Is that global warming or are you just happy to see me?

I have received an interesting link to an article entitled, "Al Gore's Personal Energy Use Is His Own "Inconvenient Truth"" which details Al Gore's exorbitant use of electricity at a great cost to the world's atmosphere. The fact that he is a bit of a hypocrit is exhibited in his film as he travels around the country in luxury limos and planes, and uses energy-guzzling displays for his presentations.

The one scary point here is, the article does not dispute any of the assertions that Gore makes in his movie. I will add to that, I've watched some of his movie (intending to finish it) and much of what he says is now popularly accepted science or common sense, or both. This is the point that we need to focus on.

Gore may or may not (I lean towards the former) be a hypocrit but that doesn't make him wrong!! I will continue to advocate a position that I have been advocating since I was 10 (and I still have the newspaper clipping to prove it), we need to take responsibility for our world. Steps have been taken through the advent of recycling (despite Penn and Teller's video - for an educated rebuttal click here), the Federal Clean Air Act, CAFE, and other initiatives. More importantly, we need to take it upon ourselves to do what we can.

There is an interesting article in this month's This Old House magazine entitled, "Planning a Green Remodel". It tells about how to remodel your home with energy-saving and environmentally conscious designs at a price that fits whatever budget you may have. You don't have to live in a dirt bungalow and burn whale-oil lamps to start to help the environment. Give it a read.

You can also find plenty of books over at Barnes and Noble that will help with this effort. Some of their recommendations include:
Green Remodeling: Changing the World One Room at a Time

,
The New Ecological Home: A Complete Guide to Green Building Options

or
Consumer Guide to Home Energy Savings: All New Listings of the Most Efficient Products You Can Buy

In addition, plan your trips to make them the most efficient they can be. This is not only environmentally sound, it's good economics as well. If you can, consider the hybrids. Consumer Reports has admitted that their previous assertion that they don't really save gas, was based on incorrect calculations. In addition to saving gas, they dramatically reduce greenhouse emissions. Again, good economics.

I'm for improving the environment, not returning to the stone age. I believe that as Duke Energy, GE, and BP continue to find $$$ in becoming "green", it will only help us solve problems. As mentioned above, it's not only good for us, it's good for our wallets too.

Thoughts anyone?

Just when you thought it was safe to like the French

Yesterday's Bergen Record carried a story entitled, "French leader Maurice Papon dies". It details the passing of a man who was convicted of complicity in crimes against humanity for his role in deporting hundreds of Jews from the Bordeaux region in France during the Vichy regime.

For those who are not students of history, the Vichy regime was when a portion of France rolled over and played dead in order to avoid being invaded by the Nazis in World War II. They essentially became another German state in order to save the Nazis the trouble of taking them over in a no-doubt bruising battle lasting for maybe several hours.

Mr. Papon was convicted in April 2, 1998 (a mere 53 years after the war) and served a portion of his ten year sentence but was released by the French government because of his age and physical health. It only took almost 20 years of legal efforts by a former Bordeaux resident and a Nazi-hunter to bring the man to justice. In 1994, then-President Mitterand admitted that he was using his office to delay prosecution of Mr. Papon.

Would you like to know Mr. Papon's defense? He was just following orders, AND he didn't know that the Nazis were sending the Jews to be exterminated in Aushwitz!! Ok, haven't we said before that one of the main roles of government is to protect its citizenry, especially its most vulnerable?! How did Mr. Papon do this by sending 1690 of his citizens (223 of them children) to a foreign country ruled by a political party that was openly hostile to those he was sending? What did he think the Nazis were doing with them, having them over for tea? Even if he didn't know they were being exterminated, he at least had to know that they would not fare as well as they would have if they had stayed home!!

This is the country that has the NERVE to preach to the United States about the morality of its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan!! They have the gall to criticize our actions and yet cannot even follow through with a condemnation against one of their own CONVICTED countryman. They cannot even allow him to fulfill his 10 year sentence for what is one of the most heinous crimes in the modern world. They "feel bad" because he was "sick". Are you kidding me? Why don't they "feel bad" that he HELPED KILL 1690 people!!!

The French have NO moral standing in any forum!! They should not even be allowed to address the world stage. Furthermore, I have said it before and I will continue to advocate a refusal to assist the French government in any way. Personally, I will do my part by not ever spending a single US dollar in France despite my desire to see the city of Paris.

Thoughts anyone?

Follow-up to "Let Them Know"

As a result of my post "Let Them Know", I decided to put my money where my mouth is, so to speak, and I e-mailed McDonalds Corporation about the issues I had with their Fair Lawn store. They e-mailed back the next day that they would forward my concerns to the franchise holder and that I should expect to hear from them in the very near future.

