Divemedic

I admit that posting has been light. A week long cruise to the Caribbean, two jobs, and a full time course load will tend to do that. Without further delay, here is the rant of the day:

On the campaign trail in Lewiston, Maine, Hillary Clinton made the following statement:

“I am the only candidate left in this race on either side who is committed to universal health care,” she said. “It is a core value, it is a human right. It is not a privilege.”

In order for something to be a right, it means that a person is entitled to it by merely existing. The right to be free from unreasonable searches, free speech, and others are rights which are due all people. Governments are established to ensure that no one tramples on the rights of others.

Calling health care a right means that a person gets health care whether or not they have the ability to pay for that care. That means that if a person cannot pay for the care that they receive, then one of two things has to happen: either the doctor (and other health care workers- everyone from the maker of the drug to the guy who mops the hospital floor) must work for free, or that people who work and pay taxes must have a portion of their pay taken from them in order to pay for it.

What I don’t understand is how one man’s right can create a duty upon another. The fact that the money stolen to pay for the health care is spread across a country is irrelevant. Let me use an example:

1 A man meets me as I leave my bank, and threatens me with death if I do not give him money. Is this morally wrong?
2 That same man, it turns out, is robbing me because he makes less than half of what I make. Does that make a difference?
3 That same man gets 5 neighbors who are in similar circumstances to assist him in robbing everyone who leaves my bank. Does that make it better?
4 Those 5 neighbors become a network of 5,000 people all across the state. Is it now OK for them to rob me, and others who make more money than them?
5 What if those 5,000 become a million?

What changed? nothing. Taking money from one person, simply to give to another, in order to correct some perceived inequality of outcome is robbery no matter what spin you put on it.

People in this country have gotten the idea that equality of opportunity means that the result should be equality of outcome, and if this does not happen it means that the successful have somehow cheated and should be punished. Ridiculous.

I was reading Tam’s gloating over Tennessee’s score of 7 on the latest Brady scorecard, so I thought that I would go over there and see what my own state of Florida scored. California was the most gun banning state, with a score of 79 out of 100. We scored a respectable 8 out of 100, which makes us the 12th state in terms of gun owner freedom.

In 2006, California had a murder rate of 6.8 per 100,000. Florida had a murder rate of 6.27 per 100,000.

How are those gun laws working to prevent crime again?

While checking out the site, I saw and read a few of the articles on there. What a crock of total bullshit. This article advocates the prohibition of firearms on College campuses, because they don’t want the students “caught in the crossfire.” In Virginia Tech just last year, 32 students were killed when they weren’t caught in the crossfire. No one was able to defend anyone, due to a law requiring that the students play the part of disarmed victims. The shooter owned the guns, despite being prohibited by law from owning them. He carried guns onto campus, despite it being illegal and against college rules. He committed murder, despite the laws against it.

How did those gun laws save lives again?

The same article goes on to state that “18 year olds could carry guns to class.” That statement is a lie as well. It is illegal to brandish or open carry a firearm in Florida, except under certain circumstances like hunting, or shooting competitions, etc. Therefore, the only way to carry to class would be concealed, which requires a permit. to get this permit, you must be 21 years old.

I especially love this quote:

Plus, college gun owners are more likely than the average student to:
• Engage in binge drinking,
• Need an alcoholic drink first thing in the morning,
• Use cocaine or crack,
• Be arrested for a DUI,
• Vandalize property, and
• Get in trouble with police.

Since crack, vandalizing property, DUI, and drinking under 21 are all illegal in the first place, what makes you think that a student will all of a sudden become a model citizen when gun laws are concerned? The ones willing to buy and sell crack already have guns, that is why we need something to defend ourselves with. The solution here is not to take away rights from law abiding citizens because other citizens break the law.

I could easily say that since the Brady campaign is headquartered in DC, and DC citizens are more likely to commit crimes than citizens of Tulsa, we should restrict their right to post this drivel on the internet.

Asshats.

According to the IRS, for fiscal year 2006, the U.S. government took in $2.407 Trillion and spent $2.655 trillion. The money was spent thusly:

$955 billion was spent on Medicare, Social Security, and Social Security Disability
$504 Billion was spent on Social (Welfare) Programs (including public health)
$319 Billion was spent on Physical, human, and community development

meaning that over $1,778 Billion, (or 67%) of the total outlays was for wealth redistribution efforts.

$212 billion went to pay interest on our staggering National debt.

The remaining $675 billion of the budget paid for National Defense, Veteran’s Benefits, Law Enforcement, and general government.

The source of the $2.407 in tax money the government took in?
$1708 Billion of it was in payroll taxes
$313 billion from corporate taxes
$217 billion was borrowed
$168 billion was from all other taxes

What does all of this mean?
If giveaway programs were eliminated, the United States government could operate with the payroll taxes eliminated and replaced by a 5% sales tax. That would cost you less than what social security currently does.

