Instead of Getting Raped, Shoot the Rapist

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.

Government Charities

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?

What Some Real Cuts in Government Might Look Like

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.

Obama's War on Al Qaeda

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.

Good Advice for Republicans

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.

Best Middle East Peace Plan Yet

Link to Video.

h/t Cold Fury

Maybe the Chinese Will Do Something About Somali Piracy

Here's China's Chief of the General Staff, General Chen Bingde on Somali piracy.

"For counter-piracy campaigns to be effective, we should probably move beyond the ocean and crash their bases on the land," ... "It is important that we target not only the operators, those on the small ships or crafts conducting the hijacking activities, but also the figureheads,"

The way to stop piracy has been known for thousands of years: you kill the pirates and destroy their bases. With most anti-piracy efforts crippled by blind legalism, will the Chinese actually step up and take effective action?

Lab-Created Meat

I know some on the right dislike NPR because of its liberal slant, but it has many excellent and interesting programs. While I was driving tonight, I happened to hear a fascinating segment on lab-created meat -- not artificial meat, but real meat grown from stem cells.

tissue scientists are taking stem cells from pigs and putting them in nutrient broth-filled petri dishes, where they rapidly grow. The biggest slab of meat grown so far is about the size of a contact lens and contains millions of cells. The next step, Specter says, is trying to take these cells and turn them into muscle tissue, using biodegradable scaffolding platforms.

There are all sorts of implications and possibilities for this research, which will no doubt occur to anyone else who reads a lot of science fiction. You can listen to the story at the link above.

What Serious Budget Cuts Would Look Like

It's been pretty funny -- but not surprising -- watching the hysterical screaming from Democrats and the left in general about the minor budget cuts proposed by the GOP in the form of a plan by Rep. Paul Ryan. A few months ago, Senator Rand Paul outlined a plan of his own with far more significant cuts -- the kind of cuts we need if we are to even begin to bring the deficit under control, let alone the debt. His plan includes such things as completely eliminating the Departments of Energy and Health & Human Services, cutting the Department of Education budget by 83%, and the complete elimination of foreign assistance programs. Sounds radical, doesn't it? Those cuts, and the numerous others he proposed, would still only reduce the deficit by one third.

President Obama's Speech

President Obama delivered a fine speech in response to the Arizona shootings. Unlike much of the left-wing base, he did not attempt to politicize the shootings or smear his opponents on the right. In fact, he even addressed that issue to some extent.

what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

Although I've been a severe critic of the president on many issues, I have to applaud his response as encapsulated by this speech. I think he struck exactly the right notes and said the sorts of things most Americans expect to hear from their president after a horrible tragedy. Good job President Obama.

A Response to Sam Harris

Sam Harris is my favorite of the so-called "new atheists." I enjoy his writing and style of argumentation. I noticed that he had an op-ed at The Huffington Post called, "A New Year's Resolution for the Rich." Not surprisingly I was less impressed by his foray into political commentary. His article is long, and does have some good points, so hopefully you will bear with me.

After identifying himself as a member of the rich, Harris writes of the extention of the Bush tax cuts,

those of us who have been so fortunate as to actually live the American dream--rather than merely dream it--have been spared every inconvenience. Now we are told that we will soon receive a large tax cut for all our troubles. What is the word for the feeling this provokes in me? Imagine being safely seated in lifeboat, while countless others drown, only to learn that another lifeboat has been secured to take your luggage to shore...

First, and most obvious, you are not receiving a large tax cut. Tax rates are simply not going up. There's a difference. And the rates affect everyone across the board, not just the wealthy. Second, feel free to voluntarily pay more taxes.

Harris goes on with the typical liberal whine about "income inequality."

We now live in a country in which the bottom 40 percent (120 million people) owns just 0.3 percent of the wealth. Data of this kind make one feel that one is participating in a vast psychological experiment: Just how much inequality can free people endure?

