about 502,000,000. The United States in 1990 had a population of about 249,000,000. This means that governments killed about 3.7 percent of the human race in this century, or an equivalent of over 40 percent of all the people in Europe, or a number equal to over 80 percent of all the people in the U.S.
So European governments killed 87 million citizens in the 20th century, largely because the citizens couldn't fight back. The armed citizens in the US, where large scale government massacres were almost unheard of, killed fewer than 600,000 during the same time period. Which system works better?
I have heard "What if they gave a war, and no one showed up?' When the real question should be "What if the government gives a war, and they are the only ones with weapons?"
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
What is going on here?
For all of you who are in EMS...Are you also having this problem?
We were notified last week that there is a nationwide shortage of D50. We are using what we have sparingly, and have been told not to expect any until mid September. The alternative is glucagon. This is very bad news for diabetics who need EMS for hypoglycemia. This could cost lives.
Lasix (furosemide) is also in short supply. Luckily, we switched to Bumex some time ago, but there are agencies in the area that are scrambling to find alternatives, then modify protocols and conduct training in order to make a change to a more available drug.
Today, we got a memo that there are no prefilled syringes of epinephrine 1:10,000 to be had anywhere. That leaves us with two options:
- Instead of pushing 1mg of epi every 3 to five minutes for codes, we are going to be doing epi drips at 200mcg per minute in a drip.
- We can make our own 1:10,000 through other means, like mixing it as needed from epi 1:1,000 ampules.
Both of these take time and distract medics from working the problem.
All of this has me wondering: What happened? Why did the other makers of these drugs go out of business? Is this because of Obamacare?
We were notified last week that there is a nationwide shortage of D50. We are using what we have sparingly, and have been told not to expect any until mid September. The alternative is glucagon. This is very bad news for diabetics who need EMS for hypoglycemia. This could cost lives.
Lasix (furosemide) is also in short supply. Luckily, we switched to Bumex some time ago, but there are agencies in the area that are scrambling to find alternatives, then modify protocols and conduct training in order to make a change to a more available drug.
Today, we got a memo that there are no prefilled syringes of epinephrine 1:10,000 to be had anywhere. That leaves us with two options:
- Instead of pushing 1mg of epi every 3 to five minutes for codes, we are going to be doing epi drips at 200mcg per minute in a drip.
- We can make our own 1:10,000 through other means, like mixing it as needed from epi 1:1,000 ampules.
Both of these take time and distract medics from working the problem.
All of this has me wondering: What happened? Why did the other makers of these drugs go out of business? Is this because of Obamacare?
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Yea, right
If I was Dad, I think a little DNA testing would be in order. This isn't a miracle, this is a gullible Dad, if he really believes that this child is actually his.
There are three possibilities here:
1 This is a child whose DNA has mutated in more than one gene to produce a child who is Caucasian, blonde, and blue eyed , but has no other signs of mutation or birth defect.There is not one single way that I can think of that would make this possible.
2 The wife has found another sperm donor, and the husband is gullible.
3 This story is a hoax.
Occum's razor tells me which of these is the least likely.
There are three possibilities here:
1 This is a child whose DNA has mutated in more than one gene to produce a child who is Caucasian, blonde, and blue eyed , but has no other signs of mutation or birth defect.There is not one single way that I can think of that would make this possible.
2 The wife has found another sperm donor, and the husband is gullible.
3 This story is a hoax.
Occum's razor tells me which of these is the least likely.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Cops on film
What is it that the cops always say when they want to intrude on your life and infringe upon your rights?
Oh yeah, If you don't have anything to hide, you don't need to worry.
Screw all of you. I am sick of this fascist crap. That is why I don't fly any more.
Oh yeah, If you don't have anything to hide, you don't need to worry.
Screw all of you. I am sick of this fascist crap. That is why I don't fly any more.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Women are confusing
I wanted to go SCUBA diving with my wife. My wife wants to buy an IPad. I told her that I thought we didn't need an IPad, because we already own 3 desktop Windows machines, a Windows laptop, an Apple Laptop, and 3 smartphones. (One desk top and one laptop are mine, the rest are hers).