Fat chance getting the people weaned off the government handout, though.

There are few things that illustrate the libertarian viewpoint more vividly than the current mortgage crisis. Thousands of home buyers buying homes that they cannot afford, and then the bank being surprised when they stop paying for them. I cannot say that the entire mess has been a surprise, with what I have seen over the past few years.
This brings us to the viewpoints of the various political camps in this country:

Liberal: The liberal viewpoint blames the lender. After all, if the lender made the loan to a person who could not afford it, even though they knew it, it is their own fault. Those evil corporations have been turning a profit off the little guys for years. The predatory lenders are now getting their comeuppance. The government should step in and protect the little guy by fixing interest rates, and finding other ways to let the little guy keep his house.

Conservative: The people who borrowed money that they could not afford are to blame here. After all, they signed on the dotted line, so why should the investors suffer? They loaned the money out with the expectation that they would be repaid, so the borrower should repay it. The government should step in and protect the assets of the lenders and their investors by making bankruptcy harder, and perhaps infusing some cash into the lenders as assistance. After all, if the banks go, so does the economy.

libertarian: The lenders and the consumers both entered into a contract. They both had opportunity to decide for themselves whether or not it was a good idea to participate. If the borrower defaults because the lender allowed him to overextend himself with an adjustable rate, interest only balloon payment that they knew could not be repaid, so be it. If the lender loaned money that they knew the borrower did not have the means to repay without resorting to financial gymnastics, so be it. The government should stay out of it, because it is not my fault that the parties involved were greedy, and were trying to trick the system. One way or the other, this will fix itself.

In the long run, the government screws up everything it touches. It is better if they stay out of it and stop trying to generate wealth through taxation, which reminds me of a man trying to lift himself off of the ground by standing in a bucket and pulling feverishly on the handle.

Alot is being made about this story. I cannot speak for the police side of things, but I can give some insight into how paramedics do business, especially in my neck of the woods.

Patient consent seems like a pretty easy subject when we are in school as a parafetus. In fact, many programs gloss over the subject, but in my experience no single issue gets medics in trouble as often as the subject of consent and refusals. What complicates things further is when a patient is forced to go to the hospital against his will, or a child has to go over the objections of a parent.

In order to explain how this happens, a little explanation about consent and mental capacity is in order. In order for patient care to happen, the patient must consent to this care. The law allows a medic to care for a person who for some reason is incapable of making an informed decision for themselves. Examples include unconscious or intoxicated adults, and children in the absence of their parent or guardian. This is called “implied consent.”

In the case of a child with a parent in attendance, this can get even stickier. Even though the parent has the right to refuse, the paramedic is still obligated to report the injury to the authorities if he feels that the life or welfare of the child is in danger. In this case, according to the article, the medic had plenty of clues to lead him down that path:

1 The mechanism of injury: The child was drug by a moving car
2 Facial trauma, “a black eye and visible bruising,” facial edema, and a dilated pupil
3 The only way to rule out a brain injury is to do a head CT. This cannot be done in the field, so referring him for more treatment was appropriate.

The social workers saw the same thing, and offered to pay for the treatment. The father refused, and when they told him they could get a court order, he replied that they would need to “bring an army.” So, the workers reported their findings to the Judge.

The judge, believing that the probable cause was there, issued a warrant and court order. The deputies attempted to enforce the order, and the father again refused. So, the Deputies enforced the warrant.

The child was evaluated, treated, and released.

The entire thing was properly done, in my opinion. The paramedics reported possible child neglect to child services. Child services attempted to handle it. Warrant obtained, after a judge found probable cause. Father resisted, warrant served. What did the father think would happen? The cops would just go away and discard the warrant, while saying “Oh well, we tried.”

What would people be saying had the medics and social workers NOT done what they did, and the child had died? This happens all the time, and when it does, the DCF workers and medics get into hot water for it. Damned if you do, and damned if you don’t. At least if I act, I don’t have a dead child on my conscience.

and until you have held a dead child in your arms, you can’t possibly tell me what that is like.

Begun in 1982, the Big Dig, a highway project in Boston, is now complete. At a cost of $14.8 Billion dollars, it cost over $25,000 for each citizen of the city. The Big Dig is the costliest construction project in the history of our nation. It was once vetoed as too expensive by President Reagan, before Congress overrode his veto.

In comparison, the famous “bridge to nowhere” in Ketchikan, Alaska, has been touted as a famous example of government waste and pork. Serving a county of 13,000 people, the $310 million project would cost the taxpayers less than $24,000 for each citizen of the county. That makes THIS pork barrel project actually more cost effective than the “Big Dig.”

The amount of spending that we are doing as a nation is staggering. Thousands of projects costing billions of dollars a year, each adding to the debt of the Nation. When the bill comes due, the citizens of Boston can stand in bread lines knowing that they have a cool tunnel under their feet.

