The View From Here

Is This Really America?

There’s No Bad Days For Ray

 

I have spent considerable time this week with a guy that I wish you all could meet. I am certain that each of you would be blown away by Ray. If for no other reason you would be as amazed as I was to discover that Ray has no bad days.

I should explain that I have spent this week in a rehab facility letting the experts tune my respiratory system back up. This recovery process was required after a week-long hospitalization for an infection in my legs. The inactivity of hospitalization is a killer for someone with my chronic lung problems. The rehab experts can expedite and simplify the recovery process and get me breathing again. ‘No Bad Days Ray’ is one of my fellow patients.

Time spent in a rehab environment also provides me a lot of stimulus. On a daily basis, hour after hour, I see folks who are fighting problems that are more serious and more crippling than my problems. I also can observe that everyone has their bad days and file that away for future reference and use for personal attitude adjustments. Well, everyone has bad days but Ray.

Mr. Johnson had a bad day yesterday. The 93-year old, recovering from a broken hip, is working with a therapist on learning to stand up from a wheelchair and transition to a walker without assistance. The day before he made the transition three times in a row successfully. Today he can’t coordinate the hand transitions and his frustration was evident. From across the room Ray motivated Mr. Johnson by gently kidding him about suffering from a hangover.

The sweet little old lady recovering from a stroke was having a bad day today also, Yesterday she could remember what state and city we were in, but today she needed Ray’s good natured assistance.

The fellow who is trying to steal his left side back from the ‘Stroke Monster’ enjoys Ray even more than the retired school teacher who lost her left leg to diabetes; She says Ray’s warmth reminds her of her deceased brother.

And Ray doesn’t even grunt and strain like the rest of us when he exerts himself during a rehab exercise. That big smile is plastered to his face like a beacon that is declaring, “There Ain’t No Bad Days!”

Ray had a really good day yesterday. He was notified that his prosthetic ear will be attached next Tuesday. Ray jokes that he now will have the body parts required to rejoin the sunglasses set.

Today was even a bigger, better day for Ray. Twice in a row he maneuvered from lying down on the bed to sitting in his wheelchair without a fumble. For those of you not familiar with the maneuver, that is no small feat for someone with no legs. A good day!

Based on current events today should have been a bad day for Ray – I mean that. But he says he will make the best of it. He says that tonight when he looks in the mirror he is not going to even notice the eye he is missing, just deeding it to the IED that already took it. Instead he is going to be proud of the fact that he can look himself in the eye. You see being able to look yourself in the eye without wavering is important to Ray. He doubts, as do I, that all those Congressmen who voted yesterday to reduce Ray’s (and all his brethren’s’) military disability payments can complete that simple task.

You see, There’s No Bad Days For Ray

Till Next Time

Larry Matthews

 

 

Back in the USA = Culture Shock?

Welcome Home?

My return to the U.S. after 6+ years in Panama has been a transition. Yeah, I had to be re-trained and re-programed in several areas. But one of the real shockers was the U.S. healthcare system. And my interest in the subject had nothing to do with ObamaCare.

My interest was more personal. One of the features that my military insurance (TriCare) has that is not a feature of most 'civilian' plans is transparency. Everytime TriCare pays a claim they notify me and post the details in my files which I can review on-line. More out of curiosity than anything else I started going in and looking at the information provided. I was shocked!

Shocked at the dollar amounts billed by the care provider. Surprised at the disparity between what was often paid versus what had been billed.  And totally stunned by one claim when the hospital billed $28,651.35 and the amount allowed and paid by the insurance copmpany was $6,740.02

I could make absolutely no sense at all of this. Then I discovered (and read) the Wall Street Journal article I have attached (below) which explains my confusion. It does not make sense of the situation however.

The Bottom Line: We Americans are not 'up in arms' over the existing healthcare system because - we don't know what the system is. Period.

Read on and enjoy.

 

The Man Who Was Treated for $17,000 Less.

By JEFFREY A. SINGER

Every so often I have an extraordinary and surprising experience with a patient-the kind that makes us both say, "Wow, we've learned something from this." One such moment occurred recently.

A gentleman in his early 60s came in with a rather routine hernia in his lower abdomen, one that is easily repaired with a simple outpatient surgical procedure. We scheduled the surgery at a nearby hospital.

My patient is self-employed and owns a low-cost "indemnity" type of health insurance policy. It has no provider-network requirements or preferred-hospital requirements. The patient can go anywhere. The policy pays up to a fixed amount for doctor and hospital bills based upon the diagnosis. This affordable health-insurance policy made a lot of sense to this man, based on his health and financial situation.

When the man arrived at the hospital for surgery, the admitting clerk reviewed the terms of his policy and estimated the amount of his bill that would be paid by insurance. She asked him to pay his estimated portion in advance. (More hospitals are doing that now because too often patients don't pay their portions of the bills after insurance has paid.)

The insurance policy, the clerk said, would pay up to $2,500 for the surgeon-more than enough-and up to $2,500 for the hospital's charges for the operating room, nursing, recovery room, etc. The estimated hospital charge was $23,000. She asked him to pay roughly $20,000 upfront to cover the estimated balance.

My patient was stunned. I received a call from the admitting clerk informing me that he wanted to cancel the surgery, and explaining why. After speaking to the man alone and learning the nature of his insurance policy, I realized I was not bound by any "preferred provider" contractual arrangements and knew we had a solution.