Why does it affect you in the slightest how much other people earn? It isn't something to be "endured" at all. It's also pretty funny that he mentions "free people," since the supposed solution to income inequality involves stealing more money by force from the wealthy. Apparently his idea of freedom is being free to have the state decide what you should earn.

And yet over one million American children are now homeless. People on Medicare are being denied life-saving organ transplants that were routinely covered before the recession. Over one quarter of our nation's bridges are structurally deficient. When might be a convenient time to ask the richest Americans to help solve problems of this kind? How about now?

Ask all you want. But taxation has nothing to do with asking.

It is easy to understand why even the most generous person might be averse to paying taxes: Our legislative process has been hostage to short-term political interests and other perverse incentives for as long as anyone can remember. Consequently, our government wastes an extraordinary amount of money. It also seems uncontroversial to say that whatever can be best accomplished in the private sector should be. Our tax code must also be reformed--and it might even be true that the income tax should be lowered on everyone, provided we find a better source of revenue to pay our bills.

Exactly. Having just written these lines of wisdom, however, he then writes,

But I can't imagine that anyone seriously believes that the current level of wealth inequality in the United States is good and worth maintaining, or that our government's first priority should be to spare a privileged person like myself the slightest hardship as this once great nation falls into ruin.

He might want to expand his imagination, and put aside the fetish about income inequality. There are plenty of people who don't see income inequality as a significant problem, particularly because income levels are not fixed, and we have legal equality of opportunity in the United States. It isn't a matter of "maintaining" the situation. It just is. And the nation is hardly "falling into ruins." It doesn't help an argument to include wild hyperbole.

American opposition to the "redistribution of wealth" has achieved the luster of a religious creed. And, as with all religions, one finds the faithful witlessly espousing doctrines that harm almost everyone, including their own children. For instance, while most Americans have no chance of earning or inheriting significant wealth, 68 percent want the estate tax eliminated (and 31 percent consider it to be the "worst" and "least fair" tax levied by the federal government). Most believe that limiting this tax, which affects only 0.2 percent of the population, should be the top priority of the current Congress.

I find this hilarious. Here's someone with a religious-like fetish about "income inequality" accusing people who oppose forcible redistribution of wealth of holding a religious creed. He also makes the mistake throughout this entire article, [pointed out by Mike Farmer in link #3 of today's HOT5.], of assuming that the poor are a static class.

The truth, however, is that everyone must favor the "redistribution of wealth" at some point.

Not true, obviously. There are people against all forms of taxation.

To make matters more difficult, Americans have made a religious fetish of something called "self-reliance."

Apparently anything that gets in the way of socialistic wealth transfer schemes is now a religious fetish. These leads into the typical left-wing argument that the wealthy have had greater opportunity and luck, and therefore "owe" society more of their money. As usual, this argument is combined with an apparent oblivious disregard for the fact that the wealthy already pay by far the most taxes.

But then Harris advocates something different.

Some readers will point out that I am free to donate to the treasury even now. But such solitary sacrifice would be utterly ineffectual, and I am no more eager than anyone else is to fill the pork barrels of corrupt politicians. However, if Gates and Buffett created a mechanism that bypassed the current dysfunction of government, earmarking the money for unambiguously worthy projects, I suspect that there are millions of people like myself who would not hesitate to invest in the future of America.

I have no problem with some sort of voluntary effort by the rich to invest in improving the country. There is already plenty of philanthropy from the very rich. A new major effort would certainly be welcome. Harris advocates spending such a massive donation on two things: education and clean energy. For education he suggests making college free for people who can't afford it. I think that's a bad idea.

A college education isn't automatically a good thing. There are plenty of people in college who learn very little, and basically come away with pieces of paper saying they are college graduates -- creating an illusion that they are somehow more valuable in the workforce. They aren't. It would be much more effective to invest in alternative ideas about education, covering things not normally taught in our schools. People need to be taught how to create wealth, such as how to form and operate a business, take an idea from the idea stage to patent and production, methods of raising capital, real estate fundamentals, and investment strategies. I certainly wish I'd learned those things when I was young.

