What did they expect?

I guess Arizona has really stirred up a hornet's nest with its new law aimed at stemming the ridiculous, unsustainable flood of illegal immigrants into America. The r-word (invoked to shut down all discussion of the subject) is flying fast and furiously by opponents of the law. Threats of lawsuits are in the air and the rhetoric is ratcheting upwards.

Good. It's about time some state forced the issue of illegal immigration 'cause the FedGov sure ain't about to do more than posture about it, if that. As I understand it, California is the state that suffers most from the illegal infestation problem, yet they're too self-doubting and pansy-like to do a da*n thing about it. Enter Arizona, a state with some stones.

Well, what did the FedGov, et. al., expect? If big G isn't getting it done (it being protecting the borders from illegal invaders), and they aren't, then I guess someone a little closer to the problem, and with a bit more of a vested interest in solving it, will have to take care of it.

The FedGov doesn't like to be shown up by what it considers its underlings, namely, the states. No, that might undermine its carefully crafted, and thoroughly fallacious, image of omnipotence. But what are states to do if they are being directly injured and DC does nothing?

I understand the concern with AZ police possibly abusing their power, and that is a legitimate concern. But look at what entity brought it to this point by shirking its duty to protect the borders of its own country, while expending massive amounts of money halfway around the world in what will ultimately prove to be a futile attempt to civilize the uncivilizable: the FedGov. Had the FedGov taken care of the problem, Arizona wouldn't have had to come up with its own solution.

Take care.
DAL357

The .380 rehabilitated

Perhaps you find it as amusing as I do that over the last couple of years or so, the .380 ACP, or .380 Auto, if you prefer, has somehow become the rediscovered darling of the concealed carry world. Prior to that, it was always viewed, at least for the last couple of generations, as a pipsqueak round best relegated to last-ditch or back-up-gun work. Lately, however, it seems to be accepted as a serious contender for self-defense consideration. Has it suddenly become a much better cartridge? Or does its new patina of respectability have to do with advertising revenue? (Such a cynic I am.)

I'm not going to go into the statistics on one-shot stops with the .380 because there are far too many variables to take that data at face value, such as bullet placement, mindset of the shootee, etc. But I have heard a certain person, a person whom I enjoy listening to on MP3, state in the past that the .38 Spl. and 9mm are the absolute minimum for defensive calibers. Now, he's apparently changed his mind and accepted the .380 as the new minimum although, in fairness to him, he doesn't seem to support it with much enthusiasm.

Oh well. I guess having a gun, any gun, if/when one needs one is the most important thing, along with knowing how to shoot it accurately under stress of course. I just found the flip-flop on the .380 round curious.

Take care.
DAL357

Dinner's cold, where have you been?

One of the most ironic ideas I’ve heard over the last six months is that President Obama is swinging this country towards socialism. I’ve actually read more than one story where people are hopping mad because they believe Obama is taking America from freedom to socialism in one fell swoop. I’d just like to ask these people where they have been. You don’t go from freedom to socialism (fascism is actually closer to the mark, but I digress) without either one of the following two conditions being met: brute force, as from an invading army (or a domestic army/government gone bad); or because your country has been heading that way for a while anyway. America falls under the second condition, and it has for the last century +.

The Johnny-come-latelys to the (correct) notion that America is already far down the path towards socialism belie their own ignorance every time they open their mouths to blame Obama for our present course. While they are spot on in their assessment of the current President’s intentions, a Barack Obama could not have been elected without the gradual acceptance over the generations that government should insinuate itself more and more into virtually every aspect of the daily lives of Americans because it somehow knows best.

The Tea Party movement was a great display of (some) Americans waking from their decades-long slumber, but it is doomed to failure, ultimately, because it has no real philosophical underpinnings, at least none that I’m aware of. To make it a lasting force to be reckoned with would require it to transcend the usual Democrat vs. Republican partyism and take the moral high ground by stating that nearly everything the government is involved in is anti-liberty, anti-individual, and wholly socialist.

Unfortunately, the same people in the movement today will go back to sleep if the next election cycle produces a Republican majority in Congress, and two years after that, a Republican president. This might slow the run towards socialism to a crawl, but it certainly won’t reverse it, because Republicans, both the elected and the electorate, like big government. Big G brings perks Republicans like (the War on Drugs; a big-stick military; pilfering the productive for the benefit of the retired, etc.) that a government hemmed in by a pesky, adhered to, document of limitations on its actions (such as the U.S. Constitution) wouldn’t/couldn’t. (It’s only in how to use Big G that Republicans differ from Democrats, not in the notion that it shouldn’t exist in its present form.)

Obama is not dragging this country down the path to socialism; all he’s done is merely taken over the controls of a freight train headed that way already. Sure, he’s nudged the accelerator forward a bit more than a Republican might have, but we were going that way anyhow. Those who think everything was hunky dory, or at least tolerable, before Obama’s election have no clue about how much of the problem they really are.

