Human Rights

  What, exactly, are rights?  Someone's idea of entitlements... a contract with your government, that basically says, "this is what I am expecting you to do for me... this is why I allow you to collect taxes from me, this is why I engage in otherwise socially acceptable behavior."

Typically, if you live in a region under a government, the list of rights in said government's constitution is what you get: take it or leave it.  Of course, in many places (certainly the US) there are all kinds of arguments about what our rights mean, whether the government is truly enforcing them and (if not) what to do about that.

Why ask?  Well... turns out the Orlando shooter was a security guard.  I don't know much about G4S, Mateen's most recent employer, but I do know there are plenty of "security firms" where people such as Mr Mateen are hired, trained to use firearms and placed to protect people and property.  Presumably beyond "a well-regulated militia," G4S wouldn't have allowed Mateen to just walk out of a place of employment with a firearm, even if he had parted ways favorably with his employer.  Which he did not.

But I am inclined to assert that, as a member of the security guard industry, Mateen was going to get a firearm.  It's silly to debate firearm regulation with him as justification, because (unless you are arguing that US police and security personnel shouldn't be allowed to carry firearms) Mateen was going to get what he wanted.

Side observation:  if Mateen was well trained (frankly, I have no idea whether he was or not), he would have been able to inflict the casualties he inflicted with a bolt action rifle.  He didn't need a semi-automatic in that environment and certainly didn't need an automatic.  I daresay Miyamoto Musashi would have easily been able to achieve the same (or more complete) result in less time with two samurai swords.

Then there is the question: did Mateen deserve to be separated from G4S?

Most employers in the US offer "at will employment."  There are contracts out there (I'm always fascinated to see these...), but just about everyone works under an "at will agreement."  You can leave, your employer can ask you to leave.  It's a "no fault" situation:  you can quit without cause and your employer can ask you to leave without cause.  Hopefully, you or I can easily move to a new situation.

In high school, little girls are marketing themselves against rivals (I know this because I recently transported some HS girls to an amusement park and got to listen in).  Personal brand rivalries exist everywhere:  in schools, professions, even churches.  Some employers do NOT want an employee to leave, because it "harms the brand."  Yes, there are employers who will fire you if they think you are interviewing... Vicious marketing is happening between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, at the moment.  Welcome to America (or perhaps I should say, welcome to the human race).

When I was in business school,  some employers (all?) would "war game" who would accept an offer and engage in the "offer dance" because they didn't want any offer going unanswered.

Why is this important?  Because in the "personal and professional brand marketing game" there are winners and losers.  People get paid more if they are winning.  Companies are more profitable if they are winning.  And the truth of the matter:  marketing is a spin game.  Lies, or at least half truths, are being told, implied... in some cases viciously propagated.

If you lose that game, you lose friends, income... the list goes on and on.  Somehow Mateen lost that game.  He was religious, so his religion became his excuse for aligning himself to ISIS... but ISIS hadn't hired him (although after the fact, was willing to accept credits).

Someone hired the guy and trained him.  And, perhaps if he was still working, that terrible tragedy may not have happened.  There are malcontents and criminals:  we need security guards to protect against those.  Was Mateen a dysfunctional criminal?  Should someone have picked up on that, and left him unemployed from the "git go?"  He wouldn't have done the damage he did... but what a conclusion.

What is the key here?  What is the due process, that if the FBI, or a psychologist, or someone's wife/husband deems you a threat, that you can be prevented from owning a firearm?  These are details we need to sort out... we have substantial gun legislation in place that should have stopped many of the mass shootings that occurred, BUT... if a person violates a fundamental prerequisite for his or her right to bear arms, an observer needs evidence/justification for taking action and a robust process for moving forward (read: placing someone on a "don't buy list").

So, of course we have to ask:  the FBI interviewed the man and concluded he wasn't a threat.  Why is that?  Apparently Mateen was a devout Muslim and even traveled to the Mideast for religious reasons (all Muslims are required to do this, by the way:  a Haj is a requirement for everyone before death).  Most of the people I know who most vigorously campaign for anti-gun legislation also accuse Mr Trump of being racist (actually, Muslim isn't a race, but whatever), and I'm of the opinion that a devout Muslim, who is an American, does have a right to bear and keep firearms (but not if he or she loudly proclaims he/she is going to shoot innocents with said firearms).