As for clean energy, I'm all for private investment in new methods of energy. If a consortium of philanthropic rich people could somehow transform the U.S. into a nation that needs less fossil fuel that would be great.

I am aware that a proposal of this kind is bound to seem quixotic. But what's to stop the wealthiest Americans from sponsoring a 21st Century Renaissance? What politician would object to our immediately spending a trillion dollars on improvements in education and energy security? Perhaps there are even better targets for this money. Let Gates and Buffett convene a team of brilliant people to lay out the priorities. But again, we should remember that they could scarcely fail to improve our situation. Simply repaving our roads, the dilapidation of which causes $54 billion in damage to our cars every year, would be better than doing nothing.

Overall this article offers a major disconnect. Sam Harris starts out with the typical liberal complaints about income inequality and the tax structure, implying that we should jack up tax rates on the rich and redistribute wealth for the greater good. But he ends by calling for a massive voluntary effort by the wealthy to invest in America's future. No thanks to the former, I'm with him on the latter.

Harry Reid Has an Actual Good Idea

According to Politico, Senator Harry Reid wants to add the legalization of online poker to the current tax deal.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), as well as several senior congressional sources and gambling lobbyists, confirmed that Reid and his staff have reached out to other Senate offices to try to build support for adding the online poker legislation — a draft of which POLITICO has obtained — to a measure extending the Bush-era tax cuts

Naturally Reid's proposal isn't some sort of principled support for allowing Americans to make their own decisions about how and where they want to risk their money gambling. It's payback to his supporters in the Nevada casino industry. Even so, any effort to lift ridiculous nanny-state prohibitions on gambling should be applauded.

The Fiscal Commission Co-Chair Report

I read through the proposed reforms suggested by the two co-chairs of the president's fiscal commission. Two things came to mind. First, these ideas are the type of sweeping changes that could actually begin to get the U.S. fiscal situation under control. But second, they are not viable politically. Pretty much everyone's sacred cow get's slaughtered. The chance that a majority of these proposals could be enacted is almost zero. Here's a list of the specifics from the link above, and my quick reaction to each. Overall, I'm on-board with many of the ideas. My comments in [brackets].

Social Security cuts:

• Index the retirement age to longevity -- i.e., increase the retirement age to qualify for Social Security -- to age 69 by 2075. [People are living longer and working longer. Good idea]
  
• Index Social Security yearly increases to a lower inflation rate, which will generally mean lower cost of living increases and less money per average recipient. [yes]
  
• "Increase progressivity of benefit formula" -- i.e., reduce benefits by 2050 for middle, and, especially, higher earners, relative to current benefits. [definitely. I would eliminate payouts entirely for high earners.]
  
• Increase the Social Security contribution ceiling: while people only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of their wages today, that's only about 86% of the total potentially taxable wages. The co-chairs suggest raising the ceiling to capture 90% of wages. [Eliminate the ceiling entirely. There's no reason the entire salary of lower earners should be taxed while higher earners escape withholding over 106k]
  

Tax reform:

• The co-chairs suggest capping both government expenditures and revenue at 21% of GDP eventually. [not sure about this level]
  
• In their first plan, called "The Zero Plan," they suggest reducing the tax brackets to three personal brackets and one corporate rate while eliminated all credits and deductions. Without any credits or deductions (including the EITC and mortgage interest deductions), the 3 tax rates would be 8, 14 and 23 percent. [maybe. I prefer a flat tax for all]
  
• In their second plan, they would increase the personal deduction to $15,000, create 3 tax brackets (15, 25 and 35%); repeal or significantly curtail a number of popular tax deductions (including the state and local deduction and the mortgage interest deduction); and eliminate other tax expenditures. [see above]
  
• The third plan would force Congress to undertake comprehensive tax reform by 2012 by raising taxes for each year Congress fails to act. [sounds like a bad idea]
  
• All their proposals limit Congress to collecting taxes on income made within the United States, reducing or eliminating taxes on American expats and revenues companies earn abroad. [Good idea]
  
• They also suggest raising the federal gas tax by 15 cents per gallon. [Terrible idea that will damage the economy. Gas taxes should be lowered].
  

