Another Inconvenient Truth

The great thing about blogging is that I can gripe, complain and pontificate to my heart's content. This particular diatribe is aimed at our dysfunctional Congress.

First of all - an open note to the Republicans in the Senate and House of Representatives. You people didn't get elected because we love you. You got elected because a large number of older, white, thoroughly pissed-off citizens drug ourselves out and voted for the least objectionable alternative.

But let's get real. Voting this time around was sort of like being forced to choose between drinking spoiled milk and drinking urine. You just hold your nose, close your eyes, and get it over with. Just because we voted for you doesn't mean we like you. It just means we opted for the spoiled milk.

I know you folks can't wait until January, so you can have control of everything. You're already formulating your great Machiavellian schemes to shame, embarrass, and frustrate the opposition - all the while laying the groundwork for the next election in two years.

Well, just forget it! You were hired to run the country, period. If you're so dense that you can't read the sentiment in the voting public this time around, I guarantee you that you're in for a real education in the next election.

Republicans talk endlessly about smaller government. That's like the couple who moans about how they're spending more than they earn, and trying to make up the difference by clipping coupons in the Sunday paper. Not a bad idea, but worthless in solving the real problem.

Democrats go on an on about inequality, devising ways to make the rich people pay for their social programs. That's called wealth redistribution. It's the business that Robin Hood was in.

Neither approach solves the real problem. We're spending more than we're taking in. And taxing the rich won't produce enough revenue to close the gap. There's only ONE real answer.

Jobs. When people work, they pay taxes and government doesn't have to support them. If the average tax rate is 20%, someone has to earn $5 to cover every $1 that government puts into social programs.

Therefore, it stands to reason that taking one person off of government support is equal to creating five jobs. Do the math. Take people off welfare. Put them to work. The economy automatically grows by leaps and bounds.

Once you get enough people working to generate sufficient taxes, and you pay off that huge deficit hanging over our heads, then you can knock yourselves out bickering about how to spend the excess.

Until then, shut up and do the job you were hired to do. If you don't, you'll be on the street the next time you come up for election.

Guaranteed.

The Republic of Dumbovia (A Parable)

In the olden days, a great country arose in the West.  Based on the concepts of freedom and social responsibility, the Republic of Dumbovia became a world power - spreading its influence and style of government to the four corners of the civilized world.  Other nations wanted to be its allies and friends, and it become the central hub of world power and finance.

But all was not well in Dumbovia.  The poor had very little in the way of possessions or opportunity.  "Certainly, we cannot allow this to be!  We are such a wise and enlightened country - nobody should go hungry or be ill in our fair land," decreed the politicians.  "We should provide for these unfortunates!"

And it was made so, and it became law in Dumbovia that no person would ever be sick or hungry.  Since Dumbovia was the center of global commerce, they could well afford the small tax necessary to quiet their collective social conscience.  And, indeed, the suffering of the poor was greatly relieved.  

But, the poor were still poor, and could never hope to attain the wealth and power of the average citizen of Dumbovia.  It seemed that they were forever destined to be a lesser class of people, forever shunned, but provided for.  Some complained it was as if they were treated like pets of the rich and powerful.

This hurt the pride and conscience of the ruling classes.  To compensate, even more social programs were enacted, designed to help the less fortune attain a higher position in society.  And a great many of them took full advantage of these programs.  But others remained in their downtrodden circumstance, unable or unwilling to take advantage of the ladder to affluence, and believing it would always be just outside their grasp.

Some politicians decried these oppressive living conditions, and attempted to enact even more social programs to aid the poor and illiterate.  Other politicians cried, "Enough!," claiming that the poor had sufficient help and opportunity and simply lacked the willpower and initiative to better themselves.

So the oppressed, not being stupid, voted for the first group of politicians.  And they received more social programs and benefits - paid for by the wealthy upper-class socialites, who were by that time beginning to become quite irked at being forced to pay for all those social programs.

Class warfare eventually erupted, pitting the oppressed against the wealthy.  Behind the scenes politicians flamed the fires by promising more and more trinkets to whichever side seemed to have the most voting members.

