James R. Rummel

I am a self defense instructor who lives in Columbus, Ohio.

Reality Check

by

The problem I have with many people who advocate Liberal agendas is that they insists that they’re the most moral, caring people. That’s all fine and dandy, but you have to pay for care.

Case in point is Tennessee’s managed health care system, Tenncare. It was started 10 years ago when the state faced a budget crisis. Back then they were facing a $250 million shortfall in their budget, mainly due to runaway health care costs. So they decided to fix the problem by expanding the medical programs.

Sounds rather backwards, doesn’t it? But the plan was to screw over the Federal government since the Feds provide matching funds for Medicaid and Medicare. By enrolling thousands of the uninsured, proponents figured that they’d have the money rolling in toot sweet.

Well, the obvious happened. The program very quickly spiralled out of control, which is completely predictable. The cracks started to show as quickly as 5 years ago, with costs and corruption rampant. Even so, supporters tried to say that it was a success since the patients who benefitted the most from the program said that they were satisfied. (Give me something for free and see how much I complain.)

Tenncare popped up in the news earlier this year with the Canadian drug scandal. It seemed that Tennessee was getting desperate to reduce costs or find some funds.

Now it’s really gone off the rails. The program is costing $7.8 billion a year!!! And this is in a state without any income tax.

Reforms are being discussed but they seem very weak to me. It looks like about 430K people will have to be dropped from the rolls, and something tells me that this is just the start.

I don’t think a whole lot will be done before it’s a complete disaster. Everything I read about the program talks about how caring and moral it is, even though it will probably drive the state to the verge of bankruptcy and leave hundreds of thousands without any health care at all.

A Matter of Perspective Pt II: The Hatfields, the McCoys, and the Mafia

by

In Part One I discussed how comparing the Iraqi situation with that in Afghanistan wasn’t a good idea. The main advantage that Afganistan has over Iraq is that, while both countries are oriented towards a tribal culture, there’s a greater variety of ethnic groups that allow the people there to overcome this mindset.

But what the heck do I mean by “tribal,” anyway? And why is it so significant?

Read more

A Matter of Perspective Pt I: Apples and Oranges

by

Fellow Chicago Boy Michael Hiteshew has written a post where he discusses his doubts about a victory in Iraq. He feels that the terrorists have gained ground, and might be winning no matter how the US tries to stop them. He correctly points out that neither side can hope to win unless they enjoy the support of the general population.

“There is no possible way for 150,000 troops to control a country of 28 million without the active support of its inhabitants. And don’t tell me about the British Empire. This is not 1850. Today, support can stream in from across the globe to supply weapons and fighters to a guerrilla insurgency allowing them to wreak havoc for decades.”

Michael also compares the situation to the relative success in Afghanistan.

“Why isn’t this happening in Afghanistan? Quite simply because there’s no support for it. For starters, twenty years of civil war have simply worn them out. More importantly, in Afghanistan, by contrast with Iraq, the war was led by Afghanis, with the US merely supplying the overwhelming firepower when needed. Finally, the international community, much as it pains many Americans to admit it, provided the necessary political framework for the war to succeed, from the political meetings held in Bonn, Germany, to the active help of neighboring countries like Russia, Uzbekistan and Pakistan. All of which are missing in Iraq.”

I’ve noticed that most people are rather vague when they discuss their misgivings about the situation in Iraq. They know that it’s not going the way they hoped but they have very few ideas as to why, or what can be done to correct it. This is understandable when one considers that they don’t have a very firm background when it comes to Iraqi culture or history. I’m hardly an expert myself, but I do have a keen interest in the history part of it, and I’ve been reading up.

First off, people here in the West love to compare Afghanistan to Iraq. And why shouldn’t they? After all, both countries are rugged and lacking in water. Both countries were recently suffering under despotic regimes. And both countries are predominantly Islamic. They’re practically the same, right?

Not at all, and it’s important to keep in mind that the differences are more significant than the simularities.

Read more

It’s Not WMDs, But it Still Violated the Peace Agreement

by

According to this report on the Jane’s Defence server, two teams of Iraqi engineers received the personal go-ahead from Saddam himself in June 2000 to work on 3 clandestine projects to develop long-range missiles. The projects never got off the drawing board thanks to UN sanctions, which choked off vital parts and supplies. The prescence of UN inspectors also forced the Iraqis to destroy most of the work they had been doing in order to preserve secrecy.

The engineers assigned to each project independently came to the same conclusion; the best way to build a long-range missile was to cluster existing hardware. This way the missiles could be assembled with a minimum of time, testing, and expense.

This points up two things. The first is that sanctions, if vigorously pursued and enforced, actually work so far as denying rogue states the ability to develop sophisticated weapon systems.

The second conclusion that can be drawn is that much can be done without the vital equipment and supplies needed to actually build the weapons. Development time would be greatly reduced, and these weapons would be ready to be deployed with shocking speed as soon as sanctions were lifted or relaxed.

I’m sure that everyone will draw what conclusions they want from this. The “I love the UN” crowd will point out that santions worked, and there was no reason for the invasion of Iraq. The “UN sucks” section of the audience will think it significant that the invasion was the only way to permanently ensure that Iraq wasn’t a vast and destabilizing threat.

Belly up to the bar and take your pick. Both views are right.

Marriage of Minds

by

Long time readers of this blog will know that I’m in favor of gay marriage. But then they also know that I’m in favor of it for hard-headed, realistic reasons. Marriage confers various financial benefits that shouldn’t be exclusive to heterosexual couples.

Unfortunately, many people want to talk about “rights” when it comes to marriage, gay or otherwise. This is self-defeating, since marriage and the benefits attached to the institution are hardly rights as we understand them. If they were, then every unmarried person could demand that someone marry them. After all, if marriage is a right then being single when you don’t want to be is a violation of those rights.

The voters are smart enough to understand that marriage isn’t a right. That’s one of the reasons why they’re completely put off by the heated rhetoric being flung about by the people who support gay marriage.

Just about every credible opinion poll I’ve read shows a very strong opposition to gay marriage. The number of people who oppose civil unions aren’t as high, and some polls actually show that a majority of people support some sort of way to insure the same legal advantages to gay couples just as long as it’s not called marriage. (I’m talking about civil unions.) This is understandable to me, even if I don’t agree with it.

Read more