Getting Out of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan

As debate and discussion goes on in the Obama Administration and in the U.S. Congress as to what our continued role in Iraq and Afghanistan should be, I pray that a way be sought to extradite us from there ASAP. The underlying reasons for involvement in both conflicts was flawed with the exception of destroying al-Qaida and their ability to attack us. Our conduct of these wars was simply bad judgment compounded by more bad judgment. It has proven to be and continues to be too costly in lives lost and injuries sustained by both our soldiers and the citizens of these nations. It was and continues to be too costly a use of our limited resources. In my view, we cannot afford to continue with these policies. It is terribly destructive for both us and these nations and is destabilizing for this region and the rest of the world.

When one invades another nation, essentially destroys it with superior raw military firepower, kills and injures thousands , and then attempts to impose our cultural, economic, and political systems upon them, justifying it as “nation building” in our image, you accomplish nothing but ill will. Their hatred of us resulting from our actions will continue on for generations to come. Why wouldn’t they. Just put yourself in their shoes. What would be the attitude of most in this country if we were to be militarily invaded, our country destroyed, where almost everyone in the country had friends and relatives killed or injured, and our cultural, economic, and political systems were forcibly altered. How many generations would it take to forget this. Afghan’s history is one of almost constant war against invading armies or amongst themselves. Because of their strategic location as a buffer between several powerful civilizations, they have been invaded by about every notable army beginning with Alexander the Great. All of them found Afghanistan to be inhospitable. In modern times, both the British and the Russians took their turn at occupying them only to leave several years later thinking the effort too costly and of little value. Afghanistan takes great pride in thwarting these efforts whatever the cost and we should have factored that into our plans.

One of the biggest barriers to getting out of these conflicts is our unwillingness to “lose face.” I submit that this is a terrible indictment of our collective ego. We are so afraid that it will be perceived as weakness on our part that we are willing to seriously consider expanding our military involvement with its continued injury and loss of life to our soldiers, the continued squandering of our limited resources, and the further solidifying of their hatred towards us. Our military capability to kill and destroy has been well documented here, but short of genocide, you don’t win insurgency type wars with military “shock and awe.” You might win conventional wars with this type of military action, but not wars of this nature, but we don’t seem to “get it.”

Another major concern is whether getting out ASAP will put as at a greater risk from extremist, militant, Islamic groups. Yes it might. They are out there, they want revenge, they want to “bring us down,” and they are dedicated to jihad. We’ve spent 8 years in the region and we still haven’t destroyed al-Qaida and now it is wider spread and very mobile. We’ve made it more of a monster than it already was and put ourselves at greater risk than before. We will have to remain vigilant at home and abroad. We will have to be ready to move quickly and be devastating in our military attacks on their training centers, work to disrupt their lines of communication, and most importantly, move to cut off their supply of money needed to support themselves. It will require that we develop and institute the tools to do the above and probably more.

Our Presidents, our National Security Council, our Congress, and our Department of Defense have let us down over the last 35 years. We should have been prepared for this kind of struggle with lessons learned in Vietnam and been prepared to modify it to other geographic regions and cultural and political situations. Instead, despite warnings from President Eisenhower back in 1961, we have spent billions of dollars in supporting a conventional “military industrial complex” that we now know was out dated. It has been our “Maginot Line,” and it has cost us dearly. And, if and when we move beyond this, we need to heed Collin Powell’s warning to avoid a terrorist military-industrial complex. Unfortunately, there is and will continue to be too much money to be made in the war business.

Another, and in my mind the saddest problem with getting out ASAP is, how do you say sorry to individuals and families of our soldiers who went off to war under the belief that they were doing their patriotic duty to make America safe and to preserve our great nation. They put themselves at great risk, they suffered life time injuries, and were killed doing what they were told was right. And then, for us to say, “We screwed up,” is a “bitter pill.” It will take incredibly courageous political leadership to make this admission because of the firestorm of criticism from the hawkish, hard line, conservative right. But, we dealt with it before with our disengagement from Vietnam and our wise acceptance of limited objectives in Korea and the Gulf War. No matter what is said or how it is couched, it won’t correct the mistakes. Those who served need to be honored for their sacrifice and we can only hope that in turn they will magnanimously agree that continuing to put others in harms way does not make good sense.

