The Unreligious Right

Taking a Break

2011-11-16T21:41:00.003-05:00

I recently took on extra work at my job and have much less time to read the wide assortment of stuff that I look at on the internet. I've also been generally unmotivated to write lately, so I'm taking a break. Posting may or may not resume at some point. I am posting this explanation because it seems that most blogs just stop, and you never know whether the owner got hit by a bus, or just decided to stop blogging.

Conservative Whining About Mitt Romney

2011-11-08T21:01:00.003-05:00

The "true conservative" wing of the GOP is constantly whining about Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate, despite polls regularly showing that he has the best chance of anyone running to defeat President Obama. The latest is an article from Erick Erickson, with the ridiculous title of "Mitt Romney as the Nominee: Conservatism Dies and Barack Obama Wins." Obviously conservatism isn't going to die whether or not Obama wins. Here's Erickson,

Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican nominee. And his general election campaign will be an utter disaster for conservatives as he takes the GOP down with him and burns up what it means to be a conservative in the process.

So far Romney has appeared to be the most competent GOP candidate.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man.

So is Obama, and his election disproves Erickson's assertion.

To beat Barack Obama, a candidate must paint a bold contrast with the Democrats on their policies. When Mitt Romney tries, Barack Obama will be able to show that just the other day Mitt Romney held exactly the opposite position as the one he holds today.

Voters may not like Barack Obama, but by the time Obama is done with Romney they will not trust Mitt Romney. And voters would rather the guy they don’t like than they guy they don’t trust.

This is another weak argument. There are plenty of issues on which voters don't necessarily want a "bold contrast" on policy positions, they just want to see competent leadership. I think Romney's flip-flopping on issues is much more important to the GOP conservative base that views him as a RINO, than it will be to the general public. The general public isn't looking for a true conservative. Erickson goes on to argue why Romney is so bad for conservatism at large, arguments which I find unconvincing at best.

For someone that is supposed to be a political expert, it is strange that Erickson -- like many other conservatives -- doesn't seem to grasp that almost all presidential elections are not about who is the greatest choice, but who is the lesser of two evils. We have a two party system with two huge parties that both embrace a wide variety of views. Their nominees almost never please every faction and viewpoint within the party on every issue. As Republicans, we vote GOP because overall we expect Republican policies to be better than Democratic ones, even if a particular candidate isn't much to our liking. Furthermore, we have to go with the candidates who are available, not some magical candidate that stands for everything we like. If there was a great conservative Republican candidate running who looked like a better bet to beat Obama than Mitt Romney, Erickson's article attacking Romney would make sense. Since there isn't, and since despite everything Erickson says, Romney appears to be the best bet of the current GOP candidates to win, attacking and trying to undermine him is stupid and counterproductive. Conservatives who whine about Mitt Romney and say they won't support him might as well go ahead and vote for Barack Obama, since they'll be doing so by default.

Some conservatives, of course, will not go all in for Romney. These conservatives will be blamed by major Republican and “conservative” mouth pieces for not doing enough to help Mitt Romney. They will be alienated, blamed, and made the scapegoat for the failures of the establishment GOP.

They'll be blamed because they'll deserve the blame for not supporting the GOP candidate. It will have nothing to do with the GOP establishment. That's a total cop-out. We have a nominating process. It's just too bad that the conservative base couldn't put forth a competent electable candidate. If Romney wins the nomination he's the GOP candidate -- period. If you are a Republican who won't support him, you deserve all the blame you get if Obama wins reelection.

War on Sugar in Schools Not Achieving Results

2011-11-07T20:15:00.004-05:00

Despite bans on drinks containing sugar in schools, children are still drinking them.

health experts who would like to reverse the rise in childhood obesity. But a new study has some discouraging news: Students in schools that limited sales of soda and other sugary beverages on campus consumed just as many of the drinks, overall, as students in schools without any such restrictions.

Naturally, for anyone that seeks to control the lives of others by deciding what they consume, the problem as they see it is that we have a free society.

“in the contemporary ‘obesogenic’ environment, youth have countless ways to obtain SSBs through convenience stores, fast-food restaurants, and other food outlets in their community.”

We can't have that. Expect more calls for higher taxes on sugary drinks, which are apparently defined as just about anything containing sugar. Even with draconian policies in seven states which ban "all manner of sugar-sweetened beverages" in school, the bottom line is that these restrictions are achieving nothing -- aside from probably annoying kids.

[According to]all researchers from the University of Illinois at Chicago who have been studying these issues for years. “The public health impact of these policies may be minimal.”

Don't worry, that won't stop them from coming up with new ones.

Casual Slurs Against Atheists

2011-11-03T00:22:00.004-04:00

Even some people who aren't targeting atheists for criticism are predisposed to reflexively view atheism as a bad thing, and the act of being an atheist as a regrettable condition. Consider the following line I stumbled across at a website called "Vibe Vixen." It's from a short article about actress Tasha Smith appearing on the cover of Essence magazine.

The cover should definitely be a great read since this Jersey girl has had a spotted life as an atheist and a drug addict.

An atheist and a drug addict? Apparently being an atheist is right down there with being a drug addict. Unfortunately, there are all too many people who would read that line without even thinking twice.

Instead of Getting Raped, Shoot the Rapist

2011-11-01T12:44:00.004-04:00

There have been some highly publicized incidents where certain police spokesmen advised women not to "dress like sluts" in order to avoid sexual assaults, in effect blaming the victims for enticing criminals. But after an attempted rape in South Carolina park, a local sheriff had some much better advice.

[He] is urging women to get concealed weapons permits and carry guns to protect themselves. ... He suggested that women carry a .45-caliber weapon, and showed reporters at a news conference a fanny pack women could use to carry a handgun while jogging.

The sheriff also noted that a gun is far more effective than mace, and had this to say.

"There won't be any doubt if you need to use your firearm to defend your life," he said. "I don't want this to happen, but I am telling you, I am tired of looking at victims and saying, 'I'm sorry, we've done the best we can to get them in jail.'"

I applaud the sheriff for speaking out on this issue and actually giving advice that could save women from rape or death. I've been saying for years that the best way to prevent rape is to give yourself the ability to respond with lethal force, an action that not only can prevent rape, but might remove rapists from the population permanently.

Huge Roadside Crosses Will Not Be Going Back Up in Utah

2011-11-01T00:30:00.003-04:00

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving 12-foot metal crosses on Utah public land, essentially affirming a lower court decision that declared them an unconstitutional state endorsement of Christianity. I wrote about this case previously here and here. Justice Clarence Thomas wanted to hear the case and wrote a strong dissent,

chastising it for missing an opportunity to provide better guidance to lower courts on the complicated issue of public religious displays."Today the Court rejects an opportunity to provide clarity to an Establishment Clause jurisprudence in shambles," Thomas wrote.

I often agree with Thomas but not this time. I think the lower court ruling was reasonable, and that further time on this case would be a waste of the Supreme Court's time. Far from offering "clarity," Supreme Court involvement could just as easily create more confusion.

Flat Taxes & "Fairness"

2011-10-31T10:55:00.004-04:00

Whenever anyone starts talking about "fairness" in a political context it raises a huge red flag to me, as it usually indicates a total lack of objective reasoning in favor of ideological propaganda. Most political commentary against a flat tax is a prime example, claiming that it wouldn't be fair since it would cut taxes for the rich while raising them for the poor. This type of reasoning is based only on the current system, ignoring the fact that it is harder to get much fairer than a tax where everyone pays exactly the same rate. The only way a flat tax isn't fair is if you believe that wealth should be seized from the rich and redistributed to the poor, that the wealthiest should bear a tax burden far greater than what is their fair share mathematically, and that the poorest should get tax "refunds" of money that they never even paid. Now you might think that's a good system, but it has nothing to do with fairness.

The problem with any flat tax proposal is its contrast with the current system, which taxes the rich at higher rates and transfers some of their money to the poor. Because the current system is so unfair, those who benefit from that unfairness, whether individually or politically, do not want anything fair. If you have gone for years paying no income tax, or have even received money that you never paid in from the earned income tax credit, why would you want a fair system that actually asks you to pay a proportional amount of your income? Likewise, if you see your political constituency as those who receive government benefits, rather than those who pay for them, you want to transfer even more benefits to your supporters, not force them to contribute.

In my opinion a true flat income tax is probably not politically viable in the U.S. And I'm not sure a flat tax that is loaded down with a maze of deductions and rules like the current system would be all that much better. But those who oppose a flat tax on the basis of "fairness" don't want anything fair. What they want is a system that conforms to their ideology, whereby the rich pay an ever-increasing proportion of their income, while the poorest receive greater and greater handouts of that money.

Simple Chart of Belief & Non-Belief

2011-10-26T09:53:00.004-04:00

It's simple but it makes sense.

Gnosticism, for our purposes, is the belief that there is an absolute knowledge, so that one can say definitely that something is or is not true. So, in this case, somebody on the far “gnostic” side of our graph would argue that the statement “There is a God” can be proven to be 100 per cent valid or invalid; somebody on the far “agnostic” side, would argue that the same statement can never be proven to any degree of accuracy because it’s impossible to know. ... Is this the definitive way of charting people’s religious positions? Of course not. But it provides a helpful mental image when trying to discuss people’s views. A “strong theist” – let’s say the Pope – will be found at the maximum poles of gnosticism and theism: there is absolutely a God. Whether it exists and can be known is completely beyond doubt. A “strong atheist” hangs around the maximums of gnosticism and atheism

The rest of the accompanying article is good also.

More on the Drone Revolution

2011-10-24T15:48:00.003-04:00

The Christian Science Monitor has an extensive article on the latest developments in drone technology that is worth reading.

"We're not about 20 years, or 10 years, or even five years away – a lot of this could be out in the field in under two years," says Mitchell Zatkin, former director of programmable matter at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, the Pentagon's premier research office.

The drone revolution and its continuing impact is fascinating to any student of military history and technology. As the article points out,

The development of a new generation of military robots, including armed drones, may eventually mark one of the biggest revolutions in warfare in generations. Throughout history, from the crossbow to the cannon to the aircraft carrier, one weapon has supplanted another as nations have strived to create increasingly lethal means of allowing armies to project power from afar.

The impact of the drone revolution on warfare is so dramatic that it creates numerous possibilities and raises many questions. If as expected, we eventually progress from the use of armed drones to true robots, acting according to programming as opposed to being under direct human command, we may have seen nothing yet.

In the not-too-distant future, military officials envision soldiers and robots teaming up in the field, with the troops able to communicate with machines the way they would with a human squad team member. Eventually, says Thompson, the robot-soldier relationship could become even more collaborative, with one human soldier leading many armed robots.

The whole article is extremely interesting reading.

Government Charities

2011-10-19T10:09:00.003-04:00

Most supporters of big government advocate increasing revenue by force, in the form of higher taxes. This is euphemistically called "asking" people to pay more, in the same way a mugger "asks" you for your wallet. But what if we actually asked people to voluntarily contribute more to government programs? Let's take Medicaid for example. Everyone has seen ads for charities that ask people to pledge a monthly contribution to help a child in a third-world country. Why not have a Medicaid Support Fund where people can pledge their support or give lump-sum contributions?

I see ads for the United Way everywhere, and that organization takes in quite a bit of money. There's no reason we couldn't have a similar ad campaign for the Medicaid Support Fund. In fact, the entire campaign could be donated by some liberal advertising firm that would offer its expertise as a public service. All aspects of the fund would be managed by private entities willing to support the project -- because if it were done by the government it would almost certainly spend more money that it took in. This type of fund would encourage prominent liberal hypocrites like Warren Buffet, who pretend they aren't taxed enough while simultaneously shielding their money, to live up to their big government ideals and contribute more. It's almost a certainty that such government charities would also attract significant corporate contributions, if for no other reason than public relations.

There could even been government charity programs that appeal to those on the right, such as the Missile Defense Fund, or the Help Kill a Terrorist Fund, where donations would go directly to help defer the costs of our drone assassination program.

We actually have some of these types of charities now, such as the Navy League, but their advertising is minimal compared to better known organizations. When is the last time you saw an ad for the Navy League?

Gilad Shalit Prisoner Swap

2011-10-18T10:01:00.002-04:00

Israel's deal with Palestinians to release kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, held for five years by Hamas, demonstrates the lengths the Jewish state will go to take care of its service members.

His release by the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a prisoner swap that ultimately will include the release of 1,027 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. A total of 477 prisoners were freed Tuesday, after Shalit was returned to Israel.

Over a thousand prisoners released to free one soldier, including hundreds of terrorists who will probably kill more Israelis. Not everyone in Israel is happy.

Shalit’s father, Noam, appeared Monday before the Israeli Supreme Court, where he came face to face with relatives of victims of terrorist attacks who oppose the deal. Several relatives filed motions urging the court to annul the deal, and according to Israeli news reports, some angrily confronted the soldier’s father.

I understand how they feel. I'd have a pretty hard time supporting such a one-sided deal. According to the article, Hamas is celebrating the agreement as a great victory, for good reason. Kidnapping Shalit worked out really well for them. Plus, they now know that if they need to spring a bunch of their people from Israeli jails, they just need to kidnap another Israeli soldier.

What Some Real Cuts in Government Might Look Like

2011-10-17T15:56:00.002-04:00

I'm not a Ron Paul fan, but I do like his economic plan that calls for cutting 1 trillion in spending in one year, as well as slashing the size of government.

a 10% reduction in the federal work force, ... lower the corporate tax rate to 15% from 35% ... end taxes on personal savings and extend “all Bush tax cuts.” ... also allow U.S. firms to repatriate capital without additional taxes ... Mr. Paul would eliminate the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development.

My list of federal departments to be eliminated is similar: Education, Energy and HUD. But I'd shut-down the Department of Homeland Security rather than Commerce and Interior. Unfortunately there is as much chance of these cuts taking place as there is of Ron Paul being elected. The only way something like this will ever happen is if it's forced by some sort of economic collapse.

The Latest in Our Ongoing War With Iran

2011-10-13T13:55:00.005-04:00

The revelation of an Iranian plot to kill a Saudi diplomat on American soil was not particularly surprising. The U.S. has been engaged in a low-level war with Iran for years, although the war appears to be pretty one-sided, with Iran actively working to kill American soldiers, and doing everything possible to create anti-American proxies in Iraq -- among other things. Iran has been allowed to get away with this, despite its military weakness compared to the United States. Now it is true that there have been covert actions against Iran too, such as the killing and kidnapping of nuclear scientists, and cyberattacks aimed at its nuclear program. The level of U.S. involvement is unclear, but it is likely that U.S. allies such as Israel or Saudi Arabia might be behind them. Overall though, the U.S. has tolerated open hostility and acts of war from a third-rate power.

Some experts are surprised and skeptical about this plot's links to the Iranian government, because it seems reckless and somewhat amateurish. They could be right, and it might have been some sort of rogue operation. But I doubt it. I find it unsurprising that Iran might engage in what seems like a reckless escalation of the war, because it has little reason to fear any sort of significant response. It is well aware that the U.S. is preoccupied with various major issues, and that it is led by an extremely weak president, who has been nothing but spineless toward all enemies other than Al Qaeda and its affiliates. You have only to look at Obama's weak response to this situation. The U.S. government openly accuses Iran of trying to assassinate an allied diplomat on American soil, but then does nothing other than run to the UN and try to get more useless sanctions. Why should the Iranian rulers fear that sort of toothless action?

