 |
Endorsements |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
"You really are clueless, an embarrassment to the name. Hope you're adopted." -- June Dever
"this guy is right about conserving a clue. he hasn't one and that leaves more for the rest of us." -- Jim Lovell
"Your e-mail addy... should be 'dever@getalife.net.'" -- Sponge
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Topic: Misc.The new items published under this topic are as follows.
| Rookies |
| Posted by: dever on Saturday, December 06, 2008 - 05:34 PM |
After a couple of weeks of watching the new A&E television show, I have to stop and ask myself, "Is there anyone with half a brain going in to law enforcement?" In one episode this week, one of the rookies ran out of gas on scene and had to call for another unit with a gas can. Seriously? Ran out of gas? I never once pulled an ambulance out of the garage without checking the gas gauge and if I didn't have ¾ of a tank at least, I filled it up. Likewise, at the end of a shift I always filled the tank up if it was under ¾ of a tank. I also checked all the emergency and non-emergency lights, and any warning instrumentation on the dashboard. Look, you're talking about a job where you're going to spend most of your shift getting in and out of a vehicle and that vehicle may be your only means to get you or your partner out of an unsafe situation – along with your radio, it's your lifeline. Wouldn't common sense dictate that you check your lifeline?
Maybe it is just the editors going out of their way to make the rookies look like they're having a tough time with it, but I'm still left wondering what bone-headed move these rookies are going to make next. At least, I wonder it during those few times I'm not yelling at the television, "What are you doing?" "Take control of the scene!" "Quit questioning this guy with your gun hip facing him, take a defensive posture!"
I had a lot of hope for this show, but after a month I'm finding it to be almost unwatchable.
|
|
|
| Comment?
|
| I took this job for the glamour... |
| Posted by: dever on Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 10:26 PM |
So my partner and I had the bariatric cot on the squad we were assigned to Monday night. Lucky us… got a discharge from a west side nursing home for a guy (we'll call him "John") with some obvious MR/DD issues who is on the wrong side of 600lbs. The squad assigned to provide us a lift assist is already waiting for us when we arrive. We get inside and learn that my partner knows John from when he was working at a hospital ER some years ago. Apparently, John used to be a very bad boy. One night Cleveland EMS brought him in the ER high on "wet" aggressive and badly delusional. Somehow, through the use of a small army of police and EMS, they had managed to restrain him on a backboard and haul him in. Once in the ED, they secured the backboard to a hospital gurney. John decided he didn't want to stay at the hospital and started rocking his weight until he got the gurney upright and proceeded to start duck walking out the EMS entrance – with the gurney and backboard still strapped to his back. He's not going to be walking anywhere on us now that years of uncontrolled diabetes has taken his feet from him. Nonetheless, I'm happy when he tells us with a smile, "I'm reformed now."
John is going home to a house a ghetto and we hit our first snag of the night when he describes the house to us. For the bariatric cot, there's an aluminum board that folds out and bolts to the top of the cot to make it wider to accommodate large patients. Unfortunately, that plate doesn't fit through the narrow doorways of most of the circa 1920 duplexes in that neighborhood, so we're going to have to take him without it which is going to be rather uncomfortable to him. The alternative is going to be to put a tarp under him and when we get to the house, slide him through the door on the tarp instead of the cot, which is rather humiliating. He informs us he'll tolerate the narrow cot for the trip. The nursing home uses a hoyer lift to put him on the cot, and the four of us secure him with extension straps – so far so good. The bariatric cot is capable of holding 1500lbs according to the manufacturer, so we're in good shape. The four of us load him my squad, I hop in the back with him and we head out.
We arrive on-scene and get a look at the front of the house and realize that we're going to need additional manpower to lift him up the steps. (Note to self - A "few" steps is a relative term.) My partner calls for a 3rd squad while the patient's guardian informs me that the bed isn't quite ready yet for him, that the medical supply guy they're using had the wrong parts and he'll be back in about 20 minutes. Meanwhile the 3rd squad gets the dispatch and assumes that since we're calling for a lift assist from a residence that we're stuck on an emergency run and can't get the patient out of the house and runs hot to our location. As they come down the street with lights on and sirens blaring, two thoughts cross my mind: 1) I'm glad that if I was in a jam, my brothers are going to get there to have my back just as I would theirs. 2) I wish they hadn't just drawn the additional attention to us that they had. Its 22:00, we're standing around in the ghetto, now the entire neighborhood is now outside watching us and there's still no sign of the guy with the parts for the bed. The teenage boys start doing their crypt walk up and down the middle of the street next to us. One woman starts throwing her trash bags off her 2nd floor porch on to the lawn next to one of the squads and asks us to take them to the street. We decline.