I explained that just because he had health insurance didn't mean he had to use it in every situation. After all, when people have a minor fender-bender, they often settle it privately rather than file an insurance claim. Because of the nature of this man's policy, he could do the same thing for his medical procedure. However, had I been bound by a preferred-provider contract or by Medicare, I wouldn't have been able to enlighten him.

Hospitals and other providers make their "list" prices as high as possible when negotiating contracts with health plans and Medicare regulators. No one is ever expected to pay the list price. Anybody who has seen an "Explanation of Benefits" statement from a health plan will note a very high charge from the provider, and an "adjusted charge" based upon the contracted fee schedule, which usually leaves the patient with little or nothing in out-of-pocket expenses. The only people routinely faced with list prices are those few people who have insurance like my patient's-that doesn't include a pre-negotiated fee schedule with contracted providers-or those who have no insurance.

Most people are unaware that if they don't use insurance, they can negotiate upfront cash prices with hospitals and providers substantially below the "list" price. Doctors are happy to do this. We get paid promptly, without paying office staff to wade through the insurance-payment morass.

So we canceled the surgery and started the scheduling process all over again, this time classifying my patient as a "self-pay" (or uninsured) patient. I quoted him a reasonable upfront cash price, as did the anesthesiologist. We contacted a different hospital and they quoted him a reasonable upfront cash price for the outpatient surgical/nursing services.

He underwent his operation the very next day, with a total bill of just a little over $3,000, including doctor and hospital fees. He ended up saving $17,000 by not using insurance

This process taught us a few things. First, most people these days don't have health "insurance." They have prepaid health plans. They pay premiums to take advantage of a pre-negotiated fee schedule arranged for and administered by a third party. My patient, on the other hand, had insurance.

Second, even with the markdown for upfront "cash-pay" patients, none of the providers was losing money on my patient. Otherwise they wouldn't have agreed to the prices. With the third-party payer taken out of the picture, we got a better idea of the market prices for the services. It is the third-party payment system that interferes with true price competition, so "market clearing prices" can't develop.

Take the examples of Lasik eye surgery or cosmetic surgery. These services are not covered by insurance. Providers compete on the basis of quality, outcomes and price. And prices have continually dropped as quality and services have improved-unlike the rest of health care.

When my patient returned for his post-op visit we discussed the experience. It was clear to both of us that the only way to make health care more affordable is to diminish the role of third-party payers. Let consumers and providers interact through market forces to drive down prices and drive up quality, like we do when we buy groceries, clothing, cars, computers, etc. Drop the focus on prepaid health plans and return to the days of real health insurance-that covers major, unforeseen events, leaving the everyday expenses to the consumer-just like auto and homeowners' insurance.

Sadly, we are heading in the exact opposite direction. ObamaCare expands the role of the third party and practically eliminates the role-and the say-of the patient in the delivery of health care. Will they ever learn?

-----------------

Dr. Singer practices general surgery in Phoenix, Ariz., and is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.  A version of this article appeared August 22, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal.

 ---------------------------------------

Till Next Time. Pura Vida

 

Americans and Gun Control

 

I often hear the same question asked by many people, and have heard that same question in various form for years. Why do major problems that effect U.S. citizens often take years to correct? The current long-standing issues of healthcare, the economy and immigration have recently taken a backseat to gun control in the public's interest.  And most people thought that new legislation on gun control would be rapid and decisive after another school attack tragedy shocked the nation.  But today any meaningful action is still struggling just to reach the formal debate stage in Congress.

I am convinced that the path to resolution of major problems in our government all end up hitting the same political and procedural roadblocks.  Major problems and their solutions inevitably have economic impacts which bring out the special interest groups and lobbying organizations. So our politicians, who may already be at odds on possible solutions due to their political persuasions, are now being pressured by people (who wield political clout) with an 'un-hidden' agenda. 

But the balancing force in the 'solution equation' is supposed to be provided to the elected representatives by their constituency – the desires of the people who elect them to office.  And that is where I see the breakdown in the nation's ability to even approach the gun control dilemma, much less resolve it. 

Numerous polls and surveys reveal that a  majority of Americans consistently say that we need better enforcement of our gun laws. But there’s a problem with that: further polls show that many of those same people don’t really know what our gun laws are. A recent nationwide poll by Benenson Strategy Group highlights these inconsistencies. This poll also highlights why this issue is so contentious. Many people are being influenced by incorrect information – information that is often as not fostered by special interest groups.

A large number of those polled think that federal laws require a background check for every gun purchase and that they ban high-capacity magazines. If these Americans knew that we didn’t have such laws — laws they so fervently wish to enforce — their beliefs about the correct course of Congressional action might be very different.

The Benenson poll asked 800 voters what action they want our government to take: "enforce current gun laws more strictly but not pass new laws" or "pass new gun laws in addition to enforcing current laws more strictly." Not too surprisingly they chose better enforcement by 50 percent to 43 percent. (The remainder responded "neither" or "don’t know.")

But in the same poll, 87 percent of voters, including nearly 90 percent of gun owners, said they support background checks for all gun sales. Significant majorities of voters and of gun owners also told us they support banning military-style assault weapons along with the high-capacity magazines that enable those weapons to fire dozens of rounds without reloading. So we have a situation where people insist that the 'correct' approach is to merely enforce existing law, while at the same time favoring strong positions on things that are not covered by present legislation.

