Guns, Guns and More Guns

Another week and another deranged person with an assault rifle and two more funerals.  The President and many members of Congress have vowed to make gun regulations a high priority.  The National Rifle Association has loaded up its propaganda machine and is firing with both barrels and we are being assaulted from all sides by fools armed with misinformation.  Of course the main fear is that the Second Amendment will disappear if we make any changes to the existing gun laws.  Time for someone to set the record straight and this time, I might even include pictures.

By my count, in 2012, 81 people have been killed and 83 injured in  12 multiple murder attacks.  These attacks all took place in public places, resulted in at least 2 deaths (not counting the shooter) and all involved semi-automatic weapons.  I have not included any of the shooters in the count.  I consider all of their deaths to be suicides.  Of the casualties, 42 were killed and 63 injured by assault rifles.  Since 1966 These types of public rampage shootings have taken (by my not very exhaustive search) 489 lives (not counting shooters) and injured another 477.  Considering the 46 year period, that only averages just over 10 deaths and 10 injuries per year.  But let's take a closer look at the numbers.

From 1966 until 1993 (The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect in 1994)  144 people were killed and 164 injured, that averages 5 1/3 deaths per year.  The average would have been much lower except in the 2 years prior to these laws taking effect, 42 were killed and 45 wounded in 4 attacks.  From 1994 through 2003 (when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired), 123 deaths and 94 injuries (13 2/3 deaths/year) were attributed to mass shootings.  From 2004 through 2012, 222 dead, 219 injured, averaging 27 3/4 deaths per year.  While the actual numbers aren't staggering, the rate of increase is something that should worry everyone.

The majority of these instances (I want to say, all of them) were perpetrated by people with either mental illness or severe emotional disturbances.  Of the deaths, 165 died in instances where an assault rifle was used and 205 died in attacks using high capacity semi-automatic pistols.  In other words, 3/4 of the deaths were caused by two types of weapons.  There are two possible approaches to this issue.  Either identify, isolate and treat the mentally ill/emotionally disturbed, or get rid of the guns they are using.  Pick a solution and then stand by it, all the way.  No exceptions, no limitations, all the way.

To identify, isolate and treat everyone who is mentally ill or emotionally disturbed is quite a task, but I'm willing to go that course.  The first step is to get every person in this country in for psychiatric evaluation.  I know, that you don't have any problems and that I don't have any problems, but how can everyone else be sure about us?  After all, you are reading this, and I'm the nutcase writing it.  To reduce the risk of a misdiagnosis, I suggest each person be required to undergo 3 separate evaluations by 3 randomly selected doctors.  If any of the 3 believe there is a problem, then further evaluations would be required.  That should help us identify all the mentally ill.  I suggest re-evaluation every 2 years, until age 75.  The emotionally disturbed is a little more difficult.  I suggest putting everyone through a high stress boot camp type environment every 5 years to determine if they can handle extreme emotional stresses without losing their reasoning abilities.  Try working 20 hour days for 2 weeks, then have your car break down and your girlfriend dump you all in the same day and see if you can still cope.  It isn't easy, and no, I don't want to talk about it.

You might be thinking all that sounds like a very expensive violation of your rights and your privacy, and you would be correct.  However, not only would it greatly reduce the risk of someone committing a mass murder, but it would also identify people who shouldn't be teachers, or police officers, or politicians.  It would help us to identify rapists and pedophiles, psychopaths and sociopaths.  And the mandatory boot camps would go a long way to fixing our obesity problems.  The difficulty has always been identifying someone who would commit such a crime, before they commit it.  Most offenders seem to be normal people.  Maybe not very outgoing.  Maybe they keep to themselves.  Maybe they don't have a lot of friends.  Actually, that sounds like me.  I better go buy several guns just to be on the safe side.

The other approach to this problem is to do away with the weapons being used to commit these atrocities.  That means stop making them, stop selling them and get rid of the ones already out there.  This won't stop the killing, after all there are still plenty of other guns or other ways to kill.  But, if you reduce the numbers killed by 75%, that seems to be a worthwhile improvement.  If your reading comprehension is at least adequate, this next sentence won't need further explanation. I don't suggest banning all guns, I suggest banning two distinct types of guns:  Assault Rifles and Assault Pistols.

Before going any further I'll define each of these.  An Assault Rifle is a semi-automatic rifle (1 pull of trigger = 1 shot, with no reload to capacity of magazine) with a removable magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition.  An Assault Pistol is the same thing, except in a pistol.  The 10 round designation is my own.  I am unaware of any fixed magazine weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds, and there are many removable magazine rifles and pistols that hold 10 or less rounds.

As I see it, there are four reasons to own guns.  They can be collected, used for hunting, used for protection or used for crime.  If you consider having guns to protect yourself from the government as a reason, you might want to work on your reading comprehension.  That falls under either protection, or crime, depending on how you look at it.  Collecting, really doesn't deserve to be mentioned, since gun collectors tend to have guns for one of the other reasons.  Pistols, rifles and shotguns are all used for hunting, depending on what and where you hunt.  Pistols and shotguns are good for protection.  For most crime, pistols are best.  Easily concealed and quite effective for robbing banks and liquor stores, they are also a good choice for murder.  Banning Assault Rifles and Assault Pistols in no way prevents you from your chosen gun usage, it merely reduces the number of people you can kill or injure at one time.

If you are hunting with a rifle, it probably looks like one of the above pictures.  The top is a bolt action rifle, perhaps a Mossberg, 30-06 caliber.  It holds 4 or 5 shells and is excellent for many types of large game.  After each shot, the bolt is manually operated to remove the spent casing and insert the next round into the firing chamber.  Below that is a Winchester Model 94 30-30 lever action.  It's magazine capacity is 6 or 7 (depending on length of barrel) and the lever serves the same function as the bolt on the Mossberg.  Also very good for large game, it however, does not have the effective range of the bolt action, due to the shorter barrel and lower muzzle velocity.  Both types of rifles are available from several manufacturers in a wide range of calibers.

The reason that hunting rifles tend to be one of the above types is simple.  If you miss with your first shot, chances are your target is going to run away.  A second, third, fourth... twentieth shot is less likely to hit and increases the danger to other hunters (when you continue firing, you develop tunnel vision and are unlikely to notice anything other than your intended target).  In places where many hunters are likely to be around, rifles are either not allowed, or restricted to pistol calibers, to reduce their range and the danger to other hunters.

This is an Assault Rifle.  Assault Rifles are copies of military weapons.  The only major difference is the military versions typically have a selector switch where you can fire semi-automatic, or a 3 round burst, or (in some models) fully automatic.  The magazine is removable and typically holds 15 or 30 rounds, although magazines holding up to 100 rounds are available.  Every time the trigger is pulled a round is fired.  The shell is ejected and new round loaded automatically after each shot.  The reason for this is quite simple.  When you are shooting this type of weapon, you're probably shooting at targets that aren't going to run away.  In fact, they, most likely, are shooting back at you.  Having only 5 or 6 rounds is a problem when you have 25 people shooting at you.  You still need to be able to hit what you're shooting at, and if you have a lot of targets, this is the gun to have.

If you are worried about protecting your family, then you may wish to purchase a pistol.  They are compact, reasonably priced and very effective in close quarters.  Plus, if you do have to shoot an intruder, you are much less likely to kill someone across the street, or down the block.  They also will do a lot less damage to your house than a shotgun.

 The top gun is a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber revolver.  The bottom one is a M1911 (unsure of the manufacturer on this one.  Many companies make them).  A revolver typically holds 6 - 8 cartridges.  After each shot the cylinder rotates to move the next cartridge to firing position.  Once all cartridges have been fired, the empty casings must be removed, and new cartridges inserted.  The M1911 was standard issue for our military from 1911 until 1985.  It has a 7 round removable magazine and is semi-automatic.  The standard is a .45 caliber, although both types of guns are available in different calibers.

This is a Ruger P89 9mm handgun.  The P89 can take up to a 15 round magazine, making it (by my classification) an assault pistol.  There are several manufacturers that make similar guns, with the main identifying characteristic as the high capacity magazine.  Guns such as these are a favorite with many gun enthusiasts and with many criminals as well.  They are also the weapon of choice for public attacks with the intent to kill and injure a large number of people.

For home protection, any handgun will work, and the logic of many is that the more shots you have, the safer you are.  However, burglars don't tend to work in large groups.  If you're breaking in a house where you figure to get $300-$600 worth of stuff, how many ways do you want to split that?  Also, many states have greatly increased penalties for using a gun to commit a crime.  Get caught in a house with no gun, probably do 9 months.  Get caught with a gun, and do at least 5 years, and maybe a lot more.  In most cases, the presence of someone with a gun, will cause a burglar to run.  In almost every other case, a shot fired, will do the trick.  Ask yourself, if someone breaks into your home is your intent to protect your family, or to kill the person?  The difference between protecting your family and wanting to kill an intruder is significant. The difference between wanting to kill someone for breaking into your home and wanting to kill someone for cutting you off in traffic, or for not giving you that raise, or for insulting you is rather small.

