Rant On Military Political Correctness

I've got to stop reading that military.com stuff...since these articles are very bad for the blood pressure. Just deleted their latest email without reading and will soon unsubscribe. Fully expect to shortly see an announcement for a third-track U.S. Navy advancement system under a “Homosexual Awareness & Support Program.” Hell –– I say advance ‘em all on a promotional fast-track. You’ve got to get the homosexuals in khakis anyway, since its said they refuse wear white after Labor Day. Just read yesterday that the first contingent of female submariners has been selected, prospective boat supply officers in the first group I think. Probably safe –– can’t remember a single noteworthy event from any supply officer I ever sailed with –– except that patrol where we went to sea stocked with only steak in the meat locker (still don’t eat steak even to this day).

This female submarine sailor experiment, while so politically correct, is going to fun to watch. Green zone, yellow zone, red zone touching lectures will of course be held on a mandatory frequent basis. Standby for heavy rolls takes on a whole new defination. How do naval crews presently handle celebratory events where significant lines of latitude & longitude are crossed? I know the new-age CPO initiations have been cleaned-up to the point of being an essential non-event. These are, of course, trivial examples of the more evident issues relating to disciplined close-contact sailing. Ever wonder how truthful the Navy will be on disclosing personnel problems related to mixed-gender submariners –– you know –– sex, sexual harassment, pregnancy, boy-girl natural tensions, those predictable love-triangles, etc., and those POed spouses calling the XO or base chaplain when the very foreseeable boy-girl connections occur in isolated duty (can't even think about that boy-boy & girl-girl cluster thing). Been through this kind of thing in the late 70’s & early 80’s as a unit XO & CO -- and that's a hell-of-a-price for being stylish. Was the negative “Love Boat” press waffling from the USS Acadia (AD-42), USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), et al –– just figments of the imagination? My gosh –– put relatively young men and women together in close quarters –– and in isolated duty on ships or stations –– and what should be obvious to naval leadership WILL happen. Sweep it under those green carpets –– don’t capture the data –– this morale damaging conduct shall be held secret –– military leadership can’t be held responsibe for an anomaly where they claim no statistical data is captured. Those three monkeys, hear no evil, see no evil & speak no evil come to mind. What can this present crop of politically correct U.S. Navy four-star admirals be thinking? Can they really think these “progressive changes” will make our American military more ready and more capable in a future fight? There has always been an honored place for Pride & Tradition in the U. S. Navy ... a point that today seems lost with current top naval leadership. Can that fourth star really be worth what you have predictably sired?

No question I’m a dinosaur submariner without new age gender-neutral social skills. And an unabashed advocate from the “Dirty Harry” school of hard knocks -- "If she wants to play lumberjack, she's gonna have to learn to handle her end of the log." But those 4-star Pentagon men might have unintentionally discovered the real truth for submarine manpower billeting. Perhaps there are too many men in those all male crews. Some serious number crunchers a whole lot smarter than our senior flag officers might better propose a reduced manpower plan aboard all our boats. Now such plans make better financial sense… and might actually increase skill, productivity, and safety coupled with reduced crew risk. P.S. An old article worth re-reading: Click here to view it.

P.P.S. Or the sadly humorous article & comments at: click here for an informed smile.

Open Communication To News Media

Arlington National Cemetery

The below email was sent because FOX News, and indeed most other broadcast media, seem to think that Memorial Day somehow honors living military personnel. Evidence is simple to see in the tone and content of their reporting on Memorial Day. Furthermore, Memorial Day also does NOT honor the service of Firemen, Policeman, and other such public protectors. Those public protectors who have died on-the-job should be certainly honored by a thankful public, but not by ceremony on Memorial Day. Political, fraternal and veteran jurisdictions should pick some other day to honor fallen public guardians who are not military war veterans. Memorial Day honors deceased military War Veterans... period!

-----Original Message -----
From: DJ
To: Friends@foxnews.com
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 8:19 AM
Subject: Misguided...