To dig deeper into this confusion, a new series of questions was introduced. The same group of voters were asked whether or not specific laws were already on the books. Of the 50 percent of people who prefer enforcement over new laws — over half of whom are gun owners — 48 percent told us that federal laws prohibit the purchase of a weapon privately or at a gun show without a background check, while 10 percent simply admitted not knowing the rules. In other words, about 6 out of 10 people who believe we just need to do a better job of enforcing existing laws don’t realize that those laws are far weaker than they think. And just under half of those who see better enforcement as the answer don’t know that military-style assault weapons are, in fact, not illegal.

A clear majority said they believe that the sale of guns to people on the terrorist watch list is banned. Another 29 percent said they don’t know. Such sales are not banned, and the Government Accountability Office has reported that in 2010 alone 247 people on the terrorist watch list passed a background check and legally purchased guns.

Similarly, 33 percent believe that federal law requires authorities to be notified when people purchase large amounts of ammunition in a short period — also not the case — and 42 percent don’t know whether it is illegal to buy ammunition over the Internet — it isn’t.

The notion that all we need is better enforcement of our current federal laws has been a core argument of the gun lobby for years in its fight against restrictions on guns in our communities. But that argument is a straw man. It masks the fact that many Americans don’t really know what gun laws are on the books and falsely construes that to mean they don’t want common-sense gun laws passed — when they clearly do. What Americans strongly believe, and what is at the core of a true reform agenda, is that with rights come responsibilities.

We have all heard 'Guns don't kill people, people do.' Which is at least partially true. So that logic leads one to say quit concentrating on the hardware - concentrate on the people who should or shouldn't have a gun. To support that approach people echo, 'Cars don't kill people, drunk drivers do.'  The same logic kicks in – it's the driver not the car.

But, I suggest that while we are concentrating on the people part of the problem, we can not ignore the hardware portion.  Do you know what an assault weapon is, and is capable of? I have never heard a logical explanation why that brand of weapon should be sold in the U.S. at all.  Using our automobile accident deaths by comparison – what would you say about a car that a manufacturer introduced, planning to sell 10,000 of them that had would go 185 mph and was being offered at the introductory price of $3,000, nothing down and no payments for six months.  In this case would we think it was only the driver that could be a problem the traffic safety debate?

Americans don’t believe changing the rules will prevent every murder or every act of mass violence. Rules will always be broken. Some people will always cheat on their taxes. Some people will always speed. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have common-sense rules like speed limits or an income tax. Americans agree gun limits are needed, and at the very least, they expect a rational debate and a vote on it. It’s time to prove them right.

Till Next Time. Pura Vida 

 

 

The Gun Debate and Public Safety

 

A fellow retired USAF officer (and old friend) sent me this discussion about the general issue of public safety and violence.  I read it several times before I decided it needed wider distribution. A different perspective in viewing a problem often raises interesting (and often overlooked) insights.  As always I welcome your comments.

 

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs - Dave Grossman

By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of "On Killing."

 

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?

William J. Bennett - at the United States Naval Academy, Nov. 24, 1997

 

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

"Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident." This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin's egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

"Then there are sheepdogs," he went on, "and I'm a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf."

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero's path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier's excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids' schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid's school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep's only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn't tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, "Baa."

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, "Thank God I wasn't on one of those planes." The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, "Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference." When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I'm proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, "Let's roll," which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers - athletes, business people and parents. -- from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. - Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn't have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior's path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, "I will never be caught without my gun in church." I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy's body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, "Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?"

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for "heads to roll" if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids' school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, "Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?"

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn't bring your gun, you didn't train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: "...denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn't so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling."

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be "on" 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself...

"Baa."

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.

------------------------------------

Till Next Time. Pura Vida

Larry Matthews

The Liberal or Conservative Test

 

American Politics #101

 

For those that don't know their American political history ... Here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1. Liberals

2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement...

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline and fighter pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

 

Here ends today's lesson in world history

It should be noted that most liberals may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above - before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.....I'm going to have another beer.

P.S. My liberal friends will laugh at this just as I did – both of them.

 

Still in Panama. Till Next Time. Pura Vida

You Sure You Want A Gun?

 

Introduction

A few days ago I posted a rather lengthy article concerning the 'gun controversy' embroiling the America.  As you might expect, with such an emotion laden issue, I got a lot of comments. What surpised me however, was that the subject that got the most comment was my recounting a personal experience involving a hand gun. As a result I have extracted that portion of the longer article and re-posted it here so that readers who are interested do not have to plow through the entire article to read it.

The entire original post, "The United States - A Nation in Shock."follows at the end of this exerpt.  I welcome your comments.

 

A Personal Experience To Add Perspective

I would like to pass on to you a personal experience with guns, specifically a hand gun. And I do so only because I think it illustrates how complicated this problem is, even in some ways at the personal level.

I grew up with guns. My father's family migrated to Kansas City when he was a teenager from the boondocks of the Arkansas Ozark mountains. In that environment a shotgun was a household staple, part of their life. They hunted wildlife and often kept the shotgun on the plow as the were working in the fields in case they jumped a deer or a covey of quail.

I started hunting with my father at an early age – well, actually walking the fields with him before I was old enough to carry a firearm. My first gun was a .410, single shot shotgun given to me by my father as a birthday gift – I was 12. Up through my early 20s when I went in the USAF, I was a hunter and progressed through several shotguns.

