Battling Windmills

Decorated Veteran, 90, Fights to Raise Flag in His Yard

Another story about a guy wanting to do something patriotic or sensible but being threatened with legal action by his HOA if he does. This brings up some reasonable questions.

1. Why do people buy houses managed by HOAs if they have no intention of obeying the rules that restrict the property use? I know they were informed of the rules when they moved in. The fact that there was an HOA and that HOAs are notoriously NAZI-like and un-American should have certainly been known up front.

2. Why is this news? It is not as if the HOA came into this guy's neighborhood unannounced and uninvited and proceeded to tell him to stop doing the things he has done all his life. He knew the score. Now he doesn't want to play. Boo-freaking-hoo.

3. What does his status as a MOH winner have to do with it? Does that confer on him an automatic "win" when it comes to following community rules?

4. What is wrong with HOAs that they treat their silly arbitrary rules as if they are carved in stone and handed down by God? Can't they, just this once, have a HOA meeting and CHANGE THE STUPID RULE to let one old curmudgeon have a flag pole in his front yard? They could stab him in the back later by fining him for having it flying after dark without a spot light or something stupid like that.

Just thinking.

National Health Care Takeover Update

Congress is currently debating a bill to cut 400 BILLION from Medicare. They claim that will be possible to reducing waste and abuse. This raises a few questions.

1. Since the general trend in Medicare is higher costs each year, how does congress think they will be able to accomplish paying 400 BILLION less?

2. If there is that much waste and abuse already in Medicare, Why do the government administrators who run that program stop it now, without resorting to a congressional mandate?

3. Since the same knuckle-heads who are running the program now with increasing medicare costs will still be running the show after the new bill is passed, How exactly do they expect to see any changes in costs?

There are only a few ways to guarantee lower costs:

1. Pay for less. Either pay for fewer treatments or pay lass for each treatment than the doctors are currently billing. Since Medicare already pays less than the current market rate cost of most treatments, passing the additional costs onto other insured patients, what do you think the effect of even lower medicare payments will be?

2. Additional bureaucratic hurdles for each and every claim to medicare to ensure that they are legitimate medical services. These bureaucratic hurdles are not free. They add to the cost of the system and make doctors and patients alike furious with repayment delays and noncollectable repayments. Since the existing bureaucracy is incapable of telling the difference between a legitimate claim and a fraudulent one, how exactly does this bill change that to recover these fees? The bill doesn't say. Perhaps under Obamacare, doctors and patients lose the profit motive to commit fraud because they will be so grateful to the government for taking care of them.

Just more of the same old game. Kill America by destroying it from within. How can there possibly be that many Americans who hate this country enough to vote for a liberal/progressive majority in both parties?

Obama’s War.

The President of the United States, gave a speech before the captive assembled corps of cadets at the United States Military Academy (the military is so good at photo ops). In that speech he outlines a new strategy for the war in Afghanistan.

1. Support for the National government.

2. Military operations against Al-Qaida and the Taliban.

3. Train and equip a national military and police force so that they can take over security in their own country.

4. Send 30 thousand more US troops.

That makes this “new” policy exactly like the old policy, that the US has had ever since 2002. It took Obama 10 months of dedicated, “will not rest until” research to come up with this plan. Bravo, Mr President. Way to chart your own course.

The Press is dutifully fully on board now that this is Obama’s war and Obama’s plan for victory. Even though it is the same war and the same plan that George W. Bush had and they were so much against then.

Why 30 thousand? The military commander asked for 40 thousand. Does Obama possess some special insider commander-in-chief knowledge that informs him that the military commander was padding the requirement? Does he perhaps believe that all military commanders pad their requests and it is up to politicians to impose rational fiscal restraints on them? Perhaps. My research going back as far as the war of 1861 demonstrates that all American generals believe they need more troops. Shinseki thought he needed another 200,000 for Iraq. But we won in Iraq and are now drawing down, without ever getting that many committed. A little known element of military planning is that there is no uniformly valid method of planning how many forces are needed for any particular operation. Each senior commander looks at what is available and takes as much as he can get. But if we assume that the military commander did a plan called a “troops to task” matrix to justify why he needed 40 thousand (not 30 thousand), then all of those tasks that would have been done by 10,000 extra troops are not going to get done. I can only wonder how that will affect the balance of victory.

