Some Health Care Issues Examined and Observed In Greater Poltical Context

Who Are the Winners? Who Are the Losers?

Some people claim that eliminating "frivolous" medical malpractice law suits would drastically reduce health care costs. But tort reform is not the game-changer it is claimed to be because the numbers are derived from the assumption that ALL litigation is frivolous and therefore all judgments would be capped at $200,000--or some other arbitrary figure--regardless of the severity of the injury. If you had an operation and the hospital, through their negligence, paralyzed you or removed your healthy kidney instead of your failing one, would $200,000 be adequate compensation? It is not a solution that should be considered. What would give doctors relief from overly burdensome medical malpractice insurance costs would be to force them to pay more in relation to their incidents of negligence. Right now, doctors that never have a claim, pay roughly the same as those that are often negligent and have many claims against them.

The ability to buy and sell insurance across state lines would likely be a good measure for keeping health insurance costs down but it won’t ensure coverage for children who are dying of _________ (fill in the blank) today. The emphasis should be placed on health care first and profits and political ideology second. All of the people controlling the system and the debate would prefer not to have it that way.

But this whole health care issue is a struggle between Republicans, who want to protect the profits of their big campaign donors (insurance companies) and Obama who wants to protect his presidential “legacy” and signature law. Why do we bother fighting to win one of those inconsequential outcomes? We could have far more honest and constructive discussions about health care and all of the partisan sticking points if we first addressed eliminating corruption and creating a fair and honest election system. The reason the misinformation is abound is because politicians want us to vote against our interests and for theirs. So you won’t ever be asked to focus on the corruption and election schemes that both parties engage in. Focusing on those issues doesn’t really help either party and all the politicians are doing just fine with the system as it is. It is only we citizens that suffer. That is the new American Way.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Are You Feeling Like Chinese Finger Cuffs?

For those of you that are Kevin Smith fans, this will make perfect sense: The  government is treating us like Chinese finger cuffs. One party has us from the front and one party has us from the rear and we haven't gotten wise enough to simply object to the treatment. Instead we just keep arguing about how bad the other party tastes or feels.

The recent government shutdown was a perfect example of the two parties acting toward their own political goals with no regard for the citizens of the country. Obama and the Democrats are widely considered to be the winners of the shutdown fiasco, along with Ted Cruz, who increased his popularity with some TEA Party constituents by proving that he is willing to destroy the country in order to pursue their narrow objectives.

As for the rest of us, we were handed the bill. $24 billion, the charge for getting a front row seat to the grotesque spectacle of grandstanding and political posturing. Do you feel you got your money's worth?

You would think that, as a society, we would attack the corruption in government that causes politicians to serve the special interest groups rather than work for the benefit of the country. But, we don't. We mostly cheer on one party and condemn the other, which keeps us in our same position: treated like Chinese finger cuffs.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

A Winning Strategy for Defeating Obamacare

Is there a problem with this picture?

Defeating/repealing Obamacare is not going to be easy. It is certainly not going to be as easy as pressuring your representatives in Congress to repeal the law. The futile act of doing so costs an estimated $1.4 million every time the Republicans bring it up for a vote in the House, meaning that Republican politicians in Congress have already wasted more than $54 million of your tax dollars. Does this sound like the actions of a fiscally conservative party? Most thinking voters would prefer an approach that would be (a) less costly (repealing Obamacare would actually add more than $109 billion to the national deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office) and (b) actually be effective. The following is a strategy that would accomplish both of those goals...

Step 1: Stop trying to convince citizens that Obamacare is going to be a disaster. Our system before Obamacare was a disaster so everyone should save their breath instead of warning of the woes of implementing the Affordable Care Act and put their efforts into Step 2 (see below). Anyone--such as I--would prefer to try an alternative to the health care system we had before the ACA if they--such as I--were confronted with a situation of being denied care because it would be more profitable for the insurance companies and doctors if they pretend that you did not have a problem or that the problem could not be treated. Being in that situation has personally cost me over $20,000 in medical expenses; at least several thousand dollars of wasted insurance premiums, co-payments and related expenses; and an inestimable amount of money in lost productivity and failed potential. A price cannot be placed on the anger and frustration of being denied health care so that others could profit while you struggle financially as well as medically. Imagine yourself in that situation. Would it be acceptable to you?

Republican politicians like to paint support for Obamacare as a desire to get something for nothing. This characterization may satisfy some, but many of us recognize it a as an opportunity to ensure getting what you pay for from an industry that would prefer to stiff their customers after taking their money.