I joined the NRA with a hunting buddy when I was about 18, not because of any political motivation, but primarily to get their magazine. I also bought from them by mail order an Army issue Colt 45 automatic for 'home protection'. I purchased that specific gun because I felt it was safe to have around the house. With a 'click-click' it could be dis-assemble and the three major parts stored safely side-by-side on a shelf. That is primarily because, even through it could be assembled in the same quick click-click manner in case of emergency, a person not familiar with that gun would never figure it out. And even if they did stumble through that process, the ammo would be in the clip not in the chamber ready to fire. To prepare it to fire was another test for the uninitiated due to built-in safety features.

In the early 1970s I was transferred to Hawaii and left the gun in storage in the U.S. Because of the administrative hassle of shipping a weapon in your household good. One weekday after noon I happened to be at home, and I suddenly heard my three grade school daughters coming down the street screaming bloody murder in terror. The kind of terror that would have triggered a 'click-click' if that gun had been available. But I ran to the back door knowing the girls would come through the back fence gate there. I met them and managed to determine through their hysterical jabbering that "that man was chasing them trying to hurt them". As I shooed them in the door and picked up the baseball bat I kept next to the back door (for other purposes), 'the man' burst through the back gate. He was big, maybe 5'10'' and a massive build, maybe 225 pounds. Screaming incomprehensibly his face contorted in rage, he was carrying a length of chain, the ends of which were wrapped around his hands in such a way that the rest of the chain was an obvious garotte weapon – he was about to strangle someone!

Adrenalin rushing I stepped towards him intent on disabling him the best I could with the only weapon I had. At that point he dropped to the ground on his hands and knees and began to sob uncontrollably and the only word I could understand was 'Ben'. And at that point I realized who I was dealing with. This was the mentally challenged boy that lived someplace in the neighborhood. You would see him occasionally walking down the street but I had never taken a good look at him (don't want to stare). The only way I knew it was him was his mother dressed him in denim bib overalls (probably the only overalls in Hawaii) so he would stand out and people would realize he had problems. Thanks goodness his mother had heard the commotion and showed up about that time to 'rescue' him, apologizing profusely for my trouble.

I shook uncontrollably for about an hour and could hardly catch me breath. I was so upset because I knew if my trusty.45 automatic had been in my house, that boy would have been a goner – a 13-year old 'monster dead (Yes, he was only 13) because he was looking for help getting his dog (Ben) back on the chain leash. And I had been to all the firearms training, including courses where you 'walked a street' and learned with pop-up targets to quickly identify who to shoot and who not to. And how to shoot to disable and not kill. But I knew in my heart with the adrenaline rushing and my perception that my kids where in danger, that kid would have been a 'goner'.

I don't know if I would have gone to jail or not. I do know I would have had to live with that the rest of my life. I still shudder when this incident comes to mind. When I returned to the U.S. A couple of years later I did two things. 1.) The NRA had turned into a political organization (maybe they always were and I wasn't aware), so I resigned my membership, and 2.) I went to the household goods storage place and took the gun to the police station where I turned it in.

 

Till Next Time. Pura Vida.

The United States - A Nation in Shock

 

America's Wake Up Call

Obviously this is not the first time that the nation has been faced with such tragedy, in fact as recently as twice in the Obama's tenure alone. And in almost every case, there is a lot of talk from officials. "We need to fix this", they all parrot. Then in a short time the publicity spotlight moves elsewhere and the proclamations do not turn into actions.  Well it is time we Americans insisted that the problem be addressed. But it is even more important that the actions taken be beamed at the gun problem and not at soothing various organizations political and/or philosophical leanings.

Let's start by taking a look at a stripped-down version of the scenario for that horrible morning. A young man, known to be deeply mentally disturbed, strolls in into an elementary school in broad daylight with a hard-to-conceal hi-powered rifle (equipped with a mega-shot clip) and commences to execute a terrified 6 year old little girl, shooting her at point blank range multiple times. He then repeats that scenario two dozen more times.

The nation is engulfed in shock, disbelief and a sense of mourning – an emotional response that quickly spreads to large portions of the world. But to me, equally alarming, is that the blood had not been wiped up and the school still smelled of gunpowder and out came the political activist. The 'Gun Ban Lobby' ran straight to the press, an industry largely 'sympathetic to their cause'.  And here we go, the airwaves and the newspaper are full of the 'Ban Guns' demands.

People STOP – look at the scenario again. A deeply mentally disturbed man with a gun? (more on that subject later). He strolls into a elementary school? (30+ years ago in the Northern Virginia D.C. Suburbs I could not stroll in to my own kids school with out going through security). And the problem is – he had a gun? And a gun that is difficult, if not impossible, to conceal?  Please! The problem that needs to be addressed is he had a gun?  If he had knifed them all (as that horrendous villain did in China the same day) would we have a movement to require us all to turn in our steak knives?

But, some still insist that to correct this problem we are going to have to take the guns away from law abiding, legal gun owning citizens.  But think about this, aren't all those citizens members of the 'potential victim pool' for the next disaster?  Trying to solve this problem with a gun ban, to me, is akin to solving the DUI death problems by banning, not alcohol (we learned that didn't work in the 30s), but banning the sale of gasoline.

So What Do We Do

For starters the National Rifle Association (NRA) needs to get off this indefensible defense (offense) that insists assault rifles, mega ammunition clips, and similar weapons are huddled up underneath the 2^nd Amendment display tent. Get real!  You are going to try and convince me that all these modern weapons were clearly envisioned by the founding fathers, and therefore included in the constitutional protection? An extension of that logic could then include shoulder launched missiles (commercial airlines ought to love Billy Bob owning those)? You could add nuclear noses on your missiles as well? Come on!