On the importance of the Karzia government. Obama demands that the Afghan national government ends corruption and established those national institutions that will demonstrate legitimacy and accountability to the Afghan people. Military professionals have long recognized that we cannot win in Afghanistan, just as we could not win in Iraq. Winning in any counter insurgency, according to army field manuals on the subject, is mostly a function of the host nation. In other words, only the Afghans can win Afghanistan, just as only the Iraqis could win Iraq. The Afghans don’t have a stake in their government. They are a tribal culture and like it that way. There is never any chance that any national government with Western standards of corruption can emerge in Afghanistan. Therefore, by demanding it, Obama is setting the conditions, not for victory, but for defeat, and establishing his scapegoat early. He intends to blame failure on the Afghans.

On the importance of allies. Obama also indicated that he would be expecting our allies to contribute more troops also. So far, his record on getting anything favorable from foreign countries is exactly zero. Pundits are saying that the Obama administration "would like to see" about 5000 additional foreign troops. "Would like to see" is like "hope". It is not a course of action and certainly not a plan. The Obama government has not said they have directly asked any specific nation to contribute more troops and what the answer was. They are simpley hoping more show up, as if by majic. There are already about 30 thousand troops from 45 nations in Afghanistan. Many of those already there are expressing interest in withdrawing, not adding to their contingents. I expect about 50 additional troops. I think they will come from Estonia, just to piss off the Russians. they will deploy to one of the large bases where they will demand American provided premium quarters and internet access. They will bring nothing by the cloths on their backs and a change of socks and will spend all their time surfing for porn and working on their English. The allies too, are tired of a war that seems to have no purpose in a place that has no value.

How can we win in Afghanistan?

1. Redefine "winning". Establish reasonable political goals given the cultural limitations of the area and the limited willpower the American people have for continued operations in a part for the world we could give a rat’s ass about. The goal in Afghanistan should be: a limited national government that is in control of the central areas around the capital and able to interdict on a limited basis a resurgent Taliban coming back to power.

2. Permit the outlying area autonomous government, as they are going to have in any case.

3. Keep a small American military presence near the capital as a quick response force against terrorist training camps that spring up. (small being less than 5000, including the band and other support staff).

4. I happen to believe that we have already accomplished enough of our vital national interests in Afghanistan to pull out 95% of our troops now and declare victory.

5. Perhaps we can keep Afghanistan as a military reservation for the armies of the world to try out new equipment and give their troops some combat experience. Turn it into a perpetual military theme park. We could even sponsor annual tournaments. Then at least the nations involved will be competing for trophies and bragging rights, which is more than they get now.

6. When all else fails, there is still nuclear carpet bombing. Though I think we should reserve first use of this tactic for the Palestinians since they have worked so hard to merit this honor. The radical nut-case Islamic world needs to be reminded that they are not in our league. It is not safe for them to attack us on our home field. They depend on us to be civilized in our responses to their attacks. It would be healthy for world diplomacy to once in a while remind them that since the invention of the Atomic bomb, only one nation has ever used it against the population of another nation.

For the entirety of the Bush administration, America’s wars have been looked at as “Bush’s wars” and have been used to focus domestic political party interests.

Not those interests that have been against the wars are now in charge of them. The irony is sweet, unless you happen to be one of those tiny fraction of American citizens who is in Afghanistan or Iraq, knowing the guys who voted to send you there have no regard for your mission and hope you fail. These are Obama’s wars now. Not because he gave a speech at West Point, but because he gave a speech on 20 January… his inauguration. Afghanistan has been HIS war for 10 months now. The fact that he is just now endorsing the previous administration’s policy only shows his neglect of the issue, not a change in ownership. Of course, now that he has given his speech, he is free to continue ignoring this issue for several more years.

Facebook Health Insurance WIN.

Facebook spying costs Canadian woman her health benefits

Morons in the press get it wrong again.

First, reading what is openly published on the internet is not "spying".

