In re: Voter IDs

Backgrounders:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/04/opinion/norden-voting-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/31/opinion/priebus-voter-fraud-laws/index.html?iref=allsearch

http://news.yahoo.com/ufo-sightings-3-615-times-more-common-voter-184730211.html

Big debate in the US: Does requiring a person to present a photo identification at a polling station violate their right to vote?

Well, I suppose a case can be made statistically that poor people, minorities and really old folks might not get around to procuring such IDs, even though they really are pretty easy to come by these days. So, statistically, such people would be more adversely impacted than other demographic groups. And, of course, we have to make this a racial issue because minorities are involved. And it becomes a partisan issue, because, statistically, those demographics are more likely to vote for the Democratic Party than the Republican Party.

To me, to borrow a phrase from Pappy: Tis a tempest in a teapot.

I am sorry, but if you live in a state in which you want to vote, you would think that you would have enough smarts to get a photo ID so you could.

It is not like “everyone” has the privilege to vote. If you think so, then you need to recheck your data. There are a variety of groups residing in the US who do not have the franchise, so to speak, and it is perfectly legal and actually correct. If you don’t know which groups, then you need to go back to school and take a civics class, assuming that they still offer them in high school … it actually should be integrated in at all grades, but teachers have enough to do.

Personally, for the last 44 years, I always have presented the identification required, be it a voter registration card or a photo identification card (and often, I present both).

The big argument against the practice is that there has been only a few cases in the last few years of documented voter fraud involving identifications. Now, that is probably true, but it does tighten up the credibility of the vote, if poll judges can verify the identity of each person against a register.

Of course, even registration lists are under fire. In Florida (remember, where Al Gore unsuccessfully tried to steal the 2000 election by using the judicial system), the government there is under attack because it is using a variety of data bases to purge its voter rolls before November 6 of people who are a) dead, b) felons, c) non-citizens. The argument being that the data bases are not accurate.

Well, that might be true, but one would think such efforts should be attempted, just to lend credence to the idea that the people who do vote are actually qualified to vote. (Note: Voting is not a right. That dog won’t hunt. It is a privilege and you do have to qualify for it by a) being a legal resident and b) registering)

Now, I can tell a story – related to me by Pappy, of how my grandfather Reginald voted in an election in Kansas City in the late 1930s … about a year after he had died. When Pappy noticed it on the poll judge’s registration book that his father, whose name immediately preceded his, was marked as having voted. He pointed on the impossibility of his father actually voting to the poll judge, and a rather large poll watcher quietly but firmly told my father: “He’s voted” and Pappy being a man of much discretion, chose it over valor and did his thing and left.

So, please, let’s not do anything to cast any more doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process. There is enough already. And I am really getting tired of the Democrats in the US crying wolf on the matter.

Sorry, but that is my view. (I think most of the time, the Republicans for the last 40 years have been too muddle-headed to pull off such shenanigans).

Syria

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/halting-syrian-chaos-robert-d-kaplan-and-kamran-bokhari

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/08/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

First thought: Ain’t our problem.

Ok, we ought to stand with people seeking a voice in their government, which – it should be rather obvious – in most Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern countries has been far from the state of affairs.

And I think, for the most part, the US tries … I am not so sanguine as to contends it succeeds but I give us credit for at least trying.

Now, there are two ways of trying. One is called using soft power and the other is by using its complement, hard power. Soft power usually means with words; hard power usually means with means other than words, up to and including military force. In other words, with hard power you try to coerce the party to whom you wish to change their behavior using forceful pressures, from sanctions to military action; while, with soft power, you try to convince the party to change their ways by talking to them and reasoning with them that it is in their own best interest to change course.

Sometimes, soft power – often called “diplomacy – actually works. However, in the real world – regretfully, because we all have differing points of reference, much less views, usually it takes some form of hard power – pain – to make governments and regimes to change their mindset.

In Syria, well, I hate to say this but the US is not about to be listened to by the Assad government. Sorry, but that option really is not viable.

Secondly, I am pretty certain that the American people – having grown tired of wars in the region and Southwest Asia – are not really all that gung ho to get involved in yet another conflict that basically is intramural one, where if we have any role, it should be holding coats … and possibly passing ammunition.