She has this compulsive need to buy the latest gizmo every time one comes out. We cannot afford to do both, as my wife was laid off from her job last month. After this discussion, I gave in and told her that she could buy it. She is now not speaking to me, because she didn't like my tone of voice when I caved. Not only must I give in, but apparently I have to ENJOY caving in so I can buy her something that not only is unnecessary, but that is redundant in that we already own other things that can do what the IPad can do.
Oh, and to boot- she gave me a hard time because I bought a copy of Weird Science for $10 when I ordered my text books for the semester.
OK, rant over.
She has this compulsive need to buy the latest gizmo every time one comes out. We cannot afford to do both, as my wife was laid off from her job last month. After this discussion, I gave in and told her that she could buy it. She is now not speaking to me, because she didn't like my tone of voice when I caved. Not only must I give in, but apparently I have to ENJOY caving in so I can buy her something that not only is unnecessary, but that is redundant in that we already own other things that can do what the IPad can do.
Oh, and to boot- she gave me a hard time because I bought a copy of Weird Science for $10 when I ordered my text books for the semester.
OK, rant over.
When I was in high school (many, many years ago) my football coach used to explain to us the difference between involvement and commitment:
When a company opens a location, the owners of that company risk very little. They have only risked a relatively small amount of money in the endeavor, and are insulated from any personal risk by the very nature of corporate law. If anything should go horribly wrong, the only thing that the nominal owner stands to lose is his investment cash. In other words, stockholders are chickens that are only involved with the business.
It is for that reason that companies make decisions that affect only the bottom line. After all, they are there to protect the owners' interests, and the only interest the owner has, is to get his investment money back, with a little extra for his risk. It is this truth which allows government to use the law of unintended consequences to control a business without seeming to.
Let's apply this to gun laws: As a government entity, I pass a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons, but I place a clause in the law allowing a business owner to opt out of the law. Many property rights people will applaud this law, and think that property rights are protected.
The problem is in the law of unintended consequences. Other laws hold a property owner liable for any act that they allow to take place on their property, but hold them harmless from those acts as long as the property owner has taken reasonable steps to prevent that act. You see the position that you have just placed a corporation in, don't you? The business is now liable for the actions of any concealed carrier that they allow onto their property, and held harmless for the actions of armed killers, as long as they post a sign that says "no guns."
The right of property owners has already been shredded. No property owner who wants to avoid a potential multi million dollar lawsuit would allow concealed carry.
Decision making process:
Will I be held liable if CCW shoots someone?
Yes: Post sign prohibiting carry
If I prohibit carry, will I be held liable if a criminal kills my customers?
No: Post signs prohibiting carry
Back to our breakfast analogy: The corporate business owners, wanting to protect the only skin they have in the game, are our chickens. The business posts the signs banning CCW. The public who frequents that business is now at the mercy of the armed criminals who know that they are now safe to practice their trade, and the business is safely insulated from all liability when it happens.
Congratulations, guns are now banned in public, and you have just cheered them on as they used your rights to make bacon.
When you eat breakfast, the chicken that provided the eggs is involved, but the pig that provided the bacon is committed.Coaches, especially in the south, have a way with words. Although it is a bit outlandish, my coach's words reveal an important truth: it is easy to be involved with something, but it takes a lot more to be committed to it. So it is with liberty and rights.
When a company opens a location, the owners of that company risk very little. They have only risked a relatively small amount of money in the endeavor, and are insulated from any personal risk by the very nature of corporate law. If anything should go horribly wrong, the only thing that the nominal owner stands to lose is his investment cash. In other words, stockholders are chickens that are only involved with the business.
It is for that reason that companies make decisions that affect only the bottom line. After all, they are there to protect the owners' interests, and the only interest the owner has, is to get his investment money back, with a little extra for his risk. It is this truth which allows government to use the law of unintended consequences to control a business without seeming to.
Let's apply this to gun laws: As a government entity, I pass a law allowing people to carry concealed weapons, but I place a clause in the law allowing a business owner to opt out of the law. Many property rights people will applaud this law, and think that property rights are protected.
