Peter "Idiot" King (R-NY)

Representative Peter King's solution to the Arizona massacre is to ban arms for 1000 feet of lawmakers. This assures the only armed persons within 1/5th of a mile will be assassins who surely will bring a knife or ice pick since guns are illegal.

Is he that big of an idiot or just thinks his constituents are? If they continue to re-elect him, they are, and truly represented by one of their own.

Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) seeks to restrict sales of high-capacity ammunition clips like the one Loughner allegedly used in his attack. To work around this, assassins can simply bring two automatics with 15-round clips rather than one with a 30-round clips. Apparently Rep. McCarthy is another faithful representative of the New York electorate, and an fine example offsetting the oft-heard charge that Congress is out of touch with their constituents.

Not that the Constitution means much to those in Congress, judging that they act as if were mere literature if it exists at all, but one asks which part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do they not understand?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the two tacklers in Tucson was carrying. The young person who apprehended the shooter ran towards the shooting. He exited Safeway confident that he could meet force with force, if needed, to find the shooter had been tackled by an elderly person that would have soon been overpowered had help not arrived. If he had not been carrying, would he have gone towards the shooting, or would the 22-year-old shooter overpowered the elderly person, reloaded and continued killing? Care to bet your life or your loved ones on that answer?

In 1991, in Luby's Cafeteria, Suzanna Hupp was not carrying because, as required by law, she left her handgun in her truck. The shooter drove into the cafeteria, killed 22 and wounded 20 more before police arrived and moved the shooter to suicide. Two of the people lost that day were Ms. Hupp's parents. She ran for the Texas Legislature and got the law forbidding concealed carry overturned. Care to talk to her about stricter gun laws?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Sad

Christians in Iraq have never expected a white Christmas, but this year there will be no Christmas. Church leaders in Baghdad have called off midnight Mass and an appearance by Santa Claus in the wake of a deadly attack on a Baghdad church. On Tuesday, al-Qaida issued new threats to Iraq's Christians, and church leaders encouraged their congregations to forgo holiday decorations or any other form of Christmas celebration. When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, there were 1.4 million Christians in the country; since then, the number has dwindled to 400,000. ~ The Slatest

The sad result of an imperialistic and "crusader" policy of the Bush Administration. Christians have been present and generally safe in Iraq almost since the time of Christ. They are the casualties of people who fail to see the consequences of interferring in complex cultures we can't possibly totally understand. We have turned the tide against Sunnies and given the more Theocratic Shiites the advantage. Secularism, which was strong in Iraq was destroyed by an ignorant man who had "issues" and no notion of history put into power by neo-colonialists who failed to understand that empire is the last thing America should be striving for. They radicalized Iraq and the world in eight short years and we will spend the rest of this century trying to undo the damage. ~ Paul Webster, Washington Post?

Energy Economics

I suspect we will get $4.00 gas and burgers without further assistance. The recent Obama-Republican deal is a trillion dollar Stimulus II, and should have this result without Bennie. Bennie will hold QE III in case China or others choose to hold us up with the selling or threat of selling their holdings of our debt. QE2 may indeed have had a "note-to-China" purpose. QE2's rate increase may also have been a "note-to-Bennie" warning that he is out on a limb dangerously close to the reach of the financial wolfpack.

Another reason for $4.00 gas is the absence of new drilling permits silently undermining the public statement from Salazar that we can resume oil exploration and production. Salazar is another professional politician for the first time running something larger than a committee meeting and which has real-world consequences besides embellishing or embarrassing Salazar. BP was an embarrassment, compounded by his own "boot-to-the-neck" rhetoric, probably capped by a phone call from a Coast Guard Admiral informing him who was in charge of the oil spill response.

MMS has to write the environmental impact statement for every application, and was churning out an 800-average page count statement that was reviewed by NOAA, then challenged by the green lawyers paid to do just that. After BP, the content of such has to be even more extensive to pass internal review in addition to a re-invigorated subsequent challenges--and jut what these new requirement are or will be must be decided before all applications can begin to be processed anew.