The problem is – as in with any domestic-violence situation, a police officer will tell you – that no matter what the US does, it is going to piss off some people. People, neighbors, others involved in similar situations are all going to look at the situation and wonder, “Could/Would that happen to us?”

In my estimation, that is what they (the other folks) should and will do, and unfortunately for those who think the US OUGHT to do something (anything, please), is resent the US playing – yet again – global constable-on-patrol (Cop, those who don’t recognize the acronym).

Ok, the US was never elected to be the global cop. We kinda inherited the role from the Brits after World War II. They pretty much played the global cop role for a century and half and for the last 65 years, it is has fallen by default to the global power with the strength and capability to do it. The old Soviet Union (and now the Russians) and to a lesser extent, the Chinese, wanted to, or would like to see themselves in that role, but unfortunately, they really don’t have the ability. Alfred Thayer Mahan, more than a century ago, had a really good explanation of why, but I will leave that for you all to look up and find out about.

Now, if the US is not going to play global cop in Syria, well … who is going to be the cop on the beat. It looks like the job has basically fallen to Turkey, according to the above analysis, which probably is valid. Of course, one can imagine the Turks would like to play a much greater role on the world stage than they have for the last century, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which for centuries DID dominate the world scene in many ways).

Now, the question is:

A: Are the Turks up to the challenge? Heck, I don’t know.

B: Are the Iranians (the Turks rivals going back millennia) going to let them do it? I don’t know that either, but given the bent of the current regime in Tehran, I would find that doubtful.

Which brings me to another point: Why the heck should the US care or be involved? It shouldn’t. Sorry, but this is a domestic squabble and, for one, I think the Syrians should duke it out. Of course, I am not above having the US pass ammunition to side we would like to win, but it really isn’t our fight … at the moment.

So, should Ms. Rodham-Clinton be running around saying that the days of the Assad regime are numbered? Probably not, but then, I am not in the government and that decision is not mine. Thank God.

But anyway, so much for that random thought.

Hope for the best; expect the worst

I had a nice person comment on one of my rants, pointing out that we need to retain our hope that “government” will do the right thing for us … to retain faith in our government.

I could not agree more. Yes, we need to retain our hope and faith that government will do the “right” thing for us … but I would also say that we need to expect that the people in government, either elected or hired, will still be people … and that means they will be flawed and not always perfect, or even good.

However, hoping that someone will do the “right” thing begs two questions:

1. What is the “right” thing? Who defines it? How is it defined? Can it mean different things to different people? Do we as individuals have the right to have our own definition of the “right” thing, even if it disagrees with the vision of others?

2. For whom is it appropriate to do the “right” thing? I mean, for example, is it appropriate for a ditch digger to perform heart surgery, or a heart surgeon to dig ditches? Both work to improve the channeling the movement of fluids. Is it more appropriate for a town government to do something rather than the state government or the federal government or the United Nations? Who decides?

I know; I am terrible; I just ask questions. I guess I am sort of addicted to the Socratic method of thinking.

Still, we have to admit that human altruism is the exception rather than the rule. Why is that I haven’t a clue, but I know it is true. It is why we celebrate demonstrations of it, rather than just accept it as just another normal day at the office.

People are selfish. Governments, because they are run by people, are selfish. Now, just because something looks out for its own interest and does things because it is in its own interest, it doesn’t make either that something/someone or what it does bad. Not by a long shot.

Richard Dawkins wrote an interesting book that I read a few years ago called “The Selfish Gene.” Note, this is not a light read or an easy one, but it is enlightening.

The basic thing was that genes are selfish, acting in their own interest to replicate themselves, but sometimes they do things that seem almost altruistic … but in reality, really are just manifestations of its own self-interest. It is somewhat a radical thought, but I think it is true for the most part.

I have long contended that since people ARE selfish, the trick is to harness that selfishness so that it does the community and civilization at large the best. Sort of what Mr. Dawkins is talking about when he is discussing the selfish gene. In other words, how can I make what I want them to do what I want by making it something that they see is in their own best interest and rewarding. I don’t want them to do it out of fear because that ultimately is contra-productive. Also, I am not one to engage in conflict for conflict’s sake. I merely do it when I perceive it is my own best interests, where the rewards exceed any foreseen costs.

