June 22, 2016

Over and over again...someone always KNOWS the shooter should not have a gun...

The current "background check" at the point of sale is a joke. We need a license with a REAL application that makes it difficult for dangerous people from easy access to guns.

http://wowway.net/news/read/article/the_associated_press-friend_shooter_had_fixation_on_the_voice_singer-ap

Friend: Shooter had fixation on 'The Voice' singer

Dennington became concerned enough with Loibl's obsession with Grimmie that he told their boss at Best Buy about it, according to the police report.

Dennington spoke to Loibl last about five days before the shooting, and Loibl told him that he was "tired and ready to ascend." Dennington told detectives he don't know what that meant.

His father, Paul Loibl, told detectives that his son lived like a hermit, hardly leaving his room except to go to his job. His father was unaware Loibl owned firearms, and detectives said it appeared Loibl had destroyed the hard drive on his home computer and also encrypted his phone, making it difficult to extra any data.

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

June 19, 2016

Parents of Sandy Hook victim: Sanders is wrong about the point of our lawsuit

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/parents-sandy-hook-victim-sanders-wrong-about-the-point-our-lawsuit

Mark and Jackie Barden, whose 7-year-old son Daniel was murdered in the Sandy Hook massacre in December 2012, have voiced their opposition to comments Sen. Bernie Sanders made during a Democratic presidential debate on March 6 that gun manufacturers should not be liable if a crime is committed with their product.

In a Washington Post op-ed published online on Friday, the Bardens argued that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle, which was used to kill their son, 19 other children and six adults in the elementary school shooting, is a highly lethal military weapon that should not be sold to the public. The parents, along with nine other families, filed a lawsuit in December 2014 against Remington Arms, which manufactured the weapon Adam Lanza used to carry out the attack in Newtown, Connecticut.

“If you go to a store and you legally purchase a gun, and three days later you go out and start killing people, is the point to hold the gun shop owner or the manufacturer of that gun liable? If that’s the point, I disagree,” Sanders said. “If they are selling a product to a person who buys it legally, what you’re talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America.”

In the op-ed, the Bardens said the Vermont senator “has spent decades tirelessly advocating for greater corporate responsibility, which is why we cannot fathom his support of companies that recklessly market and profit from the sale of combat weapons to civilians and then shrug their shoulders when the next tragedy occurs, leaving ordinary families and communities to pick up the pieces.”

NRA calls Bernie Sanders’ comments on gunmaker liability ‘spot on’

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/nra-calls-bernie-sanders-comments-gunmaker-liability-spot?artlink=1

The National Rifle Association posted a tweet in support of a comment the Vermont senator made on gun industry immunity during a heated exchange in Sunday night’s Democratic debate with his rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Sen. Sanders was spot-on in his comments about gun manufacturer liability/PLCAA,” the gun lobby tweeted. The post was accompanied by a graphic of the senator’s remarks: “What you’re talking about is ending gun manufacturing in America. I don’t agree with that.”

During the debate, which was televised live from Flint, Michigan, host Anderson Cooper asked Sanders and Clinton if they support a lawsuit filed by families of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting victims. The suit is against Remington Arms Company, which manufactured the weapon the gunman used. Cooper said it might not go anywhere because of a law Sanders backed in 2005 that shields gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits when someone legally buys a gun and then intentionally misuses it.

Ian Sams, a spokesman for the Clinton campaign, tweeted, “While the NRA defends @BernieSanders, it attacks @HillaryClinton. What more do we need to know?”

June 16, 2016

8th graders mimics Presidential candidates...very funny

June 16, 2016

The Incredible Story of NASA’s Forgotten ‘Rocket Girls’

http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2016/05/19/3779620/the-forgotten-rocket-girls-of-nasa/

“I just remember just staring at this picture completely stunned. I have a PhD in Microbiology, and I consider myself very well-versed in the contributions of women scientists, but I had never heard of women working in NASA at this era, much less as scientists, and I really wanted to learn more,” Holt told ThinkProgress over the phone.

Holt’s research led her to an entire group of women who worked as human computers throughout the history of space exploration. Although her first inkling came through a fortuitous internet search, finding the whole story took painstaking digging. Even NASA’s archives had forgotten them. Using old photo captions that identified just one or two names in big groups of women, Holt cold called scores of women until she connected with the right ones.

The stories these women told her formed the basis of her new book, Rise of the Rocket Girls.
In it, Holt chronicles women’s central role in what we now think of as the key accomplishments in space exploration, and their lives as computers in NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).

June 15, 2016

We Should Call Brocialism What It Is — White Populism

Last week, Bernie Sanders officially lost the Democratic Party’s nomination. He lost by every measure — the popular vote, the pledged delegates count, and the superdelegate count. Bernie Sanders was soundly and prominently rejected by the core constituencies of the Democratic Party, namely minority groups. While Sanders tied or won whites everywhere, he lost Blacks 75–25 overall, and lost Latinos 65–35 overall. It is telling that as diverse populations grow, they have increased say over who Democrats choose as President. It is even more telling that there have been many “leftists” this cycle who have attempted to silence these diverse voices and recenter the Democratic Party’s agenda on the white working class.