The other reason some citizens will never accept the arguments that Obamacare will be a disaster and lead to the financial ruin of the country and/or ruin our health care system is because the people who are making those claims also claimed that George W. Bush's Medicare Part D program would cost $400 billion over ten years, under-estimating the actual cost* by more than half. (By the way, Medicare Part D is responsible for much of the national debt which Obama is currently being blamed for. Yeah, I dislike Obama as President but I am just trying to be honest here. I don't dislike him so much that I would be dishonest in an attempt to discredit the man or his job performance. There are enough honest arguments about him to do that sufficiently.)

The same people that drastically underestimated Medicare Part D also underestimated the cost and efficacy of the Iraq War and other predictions that seriously call their credibility into question.

[For anyone that hasn't figured it out: like any other political issue, there are two sets of liars, one on each side. Each will say whatever will help achieve their political objective and we are left to sort out all of the BS. We cannot have an honest debate about health care, or any other issue, until we eliminate corruption from government. Then the politicians will have no reason to be dishonest and shady. Since we haven't figured that out and we haven't made eliminating corruption our top priority, we deal with the consequences.]

Step 2: Demand a better law than Obamacare. Many people find going back to the US healthcare system before Obamacare untenable. The reason is that--as I stated before--the system was broken and left many people vulnerable and/or victimized. Even prominent Republcians such as Clint Murphy now support Obamacare. Why? Because he has cancer and has never been able to get health insurance coverage due to that pre-existing condition. Obamacare changed that and now he has affordable health care.

Could Obamacare still be a disaster? Of course it could. Although, I know nothing in the law that leads me to believe that that will be the case. But someone with cancer who can finally get affordable health care to treat it will likely prefer to take the small risk of some negative outcome in exchange for the very likely positive outcome that they would stand to receive, personally. And, I feel that any compassionate person would support that.

The only viable avenue for repealing Obamacare is to replace it with a plan that addresses the same concerns in a smarter way. I imagine that few people are married  to Obamacare and they would embrace any health care reform that would address all of the issues that Obamacare does. If Republicans came up with an alternative plan that was smarter and could be implemented more easily, I suspect that many Obamacare supporters would embrace it. I would. Unfortunately, Republicans do not want that. I suspect that they are far more concerned that Obamacare may be successful than they are that it might be a disaster. For them, Obamacare being successful would be a disaster for their party. That is what the fight is really about. As with all issues, politicians seek political victory, not a solution to a social problem. It is another distinction that we are unfortunately not often intelligent enough to recognize.

Afterward: All of the facts, figures and information above create a solid case for demanding an alternative plan before accepting the repeal of Obamacare. Is it all lies and BS from the "liberal media"? Perhaps. although not likely, considering I got the information from various sources which have been corroborated by many other sources that I have found to be incredibly accurate and trustworthy over the years. If it is all lies and BS, then where are the real numbers? Do you have them? Please share them if you do. Otherwise, to say that this is all lies and BS makes you political operative. It is lazy, unfounded activism and it is 'phoning it in'.

*The Forbes article linked to admittedly contains some spin but the dollar figures in it and facts concerning the legislation are completely accurate, according to my recollection.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

A Multi-Dimensional View of Politics

Many people view politics as a one-dimensional model. Like the image above, a person or politician would fall somewhere on the line between hardcore conservatism or hardcore liberalism. Although this model would include moderates--who would fall somewhere near the middle of the scale--it completely ignores those with libertarian views. These people are generally fiscally conservative and socially liberal. The two-dimensional graphic below would be far more accurate.

Both of the models above fail to acknowledge some of the most influential political forces. The image below is a representation of how I view the US political model. The two dimensional model at the equator of the sphere is where the strict ideologues would be found. Forces such as corruption, a desire to maintain elect-ability, deeply-held biases, etc., pull politicians away from that equator. They exist somewhere in the sphere where their political loyalties and core beliefs are compromised by these other factors.

When we look at the one or two dimensional models, we simply judge politicians on how liberal, conservative, libertarian or moderate they are or claim to be. But if those ideals are severely compromised by corruptive influences, it really doesn't matter how liberal, conservative, libertarian or moderate the person is. The politician will pursue an agenda that is inconsistent with the political ideals of the group they ascribe themselves to.

It is far more important to evaluate a politician based on the forces that drive their behavior than it is to evaluate them based on their party affiliation.

For instance, Republicans claim to promote economic growth by being "business friendly" and making opportunities for oil companies and other large corporations to expand and create more jobs. But is this their policy because they honestly believe that this is the best remedy for the country's economic crisis? Or is it because most Republican politicians are heavily invested in oil companies and other large corporations? Is it because oil companies and other corporations will contribute generously to their next election campaign if they can promise and deliver policies that will make those corporations more wealthy?

Democrats claim to support the middle class worker but they seem to provide a lot more support to people on Wall Street. Is that due to their personal financial investments in Wall Street banks? Is it for the campaign contributions they receive from Wall Street? Does anyone recall that while Countrywide was swindling home buyers and writing bad mortgages, the politicians in Congress that should have been regulating their business were not doing so? They were, however receiving great deals for their home mortgages from Countrywide. Isn't that a conflict of interest that we should never allow to take place? Do Democratic politicians "support" workers for the campaign contributions from unions? Do they do it for the votes that the unions deliver on Election Day?