The purpose of Memorial Day is to honor those Killed-In-Action, wounded and later died from those wounds, those who died in undeclared wars, and generally all deceased war veterans. Formerly known as "Decoration Day", the stated objective is to honor all deceased war veterans. Many people seem to be confusing Memorial Day with Armed Forces Day and Veteran's Day. Memorial Day does not honor living former or current military personnel... it is they who should be joining with all Americans in those many ceremonies and parades to express public honor for their brethren war-veteran dead. Please Click HERE for more information.

A Followup Letter to Congressman Arcuri

Dear Representative Mike Arcuri:

Just a quick note to say thanks.
Your honorable commitment to vote NO on the US Senate bill on health-care was a bold act in the face of what appears to have been very strong pressure from your political party leadership. I must admit to being pleasantly surprised by your action, and I now hold a new view of Mike Arcuri… a man of his word. You publicly stated your intention to vote against the U.S. Senate “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) more than two weeks before the actual vote, citing various problems in that legislation. Your solid position regarding a more incremental approach to national health-care reform is a far more sound approach to health care.

I've read most of the "Utica Observer-Dispatch letters-to-the-editor" regarding your vote on health-care -- some being very negative. And what I read is little more than the typical "progressive" whining by a vocal minority. But as a Libertarian (and registered Republican), I'll be giving Mike Arcuri a second look in November. Thank you again for your statement on the direction of national heath-care reform, and for that great "profile-in-courage" example.

Sincerely,

DJ Paul
Mohawk, NY

Open Letter To Congressman Mike Arcuri

Click post title to see one view comparing various heath care bills

Friday, March 05, 2010

Dear Congressman Mike Arcuri:

Yes, the health care bill has been read. I strongly urge your no vote on current attempts by House leadership to rubber stamp the U.S. Senate version of the health care bill (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – aka PPACA). I’ll cite just a few serious issues with the senate bill:

1. The bill’s $871 billion cost is false and grossly understated for many reasons. The necessary quarter trillion dollar Medicare “doctor fix” – clearly part of any health care reform – was striped from the related bills very early in the legislative process. Those quarter trillion dollars will be simply added to the deficit under present direction. This is an obvious under handed legislative maneuver to bring health care proposals under a phony one trillion dollar target. Further, the proposed half trillion-dollar cut to Medicare is allegedly arrived at mainly through waste, fraud & abuse detection and enforcement. This is a dream that simply does not work in large state & federal programs. Simply look at the USPS, the Social Security System, and large regulatory agencies (e.g., HEW, EPA, etc.). I challenge you to cite one federal program where “savings” of that magnitude are realized via waste, fraud and abuse action.

2. The kickbacks afforded to senators from Louisiana and Nebraska – to plainly buy their health care yes votes – coupled with the obvious White House back room political dealing is unconscionable. Ask yourself, what is it in PPACA that made necessary those special deals for Louisiana and Nebraska? According to Mayor Bloomberg and the Governor, New York State taxpayers will be negatively impacted annually by billions of dollars in lost federal Medicaid support without similar PPACA provisions for New York State. Please focus on paragraphs 3 - 6 of this link ( click here ) citing the problems PPACA hoists on New York State.

3. Please refer to PPACA pages 2069 – 2078. Obviously, the language relating to provisions for federal support of “reproductive services” includes federal subsidies for abortion. How does a practicing Roman Catholic Christian vote for this bill? Please refer to the official policy statements of the Church from the Pope and the legitimate Catholic clergy for guidance.

4. The entire health care debate over this past year has been strongly unseemly. What is it that Democrat politicians find objectionable with federal legalization of authority to purchase private health care insurance across state lines? More health care insurance choices will naturally drive down private insurance costs through free enterprise competition. And what is it the congress finds objectionable with meaningful -- non-pilot -- health care tort reform? Skyrocketing malpractice insurance expense and preposterous court judgments that cost good medical professionals (and their malpractice insurers) too much are a real and present problem. As a simple self defense mechanism, rational hospital administrators and doctors are logically required to order patient medical tests far beyond those required. Last year Bassett Hospital Healthcare billed lab tests to Medicare totaling about $700.00 following my annual physical. My Primary Care Provider ordered these tests as part of a physical, my first annual physical under Medicare. I was not aware that these self-defense tests were conducted until the after the bill was received. Thank God, I’m a healthy man. What is Medicare billed for similar self defense tests conducted during an unhealthy person’s Medicare-backed annual physical? Any true health care reform must include tort reform provisions to better control unnecessary self-defense laboratory testing by medical professionals.