Walking/Jogging/Biking Corridors Column 1

This will be the first of several columns that I am offering regarding the proposed walking/jogging/biking corridors (WJBC) that a substantial number of people in town feel should be constructed.

A year ago, the McPherson Planning Commission initiated a look at such a program. Our first effort was to meet with the elementary schools (public and parochial) and middle school site councils. They showed enthusiastic support for the idea. Then, a study committee of some 27 people, representing a broad cross section of McPherson, was formed and met over several months preparing a plan which was approved by the Planning Commission. The plan was presented to the City Commission at a study session and at the City Commission meeting Tues., 10-6-09. It was well attended by local citizens, many of who were there to offer support for the plan.
We have a mission statement which reads: “The WJBC Study Committee recommends the following comprehensive plan for an interconnected network of corridors which includes sidewalks adjacent to selected streets/avenues/roads, bicycling lanes, paths, and trails to be used by pedestrians, joggers, tricyclists, bicyclists, those pushing strollers, wheel chair users, skaters, skate boarders, and scooters in and around the City of McPherson. The primary purpose is to encourage people of all ages to use non-motorized alternatives of transportation (with exception of motorized wheel chairs) on safe and convenient corridors that are clearly built and designated for these activities. These uses are intended to be both functional (to get from point A to B in town) and recreational (for exercise, relaxation, and family/socializing activities) which promotes healthy lifestyles.”

Also, we prepared a list of priorities that grew from one to six as time went on with our committee meetings. They are as follows:
1. Establishment of corridors for students (especially young ones in the 5 to 14 age group) to go safely to and from schools, parks, and recreational areas.
2. Provide corridors for adults as well as students to safely travel to public points in town like the Post Office, library, YMCA, Community Building, Court House, Municipal Building, colleges, churches, theatre, Opera House, parks, and recreation areas.
3. Establish corridors so that employees at our local businesses and industries can elect to commute safely to and from work by walking and biking.
4. Provide safe corridors for citizens of all ages to reach shopping areas down town and on the outskirts of town.
5. Provide safe and attractive corridors that would appeal to and be used by visitors to our city as well as those considering relocating to McPherson.
6. Further develop recreational paths and trails which would be removed from normal vehicle traffic providing a more relaxed walk and/or ride through a more natural setting.

On the surface this project does not appear to be a complicated one. However, when one gets into the workings of what is required to accomplish this corridor plan, it gets involved. There is need to justify the program by making it clear what benefits such a program would bring to the community; there is a monumental amount of engineering to be done by the public works department to determine how to do it and the cost; it could require a re-write of our city ordinances and policies regarding sidewalks; and of course the 800 lb. guerilla of how it is to be financed sets out there.

I intend to address most of these things over the next several weeks and would welcome community input. If you choose, you can contact me directly at 241-0606 or e-mail me at jeboyer1@cox.net. Those in support of this plan think that “it is the right thing to do and now is the right time to do it!”

(A feature I will be putting in the column is the “walk or bike ride of the week.” Imagine you are doing this in all kinds of weather. You can draw your own conclusions if you give them a try) Walk or ride of the week: From Foxfire or Deerfield neighborhoods, go west on Ave. A to the Middle School or Washington Elementary School at same time kids are going to school and/or east when they are coming home from school.

Jim Boyer

PS. I want to commend our local school district for their organized, pro-active observance of National Walk to School Day conducted Wed. 10-7-09. The number of participants was good to see. These are the kinds of activities that are needed to encourage healthy life-styles. We just need to build infrastructure to support these programs.

We need universal health care

To better understand this “debate” over a universal health care plan let’s look at why the government has gotten involved in our lives with various new programs in the past.

You can go clear back to the founding of the U.S. Constitution and the issue of slavery. This great document, the U.S. Constitution with the Bill of Rights (which by the way came after ratification through amendments) among other things, guarantees us our freedoms. But, great as it is, it originally sanctified slavery. It was 70+ years later before slavery was ended. Then, we had a period of almost 100 years before minorities actually got civil rights because of Democratic Conservative opposition like “Jim Crow” laws, unequal employment opportunities, unequal educational opportunities, and segregation of all kinds. Status quo defenders don’t give up easily. Things have gotten better as witnessed by a biracial President, but even today, when one views issues like education and job opportunities, things are still not equal. There is a clear propensity for conservatives in all stages of our history to do all in their power to resist change even when it is just and clearly appropriate for our times.