For home protection, I recommend a nickel plate .38 or .357 magnum revolver with a 3" barrel.  The shiny nickel plate makes the gun more visible, the 3" barrel limits the lethality to close range and the medium caliber bullet is a good compromise between stopping power and recoil.  I also recommend spending some time at the local shooting range to make sure you can hit what you intend.  Then, if you hear someone break into your house, arm yourself, attempt to locate the intruder, and make them aware of your presence.  "Stop or I'll Shoot" is a popular method.  If the person runs, follow at a safe distance, try to notice as much as possible (height, weight, age, dress, getaway vehicle, etc.), and then call the police.  If the person doesn't run, but doesn't make a threatening move, keep them in your sights and call the police.  If they make a threatening move, or if they have a gun, shoot once at the torso.  Do not fire again until you determine the effects of your first shot, or until the other person shoots back.  Every shot you take increases the risks of a stray bullet injuring a member of your family.

Every year, some concerned homeowner makes a mistake and shoots someone they shouldn't have.  Often it is a member of their own family or a neighbor.  Depending on your neighbors, you probably don't want to do that.  Identify your target, evaluate the threat, give the target an opportunity to either flee or surrender and in almost every situation, you will not be required to fire a shot.

For the Second Amendment Panic people here's some good news.  First, the Second Amendment can not be taken away, or overturned, or anything else, without first being proposed by a 2/3 majority in both the House and the Senate.  The proposed change would then have to be approved by 3/4 of the states.  We can't get an Amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women, how do you think anyone will ever get an Amendment to overturn the Second Amendment?

As for the "If they pass one law, then they will eventually outlaw all guns" crowd, does anyone outside of elementary school actually think like that?  Our laws tend to be restrictive rather than prohibitive.  We have speed limits, which have changed over the years.  Strangely they haven't led to abolishing all cars.  We have laws that limit or restrict most aspects of our lives, from what we eat to what we say.  We already have a significant number of laws, some that have been around for a very long time, placing limits on guns.  If you truly believe a law restricting the possession of weapons that are only necessary to kill large numbers of people, will cause all guns to be outlawed, then I feel sad.  Not sad that you are unable to reason, but sad that you will continue to spread your idiocy to your children and to anyone who will listen.  And when the funeral is for your child, or grandchild, don't feel sad.  Be happy.  After all, you've still got all your guns.

How Not to Fix a Problem

Throughout history, tragic occurrences have caused changes to the way we do things.  Some of the changes have been important and necessary and have resulted in improved safety.  However, many of the changes are to create a perception of concern or safety.  The latest tragedy, in Newtown, CT, has the National Rifle Association (NRA) and others, calling for a change that falls squarely in the second category.  Let's examine some of the other tragedies and the changes, before tackling this one.

May 6, 1937, the German airship Hindenburg, caught fire while landing at Lakehurst, NJ.  Thirty six people died and the accident signaled the end of airships (dirigibles, zeppelins, blimps) as air transportation.  Today, we see them providing aerial camera coverage for sporting events .  At the time of the Hindenburg disaster, airships used hydrogen for buoyancy.  All airships today use helium. Hydrogen is cheaper and lighter than helium, but helium is an inert gas and will not burn.  Definitely safer.

April 10, 1963, the USS Thresher, a nuclear submarine suffered flooding during sea trials and was lost with all 129 persons aboard.  May 22, 1968, the USS Scorpion, another nuclear submarine sank for unknown reasons, and all 99 on board were lost.  This resulted in 2 major changes, one good, one, mostly for show.  The good change was the creation of the DSRV (Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle) program.  For the publicity, the US Navy showcased the DSRV in the 1978 movie "Grey Lady Down".  The mostly feel good change was a change to submarines themselves.  Until after these disasters, a submarine could only be entered or exited on the surface.  It's simple, if you open a hatch, the water comes in.  Not good in a submarine.  All current submarines are equipped with Logistic Escape Trunks (LET).  The entire LET can be removed for loading supplies, hence the "logistic" tag.  The LET is composed of 2 hatches, with a space between.  The inner hatch is opened, sailors enter, close the hatch, then increase the air pressure inside until the outer hatch can be opened.  They then float to the surface where they can be rescued.  Sounds good so far.

The downside is that the air pressure has to be raised very quickly.  Too long at increased air pressures would cause the bends due to the rapid decompression.  The air pressure must be increased so fast that it causes the eardrums to rupture.  Still that's better than dying in a steel tube on the bottom of the ocean.  Now other factors come into play.  If the submarine operates in northern waters, the water is cold.  Cold enough that death from hypothermia can occur in 30 minutes.  If the submarine operates in southern waters and the water is warm, there are sharks, attracted by the blood from the ruptured eardrums.  Add to that, the oceans are vast and the chances of someone getting to the scene to actually rescue you in time, are very small.  Still it did give us hope, as long as we didn't think about it too much.

On to transportation.  In 1938, the Interstate Commerce Commission, created the original hours of service regulations for people that operate commercial vehicles.  The rules have undergone a few changes, all intended to make the roads safer.  These regulations define the number of hours a driver can drive during a day, how long of a break must be taken and several other issues.  And the regulations are necessary.  Every day people die as the result of a truck driver falling asleep.

Unfortunately, the regulations are full of exceptions, greatly reducing their effectiveness.  This includes exceptions for oilfield operations, exceptions for drivers working for movie or television productions and exceptions for drivers making retail deliveries during the Christmas shopping season.  Here is an example of how, by following the rules, a person can drive 24 hours per day, without ever taking a break (until the schedule kills him).  Driving to or from home is considered "off-duty".  Drivers are required to take 10 consecutive hours either "off-duty" or in the sleeper berth.  If I live in Indianapolis and work in St. Louis, I can work 14 hours in St. Louis (but only 11 hours driving), get off work and drive home.  Upon reaching home, I can turn around, drive straight back to St. Louis and have taken my required 10 hour break.  I can now drive another 11 hours in the next 14 hour period.  All legal, but not a very good idea.

Now, on to current issues.  The NRA proposes training and arming security personnel and stationing them at schools to prevent another massacre.  On the surface, that seems like it could work.  After all, banks routinely use one armed guard to greatly reduce the risk of a robbery.  After taking a closer look, you'll either understand it's an ineffective, feel good fix, or you're so far out of touch with reality that nothing will reach you.

The only thing banks and schools have in common is they are both inside of buildings.  A bank typically has one way in, while a school has many entrances.  People that rob banks are sane criminals.  A guard inside is usually enough to convince them to find another bank.  Anyone that goes to a school (or a theater, or a mall, etc.) in order to kill a large number of people, is not sane and is unlikely to be stopped by one guard.  Although the guard may stop them, the presence of a guard will not deter them.

With the exception of very small, rural schools, schools are large, complex buildings.  Usually, only a few doors are left unlocked during school hours, in theory limiting access.  However, there are several ways to get into a school other than through the unlocked door.  One, or two, or even three security guards, can't possibly cover all access to even a mid-sized school, let alone one of the larger campuses.  To provide effective security, a significant number of armed guards is required.  It only takes one bullet to stop a would be killer, but the person with that bullet has to be between the killer and the potential victims.  For a small school this requires a minimum of 8 guards, and that is stretching things thin.  Ten would be much better.  Of course, 8 only works if the school is square, or nearly square.

Why so many guards?  First off, to be effective, guards must work in pairs.  One guard, and a moment of distraction, or someone taking them by surprise, could take them out.  Also, to keep anyone from getting inside, all 4 sides must be patrolled and monitored.  In addition, there really should be 2 guards inside the school as backup, relief for bathroom breaks etc.  This doesn't make things safe, but it's at least a step in the right direction.  Larger schools would require security forces numbering at least 20, and in some cases maybe as high as 50.

There are about 49 million children in 100,000 public schools in the United States.  This does not include day care centers, but does include kindergarten.  Providing minimal security (1 guard, making $30k/year) costs only $3 million, plus benefits, plus training, plus equipment.  Still not much money to spend.  Of course at $30k/year, you're probably not getting a lot of highly skilled applicants.  Better raise that wage to at least $45k/year.  Still a bargain.  Have you ever seen those "What to do in an emergency" cards on airplanes?  How many people have walked away from a plane crash praising those cards?  One guard at each school is the same thing.  The number needed to provide reasonable security to the public schools is about 1.5 million guards, with equipment costs at about $5000 each (weapons, communications, uniforms, vests, etc.).  By the time you add in training and benefits, the price tag is somewhere in the $10 billion/year range.  That is about 15% of the current federal budget for education.  Either the education budget needs a major increase (it does, but not for this), which is highly unlikely, or the quality of education (already poor) must take a very big hit.

What happens if we spend the money, and fill the schools with armed guards?  What happens if there is another shooting?   Do we add more guards?  And what if the mentally ill person seeking to kill dozens of people decides to look elsewhere?  Look 30 school buses of kids going to the zoo, or the museum, or to an amusement park.  At some point we don't have enough people to guard everything. It's time to examine, not only our gun laws, but also the way we deal with mental health issues.

The biggest problem with putting armed guards in all our schools:  It teaches the children, guns are the solution to all your problems.

Can't Touch This

After the tragedy of last week, and all of the ridiculousness that has followed, a palate cleansing story has come along.  It's been discovered that 3 time Olympic athlete, Suzy Favor-Hamilton has been leading a double life and working as a $600/hour escort.  How could the most decorated female athlete in NCAA track and field history end up as a prostitute?  Are you shocked?  Hurt?  Dismayed?  Disgusted?  Read on.

