Absolutely Nuthin.

I've heard people argue that pulling our troops out of Iraq and Afganistan would only make things worse for the Iraqis and the Afghans. I've heard that since we've "messed up" those countries, we have a responsibility to help them recover.
When does that responsibility end? I think we were justified in going into Afghanistan to capture the man who claimed responsibility for 9/11, but we haven't found him, and last I heard, he probably isn't even there. I recognize that the basis for the Iraq invasion was shaky at best, so I can see that we could be held responsible for bombing the hummus out of their capital. The United States certainly has killed more bystanders than anybody would like to acknowledge.
My problem with the whole situation is that our presence in those countries doesn't seem to be doing anybody any good. Our troops are dying. Their troops and police are dying. Their civilians are dying. The infrastructures that we keep pouring money into keeps getting blown up. And all those deaths and all those explosions are being used to recruit more lonely souls who can be convinced to blow themselves up. I did a quick google to try and figure out how much money the United States has spent on these wars. The estimates vary, but it sems to be around 4 TRILLION dollars. I'm pretty sure that would be enough money to pay our healthcare, or college for every child, or an elevator to the moon.
So here's my idea:
We tell both governments that all of our troops will be leaving in 6 months. ALL of them, not just "combat" troops. They have 6 months to get their act together, crack down on the corrucptions, settle things amongst the tribes or factions or whatver, and then we're gone.
"BUT, JON, IF WE DON'T FIGHT THEM THERE, THEY'LL COME HERE!!!"
Well, nonsense. But if it makes you feel better, for a fraction of the cost, we'll deploy one tenth of them to the borders and the airports to shoot anybody that looks like they might have a bomb in their van. Come to think of it, just shoot anybody driving a van.

No Soy La Migra

Almost every Mexican I've ever met has been a wonderful person. Every Puerto Rican and Hondureno, too. I've met some very nice Vietnamese immigrants, and I even played chess with very cool Sikh gentlman who had short-term memory loss.

Anyway, I just wanted to say to all my immigrant readers: Welcome. Welcome to America. We embrace you just as our forefathers were embraced by the people who welcomed them to America (right before our forefathers killed them). I ask only one thing of you.

No, no. I don't care if you know what the 3 branches of government are, nor do I care if you can recite the Pledge of Alligance. Most citizens can't do those things either. No, I don't want you to take a stupid test. I would just ask you to pay some stinking taxes.

You can even send the money you earn back to your family in Peru or wherever. I don't mind. Heck, they can come, too! As long as they PAY TAXES. When you and your employer start paying your taxes, I'll stop getting those little feelings of resentment as I see your kids using my tax dollars to get educated, and then again as you take Abuela to the emergency room because her corazon hurts.

I'm even, believe-it-or-not, hunky dory with you all becoming citizens. Why not?

If you pay, you can stay, and this country will be just as much yours as it is mine. Simple as that. Bienvenudo, and pay your taxes.

The Tiger

There's been quite a bit of press lately about the doings of one Mr. Tiger Woods and whether his inability to avoid roadside hazards should keep him from being a respected member of the golfing community. There's been all kinds of talk about the guy "disappointing all the young people that looked up to him."
I'm a nurse, and I've worked with quite a few nurses who have personal lives. I honestly don't think that their conduct at home makes them a better or worse medical professional. Likewise, Mr. Woods is still a great golfer, just as he was a great golfer during all this time when he was putting around.
So why has he lost all his sponsors? Why does he no longer get paid to pretend he loves to shave with Gillette razors or dress up in Nike dresses or eat Sony televisions? It's because he's now more famous for being a guy who cheats on his wife than he is for being a golfer.
Well, maybe that's unfair. He's famous for being a golfer who cheats on his wife. . . a LOT.
The same thing is true about politicians. If a politician gets caught cheating, people stop liking or voting for him. Why is that? It's not like people can't do their job and be unfaithful at the same time.
Well, I think it's a matter of trust. When you're a public figure, with responsibilities that impact the lives of other people, you have to a least appear to be good person.
Honestly, that's one of the things that made me prefer our current president over his opponents in both the primary and general elections. That Hillary lady stuck with he unfaithful husband for what seemed to me to be political reasons. That McCain fellow dumped his wife after he got back from war for a much younger, buxom beer-heiress. That Obama guy seems to be a fairly devoted husband and father. That might not make him the best president that ever lived, but it's a step toward being a good person.

Hoorah for Death Panels

Welcome and Hello.
This will not likely be read by very many people, and I'm not certain that I'll keep it going very long, but my good friend, Danny, inspired me to have an online exhaust for some of my opinions. To see our lively discussion centered on prescription drugs and free will, go here.
I'm starting it off with a few words of support for death panels.
There were a few people who used the term "death panels" as lightning rod for anti-reform anger-making. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what they were talking about or what the specifics of the bill were.
This is what I think a death panel is: a guy comes in to the ER because he can't breathe. Turns out he has COPD. He smokes. He's admitted to the hospital, given oxygen treatment, IV steroids. Perhaps he has a touch of pneumonia so he gets some very expensive IV antibiotics. He gets better. The doctors say, "You have to quit smoking or it's going to kill you." The guy lights up a cigarette on the way home and he's back in the hospital with the same problem and the same treatment 2 weeks later.
Whether this guy has his own insurance, or he's using medicare/medicaid to pay for his hospital stay, his own poor decisions are draining the system of resources that could be used to treat people who aren't killing themselves. The "death panel" is when the ER doctor pulls up the guys file on the computer, discovers that the guy has been treated three times already in different hospitals and hasn't quit smoking, so they say, "I'm sorry, but your insurance company (or medicare) won't pay for you to be admitted again." He has to go home and die.
I don't think alcoholics should get liver transplants. I don't think people who eat themselves into horrid masses of fat should get to have open heart surgery (because they won't do well afterward anyway).
I also think that people with advanced dementia shouldn't receive life-saving treatment of any kind. Sorry, folks, but everybody dies. If grandma doesn't know who she is, can't feed herself, and can't use the restroom, it's time for her to move on to a place where she can do those things. (Do we pee in heaven?)
She doesn't get CPR, she doesn't get antibiotics, and she doesn't get to go to the $5000/night ICU. She can have morphine. All she wants.
It would make a lot of people mad, but maybe people would start taking care of themselves a little better if they knew that the system wouldn't support their bad choices forever.