Radioactive Communist Zombies

Predictions 2010

Even though I didn't do too well on my 2009 predictions, I'm going to stick my neck out again and make some predictions for 2010.

1) There were be more terrorist attacks or attempts.  The TSA will respond by making flying more miserable.

2) The 2010 elections will see more Republicans elected but probably not enough to gain majorities in either House.

3) Unemployment won't drop below 8% and inflation will start to increase.

4) Cap and Trade won't be passed but the EPA will start enforcing CO₂ (and other greenhouse gas) emissions via the Clean Air Act.

4A) Environmental groups will sue to force the EPA to regulate CO₂ (and other greenhouse gas) emissions down to 250 tons per year.

5) Electric cars will not sell well enough to justify the cost of making them.  Auto makers will need another bail out.

6) Obama's popularity will continue to decline until only liberals still love him.

7) Some sort of health care reform will pass.  It'll screw up our health care system worse than it's screwed up now.  Congress will be readdressing it in 2011.

8) A Supreme Court Judge will retire, probably Ginsberg, definitely a liberal.

9) The Tea Party movement will not spawn a third party, but will help defeat Democrats and squishy Republicans.

10) There will be some new technology, new internet craze, or new social phenomena no one predicted.

Napolitano Wants to Unionize the TSA

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano wants to unionize the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).  That according to the Washington Examiner.  According to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC):

The administration is intent in on unionizing and submitting our airport security to union bosses [and] collective bargaining, and this is at a time, as Senator Lieberman says, we've got to use our imagination we've got to be constantly flexible. We have to out think the terrorists. When we formed the airport security system we realize we could not use collective bargaining and unionization because of that need to be flexible. Yet that appears to be the top priority of the administration.

Why does unionization matter?  As Mark Hemingway says:

After a British airliner bombing plot was uncovered in 2006, the TSA overhauled security procedures in a matter of 12 hours to deal with the threat of liquid explosives. It's difficult to imagine that kind of flexibility under ossified union rules.

Also, unionization will cause more headaches and delays for travelers, as I said the last time unionization for the TSA came up:

Imagine this situation: you're in a long line at an (probably Atlanta) airport, looking at time creeping away while the security line oozes toward the X-ray machines and metal detector.

The clock ticks over to 4:00 P.M. and suddenly two stations are abandoned.  Why?  Those workers are going off shift and due to unexpected volume of travelers, the TSA didn't plan for so many people to show up and didn't schedule more (and knowing the government, they made the schedule two months ahead).  And since they have no "mandatory unscheduled overtime" they can't make them stay.

So now the line slows.  And 4:15 rolls around and two more screening stations are abandoned because it's time for the workers' break.  Don't worry, they'll be back in half an hour.  After you miss your flight.

Why in the world would Napolitano want to unionize the TSA?  Simply: it would then become another Democrat-leaning public employee union that would fill the coffers of Democrats with mandatory union dues. 

Disinfectant Resistant Bacteria

Evolution in action:  You know those anti-bacteria soaps and gels that say they kill 99.99% of all bacteria?  I always worry about that 0.01% they don't kill.  Now they have no competition, are apparently immune to the disinfectant, and can grow like mad.  Evolution of the species.

And now scientists are finding bacteria that not only survive disinfectants, but thrive!  LiveScinece reports:

[A] new lab study shows one pesky bacterium eats cleansers for breakfast: When disinfectant was applied to lab cultures of the bacteria, they adapted to survive not only the disinfectant but also a common antibiotic.

Did they evolve to do so?  Looks like it:

The bacteria were able to more efficiently pump out antimicrobial agents. The adapted bacteria also had a genetic mutation that allowed them to resist ciprofloxacin-type antibiotics specifically.

This has implications for hospitals and other environments needing to kill germs.  Over-use of disinfectant can and will give us more disinfectant resistant bactreia.

MRSA, or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, has become a deadly and growing problem in hospitals in recent years.

