Friday, November 01, 2013

OBAMACARE: "... and if you don't believe it's all Bush's fault .. OBAMA (doesn't) CARE!"

Money Morning:
"Despite promises that the law will lower costs, [Obamacare] will in fact cause the premiums of many Americans to spike substantially," a report released by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce concluded. "The broken promises are numerous, and the data reveals that many Americans, from recent college graduates to older adults, will not be able to afford the law's higher costs.
The report is based on responses from 17 insurance companies to a letter from Congress asking them to estimate the effects Obamacare would have on premiums and found that individuals in about 90% of all states would likely face "significant premium increases." Furthermore, the committee found that some individuals may see premium increases up to 413%. 
Editor's Note: How much extra will you have to pay? ...... On top of higher premiums, Obamacare will create no fewer than twenty new taxes or tax hikes on the American people. Most of the new taxes go into effect January 1, 2014, but they are already infuriating millions of Americans. 
 The Obama administration has even given the IRS an extra $500 million to enforce the rules and regulations of Obamacare.
 (emphasis added)

See?  What I said!

You're screwed, blewed and tattooed.  Don't like it?  Tough!  The New President CAN and WILL enforce his unconstitutional regulations which FORCE you to buy his snake oil.

Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated!

Is it all still "W", all the time?

Sebelius suggests Republicans to blame for ObamaCare website woes | Fox News:
Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius took a swipe Friday at those calling for her to resign over the botched ObamaCare website rollout, suggesting that Republican efforts to delay and defund the law contributed to's glitch-ridden debut. 
 During a visit to a community health center in Austin, Sebelius conceded that there wasn't enough testing done on the website, but added that her department had little flexibility to postpone the launch against the backdrop of Washington's unforgiving politics. 
 "In an ideal world there would have been a lot more testing, but we did not have the luxury of that. And the law said the go-time was Oct. 1," she said. "And frankly, a political atmosphere where the majority party, at least in the House, was determined to stop this anyway they possibly could ... was not an ideal atmosphere."

Yes, according to the House of Representatives "History, Art and Archives", the Republicans do control the House of Representatives this year (234/201 out of 435 representatives).

And because the House controls the purse-strings, it has more power in terms of MONEY than the senate.

Note that the Senate elects only two Senators to represent each state: that's why we have 100 senators.

But the Representatives are elected by each DISTRICT within the state.

Funny thing about the difference between Senatorial and Representative votes:  in a given state, the Senators are elected by the majority vote within the state.  That means that the population centers (in Oregon, the free-loaders in Portland/Multomah County .. not to say that all the people living there but MOST of the people living there) get to choose their Senators.

ALMOST every where else in the state or, say, OREGON .. well, this is a bunch of farmers who don't know any better, so they elect Republican Representatives.  Even in population centers, they tend to choose Democratic Representatives who actually listen to the Will Of The People.

So, while Senators tend to cater to Big City Folks, Representatives tend to  represent Grass Roots folks.

That's why our Founding Fathers set up this bicameral system.  They didn't want the Farmers to be outvoted by the Freeloaders, on wellfare.
(yes, I'm aware that I've just insulted a majority of my fellow Oregonians.  I can live with that.)

So: Kathleen Sebelius is protesting (weakly, not from a position of strength). that:
" ... a political atmosphere where the majority party, at least in the House, was determined to stop this anyway they possibly could ... was not an ideal atmosphere. "

Oh, I don't know about that.  It depends on what your definition of "IDEAL", is.

For the Liberal Democrat Sebelius, an "Ideal Atmosphere" is a situation where the Legislative Branch of the Government rubber-stamps the Executive branch.   She's seriously pissed, because "people" (read: "PEONS") who are not professional politicians, have expressed their will to not support the will of Their President ("Executive Branch").

Certainly, not an "Ideal Atmosphere" from her point of view.  After all, didn't she already accept responsibility for the failure of the ObamaCare Website?  How DARE the lowly "people" differ with her lofty Liberal position?

Did she not assume a sufficiently demure position?    She SAID she was "sorry" the website didn't work, and there was the odd Senator or two who suggested that "we have to pass the bill, before we know what's in it".  What more do the hoi poloi want?


Okay, let's look at the recent plethora of news stories which suggest that the Obamacare System can't even get people to register for the plan.
No, let's look at the stories which state clearly that the Obamacare System is too expensive for many Americans to afford.   More expensive than the plans they already have, but those plans aren't 'acceptable' to ObamaCare because the new insurance doesn't allow you to tailor your Insurance to our needs.
 No, let's consider that ObamaCare offers the Best, at the expense of the Good Enough.

