Sunday, December 28, 2008
Back in my Officer days, if citizens complained about you more than once, your superiors would claim, "You have formed a Pattern. You are going to have change your ways, break this pattern or you will be going up to Sacramento for "Charm School""
Now, let us recount our major events this year.
The Russians invade Georgia--Obama is on vacation--takes FOUR days to come out with a Statement.
According to Congress, we have an Economic Crisis--they call for a Bail-out votes before the world stops turning. Obama is on vacation--says "Call me if you need me"
Israel starts pounding Hamas in Gaza-- Obama is on vacation... No word of what he thinks. STRANGE: He has his "Office of President -Elect" and has meddled in the Bush Administration's policy--but not now.
Based on observed behavior, where do you think BO will be when the Jihadists set off a nuke in New York... and what do you think he will DO?
Saturday, December 27, 2008
What used to burn my butt as a Highway Patrol Officer was the fact that--by California Law--you had to take YOUR car in EVERY year, pay $65 to $100, and get your car "Smogged". Don't do that--It can't be registered. For not registering it, you can be cited every day for a year, have added Late Penalties, and at one year expired, an officer can impound your car--and you can not get it back until you register it--but you have to smog it before it can be registered.
Yet, Jose could get a "Border Crosser" card, and drive his POS beater across the border every day. He did not have smog HIS car, as it was registered in Mexico--that had no Smog laws.
California just put in this:
http://www.indiawest.com/readmore.aspx?id=742&sid=6California Passes Nation’s Strictest Diesel Truck Rules
By SUNITA SOHRABJI
indiawest.com December 24, 2008 06:30:00 PM
In a move opposed by many small trucking businesses, the California Air Resources Board passed the nation’s strictest rules for diesel truck emissions Dec. 12 in Sacramento.
“This couldn’t have come at a worse time,” Paul Sihota, CEO of Royal Express Trucking in Fresno, Calif., told India-West. “Everything’s slowed down so much because of the economy,” he said, adding that he anticipates cutting back 10 percent of his workforce to meet the expenses of complying with the new regulations.
In an India-West article earlier this summer, Indian American truck owners, who make up one-third of the industry in California, said the new regulations, which require costly retrofits and replacements, would force many smaller trucking companies to shut down (I-W, July 25).
Diesel emissions in California contribute more than 40 percent of the two biggest components of air pollution: particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen, known as Nox. The American Lung Association estimates 9,000 people in the state die annually from illnesses associated with poor air quality, including chronic bronchitis and asthma.
Annually, about 3,700 deaths can directly be attributed to diesel-related illnesses, according to the ALA.
After hearing two days of testimony from nearly 200 truckers and public health advocates, CARB adopted new regulations which require all truck companies to initially retrofit their fleets with diesel trap oxidizers by 2010.
Trucks older than 2010 will have to be replaced, on a staggered schedule, by the year 2020. Companies with fleets of one to three trucks have an extra year to comply.
Fines for non-compliance could be as much as $10,000 per day.
The rules apply to all trucks doing business in California, whether or not they are registered in the state. Trucks that do long-distance hauling are also required to install more efficient tires and aerodynamic features.
“Today’s vote marks a milestone in the history of California’s air quality,” said California Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols in a press statement announcing the new regulations. “The Board’s actions will not only help protect the health of 38 million Californians, they will also ensure that California continues strongly on its path to achieving clean air,” she said.
Karen Caesar, CARB information officer, told India-West: “This was one of the most important and well-attended hearings in ARB’s history. Hundreds of people came forward to testify, and the Board took their comments very seriously.
“I think most people are pleased with the outcome, and feel we have passed two very progressive and vital regulations that will help to save lives and protect our future,” she added.
To help offset the estimated $5 billion in costs to the trucking industry, the state is offering $1 billion in loans and grants. Loan and grant applications are available on the CARB Web site: www.arb.ca.gov.
Sohinder Athwal, founder of the Fresno, Calif.-based Market Express, told India-West, “We’re going to have to start spending money next year. I’m going to have to take on more debt to pay for the new equipment.”
Athwal has a mostly-newer fleet of 20 trucks, which were manufactured between 1998 and 2007. He applied for early-compliance funding in October from the Carl Moyer fund, but has yet to learn if he qualifies.
California is facing a staggering budget deficit of more than $41 billion over the next 19 months, and many truckers wonder if the state will be able to offer the funds it has promised them if it runs out of cash.