So, what is in our own best interest? Well, I think each of us has to determine that ourselves. First, only we really know what our interests are and, second, it isn’t really fair to slough that responsibility (or even authority) off on someone else … they already have a full-time job deciding what is in their own best interest (and they, like the rest of us, are doing it imperfectly).

Of course, all that assumes that individuals have a right to decide what to do and to be free of outside forces telling them what their role is to be. Granted, to an extent, we do let outsides forces tell us what to do every day by adhering to the rules, social mores, regulations, laws and contracts, social and otherwise, that we engage in routinely. But, by and large, at least so far in the United States, we are free to make a lot of our choices on our own (although those choices seem to be getting more and more restricted as I get older, and I am not referring to my own abilities and capabilities, but those permitted by the society that I live in). The libertarian in me says this is a bad thing, but I understand those who see things happening and want to intervene, to help protect people from their own stupidity. I just question the wisdom of it. Especially if you go so far as to relieve the individual of the responsibility to become aware of what their own interests are and to provide for them.

I guess that goes back to the question whether people are even smart enough to take care of themselves. My view is, for the vast majority, is that they are. It is just that a large proportion are quite willing to delegate that authority to another so that they can feel that they have met their responsibility, while not having to work at it.

Others may see it differently and say the smarter have an obligation to take care of the less smart and make their decisions for them … for their own good, of course, or for the good of those they have assumed responsibility for – such as children.

I happen to disagree with those folks, but then I am one who believes in individual liberty at the expense of community comity. I do, however, believe that it is in our own self-interest to help develop and protect our selected communities, but note that I said in my “own self-interest.” I don’t think I should do it because I owe it, necessarily, to the community, except in exchange for the benefits I receive from that community.

Well, enough rambling. Thank you to those who come and visit these random thoughts. I would encourage others, particularly those from other nations than the US of A, to give me feedback … even if it is not in English … I will figure out how to translate it. I actually enjoy dialogs, even with those people with whom I vehemently disagree (as long as we keep our tongues civil and don’t come to blows … that I don’t like).

Wikileaks v. Syria

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/world/meast/uk-syria-wikileaks/index.html?hpt=hp_bn2
Julian Assange and his Wikileaks is back in the news. It seems that his group has posted a couple of million e-mails hacked from the Syrian government to expose how really nasty the Assad regime is/was and probably will be. It also exposes all those bad people who are dealing with Assad and his cronies.

And this guy is hiding out in the Paraguayan Embassy seeking asylum from the Brits and Swedes because he is afraid the Swedes MIGHT turn him over for prosecution in the US for dumping the raft of secret diplomatic communications and military documents from the US Government.

What is this guy drinking?

I mean, first he busts all the conditions he agreed to when he made bail in Britain after he was arrested on an international warrant from Sweden on alleged sexual misconduct. There is not warrant for his arrest in the US. In fact, at last check, the grand jury was still out on whether or not their would be any charges in that case. The military probably will symbolically “hang” the young idiot trooper who thought it would be cool to violate his oath and the UCMJ to dump a bunch of files to Wikileaks. But Mr. Assange probably doesn’t have all that much to fear from the US.

Now, let’s see: The Brits are pissed because this Australian jerk (although I think most Australians want to disown the fellow) is now definitely a law-breaker in the UK.

But the folks who really now will want his head on a Pike (HBO already did that with George W. Bush) will be the Syrians and all those business people in Europe who were fudging the books to deal with the Assad Regime despite sanctions. If you think the CIA is bad, they ain’t got nothing on these folks. It isn’t even a close race. In fact, they probably have taught the CIA a few tricks or so.

I hope the Paraguayan Embassy has a good security team … or Mister Assange does, if he ever opts to leave it in the future. I really would not be surprised if some pissed of person (non-US and non-CIA) ices him rather messily. This guy really is living in his own little nether world … and has no clue how really ugly and mean the big, bad world is out there.

In re: Medical care

Background story

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48066135/ns/health-health_care/

The problem in the United States and health care is more a matter of perception than reality. If you read the above story, pay attention to the very last sentence … it is very telling,

You see, when it comes right down to it, as my dear wife pointed out to me, we have very good care in the US … very good. And she should know as she has had experience with both the Canadian government-provided health system and the US non-government provided system.