So what's the solution?  I don't know.  We'll have to come up with better disinfectants to kill the stronger bugs.  This is one arms race it would be very costly to lose. 

2009 Predictions: Review

Last year I made some predictions about 2009.  Lets see how I did.

1) The economy will continue to falter and sputter along through 2009 as various "stimulus" plans fail to do much.  Yep, pretty much, with unemployment at 10%.

1A) The Dow Jones Industrial Average will not be more than 10% higher than it is today (closed the day at 8776.39)  The Dow Jones is at about 10,500 or almost 20% higher, so missed that one.

2) Gasoline will settle somewhere around $2.00 a gallon.  More like $3.00 a gallon, so missed that one.

3) Barack Obama's middle class tax cut will barely survive intact and will be much smaller than Obama promised.  It seemed to disappear somewhere around inauguration day.

3A) Taxes overall are going up, perhaps including taxes on carbon or selling of "carbon credits."  Not yet.

4) There will be an attack on an American interest somewhere in the world.  This may be on U.S. soil.  Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airplane.

5) Obama's State of the Union speech will be Castroian in length (2 hours, minimum).  Silly me, there is no State of the Union the first year in office for a new President (I stand by this one for Obama's SOTU speech next year.)

6) There will be a movement to lower the national speed limit.  No, but some in the Obama Administration would like to bring it back.

7) Gun control will come back with a vengeance.  Not really, although there's always the dull roar of the anti-gun nuts (See here and here).

8) The Fairness Doctrine will rear its ugly head. Again, not really.

9) Mitch McConnell will be the left's new whipping boy now that Bush is out of the picture.  No, that didn't happen.

10) Something amazing will happen that almost no one predicts.  Hmmmm, can't think of a thing to fit this category.

So, I got, what, two right.  Not as good as 2008.  I'll have to think about whether to make predictions for 2010.

Technology Trap

Sometimes its dangerous to trust technology too much.  Take the case of the Nevada couple who got stuck for two and a half days in the snow after their GPS directed them over a forest service road.  The AP has the story:

[Klamath County Sheriff Tim] Evinger said a Lake County deputy found the couple in the Winema-Fremont National Forest outside the small town of Silver Lake on Sunday afternoon and pulled their four-wheel-drive Toyota Sequoia out of the snow with a winch.

The couple's GPS enabled cell phone got a signal for some reason on the third day and they were able to send their location to emergency dispatchers.

I've had GPS systems send me on some interesting drives (especially if I choose the "shortest route" option).  But you have to use common sense and know not to go on untraveled forest roads in winter.

The couple had been in Portlandand followed their GPS as it directed them south on U.S. Highway 97 to Oregon Highway 31, which goes through Silver Lake and Lakeview before connecting with U.S. Highway 395 to Reno, Evinger said.

In the town of Silver Lake, the unit told them to turn right on Forest Service Road 28, and they followed that and some spur roads nearly 35 miles before getting stuck in about 1 1/2 feet of snow near Thompson Reservoir, the sheriff said.

Think I'd be trying to dig out in two and a half days.

So you need to be careful out there.  Don't trust your GPS completely. 

More on the Detroit Airplane Bomber

Slow news week.  If it hadn't been for the privileged, upper class jihadist who tried to blow up an airplane there wouldn't be much going on.

AP is reporting on the explosive used:

The explosive device used by the would-be Detroit bomber contained a widely available — and easily detected — chemical explosive that has a long history of terrorist use, according to government officials and explosive experts.

The chemical — PETN — is small, powerful and appealing to terrorists.

Except the U.K. Guardian says:

The explosive that nearly brought down Northwest Airlines flight 253 is extremely powerful, allowing terrorists to use only small quantities to cause enormous damage. And the colourless crystals of the substance, PETN or pentaerythritol trinitrate, are hard to detect if carried in a sealed container.

PETN was also the explosive used by Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, back in 2001.