Brocialist theory purports that once the class struggle is complete, issues with race and gender will simply melt away. But it is important to remember that socialism is an economic system, nothing more. It is not a cultural system. Racism (and sexism) can still thrive in socialist countries. There are plenty of societies far more “socialist” than the United States that suffer from problems with race. Here is a passage from the Council on Hemispheric Affairs piece Revolutionary Racism in Cuba noting that communism didn’t solve racism in Cuba:

Of course, brocialists don’t mention the problems democratic socialist countries in Europe have with race. That’s because they don’t see those racial issues as a big deal as class issues. Even Sanders himself has gotten caught in this line of thinking. Here’s a quote from Sanders in a 2014 interview with NPR’s Steve Inskeep about why minorities need to put class over race:

Read the whole article:

https://medium.com/marcushjohnson/we-should-call-brocialism-what-it-is-white-populism-ad257608ed52#.ktmx15erg

June 12, 2016

Kevin James Loibl Shot & Killed Christina Grimmie Because She Was A Christian

Source: Santa Monica Observer

It is difficult to find motive in the insane ravings of a madman like Kevin James Loibl. But it has become increasingly apparent to police from an examination of Loibl's cell phone and computer records, that singer Christina Grimmie was murdered because of her outspoken Christian faith.

Loibl, 27, traveled from St. Petersburg to Orlando, a distance of some 107 miles, with the specific intent to kill the contestant from NBC's 'The Voice,' said police, adding that Grimmie and Loibl did not know each other.

Orlando police did say that Loibl carried 2 loaded guns and a hunting knife into the Plaza Live theater, and intended to follow the singer's murder by perpetrating a mass casualty event. The singers brother Marcus prevented others from dying by wrestling the shooter down, who then shot himself dead.

Orlando police are investigating the murder as a hate crime, after an examination of recent posts and e-mails by Loibl. Loibl had neither a gun permit nor a criminal record. His insane rantings were removed from the internet shortly after the crime.

Read more: http://www.smobserved.com/story/2016/06/11/news/kevin-james-loibl-shot-and-killed-christina-grimmie-because-she-was-a-christian/1425.html

People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

October 7, 2014

An observation on ER's in Florida...and the PROFIT in health care...

I see a little research about this, but the ebola scare is what brought it up for me.

Here in Florida, we do not have ACA or medicaid expansion (like Texas and many red states). Hospitals have often been purchased by for profit companies even though they often retain the original name of a charitable or non-profit organization. We have for-profit hospitals begging for donations under the old name like "children's" or "community" or something that sounds nice. People donate without even realizing that the hospital is paying owners and investors now. There are bill-boards advertising ER's with digital clocks showing "wait time". It's really a commercial enterprise.

When we were raising adopted and foster kids who were covered by medicaid we had one child with a chronic illness. If we went to an ER, there would be tests, referrals, and sometimes admission. Even medicaid paid for specialists and expensive drugs. Once the child was an adult and not covered, all of a sudden a visit to the ER got pain meds and out the door. In fact, the child developed a drug habit that we blamed on ER visits and quick pain prescriptions instead of treatment after the medicaid ran out.

My wife and I are educators and have insurance with union negotiated benefits (thank goodness). Treatment for chronic illness is covered and copays are small or zero. On the few occasions we went to an ER for something that might be scary, we have insurance and they will run tests, call in a specialist, contact the family doctor, and produce meds from the hospital pharmacy. Admission overnight for observation is no problem. We have noticed lately there are lots of bills from consulting doctors in the ER who are out-of-network and that becomes an issue, but we've learned to ask. We are also astounded at the EOB where the insurance pays $30,000 or something for a single visit, but we don't have any control or choice. We just pay the copay (usually a few hundred). We actually heard EMT's one time discussing which ER to go to based on perceived insurance, and I told them the hospital (and they complied). Maybe the ambulance crew gets kickbacks or something?

Students we teach (from kindergarten to college) are often treated similarly. The ones with insurance get tests, referrals, and often admission just in case. We see the difference when college students with loans and minimal insurance are compared to student athletics covered by prime time university group policies. We see the same thing with free-lunch, low income students vs. middle-classers whose parents have family policies. Treatment depends on insurance, not good medical practice.

If you are in a state with minimal medicaid and you are going to a for profit hospital without insurance, unless you are almost dead you'll be given a prescription and referral and tossed out. If you have insurance, including medicaid, you'll be treated with every test and drug. In fact, they will likely milk the insurance for whatever they can get away with...so you may have to be assertive to stop them. (That's how Rick Scott got rich over-billing medicare for fake treatments.).

The FOR PROFIT system doesn't work, because the incentive is to ignore the uninsured (even if they have ebola) and overcharge the insured who really don't have a chance to shop around or argue with the doctor. The good thing about ACA is they are trying to collect data and hold the hospitals to reasonable costs. Maybe in the long run that will work, but it will be a fight against a motivated and unethical corporate industry.

We need a public, single-payer system or else health care needs universal non-profit insurance (like they have in some places in Europe). Otherwise, there will continue to be abuse.

That's my 2 cents...