Just the facts, Please

This has been circulating on social media for a few days and is a reprehensible effort to dishonor the military leadership that makes decisions in a difficult world.  If any outlet other than Fox News is listened to one would already be aware that putting troops into the area at such short notice was not possible.  Just what kind of military response would be acceptable?  Too often people go off half cocked with their opinions just to satisfy their own political preferences.  Not to sound to preachy, I will try to satisfy me political preferences but I hope to not go off half cocked.  This link Mitary response will take you to a more reasoned response.

What I Learned From George

The 1972 campaign of George McGovern was the first campaign that I was even marginally active in. Oh, I was keenly interested in the 1968 campaign that saw the fiasco in Chicago, the murder of Bobby Kennedy and the deep divisions over the war in Vietnam. It was the Democratic Party that underwent a schism over the war and other cultural issues. When the party convened in Chicago the convergence of Mayor Daly's storm troopers and the various protesters ripped the party apart. Up until then the conventions were run much the same as they had always been with deals being cut in smoke filled rooms and party bosses telling the delegates they controlled how to vote. After the debacle in 1968 and the narrow loss to Richard Nixon the Democratic party did some soul searching and decided that the nomination process needed to be more representative of the constituency and transparent in its operations.

The new party rules changed the whole game. There was a concerted effort to involve more youth, African-Americans and women in the process and a lot of the power was removed from the party bosses. As a young man I was one of the delegates to our state convention which was going to choose the delegates to the national convention which means I was still a pretty small fish. However, I was idealistic and active and believed that right would always triumph and that the subject of my idealism was so obvious that anyone should be able to appreciate my reasoning. Boy, did I get my eyes opened. We ended up approving a slate of delegates consisting of the same old party players committed to the leadership of Governor Wendell Ford. We were allowed to come in, cast a vote and thank you for your service, see you later.

But in other states that was not the case and the new rules swayed the selection process and the Democratic Party chose George McGovern of South Dakota as our standard bearer. To me the right choice was so obvious I could not fathom how anyone would not be eager to vote for this man. He was against the war in Vietnam, for equal rights for African-Americans and women and would lead the United States into a new progressive utopian future. This was the election after which I began to doubt my skills at prognostication and which saw the budding of an alternate view of the American voter. Lo and behold, as unlikely as it seemed the people elected Richard Nixon again and not by just a little. It was a landslide of historic proportions and I had to question my understanding of the political process.

McGovern was a remnant of that progressive plains politician who came of age during the depression and World War II and who believed that the common man was the just recipient of the benefits of democracy. He held out against those who would relegate us to the ash heap, struggling for a glimpse of the top. He saw the injustice of the war in Vietnam that allowed the wealthy to escape the bogs and jungles while the poor went out to their deaths. 54,000 of them. He famously said that the Senate chamber reeked of blood. One of the things I have always been most proud of was our own Senator John Sherman Cooper who was an early antagonist of the war. A Republican from Somerset who could never be elected today with the sentiments of his party as they now exist.

But, McGovern was right. Only a year or so later Richard Nixon would resign in disgrace and the United States would begin the extraction of our forces from Vietnam. By 1975 the troops were home and the North Vietnamese Army swept over South Vietnam. Oh sure, we could have defeated them just like we could defeat the Iraqis, the Afghans or anyone else as long as we could recognize who to fight but therein lies the problem. McGovern saw that and recognized that there was no rationale for continuing to fight an endless war to prop up a corrupt government. Familiar? He saw that we were embroiled in a civil war that did not have a good ending for us.

The country had gone through quite enough with Johnson, Nixon and the war and elected an honest Sunday School teacher from Plains, Georgia next time around. All he had to do was promise never to lie to us. I don't think he did.

But my youthful idealism was crushed and cynicism took over. Sure, I went on to study Political Science but not with any idea of engaging in politics but rather as preparation for law school. That didn't happen either. For years I watched my party send up liberal Democrats only to have them slapped down which only reinforced my cynicism and refusal to engage. Then, of course, came Bill Clinton who showed the Democrats the way out of the wilderness even though not a few of us weren't too excited over it.