Sihota, of Royal Express, plans to move a significant portion of his business to Arizona. “There’s a lot of frustration in the industry about these new regulations,” he said.
“During an emergency in the state’s economy, California’s businesses are being burdened with cumbersome and expensive rules that just make it harder to do business here,” said Sihota.
The industry had offered an alternative to CARB’s regulations, which phased in the upgrades over a longer period of time. CARB rejected the proposal, saying its own timeline was designed to comply with federal standards.
Diesel costs so much in California due to all the "Scrubbing" it gets in refining to remove Sulfides.
Yet, when Diesel was almost $5.00 a gallon in California, you could cross the border, and fill your tank for $00.50 per gallon.
And now--The Mexican trucks can burn that stuff while American trucks have to buy the expensive "Clean" fuel in California.
Friday, December 26, 2008
When I became a new California Highway Patrol Officer in 1971, you soon found out the Seniority System that was in place.
You learned that you were in the order of Seniority for Transfers and for Vacation sign-up. So if you were a "Newby", you got your vacation in Janauary. Get some seniority, you could go finally to summer months when your kids were not in school.
You learned that on the job, Senior Officers got to pick their Shift and the Beat (Area--Road--Neighborhood, as the CHP has to patrol County Roads). Newbys got what was left, often crappy roads or neighborhoods.
Senior Officers got an "assigned Car", which meant only they got to use that car.
Then came 1975: Women.
You soon found out that women had kids, and kids were their leverage. "I have to work Day Shift (Or Night Shift) because my I have to take my kids to ___"
Seniority went out there, becuase the Sergeants, Lieutenants, and Captians caved. Get an Equal Opportunity Complaint in your file, and your chances of promotion were dead.
You see all those above the rank of Traffic Officer--now, just Officer-- lived for the next promotion. The idea was sold to you,"You are not successful unless you promote".
From about 1990 on, Police Agencies found it hard to recruit new people.
Potential applicants heard about situations like the police officers involved in the Rodney King thumping--who were accused (But committed no crimes--they followed policy all the way)--charged, tried and found NOT GUILTY. Then President G H Bush then sent the FBI in, who charged them with violating Rodney's Civil Rights, and sent two of them to prison. Potential applicants saw O J Simpson get away with murder, and have attorneys destroy the reputations of an entire Department, and convict an detective for Perjury, based on something he said, and his memory of saying it.
So appicants became scarce. The Department began catering to Newbys.
No longer was the use of a car by a senior officer unique. Days Off were decided by a Supervisor--A sergeant--who was often influenced by the Department catering to women, minorities, and new officers. You found yourself following a Rotation System, that could have certain people exempted.
Now, it is 2001. The ONLY thingto show that I had the most seniority in my office is that my picture on the Office picture board is at the top. I am given a Parking Spot in the fenced back lot--which I usually found that some day shift (0600-1430)officer had parked in. [My preferred shift was 1300-2130, and only three people were assigned that shift. You were one of three officers out there from 1300-1500 that could be sent to crashes] I am taken off my favored beat, and constantly sent to an undesirable beat at the Sergeant's whim.
The ONLY thing that remained was Transfers and Vacation Sign-up. Yet, vacations took a hit as Newbys would sign up for summer vacation--then ask for Vacation days at Christmas -New Years--because " I have kids at home".
Sept 11, 2001.
After the World Trade Center Attack, all officers are taken out of their cushy path-to-promotion Office Jobs and put "On the Road". Two Officers are assigned to cars working from 1800 to 0600. You can be alone from 0600-1800 hours.
I find that I have been assigned to the 1800-0600 shift. I went to the Captain, I told him that I could "Get sick" from then until my date of retirement--Imposed by the Department (Mandatory Retirement at 60)of October 1, 2001. He said "Just change it".
What has all this got to do with the title?
We see a poser get picked by the Democratic Party. Qualifications? He's Black ( By his choice, as his mother was White). Yet, they put him in a place that should be occupied by someone with more experience in National Government.
We see an offspring of a President, long ago assainated, who had a reputation built by the Media. JFK.. Got us into Vietnam, chickened out of the Bay of Pigs, and was a womanizer who had an extensive prescription drug use--pushed to be a Senator from New York--based up her father and her mudering drunk uncle from Massachussetts
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Another symptom that California is afflicted with a terminal disease.
So, judging from the decision, the rescuer should have left the victim in the car to burn up.