Eventually, the oppressed gained the upper hand.  Once they achieved a clear majority and elected sufficient numbers of willing politicians, they enacted laws seizing property and money with impunity, so long as it was "for the common good."

In time, the oppressed greatly overwhelmed the wealthy, both in numbers and in political power.  Slowly, the numbers of the wealthy faded.  Some simply gave up, overcome by the whims of modern government.  Others left the country, looking for more favorable treatment elsewhere.

And it came to pass that there were no longer sufficient wealthy individuals left to pay for all the grand social programs.  In the resulting uprising, the government fell under the withering ire of the masses who had been trained for generations that entitlement is always superior to initiative.

Finally, the great Republic of Dumbovia was no more, having collapsed under the weight of crushing public debt and lack of any useful commerce or business opportunities.

And Dumbovia assumed it's rightful place as a footnote in history, under the chapter on "Failed Social Experiments."

Meanwhile, somewhere in the East, a great country arose, based on...

The Grand Experiment

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is, without argument, the largest single experiment in social engineering ever foisted on an unsuspecting American public.  I don't know whether it will work or not.  My crystal ball is broken at the moment.

Ignoring the great Democrat (government control) versus Republican (free market) debate, it occurs to me that there are probably some pretty good intentions here.

• Everybody has to be insured, which should keep people from showing up at the doctor's office or hospital without any means of paying their bills.
• Pre-existing conditions are covered, which means you don't become un-insurable if you lose your job or get too sick to work.
• Everybody can get insurance - from the corporate CEO to the lawn-care guy.  Even if you're unemployed.  The government will help you pay for it if you can't afford it.

Those are generally expected to be good things.  But, the Law of Unintended Consequences tells us that the more things you change, the worse the result will be.

In the past, uninsured folks simply showed up for health care when they were sick.  The medical providers treated everyone, and knew that some percentage of their services would never be paid. These noncollectable debts could be written off as a business expense, reducing taxes paid.  And, the providers raised their rates to cover those lost debts.

The result was that everyone paid a little bit more to cover those uncollected debts.

If everyone had insurance, this shouldn't happen, right?  The providers would always get paid by the insurance companies.  Therefore, it should eliminate uncollected debts, and reduce the overall cost of health care.

Or, at least that was the argument.

But, the ACA extends health care plans to cover a lot of additional services, as well as pre-existing conditions.  The insurance companies think that will cost more money.  So, everyone's rate goes up instead of down.

There's a lot of yelling right now about these additional services.  I heard a young fellow griping on TV about how he shouldn't be forced to buy a plan that contains maternity coverage.

Actually, that's how we hold costs down in insurance.  It's called shared risk.  

Think of it like this.  Most of the people in the United States don't live in areas where hurricanes are a problem.  If you provide hurricane coverage to everyone in the country, then everyone will pay a few bucks per month.  If you only sell hurricane coverage to those at risk from hurricanes, the coverage will run hundreds or thousands per month.

That's an example of social engineering - forcing folks in Montana to purchase hurricane insurance so that people in Louisiana can afford homeowner's insurance.

But, to extend the analogy, the ACA is sort of like forcing that Montana homeowner to pay for hurricane insurance, tornado insurance, flood insurance and volcano insurance.  After a while, the Montana homeowner is going to get pissed about helping all these other folks buy insurance.

And there are other problems related to the Law of Unintended Consequences.

• How do you make sure that 320 million people are covered by health insurance?
• How do you force 30 million people (or more) to buy insurance?
• How do you help people who are actually losing their current insurance due to the ACA?
• What about people who are seeing their insurance premiums skyrocket due to the ACA?

Right now, the jury is out.  Hopefully, this train won't completely jump the rails right out of the station and Congress will find some way to fix the big problems as they arise.

If implemented sensibly, with some of the more idiotic portions removed, the ACA might actually work.  But, given Congress' proven inability to do their jobs, I have little hope of anything sensible happening in the next five years or so.

Let's hope that we haven't managed to permanently cripple our country's economy in the meantime.

50 Years Later

I remember the day that President Kennedy was assassinated.  They sent us all home from school early.  My teacher was crying.