This situation demonstrates yet again that the Obama administration is incompetent when it comes to foreign policy. You don't accuse a hostile country of an act of war unless you are prepared to respond with force. A strong accusation combined with a weak response does nothing other than increase hostility while making you appear weak. One thing Obama is very good at is making the U.S. look weak.

David Frum on Why He's a Republican

2011-10-11T12:19:00.004-04:00

David Frum is much more of a big government Republican than I am, and I strongly disagree with his critique of current GOP positions on the economy. But his article gives some good reasons to be a Republican. Here are his main points with my comments.

The Republicans are the party of American nationalism. ... The flag-and-country themes of the GOP can be kitschy. They also are the indispensable basis of any idea of social cohesion across the vast continent.

He could have thrown in unabashed patriotism and belief in American exceptionalism, as opposed to the fuzzy internationalism of many Democrats.

Republican policies of lower taxes, less regulation, and restrained social spending may be poor medicine for the immediate crisis. But they remain the best formula to support the longer-term growth of the economy – way better than the Democratic preference for high taxes and opportunistic economic interventions.

They aren't poor medicine for the current crisis, but otherwise he's correct. If you want higher taxes, more government bureaucracy, an ever-increasing maze of regulations, greater government interference with the economy, and more hand-outs of taxpayer money, vote Democrat. If you want less you vote Republican.

my preferred approach to federal budgeting starts with national defense. Defense and national security are the supreme priority of the state. Only after fully funding defense can you then worry about the appropriate level of spending for everything else, and the appropriate level and form of taxation to pay for that spending.

Exactly. When government cuts are under discussion Democrats look to cut the most important function of government first, while Republicans look to other less vital areas of government.

I intensely oppose any aid or subsidy to particular companies or firms except in cases of the most extreme national necessity, eg TARP. Solyndra is only the latest example of the zeal of Democratic administrations dating back to Jimmy Carter’s to solve America’s energy problems by inserting government into the business of “picking winners.”

Ok, but the GOP has its own issues in this regard. However, as in most cases, the GOP is the lesser of two evils.

he omnipresent system of racial preferences built since the late 1960s in hope of compensating for the effects of slavery and segregation is not only a moral inequity, but also a practical disaster. ... this system is one of the most basic political commitments of the modern Democratic party.

It also requires that the current effects of racism be exaggerated to justify the continuation of such policies, and creates a whole group of racialist agitators.

real progress on the environment almost always comes under Republican presidents.

I'd say rather that the GOP is a bulwark against radical environmental extremism, whereas significant elements of the Democratic party embrace it.

Public sector unions rank as one of the most important obstacles to the improvement of public services from education to transit. And the Democrats are the party of the public-sector unions.

Absolutely. Public sector unions are a blight on the U.S., and inextricably linked with the Democratic party.

Democrats were wrong on crime from the 1970s through the 1990s, and I’m still mad about it.

Republicans tend to be better on addressing crime, as opposed to making excuses for criminals, or blaming inanimate objects such as guns.

I believe that the elected Prime Minister of Israel is a better judge of Israel’s national security than the Assistant Secretary of State for Near East affairs. Democratic administrations typically seem guided by the opposite theory.

Pretty vague reason. I could come up with a much more substantive distinction between the parties on foreign policy.

the GOP is the party more sympathetic to business concerns and challenges.

Understatement of the year there. As I write this, there are already some Democrats embracing the imbeciles of the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, people who out of envy, stupidity and the desire for hand-outs rail against capitalism -- the greatest engine of wealth creation in human history. The GOP has its problems, but they pale in comparison to the fringes of the Democratic party.

Big News That Isn't News

2011-10-10T14:14:00.003-04:00

I just got on and checked the New York Times and Washington Post. Both lead with the same story: "U.N. Finds ‘Systematic’ Torture in Afghanistan," and "Afghan detainees tortured in prison, U.N. says." The Afghan government is torturing prisoners? No way! I'm totally shocked.

Out of concern about prisoner mistreatment, the NATO coalition said last month that it had stopped transferring detainees it arrested to 16 Afghan-run detention centers. The U.N. report said Afghan authorities were taking steps to address the problem.

If I were someone who cared how the Afghan government treated prisoners, I'd see the NATO action as a ridiculously belated effort at public relations and nothing more. No one with the slightest clue who paid even a little bit of attention has ever thought that the Afghan government treated prisoners by some sort of Western standards.

What's the next story to headline the New York Times and Washington Post? How about U.N Finds Endemic Corruption in Afghanistan?

Romney's Foreign Policy Speech

2011-10-07T20:37:00.003-04:00

Mitt Romney gave a major foreign policy speech at The Citadel. Here are my comments on various parts.

America is not destined to be one of several equally balanced global powers. America must lead the world, or someone else will. Without American leadership, without clarity of American purpose and resolve, the world becomes a far more dangerous place, and liberty and prosperity would surely be among the first casualties.

This is an important point and one I want to hear from any presidential candidate. A strong America is not only good for the world in general, but more importantly it is good for America. I don't want a president who thinks the U.S. should fade into the background while some other power rises to dominance. Romney goes on to give a ringing defense of American Exceptionalism and then lists what he sees as specific threats. All of them require American strength.

there is one unifying thread that connects each of these possible threats: when America is strong, the world is safer.

Ronald Reagan called it “Peace through Strength” and he was never more right than today. It is only American power—conceived in the broadest terms—that can provide the foundation of an international system that ensures the security and prosperity of the United States and our friends and allies around the world.

American strength rises from a strong economy, a strong defense, and the enduring strength of our values.

He states 4 cores principles on foreign policy: 1. Clarity and resolve on our positions for both friends and enemies. This is something I advocate on a regular basis. 2. Promotion of open markets, representative government and human rights. This is pretty standard stuff, but I'd prefer an emphasis on advancing U.S. interests, and a realization that democracy and the promotion of human rights are not always in our interests depending on the situation. 3. Rapid reaction to events to defuse them before they require military action, and American military supremacy. I like the emphasis on military supremacy, but I'd rather hear that we are going to mind our own business and not feel like we need to interfere all over the world unless it is truly necessary for U.S. interests. 4. U.S. leadership in alliances and international actions/organizations, while retaining the right to act unilaterally. Sounds good.

Romney even lays out some specific actions he would take including strengthening the navy, prioritizing the deployment of a missile defense system, cybersecurity, deterrence against Iran, support for the so-called Arab Spring, a free trade economic policy toward Latin America, a full review of the situation in Afghanistan, greater support for Israel, closer ties with the UK, and talks with Mexico toward cooperation on their drug problems and bilateral security.

I'm in favor of strengthening the navy, our first line of defense and power projection. But as much as I support missile defense, I don't think we can afford it right now. I would not make deployment a priority. I've called for a policy of deterrence vs. Iran, and I'm all for free trade in general. I'd like to hear exactly what he means by supporting the Arab spring. I'm highly skeptical. I strongly support Israel, but don't think we should be increasing foreign aid to anyone any time soon, even allies. In fact, it would have been nice to hear about some cuts in aid, particularly in aid to places with hostile regimes or populations.

Despite my differences, overall this speech reinforces what I already thought about Mitt Romney -- that he is fairly solid on foreign policy.

Israeli Scientist Wins Nobel Prize for Chemistry

2011-10-05T20:44:00.003-04:00

This isn't surprising, since despite its size, Israel is a leader in science and technology. From the New York Times,

An Israeli scientist won this year’s Nobel Prize in Chemistry for discovering quasicrystals, a material in which atoms were packed together in a well-defined pattern that never repeats. ... Dan Shechtman, 70, a professor of materials science at Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, Israel. Dr. Shechtman is also a professor at Iowa State University and a researcher at the United States Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory. ... Israeli leaders expressed delight and pride at the 10th Nobel Prize won by a citizen of Israel, which has a population of less than eight million. Two years ago, Ada E. Yonath of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, shared the award for chemistry as well.

It's useful to compare Israel's record of scientific achievement to that of its larger and more populous hostile neighbors and other states in the region. Their recent contributions to the world tend to be things like terrorism, Islamism, dictators, anti-Semitism, conspiracy theories, theocracy and varieties of burkhas for women.

Wikipedia has a good rundown of science & technology in Israel.

Leftist Protester With a Good Sign

2011-10-04T22:55:00.003-04:00

From what I've seen, most of the "occupy wall street" protesters are a bunch of fringe nuts. But this sign is pretty good.

h/t The Jewmanist

Obama's War on Al Qaeda

2011-10-01T00:22:00.005-04:00

With the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (along with a bonus terrorist), I once again have to give President Obama credit for taking decisive, effective action against Al Qaeda. As much as I dislike the president, and think he's an naive incompetent when it comes to foreign policy in general, I have to admit that he has pursued our war with Al Qaeda with every bit as much ferocity as his predecessor. If anything, he has expanded our global reach, and has demonstrated that there are few safe havens for terrorist enemies of the U.S. -- especially leaders like al-Awlaki.

Back in 2009 I wrote a series of posts giving my opinion on things I thought we should be doing to prosecute our war against radical Islamic terrorists. In the concluding post I said,

The U.S. needs to start instilling some terror of our own in our enemies. The current fear faced by Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border region -- that they could be killed at any minute by a drone strike -- should be extended to terrorist enemies across the globe. Rather than fear arrest, every member of an Islamic terror organization, their supporters, and the radical Islamic clerics who cheer them on, should be made to live their lives waiting for a bullet in the head from a U.S.-directed assassin.

I also wrote,

there is little hope that anything I've suggested will be done by the current administration

Clearly I was wrong. The President has actually done some of what I advocated in the passage above. His establishment of drone bases gives us the means to strike at terrorists in various areas. More importantly, he has not allowed U.S. striking power to be crippled by the blind legalism of terrorist rights supporters. All the bases and drones in the world are useless without the will to send them into action. Unlike some -- including a minority on the right -- the president appears to be able to tell the difference between terrorist enemies who should be eliminated, and criminals subject to the legal system. In the case of al-Awlaki, he rightly decided that in this special case, American citizenship should not shield someone who is openly recruiting terrorists to strike America.

I'm a Republican partisan and I don't want to see Obama get re-elected. But it my opinion it is intellectually dishonest for Republicans to pretend that the president is somehow soft on terrorism, at least as it applies to operations against Al Qaeda and its affiliates worldwide. The evidence says that he isn't, and he should get credit for the things he does right, even from political opponents.

Anwar al-Awlaki Killed

2011-09-30T09:42:00.003-04:00

We've been hunting Anwar al-Awlaki for quite some time and it appears that we finally got him. Details are unclear, but several news sources are reporting that he was killed in a drone strike. Naturally terrorist rights supporters are unhappy. I wrote about al-Awlaki and the ridiculous arguments of those claiming that he deserved "due process," a year ago in my post "Kill Anwar al-Awlaki."

The New Debit Card Fees

2011-09-29T20:56:00.002-04:00

Today we got yet another example of the unintended consequences of poorly-thought out and unnecessary legislation. Bank of America is now charging $5 per month for its debit cards, with other banks sure to follow suit. Why is it doing so? Awhile back, Congress, then led by Democrats, passed new regulations restricting the fees banks could charge merchants for accepting debit cards. The new restrictions go into effect on Saturday. Naturally banks are not going to passively accept a huge cut in income, and are now looking for ways to make up the difference from customers.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you have clueless government officials, primarily Democrats, interfering in business operations, and passing unnecessary regulations. If, like me, you make regular use of debit cards, you know they are extremely useful. One of the things that makes them so useful is the lack of fees. If they start to come with a monthly charge or other restrictions, they become another expense which lessens their overall utility.

You might wonder why it is any business at all of the government what fees banks should charge merchants for using debit cards. Why can't banks just set whatever fees they want and merchants decide whether or not they want to pay them, pass them on the customers, or reject them entirely? Was there some sort of major problem with debit card use that even required government action? No, there wasn't. There was no need whatsoever for this sort of overbearing big government regulation. And now consumers are going to pay for it. Here's one of the sponsors of the regulation, one of the biggest idiots in Congress, Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois,

"After years of raking in excess profits off an unfair and anticompetitive interchange system, Bank of America is trying to find new ways to pad their profits by sticking it to its customers. It's overt, unfair, and I hope their customers have the final say."

What are "excessive profits" and who are you to decide what businesses should make? Bank of America is not trying to pad their profits, they are attempting to preserve them from being cut by arbitrary regulation. It may be "overt," but there's nothing unfair about it. Banks are not obligated to provide free debit card use. They were doing so until you decided to interfere. It's an obvious reaction to your attempt to slash their profits, one which was abundantly clear to anyone with the slightest clue when this legislation was under discussion.

Foreign Policy Incompetence - Pakistani Edition

2011-09-28T21:34:00.004-04:00

The Obama administration gets much well-deserved criticism for its incompetent and ineffective domestic policies. But it is always worth pointing out that administration incompetence also extends to foreign policy. Today we had another reminder.

Last Thursday Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, touched off a major diplomatic crisis with Pakistan when he said the following things:

[He] told the Senate Armed Services Committee that Pakistan’s spy agency was tied to the attack on the U.S. embassy last week as well as the truck bombing on Sept. 10 that wounded 77 American soldiers. ... Mullen told the committee the Haqqani network “acts as a veritable arm” of Pakistan’s intelligence agency.“In choosing to use violent extremism as an instrument of policy, the government of Pakistan, and most especially the Pakistani army and ISI, jeopardizes not only the prospect of our strategic partnership but Pakistan’s opportunity to be a respected nation with legitimate regional influence,” Mullen said. “They may believe that by using these proxies, they are hedging their bets or redressing what they feel is an imbalance in regional power. But in reality, they have already lost that bet.”

These are things that should never have been said unless A) we meant them, and B) we were prepared for the obvious Pakistani reaction and felt that somehow they would produce positive results. Apparently the Obama administration was too clueless to figure that out. Now that the damage has been done, it is trying to backtrack. From the first NYT link,

Asked on Wednesday whether he agreed that the Haqqani network was “a veritable arm” of the ISI, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, told reporters, “It’s not language I would use.”

He pivoted quickly to say the Obama administration is united in its assessment that “links” exist between the Haqqani network and the ISI, “and that Pakistan needs to take action to address that.”

If that wasn't the language they wanted used, it shouldn't have been used by the senior military leader of the United States. The damage is already done.

Conor Friedersdorf Doesn't Know Much About Conservatives

2011-09-28T14:32:00.004-04:00

Anyone who has read Conor Friedersdorf's columns at the Atlantic already knows that he's a regular critic of conservatives who doesn't actually know much about them. His latest column, called "The Heresies of Chris Christie," makes that abundantly clear. Regarding Christie's speech at the Reagan library, Friedersdorf writes,

he also made four key assertions that are now heretical within the Republican Party, and the significance of his speech is almost entirely wrapped up in those passages of politely stated dissent.

Unfortunately for his premise, none of those assertions are "heretical" to Republicans.

First, Friedersdorf thinks that political compromise is "anathema" to Republicans, "who regard compromise as tantamount to selling out principle." Republicans are not opposed to reasonable political compromise and never have been. The question is what is reasonable. If the compromise is in fact a selling out of principle, which some compromises are, then yes, many Republicans would oppose that, just as Democrats oppose selling out their principles.

Second, he makes a big deal out of Christie's comments on American Exceptionalism, apparently reading into them much more than was there, and creating a strawman regarding how conservatives might view them. Christie was primarily arguing from an economic perspective that U.S. exceptionalism requires us to lead by example. If our country is a fiscal mess, it ceases to be much of an example to the rest of the world. There are very few conservatives that would take issue with Christie on that point.