At this point, "not my circus, not my monkeys."  Talk your state legislator.  In a few years, maybe I will run...

Ukraine in June 2016

    Two years ago this past March, the Russian Federation seized control of Crimea, home of Russia's historic warm water port and only (short of Syrian) naval base in the Black Sea area. Russia had responded to a resoundingly supportive referendum in Crimea regarding Russian leadership (a referendum that has since been condemned by the international community, including the European Union).

Although Crimea is at peace (under Russian control), well over 6,000 have been killed while 3,000 ethnic Tatars have been forced to leave. Russian forces still occupy Donbass also (where admittedly most of the above cited fatalities occurred), but violence continues there in spite of a Minsk cease-fire treaty.

Petro Poroshenko remains president of the country, although a new Prime Minister, Vlodymyr Groysman, was elected in April 2016. Typically, in a parliamentary form of government, the Prime Minister is elected from the legislature and serves head of state. Ukraine's parliament is called the Verkhovna Rada, which (according to Wikipedia) originated in Kievan Rus in 800AD until the invasion of the Mongols some 300 years later. The Rada also existed during the time of the Dnieper Cossacks (17th and 18th centuries) for the meetings where major decisions were made.

The Ukrainian Rada was reinstituted after the overthrow of the Russian Tsar, until the Soviet communists seized control of Ukraine, ultimately reorganizing Ukraine's government under the Central Executive Committee of the Ukrainian SSR in 1938. The Rada was again formed in Ukraine after the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991.

Poroshenko was elected president after a Euromaiden protest in May 2014 (which Russia calls an armed coup). Poroshenko's predecessor, Victor Yankovich, had a close relationship with Russia and President Putin. Russia continues to claim that Ukraine forces are committing war crimes in prosecution of the conflict in the Donbass and loudly publicizes Ukrainian government corruption (a consensus issue for the country).

For seven of the past ten years, Ukraine's new Prime Minister served as mayor of Vinnytsia and was elected into parliament on the party lists of the pro-presidential Petro Poroshenko Bloc. Vlodymyr Groysman has indicated he will fight corruption and build closer ties with the European Union.

Radical Muslim

    For almost a year I have unabashedly decried US focus on radical Muslim terrorists.  I have also advocated for the 2d Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Two days ago Omar Mateen, a domestic radical Muslim, (who has travelled to Saudi Arabia on several occasions) massacred almost 50 members of the LGBT community in an Orlando club, with over 50 others wounded.

Mateen's travels to Saudi Arabia were for religious reasons, not for terrorist training.  The man received his weapons training in connection with employment as a security officer.  The FBI interviewed him in 2013 due to hateful statements predicting violence, assessing he wasn't a threat.

On the day of the rampage, Omar Mateen declared allegiance to ISIS and praised the Boston Marathon bombers, highlighting that guns aren't the only weapons available to inflict substantial casualties upon an unsuspecting crowd.  But the Sig Saur MCX, firing 5.56mm projectiles, is hard to justify.    We don't know whether he shot everyone (about a third of the people in the club) with the MCX, or whether he used the Glock pistol he carried (purchased, like the MCX, several days before the shooting) for some of the shootings.

Omar's second wife apparently drove him to reconnoiter the club and was aware that he was planning a rampage.

Every time an incident like this happens, one side cries for disarming the population, while the other side calls for action against radical (even all) Muslims.  Even though these domestic attackers show more similarity to unstable mass murderers than Hamas or ISIS terrorists, and do not have legitimate ties to such terror groups, the connection is used to justify US investment in combating terrorist "safe havens" over seas.

Presumably, if weapons were harder to acquire in the US, these self appointed terrorists would need to build actual ties to sources of weapons.  They might have an easier time targeting us, but I won't spend a lot of time arguing that point.

Feeling too much sadness at the moment to make any arguments.  God help us... and those mourning, and those healing.

An American

   I am an American.  I am also a Republican.  This is primarily a business blog, but the deluge of political tripe online at the moment has inspired a response.