But my affection for public affairs and political machinations stayed with me and finally I was given an opportunity to write which gave me an outlet for my thoughts and reason to stay engaged and informed. What I have learned is this. Cynicism is no substitute for positive actions. It is only an excuse to validate one's laziness and inertia and it defies the charter given to us by the founders who knew the public would have to be active for the experiment to work. Idealism should never be forgotten even if it sometimes must be tempered with judgment.

Unlike me, George McGovern never gave up. It just was not in him. He brought that same persistence and tenacity to his love of country in the same way he earned all those decorations for his service in combat. Yes, he lost an election hugely but he never fell victim to cynicism. Whatever you may think of the man you should respect him for his love of country and selfless dedication. I will remember him and the lessons he taught me fondly.

My take on a great American who gave his all to the United States. Does finding out these things change your view on anything? Let me know.

How bout dem Dawgs?

Georgia knocks No. 3 Florida from unbeaten perch


Did not see that coming.  Go Dawgs.

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he is backing Obama for re-election - NY Daily News

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he is backing Obama for re-election - NY Daily News

Here's the way you do it.

The Island Where People Forget to Die - NYTimes.com

take time to read this.  This guy's sense of style may be way off but his sense of life is right on.

Put them in jail.

Feds sue Bank of America for 'Hustle' loan fraud

I would prefer that someone would have to pull some jail time also.  That would go a long way to incentivize the barons of Wall Street into better behavior.  A huge fine is OK but the company gets to pay that.  The CEOs need to feel the pain.

Astute Assessment

I know that many of you are waiting on pins and needles for my astute assessment of tonights debates so here we go.

Foreign policy is the President's strength and his policies around the world are hard to argue with due to the success.  Obama's job was to show he had the cojones to handle foreign policy and to show that Romney does not have the the same mojo.  Romney's job was to not blow it by making some kind of bellicose statement.  On the whole I have to say that according to that metric Romney probably did a better job just because the bar was lower.  Obama had to be more aggressive and that bit him a time or two when Romney deflected his attacks by claiming that was not an agenda.

Obama was better on substance and in explaining the objectives fo his foreign policy.  Romney kind of laid back and said, "me, too.  Only I would have done it louder."  I think that worked pretty good.

On the whole, I have to give a slight edge to Romney on style.  I think he improved his position a bit, not a lot, but Obama did not do any damage to is own position.  The debate is almost a wash.  What is significant is that Romney's foreign policy team is essentially the same one that W used in the first term so we can expect that he is getting the same advice but with the caveat not to tell anyone just yet..

I really liked Ann Romney's dress.

The Prez pulls out a close one.

Mitt Romney stands his ground, Barack Obama makes up ground at Hofstra debate

In the vernacular, it was a dogfight in the second debate.  I will give the edge to the President on addressing the topics.  Romney is still speaking in generalities and can't make his proposals.  His message is "I can do this."  In all fairness, neither did a very good job of addressing the questions instead moving quickly into talking points.  On the whole I thought Obama did a pretty good job of keeping Romney on the defensive and from the strained look on Romney's face he did too.  Romney was effective in using the Benghazi episode and Obama did not refute the charges well.

On style, it was a different Obama than the one that showed up for the first debate.  This one looked like he was up to the job.  This time it was Romney that was pinned.  However, overall I would give the debate to the President 60/40.  It was not a runaway but the President did reassert himself.  He will have to be at least as good in the last debate.

Round 2

Obama Vs. Romney: The Presidential Candidates Set For Round 2 : The Two-Way : NPR

I think the best the President can hope for is to stanch the tide of movement to Romney.  It is unclear how much he can persuade undecided voters he is the better choice.  With the issues more complex than the general public likes to deal with it will be difficult to point out the nuance of his positions while the simplicity, though unsupported, of Romney's positions will be attractive.

Immediate Fix Required

For some time now we have been getting tidbits of information about the implementation of the new drug prescribing law that our lawmakers designed to alleviate the epidemic of drug addiction and abuse in our fair state. When the law was proposed it was simply stated that physicians would have to submit their prescriptions through the state monitoring system known by the acronym KASPAR which is already in use for pharmacies. I thought that requirement would not be too onerous and supported this legislation. However, as is often the case, the devil is in the details.