Years later, I would go down and walk Dealy Plaza at night, pondering the weight of history.  Too many things didn't make sense back then, and they still don't today.  Especially if you stand on that particualar spot in the street, gazing up at the sixth-floor window of the book depository.

Over the years, I talked about it with many people.  One, in particular, I thought provided some very interesting insight.  He was a trained sniper, and not an American citizen.  He called the Warren Report a load of [expletive], pure and simple.

He said that even a trained sharpshooter would have great difficulty making three shots with Oswald's rifle, much less making three accurate shots, in the 6.1 seconds as recorded on the police radios.

It was a single-shot, bolt action rifle.  Oswald would have had to

- Pull the trigger.
- Open the bolt.
- Load the second bullet.
- Close the bolt.
- Cock the rifle.
- Aim the rifle.
- Pull the trigger.
- Open the bolt.
- Load the third bullet.
- Close the bolt.
- Cock the rifle.
- Aim the rifle.
- Pull the trigger.

All in just over six seconds.  This fellow pantomimed the actions as he spoke.  He was obviously right.  Either it was impossible, or Oswald was the bionic man.

But more importantly, he said that a trained shooter (sniper) would NEVER take the shot from that angle.  He said that a sniper always sets up the shot ahead of time and waits for the target to enter the "kill zone".  If possible, they want the target standing still, or travelling directly toward or from their position.  A shooter won't be tracking side-to-side if possible.

The motorcade would have been travelling at about fifteen to twenty miles per hour, and accellerating slowly at the time the shots were taken.  Oswald would have had to either track the movement, or set the shot ahead of the car and wait for it to enter his field of view.  Completely impossible in the allotted timeframe.

This person told me that he has always believed that there were two, or possibly three, trained snipers at Dealy Plaza, and that none would have been above the second floor level, based on the entry and exit wounds.

Truth or fiction?  We'll never know, unless someone invents a time machine.

But, something to think about, from the mouth of a trained shooter with no American axe to grind.

An Inconvenient Math Lesson

I listened to the congressional hearings on the Obamacare web site today.  I was really, really impressed -- by the amount of butt-kissing and outright rudeness displayed by various elected officials, and by the tremendous difficulty in obtaining any real information of value.

I did hear one piece of hard data that caught my attention.  According to Secretary Sebelius, the healthcare.gov site will be able to process up to 17,000 applications per hour.  That's a lot, right?

Uh, not really.

Let's think this through, and do a little basic math.  17,000 x 24 hours = 408,000 per day.

Now, the 2012 Census says we have roughly 313.9 million citizens.  If those citizens aren't covered by a healthcare plan at work, they have to obtain insurance elsewhere - either directly from an insurance company or through the exchanges under healthcare.gov.

For the sake of argument, let's say that 10% of the population has to use healthcare.gov.  That's 31.39 million people.  At the theoretical throughput of 408 thousand per day, it would take about 77 days to get that 31 million people enrolled.

Unfortunately, no computer runs at 100% throughput, 24 hours per day.  Based on my experience, it's more likely to average around 20% because of time zones, night, weekends. etc.  That would mean that it will probably take around 385 days - more than an entire year - to get 31 million people enrolled.

But, what if more than 10% of the populace needs to use healthcare.gov?  If 3 out of 10 people needed to get insurance from an exchange (because they don't have an employer-sponsored group insurance), it would take nearly four years to get all those people enrolled.

Sorry to point this out, folks, but -- as we say down south -- THAT DOG DON'T HUNT!

But, to be fair, I guess I'll have to give them a D+ for effort...<sigh>.  I guess their math skills need some touching up.

Maybe that helps to explain our budget mess?

I Have A Dream

I'm not a black man.  I cannot claim to understand the black experience.  But I do know and have great respect for many people and coworkers of other races.

And I struggle with questions of racism and equality.

I know and have great respect for the fight for equality that raged half a century ago, and echoes still to this day.  Fifty years ago, Dr. Martin Luther King said he longed for a country where people "would not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

I, too, long for a such a color-blind society.  But I realize we still have a long way to go.