Second, the woman in this story did not lose her health benefits. What she lost was her free ride. She expects that because she is "too depressed to work" that her health insurance company will pay her to be on permanent vacation. Forever. Her facebook postings indicated that she was fully recovered and ready to go back to work, so her FREE MONEY stopped coming in.

Now, instead of going back to work, she is suing to have her free money reinstated. Obviously, the thought of working for a living has made her depressed again. I know the feeling. It is called being an adult. If it were fun, we wouldn't call it WORK and they wouldn't have to pay us to do it.

The woman is still fully covered in her health insurance plan (CANADIAN System)so her legitimate health bills will still get paid.

Boobs are Good. Breast Cancer is Bad

Like all celebrity endorsed causes, Breast Cancer is widely known about and may now be at the point where medical diagnostics have reached diminishing returns.

According to the recommendation of a government appointed panel, the additional cost of mammograms for women under 50 is not warranted by the risk presented and, most likely, false positives will create additional unnecessary costs and health risks.

The arguments being made by the proponents of screening are illogical.

"If I hadn't had that mammogram, I wouldn't be here today."

If the argument is that “mammograms saved just one life, then it is worth it” then why wait until age 40 to start? That age was itself based on studies that showed thre was benefit to women over 40. But years of additional data, specifically studying the results of those women getting screened, now leads us to a different conclusion. Further, there are women who have been diagnosed with breast cancer in their 30’s. Shouldn’t they get screening too? And if it is good for some people, then why not make it mandatory, with hefty financial penalties for missing your appointments?

"Every single one of my patients would trade a minimal amount of anxiety for an early breast cancer diagnosis any day," she says.

…

She says she worries that insurance companies, which pay close attention to the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, might start refusing to pay for mammograms for women in their 40s based on the new guidelines.

So patients overwhelmingly will insist on mammograms, as long as someone else is paying for it. This is what the argument is really about. And it is a fruitless point.

1. Insurance companies should not be forced to pay for any medical test that is not medically warranted. There are people who would demand every exotic test under the sun, and the only thing keeping them from doing it is the personal cost.

2. Insurance companies try to cover all modern best practices. If a study shows that mammograms are pointless for women with low risk factors, there is no rational reason for them to cover them. You should expect that they would continue to cover routine screenings for women in the risk groups.

3. Insurance companies are not monolithic agents that have a one-size-fits-all policy. That is the government. Remember that in the coming months as congress tries to shove that down everyone’s throats. Private insurance companies offer variety. Customers are free to choose the options they want covered and pay for those benefits accordingly. Some policies even cover elective abortion, as we recently learned that the Republican Party staff buys for its employees.

In 20 states, insurance companies are required to pay for mammograms for women over age 40,

Yes. Government policy will still trump science on any issue that has as many celebrity endorsements as breast cancer does.

If your insurance company starts refusing to pay for mammograms, Keckley says to get your doctor on your side.
"You should make sure your physician raises hell about it," Keckley advises.

Or pay for it yourself.

It costs "$640 and up" to get a mammogram when you don't have insurance,

Where do you think insurance companies get the money to pay for your $640 annual mammogram? Here is a clue: They add it to the annual cost of your insurance premiums for every woman over 40 on their policy. Someone pays that cost. It is either you the insurance customer, or it is your employer. If it is your employer, that is part of the cost of employing you. If it costs more to employ you (wages, taxes, benefits) than you bring in, you get fired. Or the company goes out of business and everyone gets fired.

Nothing is free. Everything must be paid for. Paying for unnecessary testing is costly. Competent study has shown that annual screening for women under 50 is not worth the cost. Deal with it.

Grave Robbing

Almost every country in the world has laws against grave desecration and grave robbing. Yet many of those same countries have government officials paid to do just that. They are called Archeologists. We also see annual stories about graves of ancients that have been uncovered during routine construction, that result in the construction being halted and the graves examined by … archeologists. The graves of indigenous peoples (Indians) are so highly prized that their discovery can result in the cancelling of the construction project. Artifacts found in the grave are deemed to be the property of the tribe, Forever.

This is just insane.

