Hagel and Republican National Security Policy

This is a cross-post from something I posted at the Navy site I write for.  I think it belongs here too.  "Raymond" in the first paragraph is the blogmaster in the first paragraph.

----------

Raymond summoned the spirit of James Joyner from the Atlantic in this piece on the Hagel nomination the other day, and Joyner has responded.  In a piece entitled "No Longer the Party of Eisenhower and Reagan", Joyner makes the case that the Hagel nomination could signal an inflection point for a moribund Republican foreign policy that seems no longer to be able to digest the likes of Hagel, Huntsman, and Scowcroft (and presumably, Joyner).  It is a good piece, well argued and with some very good points.  It deserves some discussion.

1.  First, I cannot agree strongly enough with the rising chorus of observers--some in the Republican Party and some on the outside--that Republican national security policy is adrift.  When I think about the wistful longing for Eisenhower that Joyner and others evoke, I too am transported back--back to a time when an American President truly understood strategy and then made strategic choices.  This component of national security thinking is what is MOST lacking in the Republican Party I hold dear.  I don't hear major standard bearers standing up and saying "we spend too much on our national defense because we do not think hard enough, we do not make choices, and we pay the penalty for our laziness in excessive defense budgets".  Were party leaders to begin talking and thinking like this, the "new" Republican Party would respond.

2.  I cannot accept the view of those who see the rejection of Hagel, Huntsman et al as a sign of the foreign policy decline of the Party.  It is politics, pure and simple; you don't get to openly support Democrats and still be looked to as a grandee in the Republican Party.  Republican national security thinking is in decline for a lot of reasons, but not because some have decided criticize those who  stake out the "every Democrat's favorite Republican" territory.

3.  A new Republican Foreign Policy should also go back and review George H.W. Bush's approach, which Scowcroft and others were responsible for.  It made no bones about American leadership and primacy (from a strategic communications standpoint), but in action took a selective engagement approach with respect for international organizations in which the US exercised outsized weight.  Not only have many Republicans failed to understand the necessity to make strategic choices about what our nation invests in (in terms of its military), we (as a Party) have too many leaders who seem to be ready to jump into whatever mudpit we can find without a serious discussion of national interest.  This activist wing of the Party all too often finds succor with the "Responsibility to Protect" crowd on the other side of the political spectrum, which seems only to be able to bring itself to commit American power when there is NO vested interest at stake. 

4.  The other marriage of convenience I reject (which the Obama/Hagel condominium represents) is that of those who wish to reduce America's influence as a policy matter derived of a sense of American over-reach (Obama) with those who wish to reduce America's influence as a policy matter derived of a sense of Allied under-reach (the Offshore Balancing/Hagel Crowd).  It matters not HOW it gets there, but the result will be a smaller, less capable, and less influential military less capable of global operations.  While I applaud Joyner for reprinting some views of Hagel from 20004, his more recent views seem to place him squarely in the Offshore Balancing crowd--an approach I find unsuitable to the issue of a rising peer competitor (and which Hagel was clearly not addressing in 2004).

So what is to be done?  What are the potential elements of a Republican National Security Policy?  How about these (I could use a foreign policy doppelganger to strengthen this).

1.  The United States position in the world is unique and it is in the interests of the American people to advance and sustain it.  We are the world's indispensable nation, and our national security policy will reflect it.  While other nations are growing in terms of economic power, no other nation combines American economic, military and political power, and no other nation can or will fill America's role in the world for decades to come.  The world needs a powerful and influential America, and this position redounds to the benefit of the American people.

2.  The United States will not shrink from its interests, and those interests are best served through a combination of forward deployed military strength, active participation in regional forums, close and mutually beneficial diplomatic relations, and free-and-open trade.  While it is comforting to consider shrinking from the world and getting others to "pay their share", it is an invitation to instability and conflict, both of which threaten our security and our prosperity.  It is in America's interest to pay the price required to lead the world, as our position of leadership works to the benefit of every American.

3.  Our strong, central, and positive role in the world is not boundless.  We will resource the world's strongest military, but we must make critical strategic choices about how that military is comprised.  We will favor mobile, flexible, forward deployed combat power suitable to protecting and sustaining our peacetime interests and our national security, while retaining the capability to mobilize for general war from a garrisoned base.  Naval and aerospace power will be favored over land power.  We will upgrade and reduce our strategic nuclear arsenal.  The nuclear triad served us well during the Cold War, but three separate methods of destroying the world is wasteful.  To this end, we will continue to operate our fleet of ballistic missile submarines until the end of their service lives, but they will not be replaced.