This became painfully clear to me recently.  I was watching a television show where actors set up a scenario, and the responses of unknowing people are filmed.  The scenario was that an actor got into a parked car and stole several valuable items.  First, they used a shady-looking white guy.  Over and over, people nearby ignored the crime happing only a few feet away.

But when a black actor did the same scenario, police were called on the first occurence.  And again.  And again.  The only possible conclusion is that society is very aware, and suspicious of, black people.

To be fair, this was clearly a "white neighborhood".  The black thief stuck out like tennis shoes at a formal ball.  The white thief just looked shady, but you wouldn't give him a second look if you passed him on the street.

And race sensitivity clearly runs the other direction, too.  When I go into a big meeting, I try to figure out the seniority and authority of people in the room.  I rarely, if ever, become aware of the number of men versus women, or caucasians versus minorities.  My mind just doesn't work that way.

I am told that the analysis is very different for most minorities.  The first thing they notice is how "outnumbered" they are.  I find that to be very, very disturbing.  And I don't know how to fix it.

Hell, I don't even know how to talk about it.

And if we don't talk about it, how can we ever change it?

I do know one thing, however.  I know, to the very fiber of my soul, that we CAN talk about it.  We can be polite and thoughtful.  And we can come to understand each other.

I plead "guilty" to enjoying the luxury of the majority.  It's not intentional.  It's an accident of birth.

But that doesn't mean I'm the enemy.  I'm just a guy.  Who happens to be wearing white skin.

I also believe that too many people have lost the art of civility.  There's no law against being polite, even if you don't like a person or agree with them.

I firmly believe that civility would likely have defused the Treyvon Martin shooting tragedy.  I have no way to know what really happened, but I have serious doubt that a courteous conversation between two strangers would end up in gunfire.

And remember, it's a whole lot easier to understand someone when they AREN'T yelling at you.

Something to think about, anyway.

The UN Small Arms Treaty

Over the Mar 23, 2013 weekend, a bill was passed in the Senate.  You need to be aware, and understand the deeper meanings behind all of this.  The bill that got passed is grandstanding, pure and simple.  More political posturing from the ineffective blowhards that roam the halls of our nation's capital.

Let's start with the rhetoric about the "United Nations Small Arms Treaty."  That's incorrect.  It's really a draft amendment to the UN Arms Trade Treaty, proposed by the Final United Nations Conference on the UN Arms Trade Treaty, 18-28 March 2013.

C'mon, anyone who's ever heard of Google can find this stuff in about ten seconds.  Really.

For those who like to deal in facts (as I do), here's a link to the Arms Trade Treaty amendment text.  Read it for yourself if you want to judge the truth of what I'm about to say.  I'll get back to it in a minute.

First, let's look at the bill that the Senate passed - or at least the Statement of Purpose from that bill.  It says,

To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  

Pundits have started yammering.  One anonymous source, currently floating around the web in a viral email claims, "The U.N. Small Arms Treaty: which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.  The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry on all private guns and ammo."

Sorry, boys and girls, but that's an outright lie.  Either the "source" didn't read the amendment, or they read it and decided to lie through their teeth.

First, the treaty deals with commerce between countries, not who owns what within any given country.  Second, it says that the countries have the right to make their own laws, enforce their own laws, and defend themselves.  It does NOT say that every gun owner is to be listed in a national registry.

So - it doesn't have much to do with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in any way that I can determine, regardless of what the right-wing conspiracy theorists want you to believe.  Oh, by the way, I'm a right-winger most of the time, myself.  But I have this critical weakness - an addiction to truth.

However, I think the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and the related Amendment is a crock, for several reasons.