The problem is in the law of unintended consequences. Other laws hold a property owner liable for any act that they allow to take place on their property, but hold them harmless from those acts as long as the property owner has taken reasonable steps to prevent that act. You see the position that you have just placed a corporation in, don't you? The business is now liable for the actions of any concealed carrier that they allow onto their property, and held harmless for the actions of armed killers, as long as they post a sign that says "no guns."
The right of property owners has already been shredded. No property owner who wants to avoid a potential multi million dollar lawsuit would allow concealed carry.
Decision making process:
Will I be held liable if CCW shoots someone?
Yes: Post sign prohibiting carry
If I prohibit carry, will I be held liable if a criminal kills my customers?
No: Post signs prohibiting carry
Back to our breakfast analogy: The corporate business owners, wanting to protect the only skin they have in the game, are our chickens. The business posts the signs banning CCW. The public who frequents that business is now at the mercy of the armed criminals who know that they are now safe to practice their trade, and the business is safely insulated from all liability when it happens.
Congratulations, guns are now banned in public, and you have just cheered them on as they used your rights to make bacon.
Saturday, July 17, 2010
This election cycle will be interesting
The Obama administration claims that the Republicans are obstructing his agenda. I can't imagine how that can be the truth, since both houses of Congress are roughly 58% Democrat. It seems to me that since they are in control of two of the three branches of government, they can do as they please.
It shows a lack of leadership and reflects a President's unpopularity when he cannot even lead his own party, much less an entire nation. Regardless of what you see in the press, a sure sign that a President is losing a grip on the electorate is when his own party makes him irrelevant.
Personally, I think a gridlocked government is best- when they can't get anything accomplished, they do less damage.
It shows a lack of leadership and reflects a President's unpopularity when he cannot even lead his own party, much less an entire nation. Regardless of what you see in the press, a sure sign that a President is losing a grip on the electorate is when his own party makes him irrelevant.
Personally, I think a gridlocked government is best- when they can't get anything accomplished, they do less damage.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Bloated
When doing some random surfing, I discovered some facts about the Federal Government:
- There are 30,000 staffers who work on Capitol Hill, supporting 535 Congressmen.
- There are 487 staffers at the Whitehouse, but that number does not include working employees like chefs, housekeepers, gardeners, or security personnel- this number only includes management.
- The Federal Government directly employs over 3 million people in the civilian sector, plus another 1.4 million in the military branches, with another 500 thousand in the reserves (not counting the National Guard's 350 thousand)
Compare that to state and local government:
-There are 3.8 million people employed by all state and local governments combined.
There are about 8.2 million working directly for federal, state and local government, or about 1 in 12 American workers. That number does not include contractors.
It is worse than that. There is also a large group of people who receive government benefits, and will lose those benefits if they get jobs. In essence, they are employed by the government to NOT work.
There are 7 million who are on disability.
There are 23 million who get food stamps and another 9.5 million who receive WIC.
There are 31 million children who get free or reduced meals at school.
There are 54 million on Social Security, 41 million on Medicare, and 43 million on Medicaid.
Despite spending several trillion dollars on the problem, the poverty level has remained near 12% ever since the United States abolished the gold standard in 1973, with the current level being 12.7%. It is important to note that the method the Government is using to calculate the poverty line only takes inflation into account, instead of the more accurate model which compares the cost of living to household income. Using this method, the current cost of living has risen from 30% of individual income in 1965 to 50% of household income in 2003. Where it used to take one income to support a family, it now takes two.
This means that the effective poverty rate has more than doubled since the “War on Poverty” began, when expressed as a real percentage of household income. Despite spending trillions of dollars fighting the “war”, the “war” has been lost.
What we are left with is a bloated government that only functions to oppress.
- There are 30,000 staffers who work on Capitol Hill, supporting 535 Congressmen.
- There are 487 staffers at the Whitehouse, but that number does not include working employees like chefs, housekeepers, gardeners, or security personnel- this number only includes management.
- The Federal Government directly employs over 3 million people in the civilian sector, plus another 1.4 million in the military branches, with another 500 thousand in the reserves (not counting the National Guard's 350 thousand)
Compare that to state and local government:
-There are 3.8 million people employed by all state and local governments combined.
There are about 8.2 million working directly for federal, state and local government, or about 1 in 12 American workers. That number does not include contractors.