The country we live in is sick, and shows no signs of recovery.  I'm not talking about the economy, or the right-wing vs. left-wing debacle of our government.  I'm talking about our attitudes towards sex in general and specifically, towards women.  From a very early age, we are constantly reminded that sex is dirty, disgusting and wrong.  Since the Reagan era, there have been strong, and sometimes successful efforts to change sexual education classes in schools to abstinence only programs.  This is the partner to the "Just Say No" answer to drug abuse.  Ironically, the hypocrites that push such programs are often the same people that were sexual over-achievers at an early age.

Sex is natural and normal and can be something incredible.  It is also a choice.  Animals do not have a choice about reproduction.  When it's that time, it's that time.  People, however, can freely choose when, how and with whom, when it comes to reproduction.  We can even choose whether the act is for reproduction or just for practice.  And, contrary to popular belief, this is nothing new.  From paleolithic cave paintings to Egyptian scrolls, to Greek and Roman art, it's obvious that sex has been a very popular diversion for a very long time.

Cultures where sex is treated as normal and natural have much lower rates of sexually based crimes.  This includes rape and molestation.  These cultures also have fewer prostitutes, and often have legalized prostitution.  In the United States sex is twisted all out of shape.  Sex is only considered okay at certain times, in the right places, behind closed doors.  Sex is only acceptable if between a man and a woman (except most straight males will gladly watch two women).  And, sex is for marriage.

Yes, I know that everyone has sex before marriage these days.  What you may not know is, this hasn't changed.  Your parents probably had sex before marriage, your grandparents as well.  The only reason virgin at marriage was more common in the distant past is because a girl was considered eligible to marry after her first period.

All of these cultural restrictions on sex have created a multi-billion dollar sex industry.  From baby food to beer, advertisers use sex to sell their products.  Pornography and prostitution.  Sex toys and fetish clubs.  The more sex is repressed, the larger the market for all of these things.  Which leads us back to the subject of prostitution.

Prostitution has always been with us, and always will be.  With the exception of a few counties in Nevada and in some U.S. Territories, prostitution is illegal everywhere in the United States.  It's also very common.  Efforts to stop or reduce prostitution are expensive and unsuccessful.  Prostitutes themselves range from exploited children to very successful business persons.  Chances are someone you see on a semi-regular basis is a prostitute.  Could be your banker, your hairdresser, your kids teacher or the super-mom in the PTA.

Suzy Favor-Hamilton shouldn't have to apologize, or make amends for what she has done.  She did what she needed in order to cope with her life and her problems.  Although, technically illegal (very difficult to prosecute), there are no victims here.

If we can ever abolish the "sex is evil" mindset, prostitution will be legalized.  Which would go a long way towards stopping forced and exploitative prostitution, greatly increase government revenues and take away the necessity of women like Suzy Favor-Hamilton having to apologize for their actions.

'Tis the Season

The Christmas lights are all up and the retailers are frantic.  The children are shaking presents and trying to be on their best behavior.  Meanwhile the parents are hoping that next years tax refund will pay off the bills from this Christmas.  And amidst this, a non-controversy seems to be the issue of the day.

For as long as I can remember, the phrases "Seasons Greetings" and "Happy Holidays" have been widely used at this time of year.  I remember decorating grade school classrooms with just those phrases and they have long been staples of the greeting card and wrapping paper industries.  Now suddenly this is offensive, and the only acceptable thing to say is "Merry Christmas", at least to an extremely loud and annoying segment of the population. 

The propaganda is, some conspiracy group, in an attempt to outlaw Christianity, is trying to force everyone to stop mentioning Christmas.  I'm assuming this latest bout of stupidity has its origins at Fox News, or somewhere within the deluded religious right wing brain trust.  Whatever the source, my already tenuous trust in mankind is being eroded by the mindless multitude who are jumping on this bandwagon.  Sadly, this includes friends and even family.

Personally, I rarely say "Merry Christmas", except on Christmas day.  I will occasionally return the phrase when someone says it to me, or just say "you too".  I also don't tell people "Happy Birthday" if it's not their birthday, don't comment about the lovely weather when it's raining, or tell a vegan "You look like you need a good steak".

Not everyone in the world celebrates Christmas.  Shocking I know.  Wal-Mart is hoping the government will step in and make Christmas gifts mandatory.  Some that don't celebrate Christmas, but observe the holiday have their own rationale.  Jewish families I knew in San Diego would decorate their house and tree using only blue and white lights, and refer to the tree as a Hanukkah bush.  It's a case of "When in Rome..."

"Happy Holidays" makes sense to me.  As a child, the two week period at the end of every year was magical.  No school, homemade cookies and candies, and four separate holidays to be celebrated.  Christmas eve was a large family get-together, Christmas day was presents in the morning, then more presents and a big dinner in the afternoon.  Then a week later there was New Years eve and New Years day.  Football games, parades and all the new toys.  Time with family and friends, good food and happy memories.  It wasn't just Christmas, it was The Holidays.

I understand, it's Christmas and it's all about Jesus Christ, and the mistletoe, holly, decorations, pine trees, Santa Claus, reindeer, elves and presents are somehow all connected.  Just another example of how Christians are being persecuted.  So persecuted that it is almost impossible to find a place where Christians can gather together safely.  From where I sit, I can't see anyplace like that.  Now if I moved 20 feet to the front window, I could see four such places, and if trees and buildings weren't in the way, I could see another six.  So persecuted that you can't find any mention of churches in the newspaper, unless you turn to the page(s) most papers devote strictly to church news, advertisements and announcements.  In fact, Christians are so persecuted that Christian Bibles are nearly impossible to come by, unless you check any library, book store or hotel room.

Throughout history, persecution has been present for different groups in different places.  Ask anyone who has been a victim of persecution and you might begin to understand.  "Happy Holidays" isn't persecution.  It's considerate and kind.  It's saying "we may not believe the same, but I wish you happiness".  With that in mind, may your celebrations during this season bring you hope and good cheer, and may the coming year bring you joy.  Happy Holidays.

Gun Control for Idiots

Just so there is no confusion here is the text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:   "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  The question is, what exactly does it mean?  I'll try to answer that today, also answer what it doesn't mean and maybe get a few people to understand a few basic facts about the world we live in.

During the American Revolution, and the early years of our countries history, our military establishment, had not yet become established.  The typical military unit consisted of someone of influence, getting together friends, relatives and neighbors and forming a company.  Such companies were expected to be self sufficient, providing their own uniforms, weapons and supplies.  During war (or any warlike action designated by Congress) they were paid and provided supplies and equipment when these things were available.  Once the war was over, the army went home and stopped being an army.

Since a large standing army (navy, marine corps, air force, etc) is extremely expensive, and equipping, training and mobilizing an army from scratch is expensive in time and money, the Second Amendment provided a workable compromise.  If the population already had their most important equipment, they probably knew how to use it, and forces could be gathered and put into action quickly.  Yes, I know, the Second Amendment also allows the population to defend itself, but that is only part of the issue.

To keep this short, I'm in favor of a licensing process for gun ownership.  At the very least, the completion of an approved gun safety course should be required.

This piece is the result of something I've seen before and saw again earlier today:  Someone ranting about boycotting an establishment because they do not allow firearms to be brought inside.  Apparently, the rationale is that if someone comes in and starts shooting, they want to be able to shoot back.  Personally, if there is a reasonable chance that guns will be fired where I might be eating or having a beer, then I'm not going there.  By the way, the establishment being boycotted is Buffalo Wild Wings.

Over the past 30+ years I have done extensive research on the effects of alcohol on humans.  Quite often I have become personally involved in my experiments.  One thing I have found is alcohol seems to have a negative impact on the ability to make good decisions.  If the bad decision results in you eating some wings that are so hot you'll be burning from both ends for the next 2 days, once the alcohol (and effects of the hot wings) wears off, everyone's life goes on without interruption.  Adding a firearm to the impaired decision making process is probably not a good idea.

But suppose you're still mostly sober and someone bursts through the door and starts shooting, you can be a hero if you have your gun!  First problem; until you've been in a situation where guns are firing, people are screaming, panicking and dying, you really have no idea how you'll react.  Will you freeze up?  Will you be able to, amidst the pandemonium, calmly assess the situation, react quickly enough and fire accurately to end the threat without increasing the risk to those around you?  And, the 20 other people in the bar, who also brought their guns, will they all respond correctly?  Talk to a soldier who has been in an actual firefight.  Now take what they've experienced and add alcohol. 

Buy your guns, keep them at home.  If your work situation puts you at risk, then carry your gun, when you are at risk.  But when it's time to go out and eat, drink or do laundry, leave it at home.

If at First You Don't Secede...

There is a firestorm sweeping the nation.  Petitions have been created on the We The People website, set up by the administration of President Obama, by people asking that their states be allowed to secede from the United States and establish their own governments.  I lost count in there somewhere, but it appears there are about 60 petitioners asking for their states to be allowed to go their own way.  But, aren't there only 50 states?  Apparently, there are some major power struggles going on within Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Illinois. 

The website above, I believe to be a good idea.  Quite often there are issues, of which the government is unaware.  Major issues which affect a significant portion of the population.  This gives anyone the opportunity to have their voice heard.  If enough people are interested in an issue to sign a petition, the issue will be addressed.  The results may not be perfect, but you will know your voice has been heard.