Thanks for your attention.

Sincerely,

David J Paul

Footnote: For source click here

Congressman Arcuri's votes with both Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi and with the admonished and allegedly corrupt Congressman Charles Rangle 95% of the time.

NY-24 voters should be concerned that Mr. Arcuri’s heath care vote will be in lock step with his Democrat leadership. Please communicate with Mr. Arcuri to encourage his independence.

Three Great American Crows

There was some fairly unusual weather here yesterday in Upstate New York. Temperatures rose to fifty-degrees Fahrenheit. It rained heavily at times throughout most of the morning, and then well into the afternoon. Some large and fairly deep puddles appeared along the edge of our driveway. I just happened to be looking outside in late morning when our three American Crows were observed flying in near the front driveway area. It almost seemed as though they waited to make sure I was watching.

The crows each took their turn enjoying rather long -- five minutes baths. Ice water didn’t seem to bother those crows. They waded into the large deep puddles, flapping their wings and shaking their bodies. At times they would dunk their heads into the ice water for a few seconds... then pull their head out of the water to shake off. Their behavior was kind of amazing. Just one crow would bathe while the other two looked on, as if the two non-bathers were standing guard. Said it before and I’ll say it again, there is some real intelligence in our old American Crows. One crow even returned to enjoy a second bath.

I’ve written about our three American Crows before. We’ve named these black-beauties Moe, Molly and Curly. Outside observers might say... they can’t be the same birds you noticed over the past five years. But I’m here to verify they are the same birds. Our property is their property, and they seem to know this. In winter, our birds are fed each morning within an hour or so of sunrise. We expect to use between 300-to-400 pounds of various wild birdseed and perhaps thirty-pounds of suet this winter. Common visitors in January 2010 include:

· Three-dozen Mourning Doves,
· Twenty-Five Blue Jays,
· Many Sparrows (several species),
· Many Black-Capped Chickadees
· Several Tufted Titmice,
· Many Finches,
· Several Dark-Eyed Juncos,
· One or two pairs of Northern Cardinals,
· A few Downy Woodpeckers,
· A couple of White-Breasted Nuthatch,
· Two or three Cooper’s Hawks.



The Cooper’s Hawks are typically seen perched in trees around the general population feeding area -- not everyday -- more like a couple of times a week. The hawks are fun to view in flight. But hawks are unwelcome visitors when perched in trees surrounding our feeding area. This is their way of stealth hunting -- waiting -- perhaps for one of the lesser intelligent Mourning Doves to slip-up and become the predator’s next meal. Bird kills only happened a couple of times this season. It is not our intention to provide backyard smorgasbords for hungry hawks. We understand too that hawks must eat to survive. However, all non-violent efforts are made here to see that they fly off somewhere else to find that next feathered meal. Thankfully, it seems our American Crows will not tolerate these hawk visits to their property. Crows seem to hold a deep hatred for hawks -- even to the point where they stop feeding for awhile -- taking time to drive hawks from their territory. Kind of amazing to see our hungry crows forgo food, choosing rather to drive those predators away from their lands. And while our American Crows perform this "mobbing" service to the greater ornithology community, the smaller birds continue to feed on the recent seed offerings. Moe, Molly and Curly are actually unknown friends of the smaller bird population -- jet black protectors of their property -- and to the smaller bird community who reside here in an uneasy coexistence.

Updated For 2011...Just Thinking

Saved 30 bucks on postage and 50 bucks on cards over three years... made the attached GREETING for less than a 5'er.