4.  We will be active leaders in world and regional forums.  We will work hard with friends, allies and others to reach consensus approaches to conflict.  We do not relinquish the right to act unilaterally in protecting our national interests, but our preference will always be for coalition action.  We will work with our friends and allies to increase their contributions to their own security, especially in increasing those capabilities that our strategic choices de-emphasize.  We will lead a strong team--on the field--not on the sidelines.

5.  We seek a strong military at a reasonable price.  We reject the notion that such a military deprives the nation of resources that should be applied elsewhere; rather, we believe that such a military creates the conditions for the prosperity that drives our economy forward.  Said another way, we cannot look first to cutting the defense budget to fund other domestic priorities; we should look there last.  Such a view demands that resources allocated to defense be spent wisely, and we as a party have not done this well in the recent past, preferring to overspend rather than make tough choices.  We will make those choices now. We support a consistent base level of defense spending, and we believe it should be proportional to the extent of our global interests as measured in gross domestic product.  Protecting and sustaining our enduring vital interests is what creates the minimum investment in national security, while the response to growing or actual threats creates additional requirements.  We propose to spend a minimum of 3.75% of GDP on national defense on an annual basis, and we recognize that if GDP declines, so should defense spending. 


6.  We assert that Democracy is the political system most consistent with human nature, and we will favor those nations where it is practiced.  We cannot however, create it where it does not exist, and we will not attempt to impose it where it is nascent.  The tide of history has turned, democracy and free markets have prevailed.  Our role now is to be stewards of this evolution, not guarantors.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

Start Weight (1/1/13): 197.8
Last Weigh-in (1/4/13):  191.8
Today's Weigh-in: 189.6

It has been a pretty good week--moderate exercise and a decidedly low carb/sugar eating regimen.  Having sushi with a good friend for lunch today, so no hit there.

What's on your minds, friends?  Staring at that first paycheck of the year and wondering where it went?  Thinking about where to hide your guns when the man comes to take them?  Wondering about when the mainstream media and the liberals will hold their President accountable for his actions?

Share your pain, folks!

Eating the Seed Corn

CW's favorite pundit David Brooks has a good column speculating on why El Presidente chose the Republican Chuck Hagel for Defense. According to the Gieves & Hawkes wearing Mr. Brooks, Obama plans to gradually gut defense so as to pay for his social spending, and having a Republican as Secretary provides cover.
This is completely plausible and expected. That is the very nature of welfare states. When you get a society that depends on government handouts, people become like zoo animals unable to fend for themselves. Many of us now are no more than caged beasts being looked after until it's in the zoo-keeper's interest to put us down. As Ronald Reagan said, we are only one generation away from losing our freedom and it's clear to me that our 18-30 year olds are that generation.
Welfare states inevitably implode because people want more and more while doing less and less. And as we all know it's all about productivity. If wealth isn't being produced then existing wealth must be confiscated to continue the never ending process of feeding the monkey. First borrowing, then cutbacks in legitimate government functions (but never the bureaucracy), then tax increases and new tax schemes, slowly at first then gradually expanding and evolving until Bill Gates will be chopping wood to heat that 30,000 sq. ft. mansion of his (see British aristocracy in the 60's and 70's). Eventually and inevitably the system will have a heart attack and nobody will get a check. When the seed corn is eaten there is no corn left and no way to get any. When that happens we won't be like animals, we will be animals.

Reflections on a Dying Country

It looks like Brent Musburger has been caught in the crossfire of pc politics, radical feminists and cowardly network executives. Old Brent made a comment about the Alabama quarterback's girlfriend while the camera was panning over the current Miss Alabama (and Auburn grad) during Monday night's national championship game. The comment was something about how quarterbacks get all the good looking women. ESPN flipped the hell out and issued an immediate apology due I guess to the tweets flying around about how Musburger was an old perv etc. Well, this is disturbing because the guy was making a lighthearted compliment that was in no way lewd or disrespectful. I blame this on radical feminism, which has been occasionally described as a movement by and for ugly women. So I guess his comment made fat, frumpy, pig-frigging ugly heifers feel uncomfortable in their hideousness, as if they were watching anyway. And if some 73 years old sportscaster is stupid enough to say something as outrageous as the quarterback's girlfriend is beautiful, then his ass is going down to the ground. ESPN makes France look good. 