From her viewpoint, the difference, to put it my words, is that the US has a Cadillac system while Canada has a very reliable Ford or Chevrolet system. Both systems provide good care on the basic hospital stay … only in the US you might have your own TV set in a semi-private room and not necessarily want to leave right away, while in Canada you would have to rent a TV and be in a six-bed ward and you definitely want to escape as soon as possible. The beds, she says, are more comfortable the US than in Canada and the nursing staff much more responsive to the call button at each bed in the US.

SO, while you still would get excellent treatment, for the most part, you get more bang for your stay with the US system than Canada’s.

Another thing I have noticed, and it is an extension of our third-party payer system, is that when you leave the hospital they usually hand you the drugs you need to survive for a few days, with a prescription to get more if you need it. In Canada, they just hand you the prescriptions and the visit to the drug store is not covered (unless you have an employer-supplied private health insurance program).

So, a lot of the health care debate, renewed by the recent Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act (which is anything but, in my humble opinion), has never been about the care or cost, as much as who pays. In the story above, the woman delayed getting care because she didn’t have insurance and wanted to wait until the government-provided Medicare would pay for it. It almost cost her life, but she had been convinced by the doomsayers that they hospital wouldn’t do the operation unless she was insured. That, for the most part, is bovine scatology, especially when a person’s life at risk. Now, if it is elective surgery, non-life critical, well that is a different matter and should be.

In almost all cases, including my own, even when coverage was in doubt, the hospital usually will go ahead and do the treatment in life-saving cases … and then sort out who pays what and how much later. And a lot of the time, if you are poor or indigent, then some group or even the hospital will figure out a way to get the bill paid. In my case, I was out doing a stupid thing far from my home with minimal health insurance (and the insurance card was still at the office – unissued) when I had a very major heart attack. I could go into the long song and dance about that, but it really is irrelevant.

It will take time, and I suspect it will involve a modicum of stress, but paying the bills will get sorted out. Of course, looking at the initial bill usually is enough to make your heart want to stop beating, but that is how much medical care costs. It ain’t cheap, not if you want decent care with the providers getting a decent return on their efforts.

Unfortunately, we have somewhat demonized healthcare providers as being greedy and especially the relatively recent innovation of third-party payers who will pool your premiums with others folks to provide a fund for those who need to pay bills. That practice is only about 75 years old.

Now, it seems, we don’t want people who provide this service to get a reward for their trouble of doing it … or we don’t like the type of return they are getting, especially if they are really trying to be careful stewards of the money given them in premiums … read that contract closely, because they are going to go strictly by it or be accused of malfeasance or other fiscal crimes.

Again, unfortunately, there are those in the US who think the federal government can be a better steward than private organizations. What are these people thinking? How many government contracting scandals do you have to have? How many cases of fraud, etc., do you have to have before you realize that the government is not really the best steward of your money? At least the private insurance companies do have some incentive (rather than just altruism) to keep costs down … it is they get to keep some.

Yes, it would be better if we had more companies competing for our consumer business than less, but that is a product of our government regulation, which is more designed to protect and defend existing industries than it is just make sure that people are treated equally before the law in the contracts that they subscribe to.

That is the biggest complaint, at least mine, about especially today’s federal government: It is too busy picking winners and losers in the commercial world and not just making sure everybody just abides by the contracts that they sign. If you don’t think this is true, then just look at the Defense Department contracts and how money is spent there. Understand, I love the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard (and all their reserve formations), but I have personally witnessed too much avarice and stupidity on the part of the bureaucracies that run their contracting systems and seen how much Congress meddles and muddles the whole process not realize that there is a lot fuzzy business going on. Plus, I am too much of a historian not to realize that corruption in government contracting not only is as American as apple pie, but it a basic theme throughout human history.

How can we expect health care to be any different?

Forest fires and the environment

Reference Story/backrounder

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/48087842/#48087842

The hue and cry is going up that climate change (a pseudonym for human-caused global warming) is to blame for the wildfires that have been scorching western states this year and for the loss of very expensive homes in the fire zones around certain cities.

With all due respect, what a bunch of hokum.

First, I grew up in California and I have a long legend with wildfires … even had to fight one … so I think I know enough to make relatively intelligent comment.

Second, I will never, ever deny that the climate might be changing … or that it might be getting hotter. So, what? The climate changes every year. Climate is not some static thing that never changes, but is always changing. Sometimes hotter, sometimes colder.