One-dimensional thinking affects our understanding of political events as well. One example of a one-dimensional view is the statement that "terrorists hate us for our freedom". That may be true but it is not why they are attacking us. There are many geopolitical reasons for the attacks and it can't be so easily explained away. Until we understand them, terrorist attacks are likely to be a forthcoming.

Another one-dimensional view is the idea that business people would make the best politicians. Being able to balance a budget is an important skill for government workers to have but look at other aspects of the job. Are business people generally aware of the protocols of holding an elected office? Do business people generally empathize well with others? Business people generally succeed when they gain an advantage in a deal whereas a good politician needs to find equitable solutions that work for the benefit of all parties. Also consider that wages--like any other commodity--are subject to the laws of supply and demand. Business people profit when jobs are scarce and demand for them is high because that allows business people to freeze or lower wages. If a business person's cronies are other business people, will they be likely to work hard to create more opportunities for employment to better the country or will they keep unemployment high so that their cronies (and perhaps they, themselves) can benefit from suppressed wages?

For this country to move forward, we need to break out of the box. Republicans will give you a game plan to move the country forward and the Democrats will give you an alternative plan. But we don't have to choose one or the other. We can demand other options. And, if we think multi-dimensionally, we can identify solutions that will actually work for the country as a whole, instead of just for the politicians and their cronies.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Fight the Slog or Advance to VICTORY?

For what cause will you fight?

Are there any chess players out there? Are there any that look at our current political situation and see a classic match underway? Do you see the citizens of this country behaving as pawns for the politicians that are dominating and controlling the game? We argue out all of the issues that the politicians want us to battle each other over. Hashing it out with fellow Americans because we are told that the left/right issues are the important issues. More important than determining whether our foreign policy decisions are making us more or less safe, moreover, whether they're moral and just. We're told that the left/right issues are more important than examining the salaries, budgets and perks of members of Congress. And more important than getting corruption out of government and constructing a fairer election system.

Who do you think is controlling the message? Is it merely coincidence that the issues that get discussed ad nauseum in the media are the issues that seem to shield politicians from scrutiny and unite the political bases to defend their parties, to the detriment of the country as a whole? Which makes me wonder: can we stop focusing on the issues that divide us and instead cooperate on fixing the issues that would really create some positive change in the government and drastic improvements to our quality of life?

After all, how do you win the game of chess? How do you vanquish an opponent that has all of the powerful pieces on the board when your ranks have been reduced to a handful of pawns? When those pawns work in concert, they can traverse the board, take the fight to the powerful and when they reach the opposite side, they become a queen!

OK, not a perfect analogy. But the queen is the most powerful piece on the chessboard. A queen can take out all of the other players and turn the game around.

Why defend politicians when we instead could harness our power, become the most dominant force on the board and control the game? So, as much as I never imagined that this would ever be my rallying cry... BECOME A QUEEN WITH ME!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Identifying and Avoiding the Danger Ahead

Are we too distracted to know and understand the danger ahead?

Does anyone really think that our politicians suck because they;re too "liberal" or too "conservative"? Do you think that maybe it's because they're all beholden to interests other than yours or mine that their job performance is unsatisfactory?

I don't see many politicians I would call either liberal or conservative. If we had a liberal party it would be an anti-war party. And if we had a conservative party it would be fiscally responsible. Instead, we have Democrats and Republicans and just look at what they have accomplished over the past several years. It has not been pretty.

What is the best course of action?

If you are standing on a ship headed for an iceberg, does it matter whether you're on the port side or starboard side? Would you chain yourself to one side or would you rush the bridge, take control of the vessel and steer it clear of the danger? Understand that the primary danger ahead of us is not a mass of bad liberal ideas or bad conservative ideas. It is an iceberg of corruption, of plutocracy and of duopoly. If we cannot focus on avoiding that obstacle, or obliterating it, then we are sunk. Plain and simple.

We are not going to eliminate corruption by electing more Democrats or more Republicans. We are only going to eliminate it by addressing it ourselves, together. Politicians are not going to work to eliminate corruption. Most of them profit from it. Others enjoy the sense of power that comes from having the ability to take your tax dollars and hand them to their cronies.

Are we going to continue to tolerate the corruption or will we do something about it? Click here to read about how a 21st Century Continental Congress could be created to reform government and eliminate corruption. It would take a  lot of work but it would be successful. ...if we find the motivation to change the system to benefit us. Otherwise, we wait for the special interests, the plutocrats and the duopoly to wrangle over who gets our tax dollars and how much of it we get to keep. Why would you ever consider leaving such decisions in their hands?