Regulations written to implement the legislation have produced some undesirable side effects just as some drugs do. One of the most undesirable effects places the gathering of information on drug use and abuse on the physicians themselves. Now, for the most part physicians were not favorable to the legislation due to its increased costs in time and money spent. But, it seemed reasonable. Now we find that the doctors will be required to obtain a urine sample for analysis from any person who receives a long term, defined as one lasting over 3 months, prescription for any scheduled substance. This is placing too much of the enforcement duties on the physicians and will drive their costs up to an unacceptable level. Additionally, the patient will have to bear the costs of the drug analysis which is reported to be over $500 per test. The analysis will test for proper levels of the drug prescribed and presence of any other scheduled drug. What this does is take a prescription that costs, in many cases, $10 or less and drives the cost to the consumer up to about $180 per month. That is not only unacceptable, it is ridiculous on its face. A more problematic issue is how the insurance companies will treat these tests. There are already reports of insurance companies rejecting responsibility for paying for the tests because they are not medically necessary and that is a hard point to argue against. I strongly suspect that Medicare and Medicaid will reject those costs leaving our most vulnerable in a position of being able to afford co-pays but unable to pay for the qualifying tests. It seems that when we try to pass legislation to prevent illegal activity that it is always the most vulnerable who pay the highest price.

This is what happens when you put a bunch of lawyers together to try to solve a problem. The solution is often to just try to write a law to make something illegal and then write a law to fill in the blanks. It should be recognized that perfection using an imperfect system is not an achievable goal, however, just because we can't achieve perfection should not prevent us from doing what we reasonably can.

Doctors are professionals who do not need their every move scrutinized by an agency that measures results by enforcement actions. They are at cross purposes because any agency has to prove that it is necessary and if no actions are taken then maybe it is a waste of taxpayer money. I still maintain that it is reasonable for doctors to submit prescriptions through KASPAR and expect an expeditious reply that will cause no inconvenience or harm to the patient. If the requirements of compliance are to be borne by the patient then action should be taken to remove those requirements. After all, it is not the patient who is primarily breaking the law, it is prescription abusers and doctors who write prescriptions illegally. The use of KASPAR will reveal who those miscreants are except for the ones who travel out of state to procure those drugs. In those cases not even KASPAR or any other state law will help.

Of course, we understand the desperation of the people of Kentucky to deal with the epidemic of drug abuse that our state endures. We understand that the costs to Kentucky are enormous and must be contained but to do that on the backs of those who are unable to bear the costs is just a reprehensible way to do business. Now, the Governor says the regulations are due to come under review around the first of next year but that is just not soon enough. That will leave the people of Kentucky at the mercy of inequitably applied regulations that cause them pain and suffering and even a day or a week of such treatment is too much. If you have ever known anyone who suffers from chronic pain then you know that to deprive them of the necessary medication is nothing short of torture and to do that just to try to implement a flawed law is unconscionable.

Physicians are trying to deal with this difficult issue while also attempting to deliver timely, quality health care. They are already inundated with compliance paperwork in addition to the requirements of the insurance companies. They do not deserve to have any more requirements placed on them than is necessary. Submitting prescriptions through KASPAR is requirement enough and even that should promise an answer before the patient leaves the office. This will catch all but a very small number of the illegal prescription shoppers and should be sufficient. Some doctors are already saying they will cease writing these prescriptions entirely to avoid the costs of compliance and the zeal of enforcement agencies. One can hardly blame them but I would urge them to consider the desperation of their patients and go the extra mile.

Finally, for the patients themselves. My family has a few people that have prescriptions for scheduled drugs and if those people are forced to pay the expected amount for drug testing that would effectively stop them from receiving medically necessary medication. I have seen this up close and know what deprivation of those drugs does when their disease is not treated. It is not pretty. Diseases such as these can be extremely painful and emotionally desperate and may require substantial medication. Don't put the burden on their backs. Their load is heavy enough.

NoNoNo

ESPN's Bob Knight, after past criticism, to call Kentucky action

on how may levels is this wrong.  What should anyone be subjected to this idiot's invective during a Kentucky game?  How on Earth can he be expected to be objective?

I don't know how long he has had a beef with Kentucky but I can recall Kentucky upsetting Indiana's bid for a title in 1975.  Indiana was undefeated and had beaten Kentucky handily earlier but Kentucky went on to lose to UCLA in Wooden's final game to lose the championship.  Then there is the infamous whack on the back of the head of Joe B.