I became a Republican when I registered to vote.  At the time, my mother was a registered independent and my father was Republican.  Both have since joined the Democratic party, but I can probably credit my initial choice to their influence (that's usually the way it goes: any examination of voter statistics will tell you the same).

Have you voted in every election since you were eligible?  I have in maybe every... most certainly every Congressional and certainly every Presidential election, in spite of living and/or serving overseas where forethought and an absentee ballot were required.   I have been extremely frustrated with the main party candidates in many cases and (admittedly) clueless about one or two candidates in the decades I've been voting (come on: admit it.  You didn't recognize one or two names either).

I am definitely NOT quitting the Republican party because Donald Trump is presumptive (soon to be actual) nominee for President.  He has made a few comments that ordinary people can't get away with, but that doesn't mean he is Adolf Hitler or an idiot or anything else.  His political experience is... umm... he is the presumptive Republican nominee for President.  Actually, that is a big deal.  Most of the standard "qualified" Republicans will never pull that off and no one was able to beat "the Donald" this season.

Hillary is like the Britney Spears or latest boy band of American politics.  The machine has gotten behind her.  She says what they tell her to say.  People think its good if a woman has been President (maybe after Hillary has, and that's behind us, we will go back to focussing on issues instead of race or gender).  Heck... it's possible "the machine" has selected the Donald because "it" really wants Hillary.

Which is why I'm going to defend the Donald right up to the election.  He is a smart guy.  He apparently has more regard for the Constitution than Hilary does.  I hope he doesn't self destruct like Ross Perot or Mitt Romney (yes, Mitt, that 50% comment was a penultimate "self-destruct"), but either way,  I'm going to defend him.

Proud to be an American...That doesn't mean I'm a brainless robot.  It does mean I understand that the United States has a two party system, and this election won't be the second in US history to kill off one major party, replacing it with another (Abraham Lincoln and crew killed the Whigs and ushered in a new Republican party).   Donald Trump is our Republican nominee and I won't capitulate to the cheap name calling and groundless accusations any time soon.

Spectre

  And you thought you were getting a movie review;)!

Yes, I saw the newest James Bond thriller last night and mostly enjoyed it (though the dirty vodka martini's were something clear, not dirty at all...).

The furor regarding ISIS dominates the news at the moment.  I present here a few thoughts, a long belated blog entry.  As I contemplated my concerns this morning regarding USSOCCOM and our government's obsession with ISIS, I couldn't help thinking about SPECTRE.

SPECTRE is a mythical organization to which all the Bond villains belonged (spoiler alert!), and which (through M's new arch nemesis) C ends up supporting.  C, a British intelligence bureaucrat, is ending the "Double Oh" program (so Bond and M are unemployed at one point in the movie) because he managed to acquire the intel feeds from the 9 most significant countries, supposedly making agents irrelevant.

I read a recent OP-ED from a Naval Academy grad who was calling for reinstatement of Stan McChrystal.  You may recall GEN (ret) McChrystal ran afoul of the Obama administration because his team talked candidly with a Rolling Stone writer (who quoted some rather insubordinate comments attributed, perhaps falsely, to GEN McChrystal).

No one will dispute that Stan McChrystal might be the best terror-fighting phenom who has ever served our nation (unless that title goes to Black Jack Pershing, who is rumored to have stopped Muslim extremist attacks worldwide for over 40 years by executing 49 terrorists and burying them in pigs blood/entrails, then releasing the 50th terrorist to tell the tale).  GEN McChrystal organized SOCCOM effectively, equipped them well and built a network of intelligence feeds that apparently produced an ever increasing list of valid terrorist targets.

President Obama had the same options with Stan McChrystal that Harry Truman had with Doug McArthur.  Unfortunately, the Roman Republic had a similar problem with an insubordinate general. Their's was named Julius Caesar.  Most of my readers are aware Julius Caesar over threw the Roman Republic and ultimately installed an Empire that would live on the greatness of the Republic for several thousand years.