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Focus on the OTHER Tea Party

The OTHER Tea Party

You know people, it is long past time for a reset in this country. We need to drastically overhaul government and my belief is that most of us understand what we need to accomplish: control government spending and make politicians more accountable, all of which will virtually eliminate corruption. Then we just reform the way we elect politicians and how their campaigns are run, how they're financed and how they're recognized. Are we really going to look to the people who profit from this catastrophe and expect them to rush to fix it?

People, it is up to us.

We could get extreme. We could demand that all politicians be fired tomorrow and all new politicians will be elected; no one having ever been elected to public office shall be eligible. That would be a bit too extreme for my liking but I would be willing to discuss it and try to find the middle ground--where the majority of us are and settle on a reasonable compromise if I cannot convince the majority of intelligent, fair-minded people of my favored position in a civil discussion. Is that really so hard, people?

We are the People! Why are we not telling government how it needs to operate, rather than the other way around? With all this talk of "What do we cut, money for national defense or money for hungry children?" we have never stopped to consider that perhaps Congressional salaries, benefits and budgets should be examined! I know we can trim a lot of  that fat and we'd be much better for it. Not only will it help reduce the budget deficit and the national debt, but paying lower salaries to members of Congress--with fewer perks--will attract a different breed of public servant. You know, like teachers and fire-fighters and cops, many of whom do a difficult job extremely well. I'll admit it--even some of the cops. And those people do it for the right reasons. Can't we find some of those people? That don't want to get rich or be famous or be glamorous, but just do the right thing and try to make a positive difference? These people exist, I'm sure of it. But we cast out with the bait to lure snakes, eels and sucker fish.

Who Has the Power?

The ideals of eliminating corruption and wasteful spending should be universal. Are they not? So why can't we figure out a way to make government conform to them? It seems to me that we are too busy fighting with each other, trying to convince others and ourselves that people on the opposite end of the political spectrum are morons. Do you know what that's about, people? It's about television putting on the most extreme and outrageous people they can find and giving them all the air time so they can get good ratings. Those views that everybody hears from their favorite celebrity television personality are not really the concerns of the average American. Just like Congressional salaries, those issues are never discussed. The people on your TV are in the minority and they serve the interests of the minority. That minority that has all the wealth. But we have the power in this country. We are half of the balance. We need to be the counterweight to that wealth that they are glad to spend on political influence. And what happens when a scale in balance has one of its weights removed? We are experiencing it right now. We need to do our job! They're well-funded, determined and organized. We're over-fed, boozed up and apathetic. Is there any question of why we lost round 1?

And while the conservatives call the liberals "lib-tards" and the liberals call the conservatives "republicunts", nobody is bothering to break up Washington DC's little tea party. They've got a pretty sweet thing going and we think that they are going to clean it all up? Are we confused? We have to take charge of that initiative. We have to flex our power by the majority of us coming together to salvage what's left of our democracy. The good news is: we can make it even better than it was. (If we are open-minded) we now have more experience and a historical record on which to determine which government  constructs were wise and which were unwise. We can see where the system broke down and corruption was allowed to penetrate. It's just going to take the majority of us: the intelligent, rational, committed and determined people that I believe we are, to make our demands of government and get them implemented immediately. I'll get the ball rolling:

I would like to propose that elected officials should no longer be able to trade stocks from the night of their election until the day they leave office. We could even go more extreme with that and make it from the time they declare that they are running for office until their last day of service. I believe that there are a lot of Americans who would gladly make that sacrifice for the opportunity to serve their country. Where does the majority of the people stand on this issue?

Now you. Please leave a comment about where you stand on limiting Congress' stock trades while serving, and/or come up with your own proposal that you would like to have the majority of us adopt and demand that government implement.

**cynical me, I already have a feeling about which way this would most likely turn...**

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 2)

In my last blog post--How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 1)--I linked to an article that explains how the country has been harmed by those whose wealth is used to influence politics in a way that is unfair to the majority of us. That article very brilliantly enumerates the ways that this oligarchy has been detrimental to the greater economy and even to the long term interests of those in the so-called 1%.

The aforementioned article offers some great insight into the macroeconomic issues facing the country. This week, I'd like to focus in on a microeconomic aspect that ties into the previous article and illustrates the stark danger of the plutocracy that our country has become.

So, imagine that there is a business in a community and the business is doing well, paying all of its employees and therefore the entire community is thriving because everyone is working and everyone has money to spend. Then let's say that someone sees this all going on and decides: I would rather have all that money for me! That person buys the company, runs up its debt to pay himself hundreds of millions of dollars then, when the business cannot repay the new debts, closes the business, fires the workers and files for bankruptcy, hanging the company's debts on the taxpayers (some of whom were just fired from the company). Seem fair?