More importantly, my patient is starting to get very uncomfortable on that cot. A half hour goes by, and we walk over to his guardian who has been sitting in her car the entire time with her kid sitting next to her, smoking her cigarettes and talking on her cell phone, and ask her to call the guy back. He says he's on the way. After an hour I'm less that thrilled with the entire situation. First of all, this patient's family is absolutely worthless and apathetic and I'm appalled that not once did any of them bother to walk over and see how he is doing. Secondly, he's now miserable on the cot to the point of having tears in his eyes. I don't care how big the guy is or what he did to get in to that condition, I didn't take this job to make people suffer – I took this job to help alleviate suffering. Finally, we have three squads sitting out of service waiting around that could be doing other things. I walk back to "Mary's" car and tell her, "Look, he's in a lot of pain in there, call this guy back again and find out if he's actually coming out here."
Around 23:30 the guy from the medical supply company is back and the bed is ready for us. We open the front door to make sure we have a clear path to bring him in. When the door opens, it startles some cockroaches that scurry up the wall while grandpa/dad sleeps on the couch and a little girl plays on the floor. A toilet sits against the wall in the middle of the living room next to the front window. Even under the worst conditions, a nursing home has to be better than this…
|
|
|
| 8 Comments
|
| Flashbacks |
| Posted by: dever on Tuesday, March 07, 2006 - 02:56 AM |
While surfing the net today looking for old snippets of this website and trying to get the scent back, I ran across the following wonderful site:
The Wayback Machine/Internet Archive
Wow. I guess I should have figured that someone would have done this. In any event, it's been a very interesting evening looking back at good times, not-so-good times, and downright funny posts. I forget how good this site really was at one point and how honored I felt that some of you came by regularly to see what I had to say.
So, while most of you are gone and won't see this, I'll say it anyways - Thanks.
|
|
|
| 93 Comments
|
| Death of the 1st Amendment |
| Posted by: dever on Tuesday, May 22, 2001 - 03:00 AM |
There are few hypocrisies in this world that amuse me more than watching the left accuse the right of "hiding behind the first amendment." This champion cause for the far left (well, except the right to freely exercise your religion) has always been the First Amendment. Liberals would have you believe that they have a monopoly on open-mindedness and acceptance that people have the right to express themselves. In reality, liberals are only interested in protecting free liberal speech.
For years I?ve been saying that I?m more open minded than any liberal. This is usually met with some sort of scoff. What people can?t possibly know is that while I am opinionated and proud in my beliefs, I welcome the opportunity to have an intelligent discourse regarding political issues. Believe it or not, a well-reasoned and logical argument has shifted my opinions in the past. (e.g. The failed war on drugs and the individual responsibility of a woman deciding to have an abortion)
Unfortunately, to most hard-core, big ?L? Liberals, the idea of a conservative or libertarian expressing an opinion is enough to make their head spontaneously combust. For years we?ve attempted to point out that freedom of speech is being stifled on our college campuses. Acceptable free speech is liberal free speech. When I was studying Journalism at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, I was told that because of my political views, I could look forward to a life of writing obituaries ? Conservatives need not apply. While attending high school in Ohio, I received violent threats for publicly questioning how an elitist, invitation-only, minority-only group was going to adequately address racial issues without inviting whites into the discussion group. Make no mistake about it, in our government indoctrination camps we have the freedom of liberal speech. Emotional responses, knee-jerk reactions and intellectually-fraudulent arguments are totally acceptable - logic and reason are not.
We all saw the public outcry when university newspapers ran David Horowitz?s ad listing why reparations for slavery is a bad thing. For the first time that I can remember, it was the liberals stirring up discontent on our college campuses that were described as fascists and nazi?s. For years the big lie has been that they?re so much more compassionate and accepting than evil conservatives. The more they told that lie, the more people believed it. Finally, it was too much to ignore their actions and accept them at their words only. They betrayed themselves and displayed their lie to the world when they seized an entire run of the school newspaper at Brown University. So much for freedom of the press.
Now they?re up in arms again. This time it?s the Independent Women?s Forum that is running afoul of our liberal run government higher political re-education facility called UCLA. The IWF?s problem is that they had the balls (ok, there might be a pun intended there) to stand up against the feminist movement and debunk ten of it?s greatest myths. They used the same tactic as David Horowitz, running a full page ad in the college newspaper.