I am not suggesting that the American population should strike back at the 'Ban Gun's approach by a wholesale arming of the guy on the street. In fact, for a number of reasons that is not the answer either. Here are a couple of things to ponder on that question.

Some people (maybe many) speculate that if there were more armed citizens out on the streets, if/when some wack-job character started shooting in a crowd, he would be mowed down before he even got started good. That sounds good in theory – but, in my opinion only in theory. You cannot imagine the adrenaline-induced jolt (panic?) that hits you when unexpected gun fire erupts around you  – trust me, I 'been there" thanks to a year in Saigon in the late 60s - and being armed yourself does not dampen that emotional reaction.

Now think about someone (you?) in that mental state (similar to a panic) pulling a gun to bring down the culprit. Is that guy shooting from over there in this milling chaos the culprit or an off-duty or undercover police officer, or another 'potential hero' armed citizen? Might most men hesitate to shoot just long enough to become one of the victims if it appeared the person shooting was a woman?  And when law officers do show up and the first person they see who is firing a weapon is you?????  Can you even imagine future nightly network news reports when all over the country there were aborted attempted  robberies in 7-11s, road rage incidents, car backfires that triggered  firearm responses, friendly arguments that got out of hand, etc, etc......

So There Is Hope

So am not suggesting that nothing should be done with America's gun control procedures, in fact I think the problem is that there seems to be no meaningful or successful such procedures. But taking the 'ban guns' approach takes us right down the road we have already been down. It is going to take political will, and a quieting of the people and organizations with the extreme positions on the subject (NRA -vs- Ban Guns). President Obama said unequivocally in his recent remarks that the enormity and complexity of this problem "can't be an excuse for inaction."  But, he has made similar pronouncements after the other two mass killings during his tenure – and once the publicity pressure dissipated, did nothing. The real question then is whether the political will is really there or just the topic of the day.

I do believe the will to address this problem does fester in a majority of the American people. This country has a history of addressing basic inequities that were buried deep in cultural 'givens'. Just in my lifetime the United States has bowed up and re-calibrated our approach to, and treatment of, blacks, women and, now the evolving battles for, homosexuals. So basic changes in our society have been, and therefore, can be made.

Our Nation Has And Can Address Big Issues

The nation's efforts to get a handle on drunk drivers has a lot of similarities to the forces and attitudes that underlie both problems. To address either of these problems, basic attitudes had to be changed towards human behavior and what was/is socially acceptable. The problems of Drinking-and-Driving and resultant DUI deaths, though certainly not totally resolved, were at the 'national tragedy' level just a few short years ago. Many people's attitudes towards drinking and driving tended to lean towards considering such behavior a personal decision – maybe even a right. And in many states the law, if not condoning those attitudes, did little to discourage them.

I remember vividly a Sunday afternoon in the late 60s where I had occasion to make a quick run out to the Air Force base (in Sherman, Texas), and saw in the highway behind me a Highway Patrol car with lights flashing approaching me. Since I was the only car in sight I assumed that he was stopping me and pulled over. I did not even bother to hide the beer I had in the cup holder in the console – it was not against the law – not even frowned on. 

In years past there was also a lot of common behavior that today would draw frowns and maybe intervention from others. "I got so hammered last night I don't even remember driving home" stories are no longer received with gales of laughter.

About six years ago when I moved to Wilmington, N.C. It was the first time/place I routinely took cabs home from the party even if I thought I was in OK condition to drive. The DUI laws are tough, the ever-present roadblocks are strategically placed, and a DUI conviction in these modern times has a significant impact on your life that often impact your life for years.

Attitudes can be changed especially when the public and organizations like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) gets cranked up. No one wants to see anyone killed by a drunk driver, certainly not a kid. And as I mentioned before, the solution was not to make alcohol the culprit that needed to be abolished (been there, done that), but to address the human behavior.

And even on the subject of DUI driving we tend to be behind other countries. In the 70s I was a visitor at an Air Force base in England. When you came out of the Officers Club at night to go home there was a line of cabs in the drive in front of the club – an oddity at the time from my experiences. Well the reason they were there was because on the walk across on the other side of the drive was a contingent of USAF Air Policemen. There job was to insure that no one left that club and walked over and got in the car. Period. Even if you had just stopped by the club to get a pack of cigarettes, you were none-the-less going home by taxi.

Other Countries Successes

There are many examples where other countries have successfully confronted this problem. And Australia may be the best example, if for no other reason the Aussies seem to share our 'love of individual freedoms' as well as a sort of 'Wild West' streak.

In 1996, a horrible shooting rampage in Australia resulted in the killing of 35 people who were all sprayed by automatic weapons fire by a 'social misfit'. Within weeks their government was working through legislation to reform gun laws, ban assault weapons (and shotguns), tightened licensing, and financed gun 'buy-back problems (with amnesty). Sadly, as it relates to this discussion, the newspaper headlines quoted their prime minister (at the time) when he commented, "We do not want the American Disease Imported into Australia."

The Australian laws worked! A 2010 report shows that firearms homicides dropped 59% between 1995 and 2006.  More importantly, in the 18 years before the 1996 laws, there were 13 gun massacres resulting in 102 deaths. Since the law's implementation there have been none – none!

