September 2011


In a former life, I worked as a clinic lvn. This involved working with the doctors and assisting with procedures, physicals, accidents, ordering supplies, etc. One doctor liked working on feet and let me do some nail cutting and work with the dremel. The dremel was especially nice as it would provide a smoothing of the edges of the nail after the cutting was finished. Our unit was a plug-in hand unit with a small burr that appeared like a tiny peanut with ridges all the way around. The unit ran at several thousand rpm and one could run it down the finger without too much trouble. This was occasionally used as an illustration of the dremel’s safety.
I was there with an individual from the dorm on which I previously worked. This individual was slightly nervous about the pending procedure and the doctor there decided to try our illustration. However, due to normal exam procedure, the doc was wearing gloves.
“You see, this dremel won’t hurt a bit. See.” Doc touched the dremel to the finger extended (within the glove) and the burr caught the glove and it started spinning around at a few rpm (thump, thump, thump on doc’s hand) as the patient’s pupils dilated to their full extent. The facial muscles contracted as the apparent level of adrenaline increased, and pt pushed up off table on elbows.
Doc stopped the dremel and tried to hide the unit while removing the glove as inconspicuously as possible. With my assistance, the patient calmed down, and eventually toes were finished.
Mental note: when demonstrating dremel, don’t wear gloves.

Advertisements

Dear sir,
I am writing concerning the events that have compiled over the past 2 1/2 years showing that the executive branch has no appreciation of the rule of law and seeks to violate our form of government at every turn. My request is that the president be impeached, Eric Holder be impeached, all the czars be turned out of their jobs, and the agencies that the president has been using be defunded. That would include the department of Energy, commerce, homeland security, education, land management. There are many others, but these are the most egregious. Our country operated fine before their formation, and will head back in that direction after those bureaucracies are removed as the opposition and drain on our economy that they are. Thank you.

This morning it occurred that on taxes, the same scenario is playing out with Warren Buffett playing the roll of the billboard. The propaganda has begun. The entree is removal more of our money, with a side of envy for the rich. I’m not ordering dinner at this buffet.

I have been rather busy this week and as such have not blogged, but have been occasionally searching for a piece of information that has proved elusive. I’ll start by remembering that in the early 80’s the seat belt was optional in the car, most had them installed and were there if one desired to use it. By the late 80’s the seat belt was mandatory, and shortly thereafter fines were instituted to benefit the locality of anywhere finding a driver not following the edict. Now the seat-belt is mandatory in the front and back, kids in car seats, tickets possible for any infraction of this slowly implemented situation. Noted prior to each change was a campaign on how smart utilizing “x” was, and then the law would change. I am seeing the same process repeat itself again. There has been a rash of “don’t text while driving” ads on the radio and billboards and I see the process repeat itself again.
In a former life, I was in a northern state going to church with an individual who was an insurance adjuster. It has occurred that he made the comment of how many accidents were the result of the radio or changing a cd. In my moments of search this week, I was looking for statistics to support or disprove the ratio of accidents involving cell phone vs other distractions. Over three days, I found one. That was this evening, which is why I am blogging about this now. (not to mention having a little time)
Starting with the general distraction mentions, I note that the pages were carefully worded to give the illusion that the cell phone was responsible for a great number of accidents when it was simply related to the total of inattentive incidents. This speaks to me of propaganda. The actual facts don’t support the end program desired, so reword the results to project a lie for the public to swallow. As illustrative of this approach I submit the following links:
here
here
or here
The page I found was from California and is in pdf format here. On page 8 of the document there is a chart noting that on collisions in California, there were 5677 incidents with cell phones responsible for 11% of the total accidents. The item of comparison I had in mind was the radio which was 9% of the total. However, I note that general inattention accounted for 67% of the total. 6 times the number of accidents related to cell phones and 7 times the number of accidents related to the cd or radio.
What I see playing out here is a propaganda to lull the public into accepting the coming regulation of personal behavior. Let me ask, since the radio is so close in percentage of accidents to the cell phone, why not regulate or forbid the radio in cars?
My analysis: political animals know their prey, and will choose that which will elicit control without provoking a revolt. Their goal total control by incremental steps. Remember the seat belt.

During class, in a former life, I learned about two forms of logic: deductive and inductive. To do the simple definition of each I will copy from wiki the following:
Deductive arguments are attempts to show that a conclusion necessarily follows from a set of premises or hypotheses. A deductive argument is valid if the conclusion does follow necessarily from the premises, i.e., if the conclusion must be true provided that the premises are true. A deductive argument is sound if it is valid and its premises are true.
Further there is the entry for inductive logic:
Inductive reasoning, also known as induction or inductive logic, is a kind of reasoning that constructs or evaluates propositions that are abstractions of observations. It is commonly construed as a form of reasoning that makes generalizations based on individual instances.
With the official definitions in place, let’s play with them a little. I say that the sun revolves around the earth because it comes up over the horizon in a similar position each morning and disappears over the opposite horizon each evening. Since there appears to be only one sun, it has to move position to the opposite horizon and come up the following morning, therefore, the sun revolves around the earth. I have used completely incorrect information to show the application of logic can display a wrong proposition.
Another observation involves temperature. As one decreases temperature, there is a tendency for liquids to form solids. One observing that tendency could reverse the logic and test if adding heat could make a solid form a liquid. In each of these cases, the observation would be accurate, testable and sound. Therefore, inverses of some logical observations can also be true.
Let’s consider the following video from here:
If you love me…, sets up the logical argument equating passage of legislation to affection for president 0. The inverse of that argument also needs to be explored: if we don’t love you, don’t pass the bill.
When has legislation in this country been dependent upon the affection the populace has for its president? Was not the formation of legislation assigned to the body of government most representative of the population?
In terms of affection, I say kill the bill! Kill the bill!
Let our level of affection be known.
(Also observe the crowd reaction to the repeated “if you love me.”)

I was having a conversation with spouseinbox and reminisced about an incident from a former life. Kidinbox was a baby and ex-notinbox asked, “[Kid] is messy. Do you want to change the [kid]?”
me – “No.”
E-NIB – (eye daggers)
me – “I don’t want to smell it any more than you. I will change [kid] though.”

It is interesting to give a correct response to the question asked, though I have to admit trying to quell that tendency depending upon the social situation.

Another time:
(knock, knock)
me – “hello”
3-foot kid – “Can I borrow an egg?”
(I go retrieve it)
me – “Here you are, now when are you going to bring it back?”
3-foot kid – (deer in the headlights)

Next Page »