I am surprised ESPN even wants this blowhard on its staff, much less on Kentucky games.  I think we should start a campaign to have him removed from any Kentucky game.  Who's with me?

The Hobbit is Coming

The Lord of the Rings Family Tree Project

For all you denizens of Middle Earth here is a help for some of those questions you may have. If you haven't read the books including The Silmarillion you may still be confused.

Pain or Gain

Western defense budget cuts may be unstoppable - US news - Security | NBC News

This is an unavoidable result of a defense budget that has been increased past the point of sustainability.  One owuld be advised to recall that it was pressure on the defense budget that led to the fall of the Soviet Union.  With a budget larger than the next 13 countries combined there are significand reductions in cost to be made.  Many industries have fed at the teat of government subsidies to produce the materiel of death.  It is all not necessary.  We can reduce a large amount without damaging our defensive posture even though we may lose some ability to force our will on the world.

The defense budget needs to be viewed as a government stimulus program that has a permanent support group.  Our allies in NATO and other countries are able to spend less on their defense programs as a result of us paying more.  Let logic prevail.

Advantage: Biden

VP Debate: Biden, Ryan at each other on everything - News - Boston.com


In a nutshell, I thought Biden did better that Ryan tonight.  I have to say that Ryan kept his composure under against an opponent determined to not let any points slip by unquestioned.  For voters in general I thing Biden was a clear victor but he may not gain ground with younger voters who are unfamiliar with the garrulous style of the Biden political era.  Strictly from a point by point view I thought Biden was effective in demonstrating the inconsistencies and unsupported claims of the Romney/Ryan ticket.

For the most part Biden was successful in reassuring the fainthearted of the Democrats that there is still some spunk in the ticket.  If civility was what you were looking for then the contest went to Ryan.  A CBS instant poll has the Veep winning 50% to 31%. 
A CNBC poll has the advantage at 4%.

Fact of the matter is that the large majority of the voters have their minds made up.  Only a few percentage points in the middle somewhere are in play and then it matters only in a few states.  A weak performance by either of the proponents in the final two debates will be very damaging.

The NPR Third-Party Candidate Debate : NPR

The NPR Third-Party Candidate Debate : NPR

perhaps you can talk about actual solutions if you have no hope of winning.  Takes the pressure off.

Heard it Before

Israeli attack on Iran this fall is no longer in the cards - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper

Looks like the Israelis have decided to take a page from the Presidents handbook.  The Irani economy is collapsing and everyone is hoping for meaningful change in Tehran.  If not, then we can always send in the bombers which is a terrible choice.

More Voting Access

Ohio Early Voting Reinstated - The Daily Beast

Makes sense to me.  We should be looking at ways to make voting more accessible rather than less.

Making Change

I went on my first Spring Break as a college Freshman in 1966. We went to Daytona and discovered, much to our surprise, that Daytona was still not hot that time of year and the ocean was cold. We moved on down the road to Fort Lauderdale where the climate and the girls were warmer. Florida was much farther away in those days due to continental drift. Now one can get there quite easily. The speed limit was 70 mph but no one paid any attention to it, much like today, only the roads were not nearly as good so 70 and above could be a little harrowing. But gasoline was cheaper by a factor of about 10 so fuel costs weren't astronomical. Of course, you could buy a small house for about $238 so perhaps the fractions are approximately equal.

That trip set off a series of Spring Break trips that I anticipated eagerly each year. The cost of gasoline rose gradually but it was still less than 75 cents per gallon so not a big deal. We had cars that would race down whatever long, reasonably straight road we could find at a speed calculated to immobilize with fear any rational human being who was not a young male. But, in 1973 all of that changed. OPEC was formed in retaliation for our support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War and immediately began to cut exports to the United States. In a short time there were hideously long lines at any service station (that was a place that sold only gas, oil, cokes and peanuts and someone would actually put the gas in your vehicle) that actually had any gasoline to sell. But the worst impact was yet to come. The federal government instituted a 55 mph speed limit on all highways that received federal funding under pain of losing those dollars. What used to be a high speed dash to the southern climes now became a trek lasting at least 2 days. Spring break was actually lengthened by an additional day to allow for sufficient travel time. The journey down the length of Georgia was so mind numbing that ardent travelers were known to resort to reading Beowulf for entertainment and that lasted for years. I am told that many Spring Breakers gave up on the effort and returned to their dormitories and sat in class with a lackluster look in their eyes until Summer break.