And these kind of results are repeated in a number of countries that have faced up to the problem and made major improvements. And in the country with probably the toughest gun laws in the world, Japan, there were 11 people killed by guns in a year. Compared that to the U.S. with 33 a DAY (12,000 total in a year), a big disparity even factoring in the population difference.

So let's quit debating IF something needs to be done about gun control, and start working on WHAT should be done on gun control. And the measures taken need to be much more expansive to be effective. Should a gun be allowed in a home where there are felons or seriously mental ill or other 'dangerous' people living?  Should there be special firearm storage requirements in the homes of gun owners, especially if there are children in the family? Secure storage measures that would also prevent theft? Should gun owner's be identified in some new or existing list or data bases to increase safety measure? (For instance, when the police pull in a neighbor at night they know which three homeowners on this street own guns – same at a traffic stop) All of these types of factors, as well as many more I could not even imagine might be included in the new laws, BUT only if they are designed to address the problem and have a reasonable chance of doing so.

A Story To Add Perspective

I would like to pass on to you a personal experience with guns, specifically a hand gun. And I do so only because I think it illustrates how complicated this problem is, even in some ways at the personal level.

I grew up with guns. My father's family migrated to Kansas City when he was a teenager from the boondocks of the Arkansas Ozark mountains. In that environment a shotgun was a household staple, part of their life. They hunted wildlife and often kept the shotgun on the plow as the were working in the fields in case they jumped a deer or a covey of quail.

I started hunting with my father at an early age – well, actually walking the fields with him before I was old enough to carry a firearm. My first gun was a .410, single shot shotgun given to me by my father as a birthday gift – I was 12. Up through my early 20s when I went in the USAF, I was a hunter and progressed through several shotguns.

I joined the NRA with a hunting buddy when I was about 18, not because of any political motivation, but primarily to get their magazine. I also bought from them by mail order an Army issue Colt 45 automatic for 'home protection'. I purchased that specific gun because I felt it was safe to have around the house. With a 'click-click' it could be dis-assemble and the three major parts stored safely side-by-side on a shelf. That is primarily because, even through it could be assembled in the same quick click-click manner in case of emergency, a person not familiar with that gun would never figure it out. And even if they did stumble through that process, the ammo would be in the clip not in the chamber ready to fire. To prepare it to fire was another test for the uninitiated due to built-in safety features.

In the early 1970s I was transferred to Hawaii and left the gun in storage in the U.S. Because of the administrative hassle of shipping a weapon in your household good. One weekday after noon I happened to be at home, and I suddenly heard my three grade school daughters coming down the street screaming bloody murder in terror. The kind of terror that would have triggered a 'click-click' if that gun had been available. But I ran to the back door knowing the girls would come through the back fence gate there. I met them and managed to determine through their hysterical jabbering that "that man was  chasing them trying to hurt them".  As I shooed them in the door and picked up the baseball bat I kept next to the back door (for other purposes), 'the man' burst through the back gate. He was big, maybe 5'10'' and a massive build, maybe 225 pounds. Screaming incomprehensibly his face contorted in rage, he was carrying a length of chain, the ends of  which were wrapped around his hands in such a way that the rest of the chain was an obvious garotte weapon – he was about to strangle someone! 

Adrenalin rushing I stepped towards him intent on disabling him the best I could with the only weapon I had. At that point he dropped to the ground on his hands and knees and began to sob uncontrollably and the only word I could understand was 'Ben'. And at that point I realized who I was dealing with. This was the mentally challenged boy that lived someplace in the neighborhood. You would see him occasionally walking down the street but I had never taken a good look at him (don't want to stare). The only way I knew it was him was his mother dressed him in denim bib overalls (probably the only overalls in Hawaii) so he would stand out and people would realize he had problems. Thanks goodness his mother had heard the commotion and showed up about that time to 'rescue' him, apologizing profusely for my trouble.

I shook uncontrollably for about an hour and could hardly catch me breath. I was so upset because I knew if my trusty.45 automatic had been in my house, that boy would have been a goner – a 13-year old 'monster dead (Yes, he was only 13) because he was looking for help getting his dog (Ben) back on the chain leash. And I had been to all the firearms training, including courses where you 'walked a street' and learned with pop-up targets to quickly identify who to shoot and who not to. And how to shoot to disable and not kill. But I knew in my heart with the adrenaline rushing and my perception that my kids where in danger, that kid would have been a 'goner'.

I don't know if I would have gone to jail or not. I do know I would have had to live with that the rest of my life. I still shudder when this incident comes to mind. When I returned to the U.S. A couple of years later I did two things. 1.) The NRA had turned into a political organization (maybe they always were and I wasn't aware), so I resigned my membership, and 2.) I went to the storage place and took the gun to the police station where I turned it in.

LET'S NEVER FORGET THEM – AND ALL WHO LEFT BEFORE!

 

 

 

 

Let's Not Give Up On This Subject – Keep Pushing!

 Till Next Time.  Pura Vida.

 

 

 

Where Have The U.S. Statesmen Gone?