You can study the history of American labor where abuse, including long hours, poor pay, no fringe benefits, unsafe working conditions, etc., were the norm in many jobs. It wasn’t until the 1930’s that the government stepped in with the right to collective bargaining of labor unions. Finally, the fate of American labor improved as we emerged from WW II which led in part to the 1950’s which was one of the classic periods of relative prosperity embodied by a solid middle class. This battle isn’t over and may need to be addressed again as one sees the American labor union’s position weakening with a simultaneous flattening and decreasing of wages and buying power. What has saved many American working families in the last 60+ years is two family incomes resulting in a significant impact on our culture.

Social Security came about because of the change in our society where the extended family, private, and “faith based” charities were overwhelmed in the Great Depression resulting in the disgraceful status of our elderly. Even though Social Security is well established, this battle is not over. The last Republican Administration took a run at it’s elimination by recommending privatization which, in view of what’s happened economically, should serve as an example of what a disaster that would be. Social Security will need to be re-worked with our aging population and younger people better stay involved because there are many conservatives who would love to see it eliminated.

In the middle of the last century, it became obvious that the elderly’s ability to provide enough savings for retirement failed to insure enough money for reasonable and adequate medical care in their old age. One serious illness with rising medical costs wiped them out. This led to a huge battle over what eventually became Medicare. To their credit, there were Moderate Republicans who worked with Democrats to craft a working Medicare Law. But, like Social Security, it needs re-working and the young in our society better stay involved or we are likely to see Medicare “put-to-rest” as a failed liberal experiment.

We could go on and on with historical examples where it was essential for the government to involve themselves in correcting unfair and unjust practices. Some of these would be anti-trust legislation, elimination of child labor, graduated income tax, women’s right to vote, regulation of financial and investment markets, farm programs, Medicaid, environmental programs, OSHA, etc. Rest assured that every one of these new government involvements was fought “tooth-and-nail” against by conservatives of their era and took years to be established as law.

Now along comes the “debate” over universal health care. Hopefully, you watched or read the President’s speech on this issue. One of the more interesting sections occurred early on where he clearly listed the undisputed facts of why our present system is at the “breaking point.” I have not heard these facts disputed in all the criticism I’ve heard of the President’s speech. They include refusal by insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, non-portability, excessive cost, etc. I won’t repeat them all, but by my count there were eight, clear, serious, glaring, problems that could potentially affect us all at some point in our lifetime. They have been around for 60+ years and are getting rapidly worse and more devastating for a growing part of our population. Something needs to be done and the President offered some solutions plus assured us that they can be deficit neutral. And, to his credit, even in the face of all the nasty criticism, he continues to hold out the olive branch of bipartisanship and an “open door policy” of a willingness to listen to alternative suggestions.

The discouraging thing is that at this point-in-time, the Conservative Republicans in Congress and the Right Wing media have nothing to offer except the policy of “NO” to everything. Not only no, but they have chosen to use the tactics of fear, demagoguery, name calling, out right lies, and personal attacks on the President’s character and motives.

As discussed earlier, down through history, anytime someone has suggested a change with more government involvement we know that the conservative element in our society will oppose it regardless of its need. This is O.K. if it is done responsibly. It serves a role of “devils advocacy” and insures us that negative ramifications of any new legislation are considered. Historically, Republicans have been good at this and Democrats not so good. If the Democrats had been better at it we wouldn’t have had tax cuts in 2001; we wouldn’t be involved in a war in Iraq and would have limited our involvement in Afghanistan to justifiable punishment and destruction of al Queda; we wouldn’t have had devastating deregulation of financial markets in the early 2000’s; or unfunded prescription drug program and no child left behind programs.

Personally, I think we need a universal health care program. I’d like to see some responsible Republican input; but, since there doesn't appear to be any forthcoming, I’m rapidly getting to the point where I’d accept a Democratic power play to force it through Congress. I find it hard to believe that the Republican opposition is so unanimous. It reminds me of a quote from the longest serving Speaker of the House, the late Sam Rayburn, when he said, “when two people agree about everything, only one of ‘ems thinking.” I wonder which Republican is doing all the thinking. While we are quoting Sam Rayburn, I think another of his comments is appropriate, “Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.” Where are the Sam Rayburn’s when you need them?