Now, you have to realize that we only have semi-accurate records for much of the world that go back, maybe, 125 years. Oh, yeah, we can estimate what temperatures and the climate was before then, through tree rings and ice cores, but that is all they are … estimates … educated guesses. We really don’t have accurate data from everywhere to make the claim that we “know” exactly what the weather was like on the planet more than about 50 years ago … when we started putting satellites up to orbit the earth and take measurements. Before that, the records are spotty and in some places, totally absent.

So, to blame humans for all the climate changes is yet another example of human hubris that thinks that the world is us, rather than something bigger than we humans are. Do the things we do contribute to climate change … undoubtedly, but it is not the cause. On a planet that is 4 BILLION years old, scientists will tell you that the surface of the earth has warmed to much hotter than it is now, as well as cooled to much colder than it is now.

How does this apply to the wild fires? Well, by implication, if we humans weren’t screwing the environment up with our cars and power plants and housing developments, all those pretty forests (and all those expensive houses with the great mountain views) wouldn’t be burning. What a bunch of fecal material.

For more than 20 years various forest/wild fire experts have been arguing over the “let it burn” strategy. The strategy basically says that wild fires are a natural event and it is better to just let them burn out than to run yourself crazy trying to stomp out all the embers. The other school of thought, that started about 40 years earlier, was to stomp out forest fires wherever they were found. Thank you Smokey The Bear for all those years that you put that message out that “only YOU can prevent forest fires”.

Then in the great Yellowstone fire of 1988, foresters thought they learned a lot … that maybe fire wasn’t a bad thing after all, but actually was part of the natural cycle of the forest. Hello, even I knew that as a kid. There are some things that happen in the wild that absolutely require high temperatures (and we are not talking about 100 degrees or so) for the forest to regenerate naturally. Forests, like people, are born, mature, die and are reborn again, just like the rest of the life cycle that we humans are familiar with.

So, the elements … nature … Gaia … whatever … have conspired for the western US to undergo a very dry and fiery season; not that it hasn’t happened before. The 1930s were like that, only most of us were not around to experience that. Some are noticing that conditions are much like they were during the days of the Dust Bowl in the 1930s. I hate to say it, but our environmental footprint, with less than half the population and far less of the technology than we have today, was much smaller than it is now. Was man at fault then?

Well, some will tell you that man was, but I think history would show that the earth and its ecology hiccups now and again, at long and short intervals and nothing man has done, can do or will do, really will have all that much an impact. We just don’t have enough data to say that we can - or can't - do anything. We basically are trying to extrapolate what will happen from an snapshot and a bunch of guesses, old stories and assumptions. That is not a good way to make very accurate prognoses. But in our hubris, we think we can tell the world how much it is caused by X, Y or Z.

So, my take is: Wildfires happen. They will continue to happen. Some years they will be worse than others, some years better. But like volcanoes and earthquakes, rain and snow, wind and running water, it all is part of the natural cycle of Planet Earth. Now, you can go with the flow and try to adapt to the changes, or you can futilely try to make changes that will stop or slow the pace of change. IF you choose the latter, you will either drive yourself crazy or you could cause the death of a large portion of the human species.

Of course, a large portion of the human species will die off anyway, because that too is part of the natural cycle of things. Humans have no real predator (we ARE the top of the food chain on Earth) and so there are none of those to put any checks on our population. So, instead, we have famine and wars to do that job, along with natural disasters like storms, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanos and an occasional asteroid impact. But it is not time to run out screaming that the sky is falling or the end of the earth is near if we don’t stop changing the environment, because that is not the problem.

Also, if you are really concerned about fire burning down your pretty house in the forest with the great mountain view … then accept the fact that Mother Nature has a vote on where you live and if you don’t like that, move somewhere else … but remember, no matter where you move … Mother Nature still has a voice.

