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.

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:

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?

Untitled Post

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?”

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?

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.

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.

CCW, Liability, and Property Rights

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 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.

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.