Planning for the City of McPhrson - Demographic Considerations

It is critical that McPherson encourage growth, which typically involves a growing population with additional business and industry offering good paying jobs, affordable housing, appropriate medical facilities and services, excellent schools, broad based retail trade options, cultural offerings, and superior recreational opportunities.

The list could be much longer. And, when one judges McPherson against this list, we fair pretty well with a few exceptions.

Assuming that growing a community involves attracting new people to town, let’s look at what that entails. Just getting everyone who works here to live here would be a good start. Encouraging those who grew up here to stay or return here with their families would be a real plus. We certainly want to create an environment where young people get “homesick” for McPherson when away and strive to find a way to live here. And of course, getting the word out to people over a broad area, who are looking for “one of the best places to live in the country,” could lead to people choosing McPherson.

One group that I think is too often overlooked in this mix of new people being sought are the older/retired ones (55 to 80+). By not going out of the way to encourage the growth of this group we may be “swimming upstream” against an inevitable trend. I agree we need a good demographic mix of age, race, and culture for a vibrant community; but, the aging of our country’s population is a given and could offer a good opportunity for growth.

There are geographic areas and communities in this country that have targeted this aging population with astoundingly positive results. But, some of these communities have grown to the point where they have lost their appeal – they are too big, too crowded, too noisy, have too much traffic, have too much crime, are too expensive, are too hot, and are just too different culturally to be comfortable. A community like McPherson might be able to fill a need.

Let’s look at McPherson’s advantages:
1. We are smack dab in the middle of a region and state with a slow growing population where many small towns are struggling to stay viable socially and economically. Many of these people what to retire in a “small” vibrant community where their investments, for example in housing, are more secure and the culture is one they are familiar with.

2. We are solid economically with potential for a continued strong mix of industry, business, education, etc. Unless we rest on our laurels or really make some stupid decisions, we should remain economically viable a long way into the future.

3. We have deep Midwestern roots that many demographers use as a model of honesty, integrity, good work ethic, strong religious beliefs, family values, etc. We don’t have to create little enclaves of like minded people in a larger, possibly “foreign” culture – our community’s present lifestyle promotes and perpetuates this culture.

3. We have seasons. Some people flee extremes, but there are many others that are invigorated by the seasons. Winters can be cold, but not terribly so and not too long, Summer can be hot and windy, but only for a few months, and there are those long beautiful Springs and Falls.

4. For those seeking “cultural” activities, our community with our two colleges, rebuilt Opera House, theater, library, secondary schools, churches, and community ventures do a good job of giving people these exposures. And, it isn’t prohibitively far to go to large towns and cities in the area to supplement these experiences.

5. We don’t have what some would describe as spectacular scenery like is offered by mountains, deserts, and coastal areas. But, the prairie has its own beauty and spectacular habitat. This is one of the truly underdeveloped resources this State fails to cash in on. That is largely the result of so much private land where access is limited. Our natural wonders end up being small pockets of nature where state and federal agencies and organizations, like the National Conservancy, have saved out some land for public access. More funding and better marketing programs need to be conducted by these agencies and organizations to encourage their use, and opportunities to expand these offerings need to be sought where appropriate.

Maybe McPherson needs to look at what I would call the “tweener” group of people who don’t see themselves as old and don’t act old. This group has a little money, they have time, have broad interests, and often are interested in learning new things. Some might still want to work a little or a lot, some are entrepreneurs and might start businesses, many possess important knowledge and skills gained from years of lifetime experiences, and some are to the point in time in life where they want to “pay back” for their good fortune. All of the above are attractive traits that could be useful in a community. McPherson might want to consider doing more in a community wide, coordinated, planned fashion to welcome this group “making our community a special place to live.”

I think our present efforts to “grow” our community may be a bit too exclusively concentrated on the younger group. Our focus should possibly be broader based, by developing an attractive environment for a demographic group that already has a propensity to choose a community like ours. There are hundreds of other communities out there that could serve as examples and/or provide us with models of “best practices” to pick and choose from. I think it is worth considering.

Is our present administration going too fast and taking on too much?

I’ll make a clear statement here: “I’m really tired of hearing the naysayers complaining about President Obama going too fast and ‘biting off more than he can chew’.” In my opinion that is rubbish.