In re: Marijuana

Reference/Background story

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/03/opinion/bloom-prison-spending/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

America’s prisons are overflowing. More Americans are incarcerated than in any other country. Most of these inmates are in jails and prisons because of drug possession-related offenses, which are essentially “non-violent” offenses (other than other criminal activity, like the violence associated with drug-related turf wars, which are most decidedly violent)

The author of the above article thinks we shouldn’t be putting so many people in prison for “non-violent” offenses. She has a point. I not sure she would agree that white-collar criminals (most of which are non-violent offenders) should not be sent to prison; some for a very long time. However, I have long held (like since my college years) that the solution to America’s drug problem would be to legalize the whole mess. Of course, in doing that, government should have the authority to regulate its content (to ensure that the buyer is getting what they are paying for and not some substitute). With that authority, the various levels of government then would have the authority to tax its sale (I propose that money go to paying for the damages and treatment programs that result from drug use.)

Now, it is not like there isn’t a precedent for this: Gasoline, alcohol, tobacco, firearms are all regulated to some extent and to some extent taxed (some more than others), if by nothing other than sales taxes. For example, certain firearms you think civilians couldn’t own (fully automatic weapons come to mind) … well, in most cases, they can … they just have to pay a hefty licensing fee for the privilege. Of course, few criminals pay such fees, but that is why they are called criminals … they are doing something illegal.

But when you think about it, from an individual liberty point of view as well as a law enforcement point of view, it makes sense to legalize “drugs”.

First of all, it would remove the insane profit to be had from dealing in illicit goods. Remove the profit, remove the incentive for violence. That is basic human psychology at work there.

Second of all: People have the right to be stupid, do stupid things, make stupid decisions, etc., etc., etc. There is nothing wrong with taxing stupidity. In fact, we do it all the time in this country. You buy something stupid, pay a tax. It is that simple.

Now, will it happen? Not on your life. Because too many people think they know what is good (or bad) for you and they will be damned if they will let you do something stupid. It is not right to let someone do something stupid, especially if it might hurt them or hurt someone else. Well, and I know those who read this will wince, but my view is if they hurt themselves, pox on them; if they hurt someone else … then that is why we have courts.

Anyway, just a random thought.

Now this is a twist

Reference/Background reading material

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2012/07/03/Allen-West-Every-American-should-be-mandated-to-buy-a-Glock-9mm-Pistol

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100512145456AAwD7bs

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

http://deadguyquotes.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/milita-act-of-1903-transcribed.pdf

Ok, he is not serious, but the concept is. What if everyone was mandated to own a firearm? Would that be any different than mandating everyone has healthcare insurance? I hate to think what some “liberals”/”progressives” would think of that (Note: My old progressive classmate, well he is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, so he can shoot the far right conservatives and religious conservatives when they come over the hill to convert him.)

Heck, it - mandating firearm ownership - could even be justified under the Second Amendment and the various acts of Congress enabling the Militia Clause of the Constitution. Come to think of it, if the 1795 law is still in effect and just supplemented by the 1903 act (which some allege replaced/repealed the earlier law, but I have not found anything to document that contention), then all males 18 to 45 who are U.S. Citizens or desiring to be are REQUIRED to have a military grade weapon, ammunition and a knapsack or backpack. Take that gun control advocates. Note that the requirement applies to the organized as well as the reserve (unorganized) militia under the law. The “organized” militia is explicitly defined as consisting of the federal military Reserves and the state National Guard formations and the reserve militia is everybody else, except for those who have a religious objection.

Ok, I am not advocating that everyone get a weapon courtesy of the federal government, nor am I advocating that everyone run out and get one. I know a lot of people who do not want one and wouldn’t know what to do with one if they had one … that is prescription for an accident waiting to happen. However, in order to be consistent (which I try to be, probably unsuccessfully in some eyes), I do think that every adult does have a right, if not an obligation under this nation’s social contract, to do just that: Go out, get a firearm and learn how to use it.

It will be interesting to see how the gentleman above who made the suggestion (I suspect somewhat tongue-in-cheek) will be responded to by his opponents.

Remember: Guns kill people

(no. actually: People kill people, guns are merely an instrument to that end.)