Someone could propose that the Public Office to Regulate Nudity, Entertainment of Adults and Lapdancing (PORNEAL, the secret to government success is a good acronym) be created and that I be named Chief Inspector (with an annual salary of $74,987 and an annual budget of $11,000,000, cover charges add up), all it would take is enough signatures and I could be well on my way along the road to ruin.  Alas, it would probably end in some ugly tabloid scandal.  Sigh.

One thing these petitions make painfully obvious is, a significant number of highly vocal people, who are extremely critical of our government, are sadly lacking in knowledge of the process of government.  For a state to secede from the United States, there are 2 possible paths.  The legal process begins when a majority of the citizens convince the state of the need.  After that, the state, needs to convince Congress of the wisdom of the action, which would then (I'm assuming) require ratification by 2/3 of the remaining states.  The other route requires enough armed people to take control of the state government, then seal the states borders and declare it's independence.  Notice how neither route involves placing a petition, which has no legal status, on a website?

However, let's put on our boots of derangement, leap off into fantasy land, and see where secession takes us.  For the purpose of this exercise, I'll use Indiana (new name: Republic of People Who Get Upset About Changing Their Clocks Twice a Year, abbreviated to "Duh").

Duh, has declared its independence and life is wonderful, at least until the alarm goes off that first day.  Looks like the cable isn't working, or the cell phones.  Strangely, the internet also seems to be having problems.  You'll have to run to the bank to check on your accounts.  Sadly, the banks are closed.  A rather harried bank employee is explaining that all bank assets have been seized to pay outstanding debts to the United States.  Has the whole world gone mad?  Look around.  The Land of Duh has no recognized government, no recognized laws, no accepted currency and the future is not exactly bright.  All roads leading out of Duh are blocked, all airports are closed.  Until diplomatic relations are established with the United States, no interstate (international now) commerce or travel is allowed.  My personal estimate is that in less than 72 hours, the rioting and looting would make the L.A. riots of 1992 look like a church supper.  I Pledge Allegiance to Duh...

Judging by how seldom it is done, and done well, the most difficult thing for a person to do, is think.  Before rushing off to sign a petition (other than PORNEAL), think it through.  Rather than crying about mistakes made in the past, or making disaster predictions for the future, work on today.  What is past is history, an excellent field of study, but unchangeable.  The future is undetermined.  What we do today, sets the course.

How the Molehill became Mt. Everest

In the very outdated, but extremely entertaining movie "Creator", Peter O'Toole frequently tells the other cast members they need to see "the big picture".  Usually good advice, which most people ignore.  Perspective allows us to see beyond the minor issues and worry about what is really important.  At least, as we mature, this is what should happen.  Remember your reaction to that first pimple?  Or how devastated you were when that first crush decided they liked someone else?  Do you still consider these to be major disasters?

At one time, we didn't have "the media", all we had was "the news".  The news could be found on all three stations, all at the same time and all telling the same thing.  At that time, everyone agreed on what was news and it was reported with minimal bias.  About the only difference between the newscasts were the feel-good human interest stories, that ended each broadcast.  One network might run a story about a successful pet rescue, another a piece on a service minded youth and the third something of the history of some town no one had heard of.  Just a few minutes to leave the viewers with a positive outlook, with the feeling that there is something to smile about.

Fast Forward to the media dark ages.  The world is in turmoil and a plague is sweeping the land.  Each media source reports different "news".  Some sources report major catastrophes that are only minor issues with the other media outlets.  Rumor, supposition and propaganda are everywhere and many people are actually panicking.  But over what?

Remember the Clinton/Lewinsky affair?  I've met many people in my life, and many have been utterly faithful to their partner.  Just as many, haven't quite achieved perfection in that area.  My personal opinion is, given the perfect opportunity, with the ideal partner and zero chance of getting caught, 9 out of 10 would jump that fence.  Don't worry, I'm certain that you personally, would never be tempted.  (wink, wink)  Looking back, did the actions of one horny president cause anything major?  Anything to justify the media coverage and the congressional uproar?  The sky did not fall.

Today we're looking at a similar situation.  Similar in that a minor issue has been exaggerated into a major issue that threatens the future of our country.  How did this happen?

Several times in the past, Libya, under the dictatorship of Colonel Gaddafi, has been chastised by the United States.  Recently, with the help of the United States and the United Nations, the people of Libya managed to overthrow the ruthless Gaddafi regime.  The new regime is still too young to decide whether it will also be ruthless or whether it will be friendly to the United States.  Time for the big picture.

Libya is not a world power.  At this point their major import is aid from the United States.  If they become our most fervent ally, it matters very little to our defense.  In area, it is slightly larger than Alaska and has 3/4 of the population of New York City.  If not for their oil reserves, the country would rarely be mentioned.  Yet, the most important issue for congress is an investigation into an attack on our embassy there.  The attack resulted in four deaths, including Ambassador Stevens.

Perspective:  The United States maintains hundreds of embassies and consulates around the world, plus many military bases.  As Commander-in-Chief, the President ultimately is responsible for every U.S. service member.  However, it is ridiculous to assume that at every moment he is cognizant of the location and operational availability of every U.S. military resource.  Should he also be called to account if your children aren't getting enough exercise, or if you're not getting enough fiber in your diet?

Embassies and Consulates are different from military bases.  A military base on foreign soil tends to exhibit a somewhat threatening image.  Troops are constantly training and prepared for attack, especially in areas that tend to be hostile to us.  Embassies and Consulates must show a more welcoming atmosphere.  They do not have they manpower to provoke anger and resentment and tend to be low-profile.  Any sufficiently armed attack on a U.S. Embassy or Consulate will almost certainly result in American deaths.  This is the nature of foreign service.

Were mistakes made during and after the attack in Benghazi?  Undoubtedly.  New situations are very seldom responded to perfectly.  This is why every incident, every accident, every emergency and every attack is critiqued by the people involved.  What happened?  Why did it happen?  What did we do?  What mistakes did we make?  What can we do better?  Could we have prevented this?  How will we prepare against this in the future?  Since September 11. 2012 every segment of the government involved has been asking these same questions, and hopefully coming up with answers.  But those answers are not for you and I.  Telling an enemy what you're prepared for, and how you're prepared, defeats the purpose of preparation.

During my time in the Navy, I went through quite a few of these incident reviews, although only one that had resulted in death.  The issues ranged from a destroyed emergency generator to a flooded reactor compartment.  From a $100,000 welding mistake to a $2,000,000 liquid nitrogen mistake.  Our purpose wasn't to fix blame, but to find cause and find ways to make sure the same mistakes were not repeated. 

Wasting millions to point fingers will not bring those people back to life, and will serve no purpose other than to prove to the people responsible that such attacks are a major blow to the United States.  Making this molehill into a mountain only increases the likelihood of more such attacks.  If you want to protect Americans, quit increasing their risks by not seeing "The Big Picture".

Take 2 and Call Me in the Morning

Sometimes, when I feel I could completely lose my ability to become depressed, I pay attention.  This is a sure cure and the only side effect is the ability to understand why people occasionally flip out and go on a killing spree, or listen to Justin Bieber.  Sometimes it seems the only way to cope with the insanity we're faced with is to do something vile and reprehensible.   For the Bieber fans, relax, he's no worse than the other teen idols I've watched rise and fall in my lifetime.

Paying attention does have a few risks.  In rare cases, people grow dependent on paying attention and often fail to reply to text messages; while performing open heart surgery, or driving through heavy traffic.  Paying attention could also result in; Realizing your _____(fill in the blank) is having an affair with their _____, Noticing _____ is stealing from _____, or Drug companies aren't nearly as interested in making us healthy as they are in making a profit.  This may result in disillusionment or pop music.

Forty years ago a child that had trouble paying attention was given frequent doses of a "Swat on the Behind" ™ until they learned to pay attention.  While there were no serious side effects, there was also no real market for the product, since any parent with a hand, belt or peach switch could make, prescribe and administer their own medicine.  Fortunately, a solution was found and Ritalin, along with several other prescription medicines were introduced to halt the damage being caused to peach trees everywhere.  No longer did parents have to pay attention and teach their children to pay attention, instead they could focus on the important decisions, like Beta or VHS.

Before anyone starts a killing spree with me at the top of the list, I understand that for some children, their difficulties require medication.  However, since drug companies rely upon doctors to prescribe their medicine, and drug companies spend a great deal of money, convincing doctors to push their products, in ways that would be illegal if a multibillion dollar annual industry wasn't involved, many of these drugs are prescribed when not necessary.

Please don't feel that I'm singling out children or one classification of drugs.  These drugs were just the first ones I became aware of, many years ago when I happened to be in a paying attention phase.  The problem is that with the success of Ritalin, Viagra, and a host of other medicines, the pharmaceutical industry is identifying more and more problems that can be fixed by one simple pill (taken 3 times a day for the rest of your life).  As the problems we need medication to save us from are becoming less of a nuisance if left untreated, the possible side effects are getting worse.  I for one would rather put up with occasional heartburn if the cure could cause nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, liver failure, severe depression, birth defects, heartburn or death.

Most of the drug advertisements tell us "before starting treatment with ____ consult your physician".  Since the prescription has to come from my physiscian, that seems a waste of words.  Instead they should tell you to consider other types of treatment.  Many problems respond quite well to a good diet and regular exercise.  From the drug company point of view, if you ask a doctor about one of their medications, they have won.  Most doctors will be happy to write that prescription and then eagerly await their next visit from the drug company representatives.  If you had seen some of these representatives, you'd understand why.  All I'm saying is that if Playboy ever does a "Girls of Pfizer, Eli Lilly, etc." issue, I'm getting a subscription.

