That is a great shot. Thanks for sharing.

Of the 39000 murders, roughly 2/3 of them are the victims of people they know well, often family members. We need to stop family violence and that would eliminate most of the victims.

If you look at the actual rate of violent crimes as posted by the Justice Department (http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf#Page=7), violent crimes have dropped by almost 80% over the past 20 years. Two out of three violent crimes are committed by people who are not strangers to the victim. There are areas that are far more dangerous than others, i.e., currently Chicago, but by and large the likelihood of being violently perpetrated against is almost twice as likely to occur between people who are related to each other and the over all number of assaults are declining. The illusion that we live in an increasingly dangerous world is an artifact of our media.

The republicans and democrats have entrenched themselves in our politics to the point that they have essentially replaced the aristocracy against whom the founding fathers rebelled. While we did not like George VI and the governors he put in place, we have essentially allowed the governing process to be controlled by several kings of industrial military complex who control most of the money that determines who even gets to run for office. You can't get on the ballot and actually run for office unless you are willing to get in line with the kingpins of each party. The political differences has to with how benign these despot wish to appear and to which sector of the populace they want to appease. The illusion of a democratic process is carefully maintained in the same way customer service menus on voice mail systems operate. There is no option to press 5 for someone who will really attend to your problem. Ask the veterans who were sent to combat in wars that made no sense. Any soldier with experience would know that you send 100000 soldiers into combat you are going to incur at least 20000 soldiers with some physical or psychological damage or both. That the VA systems has been understaffed for the current need for services is the product of a collusion of ignorance. This is nothing new. In the aftermath of WWI during the economic decline that overwhelmed the country, veterans had to march and demonstrate in Washington D. C. to petition for the compensation that was promised and was never provided. You can bet that the military profiteers of any war had all their bills honored and paid. Take the two trillion dollars spent on the past ten years of war and the money it will cost in the coming decades to care for casualties and apply it to our infrastructure, education, training, border control and we might all benefit.

I have worked for a VA hospital system and can tell you the problems are not related to competence or doctors not working hard. The problems have to do with the spike in certain kinds of problems, i.e., 20% of returning vets needing assistance for PTSD. As with any health problem, if you have a problem for which there is sufficient staffing, effective forms or treatment and a long history of research and well developed treatment strategies, you are good. If it is anything else, you got problems finding care that is efficient, effective and available.

The real lies that are told have to do with the rationale for war in the first place, the poor planning for the actual casualties that are quite predictable. Mortal combat is a terrible experience for those that experience it and all the spending and treatment in the world will not undo the damage that occur to people in these engagements. Unfortunately our wars are not wars anymore, they are enterprises in police action. We disregard the real consequences all the time in the name of political claptrap. We are lied to by leaders whose political viability is maintained by those that profit from such wars. Now those same people are arguing about who to blame.

I have worn contact lenses for over forty years. Currently I am wearing Coopervision biofinity multifocal lenses. It is a little tricky getting fitted for them, but I find them worth the hassle. There are several ways of constructing multifocal lenses and they interact with your optic neurology. The lenses present multiple images and your brain will learn over a few days to screen out the ones that aren't in focus. As a consequence, multifocals are more problematic in dim lighting. Prior to the advent of multifocal lenses I used monovision, i.e., a lens fitted to my right eye for distance and the left one for near/reading. Not great, but for playing sports, it worked. When I put my multifocals on for the first wearing, I was amazed, it was like having your eyes from before presbyopia. It is still a little monovisiony, in that your dominant eye does more of the distance work, but for shooting pictures, I have had no problems. I also like the built in uv protection.

a beautiful image. thanks for sharing.

I think his name is Milton.

Actually, a great resource to identify birds is in the link below

http://identify.whatbird.com/mwg/_/0/attrs.aspx

I don't think we are both operating at the same level of abstraction and you either lack critical thinking skills or choose not to use them. It is probably best for us not to discuss things due to the different approaches we rely on to understand things.

I am by philosophy, a libertarian. I think our political system is broken and our population woefully ignorant of our history and the history of the world. The founding fathers warned against the formation of political parties as they would evolve into a replacement of the aristocracy that the country in its formation rejected. As a consequence our government has become the possession of the people who control the parties and, to a large extent, our economy. I really became disenchanted with the political process in 1965 when the liberal democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan argued vehemently against the passage of the AFDC, He argued that to provide support to women who had children without a father in the home would place the incentives in such a manner that it would be the death knell of the African American Family system. Although he argued against it, he voted for it in order to appease Lyndon Johnson and the democratic party. Now more than two thirds of all African American children are born to unmarried mothers. The rhetoric that we hear, whether it be from Obama, Bush, Gingrich, Clinton, etc, is just a show. Whether it is Clinton pushing for Nafta, Bush advocating for war on Saddam, or Obama pushing for ACA, none of these efforts were in the best interests of our people, but did a great deal of benefit for the people who paid to have them in office. I don't see the benefits of NAFTA, never saw Iraq pay for the war with their oil money as promised or the ACA make any sense. We haven't had an actual statesman in the executive office since Gerald Ford and he wasn't elected. He did the right thing for the country even though it wasn't the political thing to do and lost the election to probably our most incompetent president of the 20th century which included Harding. So I think it is time to cut back on government. Over half the country works either directly or indirectly for the government. They are too big, too controlling and too corrupt. We need to cut back government and limit it's power and control. How do we do that? I don't really know. The point that started this dialogue was the violence at Fort Hood. I am a believer that most behaviors are determined by multiple factors, and not attributable to one person or factor. Behavior is the function of the individual in interaction with all of the environmental and interpersonal factors. There are no simple solutions. I wish there was.

I fear you are not rational.

You make many assumptions that you then twist into "facts." You assume I am a liberal, you assume I am a follower/supporter of Obama. Neither of these assumptions are true assuming I understand your definition of terms. It would be an exercise in futility to try and get me to think in your way, Everyone has a right to their own opinion, not their own facts. Again, I point out, that there may be some validity to you position but your vitriol undermines any message you might have.

No rational thought from you, just vitriol.

Again, more sniping. What is the basis of your criticism of the posting I made? I never suggested I had a solution just a way of understanding what is happening. That you have no regard for someone who has a view you don't share is suggestive of a closed mind. I would appreciate an actual critical comment about the ideas in discussion. If you have no ideas, I understand.