 

A Plea For Sanity

I am, and have been my whole life, one of those nameless, faceless members of the voting electorate that the political wonks often refer to as the common man, or the man on the street or, in more recent years the critical undecided vote. I am going to be presumptious enough to make a plea to the current U.S. presidential candidates, both Obama and Romney, on behalf of that group. Although I have never been a political type, I feel comfortable speaking for this large marginally homogenous group because I am convinced that both candidates, contrary to what they personally believe, don't have a clue how the major portion of the electorate thinks - what is important to the voters. And quite candidly, I feel that most of the time neither candidate is focused on our concerns, primarily because they and their 'experts' feel they know what is best for us. So gentlemen, would you both please hear out plea! We desperately want a return to sanity in American politics. A return to a government for the people!

Gentlemen, I suggest that the first step in our return to sanity in American politics should be a return to civility. I will admit that I, unlike the two of you, did not have the benefit of an Ivy League education that helped shape my opinions and values. However, if that is where you honed your skills at gutter-sniping at your opponents supposed achilles heels, then I am glad I missed that course. If all those cheap-shot tendencies are so thoroughly ingrained in your pysches, then do us a favor and return to the arenas of Chicago politics and Republican primaries were the practice is no less despicable, but at least it is out of the national limelight.  The American people are tired of, and becoming increasingly more displeased with, the constant nagging and accusations that usually are only partly factual and seldom relevant to anything of concern to us the voters. Stop! A return to a government for the people!

Secondly gentlemen I would ask that you both do an abrupt 'about face' and stop facing towards the rear - the past.  Whether Barack smoked weed in college interests me equally as much as what prank Mitt pulled on a college classmate. Likewise the Rev. Wright's blatherings and his influence (or not) on Barack Obama fails the same 'idiotic test' as what month Romney left Bain. And I plead with you to drop the 'flip-flop' crutch. Is it relevant that Mitt has a different postion on a subject than he did years ago when he was governor? Or that Barack's position has changed form his state government days? Please! Things, times and situations change as do solutions and approaches to problems.  The only mistakes in this arena is not being able or willing to explain a change in approach. There is a name for those whose political positions never change - they are called a corpses!  So, both of you please stop wasting our time and your energies beating dead horses. A return to a government for the people!

Gov. Romney, more specifically what I think we need to see from you are some specific programs and plans to turn our country around and get this country at least headed in the right direction. I feel it unwise to assume you can get elected President of the United States because millions of us are willing to vote 'No' on Obama. We may be disallusioned, but we are not stupid. Please tell us what programs you plan to implement if elected president, why those are the prudent things to do, how they wiil be inacted and paid for, and why you chose those approaches. Enough of the vague, philosophical double talk. This country's problems are not some grad course exercise. In this arena there are no style points awarded on what sounds good, or polls well. And we also suggest you get hold of this clown signing everyone up to the 'no tax increases under any circumstances' pledge and run him out of town. We are not interested in robots in government responded with knee-jerk 'no tax increase' every time a button is pushed. The modern world is too complicated for clones in government. A return to a government for the people!

Pres. Obama I beseech you to stop with the 'crucify the rich' approach. This is America where we grow up with the dream that we will some day be wealthy. And it is part of our nature to cling to that idea idependent of whether it is, or ever was, realistic. And do we accept that Bain's business practices probably caused some people to lose their jobs?  Yes, but we also understand that Bain was getting involved with many companies that were on the ropes, and many (if not all) of their emplyees were stareing at the probability of losing their jobs. Since Bain did turn some of those companies around, obviously Bain's actions saved some people's job - a fact you seem to think that we don't understand when you are attacking Romney/Bains or a fact that you yourself do not understand. The 'Vote Against Romney Because He Is Rich' approach may work with the 'Occupy ...' crowd, but be advised that most of us think that bunch should be occupying jail cells. You also don't seem to realize that demonizing wealth is counter productive for you. The majority of us consider you to be rich! You spend more money on a single gown for your wife than most of us budget for our family's annual clothing budget. Your anti-wealth stance is a form of shooting yourself in the foot.

Note that I have not, and will not, get involved in a discussion about what has taken place in the Obama administration to date. I feel it would be counter-productive because my whole point is that it is time to be looking forward. I will leave it to the pundits and the so-called experts to continue to dissect ad nauseum the past three years. And in the final analysis history has taught us that it will probably be years before we are certain about the impact of things that have just occured in recent months.

So in summary, do I see a lot on the horizon that is encouraging for people like the ones I am being presumptious enough to speak for? Quite candidly - no. A big NO.

I am convinced that President Obama is an intellect of the highest order, but brings with that capacity an intellectual arrogance that reinforces in him the belief that he does in fact have 'the answers', and knows what is best for us, regardless of the noise being generated by the masses. He then surrounds himself with advisors whose 'real world' experience is as lacking as his and they can then proceed as they chose. If for no other reason, when things get really testy they can always just vote 'Present'.

In short Mr. President, your rode a wave of popularity into the White House largely based on soaring retoric and millions of folks enthusiasm with your idea of 'Hope and Change.' Three years later millions of people are still waiting for that change. And millions of others are starting to hope that you change.

Governor Romney on the other hand does have a long history out in the business world, but I feel that in a lot of those situations he was 'detached' by our standards. The corporation, and the world, looks different from the executive suites. He dosn't know 'what makes us tick' any more than Obama, and like Obama, doesn't realize that fact. Of even more concern to me, I see Romney as playing the role of 'The Great Appeaser'. I do not think he is ready (able?) to stand up to the divergent views and raucaus voices of his own party, much less the Democrats - a weakness he shares with Obama, and maybe even to a greater degree. Romney may well have some good ideas, but he is so busy trying to agree with everyone (except Obama) that he more and more seems to be appealing to noone.