Third is more of the same. Christie argues that if America is a mess, and we can't fix our own problems, it lessens our influence. This is not even close to being "heretical" to conservatives, let alone Republicans in general.

And finally, Friedersdorf seizes on this passage,

"We certainly cannot force others to adopt our principles through coercion," he said. "Local realities count; we cannot have forced makeovers of other societies in our image. We need to limit ourselves overseas to what is in our national interest so that we can rebuild the foundations of American power here at home - foundations that need to be rebuilt in part so that we can sustain a leadership role in the world for decades to come."

Very few conservatives would disagree with those points, especially since they can be interpreted various ways, particularly with regard to limiting ourselves to what is in our national interest. There's certainly nothing there that would rise to the level of "heretical."

Friedersdorf has demonstrated on many occasions that he is a poor political analyst. In my opinion he's a pretentious, intellectual lightweight who has nothing more than a simplistic, caricatured view of conservatives and the GOP in general. There are actually plenty of things conservatives don't like about Chris Christie, such as his pro-gun control views, for example. It would be very easy to write an accurate article about why conservatives aren't thrilled with Chris Christie. Others have even done so.

Obama's Latest Anti-Business Proposal

2011-09-26T21:14:00.004-04:00

I wrote about the president's new massive government spending proposal, misnamed as a job's bill, a couple of weeks ago. Now we find that it includes an idea that would encourage frivolous lawsuits against employers.

Mr. Obama’s jobs bill would prohibit employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are unemployed.

Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Naturally this idea also involves giving more power to the government to scrutinize business hiring practices.

Under Mr. Obama’s proposal, the employment commission would be given new power to enforce the proposed ban on discrimination against the jobless.

What a great idea. If unemployed people fail to get a particular job, why not give them the ability to allege that they were discriminated against because they are unemployed? I'm sure greater government involvement and the threat of lawsuits if they turn someone down will do wonders to make businesses more interested in hiring instead of just deciding to do without that extra worker. Businesses love attention from government agencies and the threat of lawsuits.

Church or Jail

2011-09-23T23:47:00.004-04:00

Bay Minette, Alabama is letting non-violent misdemeanor offenders decide between jail & fines or going to church for a year. That's right, you can avoid jail time and fines by agreeing to attend church for a year.

If offenders select church, they'll be allowed to pick the place of worship but must check in weekly with the pastor and police. ... If the one-year church attendance program is completed, the offender's case will be dismissed.

I had two main thoughts when I read this story. First, I found it pretty funny that this city judge is giving the impression that going to church every week is roughly equivalent to jail time. But after my initial amusement, came the reality that this is a ridiculous punishment that lets criminals off easy. I'm all for alternative sentencing for non-violent offenders. But how is attending church once a week for a few hours in any way equivalent to serving jail time and paying fines? I'm an atheist and I'd take that deal in a second. You can just sit in the back and take nap during the service, daydream, or whatever. It's not a punishment. Amazing as it may seem, many people actually like going to church. Depending on the church you pick, it might have good music, food and other benefits. You can steal things, get DUIs, and commit various other misdemeanors and get off with just going to church weekly?

The Troy Davis Execution

2011-09-22T20:02:00.005-04:00

I was going to write something about this execution, but John Hawkins of Right Wing News did it for me in his post at Huffington Post called, "Why Do Liberals Have Such a Soft Spot for Cop Killers Like Troy Davis?" Here are some of the key points.

We have a justice system that is already ridiculously slanted against the death penalty. It usually takes decades of appeals and retrials to put anyone to death, no matter how ironclad the evidence is against him. Despite farfetched claims that large numbers of innocent men have been put to death, there's actually no solid evidence that an innocent man has been executed in this country in the last fifty years. ... Liberals don't like the death penalty; so they are desperate to find proof that innocent men have been executed and there are people who are willing to make money providing that evidence, no matter how far they have to stretch to deliver it.

And the weight of evidence for Troy Davis' guilt is so great that despite all those years of appeals and efforts to overturn the verdict, or lessen the penalty, not a single court was willing to do so.

despite the incredibly slanted accounts you may have read, Troy Davis is not one of these mistakes. More than a dozen courts looked at the trial and came to that conclusion -- and no wonder. Davis shot a cop to death in public. There were 34 witnesses at the trial. Some of them were strangers. Some of them were friends of Davis. To this day, there are several people, some strangers and some former friends, who said they saw Davis shoot Officer Mark MacPhail and haven't recanted. How many eyewitnesses to a murder should you need to convict someone?

There's one other thing that Hawkins doesn't mention regarding the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the execution. There are outspoken liberals on that court, who have not been shy in expressing opposition to other executions.

In late June, for example, the court cleared the way for a Mexican national to be executed in Texas over the objections of the State Department, but the decision came on a 5-4 vote. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan disagreed.

No dissents were recorded in the Davis case. About 10:20 p.m., the court released a one-line order saying that the “application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the court is denied.”

Despite all the pro-Davis propaganda, it apparently didn't even convince the liberal members of the Supreme Court. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Troy Davis was a murderer and was justly executed.

UPDATE

For those who might think I'm a reflexive, ideological defender of the death penalty in every case, I should point out that back in 2009 I wrote a post arguing that the Troy Davis case was a bad use of the death penalty. But, that's because I was uninformed about many details. As is sometimes the case in blogging, I was offering a quick take based on my reading of one op-ed which presented a skewed picture. A commenter pointed that out, which eventually led to me reversing my opinion.

Justice Served

2011-09-21T20:43:00.003-04:00

There has been a lot of recent whining about the death penalty, based on a couple cases. But today we saw the death penalty serve its primary purpose: justice. The state of Texas executed Lawrence Russell Brewer for the incredibly vicious torture and murder of James Byrd back in 1998. In case you've forgotten, here's an account of the crime.

On June 7, 1998, Byrd, age 49, accepted a ride from Shawn Berry (age 24), Lawrence Brewer (age 31), and John King (age 23). Berry, who was driving, was acquainted with Byrd from around town. Instead of taking Byrd home, the three men took Byrd to a remote county road out of town, beat him with anything they could find, urinated on his unconscious body, chained him by his ankles to their pickup truck dragging him for three miles. Brewer later claimed that Byrd's throat had been slashed by Berry before he was dragged. However, forensic evidence suggests that Byrd had been attempting to keep his head up while being dragged, and an autopsy suggested that Byrd was alive during much of the dragging. Byrd died after his right arm and head were severed after his body hit a culvert. His body had caught the culvert on the side of the road, resulting in Byrd's decapitation.

Berry, Brewer, and King dumped their victim's mutilated remains in front of an African-American cemetery on Huff Creek Road; the three men then went to a barbecue.

Death penalty opponents often call execution "barbaric." In my opinion it is barbaric to allow those who would commit such a crime to go on living. It took a ridiculously long 13 years to execute just one of the murderers, but better late than never.

Not So Secret Drone Bases

2011-09-21T10:26:00.004-04:00

The Washington Post has a front-page story about a "ring" of supposedly secret drone bases, apparently oblivious to the fact that if they are a featured story in the paper, they are hardly all that secret anymore. These bases, a critical part of our worldwide counterterrorism efforts, have been exposed by our enemy Wikileaks, as part of its release of stolen diplomatic cables.

As I've pointed out before, Wikileaks has already done far more damage to the U.S. than most terrorists can dream of, and this is just the latest example. Al Qaeda doesn't need intelligence operatives in the U.S. conducting espionage to uncover details about U.S. counterterrorism efforts. It has Wikileaks to do it for them. The exposure of these secrets might make for interesting reading, but that damage to U.S. interests is real and significant. The Post covers the situation with Seychelles.

The government of Seychelles agreed to host U.S. drones and to keep their counterterrorism mission secret, using a cover story that they were there for anti-piracy operations. The U.S. told Seychelles that the drones would be unarmed.

During a meeting with Seychelles President James Michel on Sept. 18, 2009, American diplomats said the U.S. government “would seek discrete [sic], specific discussions . . . to gain approval” to arm the Reapers “should the desire to do so ever arise,” according to a cable summarizing the meeting. Michel concurred, but asked U.S. officials to approach him exclusively for permission “and not anyone else” in his government ... Michel’s chief deputy told a U.S. diplomat on a separate occasion that the Seychelles president “was not philosophically against” arming the drones, according to another cable. But the deputy urged the Americans “to be extremely careful in raising the issue with anyone in the Government outside of the President. Such a request would be ‘politically extremely sensitive’ and would have to be handled with ‘the utmost discreet care.’ ”

Here you see that the U.S. made a secret agreement with the president to cut out the rest of his government. In order to conduct these type of operations we need to make agreements with various countries that involve these sorts of back-door dealings, because of domestic political consideration in the states hosting our drones. How much harder will it be to obtain bases now that everyone knows that the U.S. is unable to keep even sensitive diplomatic correspondence secret, and unwilling to take necessary actions to destroy a hostile organization that is stealing and publishing those secrets? If you were the president of some other nation approached by the U.S., would you make a similar agreement, knowing that the U.S. can't keep secrets?

Britons and Information Obtained by Torture

2011-09-20T00:00:00.001-04:00

The polling organization YouGov has released the results of a UK survey which asked the following question:

Do you think there are ever circumstances where it is justified for the British security services to use information that other countries may have obtained through torture?

46% agreed that yes, there might be circumstances justifying the use of such information. 19% were unsure. And just over a third, 34%, said there were no circumstances that would justify its use.

From these results I conclude that 34% of Britons A) have no imagination, B) are complete and utter morons, or C) both. Regardless of what you think about the use of torture, consider the following hypothetical.

An Al Qaeda terrorist falls into the hands of Afghan security forces who torture him. During his torture-filled interrogation he gives up a large amount of information which may or may not be accurate. He states that Al Qaeda is planning an attack in Britain, and provides the names and approximate locations of two associates who he claims are already in the U.K. The Afghans pass this information to the U.S., which then informs the British. Would these 34% really oppose any investigation by British security forces? After all, they'd be acting on information obtained through torture. I guess they should just turn a blind eye and hope for the best.

Taxing the Rich

2011-09-19T19:38:00.003-04:00

Once again President Obama is engaging in standard class warfare tactics by proposing new taxes on the rich in general -- as defined by him -- and on millionaires in particular, pretending that the people who already provide the vast majority of U.S. tax money are somehow not paying their fair share. It's such a transparent political ploy that you might think such demagoguery wouldn't get any traction at all. Yet it does. Why?

Demonizing the rich and proposing to forcibly extract more money from them appeals to at least two powerful human motivators: envy and self-interest. And it has the virtue of simplicity. Many people are envious of those who make more money than them, even though the relative difference doesn't affect their lives in the least. They are reflexively suspicious of rich people, and tend to see them as cheating somehow, people who are gaming the system to get more than their fair share. Class warfare naturally appeals to those with that attitude. It's a lot easier to believe bad things about the rich than to accept that in most cases they are just smarter and harder-working. Envy helps explain how it is possible to believe that people who pay more in taxes than you'll earn in your lifetime are in some way not paying enough.

Even those less envious and hostile to the rich can be taken in by class warfare schemes out of self-interest. Here you have those who think that if the government raises taxes on the rich, they won't need to tax ordinary people any more. Why should those of us who aren't rich care about people with tons of money? They've got more money than they'll ever spend, why not get more tax money from them? Just leave us alone. In my experience this is a common attitude among those who don't really follow politics closely, and know little about economics. Raising taxes on the rich sounds like a nice simple solution. It's clear and easy to understand.

Envy, self-interest, and simplicity to the point of simple mindedness, those things are the underlie the appeal of raising taxes on the rich. This latest attempt by Obama is no different. Fortunately the GOP controls the House. Thanks to all those who voted Republican in 2010 and have helped prevent Obama from inflicting even more damage on the U.S. economy.

Atheists in Pakistan

2011-09-17T00:00:00.000-04:00

Pakistan is not a place you'd expect to find an atheist organization. But thanks to the internet there is a group called Pakistani Atheists and Agnostics (PAA).

How did the idea to bring together Pakistani atheists on a single platform come up? “When I became an atheist, I honestly thought there were no others like me in Pakistan. Through discussions on various social networking groups and forums, I found a few others like me. So we decided to make this group to find out how many more were out there,” says Hazrat NaKhuda, one of the founding members of the group. For obvious reasons, the PAA members go by pseudonyms to protect their identity.

It is a hopeful sign that even in hotbeds of religious extremism like Pakistan, some, especially young people are turning away from religion.

“Extremism is not the primary reason why people leave Islam. But looking at recent converts, I can say that it has become one of the reasons why people start questioning the religion of their forefathers,” explains Hazrat NaKhuda, who personally believes that religion does not make sense in this age. “Most people are following the beliefs of their parents and have no reason to proclaim that what they have is the truth. Once one realises that, it is fairly simple,” he adds.

Another member says,

we are taught that if only we turn to god, to religion, we will find answers and peace. When people, especially young ones, do that, and find that there is merely rhetoric, they feel rather disillusioned with religion, and that consequently pushes them away,” she says. “Another reason is that we are living in a progressing society. The whole world is undergoing a slow change in which it is leaving behind old religions and turning towards fixing a world, the problems of which are solely ours, not to be solved by a divine hand. ... The rapid progress of science has helped this process.

The whole article is interesting.

Rights Infringed

2011-09-16T20:10:00.004-04:00

I recently put up a post laughing at the ridiculous notion that requiring identification for voting amounts to vote suppression, or some sort of attack on voting rights. This is accusation is particularly funny coming from Democrats, who in certain states have been in the forefront of suppressing constitutional rights. This is definitely the case in my state of New Jersey.

We had an incident at our house where gas was stolen from one of our vehicles late at night, even though we live in a reasonably nice area. Since I currently work at night, my wife, who is disabled and not that mobile, is home with our son. The thought occurred to me that it would not be good if she were to go outside after hearing some noise, and surprise a criminal. I decided to look into purchasing a handgun, primarily for my wife's protection, and secondarily to take to a range and do some target shooting for family recreation. Although we have various weapons in the house, none of them are of the type that my wife could reasonably take outside just in case. The area is rural, but not rural enough that walking outside with a shotgun wouldn't alarm a neighbor.

After looking into it, I have determined that buying a handgun in New Jersey is probably more trouble than it is worth. Before I can buy anything, I first have to go to my local police station, and submit a detailed form. Among other things, the form requires my employer information, and two references from non-family members. You must also be fingerprinted, pay multiple fees which appear to total at least a hundred dollars, and wait anywhere from one to five months, depending on your local police department and state processing. Separate forms must be filled out for each handgun purchase, each of which requires new fees. There is a blog post here that relates the details of that blogger's experience with buying a handgun in New Jersey.

Since buying handguns out of state is illegal, I will not be getting one without jumping through all those hoops. That's because I don't want to get an illegal weapon, something I doubt criminals are too concerned with. It certainly seems to me that my 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms is at the very least being "infringed" by all of these requirements. But somehow this must be constitutional. I haven't decided whether or not I'm going to apply to purchase. If I do I will probably post my own experience.

Astronomers Discover Tatooine

2011-09-15T16:00:00.003-04:00

What does this look like?

If you are a Star Wars fan it looks like Tatooine, a planet with two suns. But this is real. It's Kepler 16b, discovered by a NASA team using the Kepler space telescope.