It is worse than that. There is also a large group of people who receive government benefits, and will lose those benefits if they get jobs. In essence, they are employed by the government to NOT work.
There are 7 million who are on disability.
There are 23 million who get food stamps and another 9.5 million who receive WIC.
There are 31 million children who get free or reduced meals at school.
There are 54 million on Social Security, 41 million on Medicare, and 43 million on Medicaid.
Despite spending several trillion dollars on the problem, the poverty level has remained near 12% ever since the United States abolished the gold standard in 1973, with the current level being 12.7%. It is important to note that the method the Government is using to calculate the poverty line only takes inflation into account, instead of the more accurate model which compares the cost of living to household income. Using this method, the current cost of living has risen from 30% of individual income in 1965 to 50% of household income in 2003. Where it used to take one income to support a family, it now takes two.
This means that the effective poverty rate has more than doubled since the “War on Poverty” began, when expressed as a real percentage of household income. Despite spending trillions of dollars fighting the “war”, the “war” has been lost.
What we are left with is a bloated government that only functions to oppress.
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Is this more pork
or we could otherwise title this post: Does anyone in Congress own a calculator, and do they know how to use it?
The new law requiring businesses to issue a 1099 to everyone that they pay more than $600 a year to is expected to involve 40 million businesses. Each business will see the number of 1099s that they issue increase by about 200 per year each. That is an expected 8 billion 1099 forms. This measure is expected to bring in an extra $2 billion in tax revenues- or about 25 cents per extra form. The problem here is that, assuming it takes IRS employees 1 minute to cross reference and check each form and the math it causes, it will take over 64,000 man-years to review the forms. This will cause the IRS to hire that many new employees, and at $40K per year, will cost the government $2.6 billion to enforce, a net loss of $600 million a year.
This measure is not designed to bring more money into government coffers. If you read closely, payments made by credit card are exempt from the reporting requirement. This measure is probably designed to bring more money into the banks, who collect a 2% transaction fee for each credit card payment, by forcing businesses to use credit cards.
The new law requiring businesses to issue a 1099 to everyone that they pay more than $600 a year to is expected to involve 40 million businesses. Each business will see the number of 1099s that they issue increase by about 200 per year each. That is an expected 8 billion 1099 forms. This measure is expected to bring in an extra $2 billion in tax revenues- or about 25 cents per extra form. The problem here is that, assuming it takes IRS employees 1 minute to cross reference and check each form and the math it causes, it will take over 64,000 man-years to review the forms. This will cause the IRS to hire that many new employees, and at $40K per year, will cost the government $2.6 billion to enforce, a net loss of $600 million a year.
This measure is not designed to bring more money into government coffers. If you read closely, payments made by credit card are exempt from the reporting requirement. This measure is probably designed to bring more money into the banks, who collect a 2% transaction fee for each credit card payment, by forcing businesses to use credit cards.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
A reminder
I want to look at this video again. If you remember, this was video of armed Black Panthers intimidating voters.
Now this is video of one of those two men at a rally, explaining his motivation:
These videos piss me off more than you can imagine. You racist piece of shit terrorist. I have a question for you , you dipshit. You support Obama, who is half white. You say you have every last white man iota. Do Obama's white iotas count?
Here is a reminder for you: I will not stand for intimidation in my voting precinct. If you bring weapons, so do I. My weapon will be much more effective than a nightstick. Once you bring a weapon, you have declared that the time for democratic solutions, for peaceful debate, and for cooperation have ended.
You want a revolution? You want to kill crackers? Bring it.
Now this is video of one of those two men at a rally, explaining his motivation:
These videos piss me off more than you can imagine. You racist piece of shit terrorist. I have a question for you , you dipshit. You support Obama, who is half white. You say you have every last white man iota. Do Obama's white iotas count?
Here is a reminder for you: I will not stand for intimidation in my voting precinct. If you bring weapons, so do I. My weapon will be much more effective than a nightstick. Once you bring a weapon, you have declared that the time for democratic solutions, for peaceful debate, and for cooperation have ended.
