Musket vs. StreetSweeper

THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE RIGHT
TO OWN AN ASSAULT WEAPON.

Every so often we start a serious discussion of deadly weapons. From my perspective, there is no reason that a sane, normal person needs an AK-47. I searched the Constitution and found no supporting reference. I researched the writings of the founders of the republic, with similar results.

Some people may "want" an AK-47; some may even feel a "need" for an AK-47. But the Constitution does not support anyone in a supposed right to keep one at home where children, visitors and, yes, thieves, can get their hands on it.

For those who insist that we adhere to a strict construction of the wording of the Second Amendment as written in the 18th Century, so, too, we should adhere to a strict definition as to the meaning of "arms" as used in the 18th Century: Muzzle-loading rifles, then breech-loading ones, and muskets, as well as the sort of Wogdon dueling pistols used by Vice President Aaron Burr to kill Alexander Hamilton in 1804 in New Jersey (because dueling was outlawed in New York).

One should have a right to "keep" all other weapons at a local armory (military or private) after an extensive background check and training.
One should have a right to "bear" these other weapons in plain sight by signing them out and specifying the purpose, be it hunting, target practice, parade, etc., after which the weapons would be returned for "safe keeping."

There is no absolute right to own assault weapons or so-called street-sweeping hand-guns that fire 33 bullets in nano-seconds, to conceal them from public view, or to bring them in open displays of intimidation to political meetings of our elected officials.

The highways of Arizona are a raceway. Visiting motorists from California complain that 11 mph over the posted speed limit got them four photo-radar tickets during one weekend in Arizona. A move is afoot, promoted by the governor, to remove the two-year-old photo-radar cameras.

Yet a recent editorial in the Arizona Republic on photo-enforcement cameras almost says it all: They work. But from my perspective we have one group of opponents --”starve the beast,” anti-government ideologues-- posing as “no new taxers.”

Their disdain for traffic laws breeds disregard --or worse, contempt-- for the law.

We need to enforce the speed limits here in Arizona. Now!

If not, go to a simple “safe & prudent” standard.

Why? It’s a matter of "pay me now or pay me later."

Lax law-enforcement is costing us each hard dollars in terms of high insurance premiums, road repair, hospital care and vehicle maintenance. It costs us in higher death and injury rates, with a host of other social and economic costs.

I suggest that to flush out these people who disguise themselves as being against photo-enforcement cameras we eliminate completely the fine that they seem to object to so ardently.

Instead, add points on the drivers license and rock-solid insurance company notification for all speeding offenses one mile over the posted limit.

And when the economy improves, we can start putting more cops on the streets and highways of the state.

These steps should reduce future insurance premiums, which are among the highest in the nation.

OR..., here's another idea: Statistics show that they work. There were 13 fewer fatalities statewide in 2009 than in 2008, despite comparable miles driven. Speed cameras are, as the Republic editorialized, "a wise use of finite resources."

So select 13 people at random statewide (nearly one from each county) to stand as proxies for the lives that were saved because of these speed cameras, as estimated by the Highway Patrol. Then ask their relatives and their friends to offer these 13 as human sacrifices should photo-radar cameras be removed from our highways, causing accident rates to return to previous levels.

My Prostate, My Life

I cannot over-emphasize the importance and benefit of being a well-informed and a pro-active medical consumer.
With your kind permission, I relate my recent experience with the medical system.

I had prostate surgery in mid-September at a first-rate Phoenix hospital after 18 days of extreme discomfort. My prostate was so swollen that both exit-ramps to the biological super-highway were blocked --51 grams were removed, as it turned out, and there was no cancer. In that period I went to my primary-care physician, name available on request, (who prescribed cipro to knock out a probable infection), a lab for a CAT-scan, and upon referral, to a urologist, name available on request (for an ultra-sound).

I took the urologist at his word when he called for TURP surgery. Frankly, I had neither the time nor the inclination to conduct extensive research. I just wanted to get rid of the catheter and its thigh-hugging bag.

Once I awoke post-surgery I had time for all kinds of spiritual and existential thoughts.
Among the former was the realization that this was my first brush with my own mortality even though I am staring at 70 in my daytime running-lights. And yes, this was "my foxhole." Yet I found it highly unlikely that of all the things going on in this world, other worlds, and other universes, that any divine entity could possibly take an interest in my bladder, my prostate, my life, or my family. I was even further annoyed at the idea of some kind of "intelligent design" having anything to do with creating an organ as poorly-designed as the prostate.