The UCLA Clothesline Project (a feminist organization) has complained about the ad and is organizing protests. Their reason? According to Clothesline executive co-chair Christie Scott, the paper is "hiding behind the first amendment." There?s a bit of irony here - the liberals are accusing the rest of us of hiding behind the bill of rights. Scott went on to say that the ad, "breeds a very bad attitude toward campus women." That?s not entirely true, the ad breeds a very bad attitude toward the sort of campus woman who believes that all sex is rape, runs around spewing junk science statistics, and generally is looking to blame an evil white guy for all of her problems ? real or imaginary. In short, it breeds a very bad attitude towards women like Christie Scott.
Tina Oakland, the director of the UCLA Center for Women and Men says that the ad is something akin to revisionist history. "It's the same thing as the people who deny that the Holocaust ever happened," Oakland said. It is quite a stretch to imply the running of an ad that says statistics such as "one in every four women on a college campus has been the victim of rape or an attempted rape is utter horse dung" is something akin to denying that the Holocaust occurred.
But Ms. Oakland is actually being quite sly. She?s using the typical liberal tactic of avoiding the subject and eliciting a strong emotional response instead. The fact that her statistic is, indeed, false doesn?t matter at all to her. Oakland told the Daily Bruin (UCLA?s student newspaper) that the "one-in-four" statistic had been cited on the official websites of the FBI and the American Medical Association. But the statistic is nowhere to be found on either of these two websites. When asked about this by National Review Online, Oakland said, "The statistics don't really matter that much in the big picture. We're just trying to focus on the real issue here, to debate about civil rights, not bicker about numbers."
In other words, the facts mean nothing, these folks are wrong because they are evil, white, and male. Funny, aren?t these the same sort of hollow, intellectually corrupt arguments used and loved by racists and bigots everywhere? The unfortunate thing is that the entire campus feminist movement is rooted straight out of that one-in-four statistic. But let?s not talk about the statistic, let?s talk about dead Jews and how if you don?t support feminism, you?re supporting the Holocaust.
Our campus liberals don?t want to discuss the facts, deal with reality, or allow you the freedom to express a view which doesn?t fit into their illusion of how the world operates. After all, it?s been the conservatives and libertarians who have been supporting and upholding the ideal in the First Amendment (and the entire Constitution for that matter) all along.
I don?t know how I can emphasize this point enough, it?s so incredibly common. When backed into a corner, a liberal will always go for the emotional response. You have to learn to look past it. You have to dig through all the rhetoric and look for that nugget of gold that we call the truth. The truth is all that matters, everything else is just cheap whiskey.
|
|
|
| 5 Comments
|
| Straight Pride |
| Posted by: dever on Wednesday, April 04, 2001 - 03:00 AM |
A Minnesota teen-ager at Woodbury High School, told he couldn't wear a sweatshirt with the words "Straight Pride" on it because it was offensive to some students, has sued the school district in federal court claiming his free speech rights were violated.
Make no mistake, the only freedom of speech and expression allowed in our government schools is liberal speech and liberal expression. How is wearing a "Straight Pride" more offensive than the similar "Gay Pride" events held all over the United States? Even if someone is offended by the concept of "Straight Pride," who cares? One of the largest failings of our public education system is this notion that you have some sort of right to never be offended. This disservice is producing another generation of children who are totally unable to cope with the real (non-academia) world.
Even more outrageous is the utter lack of historical knowledge shown by the school district. In an effort to foster an atmosphere of tolerance the school district is displaying inverted pink triangles around designated "safe" areas of the school. The "safe" areas are set aside for student/teacher discussion and counseling regarding homosexuality and other non-traditional relationships. Apparently the issue of "Straight Pride" is offensive to homosexuals, but congregating under the symbol given to homosexuals by the Nazis (to facilitate the dehumanization and massacre of homosexuals in concentration camps) designates a "safe" environment. Himmler himself must be laughing in hell at the irony of it.
Quite honestly, to steal from Jack Nicholson for a moment, we don?t care where people want to shove their show. Here at The Clue, we want people to get as much sex as they can possibly handle - heterosexual or homosexual. Not only is it a natural biological function, it makes for a more cheery disposition towards ones co-workers. "Promote a non-hostile work enviroment - get laid!" is (one of) our motto(s). We do, however, get offended when the liberals are getting as much free speech as they can possibly handle without allowing for a differing opinion.
|
|
|
| 35 Comments
|
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Printer Friendly Page | Register | Log in 