You want a revolution? You want to kill crackers? Bring it.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Nursing Homes
Say those words to a medic, and you will nearly always get a groan. In my first due, we have a set of three nursing homes located on the same block. We have nicknamed them the "Triad of Death." I have written before about how funny the interaction can be between nursing home nurses and paramedics. The video in that post nails it, like the author was there with me (I don't even know who made that video.)
Now before I continue, I would like to make note that this is not a slam on all nurses, and note that I slam incompetent medics as well as incompetent nurses. If you are offended by what I am about to say, maybe you should look in the mirror and decide if you are the nurse I am writing about.
I responded to one of the triad for a report of "CPR in progress." This particular nursing home has a large central common room where with about 30 rooms that open directly into it. One of the staff members was standing at the entrance smoking a cigarette, and told me the patient's room number, the rest of the staff was serving breakfast to the majority of the residents. When I got to the patients room, the door was closed and I entered to find a patient who was in a neatly made up bed, pulseless and apneic, and not a single staff member in the room. This patient was warm to the touch and had no lividity.
A staff member came in behind me and asked me to keep the door closed because seeing our dead patient was disturbing the other residents' breakfast. I asked if the patient had a DNRO, and she replied that the patient did not. I was stunned that a nursing home would abandon a patient like this. We worked the asystole code, and the patient was declared dead at the hospital.
I filed a complaint. How far did it go? Nowhere. The manager of the facility said her nurse panicked, and was performing CPR when the phone rang, so she went to answer it. The manager then filed a counter complaint against us, because she claims that one of us laughed out loud during the code. We most certainly did not, because I was way too pissed off to find anything funny. That is a standard defense of the incompetent, though:
1 Lie
2 Deny
3 Demand proof
4 Make counter accusations
I cannot even contact the patient's family to let them know why the guy is dead, because of HIPAA.They will probably never know.
Now before I continue, I would like to make note that this is not a slam on all nurses, and note that I slam incompetent medics as well as incompetent nurses. If you are offended by what I am about to say, maybe you should look in the mirror and decide if you are the nurse I am writing about.
I responded to one of the triad for a report of "CPR in progress." This particular nursing home has a large central common room where with about 30 rooms that open directly into it. One of the staff members was standing at the entrance smoking a cigarette, and told me the patient's room number, the rest of the staff was serving breakfast to the majority of the residents. When I got to the patients room, the door was closed and I entered to find a patient who was in a neatly made up bed, pulseless and apneic, and not a single staff member in the room. This patient was warm to the touch and had no lividity.
A staff member came in behind me and asked me to keep the door closed because seeing our dead patient was disturbing the other residents' breakfast. I asked if the patient had a DNRO, and she replied that the patient did not. I was stunned that a nursing home would abandon a patient like this. We worked the asystole code, and the patient was declared dead at the hospital.
I filed a complaint. How far did it go? Nowhere. The manager of the facility said her nurse panicked, and was performing CPR when the phone rang, so she went to answer it. The manager then filed a counter complaint against us, because she claims that one of us laughed out loud during the code. We most certainly did not, because I was way too pissed off to find anything funny. That is a standard defense of the incompetent, though:
1 Lie
2 Deny
3 Demand proof
4 Make counter accusations
I cannot even contact the patient's family to let them know why the guy is dead, because of HIPAA.They will probably never know.
Jimmy Buffet drinking Barry Kool Aid
So Jimmy Buffet, who makes some of the most irritating songs ever, thinks the Deepwater Horizon oil spill is George W Bush's fault. Let's take a look at that claim:
The Deepwater Horizon was designed and specified in 1998, and laid down in 2000, all during the Clinton presidency. The majority of construction was during the Clinton Presidency, and the rig was delivered a month into Bush's tenure, on February 23, 2001.
While Bush was President, the rig was considered to be a lucky rig. It held the record for deepest oil well in the world, and drilled to a depth that was 5,000 feet deeper than called for in the rig's specifications. The rig drilled wells in at least 4 separate oil fields during the Bush Presidency.
In 2009 the agency responsible for inspecting rigs in the United States, the Minerals Management Service, applauded the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety. In February of 2010, the rig began drilling at the site of the disaster that would take place in April of that year. That site is located in the Macondo oil field, an oil field in which BP obtained the rights to drill in 2009. Every one of these events occurred during the Obama Presidency.