As far as medical care, it was a marvelous experience. Sure, I'd have liked the process to have been quicker. But I understood that tests needed to be done, that caution needed to be taken, that arrangements needed to be made. But there I was: On the mend after a $200 co-pay on my Medicare Advantage Plan.

So what do the uninsured do? I pondered. How much inquisition-like hell would a man have to put up with until someone drove him to an Emergency Room? Would his outcome be as great as mine turned out to be? And would the taxpayers be happy about picking up the tab?

With all the time in the world, I realized, as I lay there in my hospital bed that something has to be done. Single payer? Mandatory coverage with the elimination of prior conditions? Public option? National portability? Lowering Medicare to age zero? Frankly, I don't care. Anything has got to be better than our current system. There are too damned many people with no health-insurance coverage. Medical care is too expensive. Ditto drugs. And objectively measured we are low-man on the totem pole when comparing the health and longevity of our countrymen to other residents of the industrialized nations of the world.

And before I knew it --actually, three days was enough to spend at even a wonderful hospital-- I was back at home, once again with my new best friend strapped, six-shooter-style, to my leg.

Then it was indeed time to take control of my care.

First, my wife and I had to reevaluate my urologist. He had no bedside manner. I could live with that. His office, plastered as it is with signs warning to not do this and not do that, was less than inviting. I could live with that. But I drew the line at come-back-and-see-me-after-three-months-of-self-catheterizing, and consider-that-this-may-be-as-good-as-it-gets. A second opinion was called for.

Urologist #2, name available on request, showed me exercises to strengthen my severely-enlarged bladder. He took me off the medication. He wanted to see me in one month.

Most importantly for my recovery, I resumed my visits to the chiropractor, name available on request, who has been caring for me for nearly 10 years. He focused on L4, the region of the backbone that controls the gastro-intestinal tract. The result was immediate and dramatic. As soon as I went home from his office I was able to void my bladder more by myself than I did with the catheter.

Moreover, the chiropractor recommended that I see a naturopathic physician, name available on request, who prescribed various botanicals and supplements.

Within two weeks my self-catheterizing was down from three-times-daily to once-before-bedtime. Five days later: Zip. Nada. Zero.

Now everything works fine. Yes, everything!!

So that's the story of my prostate and my life in the last quarter of 2009, including my conclusion that while health-care in this country is great, it's not great enough for the greatest number of people.

You are in a position to do something about the state of the nation's health-care system. "Just do it."

Why We're In This Pickle

An item from the Associated Press says it all:

"A North Carolina syringe factory linked to hundreds of sicknesses and five deaths operated for almost two years without an inspection despite a series of complaints that its needles were dirty or filled with colored particles.

"Court documents in the North Carolina case show the U.S. Food and Drug Administration only inspected the AM2PAT Inc. plant in December 2007 after an outbreak of illness was reported.
"Federal investigators contend that the company shipped syringes filled with saline and the blood-thinner heparin from a dingy facility without ensuring they were sterile.

"Authorities are now searching for the Chicago-based company's Chief Executive Dushyant Patel, who was indicted last week. They believe he fled to his native India. Prosecutors don't know if Mr. Patel still has an attorney.
"An FDA spokesman didn't have an immediate explanation for why the facility wasn't inspected for so long. But inspections at AM2PAT were frequent by FDA standards."

So whether it's highway speeders or derivatives traders or air-traffic controllers, "starve-the-beast" small government is best, especially when it comes to law-enforcement. That is, until we realize how much it costs us.

We Are Due For A Major Change in Direction

There is a thoughtful and personal commentary circulating on the web by a man named Corey Miller who is part of the “gloom and doom” crowd that is unhappy with the results of the 2008 U.S. election. (Some of them are even wearing Tee-shirts with the slogan “Obama Is Not My President.”)

Of all things, Miller blames the current financial mess on President-Elect Barack Obama and ACORN. With no pun intended, there may be a kernel of truth in relating ACORN to the buying of homes by people who could not afford them. But anyone with any sense can see that it was the financial houses and their minions at whose doorstep the real blame lies.

If you need any convincing, I suggest that you read a column by Thomas Friedman in The New York Times of November 25, 2008 (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/26/opinion/26friedman.html?_r=1). Over-eager first-time buyers were only a small part of the equation.