Medicaid/Medicare cuts

• Force more low-income individuals into Medicaid managed care. [probably necessary]
  
• Increase Medicaid co-pays. [This will definitely hurt the poor badly and keep some from going to the doctor. Small increase maybe, but most who have Medicaid can't afford high co-pays]
  
• Accelerate already-planned cuts to Medicare Advantage and home health care programs. [unfortunately necessary]
  
• Create a cap for Medicaid/Medicare growth that would force Congress and the President to increase premiums or co-pays or raise the Medicare eligibility age (among other options) if the system encounters cost overruns over the course of 5 years. [not sure about these caps]
  

Discretionary spending cuts

• Eliminate all earmarks. [Definitely]
  
• Eliminate the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools. [Cut way more government offices]
  
• Freeze federal worker wage increases through 2014; eliminate 200,000 federal jobs by 2020; and eliminate 250,000 federal non-defense contractor jobs by 2015. [Good idea but even more could be cut]
  
• Eliminate subsidized student loans, in which the government makes interest payments while the student is in school. [Definitely]
  
• Establish co-pays in the VA medical system and change the co-pays and deductibles for military retirees that remain in that system. [I oppose this. I think we owe our veterans medical care]
  
• Eliminate NASA funding for commercial space flight. [Definitely. Commercial space flight should be funded by free enterprise].
  
• Require the Smithsonian museums to start charging entrance fees and raise fees at the national parks. [Good idea]
  
• Eliminate funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- which many conservatives suggested in the wake of the firing of former NPR contributor Juan Williams. [Should already be eliminated. Eliminate numerous other grants to the arts].
  
• Reduce farm subsidies by $3 billion per year. [or more]
  
• Create a Committee to eliminate unnecessary programs to the tune of $11 billion by 2015. [Cut them instead of creating another committee]
  
• Merge the Department of Commerce and the Small Business Administration and cut its budget by 10 percent. [ok]
  
• End "low-priority" Army Corps of Engineers programs to the tune of $1 billion by 2015. [Sounds good]
  
• Cut the State Department's overseas budget by 10 percent by 2015; reduce the proposed foreign aid budget by 10 percent in 2015; and cut voluntary contributions to the United Nations by 10 percent in 2015. [Cut the foreign aid budget by at least 50%. Eliminate all voluntarily contributions to the UN]
  
• Eliminate the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, which provides subsidized financing and political risk insurance for U.S. companies' investments abroad. [yes]
  
• Cut $900 million in fossil fuel research funds. [ok]
  
• Force airlines to increase their contributions to airline security costs and allow them to increase per-ticket security fees. [This would drive up the price of air travel and possibly damage the economy. Not a good idea]
  

Defense spending cuts:

• Double the number of defense contractor positions scheduled for elimination from 10 percent of current staff augmentees to 20 percent. [sounds good]
  
• Reduce procurement by 15 percent, or $20 billion. [There have to be these sorts of across the board cuts, no matter how painful they are]
  
• Eliminate the V-22 Osprey program. [probably necessary]
  
• Cancel the Marine Corps' Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program. [yes]
  
• Halve the number of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in favor of F-16s and F/A-18Es. [yes]
  
• Cancel the Marine Corps F-35 program. [yes]
  
• Cancel the Navy's Future Maritime Prepositioning Force. [maybe]
  
• Cancel the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), the Ground Combat Vehicle, and the Joint Tactical Radio. [not sure about these cuts.]
  
• Reduce military forces in Europe and Asia by one-third. [Forces in Europe should have been reduced long ago]
  
• Send all military children based in the U.S. to local schools. [sounds reasonable]
  

Blow-up Weapons

Not exploding ones, weapons that are filled with air. There's an interesting article at BBC News about Russian inflatable weapons.