Oh, and my preference? Well, all things being equal I guess I would take the Glock 9mm or the Beretta M92, but I also would want a Mil-Spec M-1911A1 (,45 Caliber, because that is the pistol I carried during the Gulf War), an M-1903 Springfield (chambered for a Winchester .308 caliber) or possibly another Winchester .309 bolt action weapon (I just like them, and .308 Winchester is the civilian version of the military’s 7.62mm round), Ruger M-14 (chambered for the Remington .223 caliber round – the civilian version of the military’s 5.56mm round) and some solid 12-gauge pump-action shotgun (the preference being an M-97 model, but that is only because I am familiar with it from the Navy days),

Failure to understand history

Reference/background story

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/07/02/review-change-guard-reserve-pay.html?ESRC=army.nl

I dearly love the Pentagon. (oops, sarcasm there). I dearly love Congress. (oops, sarcasm there)

You know why? Because they are peopled with individuals who really have no sense of history and rarely seem to understand how or why some things came to be.

For example: The Guard and the Reserve actually have different mandates. One solely is to support the active component (The Regulars) and the other serves that role but also serves as the military force for the states and territories and that is not a federal role.

Now, some of us have served back in the day when a Unit Training Assembly (UTA) was held every week. It was a four hour block of training, usually in the evening, that a reserve member was required to attend. The reserve members were paid the equivalent of one day’s pay for someone on Active Duty (The Regulars) for their efforts. Back in those days, you were talking about $3 or $4 per meeting for a low ranking service member (today it can be $15 or $20 for the same service member).

Then in the 1970s, it was decided that in most instances it would be better to consolidate training in two days per month than have them four times a month. Still, it would count each four hours as one day of training as it had before. More efficient use of time, but if you just counted days, you would be halving the pay of Reserve force members, so they decided to play the fiction that each four hours was the equivalent of eight hour days in the civilian world.

But then, if a unit left its Reserve Center or Armory to do any field training, all of a sudden instead of being gone for 16 hours of training, they would be participating in more like 36 to 54 hours of training (depending on if it was a MUTA-4 or MUTA-5) for exactly the same pay.

In addition, officers and senior non-commissioned officers often were required to meet in between the usual monthly session for more than a few hours, to plan and prepare for the monthly unit training assembly (the MUTA). This was sometimes, but not always, counted as an additional Training Assembly (ATA), since it often was like four hours on some weeknight. Officers and NCOs often would also have to participate in CPX (command post exercise) and TWOT (Training Without Troops) exercises. These usually would get the officer or NCO one or two ATAs depending on the length of an exercise but would be counted as one per 24 hour day (at least in my experience).

Now, in order to balance the budget (tee-hee), a Pentagon whiz kid says, gee it ain’t fair that inactive duty troops get credit for two days of pay, when they only are working one day. Their brethren called up to federal service only get one day, so maybe we should change the system.

Well, considering that the active duty soldier also usually qualifies for the Basic Allowance for Quarters and the Basic Allowance for Subsistence (which people on Reserve inactive duty status don’t), plus allowances for uniforms and hazardous duty pay, and other benefits, it seems that given that they are probably underpaid for hazarding their bodies 24/7/52/365, I am not sure the inactive duty individual is overpaid.

But leave it to some active component or active Guard and Reserve (AGR) person not to understand the history behind the way things are the way they are. It is too deep for them.

It is like the guys who dreamed up the consolidating Active Duty, Guard and Reserve units under the same job rating scheme … but somehow forgetting that Guard members belong to the governor of the state (unless on federal duty) and Reserve and Active Duty folks belong always belong to the president. Slight problem there, as to who signs off on whose evaluation when you go up the rating chain.

Separation of powers can be a real bitch sometimes and make things more complicated than if the world was simple place and there was just one government.

Update on my progressive friend

 

He thinks the profit motive should be removed from medicine … ok … I can accept that … but how in the heck does he plan to pay for all this stuff?

In typical progressive fashion, rather than have doctors and hospitals compete, they should pool their resources. In this case, I guess since doctors and hospitals are not smart enough to figure out what is in their own best interest, the government should insist on it …like government employees or elected officials are any smarter than doctors and hospital administrators?

He points out that the US is the only major industrial country that doesn’t offer some form of universal health care sponsored by the government. Does that mean we are supposed to follow all our industrialized friends off that cliff?

Hello, has anyone looked at what is happening in Europe or Canada lately? I mean our industrialized friends seem to be having a rather bad case of the financial woes … and most of it stems from borrowing to give people something that they “can’t afford”.

Now, I know it appears that profit would be an anathema to my friend, but maybe the profit motive ain’t such a bad thing. But then he is a corporate executive, so I suppose that profit matters to him … just it shouldn’t apply to others. Ok, I am being unfair to him here. I apologize.

