Encyclopedia Screwedica – Page 2 – OfficiallyScrewed.com

My Two Cents On Tasering

November 23, 2007Mulder

I’m not an expert on the conditions under which a Taser should be used. Nor am I a doctor to be able to tell you under what medical conditions Tasering could be dangerous.

But I am electronic engineering technologist. At least my BSc. EET degree telles me so.

And the past week I have heard numerous phone callers to Radio or TV talk shows talk about the voltage that kills people. I have probably heard a couple of TV/Radio Hosts repeat the phrase that it is not the amperage that kills you, but the voltage.

This is grossly inaccurate. It is the current that kills you. And actually the numbers that were given to me in school was that 500 milliAmps to 1 Amp is enough to fry you. Yet after investigating Taser.com I discovered that the current Tasers put out is in the neighbourhood of 2.1 milliAmps. You get more current from sticking your tongue between the two terminals of a 9V battery.

For clarification, Voltage does not kill directly at all. What it does is cause your muscles to contract. There are reports that Voltage can throw a man across a room. This is actually Voltage causing muscles to contract enough to have this man throw himself across the room.

The other lesson we learned is that you never let electricity cross your heart. i.e. you never touch something electronic with one hand while the other one is grounded. This is why electricians almost always have one hand in their pocket which means any jolt would travel down the side of their body to the ground through their legs and not cross the chest.

In light of all the recent Taser talk, I will wait for investigations/inquiries to take their course but my guess is that Tasers need to be fired away from the chest of a person to minimize the chances of the voltage contracting a heart muscle to the point it gives out.

On a similar vein, In this regard, I must point out that there was an episode of Mythbusters which they created a shocking statue and grabbed the two terminals with their hands. I was simply astounded that the show would let it’s hosts get shocked this way. Luckily no one was hurt or killed.

CBC Has Dirty, Filthy, Nicotine-Stained Secret

February 28, 2007Mulder

This morning on the radio, I heard a short clip about a dirty little secret the CBC has. Or more accurately, two dirty little secrets.

There are apparently video and/or photos taken with a hidden camera of two smoking lounges located in the CBC’s Toronto facilities. Smoking lounges with nice, comfy sofas and ashtrays packed with cigarette butts.

It’s nice to know that private corporations in Ontario are legally mandated to be smoke free but the precious CBC can have not one, but TWO smoking rooms.

~~I have yet to see this in print, but as soon as I do, I will add to this blog post.~~ You can read about this in the National Post.

Stay tuned.

(Note: I am not against smoking, as I, myself, smoked for over 18 years. I just think what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Keep your eyes open for a public announcement that these smoking rooms have been officially closed.)

Smackdown – Scotty Gets Spanked

February 15, 2007Mulder

Today during Oral Questions Maxime Bernier lays a spanking on Scott Brison. Watch the video below.

The facts:

-Chrysler to cut about 2000 jobs due to restructuring

-Ford to close engine plant cutting 860 jobs

-Toyota opening new “plant is expected to create 1,300 direct jobs and several thousand additional jobs at parts manufacturers and related industries.”

Not to mention January 2007 was one of the hottest job creation months in Canada with 89,000 new jobs created. The analysts had only forecasted 10,000 new jobs but the Canadian economy is red hot.

Click the video below once to view. (Don’t forget to rate the video)

If you cannot see the video play above, try clicking the link below once.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4e4PrYrsaRc

Judicial Committees Need The Insight Of Law Enforcement Officers

February 14, 2007Mulder

Yesterday, in the Sun, Greg Weston had a piece titled Tory Control Freaks.

This was a piece about how the recent changes to the judicial committee makeup will change things forever.

Usually Mr. Weston has some pretty good insights and I enjoy when he gets a chance to sit in on Duffy or other interview shows. But this time, Greg has missed the mark.

1) As we have heard, the 50+ judges the Tories appointed last year were all recommended by the previous panel which the Liberals put together.

2) Greg shoots himself in the foot with this statement:

True, many of these judges — maybe even most of them — got where they are with a little help from their respective political pals.

This admission by Greg is pretty accurate which means that after 13 years of Liberal government, the majority of judges appointed the past 13 years will obviously be leaning towards Liberal ideals. This is not a right wing neo-con complaint as Greg says, but it is simply fact. He basically said it himself in the quote above.

3) This third point is very critical. The committee used to be 7 members. It used to contain
* a nominee of the provincial or territorial law society;
* a nominee of the provincial or territorial branch of the Canadian Bar Association;
* a judge nominated by the Chief Justice or senior judge of the province or territory;
* a nominee of the provincial Attorney General or territorial Minister of Justice; and
* 3 nominees of the federal Minister of Justice representing the general public.

Where do judges come from? In Canada they come from the lawyer pool. And as Greg mentions above, they don’t get where they are without some help from their respective political pals. By extension, this means that most lawyers and judges have a vested interest in being politically minded to some extent.

To me it does not matter what Party you are from or support. Having 4 of the 7 people influenced by politics creates an unfair playing field…especially if one party has been in power for 13 years.

The Tory plan, which is just a one year trial at this point, adds an 8th member nominated by the law enforcement community. These are the people who are out there in the communities, meeting people, seeing where law enforcement and judicial systems work and where they break down. I can’t think of a better position to provide input from two perspectives. 1) they know the community and 2) they know the judicial system.