First, I think most of the complaints are from conservative Republican naysayers who want to maintain the status quo of what they created over 12 years prior to 2006 and were able to continue on to 2008 with President Bush’s vetoes. They spent money “hands over fist” on projects and programs that padded their supporter’s pockets with all sorts of lucrative subsidies, favorable contracts, and topped it off with tax breaks for the wealthy. They got to live a conservative Republican’s dream of deregulating about everything they could deregulate which led to all kinds of financial and governmental failure. They got to be “tough guys” with countries elsewhere in the world that didn’t kowtow to their view, even to the point of unilaterally starting an unnecessary war which distracted from a fully justifiable, clear cut military retaliation that itself has now warped into a war with both of them lasting longer than either of the World Wars of the 20th century. And, they would still be following these failed policies if the economy hadn’t done a “humpty-dumpty” off the wall and they couldn’t put him back together again.

Secondly, I think some are opposed to Obama’s drive to fix things, which requires changing things, because they just don’t like to work that hard. Too many are “too old” and “too slow” and they were coasting in their comfort zone. They are elected from “safe” districts and states; they’ve gotten their “pork barrel” bills through Congress to show people back home how much they “love” them; their campaign “war chests” are full or can be easily refilled with a few phone calls because their supporters both owe them and own them; they’ve got their staffs doing all their grunt work; and they are out doing what they do best – getting re-elected over and over. (In all fairness, there are some Democratic Congressmen that are in the same position which is our collective fault.)

Then, along comes this young President who actually wants to take a shot at doing what he said he was going to do in his campaign. This is almost unheard of in their political world. He has turned them upside down and made them very uncomfortable. When they say he is trying to do too much, it really means he is forcing them to have to hustle just to keep up. When you hear Congressmen publicly complaining about how many pages are in a bill, like Universal Health Care, and that they are struggling to get it read that’s a “smoke screen.” Important bills are almost always that long and most Congressmen haven’t been reading them for years. The best hope is that their staffs have been and give them a one or two page summary with a few talking points to use out on the stump. Suddenly they want time to read these bills? They are just “grasping at straws” and stalling.

Thirdly, when you hear them say they want to slow down and consider all the ramifications of a proposal like Universal Health Care, they are stalling again. Where was the slow down and consideration of ramifications for our unilateral rush to war, our deregulation of the financial world in the early 2000’s, or the creation and inadequate funding of prescription drug program? Drafters of legislation do their best to factor in consequences when they write legislation, but no one can second guess the ramifications of some changes until you get into them. You win some and you lose some and conservative Republican’s lost the last election because the ramifications of their policies resulted in failure.

Every change is a bit of a gamble and ramifications can’t always be forecast accurately. But, if you have problems like a failed economy, failed health care system, failed energy policy, failed educational system, collapsing infrastructure, and failed foreign policy, it behooves you to try to fix them.

But, instead of facing these problems head on and cooperatively working together to find solutions, the conservative Republicans have decided the easiest thing to do is to “stop the train” or at least slow it down with constant negative innuendo, a policy of no to everything, conjuring up a wagon load of fears, and repeating outrageous lies over and over again. There are legitimate concerns and need for serious bi-partisan discussion to deal with these problems – for example how should we pay for these solutions. President Obama has been admirably patient in trying to do this – more than I would be.

If you have a company with bad or out-dated product, poor customer service, sinking sales, "tired" inefficient manufacturing facilities, poorly trained and performing workers, status quo loving “fat cat” managers, etc. you better not approach these problems with let’s go slow and take one thing at a time. You do that, and you are out of business. You had better bring in some new high energy management people with creative minds and innovative ideas. You better do some serious R & D. You’d better invest in up-to-date infrastructure, train and motivate your workers, and hustle to retain existing customers and get new ones. And guess what, you are going to have to borrow money big time to get it done! Try as you may, you aren’t going to foresee all the ramifications of your changes in advance. You are going to have to dump some things, cutting your losses when mistakes are made. You will need to tweak, adapt, build and expand on those things that do work. But, you’d better not rely on “smooth talking”, “glad handing”, “do nothing”, “too old”, “too slow”, “fat cat”, “status quo loving conservatives” to get things up and running. There is a great book written by Jennings and Haughton for the business world in 2000 that I’d recommend, it’s not the Big that eat the Small……it’s the Fast that eat the Slow. We’d better be ready or the Big ole USA is going to be eaten by the rest of the world that is getting faster and faster and smarter and smarter.

