ACA Introduction

The introduction of the Affordable Care Act certainly hasn't gone well in the early days. 

The Feds picked a clearly unqualified firm to set up and run the web site.  Knowledgeable software engineers were horrified to learn the technical design choices that they made.

After some time now, the signup process is now going much better, and the naysayers have less to complain about.  I suspect that once a large consort of people have signed up, that it will be politically impossible to repeal it.


 I think it was unfortunate that Pres. Obama made the ill-advised statement to the effect that if you have a plan, you can keep it.  Unfortunately he didn't consider the possibility that insurance companies might take the opportunity to cancel their policies, now that their employees can get coverage on their own.

The people that I have spoken to have told me that the premiums for similar coverage under ACA that they have been paying previously are not more expensive, but less.  That fact hasn't been well reported.

A Way Out?

Let me get this straight.  John Kerry tosses out a "casual" remark about securing Syria's chemical weapons as a way of forestalling a devastating but limited (Hunh?) cruise missile attack. 

Then the Russians snap it up and run with the ball.   But Syria is their long-term client state.  Where did it get its chemical weapons from in the first place?  Russia has already said that they would re-stock any weapons destroyed in an air attack.  Why not their chemical weapons too? 

Who would have thought that the Russkies would step in with a solution?  Or is it?  Aside from its perhaps being a delaying ploy to move weapons to better locations and surround them with civilians, can you imagine the logistical nightmare of trying to collect and transport deadly poisonous materials across a country torn by sectarian strife?   Some military pundit said that would take 75,000 troops.  So much for "no boots on the ground."

Stay tuned.

Syria - Not Again!

As of today, the drums of war are beating in Washington, with the world anxiously waiting to see what the US (the world's cop) will do about the latest horror in the Middle East.

Here we are many thousands of miles away, dependent on some of the countries in the area for our fuel, and those same countries aren't willing to commit their own material and personnel resources to solve the problem that will, in the end, spill over to them, too.

So we wait.

OK.  Someone in Syria launched a chemical attack.  Many people died.  But far more than that have already died by conventional attacks.  So what makes this that much worse?  It's because we have set an arbitrary line in the sand.  What if it was the rebels who did it?  What if it was a renegade element of the Syrian Armed forces?  Is this another case of cherry-picked "evidence" as we saw in Iraq?  Can we trust the government to properly evaluate the intelligence?

Why should we act in this case and not in Darfur, Congo, or dozens of other hot spots where even more people were killed by the wanton acts of a power-hungry dictator?  Doesn't acting in this case and none of the others devalue the death of the many thousands who have already died in Syria?

What is so special about chemical warfare.  Certainly the experience in WWI led to an aversion to it, and treaties to prevent its use in the future.  But the future is now, and the number of people who have been killed by chemical attack is still only a tiny fraction of those who were killed by conventional weapons.  Why the difference in how it is viewed?  Dead is dead, no matter how it happens.

I think that Obama is right in seeking political cover by putting Congress on the spot and letting the people's representatives go on record.  Look what happened in the UK.  Their parliament said "no-way".

Great Fun & Educational, Too.

A few years ago, Connie and I signed up for Fairfax County's Citizen's Police Academy.  During the nine weeks of once-a-week classes, we were exposed to many of the same 'practicals' that the recruits do.  This included driving a cruiser real fast on the closed track, firing weapons, experiencing a simulated robbery in progress, and lots more.

So when we heard that the County was going to offer the same kind of experience in their Fire & Rescue Department, we signed up.  This was the first time their Citizens Academy had been offered, so we weer the guinea pigs.  It was very well organized, and we learned a lot about the operation of the Department.

If your local County or City has such an experience, I highly recommend it for you.  You will learn so much about the operation of these professionals that you never could have imagined.  If they don't have one, you might want to suggest that they do - education of the citizens in these first responders is something that we all need to know something about.

Much ado about nothing?

As you know, there is a lot of hoopla in the press about the IRS situation and their aggressive investigation of applicants having Tea Party or Patriot in their group's names.

What surprises me about this is that no reporter has dug deeper to disclose whether this IRS practice is common when they evaluate any group seeking tax-exempt status, regardless of political affiliation.  Without that information, we have no way to know whether that is common practice, or whether those groups were singled out for special attention.

For example, how about groups with Democrat or Progressive in their names?

After all, political groups are not allowed tax-exempt status, so it seems perfectly reasonable that the IRS needs to make inquiries about their intentions, financing, etc.  If that were to happen, I suspect that we would learn that other groups were similarly quizzed.

Sequester hits home

In its usual stumbling way, Congress let the Sequester go into effect.  Naturally, some its consequences were not felt right away.  They knew that the cuts that affected those citizens with the most need wouldn't cause much of a stir because they have very little clout in Congress.

But then, the FAA cuts took effect and all of a sudden, the well-heeled travelers, such as Senators and Congressmen commuting from National Airport, had to wait in line like the rest of the salarymen.  Thatt was unacceptable. 

We all saw how quickly an exception for controllers was carved out.  Then there was the meat cutters - none of us wants to buy a chunk of beef where we count on the cleanliness of the free-market, unsupervised meat purveyors.  Give them an exception.  Who's next?

I have a dream of attending a session of Congress in the peanut gallery, and with like-minded fellow citizens, standing up and shouting "SHAME ON YOU."

Volunteering

My wife Connie and I have been volunteering in a number of different venues for some years now.  Many people have a restricted view of what happens in a volunteer position, believing that it consists mostly of low-skill administrative tasks - filing forms, and so on.

We have volunteered at Dulles Airport's Information Desk which gives one exposure to people from around the world, answering their questions, helping them get from one place to another, meet their relatives, and so on.

Currently, we volunteer at Great Falls Park, part of the National Park Service.  Again, there are people from other countries who are eager to learn about that beautiful place on the Potomac River.  It's fun to try to communicate with them in the smattering of languages that we know.  Taking hikes on the park grounds, helping lost visitors and explaining park history is also great fun.

I volunteer with the local police department, filming their recruit classes, and then preparing a video that shows the successes and embarrassments of their multi-month program.

In an earlier posting, I described my efforts with the National Honor Flight network that brings WWII vets to the National WWII memorial here in Washington D.C.  Now, that's something that is truly worthwhile and an honor to meet those vets and interview them.

So.  Why don't you consider calling a museum, park, airport or other public place in your area that uses volunteers.  They will teach you what you need to know, and I believe that you will find it fun and rewarding.

Citizenship Redux

Isn't it interesting that soon after the Republicans took a pounding in the 2012 election from non-white immigrants, that the issue of providing a "path to citizenship" is back on the table.

I predict that both Dems and Republicans will sign on to any measure that increases the pool of their potential voters.  So the end result might be that neither side benefits.  Even though some voters may be taken in for a while by the Republican's support of a citizenship measure, eventually, they will be seen as the same white man's party that they have been in recent memory.

There is an interesting aspect of the current proposed legislation that I wonder about.  I think we can all agree that any person born here can automatically be a citizen if they wish.  Those minors who were brought here by their parents who crossed the border illegally are a grey case.  Perhaps they could be given citizenship under certain conditions. 

The case that I puzzle about the most is those adults who immigrated illegally.  Why should they be allowed to become citizens under any arrangement?  Why not restrict them to permanent residence, like so many others with "green cards."  Why should they have the same outcome, including the right to vote, as someone who waited the requisite time and followed all the rules?  I think not.