Energy has grown from 6% to 10% of GDP, and appears to be accelerating without anyone able or willing to make a difference. Most are probably either obtuse to their potential impact--or in favor of it.

The last time transport fuels reached $4.00 per gallon, the roads became comparatively empty and the economy dipped. We will shortly find out whether this $4 price intolerance still exists, has risen, or, because of economic tenderness, may even have shrunk.

Power generation has a parallel story of impediment without solutions. Over 100 new coal-fired stations have been canceled or indefinitely delayed because the President personally said they were free to build them if they want to go bankrupt. If cap-and-trade goes into effect either through law or administrative fiat, which EPA has stated they are determined to do, coal-fired power will double in cost, meaning average power cost to the consumer will increase about 50% since coal-fired power is 50% of our power generation--and the cheapest per kilowatt hour.

Energy is not just a convenience; it is the basis of civilization and should these "leaders" take down energy economics which it appears they are doing, determinedly or inadvertently, we will realize at least great Depression II--if not Dark Ages II.

Performance Review?

Intelligence says al Qaeda in Afghanistan numbered between 50 and 100 at the beginning of the year. US KIA YTD is 489. Intelligence still says al Qaeda in Afghanistan now numbers between 50 and 100.

Something wrong with this picture?
----------------------------------
Reference.

WikiBlinks

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.“

If the above is unfamiliar, do not feel bad. It can be readily researched on the web. It seems unfamiliar to a few potential presidential candidates, judging by one's suggestion we run a Predator attack against WikiLeaks in Sweden. The question seems then, is he really that ignorant, or just think we are.

Another presidential wanna-be and some members of Congress want Julian Assange classified as a terrorist. Why? So we can kidnap and spirit him off to some black prison or Guantanamo?

The above law is the reason that the New York Times and Washington Post have not been charged under the espionage acts of 1917 or 1970. It would be successfully fought and result in a further weakening of the remaining power held under the auspice of these acts.

The New York Times and other papers lead with articles each day, drawn from WikiLeaks, and they are not hassled, harassed, threatened or intimidated by any of these characters or the law. That was firmly decided by government action to suppress publication of the Pentagon Papers when the US Supreme Court found in favor of the NY Times. So the question is: Is WikiLeaks and Assange journalism, or not?

The furor results more from embarrassment rather than the content of the leaks. The medical and ethical problems of the Afghan leadership is known to everyone, and classifying it Secret is not going to keep it from the only party still possibly ignorant, the American public. These are the people who have a problem with investing more lives and treasure to prop up a regime of such dubious potential. The only actual surprise was the Afghan Commissioner of Agriculture, who does not give or take bribes and appears competent.

Another non-surprise was the communicated instruction from Hillary for diplomats to gather information on their counterpart diplomats that could only be used to blackmail them into compliance with US wishes. Hillary undertook a similar action while in the White House in hopes of controlling Bill's former sexual partners and his Republican enemies. This all is nothing new in international diplomatic tactics.

Anyway, a foreign diplomat or leader who, say, has bad breath and throws like a girl probably knows it and knows that everyone else does, too. As one foreign diplomat told Hillary, “Don't worry about it. You should hear what we say about you.”

If known, those replies are sufficiently embarrassing to be classified above the Secret level of this latest Wiki release. Secret is a couple clicks above toilet paper. Toilet paper is unclassified, but the number of rolls used is probably Confidential, who uses how many Secret, and if they pay more than, say, ten dollars per roll, the price is probably Top Secret. In spite of the ominous sound of Secret classification, the insignificance of the level is perhaps best illustrated by 3 million people having on-line access to these State Department communications. With that width of access, the three major reasons everyone down to and including Girl Scouts of America have not penetrated sufficiently to read them was 1) the volume would require man-years, 2) assuming one could stay awake reading them, and 3) most everyone would use the resources for better return (reading the New York Times gives one the significant items, for example).

If anyone named in these releases is truly endangered as claimed, marking that item Secret is a criminally incompetent under-classification, but probably leads one to ask whether the politician making this assertion is that ignorant or believes his audience is. Either way, he becomes a person unworthy of ever being listened to, again.

One stunning example of under-classifying is the request and responses for sensitive targets that could hurt civilization.

