Why this fascination with the term "genocide"?

Since 2006, the US Congress has had a fascination with making sure that the tragedy of the Christian Armenians forced to leave the Anatolian plateau in 1915-16 is labeled a "genocide" and that this terms is applied by all that refer to the horrific event.

Why?  What does US foreign policy gain, either in Turkey or Armenia, by applying this one-and-only term?

The event happened in the 20 months of 1915 and 1916, and the numbers of dead range from 300,000 (Turkey) to 1.5 million (Armenian).  These deaths resulted from exposure, starvation, dehydration and disease as an entire population of Armenians were forced out of Turkey entirely and into the Syrian desert beyond the "Ottoman" frontier.  No one, not even Turkey, denies that atrocities were committed.  After WWI, Turkey held trials in which the governor of Anatolia and 14 other military and political leaders were found guilty of crimes ranging from murder to "barbarism" against the ethnic Armenians, and all hanged (or sentenced to hang, if they were tried in absentia).

Armenia still has issues with this problem, and does want the event recognized as genocide... and understandably so.  They are a body of government made up of Armenians, representing Armenian interests, and defending Armenian rights, and as such can call for whatever terminology they wish to have attached to this dark chapter in their history.

I applaud President Obama for putting the brakes on this process.  Congress passed a resolution in 2008 wherein all references to the event within the US Government would refer to the tragedy as "genocide", and the President has refused to sign it, or even endorse it.  Whatever his intentions or reasoning, it is the right thing to do, because it flies in the face of the latest round of American "politically correct" obsession that seems to be floating around DC.

The shortest day of the year...

Historically, the winter solstice signaled the dawn of a new season, when the days would grow longer until the winter ended and the growing season began.

Today, on the morning of the mystical solstice, we see news of waves of bombings in Iraq that have killed dozens and injured hundreds.

The root of these bombings seems to be unrest at the Iraqi Prime Minister's call for the arrest of the Iraqi Vice President, based mainly on his being Sunni rather than Shi'ite.  I find it rather telling that the warrant for the arrest (which drove Mr. Hashimi into hiding in Kurdistan) was issued only after the last US troops were withdrawn from Iraq.

If there is going to be a new season in Iraq now that the US troops are gone, then the power-sharing structure of the Iraqi government will have to weather this test.  Sunni, Shi'ite and Kurd are going to have to find a way to share power, and they will have to do it without the presence of US troops in the cities and on the roads.  Otherwise, this nation won't see the dawn of another solstice...

Not another Kim, please...

Kim Jung Eun (or Kim Jung-un, depending on your dictionary) is the new "extreme leader" of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea now that his father, Kim Jung Il, is dead.


If ever there was an example of why Western states should be able to intervene in the affairs of foreign nations to end repressive, tyrannical regimes... North Korea is it.


Since its founding in 1948, the country (which had been a marginally-developing industrial nation prior to WWII) has fallen into a state of almost constant poverty and isolationism that hasn't been seen since Imperial Japan opened its trade to the West in the mid-1800s.  Tens of millions have died of famine and disease... ten million as recently as 1997!... because of the backwards, non-functioning manner in which its leadership (Grandpa, Daddy and now Junior Kims all) has pushed the country in relentlessly.   Their mutual paranoia towards Western and South Korean "military expansionism" has forced the US and ROK governments to spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to maintain one of the strongest international borders in human history (the 38th Parallel, or the Korean DMZ), and thousands of Koreans and hundreds of Americans have died on that border since 1955.


North Korea has maintained an active WMD program since 1988, detonating as many as four low-yield nuclear devices underground since 1993.  They could possibly maintain the largest stockpile of chemical weapons on the face of the earth right now (but no one knows for sure if that is the case or not).


Compared to other "despotic" regimes that the US and her allies have actively interfered with since the end of the Cold War... North Korea makes such places like Iraq and Taliban-controlled Afghanistan seem like schoolyard bullies.  Tens of millions dead, hundreds of millions kept in abject poverty and ignorance, personal freedom and liberty nonexistent, forced child labor an industry standard... these are the hallmarks of the North Korean leaderships legacy since 1948, and for the vast majority of that time, we (the West) have been content to sit back and watch as it all happened.


The images of hundreds of people (grown and presumably rational adult human beings) weeping uncontrollably at the news of Kim Jung Il's death shows the level of dependence and ignorance that the country has been forced into over the last 50 years.  Could this new generation of leadership bring about change?  Could this man, Kim Jung Eun, educated in Switzerland and more exposed to Western thinking than either his father or grandfather, be the catalyst for growth and development that many seem to think?  Yes, I suppose he could.


I'm not going to hold my breath though...

This day of infamy...

Only 120 men and women still live as survivors of the attack on Pearl Harbor 70 years ago. God bless them all and keep them healthy and happy.

Something that is all over the airwaves now, and is front and center in MY life, is the cost of healthcare, and the 70th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor attack has kind of made me consider it closely.

The surviving generation of the war itself (the Greatest Generation) are now well into their 90's, and their children are well into their 60's, and constitute nearly 12% of our total population. The increased need of medical care for these people and the shrinking means of paying for it privately are driving the costs for the entire society through the roof.

Obviously, I know no one here needs this explanation... I'm doing it rhetorically. Stick with me.