Does the US need a vast military organization capable of reaching anywhere in the world and responding via missile attack, small or large military operation in a matter of a day or two?  Assuming you say "yes," how do we insure we keep them pointing outward?  And what policies of political control need to be in place to insure we don't turn the world into enemies (versus friends who appreciate our help prosecuting crazy criminal actions from radical Muslims and others)?

I am concerned that our vicious attacks on al Qaeda helped create ISIS and fueled its popularity (at least within many Muslim circles).  Successful prosecution of targets is no good if such activity converts more adherents to radical Islam than we kill or remove from relevancy.

And is it possible that ISIS is more important than the second largest agricultural producer in the world, a country that is bigger in territorial size than France and some would call the inheritor of the purest Orthodox Christianity?  Ukrainian casualties from "Russian inspired hostilities" far out number global casualties from ISIS.  Some argue US military presence in Ukraine would inspire a world war with Russia... I only suggest that a friendly Air National Guard squadron of A-10 aircraft would inspire Vladimir Putin to keep his efforts East of Donbass (and south of the Crimean) skirmish lines.

So maybe dissolving SOCCOM isn't the right step, but I'm arguing some attention (budget and brainpower) away from ISIS toward placing and defending that A-10 squadron in Ukraine... would be prudent.

History: Obamacare

   It was March 31, 2014.  That was the day we are obligated to register for health insurance under Obama's Affordable Care Act.  Coincidentally that day was my last day of coverage under General Dynamics' health coverage (although COBRA coverage was a pricey option).  Here is my account of my attempt to register for Obamacare:

This morning (7:15am) I visit www.healthcare.gov and select my state (Virginia). Before I click, "register," I return to the original page and click on the "Small business" tab.  The website says if I register NLT the 15th of the month, my employees will receive healthcare NLT the first day of the next month.  I return to the "individual" option and click on the "register" button. I receive this message:  "Website is undergoing maintenance.  Please try again later." 

At this point I see a pop-up at the upper right corner of my browser window providing me the opportunity to share my personal information with various insurance agents.  Is this pop-up an official "service" via Healthcare.gov or presented to me via Microsoft's Internet Explorer and someone's ad campaign?  I don't know and transfer to my blog to record my experience thus far...

When I return to www.healthcare.gov, it says "We have alot of visitors right now.  We need you to wait here so we can insure you have a good experience on our site."  There is a link which will list important documents and numbers.  The "insurance agent" pop-up returns.  I click on the "important documents and numbers" link.  A new tab appears in my Internet Explorer.  This tab page is completely blank. 

7:45... I return to the original www.healthcare.gov tab and see it is still asking me to wait.  The "insurance agent" pop-up is there.  I also see I can provide my email address for information later or call the help desk.  I return to my blog to document experience...

8:00 .... I can't get rid of the Insurance Agent pop-up or scroll to the help desk information.  I assume this is a problem with my Internet Explorer or computer and switch back to my blog....

8:08 ... The color of  www.healthcare.gov site changes, so I assume I am finally in.  I attempt to click in, but the site is unresponsive.

9:45... I am finally able to create an account.  I am deluged with pop-ups and attempt to log in.  The system informs me I am "locked out."  I reboot my computer.

10:20... I attempt to log in again.  The system confirms:  I am locked out.  I decide to elect COBRA for the time being... 

Home for Thanksgiving

  Opted to spend Thanksgiving with my brother and sis-in-law's family this year... last year, had my little princess and we made the trip together.  Although I was "in town" for a reunion this summer, haven't driven through the neighborhood in some time.

Drove down the "main drag" where I grew up.  Many empty store fronts... seems the only businesses that haven't changed are the cleaners!!  The state Motor Vehicles HQ is in my home town... they built a new building for that... the old one has been transformed into a rickety government office building.

The farm where I had my first job appears exactly the same (still needs a coat of paint!)... the garden shop where my bro and I sold cactuses (our first business) is still there, with the same name, though I understand they went bankrupt in the '90's and operate under new management.

Reflecting that this town had nothing for my MBA (short of falling in on one of the big insurance companies)... Mom and Dad aren't here any longer and our old home is painted cream (for shame!)... the tree fort must have been torn down years ago.

Great to see my brother and his family!