There are still a few good doctors out there, but they are becoming more difficult to find.  A good doctor might tell you to stop watching the drug company ads, get off the couch once in awhile, and cut back on your 15 a day pork chop habit.  But no matter how good, they probably won't have the nerve to tell you, what your child needs is not a pill, but a parent.

The War Has Begun

Brothers and Sisters, I come before you today with the gravest of tidings.  Just yesterday I witnessed the first skirmishes, in a war that threatens, not only our way of life, but our very existence.  This war will not be fought upon foreign shores.  This is not a war where our brave soldiers can protect us.  This is a war in which each of us must stand up and be counted.  This is a war where the forces arrayed against us are vast, beyond imagining.  This is the War Against Reason.

I will not burden you with the risks I undertook to bring you this information, and it sorrows me to say, that by reading this, you will share my fate.  Someday, we will all die.  But I vow to you, that while my heart beats and until my dying breath, I will live.  And I will fight against the forces seeking to extinguish the flame of knowledge for all time.

The methods I used to extract information about the enemy's plans and activities, I shudder to speak of, but to achieve victory, we must not turn our backs on the truth.  May I someday be forgiven for the horrors I feel I must reveal.

As you read this, operatives of the enemy are rounding up all those capable of thought, shipping them off to secret concentration camps, operated by FEMA, and subjecting them to alien tortures, perfected at Area 51, until they become mindless zombies.  Currently, they are targeting people in Florida, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, Nevada and Ohio, where I myself, was nearly captured.  Fortunately, I was able to overwhelm my would be captors with the mention of global warming and a handful of change.  Taking them both prisoner, I subjected them to most brutal forms of torture imaginable, in order to gather every bit of information possible.  The first, cracked quickly and told all he knew after I offered a lollipop and a bedtime story.  The other was much tougher and I had to resort, Lord forgive me, to a Girls Gone Wild video and tickets to the Jerry Springer show.

Initially, I had hoped that we could convince their forces to defect and join with us on the side of reason.  I have made every effort, but these minds can only be opened with power tools; a process that is invariably fatal and messy.  Without any hope of massive defections, this is not an enemy we can defeat by conventional methods.  To stand against them is futile, as they are impervious to reason and logic, and not susceptible to contemplation or any knowledge.  To put it bluntly, our only hope is to be accepted amongst them.  Some day, I hope that we can infiltrate to the highest levels, where their own weapons can be used to destroy the leaders of this army of unreason.  Until that day, we must hide amongst them and conduct an unconventional war.

It is imperative that we each try to blend in and be accepted as a member of the thoughtless multitude, yet we must remain in communication.  To remain in contact is of the utmost importance.  If you are isolated, and cut off from rational thought for too long, you may end up lost to our cause.  To make contact with others of our organization, you merely have to speak the code phrase "I had a thought."  The correct response is "Too bad that's not contagious."  This exchange sounds innocent enough and is undetectable by our enemies.  The only risk is that the word contagious often triggers stories about gall stones or in-grown toenails.

At any time each of us must be prepared to react, in case our true nature is detected.  By memorizing some of their catch phrases, you can quickly assure the enemy that you are no more capable of thought, than a cabbage.  Here are a few examples that have proven very effective.  Use them as necessary, or create your own:

"Most people are a lot smarter than average"
"If we want to appeal to more people, we have to avoid pandering to the moderates."
"The universities are full of liberal socialists and they teach kids to be un-American."
"It's all the media's fault."
"That's a proven fact, because it's in the Bible."

Each of these I have heard from the forces arrayed against us.  They should serve us well.  In an emergency, any expression of bigotry, especially combined with religion is very effective.  You may also want to combine obvious contradictions, together with a vacant stare.  My personal favorite is:  "We need to love everyone equally and kill all the rest."  As a last resort, if you have been discovered, and are about to be overwhelmed, you may have to use our secret weapon.  A great deal of research has gone into developing this weapon, and I hope that we never have to use it.  This weapon combines so many ridiculous elements, with its use, you can go from being a confirmed thinker, to being recognized as one of the greatest idiots of all time.  You might even end up with your own syndicated radio show.  "Classical music was created by Karl Marx in 1968 to make Americans worship Satan and make us think it was global warming."

The way ahead of us is difficult, and there is no guarantee of success, yet we cannot allow ourselves to fail.  Often you will despair and feel the urge to scream "How Can You Be So STUPID?", but you must resist.  Pointing out the obvious is...  Damn!  I've been discovered!  I'll have to distract them quick!  "Did you ever think that some of the stars might be farther away than the moon?"

Whew!  That was close.  I must go now, before they return.  I am proud to know that each of you will continue to use your minds to resist the onslaught of unreason.  I salute you all!

Thought for Food

Blake, Charley and George were all born on the same day in different, but adjacent, lands.  While still very young they met for the first time at the border, where their three countries converged.  Although they each had friends and playmates amongst their own people, some affinity drew them together, and they soon became constant companions.

Prevented, by the fences, from the play and frolic, of which the young are so enamored, they turned to higher pursuits.  Each day they gathered and pondered philosophy, history and science and debated the meaning of life.  They shared their hopes and dreams, and their fears and made the grandest of plans.  One day, they three, vowed to lead their respective peoples to rise up and tear down the fences.  They would join together and usher in a golden age.  Such are the flights of youth.

As they grew, the differences between each became more pronounced.  Blake, the smallest of the group was quick witted and nimble.  Although he was of only average size, he was very fine to look upon.  Combined with his cheerful disposition, the others knew this would take him far in life.

Before they were half-grown, George dwarfed the other two and his strength seemed without limit.  Even though his intellect was no match for Charlie or Blake, his commanding presence caused the others to defer to him in all matters.

Charley's mind was something spectacular.  Always quick to grasp new ideas, he relentlessly studied to increase his knowledge of all things.  His discussions often left the others bewildered and in awe of the truly spectacular intellect he possessed.  Nearly as large as George, his idle nature and rich diet gave him a well padded physique.

One day, when to the time when a child's body begins the change, signalling the beginning of adulthood, they gathered at the fence, as was their habit.  The easily excitable Blake spoke first.  "I have some big news.  It is very exciting, but I'm a little nervous about it."  "What" George asked, "is it?"  "My mother told me that I've been chosen, it means I will have to move away, but soon I will become a steer.  It sounds very important."  "That's great, and I just know you will be a great steer", George congratulated him.

"I also have big news" George continued.  "I am going to become a bull.  Someday I might rule over the entire herd, and then I can lead them to act upon our plans.  But, that might not happen.  Sometimes the biggest and strongest of the bulls are sent away to be great warriors and fight the enemies of our people.  It is very dangerous, but the ones who survive become great heroes."

"Charley" Blake wanted to know, "What is the matter?  Aren't you happy for us? Is there something wrong?"  "Oh yes, I am happy for you both, and have news of my own, but first I must congratulate you both" he replied.  "Blake, I'm sure that soon all of the other steers will love you and years from now they will tell how you were the best steer of all time."  "And George, in ages to come, young bulls will hope to grow up to be just like you.  I am so proud of you both."

"So tell us" Blake pleaded, "What is your news?"  "Yes, please do" George echoed.

"Well" Charley said, thoughtfully, "Have either of you ever heard of veal?"

This Road Leads to the Future

It's over.  No more political ads for awhile.  Time to remove all of those yard signs, clear out the negativity, shut down the propaganda machines and get back to work.  Time to stop preparing for the end of the world, the collapse of civilization and all of the horrors, that both parties assured us were tied to this election.  Time for Congress to do what they are being paid an obscene amount of money to do.

As I hope everyone is aware, very early in President Obama's first term, Congressional Republicans decided on a policy of obstructionism.  No compromise, no working together, a complete refusal to do anything that originated with the President, or the Democratic Party.  This is nothing new.  In fact, it is an entirely too common tactic.  The President is ultimately blamed for everything.  If he vetoes a bill, he is opposing the will of the people.  If he tries to get his legislation through Congress, he is trying to destroy the Constitution, or force some secret agenda on the country, or he hates America.  Blah, blah, blah.

Approaching any aspect of life with a closed mind is counter-productive.  Principles and morals are good, but they require flexibility in order to deal with all situations.  Refusing to kill for any reason makes you a willing accomplice, if an attack, you could have stopped, results in the death of you and your family.  When you find yourself thinking in terms of "always" and "never", it's time to re-assess, because you have ceased to be useful to society.  This is something our Congress needs to understand, this is something all Americans need to understand.

Pick your favorite issue, the one that you stand behind 100%, now flip it around and see if it makes sense.  Here's an example:  The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.  Any attempt at regulation, or gun control is often regarded as an attempt to take everyone's guns away.  Flip that to say that every American is required to, at all times, carry a gun.  How safe do you feel now?  Perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the two extremes.  Every issue becomes ridiculous if you run the same test on it.  Whether the issue is abortion or welfare, the solution lies somewhere in the middle.  Compromise is how we go forward.

Compromise is a beautiful concept, because it allows conflicting beliefs and principles to co-exist.  It allows the vegans and the meat and potatoes folks to each partake of life's buffet.  I don't have to be like you, to like you.  No matter what your beliefs might be, I support them, until you require them to become my beliefs.  The true beauty of compromise is that it allows everyone to follow their own principles, while still moving forward.  The road to the future demands that we work together.  Instead of "you can't" or "I must", let's focus on "we will".