Michele Bachmann's Idiotic Attack on HPV Vaccines

2011-09-13T20:59:00.007-04:00

Wouldn't it be nice if public figures learned to keep their mouths shut rather than making blanket statements regarding things they know nothing about? I know that's not going to happen. Here's Michele Bachmann last night on the HPV vaccine. She referred to it as "what potentially could be a very dangerous drug." What is her expertise on evaluating the safety of vaccines?

“I will tell you that I had a mother last night come up to me here in Tampa, Fla., after the debate and tell me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter,” Bachmann said.

“It can have very dangerous side effects. The mother was crying when she came up to me last night. I didn’t know who she was before the debate. This is a very real concern, and people have to draw their own conclusion,” she said.

So one uninformed person blames her daughter's vaccination for retardation, and Bachmann takes it on faith and runs with it. I wonder if Michele Bachmann has ever heard that correlation does not imply causation? Does she have any idea how dangerous it is for public figures to discourage people from using vaccines based on unscientific accusations that they cause retardation, autism or other conditions? In reality, there is no evidence that HPV vaccines cause mental retardation, or are any more dangerous than other vaccines, as the linked article points out.

It's one thing to question whether vaccines should be mandated for children of certain ages. It's quite another to hear a story or two and jump to conclusions about something without bothering to get the facts. I haven't been a fan of Michele Bachmann anyway, but this incident lowers my opinion of her even further. Fortunately it is unlikely that she will get the GOP nomination.

Rumsfeld and the New York Times

2011-09-12T21:18:00.003-04:00

Donald Rumsfeld canceled his subscription to the New York Times in response to Paul Krugman's outburst of Bush Derangement Syndrome on September 11. I find Rumsfeld's reaction silly. Krugman has been writing columns for the Times for quite awhile, and he's been a member of the leftist fringe since he started. No one, including Rumsfeld, should have been surprised or shocked that Krugman put up a BDS-influenced post on 9/11. You can find the same sort of attitudes on various leftist sites.

When you read the New York Times you know what you are getting: one of the world's most prestigious newspapers that delivers the news through the lens of a liberal worldview. But despite the editorial bias, it delivers a huge volume of news, including much high-quality reporting. Like most papers, it has various columnists, some good, some bad, and some whose quality differs depending on the day and/or topic. When you read Paul Krugman on economic issues, you also know what you are getting. His largely one-note economic perspective can be educational as a contrast to approaches that are more likely to be in favor on the right. But when he writes about political topics, Krugman is nothing more than a typical, garden-variety leftist, rarely capable of making a serious argument, and useful only as an object of ridicule. I'm not sure why someone like Rumsfeld would even take him seriously. Canceling your subscription to the Times because of one idiotic post by Krugman is a silly overreaction that makes Rumsfeld look petty and thin-skinned, and inadvertently gives Krugman more stature than he deserves.

Tenth Anniversary of 9/11

2011-09-11T10:31:00.004-04:00

This blog has been in existence for two previous 9/11 anniversaries. In 2009 I wrote my "Thoughts on the Anniversary of 9/11." And last year I attacked the ridiculous notion that the U.S. overreacted to 9/11 in the post, "The U.S. Did Not Overreact to 9/11." Reading back over my old posts, I think they still cover my thoughts today, on the tenth anniversary. Although I lived just twenty miles from Manhattan at the time, I was lucky enough not to lose any friends or relatives during the attack. My wife's niece, who has always been like a daughter to her, was in Manhattan for business, but escaped unharmed. Even though it was ten years ago, I still remember that day vividly, and just how traumatic and devastating it was to America. Unfortunately, as I wrote before, I think many have forgotten, despite all the remembrances.

They've forgotten the reaction and mood of the country at the time, and the horror that gripped most people as they watched the news on television. They've forgotten the complete shutdown of the civilian air transport system and the fear of follow-up attacks. They've forgotten the resolve of most Americans that this time we had to strike back hard against terrorism, instead of just launching a few cruise missiles and going about our business. And they've forgotten the strong consensus that we should stop waiting around to be attacked, and instead eliminate threats before they reached the potential to cause another 9/11.

I think what I wrote above in 2009 applies to all too many people, particularly among pundits.

More of the Same from Obama

2011-09-08T19:54:00.003-04:00

President Obama unveiled his new $447 billion government spending package, falsely labeled as a "jobs" program. In Obama-world there is no problem that can't be fixed by more government spending. It doesn't matter that it didn't work before, we need more of the same. Here are the actual proposals.

1. Cutting the 6.2% payroll tax paid by both employees and employers to 3.1% next year. Wow, a temporary payroll tax cut. I'm sure that will do a whole lot.

2. Spending $140 billion to save the jobs of state and local teachers and first responders, repair deteriorating schools and rebuild roads, railways and airports. If federal money is required to "save" these jobs because the states are unwilling or unable to pay for them, then maybe those jobs aren't really that necessary. The infrastructure spending will most likely be political payouts to buy votes in various areas.

3. Extending jobless benefits to the unemployed, with special emphasis on those out of work at least six months and those in low-income neighborhoods. Let's see if I have this straight. As part of a supposed jobs package, we are going to pay people who don't have jobs. Yeah, that makes sense.

In summary, for our $447 billion in new spending we get a temporary payroll tax cut, money for some government jobs, money to repair some government buildings, some work on various infrastructure projects, and a bunch more money paid to the long-term unemployed.

UPDATE

Here is a good summary of the actual speech.

Incisive Comments on Education

2011-09-06T20:15:00.003-04:00

There's an excellent post by Heather MacDonald at Secular Right.

Educational technology would be the solution to mediocre academic performance only if the lack of educational technology were the cause. Somehow, however, John Milton managed to learn Latin, Greek, and Hebrew without an Ipad, as did thousands of other children far less gifted than he; generations upon generations have mastered algebra, geometry, and the rudiments of historical knowledge just reading from—gasp!—books!

The most important tools in the classroom are self-discipline, perseverance, and a desire to learn (or, failing that, fear of the consequences for not doing so).

Our problems with education in America don't involve spending too little money, or a lack of technology. Check out the whole post.

Obama Smears Congressional Republicans as Unpatriotic

2011-09-05T17:02:00.003-04:00

President Obama used labor day to engage in some demagoguery, and implied that Congressional Republicans are unpatriotic partisans who put their party above the country.

Obama said that with widespread suffering, “the time for Washington games is over” and lawmakers must move quickly to create jobs.

“But we’re not going wait for them,” he said at an annual event sponsored by the Metropolitan Detroit AFL-CIO. “We’re going to see if we’ve got some straight shooters in Congress. We’re going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party.”

Here's a hint Obama, opposing your policies doesn't mean someone isn't putting the country first. The president's remarks are typical of the double standard in politics. Despite the fact that a significant minority of the left is actually unpatriotic or outright anti-American, on the rare occasion that some prominent figure on the right dares point out any example, there will be howls of outrage regarding questioning someone's patriotism. But questioning the patriotism of those on the right when they refuse to sign on with a leftist political agenda is quite alright. If you haven't been paying attention, here are a couple more examples.

The president has a clear record of making things worse. His policies haven't worked, and there is no reason to believe that more of the same will work any better. The best thing Republicans can do for the country is block Obama's proposals and policies, and submit their own instead. Hopefully we can count on the Congressional GOP to do just that and not be swayed by ridiculous attacks.

Much Ado About Nothing -- Gun Raffle Edition

2011-09-01T20:38:00.005-04:00

The Pima County Republican Party held a raffle in order to raise money for get-out-the-vote efforts. The raffle prize was a Glock 23 pistol. Raffling off guns is fairly common and normally passes without much reaction, except from the more rabid gun-haters. But in this case Pima county happens to be the same one in which Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot. Even though deranged lunatic Jared Loughner shot her, many people appear to think the inanimate object, a similar type of Glock handgun was to blame. Since she was shot with a Glock handgun, the Glock brand must be tainted with evil. How dare those Republicans raffle off the same brand? This just proves how evil Republicans are, or at best, that they are totally insensitive jerks.

To those of us who don't assign some sort of taint to brands of inanimate objects because they happened to be used by killers, this is much ado about nothing. From a purely political perspective, the raffle was a bad idea, precisely because this sort of reaction should have been entirely predictable. But that doesn't mean the reaction is justified, or based on anything more than the usual stupidity regarding guns.

Weak Argument Against the Death Penalty

2011-09-01T00:02:00.001-04:00

One of the weaker arguments against the death penalty is that it is applied unfairly, therefore it should be abolished. This is the line taken in a New York Times editorial on the military version of the death penalty. Here's the crux of the argument.

Minority service members are more than twice as likely as whites — after accounting for the crimes’ circumstances and the victims’ race — to be sentenced to death, according to a forthcoming study co-written by David Baldus, an eminent death-penalty scholar, who died in June.
The analysis is so disturbing because the military has made sustained, often successful efforts to rid its ranks of discrimination. But even with this record, its failure to apply the death penalty fairly is more proof that capital punishment cannot be free of racism’s taint. It is capricious, barbaric and discriminatory, and should be abolished.

First of all, this type of study proves nothing. It is impossible to say with certainty that a white service member would not have gotten the death penalty in the cases where a minority received it, because a white person was not on trial. We are dealing with hypotheticals. Second, it is quite possible that there are factors more important than supposed racial bias that influenced the death sentences, and that they involve the individual circumstances of each case. And most importantly, even if minorities are more likely to get the death penalty because of racism, that doesn't mean we have to throw out the death penalty. Why not take measures to ensure that sentences are fair and not based on a defendant's race? In other words, why not fix the military death penalty rather than eliminate it?

If we have something that works or is beneficial but is tainted in its operation by racism, we don't just scrap it. We fix it. For example, if a corporation discriminates against minority workers we don't close it down. We bring lawsuits and legal judgments which force it to alter its practices. Now you can certainly argue that the death penalty doesn't work and isn't beneficial, but that's a different argument. Saying we should simply do away with the military death penalty because some statistics correlate with apparent racial bias is a weak argument, the kind made by those already biased against the penalty and looking for any plausible excuse to do away with it.

Laughing at the Left - Imaginary GOP Vote Suppression

2011-08-31T20:24:00.006-04:00

There's an entirely predictable article in Rolling Stone called, "The GOP War on Voting." It's hard to read it without laughing out loud.

As the nation gears up for the 2012 presidential election, Republican officials have launched an unprecedented, centrally coordinated campaign to suppress the elements of the Democratic vote that elected Barack Obama in 2008. Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.

Naturally any good leftist conspiracy theory wouldn't be complete without false accusations of racism. When you read the article you find that the so-called war on voting is entirely imaginary. It consists of, wait for it, requirements that people have proper identification before voting. Isn't that horrifying? The rest of the article rests on the pretense that voter fraud doesn't exist. Since it doesn't exist, we don't need to bother with even the most minimal requirements for identification. Never mind that doing pretty much anything else involving the government requires proof of identity. You have to show an ID just to get into the federal building near where I work. Here in New Jersey, the ID requirements for a drivers license are ridiculously complicated and annoying. But it's just too much to ask that people show an ID before voting. It must be a racist GOP conspiracy to suppress the Democratic vote.

In actuality, the leftists at Rolling Stone want as much voter fraud as possible, because they expect criminals, illegal aliens and anyone else without valid ID to vote Democratic. Since they can't come right out and say that, they have to try and put a new spin on the same tired old propaganda about the GOP suppressing votes.

Dick Cheney's Memoir

2011-08-30T23:30:00.006-04:00

Here's a surprise. A retired politician writes a self-serving memoir in which he gives his version of events, while criticizing others. I know, that's just so unusual. But in this case it's Dick Cheney, so the sputtering outrage has already started.

It's pretty funny to read all of the whining, the sniveling about so-called "war crimes," Halliburton, and all the other hatred directed at Cheney. As a general rule I tend to avoid political memoirs, because there are more interesting things to read than packs of lies. But all the attacks on Cheney are almost making me want to read his book. I suspect it will have that effect on a large number of people. Cheney will probably be laughing all the way to the bank as his critics help boost sales.

More Damage From Wikileaks

2011-08-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

Since the U.S. has failed to eliminate the threat posed by Wikileaks, it was only a matter of time before it inflicted more damage on U.S. interests.

WikiLeaks has published on the Web nearly 134,000 leaked diplomatic cables in recent days ... the newly published cables included the names of some people who had spoken confidentially to American diplomats and whose identities were marked in the cables with the warning “strictly protect.”

This isn't the first time Wikileaks has callously endangered the lives of people who have worked with the U.S.

Last year, WikiLeaks was sharply criticized by human rights activists for disclosing the names of Afghan citizens who had provided information on the Taliban to the American military.

Supposedly they've been more careful with their publication of stolen files until now. But I guess you can't expect people who solicit treason and publish secrets in an effort to damage U.S. interests to be very responsible. As I've written multiple times before, the U.S. government should be doing everything possible to destroy Wikileaks, a hostile non-state entity that poses a threat significantly greater than many of the terrorists we are killing with the drone assassination program.

Hurricane Aftermath

2011-08-28T15:51:00.002-04:00

We were prepared for the worst but it wasn't as bad as expected, at least at my house. We had a massive amount of rain and some high winds, but the winds weren't as high as they could have been. There were no thunderstorms either, and we did not lose power. There's still a fair amount of wind, and our power often goes out with little reason, so hopefully our good fortune will continue.

I haven't been away from the house, but apparently this area, Salem County, NJ, had major flooding that caused at least one death and closed roads. Overall though, we were lucky compared to the possibilities that had been predicted.

Outstanding Article on Evolution and Why it Threatens Christianity

2011-08-25T00:43:00.003-04:00

I saw that Richard Dawkins wrote a response to Rick Perry on evolution in the Washington Post. Unfortunately the good points are preceded by typical leftist nonsense, which will cause the entire column to be dismissed out of hand by anyone who needs to read it. But today there is a far better article in the same "On Faith" section by Paula Kirby. Here are a couple of excerpts.

Education is about overcoming ignorance - so the idea of allowing ignorance to set the school curriculum and to perpetuate itself by continuing to teach generation after generation information that for the last 150 years we have known to be false, is a shameful betrayal: a betrayal of young people, who put their trust in us and who deserve better; and a betrayal of the very concept of education itself.

Remember that 'ignorance' is not an insult, but merely a term for 'lack of knowledge'. Many of the people who protest so vociferously against the teaching of evolution do not understand how overwhelmingly strong the evidence for it is; and many of those who proclaim “But it's only a theory” do not understand that the scientific and everyday usages of the word 'theory' are very different.

She zeros in on why evolution is such a problem for many Christians.

a threat that goes to the very heart of Christian teaching. Evolution means that the creation accounts in the first two chapters of Genesis are wrong. That's not how humans came into being, nor the cattle, nor the creeping things, nor the beasts of the earth, nor the fowl of the air. Evolution could not have produced a single mother and father of all future humans, so there was no Adam and no Eve. No Adam and Eve: no fall. No fall: no need for redemption. No need for redemption: no need for a redeemer. No need for a redeemer: no need for the crucifixion or the resurrection, and no need to believe in that redeemer in order to gain eternal life. And not the slightest reason to believe in eternal life in the first place.

I have heard similar explanations from Christians I've asked why it isn't possible to accommodate their beliefs to scientific reality. To them that reality destroys their beliefs, therefore it can't be real. Instead of rejecting their system of myths, they prefer to reject scientific reality. The whole article is well-worth reading.