So explain to me how exactly this spill is Bush's fault. This incredible attitude of blaming Bush for things that took place years after he left office has got to stop.
As a side note: Living in Florida means being exposed to Jimmy Buffet's annoying tunes nearly everywhere you go. While I do like the food at his restaurant, his annoying music and frat boy fans really bug me. This guy was a has been nearly 20 years ago. I can't believe he still has such a following.
The Deepwater Horizon was designed and specified in 1998, and laid down in 2000, all during the Clinton presidency. The majority of construction was during the Clinton Presidency, and the rig was delivered a month into Bush's tenure, on February 23, 2001.
While Bush was President, the rig was considered to be a lucky rig. It held the record for deepest oil well in the world, and drilled to a depth that was 5,000 feet deeper than called for in the rig's specifications. The rig drilled wells in at least 4 separate oil fields during the Bush Presidency.
In 2009 the agency responsible for inspecting rigs in the United States, the Minerals Management Service, applauded the Deepwater Horizon as an industry model for safety. In February of 2010, the rig began drilling at the site of the disaster that would take place in April of that year. That site is located in the Macondo oil field, an oil field in which BP obtained the rights to drill in 2009. Every one of these events occurred during the Obama Presidency.
So explain to me how exactly this spill is Bush's fault. This incredible attitude of blaming Bush for things that took place years after he left office has got to stop.
As a side note: Living in Florida means being exposed to Jimmy Buffet's annoying tunes nearly everywhere you go. While I do like the food at his restaurant, his annoying music and frat boy fans really bug me. This guy was a has been nearly 20 years ago. I can't believe he still has such a following.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Jury Duty
I just finished Jury Duty. I was last called to serve in November of 2008. I truly believe in serving, for if you expect to receive a jury trial, one must be willing to serve on a jury. As far as I am concerned, Jury Duty and Voting are the two biggest responsibilities we have as citizens. In my opinion, his is one of the few times when the state ensures that you have a right to something that must be provided by someone else. Let me detail my experiences and thoughts:
First, they sent a jury summons to 200 people, and less than 110 actually showed up. Since Florida selects juries from Driver's license records, anyone who is sent a summons and does not respond either doesn't want to serve, or has an incorrect address on their license, and should have their license suspended until they contact the court. If after contacting the court, the citizen states that he or she is not willing to serve, then that citizen has voluntarily forfeited the right to jury trial for any charges or lawsuits that are brought within 24 months after he or she makes themselves willing and able to serve. There can be exceptions made for hardship cases, and asking to postpone jury duty for a period of not more than 180 days will not count as a refusal to serve. (this will allow people who have emergencies to take care of them without having to forfeit any rights). No one LIKES wasting a day on jury duty, but it must be done if you want a seat at the table.
I sat in a jury waiting room from 8 in the morning until 4 in the afternoon. We were held until the judges decided whether or not they would need a jury. I think this is inefficient and disrespectful to the jury pool. These cases are schedule months, weeks, and sometimes years in advance. There is no way to know a week (or even two days) beforehand how many jurors will be needed on a given day? (The case I went to jury selection for was 16 months in the making. Seriously- in 16 months no one knew that there would be a jury needed?) Maybe people wouldn't complain as much if there wasn't so much sitting around. Schedule, people. It isn't hard. The only people who are worse at scheduling is the cable TV installer.
The next thing is: There were only two cases that day that wound up needing juries. 200 people summoned, 110 show (55%), 65 (60% of those who showed up) went to Voir Dire (jury selection), and 14 actually served on a jury.
Jury selection took 3 hours, and the questions asked and speeches made by the two attorneys during voir dire were jury tampering, as far as I am concerned. Here is how I think it should go: pick people at random from the jury pool. As long as they are not closely related to the participants in the case (family, neighbor, or boss/coworker), then you are on the jury. No excuses from anyone. You are it. I don't want to hear about how voir dire ensures an impartial jury. The last thing those two attorneys wanted was an impartial jury. They were looking for advantage, not impartiality.
Eliminate the waiting and the voir dire, and the length of jury duty would be reduced by 11 hours. It would also eliminate scumbags lying to get out of jury duty by telling the attorneys that they think the defendant is guilty as soon as they see him.