The agenda to ensure that President Obama was a one term President has failed.  For two years we've been running in circles.  For two years Congress has been paid to do nothing.  It's time to pick a direction and start moving towards it.  The road will not be straight.  The road will not be flat.  For every hill we coast down, there is one we will struggle to climb. Stop insisting that we all have to go to the right, or that we all have to go to the left.  Both extremes will ultimately drive us off a cliff.  Let's start moving.  You choose your path around obstacles and I'll follow mine.  Ultimately, we'll leave it behind us and move on to the future.

 

The Bully Principle

In my ongoing, and futile attempt to educate the misinformed on the truth behind their political beliefs, it is time to tackle military issues.  One point I keep hearing is that we need to keep our military strong and that Governor Romney will do that.  The difficulty with that is very few seem to understand what our military and national strengths are, and how to maintain them.  The Romney philosophy (a very common one, especially within the GOP) is to give hundreds of billions of dollars to the corporation that equip our armed forces with everything from bullets to uniforms.  Tanks, ships, jets, bombs, guns, food...  The list goes on and on and most of the items come from corporations that deal almost exclusively with military customers.  These corporations take billions to make improvements to existing products that are often worth thousands, occasionally millions.  And this somehow makes us stronger.  Let me elaborate.

In 1980, when I joined the Navy, the work uniforms used a very tough polyester material for both the pants and shirts.  The material itself was very long wearing and extremely durable.  The downside for this uniform was that it would melt.  If you find yourself in a situation where whether your clothes are going to melt or burst into flame, the issue is not going to be your top concern.  However, in the interest of safety the switch was made to light denim pants and a cotton/polyester blend shirt.  The new uniforms tended to wear out quickly and were very prone to tearing.  I don't know how many millions were spent by our government to "improve" our uniforms by making them less durable, but I know the end result:  Every enlisted man (below E-7 paygrade) had to spend money, they had too little of, to buy uniforms that, instead of lasting for decades, would wear out in a year or less.  You see, the problem wasn't that the uniforms would melt.  The problem was that the underpaid, overworked sailors weren't buying enough new uniforms.

What is strength?  There are several possible choices, all have been tried in this country and each has its supporters and merits.  Each also has a downside.  Probably the most visible strength is the "Biggest, Baddest" type.  In the movies, the biggest, baddest is almost always the bad guy, who will be brought down by the "Strong, Silent" type.  Occasionally, the villain will be the "Dangerous Psycho", but the heroes are almost always the same.  One important point, in all the movies, the hero gets a serious ass-kicking before finally winning the fight.

Biggest, Baddest has two variations, one is bullying by intimidation, the other is bullying by action.  Bullying by intimidation was the method used during the Reagan administration.  By spending lavishly on Defense and by frequently issuing threats, we maintained an image of strength.  The G.W. Bush administration took the action route.  For eight years we showed that we were willing to incur any expense in order to fight anyone that so much as looked at us wrong.  From a foreign relations standpoint, not very successful.

Except for the past 70 years, our country's strength has not been the size of our military, or by the size of their guns.  Until the cold war, following World War II, the end of a war meant a large scale reduction in the military and a significant reduction in military spending.  The Spanish-American war found us completely out-gunned and out-manned against the second best Navy in the world (at the time, Great Britain was the top naval power.  We ranked about 5th).  Within days we had more volunteers than we had equipment for and the war was quickly ended, favorably for us.  At the onset of WW I, we lacked manpower and equipment.  Our ships were nearly obsolete, our tanks and heavy artillery were substandard and our aircraft were in short supply.  WW II began with us in the same position.  How did we persevere in each case when starting with such a huge handicap?

One of our country's greatest strengths has always been our natural resources.  Nearly everything we could want or need is in abundant supply, or available if we need it.  With a strong manufacturing base and available resources, we can quickly produce whatever we need.  Another strength is that we're the good guys.  People all over the world have wanted to come here, not for a free lunch, but for a chance for a better life.  Our behavior (with the exception of from 2001-2008) has been admirable.  We treated people with respect and dignity and backed that with quiet strength.  It's very difficult to win a war against a country, when most of your population would rather live in that country.  Lastly, our strength has been in our national consciousness.  In times of need, we respond.  Whether that need arises from an attack on Pearl Harbor or a devastating tsunami hitting Japan, we stand up to be counted and do our part.

Because of our location, we are resistant to most military action.  Russia is not going to march 3 million soldiers through Siberia, across the arctic, and down through Canada to attack us.  Paying millions of people to effectively do nothing, actually makes us weaker.  Forgetting the cost of all those soldier, sailors, marines and airmen, let's look at the people themselves.

In a small, peacetime military, quality over quantity is the focus.  The people allowed to join, and stay are there because they are good at their jobs, and because they want to be there.  This means a competent, highly trained command structure, which can quickly grow to whatever size needed.  As anyone who has served in at least the past 30 years can tell you, many ofthe people in the military don't want to be there, and probably shouldn't be there.  Quite a few people join, not from any patriotism, or desire to serve, but for a guaranteed paycheck and some benefits which may come in handy later in life.  This gives us a military which is sluggish and full of disciplinary problems.  Sorry, but that is not strength.

We have many exceptional people serving in our military, and please don't think that I am in any way putting them down or insulting them.  But mixed in with them are a significant number of people that are just there to meet a quota.  To make our military stronger, we need to reduce the numbers and once again focus on quality.  We need to stop handing out blank checks to the corporations and instead focus on intelligent application of our resources.  At the moment, we pay billions to have corporations develop technology, then pay billions for the corporations to turn the technology into weapons, then pay billions to the corporations for the weapons that we have already paid them for twice.  And after all of that we pay several times the worth of the finished product.  If you want a fence around your yard, you pay someone to build a fence.  You don't pay someone to buy themselves a forest and a sawmill so you can pay them for the boards they will use when you pay them to put up the fence.

Gentlemen, Start Your Engines

This entry actually serves a dual purpose.  Now that I think about it, every entry here serves at least a dual purpose.  The first purpose is for me to work at getting my thoughts down in some coherent form, and the second is to inform and possibly entertain others.  So, now this one has a triple purpose, since I'm going to give you a chance to learn a little something about me.

One thing that I value very highly is honesty.  In fact, the first significant thing I will say at the beginning of a relationship is that I expect honesty.  Just about anything can be forgiven as long as everyone is honest and open.  Over the years, I've become quite adept at telling when someone is lying to me.  I've also learned the value in not calling others on every lie.  I just keep the knowledge to myself and slowly start building a wall to protect me from what will eventually come.  At some point a person either has to admit to all the lies, or run away from them.  Most people choose to run.

Since I'm already on the subject of honesty, it's time to discuss the Presidential campaigns.  I've had several rabid Romney supporters spray me with claims about President Obama lying to us. The only trouble is, nobody has been able to fill me in on what the actual lies have been.  He has not fulfilled all the campaign promises from 2008, true, but trying and failing to succeed is not the same as lying.  Maybe if you can all get together, decide which specific lies are most important to you, and then present them to me, I can examine them for credibility.

Now to cross to the other candidate.  Early in the Obama administration, the President signed the now famous auto bailout, to keep General Motors and Chrysler from bankruptcy.  At the time Governor Romney opposed the bailout stating the companies should have to go through bankruptcy and then recover on their own.  Recently he has amended this to ensure he would have given government loan guarantees to the companies after the bankruptcies.  General Motors, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers consider the bailout to be very successful and credit it with saving many thousands of manufacturing jobs.  Two states that were very positively affected by the bailout, Ohio and Wisconsin, are also contested states that Governor Romney needs to win in order to become the next President of the United States.

At this time, the Romney campaign is running advertisements in Ohio (and I assume Wisconsin) claiming the bailout cost manufacturing jobs and claiming Chrysler is moving Jeep production to China.  This piece of misinformation comes thanks to a Bloomberg article in which Chrysler is noted as wanting to expand into China.  What this means is that Chrysler wants to sell Jeeps to the Chinese.  One of Governor Romney's hot points is the trade deficit with China.  Ummm...  Excuse me, but there are only 2 ways to fix a trade imbalance with China.  Either we have to sell them more stuff, or we have to buy less stuff from them.  How are we going to deal with this if you get upset at a company, which is again profitable thanks to the bailout you opposed, when they try to Sell More Stuff to China?

Just for the record, Chrysler issued a very clear and concise statement denying any plans to move Jeep production to China, and the Romney campaign was informed and aware of this before they began airing the advertisement in question.  And now General Motors has issued a statement refuting the Romney claim about the bailout hurting the auto industry.  Remember how I feel about honesty?  Sorry, Governor, but you're not going to win my heart by lying and continuing to lie after you've been caught in the lie.  All that I can assume is that the Republican party is courting the voters that are just too damn stupid to examine facts.

But, to be fair, let's look at the auto industry if Governor Romney had been in charge at the time of the bailout.  Let them go through bankruptcy, so they can discharge excessive debt and then come out as leaner, stronger companies, I believe is how he put it during the recent debate.  Time to decipher this innocent sounding sentence so we know what we are dealing with.  This could take some time.