In the civilized world, you can’t swing a dead cat over your head without hitting a grave from some era. The modern world has a greater right to self existence and perpetuation than the past world.

A sensible plan would be to place an age limitation of graves and property. I would say about 100 years. Graves that are continuously maintained would be exempt from this limitation. But after 100 years, it can reasonably be determined that no living person has an emotional or material interest in the grave or its contents. Maintaining the grave site would demonstrate continued material interest. Abandoned graves and their contents would become the sole property of the owners of the property where they are found, to dispose of as they see fit.

The 100 year mark serves another useful purpose. Some graves are dumping grounds for victims of violent crime. After 100 years, it can be reasonably certain that the criminal will have already died of other causes and that no living relative will maintain an emotional or financial interest in recovering the body or investigating the crime.

Archeology should no longer control the disposition of graves and ancient artifacts. Property owners should.

Typical weekend in a bad neighborhood.

This story tells us of a violent end brought to a young life in a manner that is all too common.

On a night when D.C. police were out in full force, in an area revitalized by a major shopping center, 9-year-old Oscar Fuentes was killed when a bullet came through the front door of his apartment.
...
D.C. Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier said police have no information to suggest the shooting was gang-related.

Not gang related. I am so relieved. That will help narrow the list of suspects to family members and school bullies.

Then this story yesterday shows that the killer was indeed “an associate” of the violent El Salvadorian immigrant gang MS-13. Just an associate, not a real member or anything. No reason why the gang should be held responsible and eradicated.

And now that the killer is behind bars, the city can focus its efforts on the REAL criminal: The landlord.

Officials said the apartment building where Fuentes lived had more than 100 code violations, including front and rear doors that did not lock.

"The person who has been charged with this crime ought not to have been in the building," Graham said. "These doors should have been secure, and the fact of the matter: they were not. But we are going to fix all of this. We are going to make sure that this building, from this time forward, has quality of life for the residents...."

I am shocked. A run-down apartment in the immigrant part of a slum has code violations. Are the residents of the apartment willing to pay higher rents to pay for all that maintenance? I am guessing not. And who is breaking all the doors? Again, I am guessing the residents.

In other stories, the party line is consistent. Blame the land-lord for the fact that their land is in a slum and subject to the market conditions that also exist there. If the apartment were high quality, all those (dare I say) Illegal aliens could not afford to live there. As evidence of that, I present to you the internet (where you can search for real estate listings in the DC area that do not have those problems). I personally live in Northern Virginia, in a house, where MS 13 “associates” do not cruise by looking for people to rob. I think it is safe to say that my rent is higher than that paid to live in MS-13-marked territory. My doors also lock and my front porch lights work. I am willing to pay extra for those things because I don't want my children to be shot, my wife to be raped, my dog to be fed to bigger dogs, my car to be stolen, my home to be "tagged" or any of those other things that happen every day in MS-13 land.

Other stories quote residents as saying that their apartment needs Cameras, security lighting and police. Again, more things that they are unwilling to pay for themselves. All of those things are available at Home depot (except the police). They could do the neighborhood watch thing, but they won’t. They don’t value it enough except to expect that someone else will pay for it.

Expect the apartment owner to get sued. Can’t blame the shooter, he doesn’t have any money.

Typical police behavior also. Called to respond to a gang shooting and they instead get to work finding code violations. Contrast this to how they treat illegals. They intentionally do not ask El Salvadorian immigrants their immigration status because “that would have a chilling effect on their reporting of crimes”. What do you think it does to the property owner’s desire to report crimes when she gets stuck with fines for 100 code violations?

"We are fed up," Lanier added. "With the help of the community, we are going to turn the violent, repeat offenders, bring them to justice, and put them in jail."

More typical police official talking head BS. This same “suspect” has been arrested 5 previous times, all for violent offenses, and has been released each time. Just one more reason why police departments should be forbidden by law from holding press conferences.

The mayor promised the police would stay until a broken security door is fixed,…

Wonderful.. Now only 14,999 other buildings in the DC area need a full time police officer outside. Will the police officer return after the new door is broken? I doubt that. Just another example of political showmanship.