Perhaps most embarrassing, thus most infuriating, is the source of the leaks, a PFC, who was depressing because his boyfriend dumped him. One thinks of a “military analyst” as being at least a precocious Lieutenant Colonel, or a Ph.D. working for some think tank, but not a PFC making coffee, sweeping floors, and cleaning latrines. Being the one person that can be charged, the target is hardly worth the retribution for the embarrassment.

Thus comes the target of greater desperation, the founder of WikiLinks, Julian Assange. Assange shows an understand of international relations, hiding in Britain. Sweden was pressured to attempt to imprison him, but on sex charges and even then only after Assange threatened Bank of America with exposure. Then, Interpol moved Assange to the ten-most-wanted list.

The potential charges are so obviously contrived as to stretch belief. Seems in Sweden, a female can change her mind about being a consenting adult afterwards, in this case when she finds there is another woman. Perhaps that is why the Swedes just want Assange for questioning, but bad enough to put him the ten-most- wanted list? Smells a bit ripe, does it not?

The entire affair becomes a disappointment and embarrassment, but not a surprise, that:

1.The government, in their own words, are inane, inept, incompetent, and unethical in its dealings with others and relations with the public. Assange is merely reporting this, not causing it.

2.The government was obviously inane, inept and incompetent in protecting its own material. Assange merely demonstrates this in reporting it.

3.Assange is merely the target of those would-be politicians that readily shred the Constitution to obtain a 15-second sound byte in the news. Those who do, should be removed from consideration as a presidential candidate in future elections.

The attempt to refocus and inflame ire against Assange is a transparent attempt to cover their own shortcomings, and a further embarrassment to the citizens that would wish and expect better of their government.

An amusing observation is that Iran seems as angry about these releases as the United States. With a distribution of 3 million, Iran probably already knew the contents, and perhaps they are mad that we now know they know.
---------------------------------------------------
A Personal Observation: When the Pentagon Papers were originally to be released, I was angry at Ellsberg and the NY Times for even contemplating such a treasonous act, but after reading them, I realized they had done the right thing. The feeling at my country's leadership carelessly and cluelessly sending tens of thousands to their death was a revulsion like turning on the kitchen light and watching cockroaches scurrying for cover.

WikiLinks releases gives rise to similar revulsion for similar reason.

Three Envelopes

This is a management story that applies to any level, any organization. Basically, it is a story of incompetent management, for when one observes these indications, the manager knows not what he is doing. I originally heard it as an Army story, so shall relay it in that form; but it is truly universal.

A new, young Army Captain was assuming command of a company from a retiring, experienced, "Mustang" Captain. After the usual round of takeover tasks, the two of them were relaxing in the Company Commander's office. The retiring captain told the new commander, "I have left you three numbered, sealed envelopes in your desk drawer. If things seem not to be going well, open the envelopes in sequence and apply the principle stated. Good luck." The retiring captain left and the new captain took his place behind the desk and smiled at the nice gesture of the outgoing commander.

After approximately a month, things were indeed not going well, so the Captain decided to try the envelopes, thinking, they couldn't hurt and just might help. So, he opened the desk, retrieved the first envelope and ripped it open. It read, "Blame it on your predecessor."

Well, since he was gone, why not? Things did indeed seem to go better for a couple of months, but the tact was getting old and began getting only pained, impatient looks. He decided to try the next envelops, so opened the desk, retrieved number two, and opened it. It read, "Reorganize."

Sure enough, that one really worked--for awhile. Then, things really weren't going much better, and no one wanted to hear that word, again. Thinking this last envelope had better be good, he retrieved and opened it. It read, "Get three envelopes!"

Want to bet on four?

Thirty years ago, tonight, the American public shocked the pollsters, the political pundits, and the Eastern media mouths, by a landslide election of a b-grade movie actor considered an amiable lightweight. By the time of that actor's death, his legend had reached near Churchillian proportion.

The main lesson repeated that night was the public periodically refuses to live down to political opinion that they are stupid. They throw the rascals out. They've done this about once per decade, but have now done it every two years three times in a row. Want to bet on four?