No,  let's look at the stories which reveal that Obama Lied about "If you like your doctor/insurance policy, you can keep them".

No ... you've all heard these stories, and I'm not going to link to them.  Do your own damned Google Search.

Kathy is royally pissed because Republicans in the House are presenting roadblocks which cause both she and Obama to trip over their mutually non-existant Dicks on the road to full congressional acceptance of ObamaCare.  She thinks they're Bad boys, these Republican  iconoclasts who defy the will of Their Lord and Savior, B. Obama!

(... and their Goddess Kathleen Sebelius, for that matter!_

Unfortunately, both Sebelius and Obama have lost tract of one simple fact:  they are not Royalty.

In fact, they are Servants of The People.  As such, they are subject to the will of The People whom they represent.

And The People are pissed!

Among all the ills of ObamaCare, they ignore the fact that signing up for Their Plan is not only awkward, but costly.  Most people who have succumbed to their sweet melody and discovering that they are not paying less, but more, than their current plans.

And they can't keep their chosen Health Plans, which exposes the LIES of Obama.

For example, if you're a young male petitioner, you have to accept a Health Plan which provides both Natal and Abortion clauses.  Are you expecting to need an abortion?  Doesn't matter; you have to have it .. and pay for it.

A Perfect Health Plan for an Imperfect People.  And if you don't sign up for it? 
"I'll Kick Your Ass!"

So, Kathy is pissed because those Nasty Republicans (those few who still have the cajones to do so) are fighting against Presidential Edict?

My Dear, that's the best news I've heard all day!

Welcome to The Republic of America

LAX ... the new "Going Postal"?

TSA employee dead, at least 6 injured in LAX shooting; gunman wounded and in custody, officials say | Fox News:
A gunman with an assault rifle opened fire in a crowded terminal at Los Angeles International Airport Friday, killing a TSA employee and injuring at least six before being wounded and taken into custody. 
The suspect was identified by federal authorities late Friday as Paul Ciancia, 23, a Los Angeles resident, Fox News reported. 
The FBI said it had not interviewed him because he was hospitalized but expected to speak to him as soon as possible. A note was recovered from a bag he dropped at a security checkpoint. It was described to Fox News as containing threatening language directed at the TSA and anti-government rants. 
 Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti said the gunman had an additional 100 rounds of ammunition he did not fire.
I've been listening to radio reports since an hour after this started, and as of this time (8:30pm, Pacific time) the reports are still full of  disinformation" and confusing.

The best information I have now indicates several salient "facts" (which are not confirmed):
  • at least 7 people were shot, at least 6 were hospitalized
  • at least one person, a TSA employee , was shot and killed
  • the attack was initiated and conducted by a single Caucasian male, who has been identified
  • the shooter use an m-15 type rifle, which has been described as an "Assault Rifle" in all news reports and police statements so far
  • the attack was initiated outside the "Security Area" .. which means he broke THROUGH the Security perimeter and then attacked other people inside the airport
  • the attack was "opposed" by "TSA" officers and police officers
  • the attacker was shot and wounded, and the last reports indicate that he did not die as a result of his wounds but is now "in custody"

There are a few things which have NOT been yet officially confirmed:
  • The attacker was a TSA officer
  • He carried upon his person a "letter" which said, in effect, that he wanted to kill TSA officers, and "cops"
  • The weapon he used was an AR15 or similar weapon.  No information is yet available to determine whether it was semi- or full-automatic capable.  For those of us who care about the definition of "Assault Rifle" ... if it was not full-auto capable, it was not technically an "Assault Rifle"
Positing that all of the "facts" are true, and that at lease some of the 'unconfirmed statements' are true, there are a few conclusions which are, at least tentatively, suggested:

This was NOT an "Islamic Jihad" attack, but rather it was a case of "Going Postal".  You may recall news reports of years ago where an US Postal Service or three attacked and killed several co-workers.  We're still not entirely clear on their motivation, but it seemed at the time to be a combination of job dissatisfaction and an inability to abide the personal "quirks" of co-workers.  Hence the term.

We're not prepared to state that this "Incident" was, in fact, directly comparable.   However, at this time we have no information to suggest the the motivation was politically, racially,  religiously, or culturally motivated.

Conspiracy Theory Alert!

