Socialized Medicine, Anyone?

15 June 09 On socialized medicine, from a friend and physician: "I recently returned from Canada, where I practiced medicine for many years until I finally, in disgust, immigrated to the United States. The state of socialized medicine there is now even worse (if such a thing can be imagined) than it was when I left. The national government created seventeen 'Regional Health Authorities,' that pay no attention to provincial boundaries. Each is responsible for ' managing' health-care decisions in their geographic area. When it became clear that didn't work, the government responded by creating a health-care ' Superboard' that dictates to regional boards. Government's solution to messes it creates is, without fail, 'more government!' The net result has been fewer doctors, fewer nurses, but an ever-expanding army of ignorant bureaucrats, none of whom deliver any health care to anyone. Hospitals continue to be chronically understaffed, and waiting times for even simple medical procedures has now increased to the point where they are, for all practical purposes, unavailable. Who can afford it, come to the USA to get done what needs doing. The balance of Canadians tolerate this disaster, even as they watch their own family members languish in pain and die needlessly. They have been indoctrinated by the liberal media who tells them that they, as individuals, are insignificant. Only the government, and those in it, are important. Americans who look to Canada as a 'shining example' of socialized medicine are like investors who buy junk bonds, because their broker tells them, with a straight face, that junk bonds are actually better than blue-chip stocks. Those brokers, like socialists in Washington and the media, are no more than cheap hucksters, talking endlessly about the precious-few good points, while deliberating hiding the multitude of horrifying issues with national health systems like Canada's. What ever happened to 'full-disclosure?' It's time to shout down these lying con-men. The alternative will be a medical meltdown that defies the imagination. Believe me, I've seen it!" Comment: Is this what we thought we wanted? /John

Illegal Drugs

15 June 09 On illegal drugs, from a friend and defense attorney: "In a South-American country, a farmer looks out from his veranda over his two main crops. On the right side of the rutted dirt, row upon row of coffee plants are growing in the high mountain air. To the left, coca grows in equally ordered rows. Both crops require tending and processing to yield roasted coffee beans on one side, refined cocaine on the other. Both products are, without fail, transported to the United States. In addition to shipping expenses, coffee requires payment of tariffs, while coca shipments are accompanied by gangs, bribes, threats, public corruption, and criminal violence (to the extent that entire towns in Northern Mexico are ' owned' by drug cartels). Accordingly, processed coffee beans arrive on US grocery-store shelves at six to twelve dollars per pound. Refined cocaine similarly arrives, via an underground network, at $44,000 per pound! In general, pharmacological effects of neither coffee nor cocaine, by themselves, lead to violent crime. It is the extremely high value of cocaine that results in criminal activity. Drug dealers are associated with murder, kidnapping, taking over towns, money laundering, violence against police, territorial conflicts, et al. Drug addicts, in order to be able to afford the habit, commit car-jackings, burglaries, armed robberies, and thefts. Snitches are casually murdered. Mules (animal and human) die of accidental overdoses when balloons, secreted within their bodies, burst. In thirty-two years of active criminal-defense, I have never encountered a turf-war over coffee! The price of coke is high, because it is illegal. If our government did not inadvertently support the artificially high street-price of cocaine, cocaine-associated crime would all but disappear! On the other side of the world, poppies are grown, harvested, and processed into heroin by the Taliban. Their drug-network provides a major source of funding for worldwide terrorism. Legal availability of these drugs may well increase the number of users and, yes, addicts. Yet today, those found guilty of drug crimes go to prison, at a cost to taxpayers of $30,000/year/inmate. The resulting public health problem, though unfortunate, will be offset by a marked reduction in violent crime and associated costs. There is no perfect solution! I am among the growing majority of defense attorneys who would happily forego fees associated with drug-crime defense as a consequence of legalization. Given the choice between having drug users (1) presenting a public-health issue, or (2) presenting a basis for criminal violence, we Americans should opt for the former! Legalizing and controlling these drugs, above board, will shift the burden of who pays the price from 'all of us' to the people who are actually using the drugs. There is a cost to society either way, but it is a burden to be rightfully born primarily by users, and not so much by the rest of us." Comment: Like my friend, I don't give a damn about fools who choose to use damaging drugs for recreational purposes. There is no mystery. They know what they're getting into. As I've said before, there is no form of slavery more disgraceful than that which is self-imposed. "Users" live short, painful, purposeless lives, but that is their choice. I have no sympathy for them! I just wonder if any more people will become addicted to heroine and cocaine when they are legalized, than were when both were legal. It has not been that long ago! As with abortion, it's a sticky issue, with sincere and passionate voices on both sides. My friend's view, above, needs to see the light of day, as other views have. /John

Urban Rifle Comments

15 June 09 Comments on Urban Rifles: A good friend just returned from Patrol Rifle exercise in the Midwest. After a long phone conversation this morning, we agree on this: (1) Within twenty meters, no rifle optic is particularly useful. Although, red-dots are much more useful than are magnifying optics at these ranges. Speed is critical! Point-body indexing may well be all that is necessary. (2) From twenty to one-hundred meters, red-dots are king! Aimpoints, EOTechs, et al really come into their own at these ranges. They are fast and don't overly-restrict your view, as do iron sights. (3) Beyond one-hundred meters in range, it becomes extremely difficult to positively identify threats without magnifying optics. (4) Swing-out, magnifying optics, combined with red-dots fill the void, but add significant bulk. LaRue swing-out mounts are, by far, superior to all others! (5) Don't "hunt" while in your sights, iron sights or optics. You must train yourself to come in and out of your sights quickly. You need to keep both eyes open and scanning continuously, until you perceive a threat. Then, you need to get your sights on the threat immediately, identify it, and neutralize it, all very quickly. Then, come back out of your sights and resume scanning without delay. "Living in your sights" is fatal! (6) Make use of the prone position when you can. Get low and steady! It is usually your best bet, except when you're on concrete. Magpul rubber magazine bases will help bond magazines to the deck. Combined with a Redi-Mag, it will form a tripod with your elbows. Very steady! Hit first! Hit fast! Stay in motion. Don't let them breath. Watch your six. Don't relax too soon. Be victorious! /John