She said “President’s Day!”

She is a smart kid, so, I asked her, “What does President’s Day mean?” I was waiting for something about Washington or Lincoln etc.

She replied, “President’s Day is when President Obama steps out of the White House, and if he sees his shadow we have one more year of unemployment.”

You know, it hurts when hot coffee spurts out your nose.

Share this:

But is it true?

First of all – electing Ron Paul to the office of President (for that matter, electing any candidate for any office) is no guarantee that the campaign platform and promises will be implemented.  Even if Ron Paul plans to hold true to his promises, he still has to:

• Battle a Congress hostile to his stated goals
• Ensure he conforms to Constitutional limits on the Executive branch and adheres to existing laws.  If, in order to implement his proposed changes, he takes even more steps to consolidate or expand the Executive branch’s powers (i.e., Executive Orders), then he is as much a danger to constitutional reform as any previous president.
• Fight the entrenched bureaucracy, private and government unions, corporate interests, and many others who would be negatively impacted by his proposed changes.
• Most importantly, change the perception and expectations of the American public.  We’ve become accustomed to the services and “handouts” provided by the Federal government, and many of Ron Paul’s proposed changes eliminate or reduce those.

After being denied Hope and given incorrect Change, the American people need to look more carefully at our candidates for office (any office) before casting their ballots.

Here are the highlights from Ron Paul’s campaign (taken from his website www.RonPaul2012.com), consolidated, then broken down into bite-sized sections and reviewed:

Note:  Any discrepancies between the Ron Paul website and text here are mine.  Some editing has been made for space purposes, and these changes are in no way meant to misrepresent his platform.  I encourage you to read his entire platform on his website.

Federal Budget:

• Cut $1 trillion in spending during the first year of presidency
• Return most other spending to 2006 levels
• Makes a 10% reduction in the federal workforce
• Slashes Congressional pay and perks
• Curbs excessive federal travel
• Take a personal salary of $39,336

The Congressional pay cuts and lowering the President’s personal salary are pretty easy for the American public to stomach – we’re all a bit tired of Congress voting themselves pay raises while the rest of the country slides into poverty, and the President should set the example…

Regarding the rest of the items:

$1 Trillion Spending Cut

It’s easy to talk about cutting $1 trillion from the Federal budget; heck, it’s even fairly easy to make sure it happens.  The difficulties lie in making sure the right cuts are made in the right programs.  For longer-term viability, the cost-saving actions should also be documentable and repeatable.

At the top levels, what happens is that the affected Cabinet level department(s) will apply their portion of the spending reduction in a single place (or a few places); usually high-profile programs that will cause a Congressional district to lose a few jobs or otherwise negatively impact someones political career, and the committee to review the cuts will make changes to the allocations by hiding them in future bills…

To make effective, repetitive budgetary changes, the cuts should focus on ways to reduce expenditures across the board – from saving a penny on every black ink pen purchased to saving a million on every jet aircraft (or drone, or tank).  Then, the cuts must be protected from “back-door” re-funding in future legislation or Congressional actions.

Where and how will the Federal government (even a reduced government) find cuts at that level?  What is Ron Paul’s plan?

Reducing Spending Levels to 2006

Again – where are the cost savings going to come from?  With the increase in costs (or, more correctly, the devaluation of the dollar), things cost more than in 2006.  How will we absorb the increase of costs and what will be lost?

According to USGovernmentSpending.com, the Federal government spending in 2006 was

• $2.655 trillion total spending
• $248 billion in deficit
• $8.451 trillion gross public debt

In 2011, the Federal government spending was:

• $3.601 trillion total spending
• $1.298 trillion in deficit
• $15.476 trillion gross public debt

That is a $950 billion budget cut, on top of a $1 trillion dollar budget savings (promised earlier), which – unless Ron Paul is counting both of these as the “$1 trillion budget reduction” – reduces the overall budget to nearly 1/3 the current budget.  When you factor in the increased debt payments on the current gross public debt (expected to be $241 billion in 2012) it’s even a larger cut in spending.

10% Reduction in Federal Workforce

This plank in the Ron Paul platform sounds as pleasing to the public’s ears as the pay freeze for Congress.  10% fewer bureaucrats, 10% fewer people to stand in the way of your requests, 10% fewer “Federal payroll welfare queens/kings.”

We’ve been through this before – we went through a reduction in the Federal work force during the Clinton/Gore years.  The decision was made to reduce layers of management and save on the Federal budget.  Worked great short term, but what we find now is we are experiencing a huge turnover of senior management (non-executive level) and we have a shortage of mid and lower-level management to fill the void (Note: I work at a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and we are chronically short-staffed).

Also, what happens when these formerly employed people hit the job market?  The Office of Personnel Management at shows a Federal workforce (civilian and uniformed) at 4.443 million employees. A 10% reduction means nearly 450,000 more people searching for jobs, or an additional 3% on the unemployment rate (8.5% as of January 6, 2012).  To compare, the highest level of unemployment over the last few years of “recession” was 10.1%.