I waited almost a week and then e-mailed again because I had not heard from the franchisee. Corporate quickly e-mailed their apologies and assured me they would contact the franchisee again. Below is my most recent e-mail to Corporate:

"Just a follow-up to this thread. On Wednesday evening, I had a
message on my cell phone saying. "Hello Mr. Kirk [Obviously not my name],
this is Mr. (unintelligible) from McDonalds. I'm calling about your
problems with the Fair Lawn McDonalds. This is the second time I've tried
and I guess I'll try tomorrow." Click.

I called back the phone
number that was on my cell showing as a missed call (because the caller left no
contact information as you can see), and left a message giving him my schedule
for Thursday and a contact number at my work. It's now Sunday and there
have been no further attempts to communicate.

The tone was rude and
obnoxious. He was obviously not really interested in what I had to say and
was only calling so that he could tell Corporate that he "tried to contact me"
but "couldn't reach me". I find it interesting that when calling a
disgruntled customer, he couldn't even take the time to get my name
correct. In addition, the fact that it was the "second" attempt to reach
me is an outright lie!! We have caller ID on our house phone as well as my
cell and there is voice-mail on both. He left no messages and there was
only the one unusal phone number on the caller ID from the time that he did
reach my cell.

I think that it's time that Corporate get more
directly involved in this issue. Clearly the management issues in the Fair
Lawn store come from the example set at the franchisees' headquarters.
There is a total lack of interest, concern for the customer, and
professionalism. I know this is not acceptable at Corporate stores and it
should not be allowed at the franchise level. This level of interest is
reflected in most of their stores in the area including Ramsey (17 North) and
Paramus (17 North) but most definitely in the Fair Lawn store. I can tell
you it has made it more likely that we will save our trips to McDonalds for when
we are away from home (and you can imagine how frequent this is) instead of
being our fast food restaurant of choice around home. We now opt for the
local Wendys instead."

I'll let you know how it turns out. So far, it's not very encouraging.

Success in Iraq?

Today's inspiration comes from an article in the NY Times entitled, "Military Wants More Civilians to Help in Iraq". It addresses something that has been stated here on several occasions and seems to have been missed by the press and government overall. The problem with the Iraqi strategy is not military but political. Men and women who are not able to feed, clothe, or house there family will look for reasons and people to blame. Who better to blame than the conquering Multi-National Forces led by the US?

To combat this, infrastructure and normalcy needs to be restored immediately. We needed to have a Marshall Plan ready to go the minute the statue of Saddam hit the ground. We needed to be able to provide more jobs than applicants helping to rebuild things destroyed by the attack. We needed to put every available Iraqi to work building roads, schools, houses, whatever it took. It worked in Europe and it even worked when FDR did it with the New Deal here in the US.

Why is it so difficult for us to understand? Why have we allowed the money to sit idle or to go to corrupt Iraqi bureaucrats and US contractors? Why isn't there an outcry in Congress over that? If we paid more attention to this, we wouldn't need a "surge". People who are working and making a contribution to society have no time for insurgency.

The thing that we must remember is that we are not talking about a country that is uneducated or incapable of being self-sufficient. Iraq has a well-educated, albeit underutilized, middle-class that is more than capable of "stepping up" and taking care of business. What they need are the resources to lead. The resources to counter the insurgency by offering a viable positive alternative. Yes, security is key, even moreso since we didn't start this effort when it should have been, but it's not the only focus we should have.

It's important for us to remember that we are talking about the people who gave the world the first code of law, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, and are possibly the keepers of what was once considered the Garden of Eden. We are not talking about a secluded tribe of Pacific Islanders who have never seen a skyscraper, understood democracy, or run a country. We need to partner and encourage the civilian side as much, if not more, than the "military solution." That's where Congress should be focussed. That's what they should be passing resolutions on, not trying to embarrass our President on the world stage.

Thoughts anyone?

Trouble with EMS 2 - or Why you don't put Bureaucrats in charge of Education

As promised in my previous post, I will discuss the short-sightedness of the New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS). For many years, it was the policy of the Department to allow EMTs whose cards had expired to recertify by taking a 48 hour refresher course and then successfully passing the EMT examination. There was NO time restriction on the length of expiration. In other words, it didn't make any difference whether your card had expired two months or twenty years.

For personal reasons, I let my card expire in June of 2000. In August of 2002, I asked my ambulance corps captain about getting the paperwork to enroll in a recertification course. She told me that, effective June 2002, the DHSS had passed new regulations requiring any EMT with a card expired more than 2 years to take the full 120 basic certification course and successfully pass the EMT examination.