What's Happening in Syria?

2011-08-24T14:45:00.003-04:00

If you want to read a gripping account of the situation in Syria, take a look at Spiegel Online International's article, "Running from the Ghosts of Damascus."

For two hours, Nabil plays dozens of videos, including images even Al Jazeera won't show, images of heads ripped off, bodies torn to pieces, severed feet, targeted gunshot wounds to the ears, eyes, forehead. There are pictures of severely injured people being given basic treatment at improvised medical stations, which the resistance uses because people are often abducted from hospitals. In one scene, armed men jump out of an ambulance. "Shabiha or security forces," Awad says. "That's happened so often, people are afraid to take the injured to the clinics anymore."

According to the accounts in the article, the main source of terror and repression isn't the army -- although it is retaking control of cities, but the massive regime security forces and secret police, personally loyal to Bashar al-Assad.

the regime's true backbone is the security forces and secret services, believed to employ up to 400,000 people in their network of terror units, all competing to torture and kill. Their creator, former President Hafez al-Assad, managed all members as far down as mid-ranking officers.

If these forces remain loyal, and the army doesn't turn on the regime, Assad has a good chance of retaining power. There are, however, some signs of cracks in his control.

Hundreds of dead soldiers have been turned over to their families with bullet wounds and no further details about their deaths. Another 1,000 or more have deserted. In Deir ez-Zor, a colonel is said to have defected together with some of his troops. The regime is growing increasingly concerned about its own army, says a soldier in Damascus. "Until five weeks ago, you only needed a military ID to pass through checkpoints anywhere in the country," the soldier explains. "Now you have to have a permit for each leg of the trip, or they'll suspect you as a deserter."

If the conscript army decides to turn on Assad, that could bring him down. But so far it hasn't happened.

Effective Missile Defense

2011-08-23T09:40:00.004-04:00

The Christian Science Monitor has a report on Israel's "Iron Dome" rocket defense system that credits it with contributing to a cease-fire with Hamas.

A key factor supporting the cease-fire was a new weapons system that allows Israel to protect its citizens and thereby lessen public pressure for swift retaliatory strikes on Gaza.

Though not fool-proof, the "Iron Dome" missile-defense system shot down about 20 militant rockets in recent days before they landed in Israel cities. That provided a window for mediators from Egypt and the United Nations to step in and calm the situation.

Iron Dome achieved a 93% success rate even though it has only deployed two of the fifteen batteries planned for defense against the Gaza terrorist attacks. For once the U.S. is getting its money's worth from some foreign aid, since Israel is essentially field-testing missile defense technology applicable to U.S. systems under actual hostile conditions.

Experts say the technology of Israel’s anti-missile interceptors – which also includes the Arrow II missile for Iranian ballistic rockets – is based on the same concepts as the US-conceived Star Wars missile defense program.

The other benefit, as the article emphasizes, is that effective defense against rockets lessens the need for immediate Israeli retaliation. This is important, since alone among states, Israel is expected to absorb rocket attacks against its cities without taking any serious retaliatory measures. When it takes even minimal measures against Gaza, its actions are called "excessive force" by Israel-haters and their useful idiots worldwide, and it comes under tremendous pressure to refrain from doing things necessary to protect its citizens. Even though it should have the right to use whatever force necessary to eliminate the terrorist threat from Gaza, Israel's unique position makes this rocket defense system even more significant than otherwise -- at least until Gaza terrorists find a new preferred method for targeting Israeli civilians.

The Anti-Science Canard

2011-08-22T14:48:00.006-04:00

Whenever there is a Republican candidate who doesn't believe in evolution, is skeptical of global warming, or opposes things like embryonic stem cell research, political opponents label him/her as "anti-science." There's a prime example at the Bad Astronomy blog, where Phil Plait recently hyperventilated about Rick Perry.

To say I am not a fan of Rick Perry, Republican Presidential candidate, is to seriously underestimate my antipathy toward him. He is anti-science in almost every sense of the word, and his stance on nearly every issue on which I’ve heard him speak is the exact opposite of where I stand.

That's a good way to make people disregard anything you might have to say since you admit extreme bias. But back to the anti-science claim. Let's take the common case of disbelief in evolution.

Unfortunately a lack of belief in evolution is a mainstream position in the U.S. According to a Gallup poll in 2009, a majority of Americans reject evolution. Does this mean that more than half the country is "anti-science"? Of course not. Being ignorant of important areas of science makes you ignorant, not anti-science. Then there is the religious angle. The reason so many Christians (and Muslims) have a problem with evolution is because of religious belief. Most Christians readily accept science that doesn't directly conflict -- as they see it -- with their religion. (Obviously there are Christians that have accommodated their beliefs and accept evolution -- I'm not talking about them.) I believe that most scientists would agree that evolution is a complex scientific topic, and is not intuitive. Poor science education, general ignorance, and religious belief opposing evolution are also abetted by an entire industry of professional creationists. For those better educated religious people who reject evolution but might feel uncomfortable about it, there are a whole bunch of pseudo-scientists out there feeding them on the notion that evolution is bad science imposed by a rigid academic orthodoxy. In short, it is easy to reject evolution. And it is entirely possible to be "pro-science" overall, while rejecting those parts of science which conflict with your beliefs.

Ignorance regarding certain aspects of science makes you ignorant, not anti-science. Calling someone who rejects evolution or global warming anti-science, is about as stupid an overstatement as labeling abortion supporters as pro-death, or opponents as anti-women. No doubt the oil industry, which relies heavily on science and technology,would be amazed to learn that Rick Perry is anti-science. I'm pretty sure that someone as smart as Phil Plait knows the difference between being opposed to science, and being ignorant in major areas. Unfortunately extreme dislike of political opponents often results in intellectual dishonesty, or an inability to separate analysis from emotional responses such as name-calling.

The Libyan Situation

2011-08-22T09:26:00.002-04:00

CNN has live updates of the changing situation. The key questions right now are, where is Gaddafi, and will he accept defeat? According to reports his son, a leading spokesman for the regime, was captured Sunday and most resistance in the capital has collapsed. It looks like the rebels have won. But does Gaddafi retain enough military strength and support to continue fighting? Ideally he'll be captured, killed or flee the country and go in to exile.

If we assume that Gaddafi is finished and the rebels will be able to establish a new government, that raises more questions for the U.S. First, when will our involvement end? Will we, as usual, decide that we need to give Libya huge amounts of aid to help rebuild the country? And second, what type of government will emerge? In my opinion our intervention was unnecessary and not in the U.S. interest. However, if a decent friendly or even neutral government takes over, one that removes Libya from the column of nations we need to worry about, the operation will have achieved positive results. Although it isn't hard to do better than Gaddafi, it is unfortunately also possible that the new government will be dominated by Islamists, or be in other ways as bad or worse as the dictator it replaces. Other than just supporting the rebels, I'm not sure what exactly we are doing to try and produce a positive outcome. Right now we are in wait and see mode.

Obama on Vacation

2011-08-18T20:47:00.005-04:00

As usual whenever a president goes on vacation, he takes criticism, usually from political opponents.

some Americans say it is not appropriate for the president to leave the White House when financial markets are plummeting and unemployment remains high. ... Criticism of the trip is not limited to Mr. Obama’s political opponents. Some Democrats are expressing concern about the appearance of the president taking a vacation in an affluent resort area while millions of Americans are out of work.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney made it an issue, saying that the president should release his supposed economic plan before going on vacation. I have a different opinion. I'd like to see the president take a vacation for the rest of his term. He can relax with the family, play a bunch of golf, maybe even do some campaigning. The last thing I want to see Obama doing is working, and coming up with "solutions" to the country's problems.

I know Mitt Romney is just trying to score some cheap political points, but why in the world would he be interested in hearing an economic plan from an administration that is part of the problem with the economy? Unless the plan involves the resignation of the president or a bunch of his top advisers and appointees, we can do without hearing it indefinitely. Any Republican should be cheering when the president goes on vacation, because when he's off relaxing, he isn't actively doing any more damage. Have a great time on vacation Mr. President, and don't hurry back.

"Smart Power" Isn't Smart or Powerful

2011-08-17T00:00:00.000-04:00

Hillary Clinton made the laughable claim that the U.S. is employing "smart power" with regard to Libya and Syria. With all the focus on President Obama's miserable handling of domestic policy, it's always worth reminding people that this administration is almost as clueless when it comes to foreign affairs. Here's Clinton on what she thinks we are doing in Libya.

Libya was a study in the use of "strategic patience," whereby the United States resisted the impulse for immediate intervention and instead helped to build support for the country's nascent opposition, which the U.S. now recognizes as Libya's legitimate government. She said the unprecedented NATO-Arab alliance protecting civilians on the ground was a key result of the tactics of smart power.

Here's what we are actually doing in Libya. Despite already being involved in two wars, fighting Islamist terrorists across the globe, and mired in an economic mess, we decided to intervene in the Libyan civil war. This intervention was completely unnecessary, particularly given that Britain and France were already going to intervene. Not only did we do so anyway, but we created a terrible precedent at the UN by signing on to a resolution that could easily be directed against America in the future. In addition, once in the war, we refused to win it by taking the obvious action of trying to eliminate Gaddafi. We are basically helping prolong a civil war, wasting money, and keeping forces tied down in yet another open-ended commitment. If that's a smart use of American power, I'd hate to see a dumb one.

In Syria, we are doing essentially nothing. In my opinion that's actually pretty smart. But it has nothing to do with exercising some sort of power. We are refusing to employ our power at all. Hillary Clinton even thinks it would be going too far if we called for Assad to step down. And then there's this gem from the Secretary of State that demonstrates yet again how Obama's foreign policy is based primarily on naivete and wishful thinking.

"I think this is smart power, where it is not just brute force, it is not just unilateralism," she said. "It is being smart enough to say you know what we want a bunch of people signing out of the same hymn book and we want them singing a song of universal freedom, human rights, democracy, everything that we have stood for and pioneered over 235 years."

Brute force is an actual application of power. It can be smart or it can be dumb. It depends how and why it is employed. Doing things unilaterally is sometimes necessary and can also be smart, and in American interests -- which aren't exactly a priority for the Obama administration. What is "universal freedom" supposed to be? Maybe it's the same thing as "a universal set of values and interests."

"The United States stands for our values, our interests and our security, but we have a very clear view that others need to be taking the same steps to enforce a universal set of values and interests,"

There is obviously no such thing as universal values or interests. But Clinton wants to "enforce" them somehow. Hopefully we can replace the Obama administration with one that at least grasps the basic fact that different states have different interests, and that values vary wildly across the globe.

US Marines Training in Israel

2011-08-16T20:15:00.002-04:00

There's an interesting post at Elder of Ziyon about a US/Israeli joint military training program.

As part of the ongoing cooperation between the Israeli Defense Forces and the US Armed Forces stationed in Europe, a company of US Marines came to Israel for a month of intensive training at IDF facilities and alongside IDF soldiers. Dividing their time between the Adam Base in central Israel and the Tze'elim Base in the south, the soldiers trained in urban and cautious warfare, reconnaissance, and at various shooting ranges.

The Israelis have built an entire mock town for urban warfare training. According to Israel Today, this facility has been used extensively by U.S. forces training to go to Afghanistan and Iraq.

The GOP's Top Three Contenders

2011-08-15T10:38:00.003-04:00

There's a front-page article at the LA Times site that identifies what it calls the GOP's "Top Tier" of candidates: Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. It's still very early and things might change radically, but as of now I agree with the article's premise. Here are my premature thoughts on them as candidates, both for the nomination and the general election.

Michelle Bachmann I think Bachmann has a shot at the nomination, but that her chances fell dramatically with the entry of Perry. On the other hand, I think Bachmann's status as a "true conservative" is rock-solid. If Perry falters, or starts to be seen in a more negative light among the GOP faithful for whatever reasons, Bachmann might surge in front of him.

As for the general election, I have my doubts that Bachmann can win. The demonization has already begun in the media, and her religious and strong social conservative views are going to be a turn-off for many independents. Unlike Perry, she can't balance that out by pointing to her record as the governor of a state with economic success. Her strength there is mainly in the form of ideas and principles, rather than many concrete actions. Like candidate Obama, she's underqualified for the presidency. There are going to be many people who don't want to risk seeing another inexperienced president flounder incompetently for four years. I think Bachmann is a dark horse at best -- at least for now.

Rick Perry. He just got in, but right now I think Perry is the favorite for the nomination. First, he's a governor. Like Romney he has the executive experience and record to run on. Second, unlike Romney, he isn't seen as a squishy Republican too close to things like Obamacare. Third, barring some sort of drastic changes before the election, the economy is the number one issue. Perry can point to actual results from his policies in Texas. I think he's acceptable to the base, certainly more so than Romney, and the perception that he has a better chance to win should give him the edge over Bachmann. But it's real early for him. There's no doubt that Democrats and the Democratic-biased media (and probably GOP competitors too) are already frantically digging for things that damage Perry. As we learn more, his position could change dramatically.

My first impression is that Perry is a strong candidate in the general election. But I see one big problem. Bush Derangement Syndrome is still strong in the U.S. Is it too early to elect another GOP governor from Texas that can be painted as Bush-like? It might be. If he gets the nomination I expect a full-on effort from Democrats to portray him as another Bush, but even worse. I can see that strategy working to keep Obama in the White House.

Mitt Romney. Romney's advantages in the nomination are his money and the possibility that the GOP establishment might decide that it's his turn. But his base support is weak. Many hardcore Republicans do not view him as very conservative. On the other hand, he's tested as a candidate. It's unlikely that any scandal or other disqualifying revelation is going to knock him out of the race. He might get it by default as the most solid, serious candidate. He might also get the nomination by the John McCain path, winning big in open primaries and gaining unstoppable momentum, especially if Bachmann, Perry and some of the lesser candidates split the hardcore GOP vote.

Of the three I think Romney is the most electable in the general election. He projects competence and leadership in contrast to Obama, and is fairly moderate and able to appeal to independents fed-up with the last four years. I don't think he's a lock to win though. Obama isn't good at much, but he is good at raising money and getting elected. Whichever GOP candidate emerges is probably in for a tough fight.

Dutch Idiocy on Piracy

2011-08-12T19:52:00.003-04:00

Back in November, the Dutch navy caught five Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden. The had hijacked a yacht, and kidnapped a South African couple. The victims are still missing. After they were found guilty of these actions, a Dutch court sentenced them today. So what does piracy and kidnapping get you in the Netherlands? How about "up to 7 years" in prison? Wow, that should serve as a great deterrent to piracy. No doubt Somalia pirates are quaking with fear over the possibility that they might be intercepted by the Dutch navy. They might face up to seven whole years in prison. Oh wait, that was only for two of them. The other three got even shorter sentences.

If you have to travel in the areas where Somalian pirates operate, you'll just have to take your chances, since no state is willing to take the actions necessary to suppress piracy. At least some nations, such as the U.S. and Spain, are willing to hand out harsh sentences to captured pirates.

In similar cases this year, a U.S. court in Virginia sentenced five Somalis to life in prison and a Spanish court in Madrid sentenced two convicted pirates to 439 years each.

But apparently the Dutch are still blindly adhering to some archaic law written during a time when a 7 year prison term was much more like a death sentence.

Prosecution spokesman Wim de Bruin said the sentences were in line with Dutch law, which provides a maximum 9-year term for piracy and 12 years for a pirate captain. The 17th-century law against sea robbery has not been revised since modern pirates began plaguing the sea lanes off Africa’s eastern coast.