First, they sent a jury summons to 200 people, and less than 110 actually showed up. Since Florida selects juries from Driver's license records, anyone who is sent a summons and does not respond either doesn't want to serve, or has an incorrect address on their license, and should have their license suspended until they contact the court. If after contacting the court, the citizen states that he or she is not willing to serve, then that citizen has voluntarily forfeited the right to jury trial for any charges or lawsuits that are brought within 24 months after he or she makes themselves willing and able to serve. There can be exceptions made for hardship cases, and asking to postpone jury duty for a period of not more than 180 days will not count as a refusal to serve. (this will allow people who have emergencies to take care of them without having to forfeit any rights). No one LIKES wasting a day on jury duty, but it must be done if you want a seat at the table.
I sat in a jury waiting room from 8 in the morning until 4 in the afternoon. We were held until the judges decided whether or not they would need a jury. I think this is inefficient and disrespectful to the jury pool. These cases are schedule months, weeks, and sometimes years in advance. There is no way to know a week (or even two days) beforehand how many jurors will be needed on a given day? (The case I went to jury selection for was 16 months in the making. Seriously- in 16 months no one knew that there would be a jury needed?) Maybe people wouldn't complain as much if there wasn't so much sitting around. Schedule, people. It isn't hard. The only people who are worse at scheduling is the cable TV installer.
The next thing is: There were only two cases that day that wound up needing juries. 200 people summoned, 110 show (55%), 65 (60% of those who showed up) went to Voir Dire (jury selection), and 14 actually served on a jury.
Jury selection took 3 hours, and the questions asked and speeches made by the two attorneys during voir dire were jury tampering, as far as I am concerned. Here is how I think it should go: pick people at random from the jury pool. As long as they are not closely related to the participants in the case (family, neighbor, or boss/coworker), then you are on the jury. No excuses from anyone. You are it. I don't want to hear about how voir dire ensures an impartial jury. The last thing those two attorneys wanted was an impartial jury. They were looking for advantage, not impartiality.
Eliminate the waiting and the voir dire, and the length of jury duty would be reduced by 11 hours. It would also eliminate scumbags lying to get out of jury duty by telling the attorneys that they think the defendant is guilty as soon as they see him.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Collapse draws closer
Illinois is broke. They have a $12 billion deficit, are $5 billion in arrears, and cannot pay for the most basic of services. (Although I bet politician payrolls are being met) So what are the politicians worried about? Passing new gun laws in the wake of McDonald, thus ensuring another expensive legal battle that they will lose in the end.
Good going, idiots.
Oh, read the linked article. The system is collapsing.
Good going, idiots.
Oh, read the linked article. The system is collapsing.
Immigration woes
The problem with illegal immigration is not that they are stealing "our jobs" (as if you have a claim to a particular job), because I bring skills to the table that no illegal can match. No, the only jobs illegals are taking are unskilled labor jobs in the agriculture, service, and construction industries. If you are being replaced by an illegal, it is likely because you have no real skills and are doing a job that a trained monkey could do. You should have paid attention in that math class instead of showing off to your friends that you could smash a can on your head, or that you could burp the National Anthem or down a beer bong in 3 seconds flat.
The REAL problem with illegal immigration is that they are drawn here by free money from the American taxpayer, and thus increase the amount of money that the government needs to keep the program going. This creates an even larger dependent class that will vote in even more politicians who will steal freedoms to get more money to give away, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
The way to stop illegal immigration is to stop the gravy train. Stop giving money away, and it is no longer as lucrative to come here and live off the funds from Uncle Sugar.
The REAL problem with illegal immigration is that they are drawn here by free money from the American taxpayer, and thus increase the amount of money that the government needs to keep the program going. This creates an even larger dependent class that will vote in even more politicians who will steal freedoms to get more money to give away, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
The way to stop illegal immigration is to stop the gravy train. Stop giving money away, and it is no longer as lucrative to come here and live off the funds from Uncle Sugar.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Outsourcing
The City of Maywood, CA has laid off all employees and shifted to contractors. They claim it will save money. Note that all of the politicians remain at work. My question here is why even HAVE a city government, if it doesn't do anything?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)