Does anyone besides myself notice the similarity in the basic requirement to become an EMT? Am I the only one who notices that EVERY EMT has to successfully pass the EMT examination in order to become an EMT?

Apparently, that fact has escaped the DHSS. I have written letters to then Governor Cody and the Commissioner of the DHSS (on several occasions) and they do not seem to see the similarity. They sent me letters actually stating that this change was made to improve the quality of EMS and to make sure that former EMTs are "updated" appropriately because some of their knowledge and skills may be outdated or "rusty". All of that may be true but the EMT still has to successfully pass the EMT examination! If they don't, they have to re-take the basic EMT-B course until they successfully pass the EMT examination.

Given that the exam is the ultimate determiner of whether someone becomes an EMT, what difference does the course length make? Why am I sitting and studying how to use equipment that I've used for over 20 years (and have taught hundreds of others how to use) when my time would be better spent in a refresher course that focuses on what is new in EMS? Why is this disincentive thrown up by the DHSS when all the local newspapers are talking about the shortage of EMTs throughout New Jersey? What ADVANTAGE is there in this new policy if the bottom line is that the EMT successfully pass the EMT examination?

Please understand, I WANT to take a refresher course. I KNOW that there are new things happening in EMS all of the time. I AGREE that I need 48 hours and SHOULD be required to successfully pass the EMT examination, but I challenge any State official to post a reasonable rationale on why I (and the many expired EMTs that I know that refuse) have to take the entire semester-long basic course.

Thoughts anyone?

The trouble with EMS

On January 26th, the Bergen Record ran a front page article entitled, "Lack of EMS volunteers hurts wallets ", and on January 30th the Herald News ran an editorial entitled, "Creativity may be needed to fill EMS crews". In both of them, they discuss the dwindling ranks of EMS volunteers and they offer the usual explanations and the usual "cures" for the problem.

I would suggest that, while the "hectic" lifestyle and "need for 2 wage-earners" are indeed contributing factors as is the 120 hour course (no need to tell me since I'm going through it now even though I'm a former EMT instructor - a future blog on the stupidity of the New Jersey Department of Health - listening Governor Corzine?), they are not the biggest disincentive.

I would also suggest that, while the stipend and pensions are incentives, they are not the biggest incentives.

I am currently in class with over 70 new EMT students (part of the 250 currently training in this semester in Bergen County - that's an average of 3.5 new EMTs per town). They are all committed and excited to get involved. They represent a new level of excitement and dedication that pours from the academies every semester. So if towns have the potential of adding 7 new EMTs every year, where is attrition coming from?

I would begin to look at the current structure of local EMS starting with the local ambulance corps and going up to the state level with the New Jersey State First Aid Council. The problem is management (or lack thereof). Every local corps is run by elected volunteers and thus the management is only as good as those who win that year. Sometimes corps are lucky and they get someone who has the time (because it's virtually a full-time job), the competency, and the fairness to do the job well. More often, they get the current most popular person or the person "who's due" and they may not have the time, skill-set, or impartiality to deal with the variety of personalities, needs, and situations that arise in this position.

In addition to that, as a non-profit volunteer organization, much of the EMT's time is spent in non-medical pursuits such as equipment maintenance, fund-raising, and politicking. This detracts from the reason that they joined in the first place which is to provide first aid to those in need. Stuffing envelopes and arguing over which bills to pay this month were not in their concept of what they were signing up for. The disillusionment over this, combined with the more hectic lifestyle, is a more probable reason for the high turnover. A professional who wants to volunteer their time to "give back to the community", does not want to come home from a day of meetings and corporate politics to have to deal with more meetings and ambulance corps politics. They want to come down to the ambulance building, spend some time training with people they enjoy and respect, and respond to emergency calls.

For this reason, the stipends and pension plans are not going to be enough to satisfy these people. What they would appreciate more is an ambulance corps that allows them to focus on the reason they signed up. It's funding/spending should be 100% from the town budget, it should have a professional, paid administrator, and the volunteer should be made to feel appreciated. The department can still elect officers to work "out on the street" while the administrator takes care of the "back office". This would include supplies, maintenance, paperwork, and any other duty that doesn't directly involve emergency response.

I think if towns were to start to do this instead of use their money for stipends, they would see an increase in the recruitment and retention of volunteers. There are a lot of people out there who want to volunteer, but they don't want to waste their time. To see more about how to care for these people, I would suggest reading a copy of The Care and Feeding of Volunteers by Douglas Johnson.

Thoughts anyone?