  

What's up with this? Big Al Gore just sold Current TV to Al Jazeera for, well they're not saying but from what I gather it would be like somebody giving you 50 grand for your wife's 2001 Accord with 200k on the clock. The catch is the wife comes with the deal, and so it goes with Al. I've always viewed this guy as a rich kid with no scruples or values, and I think this pretty much proves it. He's the face of global warming, the enemy of fossil fuels, a Nobel Prize winner and the biggest dick in the environmentalist locker-room: AND HE SOLD OUT TO BIG OIL! The left hasn't felt this betrayed since Molotov and Von Ribbentrop got all chummy back in '39.

Hey Brandi, do you take EBT cards? So anyway the NY Post did an investigation (remember when newspapers used to investigate stuff?) and found that a whole bunch of welfare recipients were withdrawing cash with their EBT card from various strip joints, bars and a place in the Village called the Blue Door Video Shop (I'm trying not to imagine what they sell there). Of course the card is intended for food, rent, milk for the screaming anchor baby; things like that. But apparently Candi Cox and her cohorts are getting their share. I just can't believe they would do something like this, how 'bout you? 

On the Sports Year

Last night was more than simply the BCS Championship game; it represents the end of the college football season and the official beginning of the college hoops season.  I will not--as a rule--watch college basketball until college football has ended.

For a few weeks, we have college hoops and pro football.  Then, we're down to just college hoops.

The pro basketball season will go on for most of the year without generating much interest from me, and I find it regrettable that the NHL settled their strike, as I had come to enjoy not even hearing about a sport I do not follow.

Soon there will be only baseball.  God help us.

Hoist with His Own Petard

Very nice to see a little chatter in the MSM about the President nominating two white men for senior administration posts at Defense and CIA.  A predictable development given the President's election strategy.

Laugh....then Cry

It's a parody, but one that hits too close to home.  Hat tip:  Instapundit.

Big Fat Friday Free for All

Start Weight:  197.8 (January 1, 2013--a new record)
Last Weigh-in:  197.8
Today's Weigh-in: 191.8

On the day of the election, I was 182 pounds.  In under two months, I was able to gain 15.8 pounds due to sloth and gluttony.  No more of that.

What's on your minds, people?  C'mon now, share.

Dispatch from BWI

Sitting here in the A terminal of BWI awaiting my now 1hr late plane to Tampa for two morning meetings and a flight back home. I'll spend a good bit of time in airports this month, so we'll probably have a few of these. A few thoughts?

• Returning to Tampa--scene of the GOP convention which I attended--will surely bring back some memories, and will surely dredge up the bad taste still in my mouth from the election.  Not that the past few days doesn't fill that bill well enough already.

• I am a devotee of airport massages, even though clearly, the varsity of massage therapists do not practice there.  I usually grab a 20 minute rubdown, and here at BWI, the chances are the therapist is very young. Today's looked like he lived a serious thug-life, but he did a fine job and earned a nice tip. This is one of the many benefits of always arriving two hours early at the airport.  Which today means three hours.

• Speaking of tips...along with all kinds of diet/exercise/behavioral goals for 2013, I have decided to finally get a handle on where my money goes.  I seem to make enough of it, and while I know where the big muscle movements send it, I have a feeling that my breezy acceptance of valet parking, lunches out, and the random purchase of gifts actually adds up.  

• The airport is not at all crowded, and there were a ton of parking places in the garage.  In fact, there were several hundred open on each level--yet creature of habit that I am, I drove up five levels to park my car on the familiar 6th level.  Some would call that anal.  

• I cannot begin to tell you how mad Obama bumper stickers still make me.  Saw a few on the drive up here. Uuuuurrrrrggggghhhhhh.

Ok, that's enough for now.

Just In Case There Was Any Doubt...

    Here we have a distinguished Constitutional Law professor at Georgetown telling us in a New York Times op-ed how silly we are to remain faithful to the Constitution. It brings us nothing but trouble. Besides, the founders weren't that smart. They were "white guys", and we all know where white guys have gotten us. How could they possibly know what we're going through now? How could they, with their slave-holder, 18th. century mentality understand the modern nation-state? Their concept of "rights" is outdated and irrelevant. We wouldn't limit our science and engineering to what was known in 1789 why should we limit our understanding of politics? Why do we bind our hands in the work we know must be done? It's time to relegate the Constitution to the dustbin of history.

    I won't even bother to offer a point by point rebuttal to this drivel. The man is an all too typical, over-educated, out of touch egghead. But I would also point out he is woefully undereducated in the ways of the world. The Constitution is not an academic exercise. It is a very practical document designed to protect the rights of free individuals from the evil of bad men with bad intentions and good men with good intentions. It has saved us from ourselves more than once. The passions of man, the foolishness even the best and brightest among us display everyday, our almost limitless capacity for evil, these are the things the Constitution protects us from.