Again – I agree with and like the “idea” of cutting the Federal workforce and saving some money – but we need to see where the cuts come from, make sure they are taken from the right places, and programs that are not being cut are fully staffed.

Curbs Excessive Federal Travel

Another great-sounding one – perhaps we could start with the junkets and vacations taken by Congress and the White House. 

I’ve been part of several professional organizations, attending related conferences and training seminars around the nation.  They are an integral part of career progression, sharing of experiences and solutions (mostly outside of vendors – another sticky issue with the Federal government), and can help their members realize there is another “world” of experience and assistance.  Some travel has real benefits!

This is an easy one to talk about, but harder to implement and control (we’ve had this problem for years).  We need to find a balance that allows professional association, localizes resources (have “regional” or state meetings instead of national), uses more cost-effective options (tele-conference, PC-based communications, meetings in low-cost locales (OKC would be a great option!) etc.), and also ensures those that attend such conferences are expected to share what they learn when they return to their home station – no more vendor freebie hunters or Federal-travel vacations.

We’ve implemented this solution at the VA Medical Center where I work – when you request travel, you have to provide a list of the classes you attend (and proof of attendance when you return), and you are expected to share what you learned with appropriate staff in the facility.  Travel is tightly controlled, and the same person is not allowed to have multiple trips in the same year (exceptions are made for specific reasons).

To be continued!

Share this:

Originally posted on another blog in 2006 – since that time the U.S. Military and the Department of Veterans Affairs have implemented solutions similar to my suggestions.  I claim no involvement or impact on that implementation, just that I was voicing what was an easily recognized problem.

Disclaimer: Although I presently work at a Veterans Medical Center, I am not a healthcare professional, nor should this blog entry be taken as any sort of professional advice – this article is my opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

I’ve been asked by a half-dozen folks to explain what Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is…or, more accurately, to explain why I think it is…here’s my feeble attempt at explaining the issue in plain language, as it applies to my experiences…

(none of these pictures are of me, BTW)
I spent just over 11 years in the military.  During that time, I:

Rappelled out of helicopters

Jumped out of airplanes

Hung under a helicopter on 100 feet of rope while flying at low-altitude

Jumped into a dirty lake from a moving helicopter

Participated in counter-drug operations

Did a lot of urban warfare training

And trained thousands of soldiers, law enforcement officers, and groups from state and federal agencies to do the same (including the German Army and the French Foreign Legion).

I also blew up stuff (always a lot of fun!)

Fired a lot of rounds from machine guns

Even more rounds from small arms

And shot from the smallest of the big guns.

I was trained in both summer and winter mountain warfare

And learned to call in air strikes and naval gunfire.

I was part of an organization that shared in these experiences, protected our members, eschewed interference from outsiders, enjoyed “gallows humor,” and shared every aspect of our personal and professional lives.

After I was hurt and medically discharged from the Army, I found myself working in an environment where the most exciting thing was a paper cut.

Where, instead of taking care of your buddy, everyone is out for themselves

Where the rough humor that is universally understood by military, law enforcement, and other types of folks worldwide is grounds for a lawsuit

Take note that none of my military experience included combat time…although I served during several combat operations (Panama, Desert Storm I, Bosnia, etc.), I was never deployed to these operations and never heard a shot fired in anger – at least, from a military standpoint… 

Even so, it took several years for me to adapt to civilian life…

I would have intense longings to be back in the military…so much so that I was desperately trying to find a cure for my medical condition so I could re-enlist.  I was extremely unhappy and very depressed to find myself in the civilian world.

At least twice a week I would have vivid dreams where I was back in uniform.  In my dreams, I would be training groups of soldiers, participating in combat (though, as mentioned, I never served in combat), or performing simple tasks such as vehicle or weapon maintenance.  The vividness of the dreams would cause me to be disoriented when I woke up and it would take me several minutes to realize who and where I was…

Now, take my military experiences, the highs and lows, the adrenaline rush, the fear for your life, the camaraderie, and yes – the fun, and multiply it a thousand-fold for those individuals who have experienced combat…

Can you start to see why and how PTSD affects our returning military folks?

Another question I get is why we have such a problem with it now (and since Viet Nam), and we didn’t during earlier wars…I have a three-part theory, which I will present as my own opinion (and nothing more)…

First, we are more aware of it now than ever before…we understand the causes and symptoms, and can more easily diagnose PTSD…where before we may have treated various symptoms without realizing the underlying issue.  PTSD was around for previous wars – we called it “Shell Shock.”

Second, we have different generations and different attitudes towards admitting problems and getting help than the past generations.  A person afflicted by PTSD is more likely to admit they have a problem and seek out assistance than at any other point in our history…

And third – I believe this is the most important piece – in the past (pre-Viet Nam era), when a soldier was released from combat for whatever reason, the trip back to “civilization” took, at best, several weeks, and typically several months.  This trip was usually accomplished by taking a ship back to the home country, and then a train to the home town…during this time, the soldier would have a chance to visit with other soldiers in the same situation, rehash memories, come to grips with the violence and turmoil that had been part of their lives, and reconfigure their emotions and mentality to fit back into the civilian world.