For you Gov. Romney, it is time to fish are cut bait. You have managed to stave off a lot of tough competitors in the primary campaigns and it is now time to tell us what you intend to do if elected. We understand that you disagree with many of Obama's programs. So we know what you see as the big questions. We are waiting for you to stop harping about the failures and give us some answers. At least we need some assurances that you have a clue!

I hope this analysis is wrong. And if you don't agree with the general thrust herein, you probably aren't part of my population. Ha! How's that for an out?

A return to a government for the people! A dream?

Larry Matthews

 

Till Next Time.  Pura Vida. 

 

Preparing For The U.S. Presidential Elections

 

 

 The Genesis Of Liberals and Conservatives

For those that don't know their political history ... Here is a condensed version:

Humans originally existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunters/gatherers. They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer and would go to the coast and live on fish and lobster in the winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two distinct subgroups:

1 . Liberals
2. Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered, it required grain and that was the beginning of agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented yet, so while our early humans were sitting around waiting for them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative  movement...

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement.

Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. They became known as girlie-men. Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy, group hugs, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass for obvious reasons.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.. Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are
liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule because it wasn't fair to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer, mostly Bud or Miller. They eat red meat and still provide for their women. Conservatives are big game hunters, rodeo cowboys, lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police officers, engineers, corporate executives, athletes, members of the military, airline and fighter pilots and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America . They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.



Here ends today's lesson in world history:

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to angrily respond to the above before forwarding it.

A Conservative will simply laugh and be so convinced of the absolute truth of this  history that it will be forwarded immediately to other true believers and to more liberals just to piss them off.

And there you have it. Let your next action reveal your true self.....I'm going to have another beer.

P.S. My liberal friends will laugh at this just as I did – both of them.

Larry  Notes: This was sent to me by  Roy Parker - an old Air Force comrade -  and, in my opinion, was so clever it warranted wider distribution. Hope you enjoy.

 

Still in Panama. Till Next Time. Pura Vida

An Anerican Tragedy - Follow Up

 

 

 

Veterans Affairs To Increase Mental Health Staffing

In my last blog post, I outlined the horrible situation facing many of our U.S. combat veterans returning from the extended wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  (see ‘U.S. Military Veterans Face Risks At Home’ below)

 

 

Good News

An article in today’s N.Y. Times (April 10) reports that, “The Department of Veterans Affairs announced on Thursday that it plans to hire about 1,600 additional psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and other mental health clinicians in an effort to reduce long waiting times for services at many veterans medical centers.

The hiring, which would be augmented by the addition of 300 clerical workers, would increase the department’s mental health staff by nearly 10 percent at a time when the veterans health system is being overwhelmed ….”

So it would appear that at least there is an awareness in the government that the problem exists and that it is not presently being addressed adequately. But what does this response tell you when you read between the bureaucratic lines?

Is That All Good News??

The first thing that sticks out is the size of the increase, e.g. 10 percent. Several experts that have reviewed this problem, including some within the VA have estimated that the mental health staff needed to be increased by as much as 50 percent just to handle the current case load requirements. And that case load is projected to increase exponentially in future years. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs said recently, “History shows that the costs of war continue to grow for a decade or more after the operational missions have ended.”

And, sad to say, a hiring initiative does little to address the problem near-term. Recruiting, hiring and orientation of a large number of skilled health care professionals does not occur overnight.  And there are not an excess of these skilled people just sitting around waiting for the VA to call. Also, keep in mind that some of these VA facilities are located in locations you may have never heard of – maybe not a lot of pent-up desire for professionals to relocate there.  Not an ideal hiring environment.

 

The Bad News

The VA says it is going to fund this expansion of mental health coverage, and the hiring initiative that accompanies it, out of the current department budgets. Hmm? What current programs will those funds come from? I personally know a number of veterans that are already experiencing long waits or are on ‘extended hold’ for surgery and other vital ‘non-mental health’ medical treatments.

In addition the department’s inspector general is expected to release a report next week asserting that “waiting times for mental health services are significantly longer than the department has been willing to acknowledge.”

It should be noted that efforts have been started to screen all veterans returning from combat tours for stress and mental disorders. Those measures have not been fully implemented and there are questions about the predictive reliability of testing methods being used. The department says it has a policy to do mental health evaluations of all veterans not in crises within 14 days, a goal it says it meets 95 percent of the time. The coming IG report is expected to refute the validity of that claim as well.

Where is the support of the administration on this subject? Well this is an indicator. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a scathing ruling saying that the VA had failed to provide adequate mental health services to veterans – a ruling that supported the claims of many organizations, including veterans organizations. What was the Obama administrations response? The administration appealed the ruling.

 

The Results?

Larry adds: To me this appears to be ‘too little, too late.’ And the fact that this initiative was not funded is glaring. Let’s face it in a bureaucracy money talk, money may not always make things happen, but nothing happens without it.

When you want solar energy to happen, you do what? You throw millions of dollars at it. When you want a furor about veterans health care to subside, you do what? You throw a bunch of verbiage around and announce a big new program and then don’t fund it!

Underlying all of this is the disability compensation system for injured and disabled veterans. The system is struggling with a backlog of department evaluations. There are nearly a million veterans waiting for decisions on their disability claims. Do you suppose the funding for the mental health personnel hiring is going to come out of the disability evaluation department’s budget?

 

Till Next Time.  Pura Vida (click thumbnail to enlarge)