Miller complains that his taxes will be raised by the new Socialists. In the latest interview that I have seen President-Elect Obama says that he can't decide which policy to adopt:
a. Wait until 2010 to let the temporary Bush tax cuts for the very rich expire so that taxes climb "automatically."
b. Raise taxes for the very rich asap in 2009.
Obama said that he will do what his financial advisors tell him is best for the nation. Hardly a dictatorial or imperial approach.

The tax will likely be on those with adjusted gross income of more than $250,000. While I’ve never been in that category, I venture to gues that at that level, it’s not the amount of the tax that counts as much as the amount that is left in the taxpayer’s pocket or purse.

President-Elect Obama is not engaged in class warfare. It is an absolute fact that this divisiveness that we call culture wars was used primarily by conservatives masquerading as Republicans. Listen to the McCain/Palin debates and speeches.

Miller rails against people who "won't work." Unfortunately, that's not the problem. A very large government entitlement is Social Security --which we all pay into, and then redistribute that wealth to those of a certain age.

But people who collect welfare are, by-and-large, people who cannot work, not those who will not. Studies have shown this. They are children; they are sick; they are elderly. There may still be some --after the Clinton policy of "Welfare to Work"-- who refuse to work even though they can, but it's a small percentage. Look it up.

As to the articles, the one by Tom Friedman from The Times is much more "on the money." Somehow he manages not to blame President-Elect Obama for the financial mess that we are in. How short-sighted of him. But the fact is that the Recession of 2008 started in December, 2007.

There are some interesting comments in a column by David Brooks, a conservative writer for The NY Times, on November 21, 2008:
"This truly will be an Administration that looks like America, or at least that slice of America that got double 800s on SATs." He adds: "I find myself tremendously impressed by the Obama transition."

And then, "Believe me, I'm trying not to join in the vast, O-phoria now sweeping the coastal haut-bourgeoisie. Still, the personnel decisions have been superb. The events of the past two weeks should be reassuring to anybody who feared that Obama would veer to the left, or would suffer self-inflicted wounds because of his inexperience. He's off to a start that nearly justifies the hype."

You can read the entire article at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/opinion/21brooks.html

And keep in mind that Brooks is a conservative, who was very disappointed with the McCain-Palin ticket. (His reason may have been that one isn't a "true" conservative and one is a dimwit.)

The third article --I suggest that you take 24-hour breaks between reading these in order to keep your blood-pressure down) is by Thomas Frank of the Wall Street Journal. His emphasis is on the lack of accountability --and waste of money-- that goes along with privatizing so many activities that truly belong in the hands of governemt.

His article appeared on November 26, 2008, under the headline “Government by Contractor Is a Disgrace.” (The entire article can be found at http://online.wsj.com/services/article/SB122765980278958481-search.html?KEYWORDS=%22thomas+frank%22&COLLECTION=wsjie/6month.)

Here's an interesting thought from Carl Icahn, financial buyout whiz-kid. It is common in some circles to use phrases such as "that's good enough for government work" and to otherwise disparage any and all non-private-sector activity as being wasteful and sloppy. Icahn has said that he can make money buying just about any business and then cutting out the 30% of fat and waste that he finds. And in my years in the private sector (32) I can't argue with his numbers. I ask you to deny the concept, even if you disagree with the number.

In conclusion, let's agree to disagree on what needs to be done. But let's also agree that the sky is not falling in; the country will not go to hell in a hand-basket. Some things will change. You may not like them. Other things will change. I won't like them. But the USA is a strong nation that will indeed survive for your grand-kids and mine --and with Cory Miller's-- to enjoy.

Cops On The Street

Are you as tired as I am about close calls at intersections caused by red-light or stop-sign runners and rollers?
Are you as angry as I am about drivers changing lanes without using their directional signals? (They’re not merely “turn signals” meant to be used in anticipation of actually “turning.”)

And how about speeders taking not only their lives in their hands but yours as well! And wasting gas to boot.

What is needed to enforce the law is more cops on the streets. Not cameras. Not stiffer penalties. Not more judges. Cops. Lots of cops.

This absence of law enforcers breeds disregard --or worse, contempt-- for the law.