From the Viet Nam era forward, “civilization” was a few-hours plane ride away.  This took away that period of introspection, the sharing of grief, fears, and heartaches with fellow soldiers who “had been there” and the realigning time granted – however accidentally – to our previous generations of troops.  During operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, you could literally find yourself in a sustained and massive firefight one day, and walking the streets of the US the next…

So, how do we fix this problem?

I think part of the solution is to demystify PTSD, and to take away the stigma associated with it.  Not every person who experiences PTSD is a ticking time bomb, waiting to go off at the least provocation, and not every person who has PTSD is incapable of coping with life’s events.

Even though we are making great strides toward this, military troops still are afraid of permanently damaging their military career if they come forward and ask for help with PTSD.

I believe another part of the solution is to educate soldiers on what causes PTSD, what the symptoms are, and what self-help tools and professional assistance are available.  This education needs to take place when a soldier returns from a combat zone – even if they are not separating from the military, and also prior to discharging any soldier – for any reason.

Additionally, I believe that we need to recreate that “readjustment time” that was unintentionally so beneficial during historic wars – allow a 30-60 day decompression time before soldiers returning from combat are released to other duties or discharged to civilian life.  Give them specific training as what to expect from re-entering their former lives, and how to productively deal with PTSD and other post-traumatic symptoms and issues.

One thing is for sure – at last count we have about 300,000 returning soldiers who are suffering from PTSD in some form or another…

We need to start helping them now, and fund the VA to treat them early on…

Share this:

Here’s an example:

The Hindu Swastika

The swastika has origins in civilizations from 3000 years before the common era. The root word for the image meant “a lucky or auspicious object,” and it was a mark used on objects to denote good luck. It was also used by Native American groups, meaning either “wandering clan” or representing a legendary image used in healing rituals…

The point is, for centuries before the Nazis, the swastika was used to as a symbol of good fortune, and seeing it displayed on a person, clothing, house, or other object promoted positive feelings. Only since the Nazi use of the symbol to promote “good fortune” for their agenda has the design been seen as “evil.”

If I took a pen and paper today, and drew a swastika on it and then hid it in a drawer, would it – by itself – invoke negative energy, or would it bring the good energy or “luck” that was believed for thousands of years? Does the symbol hold its own power, hold no power at all, or simply reflect the energy or beliefs present around that symbol in the current world?

If you believe in a created universe (intelligent design) then inherent power in symbols is not so far-fetched of an idea. The universe reflects its creator.

If you believe in an accidental universe (evolution) then it becomes harder to assign power to a symbol beyond that which is attributed to it by human consciousness…

If, however, you believe some of the newer theories: that everything is energy; that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but only changes form; that intelligent, thinking creatures “create” their universe by the power of thought (belief, practice, ritual, etc.), then there is a power in symbols, but it is directly related to what thinking creatures assign to the symbol.  We can change the meaning of any symbol…

Food for thought…here are some other symbols that have a different meaning in their origins that their current use might imply:

The Caduceus

Latin or "Christian" Cross

Share this:

The right thing, done the right way, and for the right reasons,
was the only Good

Now, I’m not a mathematician, but if I wanted to express that belief in a formula, it might look like this:

Rt + Rw + Rr = G

He went on to say that any inclusion of a wrong (W) in the formula would always result in Evil (E); i.e.;

• Wt + Rw + Rr = E
• Rt + Ww + Rr = E
• Rt + Rw + Wr = E
• Wt + Ww + Wr = E

As an application of his belief, I’ve always thought of the book by Corrie ten Boom called “The Hiding Place.” In it, she describes the horrors suffered by the Dutch Jews during the Second World War. In one chapter, her sister was hiding a group of Jews in the cellar under her kitchen table (the cellar door was hidden by a rug). When the Nazi’s came in to search the house, they asked the sister where the Jews were being hidden. She truthfully replied, “Under the table,” and then broke out in hysterical laughter when the soldiers overturned the table and couldn’t see anyone. They left the home thinking that the sister was insane.

This example would seem to support the expression above…but what if things had turned out different? What if the Nazi’s had looked under the carpet under the kitchen table and found the hiding Jews? Would the internment or death of those people be “Good” because the sister told the truth?

How far does the equation reach?
In “The Hiding Place” example above, the sister told the truth (Rt) when asked a question about the hiding Jews (Rw), but was it for the right reasons? Did protecting the family have a lower priority than telling the truth? In addition, wasn’t this already a lie of omission or disobedience as the Germans had outlawed the protection of Jewish people?

Taking the mathematical expression further, you can add other Rights/Wrongs to the equation…

The Right or Wrong People,
At the Right or Wrong Time,
The Right or Wrong Place, etc.

At what point does doing the Right thing become wrong?

Does telling the truth, even if it causes harm to an innocent, still count as the “Right” thing?

Share this: