Radioactive Communist Zombies

Great Moments in the Annals of Government Medicine.

It's been just over a year since it was revealed that government-run VA hospitals has exposed tens of thousands of patients to HIV.

And now it's happened again (Hat Tip: Instapundit).  CNN reports:

John Cochran VA Medical Center in St. Louis has recently mailed letters to 1,812 veterans telling them they could contract hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) after visiting the medical center for dental work, said Rep. Russ Carnahan . . .

The issue stems from a failure to clean dental instruments properly, the hospital told CNN affiliate KSDK.

Wonderful.  This could never happen in the Obamacare Paradise, right?

And I thought government-run health care was supposed to save money.  How much will it cost to care for these veterans who may have contracted HIV?

Meanwhile, in Massachusetts, government run health care is going so well and is so inexpensive.  Actually, no, it's a shambles and costing the state an arm and a couple of legs.  Sally Pipes writing in Investors' Business Daily reports:

In Massachusetts, health care prices are out of control, emergency rooms are overcrowded, the government is at war with itself and private insurers are running in the red, refusing to enter critical markets on the government's unrealistic terms.

And costs in Taxachusetts are going up faster than the national rate and faster than before the government took over health care.

So looks like government-run health care, like Obamacare, reduces quality and increases costs.  Sound just like a typical government program.

Outta the Car, Long Hair!

A "think tank" called "Sightline" is reporting the gasoline consumption in the Northwest increased when the price of gas dropped.  Meanwhile, a dog bit a man.

I mean, seriously, you had to do a study of this?  The Seattle Times reports:

Residents of Washington, Oregon and Idaho bought an average 7.5 gallons a week, up from 7.4 gallons the year before, according to an analysis released Wednesday by Sightline, a pro-environment think tank.

This reverses a trend toward decreasing gas consumption.  Sightline isn't too happy about it:

Sightline suggests carbon or pollution taxes to curb demand, and criticized bridge projects that increase road lanes in Seattle, Portland, and Vancouver B.C.

In other words, they want you out of your car and into public transportation.  They don't even want you to be able to get to work in a timely manner because there are enough road lanes to relieve congestion (despite the fact congestion needlessly burns a lot of fuel and dollars).

But these envirowackos don't care.  They simply want you out of your car.  Because in your car you have freedom and that's what they really can't stand.

Chicago Already Planning on How to Restrict Guns

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court extending 2nd Amendment rightsto the states, Chicago is already trying to figure out how to get around the ruling.

The fact of the matter is, these people don't want their citizens to be able to protect themselves.  So they, like Washington D.C., are trying to make gun ownership as difficult as possible:

Chicago may severely limit the number of handguns that can be kept in a single home and ban gun dealers within city limits in the wake of Monday's landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that gutted the city’s handgun ban, City Hall’s top attorney said today . . .

“Reducing the number of handguns in Chicago is critical to public safety,” [Corporation Counsel Mara] Georges said.

Right.  So why is, oh, North Dakota which has many more guns per capita than Chicago so much safer?

Frankly, the only gun control law we need is "Use a gun in a crime, go to jail for a long time."  (Hey, that rhymes!)  But gun control is not about safety, it's about controlling the population and keeping them beholden to the government.

Can Electric Cars Be Fun?

The Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt aren't exactly cars to get your heart pounding.  And don't even get me started on the Prius.  So it seems saving the planet (from what, I don't know) is going to be a sad, boring affair for those of us who like to drive fast, corner hard, and brake enthusiastically.

But, maybe not.  According to a piece on MSN today, Audi is building an electric super car (yes, that sounds like an oxymoron to me, too):

The e-tron looks like a cross between an Audi R8 and an electric razor. The one-off concept EV is fueled by a lithium-ion battery pack mounted in front of the rear axle and is propelled by four electric motors, one powering each wheel to deliver all-wheel drive. Audi says total output is 313 horsepower and 3,319 lb-ft of torque. No, that number isn't a typo. Electric motors produce gobs of torque, which means they have an enormous amount of get up and go from a standstill. The e-tron will supposedly gallop to 60 mph in 4.8 seconds, only about 0.8 seconds slower than the company's R8 4.2 with its gas-powered V8 engine.

And Mercedes is building an electric supercar.  And of course, there's the Tesla.

But here's the problems I see.  1) Range.  They are still talking only about 150 mile range before the car needs recharging.  That'll get you to work and back and it might even be enough for a track day (my last track day I burned over 27 gallons of premium).  And will that range be as high if you are constantly putting your right foot against the firewall?

But in any case, 150 mile range will not take you and your trophy wife from, say, LA to San Francisco.  Or even Spokane to Seattle.

And 2) recharging time.  How long does it take to "fill the tank" once you've drained the batteries?  I doubt it's the minutes it takes to pump gas into a car.

Finally, there's speed.  The e-tron may "only" be 0.8 seconds slower than a V-8 version of the R8 to 60, but in the supercar world, that's eons.  For example, a base Corvette runs to 60 in 4.0 seconds.  A Corvette ZR1 hits 60 in 3.4 seconds.  That's "only" 0.6 seconds.  What does it cost for those 0.6 seconds?  There's a $55,100 price differential between the base and the ZR1.  In fact you could buy two base models for the price of a ZR1.  People willing to plunk down $9,200 per tenth of a second gained are not going to be happy with a car "only" 0.8 seconds slower.  (And the e-tron is 1.1 seconds slower than the V10 version of the R8, and that's an eternity.)

So I doubt electric supercars are going to appeal to many, except those trying to show off their "green" cred (and have oodles of case to liquidate).  I still prefer a good, old-fashioned V-8.

The 2nd Amendment Lives!

Today the U.S. Supreme Court validated that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution applies to states and localities.  In other words, your civil rights can't depend on where you live.  As Thomas Sowell says today:

Those who have no confidence in ordinary Americans may expect a bloodbath, as the benighted masses start shooting each other, now that they can no longer be denied guns by their betters. People who think we shouldn't be allowed to make our own medical decisions, or decisions about which schools our children attend, certainly are not likely to be happy with the idea that we can make our own decisions about how to defend ourselves.

But history shows again and again the allowing private law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms lowers crime.

As for the merits or demerits of gun control laws themselves, a vast amount of evidence, both from the United States and from other countries, shows that keeping guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does not keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It is not uncommon for a tightening of gun control laws to be followed by an increase — not a decrease — in gun crimes, including murder.

Conversely, there have been places and times where an increase in gun ownership has been followed by a reduction in crimes in general and murder in particular.

Take Washington D.C., for example.  After the Heller decision striking down D.C.'s ban on handgun ownership, crime . . . dropped.  This despite the fact you have to jump through flaming hoops to exercise your civil rights.

Gun control is based on the laughable notion that criminals will obey some laws, but not others ("I'm going to rob this bank but I'd better not use a gun because that's against the law").  Chicago will be safer thanks to the Supreme Court.

Deciding Who Gets Justice Based on Skin Color

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)  Remember when New Black Panther Party thugs were hanging outside a voting location in Philadelphia intimidating voters?

Well, the Obama Just-us department has decided to do nothing about it.  Why?  Because it's payback time, apparently. 

J. Christian Adams writing for the Washington Times was a Justice Department lawyer and resigned in protest of the dismissal of the Black Panther case and the corruption of the Obama Administration:

Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it "payback time." Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.

This means that whether you can get justice from the Obama Just-us Department depends on your skin color.  Which is what the civil rights movement fought to end.  But now it's reverse racism, just to make sure whitey doesn't get too comfortable.

So how bold will the New Black Panther party be in 2010 and 2012 now that they know the law does not apply to them?

[T]he Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters.

If this is allowed to continue, to grow, to fester, and to escalate, we will undoubtedly see violence against voters.  And will the Obama Just-us Department still look the other way because of the skin color of the victims?

The Chevy Volt

Consumer Reports, those arbiters of all things wise and good, have come out with a short video about the Chevy Volt.