Maybe they should have addressed those sentencing rules before they decided to bring Somali pirates back and try them in the Netherlands.

Some Good Points ... From a Socialist?

2011-08-11T00:01:00.001-04:00

I was reading posts on Planet Atheism, an aggregator of atheist sites, when I noticed one about the London riots written by Anna Johnstone. I've never been on her blog before, and was surprised to see forthright condemnation of the rioters, and points that would normally be made from the right. Despite being a self-described socialist, Johnstone apparently doesn't buy into the cult of victimization the pervades the left. Instead of excuses for the rioters, there was the following:

These rioters are NOT freedom fighters of any kind regardless of what they claim to be! They are an insult to the idea of a free society. As a socialist I am disgusted with the lot of them and have been seriously considering my stance on corporal punishment over the last couple of days.

She writes about her own strict upbringing in contrast to kids allowed to run wild.

I now believe that my parents actually did know what they were doing and I thank them for it. They were preventing my brother and I from turning into the sort of selfish, greedy animals committing these vile acts in our major cities. They didn’t let me grow up thinking that the world owed me anything.

And when was the last time you heard this much sense from the left?

I was taught that a social safety net was just that: a safety net. It’s there so nobody who falls on hard times has to starve or go homeless and it should not under any circumstances be abused or in any way taken for granted or relied upon as an indefinite source of income especially if we are able to work.

There's more.

I am getting rather sick and tired of hearing how ‘Austerity measures’ have led to these riots: they haven’t. This began as an outraged cry over a bungled arrest. What has happened since is completely unrelated to said shooting. The violence and destruction which has followed is in no frame of the rational mind, neither proportionate or appropriate.

Now granted, she does attribute the mindset of the rioters to "a left-over bi-product of the Thatcherite brand of ‘Individualism‘ and her despicable policy of ‘there is no society,'" which I found pretty funny. She might want to read Max Hastings' much more convincing argument. But overall the post is right on the mark. I will return to her blog to see her thoughts on other topics.

More on Shooting the Rioters

2011-08-09T21:24:00.006-04:00

In the previous post I called for the police to shoot rioters who use firebombs against the police, or who set fire to occupied buildings. John Hawkins at Right Wing News agrees, although he goes much further.

Many people think of defense of a nation as the very first job of government, but there’s actually an even more basic task that the government has to fulfill: Maintaining order.
In extraordinary situations, when you have widespread breakdowns of public order and shops are being looted, cars are being burned, rocks and bottles are being thrown at police, and civilians are being murdered in the street, if the government can’t quickly re-establish order using normal means, it’s completely justified in using lethal violence to do it

I think lethal police response should be more selective, but I agree with his view of the responsibility of government. And he makes a key point.

you may say this is unfair to thugs in the street, but we should be much more worried about the lives of innocent people who are being assaulted and property owners whose livelihoods are being unfairly destroyed.

Exactly. This attitude tends to separate the right and the left, and is one of the many reasons I will always be on the right. When I look at a riot, my sympathy is with the people being assaulted, the owners of the cars being destroyed, the families left homeless when their buildings burn, the shopkeepers who are robbed, and all the other victims. The last thing I worry about are the feelings and rights of the scum doing the rioting.

Rioting Scum Continue to Rampage Thru London

2011-08-09T10:05:00.004-04:00

In an extremely belated and underwhelming response, police in London are warning that they are going to use plastic bullets against rioters. They should have been using real bullets on the first night to kill the firebomb throwers. People who attempt to set others on fire, or who set fire to occupied buildings are attempted murderers. Those observed in the act of such attempted murders should be shot on sight by police, or anyone else. Since the UK has largely disarmed its people, and stripped away the effective right of self-defense, it falls to the police to maintain order and protect the public from these rampaging gangs of human scum. From what I've seen in British news reports, so far they've done a miserable job.

While driving to work yesterday I heard an NPR report on the riots. Their reporter interviewed a woman whose apartment complex was set on fire. She told how while she and her family were fleeing for their lives, their home destroyed, looters were laughing and stealing rugs from a shop on the ground floor of the building. As I've written before about mob violence, these sorts of situations are one of the few times that excessive police force, which would normally be police brutality, is actually called for to restore order. People who act as part of a violent mob or gang, who commit acts of arson, and who think the chaos they've caused is an excuse to appropriate other peoples' property are predatory vermin that needed to be suppressed as quickly as possible with overwhelming force. When a government fails to do so in these situations, its lack of action encourages more vermin to crawl out of their holes and take part in the feeding frenzy.

Not Being Run Over by Tanks

2011-08-08T10:01:00.006-04:00

This picture is from an article by Kelly McParland in the National Post. The caption reads: "Thousands of protesters march in Israel. Notice how they're not being run over by tanks."

The caption was my favorite part of the article, but the rest is good too.

I’ve been scouring the web sites of fearless critics of Israel — attention-grabbing authors, union bosses, self-righteous leftwingers, NDP deputy leaders, flotilla supporters etc. — for signs they are putting their famed organizing abilities to work to focus international outrage on the Syrian regime via marches, protests, demonstrations etc. And praising Israel for its democratic response to a national crisis.

Can’t seem to find any. Odd. But I’ll keep looking.

Good luck with that.

Myths About Mormons?

2011-08-06T16:22:00.003-04:00

The Washington Post has a regular feature called "Five Myths." The problem with this column is that many of the myths they are supposedly debunking are not actually myths. The latest is about Mormonism. Let's see if these myths are really myths.

1. Mormons practice polygamy. 0 for 1. The author herself admits that polygamy is still part of Mormon theology, and still practiced by "ultra-orthodox splinter groups." Obviously most Mormons are not polygamous, so saying Mormons practice polygamy is misleading and a major overstatement. But it is technically correct that some Mormons do, and therefore not a myth.

2. Mormons aren’t Christians. 0 for 2. This is obviously not a myth. Whether or not Mormons are considered Christians depends entirely on opinion. In my opinion, although Mormonism has similarities to Christianity and is an offshoot, it is its own religion. It is different enough from Christianity that it is perfectly reasonable to argue that Mormons are not Christians.

3. Most Mormons are white, English-speaking conservatives. 1 for 3. Finally, an actual myth. The author notes that fewer than half of Mormons live in the U.S., and that the LDS church has grown substantially throughout the world.

4. Mormon women are second-class citizens. 1 for 4. The author goes on to point out that women are in fact second-class citizens in the LDS church.

It is true that mainstream Mormonism does not accord women equal status with men. The worldwide LDS Church chain of command — including all positions of clerical, institutional and fiscal authority — is entirely male. Women cannot hold the lay priesthood shared in by men age 12 and older. The church’s Proclamation on the Family declares that men “preside” over the household. Unequal gender language is also a part of Mormon temple worship and marriage ceremonies.

But she dismisses all that by claiming that well, Mormonism does include some "progressive" elements favorable to women. Sorry, not a myth.

5. A Mormon president would blur the line between church and state. 1 for 5. We haven't had a Mormon president, so whether or not any particular Mormon would blur the lines of church and state is unknown. This is an argument that probably doesn't apply any more to a Mormon than it does to a member of any other religion, and depends on the individual in question. But it isn't a myth.

The final tally is 1 clear myth, 4 non-myths.

Islamic Values Apparently Don't Allow Water Fights

2011-08-05T13:23:00.003-04:00

A group of people held a big water pistol fight last week on a particularly hot day.

Hundreds of men, children and women in all-enveloping black chadors turned up. They gleefully soaked each other for two or three hours. Pictures showed families enjoying themselves. Finally the park managers turned the taps off and everyone went home. Nobody was hurt. Nobody complained.

But this didn't go over too well with various Iranian guardians of "Islamic values." Mohamad Taghi Rahbar, the chair of Iran's parliamentary legal and judiciary committee accused organizers and participants of "endeavouring to dilute our Islamic values," and warned that organizers would be dealt with "severely." One local official went so far as to describe the activities as "immoral." And people wonder why so many have negative views of Islam. The example of an entire country ruled by Islamic clergy where Islam is used to justify repression couldn't have anything to do with it. It must just be "Islamophobia."

Staying in Iraq

2011-08-03T21:24:00.003-04:00

I've been saying for years that we aren't leaving Iraq any time soon, despite our supposed withdrawal date, and a report from the Washington Post appears to confirm that assumption.

U.S. officials welcomed on Wednesday Iraq’s decision to negotiate with Washington on keeping some U.S. troops in the country into next year ... Iraq’s top political leaders agreed late Tuesday that the Iraqi military needs to continue training programs with U.S. forces, marking the first step in a process that still could take months to resolve.

On the one hand the U.S. has good reasons for retaining a military presence in Iraq, which are laid out in the article. But the problems lie in the details.

Significant details that remain unresolved include the length and focus of any training program, how many U.S. troops such training might require and how Iraqi leaders would formally request and approve a new partnership. Mullen and his colleagues also want legal immunity for any troops who stay behind.

One huge detail not mentioned is who is going to pay for the continuing U.S. presence. If Iraq wants and needs U.S. troops to remain in its country beyond the agreed upon withdrawal date, it should provide the financial support for that presence. With our fiscal situation as it is, we should not continue to maintain large foreign deployments, plus the aid programs that go with them, at our expense.

Sex and Donuts

2011-08-02T11:52:00.003-04:00

From the LA Times,

there was more on the menu than lattes and a dozen glazed during the late shift at a Dunkin Donuts in northern New Jersey.

A 29-year-old female is facing prostitution charges after police say she took breaks to provide sex in exchange for money.

I guess it makes sense. Some Dunkin Donuts are open 24 hours, and guys coming in there late at night are probably going to be alone. She probably made more on one of her breaks than she did the whole night working for Dunkin. If we legalized prostitution, late night sex & donut shops might be an effective business model.

Bad News From Turkey

2011-08-01T20:48:00.002-04:00

The Islamist Turkish government continues to consolidate its power over the military, which has long been a force for secularism in the country. Top military leaders resigned en mass to protest the ongoing purge being conducted by the government.

the country’s top military commanders resigned in protest over the detention of comrades facing coup conspiracy charges. ... [There are] about 250 officers now jailed on charges linked to various alleged anti-government plots dating back to 2003.

Christopher Hitchens has an article about this at Slate. He sees it as the end of an era. As he puts it, the "long, uneven symbiosis between state and nation and army and modernity has now run its course." Regardless of some of the issues regarding the Turkish military, for the most part it has been a friend to the U.S. since the outbreak of the Cold War. Its decline, and the rise of Islamist democracy has been nothing but bad news for the U.S.

Trivial Cuts But No New Taxes

2011-08-01T09:39:00.003-04:00

That's my one-line summary of the debt ceiling deal. It's nothing great, but it's the best that could be expected given the political situation. We will continue to borrow and spend ridiculous amounts of money, but we will make some minor cuts over ten years to offset this particular increase in the debt ceiling. Despite all the nonsense about "hostage-taking" and "extortion" from big government types, the House GOP did the right thing in attempting to force some fiscal reform. They didn't succeed, but at least they were able to block new taxes.

There will be no actual cuts to government, no programs closed down, no departments eliminated, or anything else that would indicate a serious attempt to scale back the size of government and its out-of-control spending. In fact, this deal even creates yet another commission to try and agree on part of the cuts specified in the agreement. But at least for now, there will be no new taxes to give the government even more money to spend.

Government Expenditures -- Senate Edition

2011-07-30T15:41:00.003-04:00

I came across an article in the Christian Science monitor called, "Well, here's a billion dollars the US can have," that lists how much we spend on our 100 senators.

According to a document at Treasury called the “2010 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances" Senators and their staffers actually cost tax payers a grand total of $815,257,000 in 2010 above and beyond their regular salaries. Yes, that's correct taxpayers, almost a billion dollars in non-salary expenses for the maintenance of 100 men and women in civil service.

If that didn't sink in, read it again. Think about it. There are only 100 senators, and somehow they cost us more than 3/4 of a billion dollars a year, on top of their individual salaries of $174,000. And people wonder why many of us think the government is way too large and spends far too much money.

Good Analysis of Leftist "Imagination"

2011-07-28T00:25:00.003-04:00

Shannon Love at Chicago Boyz dissects leftist pretensions to superior imagination.

One constant refrain from leftists is that non-leftists just don’t have the “courage” to imagine a better world. Leftists actively credit themselves not for actually making the world a better place but for making intense emotional investments in delusional, fantasy utopias such as the communist utopia predicted by Marxism.

Naturally, their idea of a better world always includes more state control and central planning.

It is no accident that Marxism, communism and fascism appealed to “intellectuals” everywhere whereas free-market philosophies appealed to virtually none. In a free-market society, self-styled intellectuals are reduced to the role of teachers and authors. The ability to manipulate people to vote this or that way grants little influence in a society in which the vast majority of decisions are made by individuals who must assume immediate responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. It’s easier to persuade someone to spend someone else’s money collected at the point of a state gun than it is to persuade them to spend their own money voluntarily.

Exactly. The whole article is on point.

German Holocaust Reparations

2011-07-27T21:20:00.004-04:00

World War II ended sixty-six years ago, but Germany is still paying reparations to Israel for the Holocaust. According to Strategy Page, Israel's purchase of German Dolphin-class submarines has been subsidized by Germany as part of ongoing Holocaust reparations.

Germany has agreed to pay 20 percent of the cost of a sixth Dolphin class submarine for Israel, which was ordered earlier this year. Two more are under construction, and will arrive in the next two years. ... The first two Dolphins were paid for by Germany, as was most of the cost of the third one. This is more of German reparations for World War II atrocities against Jews.

It's interesting that Holocaust reparations are helping pay for a key strategic force that helps ensure that Israel will not suffer a new holocaust.

The Israelis have developed a cruise missile, which is has a range of 1,500 kilometers and carries a 200 kiloton nuclear warhead. The objective of deploying nukes on subs is to further enhance deterrence to any nation launching a nuclear strike against Israel.

How long will Germany continue paying Holocaust reparations? According to an Israeli source the 2011 German budget for reparations is 110 million euros, to be used to compensate the estimated 520,000 survivors still alive worldwide. But the new submarine cost $650 million, twenty percent of which is 130 million.

I'm a big supporter of Israel, and it's nice that they can get the Germans to subsidize submarine purchases. If I were a German, however, I'd be pretty annoyed at this whole arrangement.They're already paying 110 million euros to survivors.

$350 Million for Malawi?

2011-07-27T00:00:00.000-04:00

According to the New York Times, yesterday the U.S. froze a $350 million dollar "grant" to Malawi.

A senior American official, Sheila Herrling, said Tuesday that the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a federal agency, was “deeply disturbed” by accusations that the police had fired live rounds on unarmed people last week, and by claims that press coverage of the two-day demonstrations had been suppressed. The $350 million grant from the corporation, which was announced only in April and was to be disbursed over five years for electricity generation, is a large amount of money for Malawi, whose annual budget is about $2 billion.

I'd be willing to bet that many Americans would be very surprised to hear, especially given our own fiscal situation, that until this hold we were going to give $350 million dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to Malawi. Even I was surprised at the amount, although I know that we just hand out cash like candy to pretty much anyone, even to hostile populations like the Palestinians and the Pakistanis.