Of course, that scenario is not hypothetical. It is how private equity firms, like Mitt Romney's Bain Capital, sometimes operate. I bring it up because I often see comments from people online, suggesting that people who voted for President Obama may now be regretting their vote, as if Romney/Ryan was a viable alternative. I also bring it up because people still blame the poor economic recovery on the housing bubble, bank bailouts, the "takers" getting too much welfare, Obamacare, the wars, etc. Although most of those things may also be to blame, the business practices of private equity firms is certainly one of the most destructive forces and it is an issue that desperately needs to be addressed. It is also an issue that is largely ignored by the mainstream media, while people are all-too-eager to talk about the other possible causes. We are not going to have a strong economy again as long as people are more inclined to chase large, short-term profits as opposed to long-term growth and stability.

Personally, I could not vote for a person like Mitt Romney. The types of business practices he was involved in at Bain should be illegal. We certainly don't need a president that champions such business practices and might perhaps help others make out the way he did: by essentially stealing wealth from the common worker.

This relates to Joseph Stiglitz' article because, through the magic of plutocracy, such unethical business practices have not only been made legal, but the profits from such travesties are taxed at a rock-bottom rate, far lower than you or I pay on our income we receive from working and producing things. You see, when you or I request things from government--like tax relief, clean air and water, transparency and accountability in government, etc.--government usually yawns. But when a very wealthy and powerful person approaches government and asks to legalize theft and then get a sweetheart tax break on those ill-gotten gains, the government tends to listen and bend over backwards (and bend us over forward) to accommodate them.

We citizens in the so-called 99% are the majority in this country. And it is supposed to be a democracy. Therefore, if the majority of us are intelligent, we could come together to demand changes to the system so that it is no longer rigged against us; we can make destructive business practices illegal and we can make profits from "carried interest" deals taxed at the full rate. If...

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

How the 1% is Hurting the Country (part 1)



Can you afford a lobbyist? Will you get a fair shake without one?

I would like to share a link to a single article that I believe every American should read. The article puts some intellectual firepower behind the discontent of the 99% movement, which they themselves could not articulate and most did not fully understand: that the country has become a plutocracy which harms democracy, justice and fairness. Furthermore, the greed of the 1% and the income and wealth inequality that currently exists in the US is not only harming the country and many in the 99% but it is harming the 1% as well. Since people in the 1% control almost all of the news media in the country, they were able to mis-characterize the 99% movement as lazy free-loaders. Similarly, they re-directed the anger of the TEA Party movement from the abuses of big banks to instead demanding from government that the taxes on the rich can never be raised. The article brilliantly explains why our current economic structure is bad for everyone, including those currently benefiting from it.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/2012/05/joseph-stiglitz-the-price-on-inequality

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Incompetence or Corruption?

Who Runs Our Government?

I'm always intrigued by the notion that our country is in such bad shape because politicians are incompetent. Ask the people on Wall Street if they feel the government is incompetent. You will likely get a different response than you or I might give. Ask the labor unions and the CEOs of large corporations how they would grade the performance of our politicians. Celebrities get the attention and reverence that could have a positive impact on the government if it were bestowed upon someone that has new ideas and real integrity. Likely, all of these special interest groups would grade the government's performance higher than you or I would. You see, they all get what they want from government, you and I do not.

UNITY! (with Direct Democratic Action)

So how do we change that situation? How do we become more powerful and influential than the special interest groups? It is not logical to pool our money in an attempt to out-spend the wealthy with campaign contributions. Nor is it logical for us to hire lobbyists to battle the corporate interests and unions that have their meat hooks in politicians. The only way to take on special interest and reform government so that it works for We the People is to unite. When we do, we will become bigger and stronger than the special interest groups. We can prevent corporations from lobbying government to get tax breaks and government subsidies. We can prevent big banks from getting bailed out when they make risky bets for quick profits. We can prevent unions from having undue influence in government and in the industries in which they operate. We can prevent corporations from overturning laws that protect consumers and other citizens to maximize profits. We can even find ways to reform campaign finance laws so that celebrities have no greater voice or more influence than any other American.

To accomplish it means that we have to let go of the divisive issues that keep us at odds with each other. We need to start being more understanding of one another and more open to ideas. We need to work together to expose the schemes of government and special interest groups. We need to find common ground on the many issues which the majority of us would agree. Because, if we do...

Victory!

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

8 Profound Points About Gun Control That Nobody Seems to Have Considered

America and Firearms: Forever Intertwined

The gun legislation issue is so simple! Or is it?...

THE SACREDNESS OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: Supporters of the Second Amendment will always argue about the importance of it. The Founders of our nation expressly wrote  our right to own firearms into The Constitution because they felt it to be of special importance. And although I also agree, I too realize that the Second Amendment is no more sacred than any other right Americans have, including the rights to basic safety, security and peace of mind. Americans have every conceivable right (so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others), regardless of whether it is written into The Constitution or it is not. And although our Founders and our citizens may find certain rights to be more important than others, none are more sacred than any other. All must be respected.