(BTW, I am well aware that the Tea Party movement is not only made up of disgruntled Republicans, so please don’t take me to task for coloring it as such. But I believe disgruntled Republicans form the nucleus of the movement. On another note, it’s nice to see some Ayn Randism has infiltrated the movement [see photo above], as that can only be a good thing.)

Take care.
DAL357

Now that's teamwork!

Here we go. How coincidental is this news story, you know, with more government meddling into healthcare in the offing? Not very coincidental at all. This is part of what will likely become a blitz of stories by the MSM meant to soften resistance to what will essentially be ever-increasing controls and restrictions on healthcare. Isn't teamwork, in this case the MSM and government, great?

-----

Medical bills underlie 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies: study
By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Editor Maggie Fox, Health And Science Editor

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Medical bills are behind more than 60 percent of U.S. personal bankruptcies, U.S. researchers reported Thursday in a report they said demonstrates that healthcare reform is on the wrong track.

More than 75 percent of these bankrupt families had health insurance but still were overwhelmed by their medical debts, the team at Harvard Law School, Harvard Medical School and Ohio University reported in the American Journal of Medicine.

"Unless you're Warren Buffett, your family is just one serious illness away from bankruptcy," Harvard's Dr. David Himmelstein, an advocate for a single-payer health insurance program for the United States, said in a statement.

"For middle-class Americans, health insurance offers little protection," he added.

The United States is embarking on an overhaul of its healthcare system, now a patchwork of public programs such as Medicare for the elderly and disabled and employer-sponsored health insurance that leaves 15 percent of the population with no coverage.

The researchers and some consumer advocates said the study showed the proposals under the most serious consideration are unlikely to help many Americans. They are pressing for a so-called single payer plan, in which one agency, usually the government, coordinates health coverage.

"Expanding private insurance and calling it health reform will fail to prevent financial catastrophe for hundreds of thousands of Americans every year," Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen said in a statement.

About 170 million people get health insurance through an employer but President Barack Obama says soaring healthcare costs hurt the economy and force businesses to drop medical insurance for their workers.

CANCELED COVERAGE

"Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year," the report reads.

Obama told Congress Wednesday he was open to making mandatory health insurance part of the overhaul.

Neither Congress nor Obama are considering the kind of single-payer plan advocated by Public Citizen, Himmelstein and his colleague Dr. Steffie Woolhandler.

"We need to rethink health reform," Woolhandler said. "Covering the uninsured isn't enough.

"Only single-payer national health insurance can make universal, comprehensive coverage affordable by saving the hundreds of billions we now waste on insurance overhead and bureaucracy."

The researchers studied 2,134 random families who filed for bankruptcy between January and April in 2007, before the current recession began.

They used public bankruptcy court records and surveyed 1,032 people by telephone.

"Using a conservative definition, 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92 percent of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5,000, or 10 percent of pretax family income," the researchers wrote.

"Most medical debtors were well-educated, owned homes and had middle-class occupations."

The researchers, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, said the share of bankruptcies that could be blamed on medical problems rose by 50 percent from 2001 to 2007.

Patients with multiple sclerosis paid a mean of $34,167 out of pocket in 2007, diabetics paid $26,971, and those with injuries paid $25,096, the researchers found.

-----

I'll paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke here: If you think U.S. healthcare is expensive now, what 'til the government gets involved to make it more affordable.

I believe that government intervention at all levels is already the reason healthcare costs have become so outrageous. To drink more of that Kool-aid is asking for even more problems.

This subject, more than anything else the government does, reminds me of the wisdom of the saying "Government: A disease masquerading as its own cure."

Take care.
DAL357

Truly newsworthy

Which came first, a population of dolts or a press that reports such drivel?

*****

LOS ANGELES – Miley Cyrus and alter-ego Hannah Montana have double-teamed their way to another No. 1 box office debut.

Cyrus' "Hannah Montana: The Movie" opened this weekend with $34 million in ticket sales. The big weekend follows Cyrus' first-place premiere last year with her 3-D concert film.

The movie is a big-screen installment of the Disney Channel series about a teen living a double life as an ordinary high school girl and pop star Hannah.

"Hanna Montana" drew $17.3 million on Friday for the biggest opening day ever for a G-rated live-action movie.

"Fast & Furious" fell back to second place this weekend. The street-racing thriller pulled in $28.8 million to raise its domestic total to $118 million.

*****

I see America's greatest achievements rapidly fading in the rear view mirror.

Take care.
DAL357

Isn't it ironic?

On Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio show last week, as I recall, he spoke the praises of the Springfield XD design as opposed to the Glock design because Gaston Glock's pistol is essentially unchanged from when it was introduced and it's dated. I find it curious that he would knock the Glock design when he often pays homage to a gun whose design is far older--the 1911. Granted, the 1911 is a good design, but let's not disparage the Glock because it is a little older than the latest wonder-thang without acknowledging how long in the tooth (98 years and counting) the too-often-worshipped 1911 is.

Take care.
DAL357