    What the good professor doesn't understand (among other things) is that there are things such as universal truths. There are principles which are timeless. We read Plato's Republic not to imagine what the world was like in ancient Greece, but because Socrates, Gloucon and Hemorrhoidus (what that his name?) are conveying logic and reasoning, and yes truth. Until man changes, these truths will not change. And to presuppose that man is not what he is, that he can be changed and molded into something that will comport himself well when there are no restraints on his power over other men, that he will act justly at all times, well this is just arrogance and narcissism.

House GOP Fail

Well, that was unsatisfying.  The President gets his tax increase "on the rich", the Bush tax rates--derided for a decade by Democrats--are confirmed for over 98% of the public without so much as a "thank you" to the Republicans who made that happen, and the "fiscal cliff" does nary a thing about runaway spending or entitlement reform.  I was disappointed to see Paul Ryan vote for the measure, but happy to see Marco Rubio vote against it.  I have a feeling this fact will come up again someday.

The GOP is in disarray, there is no doubt about it.  I am mad as hell at the Tea Party faction for their tactical near-sightedness, scuttling Plan B (only to get a much worse deal in the end).  I am however, left with the sense that the Tea Party positions on government spending and taxes are where the Republican Party needs to go.  These positions are the reason Republicans gained the majority in the first place, and in the long run, they are electoral winners.

Don't misunderstand me, friends.  I know Barack Obama won the election.  He did not however, win the election because of a preference for anti-Tea Party ideas.  He won the election because he cobbled together a meticulously planned electoral majority that capitalized on many issues, not the least of which were social issues that do not work to the favor of Republicans.

The Tea Party came to ascendance advocating for smaller government, constitutionalism, and the restraint of spending.  What I admired most about them was the relative silence on abortion and gay rights.  They realized that both of these questions were incidental to the great problem of our age, which is debt.  Republicans went awry in the last election not by adhering to Tea Party ideology, but by deviating from it and swimming out into the cesspool of social issues. 

Republicans must be seen as the Party of making bad government smaller and good government better.  Republicans must be seen as the Party of Growth, the Party of Business (not the Party of Finance), and the Party of Success---putting forward a positive message of real opportunity.

I believe John Boehner is damaged goods, and he needs to go.  Even though he cast an unwise vote on this deal, Paul Ryan should be the new Speaker of the House.  Obama owned Boehner in this negotiation, and Obama played the press better than Boehner.  The House GOP needs new and better leadership. 

Knaves, Scoundrels and Fools

We just got a tax hike. But if Jay Leno does his "Jaywalking" segment tonight most folks will say we got a tax cut, except for the rich who were asked to "pay a little more". Nevermind that middle-class rates remain exactly the same as the Bush tax cuts which were demagogued as "unaffordable" and were responsible for "unpatriotic exploding deficits" and were part of "what got us into trouble to start with". Nevermind that they just kicked the can down the road for a couple of months. Nevermind that spending was hardly addressed at all. Nevermind all that. We mustn't mention that. This was about "fairness".

Oh well, as they say, if it happened it was necessary. But I believe what a Mr. E. A. Blair once said "... we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time; the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality". So we've got tax hikes with tiny, miniscule spending cuts which will impact the debt and deficit not one iota. And the foolish Republicans participated in this Kabuki dance to the delight of the Democrats and the media.

Did you ever see that Tom Cruise movie in which the protagonist's teenage buddy, in an effort to get the kid to raise a little hell while the parents are out of town tells him -and please, pardon the language- "Sometimes you gotta say what the fuck, make your move"? Well that's what Boehner and McConnell should have done. They should have said no deal, and here's why.
•No matter how this all plays out the Republicans will be blamed short term but Obama will be blamed (or praised) long term. There are no quick fixes to this mess, and one high profile negotiation will make no difference politically or economically.
•Right now we're at a disadvantage, wait awhile until the debt ceiling debate can be thrown into the mix. Let American feel the sting of Obama's policies. When the Dems start squawking run ads showing them vehemently and vocally opposing Bush's tax cuts. Feed them their own words until they choke.
•We need more time to crank up the pressure and make our case. Get the word out, be aggressive. Spending is out of control, it is unsustainable, we'll crash and burn etc.
• Then, if at the end of the day, after you're sure the American people have the facts and they still prefer the Democrat approach then that's fine. The Republicans should make a statement of principle, speak with once voice and say we realize the American people have chosen the President's policies over ours, we strongly disagree but we won't stand in the way. We will do everything within our power to make them work, but a square wheel is a square wheel and we're not optimistic. Just remember, this is the President and the Democrat's doing with the full knowledge and approval of a majority of the American people. We disagree but let the chips fall where they may.