LARGE CAPACITY MAGAZINES: Limiting the capacity of gun magazines means that a shooter will have to stop to reload more frequently (unless the criminal has decided that obtaining illegal large capacity magazines is a more taboo crime than murder) and give bystanders more opportunity to tackle and subdue the shooter. This makes perfect sense. Except that if there is a prison break and I have to defend myself against a dozen or more felons that wish to do me harm, I don't want to be tackled and subdued while I attempt to change magazines. This is the big flaw in the left's argument about large capacity magazines. The prison break scenario is unlikely to occur but who knows what threats a person may have to protect themselves against? Rioting following an earthquake or other natural disaster, an eruption of gang violence or a drug deal gone bad. It is just not reasonable to punish the law-abiding citizen in an attempt to prevent a criminal from having something that they can get easily on the black market or secondary market anyway. Thirty round magazines for rifles and ten round magazines for pistols is a good compromise.

PEEKING INTO THE FUTURE: I have often criticized peoples' understanding of politics as being very one-dimensional. One way to view the gun issue in a way that is multi-dimensional is to look into the future and build likely events into the calculus of your political decisions. At some point in the future, I'm sure that there will be ray guns that can render someone unconscious from several yards away. The victim will wake up from the attack with no lasting injury, aside from the fact that they may have just been raped. If you think we have a problem with "roofies" and rape now, imagine if a would-be victim would never even have to be in close proximity to the attacker to be rendered unconscious. Whenever there are advances in firearm technology, how they are bought, sold and regulated should be examined to ensure that gun-owners' rights to have and use guns do not infringe on other citizens' rights to reasonable safety and peace-of-mind.

ASSAULT RIFLES: Banning assault rifles is kind of like banning automobiles that can go faster than the speed limit. The statement "Why does anybody need an assault rifle?" is similar to "Why does anybody need a sports car that can go 200+ miles per hour?" I find the look of assault rifles to be very attractive and they are fun to shoot. Even if I never need one for self-protection, I enjoy the look of the weapon and I enjoy shooting them. Shouldn't it be within my rights to own the kind of weapon I find appealing if I am able to demonstrate that I can own the weapon responsibly? How wrong and un-American would it be to say that people cannot own a sports car because they can go too fast and could therefore cause injury or death to others? Nor can you own a replica sports car because it looks just like one that can drive fast? Nobody would accept such restrictions on our liberty and we should not do so with regards to firearms either.

UNDERSTANDING THE INTENT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: I am rather certain that if automobiles were around during the founding of the nation, our forefathers would have considered them to be sacrosanct. They may have even been addressed in the Bill of Rights. "The automobile, being necessary for the freedom of travel and an important convenience, the right for citizens to own and operate a motor vehicle shall not be infringed." the language of the Eleventh Amendment might read. But does that mean that anyone can own a car, regardless of age or ability to drive safely? Does it mean that people shouldn't have to obey stop signs and NO PARKING signs? I doubt the Founders would have put every potentially acceptable regulatory measure into The Constitution.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF OVERLY STRICT GUN LEGISLATION: Recently, the technology to build a plastic gun by use of a 3-D printer was developed. Although the weapon is crude, it is just the start of what is to come. Before long, far more sophisticated weapons will be able to be constructed in the homes of private citizens and strict gun legislation will accelerate those ambitions. When something is made illegal or made prohibitively expensive, alternatives will surface and flourish. In this case, sophisticated weapons that are constructed and traded by private citizens with no governmental oversight. Such weapons cannot be detected by X-ray machines, (assumingly) have no traceable ballistics and have no serial numbers. Dealing with such weapons is going to be incredibly complicated and we are certainly not ready to take on that challenge now or in the near future.

THE NON-EXISTENT SLIPPERY SLOPE: The "slippery slope" argument is usually put forth when there is no argument of real merit available. The idea that extending background checks for firearms is a "slippery slope" to the government keeping a gun registry is ludicrous. We have a defense against such an assault on our Second Amendment right. It is, our Second Amendment right! Nothing says that you don't plan to ever exercise your Second Amendment right more than claiming that something could be a threat to it. If the government wants to go to my local gun store to take records it has no rights to, I would be there, with my firearm to tell them that they cannot do it. Are we going to participate in this democracy or are we going to just phone it in? We can be more prudent about where we draw our DO NOT CROSS lines.

