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.
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
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 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?
Monday, July 22, 2013
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.
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.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
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.
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
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.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
The Hard Questions
I've become convinced that our elected politicians have only two goals.
The net result is that the hard issues are glossed over, and the hard questions are never asked.
Let's take health care as a specific example. What's the hard question?
Forget about money for a minute. If you're an American, do you have an intrinsic right to the best health care? That's the first question that needs to be asked.
The answer appears to be "yes", because anyone can walk into a hospital to receive health care, whether they have money, insurance, or a job. The hospital won't turn them away, even if there's no chance the patient can pay for the services provided.
This leads us to the second hard question.
Right now, the real answer is "everyone else". The cost of these free (unpaid, uncollectable) services is bult into the cost that everyone else pays. And, since the uninsured can't usually afford basic preventative medicine, these "gratis" services are often rather expensive. These expenses are spread out over all the bills that everyone else pays.
If the answer to the first question is "yes", then we have a limited number of possible answers to the second question.
We don't have the guts (or callousness) to say, "No insurance, no service!"
So, any health care solution is going to stink. It's the nature of the beast. If we provide health care to everybody, someone has to pay for those services.
We just have to figure out who gets the bill.
- Get re-elected
- Get their friends elected and re-elected
The net result is that the hard issues are glossed over, and the hard questions are never asked.
Let's take health care as a specific example. What's the hard question?
Should full access to health-care be a guaranteed American privilege?
Forget about money for a minute. If you're an American, do you have an intrinsic right to the best health care? That's the first question that needs to be asked.
The answer appears to be "yes", because anyone can walk into a hospital to receive health care, whether they have money, insurance, or a job. The hospital won't turn them away, even if there's no chance the patient can pay for the services provided.
This leads us to the second hard question.
Who pays for health care services provided to the indigent and uninsured?
Right now, the real answer is "everyone else". The cost of these free (unpaid, uncollectable) services is bult into the cost that everyone else pays. And, since the uninsured can't usually afford basic preventative medicine, these "gratis" services are often rather expensive. These expenses are spread out over all the bills that everyone else pays.
If the answer to the first question is "yes", then we have a limited number of possible answers to the second question.
- Socialize medicine and make it a government service, paid by taxes, with equal access to all citizens.
- Force everyone to buy insurance, with the government providing insurance to the poor.
- Soak the rich and hope they don't leave the country in response.
- Leave the current system and spread the cost over all the middle-class citizens who have insurance.
- Create a caste system with private hospitals for insured patients and government services for the uninsured.
We don't have the guts (or callousness) to say, "No insurance, no service!"
So, any health care solution is going to stink. It's the nature of the beast. If we provide health care to everybody, someone has to pay for those services.
We just have to figure out who gets the bill.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
I Need Your Collected Stinkbug Wisdom
It's been five long years. Now we're facing the fifth annual re-emergence of the dreaded Brown Marmorated Stinkbug. Anyone familiar with this little beast - a pest of near-Biblical proportions - surely understands and commiserates with me.
Over the years, we've each developed our own coping strategies and tactics. In the spirit of, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours," I'm asking people to send me their personal best advice and lessons learned. How do YOU deal with these little shield-shaped spawns of Hell?
I'm going to collect and organize the accumulated wisdom of the afflicted, and make it available to all in eBook form. Here's my deal. If you send me an email detailing your own hard-won advice in dealing with these little monstrosities - I'll give you a free copy of the eBook when it's done.
So send me your best tips and tricks in email, to 'shilohpubs@yahoo.com'. Please put the word "stinkbug" in the subject line.
I don't know if we can make a difference, but I already have some really good stuff to put in my eBook. Maybe it'll help you turn the tide in your own personal war with the little brown buggers.
Over the years, we've each developed our own coping strategies and tactics. In the spirit of, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours," I'm asking people to send me their personal best advice and lessons learned. How do YOU deal with these little shield-shaped spawns of Hell?
I'm going to collect and organize the accumulated wisdom of the afflicted, and make it available to all in eBook form. Here's my deal. If you send me an email detailing your own hard-won advice in dealing with these little monstrosities - I'll give you a free copy of the eBook when it's done.
So send me your best tips and tricks in email, to 'shilohpubs@yahoo.com'. Please put the word "stinkbug" in the subject line.
I don't know if we can make a difference, but I already have some really good stuff to put in my eBook. Maybe it'll help you turn the tide in your own personal war with the little brown buggers.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
Liars! Charlatans! Politicians!
But I repeat myself...
All right, I'm officially pissed off at our elected officials who apparently don't have the guts or integrity to do the job they were HIRED to do. Today's Senate vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment to the Firearms Act (the "Gun Control Bill") failed.
It needed 60 votes to get past the Senate. It got 54. If the Senate was voting the public conscience, it should have gotten 90 votes or more.
To be fair, legislature is complicated and convoluted. Maybe there's something hidden in the bill that soured the milk. So, I did the unthinkable. I ACTUALLY READ THE BILL.
Here's the meat of it.
All right, I'm officially pissed off at our elected officials who apparently don't have the guts or integrity to do the job they were HIRED to do. Today's Senate vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment to the Firearms Act (the "Gun Control Bill") failed.
It needed 60 votes to get past the Senate. It got 54. If the Senate was voting the public conscience, it should have gotten 90 votes or more.
To be fair, legislature is complicated and convoluted. Maybe there's something hidden in the bill that soured the milk. So, I did the unthinkable. I ACTUALLY READ THE BILL.
Here's the meat of it.
- There will be NO FEDERAL GUN REGISTRY. It says this in three separate places.
- Every sale of a gun (except between family members who reside in the same state) must include an instant background check.
- People who aren't allowed to have guns for various reasons (felons, mental illness, certain other conditions) are required to be listed in a national directory, to support instant checks.
And other than a ton of who-pays-what and penalties for non-compliance, that's pretty much the meat of the bill. Read it yourself if you think I'm lying. Anyone who says different, including the blathering talking heads, fear-mongers and paid political pundits - is either a liar or too lazy to check their facts.
Period.
I'll ignore the resulting Presidential diatribe. But here are some facts for you.
These are the Republicans who voted FOR the bill.
- Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
- Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.)
- Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
- Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.)
ALL other Senate Republicans voted against it, joined by these Democrats.
- Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
- Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
- Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.)
- Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)
- Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.)
I don't know what needs to happen to get these sluggards to do the job they were hired to do. I know that if they were my employees, they wouldn't be working for me for very long. But, to be fair, they aren't really working for any of us now, are they?
Where's Donald Trump when you need him?
I've been a Republican all my life. That's more than just a couple of years. I've never seen a more miserable excuse for an elected government in my lifetime - at least not in these United States. Congress has become a moral, ethical and international embarrassment - lead by the Senate.
If things don't change, I may not be angry enough to change my party loyalties to Democrat - but I'm ready to do anything and everything in my power to see that the blowhards currently warming Congressional seats are sent packing in the next election.
To quote from Network (1976), "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
Or to quote one of my old bosses, "Quit yer bitchin' and do yer damn job!"
If anyone wants to explain to me why this bill shouldn't have passed - I'm listening.
Anyone?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)