A turret appears, then out pops a long plastic gun barrel. This is an inflatable Russian tank. ... When the men pump up their next piece of plastic, this one expands into a S-300 rocket launcher, complete with giant truck and inflatable rockets. ... waiting to be blown up are inflatable MiG fighter jets - even entire Russian radar stations. ... They are made of a special material that tricks enemy radar and thermal imaging into thinking they are real weapons.

One thing that the Soviet military was very good at in World War Two was deception. They call it maskirovka, and it has been a fundamental feature of Soviet and now Russian military doctrine. As Globalsecurity.org points out,

The goal of maskirovka is to make the enemy concentrate his forces against false threats and uselessly expend his means of destruction on them. ... they also do it actively, through the use of dummy structures, electronic warfare, false maneuvers, and various other methods.

These blow-up dummies are cheap and have the potential to be extremely effective, not just in manipulating enemy intelligence/observations, but in causing significant diversions of resources away from real threats. These dummies might actually cause more problems for an opponent than some real weapon systems.

What's Fried and Full of Beer?

That would be deep-fried beer. Mark Zable, creator of other delicacies such as "chocolate-covered strawberry waffle balls," has invented a method of frying beer inside ravioli-like pieces of pretzel dough. 

"Nobody has been able to fry a liquid before. It tastes like you took a bite of hot pretzel dough and then took a drink of beer."

And it doesn't just taste like beer. It is beer. The raviolis are filled with Guinness, and are fried a short enough time to retain their alcohol content. You can harden your arteries and get drunk at the same time.

Zable is unveiling his new creation to the public at the Texas state fair. I'll go out on a limb and bet that fried beer will be a huge hit.

h/t Blue Crab Boulevard

UK Atheist Calls for a Debate with the Pope

Geoffrey Berg, author of "The Six Ways Of Atheism," has challenged the Pope to debate the existence of God during his visit to Britain.

It is very appropriate for the Pope (who is also a noted theologian) to argue the question of whether God exists at all upon a visit to the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom has historically generally led the way in rejecting religious belief in terms of the leading freethinkers who have lived here.

Berg argues that since the Pope often attacks atheism/secularism, he should welcome such a debate.

Rather than just complain about the growing secularism in the world, as he and his predecessor have tended to do, isn't it time he debated the core case that God simply does not exist which actually leads to secularism?

Although the chances of the Pope accepting such a debate are slim and none, it would definitely be interesting to see him take on a prominent atheist in a formal debate. Unlike the ridiculous calls to arrest the Pope when he visits Britain, Berg's challenge makes sense. The Pope is a theologian, he wants to persuade people to accept Christianity, and such a debate would probably be a high profile event where he could put forth his best arguments in favor of the existence of the Christian version of God. He should accept the challenge. But I'd be willing to bet he'd rather just continue demonizing atheists, instead of engaging in reasoned debate.

US Funds Israeli Missile Defense

I often criticize President Obama on foreign policy, so it's worth pointing out when does something right. Israel is in the process of building a multi-layer missile defense system. One key component is called "Iron Dome."

The Iron Dome missile defense system aced a test run in January, and event that convinced senior defense officials that the defense system was on its way to becoming operational and that it will be able to effectively protect against short-range missiles, such as Katyushas and Qassams, which often hit Israeli towns.

Like most missile defense systems, it's expensive, and the question of funding was holding it up.

The budgetary difficulty that has been delaying Israel's armament with the anti-missile defense system Iron Dome has apparently been resolved. The Pentagon has issued a message to Israel's Defense Ministry that U.S. President Barack Obama has approved the transfer of special assistance totaling $205 million (just under NIS 800 million) for the purchase of more than ten Iron Dome batteries.

For those who balk at handing even more money to Israel, here's why I believe this action is in the U.S. interest.

