Divemedic

Here is an article that talks about how scientists have discovered where the oil from the BP spill went. It is highly misleading, and I will show you why:

the scientists mapped a huge plume in late June when the well was still leaking. The components of oil were detected in a flow that measured more than a mile wide and more than 650 feet from top to bottom.

 A volume of water 22 miles long, a mile wide, and 650 feet tall encompasses 398 billion cubic feet. That volume contains about 3 trillion gallons of liquid. The report goes on to say:

Now federal officials say as much as 42 million gallons of oil may be lurking below the surface in amounts that are much smaller than the width of a human hair.

So even if the entire 42 million gallons is located within the 22 mile long area tested, That gives us a concentration of 1 part per 71,000, or 14 mg per liter (to use the SI standard).  The EPA allows 10 mg/l of Xylenes to be present in drinking water. In fact, 14 mg per liter is equivalent to 3 shot glasses poured into your average swimming pool.

The article then says:

The study conclusively shows that a plume exists, that it came from the BP well and that it probably never got close to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, Camilli said. It is probably even larger than 22 miles long, but scientists had to stop measuring because of Hurricane Alex.

Which means that the Gulf of Mexico, at least as far as oil is concerned, is cleaner than the water from your tap.

It all started when my wife said that hunting was evil, that no one should kill a living animal. I pointed out to her that the cow providing that Outback steak dinner that she loves did not become despondent and leap off of a building, thus making her position just a little hypocritical. She responded that she chooses to believe that the animals on her plate died of natural causes. I explained to her that it was illegal to butcher an animal that dies of disease or illness. We came to a truce of sorts whereupon I promised not to hunt, and we continued our normal dietary lives. (This excludes pork- she says pigs are nasty and won’t eat pork. I still eat bacon, but that is cool with her, as she doesn’t eat anything for breakfast except the occasional bowl of cereal or pancake)

Until today.

We were at the store, shopping for this week’s menu, when she made the announcement that as soon as the supply of meat in the freezer is gone, she is becoming a vegetarian. I could almost live with this, except for two things:

1 She won’t eat vegetables. She hates them. The only vegetables I can get her to eat are corn, peas, and tomato sauce.

2 She still says we will have a real issue if I decide to hunt. In other words, we are at an impasse. Not only am I prohibited from hunting, but I fear that the time will come when she attempts to control my meat eating habits.

Her diet will consist of pasta, cheese, seafood, and candy. I am a carnivore, and while I don’t mind eating that stuff, the diet she is embarking on is most unhealthy, and is a road that I simply cannot follow. I recently had to crack down on her, as she was eating 2200 calories a day of life savers. (That is not an exaggeration- she was eating candy all day, and that is it.)

I really fear for her health, and for the health of a 6 year relationship that is taking a decidedly bad turn.

OK, vent complete.

A story about a child taken from his parents because the parents slapped the crying child boils my blood. Whether or not you believe in corporal punishment for children, or whether or not you think the child was too young to be spanked is not the issue here. What is at issue here is the question of where a flight attendant, as an employee of a private company, gets the power to take a child from a parent. I can assure you that if a flight attendant had done the same to me, the plane would have made an emergency landing to take me to jail and the flying waitress to the hospital.

In the end, a flight attendant is an airborne waitress with delusions of grandeur, and has no police power at all. Touch me, touch my child, or touch my wife and I will use whatever force is required to stop that contact.

To those angry flying waiters and waitresses who will surely leave nasty comments, spare me. The fact that you are responsible for assisting passengers in the event of a crash does not give you any more authority to use force to enforce law than I have, so save your breath and your bandwidth.

The recent hubub over the Mosque in New York has finally earned remarks from the White House. There are those who claim that placing a Mosque less than two blocks from ground zero is an in your face move that should be made illegal. They are half right. It is in poor taste, but the act of building a Mosque, or any other church for that matter, is protected by the Constitution.

The fact that 68% of the public of New York opposes the Mosque is used as a justification for opposing the facility, and there are those who claim that Obama is opposing the people of New York. To you I say that the Bill of Rights of the Constitution is there to protect the unpopular. This is the very reason why we are not a democracy. As Mr Jefferson put it, a democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. Now I will grant you that the First Amendment begins with “Congress shall make no law…” but the right of freedom of religion is a natural right. 

Saying that “there are 100 Mosques in New York, so  this is not an issue of religion, but one of safety and security” is complete crap. They are not asking to make a bomb factory, they are asking to build a place of worship on their own property, using their own money.


Obama is not saying that he will interfere in the State’s business (which the FedGov does not have the power to do) but he is weighing in with what I think is a correct opinion. Just because some Muslims have broken the law doesn’t excuse violating the rights of others. Otherwise, we could forbid Catholic Churches from being located within 2 blocks of a school for little boys, or make all guns illegal because some people misuse them.

The headline of this post is the headline of a story in the St Pete times newspaper. It is also a crock of shit. The gist of the story:

Byron Patty Sr was killed in a robbery in 1994 at the age of 21 years, while “playing cards with friends” in a local motel. A few years later (2010), Byron Patty Jr was killed at age 17 during a robbery while playing dice in an alley with some friends.