Good Advice From Fred Thompson

2011-07-26T23:31:00.002-04:00

Former senator Fred Thompson has some good advice for the House GOP in the debt-limit situation. He's a little premature in declaring victory, since nothing has been agreed upon, but he believes that Republicans have forced a situation where Democrats will have no choice but to agree to some cuts, without tax increases, in order to raise the debt ceiling. Here's the key advice at the end of his open letter.

We will never achieve entitlement or tax reform with a doctrinaire liberal in the White House. Any agreements to do so in “out years” would probably be unenforceable even if agreement were achieved. And we can only do so much while controlling one half of one branch of government. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House Republicans, you have laid some great groundwork to rectify both of those situations. Now it is the time to accept a well-won victory and move on.

I think he's exactly right. Block tax increases, get some spending cuts, and raise the debt ceiling to avoid default and/or credit rating downgrade. With Obama in the White House, and Democrats controlling the Senate, grandiose reform plans that really address the deficit & the debt are just not feasible. Democrats do not want to cut spending. They want to spend more. Republican focus right now should be to block Obama from further increasing the size of government and its spending, and on the 2012 elections. Serious fiscal reform will require a Republican president and more Republicans in Congress.

Good Debunking of Various Nonsense Regarding the Norway Terrorist Incident

2011-07-25T23:37:00.004-04:00

If you've been reading the coverage and commentary regarding the terrorist attack in Norway, there is a must-read article at the Sultan Knish blog by Daniel Greenfield called, "Debunking 6 Myths About Anders Breivik." The myths in question, all about the killer, Anders Behring Breivik, are:

1. He was a fundamentalist Christian
2. He hated Muslims
3. He was inspired by counterjihad bloggers
4. He was pro-Israel
5. He was a moderate.
6. He was a political terrorist

I think point number two is splitting hairs, but the rest of the post serves as a useful counter to much of the nonsense that is being written about this incident.

The Shameless Hypocrisy of James Fallows

2011-07-23T12:56:00.004-04:00

Liberal hack James Fallows of the Atlantic is all upset that some people jumped to conclusions in the wake of the Norway attack, assuming that it had to be radical Muslim terrorism.

this is a sobering reminder for those who think it's too tedious to reserve judgment about horrifying events rather than instantly turning them into talking points for pre-conceived views.

But here's Fallows right after the shooting of Representative Gabrielle Giffords, pushing the leftist smear that it had something to do with right-wing rhetoric in general, and Sarah Palin in particular.

"We don't know why the killer did what he did. If he is like Sirhan, we'll never 'understand.' But we know that it has been a time of extreme, implicitly violent political rhetoric and imagery, including SarahPac's famous bulls-eye map of 20 Congressional targets to be removed -- including Rep. Giffords. It is legitimate to discuss whether there is a connection between that tone and actual outbursts of violence, whatever the motivations of this killer turn out to be.

Apparently it was "legitimate" to pretend that the killer might have been influenced by a Sarah Palin campaign map which there's no evidence he ever saw, but not to jump to the obvious conclusion that radical Islamists might be behind a major terrorist attack. Fallows' credibility is sinking into the same territory of his fellow Atlantic writer Andrew Sullivan.

Riddle of the Day

2011-07-21T21:08:00.002-04:00

From Stephen Green at Vodka Pundit,

"Q: What is it called in Washington when you lose $1.6 billion dollars?

A: 'A major accomplishment.'"

Biggest Impediment to Job Growth?

2011-07-21T12:51:00.004-04:00

What's the biggest impediment to job growth in the U.S.? The government. So says the co-founder of Home Depot, Bernie Marcus.

Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

Talk to pretty much any business owner and you'll hear the same thing. Obama routinely talks about the need to create jobs, when his policies have the opposite effect. That's why he has to resort to using imaginary numbers when talking about jobs he's supposedly created or saved.

Top Reasons I'm Skeptical of Any Budget Deal

2011-07-20T13:45:00.005-04:00

Tax increases will be real, cuts will be mostly budget gimmicks.

The use of imaginary numbers and various projections.

Only a portion of the GOP, found mostly in the House, really wants significant cuts. I have no faith in the GOP leadership.

Most Democrats want increased taxes and spending, not cuts (except to defense).

The president is a proven, blatant liar who cannot be trusted.

Politicians in general prefer short-term solutions that enable them to pretend to be solving problems, without addressing long-term issues.

The unintended consequences of any plan which will be completely ignored, as usual.

Reality vs. Democratic Scare Tactics

2011-07-18T21:53:00.003-04:00

In the past I've repeatedly laughed at those who accused the GOP of so-called "fearmongering," and pointed out that scaring voters with worst-case scenarios (and outright falsehoods) is a standard political tactic used by both sides. We've seen dishonest scare-tactics used repeatedly by Democrats in the struggle over the debt ceiling, with the most dramatic being President Obama's attempt to make seniors believe that might not get their social security checks because of those evil, irresponsible Republicans. Scaring seniors is a time-honored Democratic political move.

There's an excellent article at Reason.com by Veronique de Rugy called, "The Facts About the Debt Ceiling." It counteracts the myths being spread point by point. The bottom line is that the U.S. can use various fiscal maneuvering to stave off a default, even if an agreement isn't reached. The August 2 deadline is arbitrary. Eventually there has to be an agreement, the debt ceiling has to be raised, or spending has to be cut dramatically. I'd be willing to bet that despite the GOP's valiant stand, the last option is the least likely.

Nashiri Cole Bombing Trial

2011-07-18T08:42:00.004-04:00

Abd al Rahim al Nashiri faces a military trial accused of bombing the U.S.S. Cole back in 2008. This case illustrates the difficulty inherent in trying to use normal legal rules -- even military court -- to deal with foreign terrorist enemies. Nashiri was waterboarded, held in a secret prison, and subjected to other harsh interrogation techniques, so naturally his lawyers say the case is "tainted." They know he isn't going free, but they argue to spare him the death penalty. Under normal legal rules the case is definitely tainted, as long as you forget that this man isn't an American citizen or a legal resident, but a foreign enemy that attacked a U.S. warship that wasn't even engaging in any warfare at the time. I give him credit for striking a military target instead of the usual preferred soft targets, but summary execution was still warranted for what he did.

Ideally Nashiri should have been quietly executed years ago, after we extracted all useful information, preferably by using rendition to send him someplace that would do it for us. But now, years later, putting him on trial is a farce.. After three years we are going to charge him with crimes and ask for the death penalty? There's no purpose to this trial. He's been sitting in jail since we captured him, and should continue to sit until he dies. The trial gives a veneer of legalism to our continued confinement of a dangerous Al Qaeda member. But it fools no one. People like me see it as unnecessary, and people who think Nashiri has rights are going to view it as a kangaroo court rubber-stamping a preordained outcome.

Unimpressed by Theology

2011-07-14T20:17:00.003-04:00

There's a good post at evolutionblog called "Where Can I Find the Really Good Theology? Part One." The author, Jason Rosenhouse makes some good points about Christian theology. His post was triggered by an argument between Jerry Coyne and a Catholic philospher, but in general it is a response to a common Christian suggestion.

We New Atheist types are often lectured about the need for studying theology. The idea is that if we tuned out the distressingly popular and highly vocal forms of religious extremism and pondered instead “the best religion has to offer,” then we would not be so hostile to religion.

But for Rosenhouse, reading Christian theology had the opposite effect.

I expected at least to find a lot of food for thought. Instead, with each book and essay I read I found myself ever more horrified by the sheer vacuity of what these folks were doing. I came to despise their endlessly vague and convoluted arguments, their relentless smugness towards nonbelievers, and, most seriously, the complete lack of any solid reason for thinking they weren't just making it up as they went along. I thought perhaps I was just reading the wrong writers, and that I would eventually come to the really good theology. But I never did.

Like Rosenhouse, I too have read a fair amount of Christian theology. And my conclusions were similar. The whole post is worth reading.

The Myth of Republican Intransigence on the Debt Ceiling

2011-07-13T20:15:00.004-04:00

The Democratic narrative is that Republicans are being intransigent and unreasonable regarding the debt ceiling. This myth is debunked in a good article by Michael D. Tanner called, "The Intransigent Meet the Unserious."

Republicans have clearly drawn a line in the sand, opposing any tax increase. But Democrats have been even more unbending, resisting any serious structural reform of entitlements or deep spending cuts, while insisting on huge tax hikes as part of any deal.

There is no reason that a deal on raising the debt ceiling has to include tax hikes -- other than Democratic insistence. In addition, the planned cuts aren't even that significant, yet Democrats still demand tax hikes.

the deal that the Republicans are currently offering would actually allow federal revenue, federal spending, and the national debt all to increase over the next decade. They have abandoned structural changes to entitlement programs — anything like Paul Ryan's Medicare reform is off the table — and appear to have dropped calls for a balanced-budget amendment or a spending cap.
This is radical? This is intransigence? If only.

The whole article is worth reading as a contrast to Democratic propaganda.

Mitch McConnell: Typical Weasel Politician

2011-07-12T21:16:00.002-04:00

The GOP establishment is not more much interested in tackling the nation's financial problems than Democrats, who are totally uninterested. This is particularly true in the Senate, where Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell and other GOP senators are considering a new plan to weasel out of any responsibility, purely in the interests of political expediency.

the debt ceiling would grow in three increments over the remainder of this Congress unless lawmakers approve a veto-proof resolution of disapproval.

In effect lawmakers would be surrendering the very power of approval that the GOP has used to force the debt crisis now. But by taking the disapproval route, Republicans can shift the onus more onto the White House and Democrats since a two-thirds majority would be needed to stop any increase that President Barack Obama requests.

McConnell and his cohorts are well aware that Obama and the Democrats don't want to make any sort of serious cuts, and that the only reason cuts are even under consideration is because of the threat of the debt ceiling. The party of big government isn't about to cut government in any substantial way. But rather than forcing the president to make cuts, they'd rather just give up -- as long as they can do it in such away as to place the blame solely on Obama.

Panetta States the Obvious

2011-07-11T14:59:00.002-04:00

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made big news by stating the obvious on a visit to Iraq. He told troops stationed there,

“The reason you guys are here is because on 9/11 the United States got attacked,” Panetta told the troops. “And 3,000 Americans — 3,000 not just Americans, 3,000 human beings, innocent human beings — got killed because of al-Qaeda. And we’ve been fighting as a result of that.”

For some reason this statement made the front page in multiple newspapers, and Panetta had to issue a clarification. Anyone with the slightest clue understands that 9/11 provided the impetus for the Iraq War. Political acceptance of the idea of preemption arose in the aftermath of the attacks on the U.S. It is highly unlikely that there would have been widespread support for invading Iraq, let alone a Congressional authorization, had 9/11 never taken place. Only an idiot would take Panetta's remarks to mean that he believed we went to war in Iraq because of the presence of Al Qaeda in that country at the time. Front-page stories about his statement appear to be an effort to manufacture a controversy.

A Woman's View on the Atheist Elevator Incident

2011-07-08T21:24:00.005-04:00

In my earlier post I mentioned that Dawkins' reaction could have come from anyone, depending on how they viewed the incident, and that it was unreasonable to assume that his age, race, social status or gender somehow had to account for his comment. Naturally I had an anonymous commenter show up and claim that no, it was all about "privilege," demonstrating the exact type of ideological tunnel-vision that leads me to characterize a certain brand of feminism as "brain poison." While surfing the internet I came across another column about the incident that is every bit as dismissive of Watson as Dawkins, more so in fact, as the title indicates: "When Women Confuse Being Asked Out With Being Raped At Knifepoint In An Elevator." It's the opinion of a woman, who must be affected by some sort of "privilege."

Basically, at 4 a.m., some guy at a conference committed the heinous crime of asking her out while riding the elevator with her.... I couldn't believe it. That was why people were going after Richard Dawkins, because he made light of what a big deal she made of it ...
Here's how this plays out for a woman whose entire existence doesn't revolve around being a victim, women as victims, and seeing men as victimizers of women every time they open their mouths or so much as salt their food:

A guy asks you out. You're not interested. Say, "Thanks, think I'm going to turn in." Forget it happened.

Here we have a situation where I, an older male, am actually more sympathetic and understanding of Watson's complaint than this woman.* But that's how things work in the real world. People have different opinions about things. Those opinions are rarely determined by age, race, social class or gender. The differences between individuals usually trumps broad attempts to categorize people based on ideological dogma.

*I'm sympathetic to how she felt about being propositioned in an elevator at 4am, not to her ludicrous overreaction to Dawkins.

Fact-Based Arguing

2011-07-07T20:38:00.004-04:00

There was an interesting "Opinionater" column in yesterday's New York Times by philosophy professor Gary Gutting. He describes the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning and notes that most political policy discussions rely on the latter.

In an inductive argument (e.g., Most humans do not live for 100 years; Socrates is human; therefore, Socrates will not live for 100 years), the premises only make the conclusion probable. As a result, adding further premises can alter the force of the argument.

He explains that inductive arguments can be attacked " simply by adducing further relevant facts." Just because your facts are correct, doesn't necessarily mean that your argument is, especially if your sample of the facts is too narrow.

Even a strong argument from purely factual premises is open to refutation unless we are assured that it has taken account of all relevant facts. Realistically, of course, we can never be sure that we have taken account of all relevant facts ... Ignoring relevant facts can give us false confidence in the strength of our positions in political debates.

His conclusion is a perceptive analysis of what happens in many political arguments.

Each of us may conclude that the other is irrational or ignorant.

The whole thing is worth reading, especially if you like to argue.

Much Ado About Nothing - Atheist Elevator Edition

2011-07-06T21:10:00.004-04:00

Since I read assorted atheist blogs I couldn't help but notice a big controversy in the atheist blogosphere. Here's a brief summary of what touched it off. Rebecca Watson of Skepchick posted about an experience that bothered her. She was at an event and some guy propositioned her in an elevator late at night. She turned him down, and he went away. But she complained that what he did was inappropriate. Ok, no big deal so far. Then PZ Myers posted about it at Pharyngula. Commenter opinion was split as to whether she made good points or was a hypersensitive whiner. But then Richard Dawkins himself showed up, and ridiculed Watson in his patented sneering, over-the-top fashion, comparing her complaint to the horrible life and death issues faced by other women. Since then various atheists have weighed-in, and assorted perpetually outraged feminists have lined up to attack Dawkins and anyone who dares criticize Watson. Watson herself has apparently bought into the brain-poison of feminist ideology as exemplified by her post, "The Privilege Delusion." For example,

Richard Dawkins believes I should be a good girl and just shut up about being sexually objectified because it doesn’t bother him. Thanks, wealthy old heterosexual white man!

This is what happens to logical reasoning when your subscribe to the religious-like dogma of feminism. To someone not afflicted by its poison, Dawkins' wealth, sexuality and race are completely unnecessary to understand what he was saying. His comment had nothing to do with "privilege," the meaning of which has been disitorted by feminist ideology, which employs it as a type of ad-hominem against those who disagree. Even his gender is irrelevant. It is quite possible that a poor, young lesbian black woman could have said exactly the same thing. Anyone could think that a woman complaining about a harmless advance was being too sensitive. That position doesn't require you to be a rich, white, heterosexual male.

Whether or not Watson's complaint about being hit on was reasonable given the circumstances, or overly sensitive whining is simply a matter of opinion. Dawkin's response makes him a jerk because of the extreme way he went about it. But that's really all there is to it. The fact that Dawkins behaved like a jerk and launched an over-the-top attack on Watson says nothing at all about anything beyond his particular actions in this case.