Of course, the first thing he throws up is taking care of our elderly who are infirm … but wait a minute. They are not the people who are uninsured. They have Medicare … oh yeah, and it doesn’t have any financial problems at all … and what about all those doctors and clinics that refuse to see new Medicate patients because their costs exceed what the federal and state governments will reimburse them for. I mean the Federal Health Financing Commission is absolutely famous for over-compensating health care providers all over the US. (Don’t throw up the fraud strawman; that is an entirely different issue). How do I know this, we won’t go into how many times I wrote about health care issues during my career as a print journalist, trying to understand and explain how the health care financing system works in the US. After nearly 40 years of studying the problem, I have come to the conclusion that the federal government is toxic when it comes to this issue and state governments (at least in the states where I had to cover the doings of various and sundry hospital boards) are not that far behind.

The poor also are covered … it is called Medicaid …and in some states you don’t have to be “poor” to qualify … at least as the federal government decides to define the “poverty line”. No, you and your family can, in some states, make two or three times as much as the poverty line and still qualify for Medicaid. Am I missing something here, or is the definition of poverty in this country seriously out whack? I contend that is another issue we really need to take a look at. And Medicaid, like Medicare, is unsustainable as it is now structured.

Ok, who are these millions of uninsured … by process of elimination we are talking mainly about a lot of 20- and 30-somethings who are gaming the system since they normally are pretty healthy that they won’t need health care, so providing themselves with some form of insurance is not a priority. Ok, whose fault is that? Now, after not paying to some third party to cover them, they want those third parties to have to accept them? I am sorry, but that doesn’t sound fair to me.

Ok, so their employer doesn’t offer health insurance, or offers a high deductible insurance plan (been there, done that, lost the T-shirt), does not the individual have the right to sell their talents elsewhere? Is that not their choice?

People, the US was made on choices. It is the basis on which our society, freedoms and government stand on the principle that individuals have the right to make their own choices. And if you haven’t noticed, they also have the right to suffer the consequences of their choices. We don’t have the right to take that right away from them; however we may disagree with it.

But the progressives want to do just that. They think they know better. But, I am sorry, but they are wrong. Of course, I could be wrong, but if anybody comes up with a way for the concept “from each according to their (limited) abilities, and to each according to their (insatiable) needs” to really work, short of a gun in your face and you becoming at minimum an indentured servant, if not an outright slave, let me know … because it ain’t gonna happen.

It all boils down to you have to make it in the self-interest of people to do what society wants. Now, there are two ways to make that happen: You can throw the fear of God into them or you can make it rewarding to them. Fear only works on the short-term until people get fed up and start to fight back. Rewards (profits) really do work. We have seen it all through history, but some people just don’t want to acknowledge that.

Now, I admit, all rewards are not “fair” or “equal” but guess what: Life ain’t fair and no one is “equal” (nor should they be, except before the law. There, they do have the right to expect that the “law” will treat them just like any other citizen – Pollyannaish view I admit, but it works better than from each/to each)

Another thing about profits: What profits one person will not be seen as a profit to another … it all depends on their point of view and what motivates that individual person.

Now, we could let people fail … and maybe learn from their mistakes (however costly that that might be) or we can insulate people from their mistakes (and hope they learn). For example, my wife calls people who ride motorcycles “organ donors” (especially if they don’t wear helmets), but does that mean for safety’s sake we should ban all motorcycles because of the dire consequences from an accident? Sorry, but in my usual phrase, that dog don’t hunt. People do have the right to be stupid.

Still there are those who will argue that health is an issue that cannot be allowed to be left to the choice of the individual. It is too important, they say. My question is who set those people up as God and who says people involved in the health care industry (and not matter how you slice it, it is an industry providing goods and services to consumers) are gods. Doctors don’t always know the answer and that medicine isn’t going to always work … and that is the dying truth, I swear.

So, if the individual is not responsible for his or her actions (or non-action) and the subsequent consequences to themselves, then who the heck is responsible? If you say society has an obligation to make people secure in their health, then I will remind you what Ben Franklin (another bright guy) is quoted as saying.”Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Your health is merely temporary, and, no, we won’t live forever. Everyone’s health will go south … that, like taxes, is a given.