Seems to me the best way to prevent terrorism is to not let certain people on airplanes.  Yes, that means racial or religious profiling.  But Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab should never have been allowed near an airplane since he was known to have jihadist sympathies.

But instead airline passengers will have to suffer through more ineffective and ridiculous security measures.

More Airline Security

My internet died Christmas Eve.  I spent the morning today getting it back up and running and the afternoon catching up on blogs, news, etc.  But in the mean time, I missed a lot of what's going on.

So apparently there was a Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airliner by a passenger.  And apparently it was thwarted by other passengers.  As Mark Steyn says:

On September 11th 2001, the government's (1970s) security procedures all failed, and the only good news of the day came from self-reliant citizens (on Flight 93) using their own wits and a willingness to act.

On December 25th 2009, the government's (post-9/11) security procedures all failed, and the only good news came once again from alert individuals . . .

A man is on the no-fly list but is allowed to board the plane. Everyone flying on an inbound long-haul flight to the United States is forced to hand over excessively large amounts of liquids and gels and put the small amounts permitted into separate plastic bags, yet the no-fly guy's material for bomb-making sails through undetected.

But now the TSA is reacting with . . . more new security regulations for airline travelers to deal with:

Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing.

The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.

And some airlines are only letting you take one bag aboard and other absurd rules:

Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows.

This is so typical.  Instead of trying to figure out what security measures didn't work, the TSA is imposing new inconveniences on airline passengers.

Why don't they just ban . . . everything.  Issue you a paper gown to fly in and not let you have anything on the plane.  Then maybe we'd all be "safe" (until a terrorist figures out a way around that).

And that's just the issue: the terrorists will always find ways around whatever security you have in place.  There is and never will be any security system that is 100% fool-proof.  Yet there has to be a point of diminishing returns.  How much security do you buy by not letting passengers up during the last hour of a flight?  Not a lot.

Merry Christmas

Christmas Stinker From the Senate

Well, this morning the Senate passed its version of health care reform on a straight party-line vote (the two "independents" voting with the Democrats).  As AP reports:

Senate Democrats passed a landmark health care bill in a climactic Christmas Eve vote that could define President Barack Obama's legacy and usher in near-universal medical coverage for the first time in the country's history.

"We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people," Obama said shortly after the Senate acted.

Yeah, right.

This doesn't mean it's a done deal.  It still has to be reconciled with the House version and then whatever comes out of that process has to be voted on by both chambers and passed.

Still, what's in this bill is egregious enough.  As Betsy McCaughey relates in today's Investor's Business Daily, there are "lumps of coal" in the Senate's Christmas "treat."

1) Higher Premiums

2) A cost you can't afford and can't avoid (because it's mandatory)

3) A One-Size-Fits-All Health Plan

4) A sin tax on your generous plan at work

5) Government controls on your doctors' decisions

6) Hospitals closed to seniors

7) Bare-bones hospital care

8) Future Medicare cuts (just in time for us baby boomers to join the program)

9) A new social agenda

10) A tell-all relationship with every doctor you see

Details at the link.

But it's clear the Senate version will fundamentally change health care in America and not for the better.  You sure this is the change you voted for?

Gun Sales Surge; Violent Crime Drops

(Hat Tip Cassy Fiano via Instapundit)

When Barack Obama was elected President, gun and ammunition sales surged probably due to a lot of people assuming he was going to ban guns.  (Even now you can't find ammunition very easily.)  And a funny thing happened: violent crime dropped.  According the the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) blog (links original):

Preliminary statistics released by the FBI for the first half of 2009 show that violent crime continues a downward trend that began in 2006. The figures show crime falling in all categories--robbery, aggravated assault, motor vehicle thefts, etc.--with murders down a remarkable 10 percent from the previous year.

As the NSSF blog points out, this is in direct contrast to the (lie) of the anti-gun nuts that more guns means more crime.  I don't know if there's a correlation (i.e., more guns has caused there to be less crime) but there definitely isn't a correlation between more guns meaning more crime, as liberals and anti-gun nuts would attest.