Which brings me to the question: is it un-American to sell our domestically produced petroleum products to the global market while wrenching $4 per gallon from American pockets for those products?

We have heard a loud uproar over the past several years about the high price of gasoline and how it is recessionary in its impact on the average consumer. A lot of people are yelling for more domestic production off our coasts, in the Arctic, in the Gulf, from Canada and from Alaska and every other place that may have enough oil to allow us to continue driving our personal transport vehicles with abandon. Fact of the matter is that we are producing plenty crude oil to serve our own domestic needs but the giant oil companies choose to sell it to the high bidder on the global market. With gasoline $10 per gallon in some parts of the world our price of $4 per gallon is a bargain. So, if you had a business selling eggs would you rather get $10 a dozen or $4 a dozen. No brainer, right? So, the question is no longer can we produce enough oil to flood ourselves once again with cheap gasoline but, rather, can we produce enough oil to flood the global markets with expensive gasoline. No brainer, right? Well, it is a no brainer to the oil companies which are floating in almost as much money as they are crude oil and are perfectly happy that way, thank you.

Couldn't we do just as well by telling the oil companies that if they pump it here they have to sell it here? Take care of your own first, so to speak. See, that's just it. These are not American companies. These are international companies and have no loyalty to the United States and the domestic market. Their loyalty is to the bottom line and the stockholder. My point is that they could drill until the cows come home and it would have at best a negligible effect on the price of gasoline.

This is the imperative that drives the debate for renewable energy sources. If we generate electricity for cars then we can't easily move it to the other side of the world. Electricity generated by a wind turbine or a solar cell can't be sold overseas. It is captive to the domestic market. Rest assured the giant oil companies are aware of this and hope to keep us distracted long enough for them to construct a business model that will allow them to capture the emerging market and assure profits. Free markets and all that. Right now BP owns the largest wind farm in Texas.

Free markets are a great tool for encouraging entrepreneurship and should not be marginalized but neither should they be relied on exclusively. Any power that is concentrated in the large corporations is power that is removed from the people. Now, that may seem a little ethereal and slightly hippie-ish but it remains the truth.

My point is simple. Let's realize we are not going to wrench enough fossil fuels from the earth to satisfy our gluttonous appetites. We can absorb enough from our habitat to provide the power we need to live comfortably and maybe even effusively. We still are unable to run airplanes and tanks on windmills and nuclear reactors but we can begin to make the change and actually like it.

A slightly different stance on my take on renewable energy sources. What is your view of our domestic energy production? Let me know.

A Slight Edge for Romney

Policy differences take center stage in first presidential debate - NBC Politics

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I thought Romney did quite well in the first debate even if many of his points left a vagueness at the end. He covered that vagueness with an air of certainty. He was aggressive and spoke well. The President did best on the social issues. Both used some creative accounting in their proposals. The only thing that we can really glean from this debate is personal characteristics. If you are a follower of the issues you know that many of the answers were insufficient.

Both candidates missed major opportunities to score points but I think that may have been out of a desire to not appear petty.

Libyan Attack: Could it have been foreseen?

House panel: Security boost denied at consulate

The Secretary of State will have to use her vaunted political skills to avoid lasting damage to her viability as a Presidential candidate going forward.  This is the kind of thing that could be laid at her door to demonstrate a lack of competence in dealing with national security.

I feel the blame would be misplaced but we are speaking of politics, after all.

Al Qaeda's Greatest Victory.

Intelligence effort named citizens, not terrorists | Politics | The Seattle Times


This is absolutely outrageous. A term that is overused and has been diminished by that abuse. But I warned of the abuse that would be perpetrated by this type of intelligence gathering and this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Patriot Act and its attendant violations of civil liberties have been the greatest victory that Al Qaeda has won. They have caused us to surrender our dear independence and liberty through intimidation and fear. Very distressing

It is just a fact of life that when license to violate privacy is granted that it will end up being abused.  It always happens.