I’ve driven in Connecticut with zero tolerance for speeders. A single mph over the limit and you forfeit your license for a year.
I've driven in Ohio were there is a 5 mph grace, and in New York State where there is a generally-acknowledged grace of 7 to 8 mph.
We need to enforce the speed limits nationwide. Now! States that let you slide by at 15 mph over the limit are a danger to us all.

Why? It’s a matter of "pay me now or pay me later."

The reality is that one can drive for 100 miles in some states and seldom see a law-enforcement officer.

Thus drivers change lanes without signaling, "nest" in the fast lane rather than obeying signs that say "slow traffic keep right,” tailgate cars that they want to pass, roll through red lights and stop signs, pass on the right and then swerve back into the left lane as they flip-off other drivers, and cruise at 15 to 20 mph above the speed limit whatever it is.

This sorry state of affairs is costing us each hard dollars in terms of high insurance premiums, road repair, hospital care and vehicle maintenance. It costs us in higher death and injury rates, with a host of other social and economic costs.

I leave it to others to do the math. But I'm willing to kick in $100 to a special fund to be created for the purpose of putting more cops on the streets and highways of the offending states, in anticipation of saving that $100 in future insurance premiums.

How about you?

It's My Political Party and I'll Vote If I Want To

Political parties and their local precincts are clubs that people may join and participate in. They have meetings; they adopt positions; they issue reports; they elect leaders; they nominate candidates for office.

Having non-members participate as other than occasional visitors makes absolutely no sense.

Should I demand to vote in Rotary Club or Kiwanis Club elections merely because the outcome might somehow have an impact on my life?

Should I demand to vote in the elections in a neighboring city or state merely because the outcome might somehow have an impact on my life?

For that matter, should we allow residents who are not U.S. citizens to vote in our elections merely because the outcome will have an impact on their lives?

Or why not let others in the world at large vote for our President since his or her decisions will have an impact on the rest of the world.

So, for people who feel disenfranchised by the primary process there are three options:
1. Join the Republican or Democratic Party and vote in its primary.
2. Create your own party and vote in its primary.
3. Remain unaffiliated but stop complaining about it.

Tax -Not a 4-Letter Word: No "Fear of Taxes"

I’ve never heard anything more ridiculous than “fear of taxes.” Almost as ridiculous is the backwards statement that “there’s not enough money in the city/county/state/federal budget to pay for such-and-such desirable program.

We live in social settings because thousands of years ago humanity found that we couldn’t meet all of our needs individually. We couldn’t protect against the hazards of life individually. We emerged from the “state of nature” to meet those needs.


We hire people to fight our wars, to keep our streets and highways safe, to extinguish our fires, to teach our students, to collect our garbage. I could go on and on.

Yes. The list gets longer. You want one thing added to the list. Somebody else wants another item added to the list.

But once we agree on “the list” and how much it will cost, then the logical thing to do is to divide it all among the total population and say “that’s your share,” “that’s your share,” and that’s your share.

It seems silly to me --a non-economist-- to work it backwards from “here’s how much I want to pay in taxes” --really, “how little”-- “so now you come up with what you are willing to not get from this social contract.”

Because after all, if you play the “starve the beast” anti-tax game, you wind up back in the state of nature.

To top it all off, there is an excellent Letter to the Editor in the Wall Street Journal of June 21, 2007, by H. Lake Wise of Brooklyn, N.Y. The subject is “tax fairness.” He asks of them: “How hard would it be to say ‘the wealthiest 1% of Americans, WHO EARN 17% OF THE COUNTRY'S TAXABLE INCOME, pay more than one of every three income tax dollars?’ Then at least the reader would have some idea of how tax burdens are distributed relative to income, which ought to be the starting point for any discussion of income tax fairness.”

He points out that “1% of all earners” is not the same thing as the “wealthiest 1%.”

So it seems to me that we each need to conduct an audit of what we get for our tax dollars. For example:
-Who paid for the road that the truck used in order to bring my food to the market?
-Who paid for the airport that my grandchildren used in order to visit me?
-Who paid for the park so that my neighbors who don’t have second homes could enjoy some rest and relaxation?
-Who paid for the library so that the people who serve me could become more literate?

Over-the-road trucks do it --only they complain about it. They need to compare the number miles that I drive my four-wheeler to the number of miles that their 18-wheeler is driven. Then factor in their respective weights, and tell me whose tax burden is unfair.