PROTECTING DEMOCRACY: Gun owners often declare that their ownership of firearms is necessary to protect the country from the government becoming tyrannical and eliminating our freedoms. Those who support aggressive gun control legislation point out the futility and ridiculousness of armed citizens defending the country from government resources such as Apache helicopters, nuclear weapons,  fighter jets, drones, etc. This is going to take some time to unpack so, bear with me…

[Now, I speak purely hypothetically because I don’t believe that we have a government interested in bringing about tyrannical rule at this time. As much as I feel that government is corrupt, wrong-headed and dysfunctional, I don’t think government is attempting to subvert democracy or declare martial law. I do think that many people in government and those forces that influence government would want to do so if they felt they could. But we are a long way away from that becoming a reality.]

It is erroneous to think that the aforementioned government resources would include the soldiers required to operate the machines and weaponry. Our soldiers swear an oath to the country and to The Constitution, not to the government. No soldier should ever commit acts of aggression towards the citizens of the United States. If the government turned tyrannical and ordered attacks on citizens, soldiers should (and I believe most would) disobey those orders and fight with citizens to restore democracy and order.

If tyranny became the goal of government officials at some point, they could conceivably contract a mercenary army like KBR or Academi (formerly Xe, Blackwater)—provided those American contract soldiers have greater allegiance to their company, their government and/or to money than they do to their country. Our government could also hire foreign soldiers but those fighters would need to be trained to operate the machines and weapons that would make the government such an imposable force.

Looking beyond the hypothetical, I have spent a lot of time thinking about the future of the nation and how citizens can get control of government. I believe that we are long overdue for a revolution of some kind and I am hoping for a non-violent one. I believe that it is not only possible but necessary.

Those who do not believe that gun ownership is a realistic check against government tyranny sometimes bring up the government actions against the Branch Davidians in Waco, TX as evidence of the futility of citizens standing against government. Although the Davidians lost one battle (their lives and compound), they won a very significant battle which was to make themselves an example to other citizens about how the government can treat its citizens. People like me took notice. We saw the propaganda and lies the government told to explain how those people, including women and children died. It further eroded my trust in government and gave me more motivation for finding a way to achieve a non-violent revolution to address what I feel are serious and potentially disastrous flaws in the constructs of government and in how it operates. The killing of the Branch Davidians didn’t spark a revolution, likely because they were an odd group--if not potentially dangerous to the community--they were arguably potentially dangerous to themselves and to the children living in the compound.

The government should have no reason—aside from greedy self-interest—to oppose a non-violent revolution, intended to restore democratic principles that have been perverted by special interests over the years. If the government did oppose such an effort, all citizens of the country would have to ask why the government would oppose common sense reforms that are supported by a majority of the population. People would have to wonder why the government would want to oppose fellow citizens who were simply interested in making corrections to government machinations that would lead to a freer citizenry, more effective government, a more prosperous nation, a more just society: a more perfect Union.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Don't Play "Feedback Loop (TM)"- A Fools' Game

Feedback Loop(TM)- A Fool's Game

So, the majority of you out there tune into the corporate media news to find out what to be outraged about, the television personality--who is paid to tell you whatever will keep their multi-million dollar paycheck rolling in--gives you the so-called "news" and tells you who you should hate and why, allthewhile, another news channel is telling another set of programmed drones the exact opposite. They get you so infuriated with your political opponents that you will do anything to see that their politicians don't get elected. In fact, you'll spend your hard-earned money to stop them! So you donate your money to a political campaign, hoping to inch forward toward your goal of a more perfect union. The political campaigns then give the money back to the media--in the form of campaign advertisement revenue--to tell you who to hate and why. ...And you don't see a problem with this? Take a look at the game board graphic (above) to see what playing the Feedback Loop (TM) game has to offer us.

What have we learned? 1. Do not give money to political campaigns. 2. Don't watch news that is funded by political campaigns. 3. Don't listen to any of their BS. Otherwise, you are fueling the machine of your own demise.

Why not take a look at some of the issues that we would find easier to agree on? The things that politicians and the media don't ever talk about. Like term limits for the US Congress. Like Congress' salary and benefits. Like sensible campaign reform measures. Like politicians picking winners and losers and then leaving government to go work for the winners. Then the winners--with their new influx of wealth--buying the next set of politicians to make sure they are winners again so they can afford to pay the politicians when they leave government to go work for the winners...

Is there not enough danger in that feedback loop for you not to want to stop whatever you are doing and address it? Let's change the game to one that we can actually win. We start by rejecting the dangerous collusion between the media and politicians. Then we go after the dangerous collusion between government and lobbyists/industry.

Or we can wait for a politician to come along and clean the whole broken system. And I'm sure the media will let us know which politician would be best for the job.