• It classifies small arms into the category of "conventional weapons", grouping them with planes, tanks, missiles, artillery, etc.  It makes no distinction between military small arms and civilian small arms.  A pocket .22-caliber "Saturday Nite Special" qualifies as a conventional weapon under this treaty, the same as an FA-18 Super Hornet attack fighter aircraft.
• It also categorizes all ammunition usable by conventional weapons as munitions, under the same governance of this treaty.  Every box of .22-caliber ammunition to be shipped outside the U.S. would fall under this treaty. 
• It says we would have to create a registry of ALL weapons and munitions being sold or transferred outside the country unless we maintained control of those items in international territories.  In other words, every handgun and box of ammunition made in the U.S. and destined for international resale would be registered.  As would every bomb, plane, ship, missile, and piece of artillery.
• It says we have to provide that registry to all other nations.  This is the point where my hair caught fire and I started screaming obscenities.  And then it goes further, to strongly suggest that this registry be made public.  So, they want us to list every conventional weapon and munition that we're selling internationally, and post that list on some globally-accessible website????  Not in this lifetime, Bubba!

And there's more - but you should take the time to read it yourself.  Information is power.  Arm yourself.

Now, let's get to the Senate politics.  Obviously, the Senate SHOULD HAVE voted almost unanimously against the ratification of the treaty and amendment. That's a no-brainer.  But to tie it to Second Amendment rights is disingenuous.  For those who aren't familiar with that word, it's attorney-speak for liar.

Anyone who wanted to ratify the treaty and amendment would be willing to give away a boatload of our national rights and authority when it comes to arms, weapons, munitions, etc.  It has the potential to cripple some of our big defense industries and would just about kill the international trade for any U.S.-based manufacturers of small guns and ammunition.

Fourty-six senators voted against the Senate bill over the weekend.  That could be viewed as an implied vote FOR the U.N. Treaty and amendment.  Or it could mean that they were just pissed off because someone stuck the Second Amendment reference into the bill's Statement of Purpose.  I know that I am (pissed).  Or it might just mean that they didn't read the U.N. treaty and amendment, and don't have a clue what they're voting about.

I tend to believe the latter.

At any rate, in the interest of full disclosure - here are the Senators who voted AGAINST the Senate bill.  Remember, this list infers a vote of support FOR the U.N. Treaty and amendment.

• Baldwin (D-WI)
• Baucus (D-MT)
• Bennet (D-CO)
• Blumenthal (D-CT)
• Boxer (D-CA)
• Brown (D-OH)
• Cantwell (D-WA)
• Cardin (D-MD)
• Carper (D-DE)
• Casey (D-PA)
• Coons (D-DE)
• Cowan (D-MA)
• Durbin (D-IL)
• Feinstein (D-CA)
• Franken (D-MN)
• Gillibrand (D-NY)
• Harkin (D-IA)
• Hirono (D-HI)
• Johnson (D-SD)
• Kaine (D-VA)
• King (I-ME)
• Klobuchar (D-MN)
• Landrieu (D-LA)
• Leahy (D-VT)
• Levin (D-MI)
• McCaskill (D-MO)
• Menendez (D-NJ)
• Merkley (D-OR)
• Mikulski (D-MD)
• Murphy (D-CT)
• Murray (D-WA)
• Nelson (D-FL)
• Reed (D-RI)
• Reid (D-NV)
• Rockefeller (D-WV)
• Sanders (I-VT)
• Schatz (D-HI)
• Schumer (D-NY)
• Shaheen (D-NH)
• Stabenow (D-MI)
• Udall (D-CO)
• Udall (D-NM)
• Warner (D-VA)
• Warren (D-MA)
• Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Wyden (D-OR

Now, for the truth-impaired in the crowd, here's a little test.  To quote from Sesame Street, "Which of these things is not like the others?"

Sorry.  It's a trick question.  ALL of these things ARE THE SAME (with the possible exception on one Independent).  They're all Democrats.

Does this mean that all the Democrats want to give away our sovereign rights, or that they want to hamstring our defense contractors and manufacturers of guns and ammunition?

Or are they just voting against the Republicans?

I tend to believe the latter.

And this gets us down to the real problem in Washington, D.C.  The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is a real, current, pressing international issue.  That's the type of thing that these freaking idiots were HIRED to deal with (by hired, I mean elected).

And they would rather stand on either side of the isle trying their best to piss on each other, rather than dealing with pressing issues of national sovereignty and international commerce.

To say they need to be impeached is an understatement.

To say they'll get re-elected because of their ability to dish out pork and government hand-outs is the sad reality.

I'm afraid we're all screwed, and there's not a damned thing we can do about it.