I, as the provider for a family of five, now pay $165 per week (yes, per week!) for my healthcare insurance. That's just under $8,600 per year in expenses that I might or might not incur in healthcare or major medical costs... and there is (obviously) no refund on what I don't use or spend.

There was a time in this country when "insurance" covered only what you couldn't pay out-of-pocket. That would have been a major health issue... a trip to the emergency room, or extended hospitalization, major surgery, etc. ... that I didn't have the means to pay for myself. Now, even simply trips to the eye doctor cost a staggering $900 per child (and they are required for all kids attending school in my district), and our insurance only covers 90% of that bill.

Lately I have been looking at my pay stub and considering the amount of money I am throwing into healthcare right now. What could be done differently?

What if I only paid for a policy that covered medical bills in excess of $5k? All bills less than $5,000, I arrange to pay myself, either through a payment plan (i.e. credit) or through personal savings (i.e. cash). What if the policy I paid for only cost me a fraction of what I am paying now? Knowing that medical bills can reach staggering proportions very, very quickly... if it was structured like a term life policy around a contribution pool of say 100,000 people (the average amount of members in PPO-structured plans today in PA), then I could have $300,000 of major medical coverage for as little as $75 per month. That is damn near a 90% savings from what I am paying right now... which means I take home $600 MORE per month, knowing I might have to pay up to $5,000 more a year in major medical costs. Unless my math is WAY off, that means that in less than 10 months of savings, I can have an account in my own bank of my own money ready to lay out the $5k I'm obligated to cover myself, and for the rest of the time I don't have a major medical expense, I'm $600 better off every month than I was previously.

But what about the $900 vision tests I was just talking about?

It is my understanding and experience that arrangements can often be made with doctor's offices, wherein a cash payment earns you a MAJOR discount in cost of service. When I was unemployed and uninsured two years ago, I needed some dental work done. I talked to the dentist and he agreed to fix the tooth (cracked and abscessed) for a grand total of $243 over two visits. When I asked him what it would cost should he bill insurance, he told me it was a $1,000 procedure, and that the difference was in factoring in the cost of delayed payment and hours and hours of additional administrative work by his office employees.

I have since used this means of savings whenever we have hit the roadblock of a doctor or service NOT being covered by our insurance, and it has worked every time. One of the kids needs to see a specialist about a nasal condition (something that has happened twice) and that specialist isn't on our plan... make the cash arrangements and watch the job get done for about 20% of the insurance bill's cost.

Let's face it... running a dentist office or a general practice MD office is still just running a business: it isn't going to work if you can't make a profit. If the cost of making that profit via insurance companies drives prices higher, then smart doctors (no matter what their specialty is) will offer a "cash discount price" that is affordable to most clientele and they will avoid the hassle and delay associated with big insurance. More business, bills paid quicker, profit margins more accessible and costs reduced across the board.

How do I know this will work? Because it already exists and constitutes a $300 billion dollar per year industry in this country alone: veterinary medicine practice.

More than 50% of America has pets, and pets will always, at some point, need to see a vet. Less than 1% of America has any kind of insurance to cover that cost... so if that is true, and pet care gets expensive, who pays for the services? Pet owners do, and they do it in cash. I myself have run into some daunting vet bills over the years, and if I think one vet is charging too much, I take my business to someone else that offers the same or better services for a better price... like any smart shopper would. Our dog, Mick, needed a bad tooth extracted to fix a HUGE abscess on his face, and the local vet wanted $750 to do the job. I called another vet, only 6 miles further away, that would do the same job for less than $400 and Mick is happy and healthy with one less tooth in his head, while I am $350 better off for the ordeal.

If I have to continue to see 16.5% of every check I earn go towards insurance that still requires me to pay out-of-pocket and drives those out-of-pocket expenses higher and higher... where do I benefit? I'd rather see the 15% RAISE that such a reduction in cost as I am describing would constitute and pay for as much as I could myself... knowing that everyone else that does it that way would also benefit in the long run.

Why isn't THIS an option for me as a citizen of these United States? Who's advocating this plan?

And now for something completely different...

THIS is why I love ESPN:

MVP Debate

This is classic "Driveway" debate... yes?

Nope, I don't think so...

I agree, it isn't a perfect analogy at all... nothing ever is, since history never fully repeats itself... but the facet I wanted to compare between Coxey's Army and "Occupy" was the dissent itself, not the worst of the bunch.

Historically speaking, there have been many "occupy-type" protests... The Bonus Army of the early 30's, Cox's Army (another pro-public works march from PA led by a Catholic priest named Cox), the March from Selma to Montgomery... and all have had less-then-savory elements associated with them. However, I was trying to keep the protest intent separate from the protest in actuality.

Whenever America has been in a time of crisis, people have sought a reason along with a solution. Most here (and indeed, across the country) think the current fiscal crisis is due to unsustainable spending and over-blown credit extensions in both the public and private sectors... but not everyone is agreed on how to fix it. The more radical elements in the Occupy movement seem to think that corporate greed is the cause... and that violence and disdain are acceptable means of protest against this. This stems more from the ideology of their views than the validity of the protest itself, and certainly factors in to how people view the protesters and their causes.

Successful group action relies on a higher ethical and/or moral fiber... MLK's non-violence in the 60s, the Tea Party movement today... and while I agree 100% that the Occupy movement lacks that fiber, my main point was that it shouldn't be seen as "unprecedented" or a new facet to our society.