So what happens now is that the third position, or the senior judge, does not vote unless the other seven members on the panel are deadlocked (with an abstention). This does not make any shift in the political leaning of the board, it simply adds an element that is clearly involved on a daily basis with the judiciary, WHO IS NOT PART OF THE JUDICIARY. This will help minimize the “old boys club” aspect that the Judiciary seems to have.

There will be detractors, who spew garbage like “if they want a police officer, they can appoint one with their three positions”. By this logic, any of the positions could be appointed via the governments three nominations. This would include someone from the Bar or Law Society too. I call this the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” defense.

Now to get people like Marlene Jennings to stop quacking.

Double Smackdown – Liberal Marlene Jennings Slams Cookie Jar Lid On Own Hand

February 12, 2007Mulder

Today during Oral Questions, Marlene Jennings brings up patronage and in a double smackdown she gets rebuffed by both Rob Nicholson and Peter Van Loan and we learn something interesting about MRS. Jennings personal life.

Click the play sign below ONCE to view the video.

If you cannot see the video above, try clicking the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-xVtbTkyAU

Suzuki Math Indicates 4 x 0.4 = 2 : No Wonder EnviroNazis Are Wrong

February 11, 2007Mulder

Today’s Ottawa Sun has a Q and A session with David Suzuki about his carbon spewing bus tour across Canada and this is one of the questions.

Q: What role should Canada play on the international scene?

A: Canada produces 2% of C02 emissions, but represents just 0.4% of the world’s population.

So we produce four times more pollution per capita than the global average, and because of that, we have an obligation.

My 10 year old does better math, Mr. Suzuki.

But this is besides the point when we really think about it. Yes, Canadians may create five times the man made emissions of CO2 compared to our percentage of the population. But let’s look at some comparative information to assess the “obligation” part of his comment.

Canada has 10% of the world’s forests (StatsCan numbers) and as we know the 402 million hectares of woodlands we have eat up a massive amount of the earth’s carbon dioxide to produce the wood that becomes the tree trunk.

Newly planted trees can eat up to 15 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year, so for my calculations I am going to say 10 tonnes to be conservative (which we all know I am).

This means that Canadian forests alone are pulling 4 GigaTonnes of CO2 out of the air each year. Yet our CO2 emissions are only about 60 MegaTonnes/year. Or let’s be less specific and say that Canadians are only producing 640 Megatonnes of GHGs/year (as per Greg Weston’s column that I blogged about here.)

This means that our nation is sinking approximately 66 times the CO2 that we produce and sinking about 6 times the GHG’s that we produce by CO2 equivalency.

I can hear the environmentalistas screaming now…..”But wait, you are only considering man made green house gases (and CO2)!!”

Ah yes. Man made. And this brings us back to the crux of the debate that keeps getting overlooked by these ecoterrorists. Where ARE all these other Green House Gases coming from??

And thus, we find ourselves back to water vapour. That elusive substance escaping from the earth’s oceans in massive amounts. That substance that makes up 95% to 97% of the GHGs on the planet.

If only we had enough Saran Wrap to cover the Pacific…

Liberals Take Meaning Of Opposition To A New Level And Oppose Their Own Bill

February 10, 2007Mulder

In what amounts to the Liberals coming out and stating “I spit in your general direction!“, they have come out and opposed the Tory plan to extend the Anti Terrorist bill that the Liberals themselves created and passed while in power.

The former Liberal government of Jean Chretien rushed the sweeping federal law through Parliament in the weeks after 9/11, arguing law-enforcement agencies needed extensive new tools to deal with the threat of terror.

But in response to concerns the law would trample civil liberties, the government placed a “sunset” clause on the provisions of the law enabling “preventive arrests” and “investigative hearings.” Both provisions expire at the end of next week, unless both Houses of Parliament pass a resolution to extend them.

The Conservative government tabled a motion yesterday that would extend the provisions for three years.

But now that the Liberals have withdrawn support, the motion looks doomed. Both the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois oppose any extension. A vote on the motion is expected next week.

The Liberal shift surprised national security experts, who were expecting an extension to sail through Parliament.

Has Dion lead the Liberals further left than they have been in a long time? Or is he opposing just to be opposing? I think it is a bit of both.

What’s your take?

H/T to Werner Patels

What's Wrong With This Picture?

February 10, 2007Mulder

Chateau Laurier The headline reads…

Big-city mayors seek common solutions

The the article goes on to say…

Mayors from 22 big cities across Canada met Friday at the Chateau Laurier Hotel to discuss how best to handle the problems facing Canadian cities.

Now for those of you living in the 21 big cities that are NOT Ottawa, you may not pick this out, but for those of us who live in Ottawa, noticing that they want a “common” solution while staying at the ritziest hotel in Ottawa seems a bit odd.

Just to give you an idea, the Chateau Laurier is a minimum of $189/night and for an Executive Suite we are talking over $500/night. Don’t bother asking about the Presidential Suite. Even a politician wouldn’t have the balls to book that one.

We in Ottawa are also lucky enough to not have to pay the travel expense and I would guess that our Mayor Larry O’Brien probably woke up in his own bed the day of the meeting and probably went back home to his own bed after the meeting.

I hope one of the problems that they discussed was the overspending on travel by city politicians.

Liberal Garth Turner

February 6, 2007Mulder

It’s coming….