A whole lot of press is out there attempting to portray the people who oppose immigration as racists. They accuse the people who oppose illegals as being anti-hispanic. The Southern Poverty Law Center, a left wing activist center, maintains a website that lists supposed “hate groups” They recently have added groups to this list because of their opposition to illegal immigration.

One of the reasons that they cite for this, is that many groups are sticking to the “Aztlan Conspiracy Theory.” They claim that anyone who believes this “theory” is a right wing racist.

Yet it can be easily demonstrated that a large movement among Mexican people in the United States is dedicated to returning “Aztlan” to the “rightful owners”- the descendants of the people who owned it before the people of the United States “stole” the land.

They claim that the land of the Southwestern United States was stolen from them, and they aim to take it back.

One of these groups- La MEChA, even has this in their constitution:

Chicano and Chicana students of Aztlan must take upon themselves the responsibilities to promote Chicanismo within the community, politicizing our Raza with an emphasis on indigenous consciousness to continue the struggle for the self-determination of the Chicano people for the purpose of liberating Aztlan.

Yet, a group that in its own constitution claims to favor one race, and the overthrow of legitimate government is not a hate group, according to the SPLC. Furthermore, anyone who speaks out against such a group is accusedd of being a hate group. Gotta love hypocrisy.

This MEChA group has a chapter on many College Campuses in this country. For example, click here to read this trash:

In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal “gringo” invasion of our territories

then they go on to threaten armed rebellion.

This illegal immigration thing is going to explode.

A gunman enters a school and begins shooting. He kills six students before turning the gun on himself.

A gunman enters a college, kills 32 and wounds 17 before killing himself. There were no weapons permitted on campus.

A gunman enters a school campus and kills three before being subdued by armed students.

A man enters a shopping mall, which does not allow weapons on property, and kills 6 people during a 3 hour standoff.

A man enters a shopping mall, which does not allow weapons on property, and kills 9 people before turning the gun on himself.

A man enters a church containing 7,000 worshipers. He has 2 pistols, a rifle and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. He shoots 3 people in the parking lot before he is confronted by a woman with a concealed weapons permit. She shoots him, and he then takes his own life.

Note that when armed defenders are present, the criminal is stopped after only a few shots. When the policies of the facility ensure a safe environment for the criminal to carry out his crime, the death toll is higher.

Just as I have said all along, defenseless victim zones do not work. Armed resistance does.

A woman is arrested for illegally carrying a concealed weapon. She was caught by a routine bag check at the front gate of Walt Disney World’s Magic Kingdom. Some of the people at this site point out that perhaps she had a permit, and was carrying legally.

Others begin to ask ask penetrating questions, like:

I also agree, a person has a right to keep and bear arms, as long as they do it legally. Seeing that she is from Pa., if she has a permit in Pa., it does not give her the right to cross state lines with the weapon.

Of course, if this person had the slightest idea what they were talking about, they would know that it is legal to transport firearms across state lines, and that Florida and Pennsylvania have reciprocity, which means they honor each other’s permits.

Whether this woman had a permit or not is beside the point of this discussion:

How about this one:

No matter where you think it is permissible or acceptable to have a gun, Disney World is not one of those places.

Or, the question I consider to be the winner:

thing is, i dont understand why anyone needs a gun. anti trust and paranoia is ripe. never ever in my life felt the need to carry or hide any weapon.

I will give you a few reasons why:

This man is robbed in his own garage, in Disney’s Celebration community
This couple was robbed at gunpoint at Downtown Disney on November first
A man robs a store at gun point just this morning in Orlando
This liquor store was robbed just a little bit later

Of course, Disney is known for keeping pedophiles on the payroll. So we know that we don’t have to worry about anyone molesting our kids.

Here is the real news of the day:

Criminals operate on Disney property. The mix of large amounts of money, mixed with distracted tourists, easy get aways, and lax security make it relatively easy for the criminal element to operate there. Sure, security gets lucky and catches one woman with a weapon. I can tell you that on any given day, there are numerous weapons in that park. not all of them belong to the good guys. At least when I am there, I know that the one I have is going to be used for good, not evil.

Criminals break the law. That is why they are called criminals. Making a law prohibiting a criminal from possessing a gun will not be any more effective than the one that prohibits that same criminal from shooting up a mall, or robbing you at gunpoint. What it will do, however, is remove the ability for law abiding citizens to defend themselves.

I had a woman tell me today that she did not want to be standing in line with her two year old, and have to worry that the person behind her has a gun. I asked her why she would assume that a law would fix that. I then pointed out that she doesn’t have to worry about my gun.

Her “But I hate guns! They are evil!”
Me “Guns are metal, inanimate objects. They don’t do anything that their owner doesn’t use them for.”

People who jump through hoops and get a permit are not the ones you should be worried about.

end of rant