Unless someone is doing a really sterling spin-factor job in the very earliest moments of the after-shock, and given the confusion of these "early days" reporting by the oh-so-reliable MSM  (I"m basing most of my reportage on the Lars Larson show and his live connections to on-the-scene reporters who are personally known by him),  this looks very much like a nut-job shooting by a disgruntled employee.

He knew JUST how far he could get with a rifle-in-a-bag approach.

When he disposed of all security personell at one station, he quietly marched to the next station and attacked the people there.

This suggests "insider knowledge" of the security apparatus.

He probably knew that police and TSA personnel would react quickly, and was not dissuaded; this suggests that these were his primary targets.  We don't  yet know how many "Civilians" were wounded in the attack,  and at this time it's impossible to determine whether his intention was to massacre as many people  ("targets of opportunity?") as possible, or if he was goading security personnel.

All we know for sure is that this person ... this "Bad Man" ... shot up a major American airport, and his motivation is still conjectural .. at best.

Also, if his goal was to totally screw up air traffic in the United States during the reaction to his assault?  He has accomplished his goal.

I seem to recall some commentary about the "Red Army" (I probably have the nomenclature wrong) training for JUST such an "incident" a few decades ago.

This is a good time for a pithy summary ... but I don't have one to offer.  I don't know as much as many of you probably know.

Until we all have more information, we can only conclude one thing:  this was the consequence of one young man's overwhelming rage.  And we still don't know why.

One is tempted to ascribe motives, due to our "civilized" need to understand aberent behavior. 

Let's just call him  "Crazy" for now.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Have a Belt?

Better Fit Equals Better Performance | Shooting Wire:
If you're one of the increasing number of Americans choosing to exercise your right to concealed-carry, you know a number of issues seem to work against "comfort" with your "comforting" sidearm. Several ingenious new holster designs have helped, but the belt is always a hassle. Regular belts just don't cut it. Rigidity and strength just aren't there. And the alternatives are the shooting world's equivalent of sensible shoes. Wider, heaver and designed to carry heavy loads, they don't fit every size belt loop. And if something isn't comfortable, you'll find reasons not to carry it. More than one person reading right now knows exactly what I'm talking about.
This "Shooting Wire" primary article spends exactly enough time talking about an issue which has bugged me for years:   Belts!

I know that the "Equipment Race" has been a big issue for years (decades) in IPSC/USPSA competition, but there has been very little attention paid to the question:  what is a legal belt?

According to the 2010 USPSA Rule Book (which here closely mirrors the IPSC rule book .. which seems reasonable), Rule 5.2.3:

5.2.3 Unless otherwise specified in the written stage briefing, the belt carry-
ing the holster and all allied equipment must be worn at waist level.
The belt or the inner belt or both must be either securely fixed at the
waist, or secured with a minimum of three belt loops. Female competitors may be permitted (if so authorized in
Appendix D) to wear a belt, holster and allied equipment at hip
level, however, the top of the belt must not be positioned below
the furthest lateral point of the top of the femur (tuberosity
This is, perhaps, the most frequently violated rule (and most often ignored by match officials) in the entire IPSC/USPSA community.

As a Range Officer and as a competitor, I've seen far too many competitors during the summer months wearing gym shorts with absolutely NO belt loops or other support for equipment belts .. except for the greater girth of the hips (or more often, belly) than the waist or the trouser belts.

As a trainer, I've seen far too many 'students of the gun' who are ignorant of the need to support the holster and other gun gear; they wear belts which are appropriate to suits more often than to hold two to five pounds of pistol and accoutrements in such a manner that they can reliably draw either a pistol or a reload magazine without fumbling.

When I tell them that a 1" belt is inappropriate AND inadequate, I usually get an "uh huh" nod, and then they ignore me.

Most of these people never show up at their Certification Match.  Those few who do?  The field is split; either they are unsatisfied with the experience and never come back, or they (a very few) go get a big ugly load-bearing belt and get serious about what they are doing.

For me, it makes no great matter.  But I wonder sometimes whether their decision to discontinue competition is due to their chagrin, or their reluctance to admit that their judgement is faulty.

In the long run, it doesn't much matter.  If they are unwilling to listen to Good Advice, they are much better off by quitting the sport.

They don't have to admit that they are in error, and those of us who would otherwise squad with them are spared the embarrassment of watching them struggle to draw a big pistol from an inadequately supported holster.

Ultimately, the sport is better served by the voluntary resignation of those who will not listen to the voice of experience.