Have A Very Merry Christmas!

~~~ And ~~~

A HAPPY & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR IN 2012!

Reality Of Health Care Legislation-H.R. 3200

(Click here to view Adobe PDF document House Health Care Bill-H.R.3200)

Yesterday, President Obama stated in a New Hampshire town meeting that he does not support a “single-pay” government controlled health care system. "Single-pay" is a health care system similar to the present British and Canadian health program. And the very necessary follow-up question was missing-in-action. Mr. President, does that mean that you would veto a congressional bill that establishes the framework for a “single-pay” healthcare system? Obama is not currently the most important person framing heath care legislation and the resulting debate. Rather, the Democrat-controlled committee staffers and the Congressional committee system membership authored this bill. Specifically, Members of Congress Mr. Dingell, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Miller of California, Mr. Stark, Mr. Pallome, and Mr. Andrews are the current sponsors and Ms. Pelosi is in the cat-bird seat regarding H.R. 3200––e.g., “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”. The text of this bill can certainly provide citizen readers with the message of what congress is trying to do; and whither they tend. And many alarm bells are loudly ringing.

Liberal critics of those citizens presently asking tough questions about Congressional activities on health care propose that we may not know what we are talking about. They suggest that there are several House bills pending in various development stages and that none of these have been brought before the full House for approval. Also noted is the fact that the Senate has not yet acted on health care legislation. This is all true. For goodness sake it is elementary––and it is in the U.S. Constitution––all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives. The House typically and significantly amends important legislative bills before the Senate acts on them. And the Senate will certainly approve a different set of amendments. Then a conference committee of Senators and Representatives will form and meet to iron out and resolve the legislative differences between the House and Senate versions. But a person of average intelligence can take a bill, read it, and determine the sense of Congress--and conclude if something fishy is underway. Indeed––this is what many middle-American citizens are now doing countywide––many are asking deep, considered, and legitimate questions about the general congressional plan on health care. Organized rebellion is the surest way to inform and communicate to federal officeholders who––after all––were elected to represent us in this republic. By the time a health care bill reaches the certain legislative conference committee, it may be too late for public input.

Be advised that I believe the whole truth is not presently being pitched by the federal administration or by the opposition "that great right wing" (Rush, Hannity, et.al.). Unlike many congressmen, I have attempted to read the proposed health-care act…and I’ve concluded that honest attempts by citizens to read the 1017-page bill will not in itself provide necessary comprehension to understand the proposal’s full impact––much less to vote on it. It is a cheap shot by some to say to members of congress..."you have not even read the bill"...and a cheap shot even if true. I submit that H.R. 3200 cannot be read and understood as a standalone document, since nearly every page in every section references some other prior act of congress, existing law, procedure, ruling, practice, or section governing conduct of various federal agencies, or the greater health-care administrative bureaucracy––including, but not limited to, the Internal Revenue Code. Citizens need to be well informed in the majority of existing federal health-care law, agency policy and procedures to accurately gage the bill’s real impact. This proposal appears to be a massive and shameful legislative collage of techno-speak... there is no way our elected representatives can grasp the full impact without a lengthy brief––or some other kind of detailed primer. The present congress is really scaring me––due mainly to what many reputable economists view as the unknowable financial macro-economy burden of the proposed health-care bill H.R. 32oo––a.k.a., “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” Here is but one glaring example of the nonsense buried in this bill––please refer to page 203, line 13-18, where it is written:
“4) NOT TREATED AS TAX IMPOSED BY THIS CHAPTER FOR CERTAIN PURPOSES. —The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55.”
Please tell me with a straight face that this paragraph is both logical and honest. Members of Congress need to act either individually or in some coalition of members to rewrite the proposed bill…and remove it from the present inept committee system responsible for a hideous and apparent anti-capitalist creation.

Many concerned Americans would strongly appreciate the appointment of a truly independent "blue ribbon" commission comprised of respected non-politician medical experts, health insurance experts, and economic experts to meet, analyze, and comment on the validity of congressional bills like H.R. 3200-"America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009"––and on President Obama's overall health care initiative. Their written product should be about 25-pages in length, written in plain language, such that the panel’s opinion can be read and understood by average Americans within a couple of days. I call on the administration to stop the jive and authorize production of such a “white paper” for better understanding and citizen benefit.

Don't what to tick off Liberals, sooooooooooo.... For moderate Republican, Democrat and Independent Citizens Only Click HERE to view an "Analysis of the July 15 draft of The American Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009" by the Levin Group (Adobe pdf).