News media fails to report truth about Iraq WMDs
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/11/opinion/kurtz-iraq-media-failure
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173357/when-nyt-offered-weak-mini-culpa-hyping-iraq-wmd

Fox News misinforms viewers regarding new START treaty
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-8-2010/the-big-bang-treaty

News media fails to recognize looming financial crisis
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/05/28/the-media-and-the-financial-crisis-journalism-failed/

News media fails to report accurately on health care reform
http://www.aim.org/on-target-blog/national-medias-biased-coverage-of-the-affordable-care-act/

Fox News reports scandals involving Republican politicians as scandals by Democrats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnIgRyN3uHA

News stations air Video News Releases (VNRs) produced by government or corporate sources without disclosure
http://www.prwatch.org/fakenews/execsummary
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Video_news_releases#VNR_fines

 ~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Save Your Breath

United States Congress

Our whole political system is corrupt. And to fix it we need to address issues like Congress' salary. $155,500 - $223,500 a year for a part-time job that used to be voluntary and they have an 10% approval rating. Would you have a job if your employer had an 10% approval rating of your performance?

What about Congress members' budgets? Rand Paul recently returned $600,000 of his budget that he didn't spend. Last year it was $500,000. He should be applauded for such a feat! And if he can do that, why can't the rest of them trim their budgets?

Why aren't these things even being discussed?

Why do we allow Congress members to trade stocks related to legislation that they are debating? As soon as a Congressperson takes their oath of office, all of their stock trades should be frozen. And if they attempt to tip off others with inside information they should be punished harshly. Boehner owns stock in oil companies, Pelosi owns stock in Citibank. They all get rich and who were they serving with their decisions?

Does everything really have to involve a penis to be a scandal now?

Politicians often leave Congress and go to work for the businesses that they voted to provide or deny federal assistance to. Sometimes they go the other way. Doesn't this all seem a little bit too cozy to you?

If we can't all get behind these issues then we really are stupid and perhaps we should just give up.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

Surveying Our Political Landscape

The US Political Landscape (a dramatization)

In my last blog post, Breaking Down the Political Equation, I recommended that we "stop marching into the voting booth to protect" politicians. I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that people stop voting. It is important for those of us that wish to be proactive to keep informed and vote for the person that best represents our individual ideals and values and whom we believe will best care for the country and the interests of its citizens. We citizens may not agree on the best candidates but it is important in a democracy that most of the citizens participate. I do however think it is foolish to believe that politicians will do anything to fix the country's problems. At least, not without being forced to by the electorate.

I often deride politicians for their corruption and poor governance but I will admit that I do admire some politicians--most of whom are unfortunately now out of government--for things that they have done either in their private lives and/or while serving. Not all of them are corrupt and incompetent. But as I survey the political landscape, I see numerous pitfalls that nearly ensure that every politician will be ineffective. I once saw an interview with a politician (I can't remember which one or on which show) who confided that in his first week of serving in the US Congress, his staff had put fundraising events on his agenda. This is our current political reality. Politicians need to raise thousands of dollars daily to fund their next political campaign. Any good-natured and virtuous person may enter government with the intention to change it for the better, but to remain in a position to attempt to positively affect the political system, they are beholden to those that will donate large amounts of money to their campaigns.

That leaves we citizens largely without representation in our own country. We have to clean up the money in politics in order to improve our country and the political system. But how do we do that?

1n 2006, Americans were fed up with Republican scandals and corruption became one of the top issues in the country. In that mid term election, voters elected Democrats who promised to clean up Washington. After winning majorities in both houses of Congress in that election, Democrats had the privilege of changing the rules of Congress. Although Democrats did pass the most strict ethics rules in modern times, the new rules left plenty of loopholes and opportunities for corruption. As often occurs in government, we ended up with half measures and very little change. In my opinion, Democrats fell far short of their clear mandate and to me it is a clear, current example that you cannot send politicians to fix a broken system. Especially when they profit from that broken system.

Voting out one batch of politicians to replace them with other politicians is not a viable solution to our problems. What would actually work is a large voting block of citizens drawing up the reforms we'd like to see in government and then demanding that Congress pass those reforms.

When we citizens unite behind a common cause, we could elect "citizen legislators". Each of these candidates could take an oath not to seek re-election, not to work for lobbying firms or other para-governmental agencies following their term and not to work in any industry or company affected by legislation that they have voted on while in elected office.

Without worrying about re-election, these citizen legislators would be capable of representing the citizens of the country without conflicts of interest. Sending just a few of these political operatives to Washington could actually have a reasonable impact if they stall every non-essential bill until members of Congress re-address the ethics rules and make changes that would satisfy the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Getting citizen legislators elected in a system that is awash in dirty money returns us to the campaign finance challenge. The group, Americans for Campaign Reform, purports that for as little as $6 per US citizen annually, we could fund elections and take special interest groups out of the equation. This seems to be a solution that is well worth looking into. Otherwise, we can only hold our breath and wait for politicians evolve into competent, ethical beings. And the system is rigged to ensure that never happens.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/