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.

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.

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.

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 police are not obligated to protect you

There are many who question the need to own or carry a gun. They say that all one needs to do is call the police, and the police are obligated to help you. The sad truth is that the police rarely prevent crimes or interrupt crimes in progress. In all actuality, the courts do not require the police to protect anyone:

“fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.’… a well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection”
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

Under the public duty doctrine, the District has no duty to provide public services to any particular citizen…
Miller v District of Columbia, 841 A. 2d 1244 (DC: Court of Appeals 2004)

Nor is this legal opinion isolated to Washington DC:

Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958)
Keane v. City of Chicago, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968)
Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969)
Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977)
Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, (1978)
Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.)
Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981)
Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983)
Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985)
McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas, 877 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied
Hornbeck Offshore Transp., LLC v. US, 563 F. Supp. 2d 205  (DC 2008)

The evidence is overwhelming: the police are under no legal obligation to help you.

The only person who can protect you is you. Security cameras, amber alerts, Identikids, and other such devices and programs only assist the police in catching someone AFTER a crime is committed. A cell phone (assuming the bad guy lets you use one) or an alarm system only lets you call the cops, who will arrive AFTER the crime is complete, so they can take a report.

So the answer lies in being able to defend yourself. How will you do that? A dog? Dogs, unless trained, are not effective against a determined attacker. Bare hands? Karate? Unless you are an MMA fighter, or are a large man, you may have problems defending yourself against another, especially when confronted by multiple attackers, made even more difficult if they are armed even with knives or clubs. Nothing evens the odds like a firearm.

Medical Mishaps

I had a patient at 2:30 this morning. She was complaining of chest pain that this 56 year old woman described as “a set of Vise-grips crushing my chest.” She also complained of shortness of breath and nausea. All of this started as she was working her night shift job on an assembly line making 3D glasses. Her husband died in February, after a long battle with cancer. Her 12 lead was unremarkable, she was in a sinus rhythm, and her vitals were: HR 78, BP 89/62, RR 18 SaO2 94% on room air. She has pale lips, and rates the pain as a 7/10. Lungs are clear.

The first thing we did was place her in Trendelenberg, and gave her some O2 at 2 liters, then I started an IV in her right antecubital vein. I gave her 325mg of aspirin, and off we went to the hospital. I couldn’t get that blood pressure stable, and it kept dropping. After we had given 800ml of saline, her blood pressure was now 68/44. I started a dopamine drip. She stated that she weighed 136 pounds, so I started her off at 12 drops per minute.

We arrived at the hospital to see the nurses rolling their eyes, and they immediately disconnected the dopamine. THEN they took a BP and got 63/40. Instead of treating her, they retook the BP. 8 times. They moved the cuff to the other arm (the one with the IV), so they started a second IV. Then they moved to the right thigh, and finally to the left thigh, where they got a BP of 100/60. That is the BP they chose to believe.

Now you don’t have to have a medical education to understand that if you take a BP 8 times, and get the same result 7 of those 8 times, that the 8th time is probably NOT the correct one. However, in this case, the 8th BP was the one that allowed the nurse to get away with not doing anything.

Sometimes I get so exasperated with the incompetent and lazy people we have in the medical field.


Isn’t this one of the reasons why we have a Second Amendment? Now, I am against the war on (some) drugs, but I don’t see this as a crime or a drug problem. The citizens of another nation are entering the country and committing violence against the citizens of this nation, and against duly authorized government officials. The FedGov will do nothing about it, because they are corrupt and wish to use this issue as a bargaining chip to forward their own agenda.

It is time that the citizens of the area start taking care of the problem themselves. Any foreign national caught in this country with a weapon should be treated as an enemy combatant, and shot on sight. I have said for the last three years, that it is only a matter of time before the border conflict between illegals and residents erupts into open warfare.

The shape of elections to come?

In a town near where I live, Hispanic residents complained that even though they made up 52% of the voters, there had never been a Hispanic Commissioner elected. They complained, and the Federal Government stepped in and changed the election rules.

A similar complaint was made in New York, and a Judge solved it by allowing Hispanics to vote 6 times each. Six times. Each.

This sort of thought process has a few flaws:
1 Who says that a Hispanic must always vote for a Hispanic candidate?  After all, if Hispanics make up more than 50% of the electorate and still don’t elect a Hispanic, then how is that a violation of rights? Maybe the Hispanics don’t WANT a Hispanic candidate.
2 What happened to one person/one vote?
3 Will this be expanded to other demographic groups? Gays? Women?
4 Or maybe we should just let judges do all the voting.

In the New York article, Hispanics complained that they made up 25% of the voters, but had never elected a Hispanic candidate. Let’s do the math:

There is an at-large voting system in this town, where the  30,000 voters elect 6 commissioners. Hispanics make up about 7,500 voters. If they voted 6 times each, they got a total of 45,000 votes out of a total possible 67,500 votes. They had, as a voting block, 67% of the votes, yet the Hispanic Candidate came in fourth. That tells me that the Hispanic Candidate is not getting all of the Hispanic votes. Under this system, the Hispanic voters could control 4 of the 6 seats, and there is nothing anyone could do about it. (If they split their 45,000 votes 4 ways, each of their candidates would get 11,250 votes. The remaining  22,500 the voters would at best split their votes two ways to enter a 6 way tie for the 6 seats.) Even with this advantage, the only Hispanic candidate elected came in fourth.

What comes next? Will Illegal immigrants will get the right to vote, and a judge will let them vote six times each? 10 million illegals, six votes each= 60 million votes. Pretty good trick, since there were only about 130 million votes cast in the 2008 election.

The five states with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants are California (8%), Texas (6.4%), Florida (5.4%), Illinois (5.2%), and New York (2.7%). Those 5 states alone control 169 electoral votes, with only 270 needed to elect a president. With illegals controlling six times their numbers in votes, they would become the second largest voting block with 60 million votes, with only our 46.9 million Hispanic citizens controlling more with about 150 million votes. (The next largest voting block would be voters over 65, with only 40 million votes, and think of the clout that the AARP has)