As I've argued before, I believe that U.S. interests are best served by keeping a lid on the overall Arab/Israeli situation, and by a policy of deterrence toward Iran and its likely eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons. An effective Israeli missile defense system will do several things. First, it will lessen the chance that Israel will need to take offensive action to defend itself. Rockets which are intercepted before they strike are much more tolerable than ones which hit Israeli towns and kill civilians. It may even make Palestinian rocket attacks even more counterproductive than they are already. Why make the effort to launch such attacks if there is little likelihood that they'll hit any targets?

An Israel with an effective missile defense system is also an Israel that might be more willing to consider a deterrent policy with regard to Iran. Iron Dome doesn't counter long range missile threats, but it's a component of an layered system, which would at least partially reduce the threat from Iran's ally/proxy Hezbollah. With the U.S. tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the situation as fragile as it is in both places, the last thing we need is a major war caused by a preemptive Israeli offensive. Such a war would radically alter the dynamics of the situation, and cost far more than the $205 million we are shelling out to Israel. If improving Israeli defenses makes offensive action less likely, and I believe it does, than the money is well-spent. Finally, we have our own needs regarding missile defense. Funding what appears to be a successful Israeli project could benefit our own efforts through technology transfer. It is also likely that Israeli defenses will be tested for real, as they intercept rockets from Gaza. The data from a working missile defense system should be invaluable to missile defense research in general.

I'll Second That

From Politico:

A group of leading military bloggers has issued a joint statement urging Congress to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

In my opinion it is past time to allow gay people to serve openly in the military. Will there be problems? Yes. Will it cripple the military and destroy readiness as opponents suggest? No. There is no reasonable justification for throwing otherwise qualified and capable members of the military out of the service, simply because of their sexual orientation. Kicking people out for being gay is both stupid and unjust. It's time for our official policies to stop catering to bigotry against homosexuals.

Cutting Government

I know, it will never happen with Mr. Big Government in the White House, and Democrats controlling Congress. But let's pretend that one day we'll have a government actually interested in cutting spending. What areas would be prime targets for cuts? I noticed a column/video in USA Today taking up that proposition. Interestingly enough, it features two people from opposite sides of the political spectrum, Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas, finding some common ground on things that should be cut.  Here are their proposals with my comments on each.

1. Department of Education. This would be a prime target for me. Slash the federal education budget to the bone. We get very little return on the massive amounts of money dumped down this particular hole. Education should be primarily a state and local matter, with the federal government doing little more than setting some national standards.

2. Department of Agriculture. Another fat, bloated waste of money. Here's Beckel's comment.

Absolutely. Between 1996 and 2002, federal subsides to farmers have grown to $121 billion. In recent years, 72% of those subsidies went to huge corporate agribusinesses and the largest privately owned farms. So you have a symbiotic relationship between government and big farmers, but the American people are left holding the bill.

Those subsidies should be eliminated entirely.

3. Faith-based initiatives. Extremely dubious from a church/state separation perspective, and totally unnecessary. One of Bush's really bad ideas. I agree with Thomas and Beckel. Scrap the whole thing.

4. Future Bailouts. Saying no future bailouts isn't exactly a cut, although it's still a good idea. Beckel wants an exception for an "absolute national emergency," and defends the auto industry bailouts. The problem with that sort of exception is that bailouts are always justified by claiming an emergency, and by dire predictions of doom. Let the market work.

5. Defense Department. This is normally the only area of government that liberals want to cut, while expanding all the rest. But national defense is one of the few clearly necessary and justifiable roles of government, and therefore more worthy of funding than many other things. Having said that, there is all sorts of waste and overspending on defense that could be cut. Defense is a pork-project repository within a government addicted to pork projects.

6. Entitlement Spending. I was glad to see Beckel call for major reform of social security, including means testing and raising the payout age to 70 -- both excellent ideas in my opinion. We should also privatize the system as much as possible.

I rarely read USA Today and I was not aware of Beckel and Thomas' Common Ground feature. It looks like it might be worth checking out in the future. 

Response to Radical Muslim Threats & Intimidation

This video is from 2006, but it pretty much sums up my attitude toward extremist Muslim threats, such as those regarding the recent South Park episode.