The article tries to blame guns, but glosses over a few facts that can be ascertained from the article:

1 Byron Patty Jr was 17 in 2010, and had already been arrested several times since 2004 (then age 11).

2 Byron Patty Sr had been arrested at least three times on drug charges and theft charges, according to Hillsborough County records. At least one was a felony.

3 Both father and son were involved in gambling activities when they were killed. (cards and dice)

4 Michelle Patty, the mother/grandmother of this story is a well known “community organizer” in the Tampa area. She has had a few dealings that were a little, well let’s say they were suspect and leave it at that.

5 According to the another story about the shooting, the 17 year old accused of killing Patty Jr was his best friend, and was arrested near the scene and charged with attempted murder, armed robbery, being a felon in possession of a firearm and violation of probation.

The grandmother is being investigated by the FBI for finance irregularities in connection with public funds, the father is a convicted felon who is murdered during a card game, and the grandson, also with a criminal past, is killed in a robbery during a “dice game” by a convicted felon who is his best friend.

Yep, it is the gun’s fault.

or alternatively, why I do not fit into any political party:

I don’t fit int with the Democrats because:

I think that the money I earn is mine, and I don’t think that I should be forced to give up my income in order to have it redistributed to someone who made poor decisions and bought three houses and didn’t have a job.

I don’t think the government should have the power to favor one race over another in order to compensate for wrongs that occurred before I was even born, or for any other reason.

I don’t think that we should give away money to people, poor or not. Stopping the gravy train will correct many problems from illegal immigration to welfare queens.

I don’t think regulating guns will prevent crime, any more than I think regulating Wall Street will prevent greed.

I don’t think that the government should regulate what I put into my body- that includes drugs as well as unhealthy foods, or alcohol.

The Republicans don’t want me because:

I think that the money I earn is mine, and I don’t think that I  should be forced to give up some of my income to support a business that made poor decisions and considers themselves “too big to fail.” 

I don’t think that my tax dollars should be used to “nation build” or to fund our military to enforce our values on other people. Freedom must be earned by those who wish to be free, freedom cannot be imposed upon others.

I don’t think the government should have anything to do with marriage. That means if I want to marry someone of the same sex, or if I want to marry 3 women, it is not anyone’s business but my own.

The Libertarians disagree with me because:

I think that we need some sort of government, because there are some things that the market cannot do. Police, fire, roads, sanitation, and some other basic services need to function as a part of society. That government should be as limited and local as possible. The wider the area, the more limited that power should be.

Economic force is still force. A monopoly on food, or water, or any other material is just as bad as a monopoly on force, and can still be used to control others. If I own a significantly large fraction of a resource, I can control others by refusing to sell that resource to people who refuse to submit to my will. 

All in all, I think that I am closer to libertarianism than the others, but I cannot be as close to the anarchist wing of the libertarian party as many are. The proper role of government is to prevent one group from using force (including economic force) to force others to act against their will.

On top of all the high real estate taxes, falling property values, needing a translator to order breakfast at McDonald’s, the drugs, the crime, and all of the Yankees coming down here to tell us how to do things, the weather here in the summer is teh suck. It is hot, and dangerously humid. Our low temperatures are limited by the dew point, meaning that since the temperature cannot drop below the dew point (which is around 75DegF), we always start the day at 100% humidity. From there, we reach a high of about 95DegF. Combine that with our dew point, and you have a heat index of about 110DegF.

The problem here is I have no idea how they measure temperature. I am showing a current temperature of 103 DegF, while the official temp according to the weather service is only 91. Using my temperature the heat index calculates out to 119 DegF. The tropical sun beats down without mercy.

Here in Florida, there are 4 seasons:

Hot: March through May
F’ing Hot: June through mid September
Still Hot: Mid September through Mid November
Snow Birds: Mid November through February

What does all of this mean? It means that you can’t go outside from mid June to the middle of September without risking your health. It also means a $500 electric bill. (and I only keep the thermostat set at 78.)

Is breaking out the smart:

At present, federal revenue is fully consumed by three programs: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The rest of the federal government, including fighting two wars, homeland security, education, art, culture, you name it, veterans — the whole rest of the discretionary budget is being financed by China and other countries.

Consider an elderly widow, say 70 years old, with a modest retirement income of $18,000 living in a $300,000 house that’s fully paid for. She might receive local property tax forgiveness, medical and prescription drug subsidies and other federal, state and local subsidies based upon her age and income.

When subsidies are provided for this lady, whom are we truly benefiting? It’s not the lady but her heirs. Conceivably, the lady could make a deal with a financial institution to pay her property taxes, allow her to live in the house for the rest of her life and give her a lump sum cash settlement so that she can live without the handouts. Upon her death, the house becomes the property of the financial institution, not her heirs. Giving the widow handouts allows her to bequeath to her heirs her assets, a $300,000 house. If her children want to inherit the house, they, rather than taxpayers, ought to take care of their mother.

Read the whole thing.