Another opinion on Town Hall Meeting in Lindsborg

It was interesting in a kind of disconnected way. You had U.S. Representative Jerry Moran with sweat dripping off his face and soaking his shirt being pleasant, obviously intelligent, showing a good sense of humor, and being very articulate. He was clearly well prepared and spent less than 30 minutes telling his audience his views on the big issues of the day. He was obviously “preaching to the choir,” getting all kinds of smiles, applause and moral support for his rendition of Republican Party ideology. He was “home” and you could tell it bolstered his spirits and he rose to the occasion.

However, one could feel a current underlying his opening statements where people in the audience were only somewhat patiently waiting for him to finish so that they could have “their day in court.” This is where the disconnect began.

He announced at the end of his opening comments that he didn’t put much stock in polls, not mentioning the fact that they are usually conducted these days following very scientific processes, but instead he put more stock in “pressing the flesh” and talking directly to the people. I thought “bologna,” but since he is a politician I let it pass until the very end of the town hall meeting when he asked for a show of hands on several topics including how many supported the universal health care plan, the public option in the plan, etc. With a crowd of obviously strong Republican supporters, he got the response he came for, seemingly ignoring the fact that this is about as unscientific a measure as one could imagine. I wondered if he went away from there truly convinced that the overwhelming number of people in Lindsborg really agreed with him.

Then, the people began to speak. Some were well prepared and had good quality questions, comments, and life experiences to share which made it a good learning experience. But, there were some that were to say the least, “off the wall.” People who liked to hear themselves talk and had been saving up for years for their chance to tell their life story to a U.S. Representative and an audience of some 200 people many of which had already made up their mind. It made me happy that we have a small “r” republican form of government, not a pure democracy.

There were quite a few partisan anti-government questions like, “When are you going to shut down this liberal government in Washington that is taking away our freedoms and leading the country to “rack and ruin.” I wondered if this guy wasn’t aware that we recently had a national election where the Democrats gained control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency because the majority of the people in the country believed that the Republican President and Congress (of which Moran was a part) had led us down the “tubes” for years.

One commenter said he had read 45 pages of the 1000+ page plan which Rep.Moran’s staffer had set on the podium as a visual aid. I guess they did so to show that the bill is long and involved. Are we to assume that an issue like this can be reduced to a one or two page list of bullet points? It was interesting that no one, including Rep. Moran, pointed out that this bill was just one of several bills circulating in Washington and that the one he showed from the Commerce Committee in the House of Representatives is not the important one. The one still being hammered out in the Finance Committee by Senator Baucus, of Montana, with the White House’s help, is what most experts are waiting for. This commenter then stated that “the plan on the table,” contained provisions where a committee with a chairman appointed by the President would take up to 18 months to work out the details ‘scares the devil out of him.” I stood there wondering if this guy doesn’t understand that this is the constitutional process in our government – legislative branch (Congress) passes a bill (makes a law) and the executive branch (President) administers the law with Cabinet and/or other agency appointments and that it takes a while to put a process like this in place.

There was a young couple who very emotionally talked about how they opposed the health care bill because it would result in euthanasia of their special needs child. I lost a lot of respect for Rep. Moran when he lacked the courage to come out and say “there are no “death panels” called for in this bill or any other bill and that rumor is out-of-line and totally unfounded. Neither Democrats or Republicans would support such a thing.” He dodged around it and kind of left the audience with the feeling that there might be something to it. Shame on him! Some of the other rumors that are equally out of line were mentioned and he chose not to accurately squelch those either.

In answering a series of questions and comments about how our present system needs changing, Rep. Moran went through a rather long laundry list of how our present system is “broke.” His conclusion was, let’s take this piece-meal and eventually get it fixed. I stood there wondering why. All of the things he mentioned, that have been around for 50+ years and are getting worse, are addressed in these bills being written and discussed. Why wouldn’t you want to fix them ASAP?

Also, he “pulled on the heart strings” of the audience by claiming universal health care would destroy an already marginal/on-the-edge medical service industry in rural America – a lot of applause. It sounded interesting to me as to why. But, he gave no explanation and I left still wondering whether this was just anti-universal health care hype or something to really be concerned about.