First off, bankruptcy is a friendly way of saying, I can't pay my bills and need some help.  It happens and there are many people who have been able to turn their lives around through bankruptcy.  The downside is the "discharge excessive debt" portion.  When you're talking a corporation the size of GM, this is a very large number.  That debt is owed to 2 main groups; employees and suppliers.  When that excessive debt is "discharged" both of these groups are expected to eat part of that debt.  Does this mean that the stockholders and the corporate management have to share these losses?  Nope, even though they hold most of the responsibility for their mess, they don't have to pay for it.  That is left to the people who actually did the work.  How would you feel to find out your pension that you worked 40 years to get has suddenly been cut by 30%?  Make you happy does it?  How would you feel if you find out that the $10 million worth of parts that you made for someone is only going to pay you $4 million?  Guess what happens in all of this?  That's where "leaner and stronger" comes into play.  People lose their jobs, making the companies "leaner" and the ones remaining are expected to do more for less, making them "stronger".  Meanwhile, the stock price will rise which will benefit the stockholders and because, on paper, it looks like the company is doing great, the management that created the mess gets bonuses and pay raises.  With or without government loan guarantees, this is the best case scenario under Governor Romney's method of handling the crisis.

Of course, things don't always turn out this well.  All those pensions are protected and guaranteed by contract and it's not certain the UAW would have allowed those contracts to be amended.  This would either shift 100% of the burden onto the suppliers or cause the court to forcibly amend the UAW contracts.  If the court orders a violation of the contracts, the UAW closes the doors and the companies are just a piece of history.  After all the assets have been sold, the pension plans are funded and perhaps 250,000 GM and Chrysler employees lose their jobs.  If the suppliers are required to take all the burden, many would no longer be able to remain in business, and most would have to reduce employees in order to absorb the loss.  The suppliers would also need to raise their prices for what they supply to other auto makers, probably resulting in parts being sourced overseas, costing more jobs and increasing that damn trade deficit.

In the United  States, the auto industry is a very complex thing.  Every major auto manufacturer builds cars in the United States.  From BMW to Volvo, they all have plants here.  But, those plants don't make all the parts that go into each car.  The engines and transmissions are made elsewhere, as are the bumpers, windows, A/C systems, radiators, chassis' and, in fact, most of the parts that go into the car.  These parts mainly come from outside suppliers and the suppliers typically make parts for several manufacturers.  Because of this, any major problem with one manufacturer can affect every manufacturer.  Although Chrysler is no longer one of the biggest car makers, if it closed it's doors (about 55,000 employees, unemployed) it would indirectly result in about 4 times as many additional jobs lost.  Every Chrysler, Dodge or Jeep dealership closed.  Property owners with useless property.  Salespeople and mechanics out of work, plus the reduction in workforce at all of the suppliers.

Perhaps the reason that Governor Romney felt bankruptcy was the best route to take is because that has been a key factor in his own success.  He could have learned from Donald Trump (who has used the bankruptcy card dozens of time, always to his profit and to the detriment of others), but whatever the inspiration, his business practices have cost the United States many thousands of good manufacturing jobs.  Those same practices have created at least as many Chinese jobs, yet he wants to point the finger elsewhere?  In this case I'll make an exception and call out someone for lying:  Mr. Romney, quit lying to us.

Always Verify Your Sources

This is advice that you will get in any college course that requires writing.  Since any important paper will require a bibliography, the sources are readily available for the instructor to check.  I'm not being graded on this (at last check, an average of 3 people read each one of these posts), so I rarely feel inclined to include my sources.  However, I will tell you what sources I never use (except to point out why they are not reliable sources), and give a general idea of the types of sources I often use.

My first and main source is my memory.  Although it is not as reliable as it once was, I still retain most of what I see, hear and read.  In my younger days I could remember entire, drunken, group conversations, verbatim.  Such an incredible ability is rarely appreciated 3 days after the party.  Now I try to focus on just grasping the meaning, unless I feel blackmail material is needed.

Of course, my memory isn't useful unless I put something into it worth remembering.  These days most of the input comes from what I read online.  Rather than seeking out one source, I read anything that interests me, regardless of the source.  Many of the articles are either partisan (some conservative, some liberal) or regionally biased (the midwest is not overly concerned with the mating habits of lobsters).  With these I try to find the points that are hidden in the bias and take what information I can from the article.  Occasionally, I will find something that is such obvious propaganda, I can only learn the source is not reliable.

Sources I will not use are anything said on any talk radio, or television political commentary.  These sources include Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Bill Maher and Glenn Beck, among many others.  Sorry that I can't include more rabid liberal pundits here, but since I'm not a fan, none come to mind.  I have listened to/watched each of these personalities, but can not in good conscience recommend them to anyone.  My first exposure to this pseudo-journalism was in 1992, when a girl I was dating insisted I listen to Rush Limbaugh.  Twenty years later, I am still amazed anyone can listen to these people.  The language used is clearly manipulative and intended to be inflammatory.  The sources they use are either very weak, unreliable and unverified sources, or taken completely out of context.  They serve up garbage, and millions swallow it whole and rave about the flavor.

If you plan on voting next week, perhaps you should take some time to check your sources.  Most of the political rhetoric that has been ladled out to you, is garbage.  Any claim made by your candidate should have substance to back it up.  If an acquaintance asked to borrow your entire life savings to finance a plan to make both of you rich, wouldn't you want to know something about that plan before writing the check?  If not, I've got a deal that is worth millions.  All I need is a few thousand dollars. Trust me.

While My Guitar Gently Weeps

I just finished a very long week of work which means I have had plenty of time to come up with more of my lunatic ravings.  I'll give a quick view into my creative process before getting to my subject.

Work for me involves long periods of driving, mostly at night, on mostly deserted roads.  To keep myself alert, I carry on conversations with, give lectures to and teach lessons to myself.  The subject matter comes from things I've read, heard or seen, and I'll spend hours examining and debating a subject.  Then I come home, go to sleep, wake up and the brilliant and insightful message I spent all night preparing comes out as incoherent rambling.

About 18 months ago I decided to teach myself how to play the guitar.  After some research, I headed to the local Guitar Center, found a used Ibanez acoustic guitar and bought it for a good price.  Knowing next to nothing about guitars, I ended up getting a good one and it goes with me in the truck every week.  Since that time I've bought and sold other guitars and I now have a 12 string acoustic, 3 electrics (1 awesome, 1 decent, 1 crappy) and 2 electric basses (1 excellent, 1 crappy), along with my original acoustic.  I've put a lot of effort into learning to play and either I'm a really bad teacher or a very slow student.  The problem does not appear to be with the guitar.  Still, I enjoy what I play and slowly I'm improving.

No musical instrument exemplifies American music like the guitar.  It is the Grand Ol' Opry and Woodstock, Eddie Van Halen and James Taylor.  Unless you're a drummer or a bass player, you probably can name only a few of the icons on these instruments, but the list of guitar players goes on and on.  The guitar itself has become a very important symbol for America and our freedom.

If the guitar is symbolic of our music, then the Fender Stratocaster is the symbol for all guitars.  The list of players who became legends on the Strat is too long to even begin.  Personally, I prefer the Les Paul to the Stat, but I'm in the minority.  There is something about having a guitar that weighs as much as a recliner strapped around your neck that appeals to me.  Currently, the Fender company is in trouble and their future is uncertain.  A big part of that uncertainty revolves around Guitar Center.

Guitar Center is by far the largest retailer of guitars in the United States.  Just this week they opened their 238th store and I believe they have opened up several new stores in just the past few months.  On the surface that looks good.  The downside is that in 2007 Guitar Center was acquired in a leveraged buyout by Bain Capital.  For a brief education on leveraged buyouts see my post "Money,.. It's a hit.  Bain Capital has a proven track record for making money for Bain Capital.  They also have a very long history of bankrupting companies and putting them out of business.

The Musical Instrument industry is heavily influenced by the economy.  If the economy is weak, lots of used instruments are available and cheap, so why buy a new guitar?  If the economy is strong, then sales of new instruments will increase.  Since 2007, our economy has been struggling, although it appears to be showing signs of a slight recovery.  So why has Guitar Center opened up 19 new stores in the past 16 months?  The existing stores are losing money at an alarming rate and industry experts have described their current business model as unsustainable.  Without a major overhaul of Guitar Center's operations, the only question is when they will go out of business, not if they will go out of business.

Between the weak economy and some poor business decisions by management, Fender is having their own difficulties.  Without the sales going to Guitar Center's continued expansion, they would have probably already gone under.  Once Guitar Center goes down, Fender and possibly Gibson will go with it.  Gibson and Fender both manufacture the majority of their guitars overseas, so the U.S. manufacturing losses will be minimal, but the retail unemployment problems will be significant.  Perhaps more importantly, the heart an soul of our music will be a thing of the past.

This is not an appeal for everyone to run out and buy something from Guitar Center.  Personally, I've chosen to avoid them so that I don't in any way add to the fortunes of the bloodsucking parasites at Bain Capital.  But, when the company that helped give us the music of Jimi Hendrix, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler and Stevie Ray Vaughn goes away, think about how much has been taken from our lives by the greed of Bain Capital and all the other groups that are happy to destroy lives, even entire industries in order to make more money.  The thrill is definitely gone...

Time for a Physics Lesson

I realize that "learn more about physics" was not at the top of anyone's "to-do list.  Before you go back to the important things like painting your nails, scrubbing the toilet or watching Jerry Springer, give me a few minutes of your time.  You might be pleasantly surprised.  Besides, you already know there are going to be a bunch of fights, several involving women getting their clothes torn off, and the guy they are fighting over is skinny, ugly and missing half his teeth.

