Uncategorized

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?”

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.