The “socialism” word was thrown around a lot in questions and comments – we don’t want socialism! I don’t want socialism either, but what about Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Farm Program, universal education and several other programs that we have that few in the audience would seriously consider eliminating? The U.S. Constitution was written in the 1780’s for a time and period that no longer exists and that one of our country’s strengths is that we have adapted our government to meet the needs of each generation. As conditions change, role of government must carefully change with them and our mixed economy and political structure is a testament to that.

As I said at the outset, there were a lot of disconnects in the experience, but I did think it was good to see this many people out expressing their views. I would like to have seen it run along the lines of the old TV Gong Show. It would have saved a lot of time and allowed more questions and comments. And, it would have been even better if one had the feeling that someone was really listening and really cared rather than just solidifying votes for opinions already held. However, in my mind, one redeeming fact is that up to this point Rep. Jerry Moran is sooo much better than Todd Tiehart.

The World's Gun Culture

We have a gun culture in this country and evidently so do many other countries in the world. There are conflicts raging all around the globe where groups are fighting one another using automatic weapons, grenade launchers, hand held rocket launchers, mortars, etc. And, the incoming fire from these weapons is too often directed at our soldiers. My questions are, why are these weapons so prevalent and where do these groups get what seems like an inexhaustible supply of ammunition to keep these weapons firing? These are simple weapons by military standards, but they certainly are not something so crude that one can build them in one’s basement. Plus, road bombs, car bombs, and suicide bombers require access to plastic explosives and often sophisticated triggering systems. This equipment has to be made in a factory somewhere, warehoused somewhere, shipped by someone, cached somewhere, and then distributed to the end user. These weapons and ammunition are bulky, heavy, and not easily transported in massive amounts.

Our diplomatic core spends significant amount of time “gnashing their teeth” over nuclear weapons and delivery systems that if used would be disastrous. But, in the meantime our soldiers and innocent civilians are being killed daily with these much simpler weapons.

It seems so logical that nations ought to address this massive arms trade. Governments all over the world could insist that production of these weapons and ammunition be carefully controlled. Obviously, their own military and law enforcement need them. Beyond that, controls should exist on selling of surplus weapons or even obsolete weapons. Stock-piling and shipping could be severely curtailed using technology that now exists. Clandestine arms dealers should be put out of business. I understand that some of these weapons are well built and have excellent longevity, but they are simply a hunk of metal without ammunition and spare parts.

We’ve been in Iraq and Afghanistan for years and they are still shooting at us every day. In fact, TV footage often shows them indiscriminately firing guns up in the air to celebrate and/or protest this or that – often us. It’s crazy watching it on TV and it has to be dangerous and scary for our military in these areas. One has to wonder how long these two wars would have gone on without these weapons and ammunition.

I have not seen nor heard of any concerted efforts by our government and other “peace loving” nations actually discussing ways this could be shut down. In fact, the weapons industry is one of the best kept secrets and our news media is strangely silent on any reporting on this huge industry. Existence of inexhaustible supplies of weapons and ammunition is not a shrug one’s shoulders inevitability – it could be gradually reduced and eventually stopped. But, part of the problem is that we are as guilty as other nations in the world in trafficking in weapons systems. After all, there is a lot of money involved in this business plus all the behind the scenes maneuvering to supply some group in our good graces in order to off-set this other group not in our favor. We have been an enabler in many of these conflicts.

The drug war along our border with Mexico is a good example of where our gun culture has come back to haunt us. News reports suggest that many of the weapons used in this war are coming from the U.S. Then, we have a criminal element in our own country who are often better equipped with automatic weaponry than our own law enforcement people.

I view our fascination with guns that have no use except to kill others as some kind of insane perversion. And, I’m not anti-gun. I own and have shot guns of various types all my life in a sporting atmosphere. But, some group’s insistence that guns of all types and configurations be readily available is crazy. This availability and lack of control lends itself to abuse. The military should have them, law enforcement should have them, and maybe a few responsible gun owners who view collection and firing of these weapons as a hobby are fine – they are for the most part very responsible. But, with these exceptions, availability of these weapons should be strictly limited, regulated, and licensed. However, the best place to stop this insanity is not with the end user, but with a concerted effort by government to control manufacturing, distribution, and supply. The world would be a much safer place if insurgents, intolerant tribal fanatics, terrorists, and criminals were limited to throwing rocks. The only people who win in this gun culture are businesses and governments trafficking in this activity.