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."
"Energy can not be created or destroyed, only altered in form"
"E=MC²"

These are all ways of saying the same thing.  Everything from the electricity running your computer to the forgotten, disgusting produce in the bottom of your refrigerator can be described in terms of energy.  As Albert Einstein so elegantly pointed out, matter is just another form of energy.  The useful (and damn clever) part is that the better you understand the energy balances (my phrase) involved, the better you understand everything.

There are many different types of energy, for a refresher, here are some brief explanations:

Kinetic Energy(KE):  Motion and Mass.  A moving vehicle has a lot of kinetic energy.  Increase the speed, increase KE.  A heavier vehicle has more KE than a lighter vehicle moving at the same speed.

Potential Energy(PE):  Position and Mass.  A baseball sitting on the ground has less PE than a baseball at shoulder height.  A bowling ball at shoulder height has more PE than a baseball.

Chemical Energy(CE):  When you start a fire, you're converting mass (the wood) into energy (heat and light).  Chemical reactivity determines CE.  CE is really just another form of PE, and it's the one that gives us mass equals energy.  Wood has less CE than gasoline, which has less CE than plutonium.

Boring review over with, time to have a little bit of fun with this.  One of the never-ending political points involves drilling rights in protected areas.  The oil companies want those drilling rights, the tree huggers (I prefer birch or sycamore) want to protect the environment.  All the rest of us want cheaper gasoline and an independence from foreign oil.  The question is:  Will opening up currently closed areas to drilling give us cheaper gas and oil independence?  The answer can be found by figuring out the energy balance.

Oil in the barrel has more potential energy than oil in the ground, for the simple reason that you have to use energy to get the oil from the ground to the barrel.  The farther underground and the more inaccessible the terrain, the lower the PE.  The Middle East is an area where vast oil reserves are easily accessible.  Of course we have to use energy to get the oil from Saudi Arabia to our shores, but it takes much less energy to move horizontally than it does to move vertically.  Try running 100 yards, then try running up 30 flights of stairs.

Getting the oil in the barrel from a currently protected site requires a great deal of energy (energy = money).  Roads have to be built and land must be cleared.  Equipment must be transported, erected, maintained and operated.  People have to be moved, fed and paid.  Lawyers and activists have to be dealt with, and all this is money spent before drilling begins.  If these untapped oil reserves were just 50 feet below ground then the oil would have more PE and more value to the oil companies, but much of the oil is thousands of feet down, making it worth less.

For the oil companies, their PE is determined by the price of oil, how much oil they sell and how much oil they have to sell.  If the price of oil goes down, it's bad for the oil company.  A significant increase in readily available domestic oil would reduce the price of oil.  Any increase in our oil independence would reduce the price of oil.  This means that the more oil we pump out from U.S. sources, the less money the oil companies make.  What the oil companies want is the guarantee of access to another source of oil if we are somehow cut off from the Middle East supply.

So, the next time you hear some politician blathering on about opening up more areas for drilling, understand that there is absolutely no benefit to you or to the country (we, the country already have control of that oil), it is only to the future benefit of the oil companies.

But wait!  There's more!

Even relationships can be described in terms of energy balance.  If you build a fire with wood, it gives you heat for a long time.  The more energy you add to the fire, the hotter and bigger it becomes.  As long as you tend the fire, it will be there for you.  Only when you neglect it does it burn out.  If you build a fire with gasoline, it's very exciting and extremely hot, but it quickly burns out and leaves you scarred.  Keep your fires burning.

In Honor of Our Troops

This is a story that I encountered about 12 years ago, while I was happily engaged in moving people all over the United States.  The pertinent facts were told to me by a representative from the OMBUDSMAN (Human Resources for the military) at Camp Pendleton (a Marine Corps base in Oceanside, California), and from the mother of the person the story is about.  About the only thing I don't recall about the story is the name of the Marine Captain this story is about.  For the purpose of the tale, I'll call him Brian.

Since Brian was a pilot, I'm assuming that his permanent duty station was MCAS (Marine Corps Air Station) El Toro, located a short drive up Interstate 5 in Orange County.  According to his mother, Brian had become friends and then roommates with a young woman in Oceanside and eventually the two of them became a couple and bought a house together.  Maggie (my fictitious name for this woman) apparently got Brian to co-sign for her on the house, although title was in her name.  Brian did a lot of improvements to the house including a beautiful, slate floor in the living room.  Brian also paid all the bills, or so I was told.

Several months before I was introduced to this story Brian's air wing was deployed overseas in Japan.  This apparently coincided with Maggie's decision to no longer be part of the Brian-Maggie couple.  Through letters and phone calls, Brian let his mother in Dallas know what was going on and how upset he was over the breakup.  Then Brian began having problems while piloting.  He was experiencing periods of vertigo, temporary vision loss and loss of muscle control.  He was grounded briefly and sent to a Marine Corps psychiatrist, who shortly after cleared him to resume flying.  After more problems he was grounded again, examined, counseled and returned to flight duty.  A few days later Brian died when he crashed his jet.

Upon hearing of Brian's death, Maggie went to the base and retrieved Brian's pickup, then went to the bank and cleaned out his bank accounts.  She refused to allow the return of any of his personal effects to his mother (his listed next-of-kin) until a court order was obtained.  The actual process of getting control of his effects took a number of months, and before the local authorities could step in, much of Brian's stuff was sold.

When I arrived with my truck to move Brian's belongings back to his mother, I was completely unaware of this story.  The basics were given to me by the OMBUDSMAN, who was required to make certain that every item on her list ended up on my truck.  Maggie was in attendance and tried to claim a few of the more valuable items claiming she wanted them to remember him by.  I can not recall ever meeting a less sincere person.  After finally getting everything loaded up, I began my trip to Dallas, where I received the rest of the story from Brian's mother.  For about an hour after unloading everything, I sat there while she showed me photo albums and cried over the loss of her son.

This story contains a few tragedies besides the untimely and unnecessary death of a young man.  Perhaps everyone in favor of supporting our troops can benefit from them.  The military life is difficult to say the least.  The first full day of boot camp begins after about 3 hours of sleep and for the next 48 hours you're bullied, threatened, screamed at and intimidated.  You either learn to gulp down your food quickly or you go hungry and you never get enough sleep.  Quite often you end up a long way from anyone you know and your opportunities to stay in touch with family and friends are few and far between.  This has probably changed with cell phones and e-mail.  In my time about 10 minutes a week on the phone was all you got, and mail seemed to take forever to find you.

Once basic training is over, there is probably other training and some freedom.  This means that most are going to have frequent opportunities to drink heavily.  Sitting in the bars frequented by young sailors, soldiers, airmen and marines is some pretty woman looking for a guaranteed income, free healthcare and a husband that is out of town for months at a time.  Guess where that boy you grew up with is likely to end up?  Especially when his girl back home has stopped writing to him, and all his old friends are too busy to take the time to keep in touch.  This is how decent guys like Brian end up with some soulless woman.

Another tragedy is the military itself.  The medical care provided to our troops is not necessarily the best.  This is not to say there are not some very fine people providing that medical care, but it does not compare to what is available outside of the military.  One reason for this is money.  If a civilian doctor makes a mistake, the lawsuits can run into the millions.  If a military doctor makes a mistake, he might receive slightly worse performance evaluations.  Let me tell you about a few of my own experiences.

During boot camp it was determined that my wisdom teeth had to be removed.  Not because they were causing any problems, but because there was a possibility that at some point they might cause problems.  I was sent to the dentist who was going to take out one of them, the one that was already most of the way in.  The dentist walked in, gave me 1 shot of novacaine and immediately began trying to pull the tooth.  I put up enough of a fight he gave me another shot, waited 5 minutes and tried again.  This process went on for 5 injections at which point I was numb from the first injection and the tooth was finally removed.  A few weeks after boot camp the other 3 were cut out all in one sitting, with no follow up appointment to check on the healing process.

While attending school in Orlando I came down with strep throat.  I'd never had it before and didn't know what was going on.  My throat was slightly sore and i had a fever of 106.  Delirious, I stumbled to a friends room and collapsed.  He called the ambulance, which promptly arrived and my vital signs were taken.  For the next 20 minutes The ambulance didn't move while I was repeatedly asked what drugs I had taken.  Once they tired of asking the question I was taken to the hospital and questioned for the next 45 minutes about what drugs I was on.  Finally someone looked at my throat, took a culture, gave me antibiotics and left me to walk about a mile back to my barracks room.  Two years later, once again with strep throat, I was not responding to the antibiotics so I was told to double the dosage.  Three different times I was told to double the dosage.  Finally, a friend took me in to the clinic where I passed out.  Later I was told that I had taken too much erythmyicin and had a reaction to it.

For quite some time the Navy made a practice of prescribing Tylenol 3 with codiene for everything and I do mean everything.  Eventually someone realized they were handing out narcotics like it was halloween and they switched to Motrin.  Perhaps things have improved in the past 24 years, but I doubt if the standards are where they should be.

In the case of Brian, the doctors should not have let him back into a plane until they found the problem and corrected it.  Instead the attitude of 'suck it up and quit whining' prevailed.  How many others have died because those in charge were unable or unwilling to see their problems?  How many mothers have had to go through life with the knowledge that their child gave his or her life for the country for no good reason?