So Consumer Reports seems impressed.  (I'll be more interested in what Car and Driver has to say.)  Low-rolling-resistance tires do not make for good cornering.  And it may have plenty of torque, but if you use it, you'll cut down on the all-electric range.  You'll also cut down on the range if you use the AC, the heater, or any number of accessories.

And a price in the low $30k for a compact car with few amenities is a lot to fork over to sooth your eco-conscience.  Still people will probably line up to buy one.  Not me, I like internal combustion too much.  And my hard-earned money, too.

U.S. Corporate Tax About to be The Highest.

Not only does the U.S. lead the world in the having one of the worst tax systems out there, but soon it's corporate tax may be the world's highest.

Right now, at 39.2%, the U.S. is only beaten by Japan's 40%.  But Japan is, according to some, about to cut their corporate tax rate to try to help their economy:

Within the pages of the Democratic Party of Japan's newly released economic "growth strategy" report, one section outlined a plan to slash corporate tax rates by up to 15 percent.

The problem is, capital is mobile.  And it will go where there is the least resistance to making more money.  If the U.S. hopes to compete in the world, it needs a corporate tax rate that is competitive with our competition.  Perhaps even a very low or zero corporate tax rate.

But, of course, the Democrats would never cut taxes for evil corporations.  Even to grow the economy.

Revenue Raising Tricks

Governments love money.  And there's no better source for money (at least for state and local jurisdictions) than traffic tickets.  For example:  Thursday I drove to another town about 70 miles away on the main north-south corridor of south-central Washington State.  This is a two-lane highway with a speed limit of 60 (that desperately needs to be made into a four-lane highway with a speed limit of 70).

At one point, there was recent chip sealing done.  And the speed limit was dropped to 35 due to "loose gravel" (there wasn't any; it was pretty well beat down).  Luckily, I got behind a truck that was going the speed limit and I couldn't pass because at the end of the chip sealing (but before the speed limit went back up) were two state patrol officers with laser guns waving people over to write tickets.  And, of course, traffic fines double in work zones (even if the work zone has no work going on in it).  So the cops must have been racking in the dough for the state and local coffers (I don't know who gets the money when a State Patrol officer writes the ticket).

Later in the day, I drove the same route going north and the cops were gone.  But so was the 35 mph speed limit.  So they must have been getting as much loot as they could before the speed limit was raised.  Oh, and road conditions were no different when the limit was 60 versus 35, just the speed limit raised.  So enforcing the 35 mph speed limit had nothing to do with safety.

Meanwhile, Spokane is still hauling in the dough with red light cameras.  A lawyer tried to argue the citations issued by the cameras aren't legal because they aren't signed by a police officer.  The city said:

[T]he tickets are signed when an officers pushes a computer button that tells an Arizona company to affix a digital photo of the officer's signature.

So the ticket is "signed" by pushing a computer button that allows an Arizona company to write you a ticket.  Sounds pretty fishy to me.  But hey, it raises revenue.

Just remember, traffic enforcement is about raising money, not safety.  Jurisdictions prove that all the time.

Welfare Money Going to Gambling

Shockingly, some folks getting welfare in California are using the money to gamble instead of feeding their kids (or whatever the money is supposed to be used for).

According to the LA Times, it's not an insignificant sum:

California welfare recipients using state-issued debit cards withdrew more than $1.8 million in taxpayer cash on casino floors between October 2009 and last month, state officials said Thursday.

However, state officials were quick to point out that that's less than 1% of welfare payments.  (Which means that in those eight months California spent more than $180 million on welfare or annualized $270 million a year.)

The governator issued an executive order requiring welfare recipients to promise they will spend the money to "meet the basic subsistence needs" of their families.  Like that'll stop 'em.

Here's the problem: you give people free money then are upset when they spend it irresponsibly?  Perhaps if they had to earn the money they might be little more careful with it.  Have you ever been in one of these Indian casinos?  It's like the AARP crowd.  And their parents.  Social Security must be the number one supporter of Indian casinos.  But, that again, is money given to them by the government (if you're going to argue that Social Security money is earned, go do your research first, it's old people welfare, plain and simple).

Solution seems obvious to me: stop giving people money for free.