A Bizarre Mix of Counterterrorism & Legalism

2011-07-06T00:06:00.003-04:00

The strange mixture of counterterrorism and legalism of the Obama administration is what jumped out at me when I read a Washington Post story about a Somali indicted on terrorism charges. Consider whether or not you'd expect these things to go together.

The secret capture of a "terrorism suspect" in the Gulf of Aden
Two months of daily or almost daily secret interrogations with no justice department involvement
Suspect eventually advised of Miranda "rights" and "right" to legal representation
Suspect flown secretly flown to New York and indicted by a federal grand jury on conspiracy charges.

Is this man an enemy or a criminal? The Obama administration doesn't know, and like most things, they want to have it both ways. They secretly capture and interrogate someone who has apparently committed no crime against the U.S., and then later go through the ridiculous farce of advising him of rights which he shouldn't even possess as a presumed hostile non-U.S. citizen. According to the article,

The nine-count indictment, ..., does not accuse Warsame of carrying out or plotting attacks against U.S. targets. It charges him with conspiracy and providing material support to two groups the United States considers terrorist organizations: al-Shabab, a militant Islamist group opposed to Somalia’s weak, U.S.-backed government, and Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Warsame is also accused of weapons offenses related to both alleged conspiracies; conspiracy to teach and demonstrate explosive-making; and receiving military training from AQAP.

This case raises many questions. How is a foreigner who assists some terrorist groups outside the U.S. somehow subject to U.S. laws and a reasonable subject of a U.S. indictment? On the one hand the Obama administration acts to neutralize someone they see as an enemy or potential enemy, but on the other it tries to cover the act with a veneer of legalism -- going so far as to manufacture an indictment. How are we able to charge people with crimes for simply being a part of some foreign terrorist group, when the person hasn't actually done anything against the U.S.? Does the existence of groups such as al-Shabab automatically cause anyone having anything to do with them to be engaged in a conspiracy under U.S. law? Why are we wasting time and money hauling some Somali to the U.S. for a trial? What purpose will this accomplish?

Perspective on Casey Anthony Case

2011-07-05T14:50:00.002-04:00

My wife has been following this case closely and was outraged by the verdict. I was looking for reactions online and noticed Bernie's at Planck's Constant. He makes a number of interesting points that are worth considering. The bottom line is that Casey Anthony is clearly a scumbag and a lousy mother. But the evidence that she murdered her child is a whole lot less clear.

Declaration of Independence Quiz

2011-07-05T09:03:00.001-04:00

This one has some pretty tough questions. I got 9 of 12 right.

Happy Fourth of July

2011-07-04T10:00:00.000-04:00

Posting will resume tomorrow.

Bad Ideas from American Atheists

2011-07-01T21:52:00.003-04:00

American Atheists is not doing atheists in the U.S. any favors. I wrote about one of their particularly stupid protests earlier. Now they will be flying banners over public events on the Fourth of July.

The banners will read either “God-LESS America” or “Atheism is Patriotic,” as a part of a campaign to defend civil rights of atheists and dispel the mentality that it’s un-American to be a non-believer.

How do these banners accomplish either of those goals? "God-LESS America" is just stupid and will serve no purpose other than to irritate people who already don't like atheists and think we are all pushy jerks. And how about "Atheism is Patriotic"? It is? Atheism has nothing to do with patriotism either for or against. Why not do a banner saying "Atheists are patriots too -- Happy 4th!" or something similar?

“This campaign is not about pushing the ‘atheist agenda’ or shoving our views down people’s throats,”

Really? That's exactly how it is going to be received. The people running American Atheists must be totally clueless.

Contrast American Atheists clumsy, ill-advised banners with the Freedom From Religion Foundation's billboard campaign. I've had some criticism for this group too, but at least their messages are well-thought out. For example, they have used the theme "I can be good without God," which is not only true, but might actually make someone think. There are more examples here, from their Tulsa campaign. I'm skeptical about the usefulness of this type of advertising in general, but if you are going to do it, the FFRF beats AA hands down.

More Imaginary Numbers From Obama

2011-07-01T20:46:00.003-04:00

President Obama is a big fan of using imaginary numbers to tout the imaginary success of his policies. We got some more today.

The report from the White House Council of Economic Advisers said the stimulus added 2.3 to 3.2 percent to gross domestic product in the first quarter relative to what it otherwise would have been.

The stimulus package also increased employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by between 2.4 and 3.6 million jobs, the report said.

Note the twice-used phrase, "relative to what it otherwise would have been." This phrase alerts you to the fact that the White House is using imaginary numbers. We do not know what would or would not have happened if there had been no stimulus package, because there was a stimulus package. The economy could have gotten worse, or it could have improved had the government not borrowed and spent a bunch of money we didn't have. We just don't know for sure. And since we don't know, the numbers the president is pushing are completely imaginary. He could just as easily have claimed the stimulus raised GDP by 5% "relative to what it otherwise would have been," or that it increased employment by 6 million jobs. Since the numbers aren't real, it doesn't matter. These numbers were chosen to appear somewhat plausible, and to convince those gullible enough to believe them.

Good Advice for Republicans

2011-06-30T13:57:00.002-04:00

Here's Bruce McQuain at Questions & Observations on what Republicans should say to Obama's tax increase demands.

“Mr. President, when the government has proven that it can indeed cut spending and cut it drastically, and it has done everything it can conceivably do in that regard, if there is a revenue problem at the bottom of it, then we can discuss tax increases. But until such a time that it is proven – through action, you know actual cuts – that the government has done all it can in the area of spending cuts, there’s nothing further to discuss in terms of tax increases.”

Exactly. Let's hope Congressional Republicans stick to that position. I'm not entirely confident they will.

The GOP Should Stand Firm Against New Taxes

2011-06-29T14:48:00.003-04:00

President Obama came out today spouting the usual Democratic demagoguery about the debt ceiling and calling for Republicans to agree to new taxes. In return he made vague promises.

he is willing to cut spending on a range of programs by more than $1 trillion, to trim the defense budget and to look for ways to control entitlement costs.

Every member of the GOP should know by now what Obama's promises are worth. Any Republican paying even the slightest bit of attention should also be aware that Democrats don't want to make even the most minor cuts -- except to defense of course. If Republicans were stupid enough to go along with the president, new revenue would just provide Democrats with even more reason to resist making substantial spending cuts. The GOP should continue to block new taxes of any kind until the president and Democrats in Congress sign off on significant cuts to government spending -- real ones, not empty promises. Once government spending starts falling, then there will be time to talk about ways to increase revenue. Voters in 2010 didn't elect Republicans to help Obama pass new tax hikes.

Tim Pawlenty's Middle East Speech

2011-06-29T00:10:00.001-04:00

My first impression when reading stories about GOP presidential contender Pawlenty's speech was negative, and after reading the whole thing I think it's a mixed bag -- with the bad outweighing the good. First, the good:

The criticism of Obama's foolish "engagement" policy is on point
Recognition that strong U.S. support for Israel gives a better chance for peace than a pretense that we are some sort of neutral broker.
Threat to cut off Palestinian aid.

And the bad:

a strong fetish for democracy promotion, and a seeming failure to understand that democracy is other countries is not necessarily in the U.S. interest.
call to pressure friendly nations over human rights issues
a way too optimistic view of Arab uprisings
offhand dismissal of realpolitik in favor of what I consider unwarranted optimistic idealism

Overall I'm not thrilled with Pawlenty's ideas as advanced in this speech. What he calls isolationism can be better categorized as realistic assessment of American interests. There was some talk of U.S. interests in the speech, but not nearly enough. In purely political terms, the speech appears to indicate that he has knowledge of Middle East policy and coherent, if unconvincing ideas. But in my opinion various portions of his speech could easily have been spoken by George W. Bush or Barack Obama. And that's not a recommendation.

Bachmann & Cain Are Right About the Minimum Wage

2011-06-28T20:24:00.002-04:00

Various outlets on the left are making a big deal about Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain wanting to repeal the federal minimum wage. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post argues that it's such a radical position for a presidential candidate that only Ronald Reagan supported it, while later backing away from that position. It shows you how entrenched big government has become in the U.S. that even the suggestion that we roll back unwarranted and unnecessary federal interference with the free market is now a radical position.

Even if you support minimum wage laws you don't need the federal government involved. Since minimum wage laws are popular, most states already have their own laws. And if states don't wish to have a minimum wage, there's no reason for federal interference. Bachmann and Cain are right to support repealing the federal minimum wage.

International Criminal Court Continues to be a Joke

2011-06-27T14:41:00.002-04:00

Moammar Gaddafi has been a brutal dictator for a long time. In addition to his typical repressive actions at home, he's also had extensive ties with terrorists. There are reports that he personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing. But now, after all this time, with Gaddafi fighting for the survival of his regime, the ICC has decided to issue a meaningless arrest warrant for him for supposed "crimes against humanity."

Not only has the ICC waited until his regime is embroiled in a civil war, where his ruthless attempts to crush the rebels are pretty standard tactics, but it waited until NATO was already trying to kill him. What's the point of this ridiculous indictment? The Libyan government responded by saying that the "ICC has no legitimacy whatsoever." Gaddafi isn't right about much, but he's right about that.

Abdication of Responsibility by Military Leaders

2011-06-24T00:11:00.003-04:00

Top U.S. commanders essentially confirmed that the president's announced 10,000 man withdrawal from Afghanistan was done for political reasons. For example,

"The president's decisions are more aggressive and incur more risk that I was originally prepared to accept," Admiral Mullen said. ... Petraeus said, "the ultimate decision was a more aggressive formulation, if you will, in terms of the timeline than what we had recommended." ... Petraeus said he supports the president's decision and will carry it out, but he refused to say he is comfortable with it.

Robert Kagan claims military commanders "know Obama's decision is a disaster."

The entire military leadership believes the president’s decision is a mistake, and especially the decision to withdraw the remainder of the surge forces by September 2012. They will soldier on and do their best, but as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, put it, in characteristic understatement, they believe the decision will increase the risk to the troops and increase the chance that the mission will not succeed.

Let's assume this is true, and the statements by Mullen and Petraeus indicate that it might be. Kagan writes,

Under our Constitution, military leaders have no choice but to endorse the president’s decision after giving him their best advice. They could resign, of course, but to have the entire senior military leadership resign over a president’s decision contrary to their advice would be a disaster, and not least for the troops on the ground.

Kagan is dead wrong. If our military leaders truly believe that the president's decision is disaster done for political reasons, they have a duty to resign in protest. You can't have it both ways. If you go along with the president, then you automatically sign off on the plan. When you get to the level of a General Petraeus or an Admiral Mullen, you have a duty to resign if you feel that the president is doing the wrong thing and will harm U.S. national interests.

When is the last time a high-ranking officer resigned in protest of a presidential policy decision on military affairs? Today we have military officers who don't want to end their careers, and just go along with things they supposedly feel are terrible decisions. In my opinion that's an abdication of responsibility.

Another Afghanistan Half-Measure

2011-06-23T14:39:00.005-04:00

Half-measures have been the American way of war since the conclusion of World War 2., The president's latest move, to withdraw 10,000 troops from Afghanistan is based on little more than political calculations, and bad ones at that. Is there anyone who seriously believes the situation in Afghanistan is so improved that we can reasonably start pulling out troops? Does anyone really think the incredibly corrupt and incompetent Karzai government and Afghan military are ready to start taking over their own war effort any time in the foreseeable future? Is there any question that we will have to keep troops in Afghanistan indefinitely unless we drastically change our strategic objectives?

In my opinion this withdrawal has two main political calculations. First, by starting limited withdrawals, Obama is offering the pretense that our efforts have achieved such success that we need less troops in Afghanistan. In other words, he wants to be able to claim successful prosecution of the war. Second, he wants the American people -- a majority of whom are sick of the Afghanistan War -- to see withdrawals in the hope that they believe he is winding the war down. I'd be willing to bet that very few people, at least among those paying attention, are buying either of those propositions.

I Guess We Need to Rename LA and Its Streets

2011-06-22T14:19:00.004-04:00

If you subscribe to the idiocy of American Atheists as noted in the previous post, the city of Los Angeles is one giant violation of the constitution. First off, it is named after angels. Like heaven, angels are part of Christian theology. Therefore calling it the city of angels must be a violation of church state separation. But it gets worse. Not only is it named for mythical beings endorsed by Christianity, but it actually has 86 streets named after Catholic saints. Maybe American Atheists should get right on that and start filing lawsuits. That wouldn't be any crazier than objecting to a street sign saying "seven in heaven."

Atheists Making Atheists Look Bad

2011-06-21T20:25:00.003-04:00

Atheists are already a despised minority here in America, to the point that many people are afraid to even admit to atheism, for fear of job loss or other repercussions. As an atheist, I find it particularly irritating when groups claiming to represent atheists take unnecessary public positions that accomplish nothing other than stirring up more dislike for all of us. Consider the picture below. This is a a new street sign in Brooklyn, honoring seven firefighters killed on 9/11. The name "Seven in Heaven" is how they are referred to locally. Some New York atheists objected, and their objection was seconded by American Atheists. Here's part of the American Atheist statement on their blog.

A street has been named for them which, unfortunately, encroaches unnecessarily on the separation of Church and State. ... Named “Seven in Heaven Way”, the street uses the tragedy of 911 to legitimize Christianity by asserting that Heaven is a real place, and that all these heroes are actually there.

I've seen some stupid and counterproductive claims by atheist groups before, but this one has to be the most idiotic. These people are just looking for something to offend them. The idea that a sign saying "seven in heaven," a phrase that can be interpreted metaphorically and which refers to no specific religion, is some sort of violation of church state separation is utterly ludicrous. Making such a claim against an innocuous memorial street sign not only promotes hostility toward atheists, but undermines the credibility of both the New York atheist group and American Atheists. The next time either organization has a legitimate case against a real violation of church state separation, it will be easy for opponents to dismiss them as extremists nuts who want to ban public use of words with any religious connotations.

The Drone Revolution

2011-06-20T15:30:00.003-04:00

When we look back at the past decade from a military history perspective, one of the things that stands out is the rise of unmanned drones as a key weapon of warfare. Today's New York Times has an article called, "War Evolves With Drones, Some Tiny as Bugs," that looks at current research and advances in drone technology. Here are some of the key points.

From blimps to bugs, an explosion in aerial drones is transforming the way America fights and thinks about its wars. ... far less widely known are the sheer size, variety and audaciousness of a rapidly expanding drone universe, along with the dilemmas that come with it.

The Pentagon now has some 7,000 aerial drones, compared with fewer than 50 a decade ago. Within the next decade the Air Force anticipates a decrease in manned aircraft but expects its number of “multirole” aerial drones like the Reaper — the ones that spy as well as strike — to nearly quadruple, to 536. Already the Air Force is training more remote pilots, 350 this year alone, than fighter and bomber pilots combined.

The roles and uses of drones will continue to expand, on land, sea, air and in space. The Times article looks at miniaturization and efforts to copy the flight of insects, but there are numerous other applications and possibilities for drone technology.

One thing is rarely mentioned in the many articles I've read about drones: defense against them. At the moment we are the leading user of drones and at the forefront of drone technology. Our opponents are non-state forces that are relatively low-tech in comparison. But at some point we might face an adversary with a sophisticated drone arsenal of its own, especially as drone technology not only becomes more advanced, but more widespread. With our extensive research efforts in developing drones, I hope we are also devoting some resources to defensive measures against enemy systems.