From the Los Angeles Times
California Supreme Court allows good Samaritans to be sued for nonmedical care
The ruling stems from a case in which a woman pulled a crash victim from a car 'like a rag doll,' allegedly aggravating a vertebrae injury.
By Carol J. Williams
December 19, 2008
Being a good Samaritan in California just got a little riskier.
The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.
The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.
Lisa Torti of Northridge allegedly worsened the injuries suffered by Alexandra Van Horn by yanking her "like a rag doll" from the wrecked car on Topanga Canyon Boulevard.
Torti now faces possible liability for injuries suffered by Van Horn, a fellow department store cosmetician who was rendered a paraplegic in the accident that ended a night of Halloween revelry in 2004.
But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help.
In 1980, the Legislature enacted the Health and Safety Code, which provides that "no person who in good faith, and not for compensation, renders emergency care at the scene of an emergency shall be liable for any civil damages resulting from any act or omission."
Although that passage does not use the word "medical" in describing the protected emergency care, it was included in the section of the code that deals with emergency medical services. By placing it there, lawmakers intended to shield "only those persons who in good faith render emergency medical care at the scene of a medical emergency," Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote for the majority.
The high court cited no previous cases involving good Samaritan actions deemed unprotected by the state code, suggesting the challenge of Torti's rescue effort was the first to narrow the scope of the law.
The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."
Justice Marvin R. Baxter said the ruling was "illogical" because it recognizes legal immunity for nonprofessionals administering medical care while denying it for potentially life-saving actions like saving a person from drowning or carrying an injured hiker to safety.
"One who dives into swirling waters to retrieve a drowning swimmer can be sued for incidental injury he or she causes while bringing the victim to shore, but is immune for harm he or she produces while thereafter trying to revive the victim," Baxter wrote for the dissenters. "Here, the result is that defendant Torti has no immunity for her bravery in pulling her injured friend from a crashed vehicle, even if she reasonably believed it might be about to explode."
Both opinions have merit, "but I think the majority has better arguments," said Michael Shapiro, professor of constitutional and bioethics law at USC.
Shapiro said the majority was correct in interpreting that the Legislature meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with "reasonable care," as the law requires.
Noting that he would be reluctant himself to step in to aid a crash victim with potential spinal injuries, Shapiro said the court's message was that emergency care "should be left to medical professionals."
Torti's liability has yet to be determined in court, and if the Legislature is unhappy with any judgment arising from the immunity denial, it can revise the code, he concluded.
Torti, Van Horn and three other co-workers from a San Fernando Valley department store had gone out to a bar on Halloween for a night of drinking and dancing, departing in two cars at 1:30 a.m., the justices noted as background.
Van Horn was a front-seat passenger in a vehicle driven by Anthony Glen Watson, whom she also sued, and Torti rode in the second car. After Watson's car crashed into a light pole at about 45 mph, the rear car pulled off the road and driver Dion Ofoegbu and Torti rushed to help Watson's two passengers escape the wreckage.
Torti testified in a deposition that she saw smoke and liquid coming from Watson's vehicle and feared the car was about to catch fire. None of the others reported seeing signs of an imminent explosion, and Van Horn said in her deposition that Torti grabbed her arm and yanked her out "like a rag doll."
Van Horn's suit alleges negligence by Torti in aggravating a vertebrae injury suffered in the crash, causing permanent damage to the spinal cord.
Neither Torti nor her attorney, Ronald D. Kent, could be reached immediately. Kent's Los Angeles law office said he was in meetings on the East Coast and may not have seen the decision.
Van Horn's attorney, Robert B. Hutchinson, disputed the notion that the ruling could have a chilling effect on laymen coming to the rescue of the injured. Good Samaritan laws have been on the books for centuries and state that "if a person volunteers to act, he or she must act with reasonable care," Hutchinson said.
"Ms. Torti ran up in a state of panic, literally grabbed Ms. Van Horn by the shoulder and yanked her out, then dropped her next to the car," he said, deeming Torti's assessment of an imminent explosion "irrational" and her action in leaving Van Horn close to the car inconsistent with that judgment.
Hutchinson said it was too early to say what sum Van Horn might seek in damages; her original suit was summarily dismissed in Los Angeles County Superior Court before he could arrange expert assessments of the costs of her life care and loss of potential income. It was her ambition to become a Hollywood makeup artist -- a dream no longer achievable, the lawyer said.
Torti's trial at the Chatsworth courthouse is expected next year.