This way we make sure whatever happens, the Democrats own the outcome. But for Republicans to just play the game, vote against their principles, kowtowing to media threats and acting like cowards is different from acquiescing to political reality. The only thing Republicans will get out of this deal is the blame when it all goes ass over tits. The Republicans have given Obama everything he could possibly hope to get, including political cover.  

Great, Another Kardashian!

 One more baby conceived out of wedlock by two people who will likely move on from each other before said baby makes its appearance in the world.   Alas, Kim and Kanye are expecting a little bundle of publicity joy.

   USA!  USA!  USA!

Hollywood's Lecture on Guns

Whoops.

No Bias Here, WaPost....Move Along

Sloppy analysis here by Chris Cillizza from The Washington Post.  Entitled "As the Fiscal Cliff Looms, Republicans Have No Political Incentive to Make a Deal With Obama".    His evidence? 

"Of the 234 Republicans elected to the House on Nov. 6, just 15 (!) sit in congressional districts that Obama also won that day, according to calculations made by the Cook Political Report’s ace analyst David Wasserman. That’s an infinitesimally small number, particularly when compared with the 63 House Republicans who held seats where Obama had won following the 2010 midterm elections. "

First off, note the (!) exclamation point...."just 15".  Ok, if I do my math, I divide by 234 to get a percentage of Republican House Members who sit in districts won by the President.   I come up with  6.4%.  Which means that 93.6% of Republicans in the House sit in districts that were carried by Mitt Romney.   Well, what percentage of House Democrats sit in districts carried by the President?  Cillizza tries to finesse this one later in the piece by switching from numbers to percentages (presumably he figured his readers wouldn't do the math for him).  "The picture on the Democratic side is less clear. Although 96 percent of House Democrats in the 113th Congress will hold seats Obama won in November".  So there we have it.  The percentage of Democrats sitting in Romney carried districts is EVEN SMALLER than the exclamation point earning figure above.  HOW DOES THIS NOT IMPACT THEIR WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE? This is of course, left unsaid.

Trying to pull his weak chestnuts out of the fire, Cillizza then shifts his emphasis to the Senate."fully one-third of the 21 Senate Democrats who will stand for reelection in 2014 represent states that Romney won."  And then, "First, with the exception of a dozen or so Republicans in the House and Maine’s Susan Collins in the Senate, the number of GOP members of the 113th Congress who see cutting a deal with the president — in the fiscal cliff or, frankly, anything else — as politically advantageous is close to zero. Second, while House Democrats are equally de-incentivized to working across the aisle, there is a large-ish group of Senate Democrats who must find ways of showing their bipartisan spirit if they want to win reelection in states that didn’t favor their party — or even come close to doing so — in the 2012 election. "

Which might be important if Democrats didn't control the Senate, and if anyone really considered Senate votes to be where the action is on the fiscal cliff.  It seems pretty obvious that if Boehner and Obama had a deal, Reid could get the votes needed.  But Boehner and Obama couldn't get a deal because BOTH the Republican and the Democratic caucuses did not see any profit in making a deal. 

You wouldn't know that from the headline, or the exclamation points.

2013 Predictions

First, here are my 2012 Predictions:

1.  Mitt Romney will be elected President:  NOPE
2.  Marco Rubio will be elected Vice-President:  NOPE
3.  Republicans will win majorities in both Chambers of Congress as a result of the 2012 Elections: NOPE
4.  The Presidential Election of 2012 will be notable for its ugliness.  Apologists for Mr. Obama will claim the result was a sign of lingering US racism, forgetting of course, 2008. NOPE
5.  My renovation will be completed by the time I write next year's wrapup  YES!
6.  The Dow will break its previous high sometime during the year  NOPE
7.  UVA's Football Team will lose only two games, one of which will be to Va Tech (which will play in the BCS Championship Game) NOPE
8.  Israel will be at war with at least one other nation-state during 2012.  The US will provide logistics and intelligence support, but nothing else. NOPE--technically, their dust up this year was not with a nation state
9.  Scott Brown will lose his Massachusetts Senate Seat--YEP
10.Scott Brown will be Mitt Romney's choice for Attorney General-- NOPE

2 for 10.  Pretty sorry performance.  Now, onto ten for 2013:

1.  Chris Christie will be re-elected in NJ
2.  Republicans will lose the VA Governor's race
3.  UVA's 2012/2013 Basketball Team will make the NCAA Tournament
4.  UVA Football will return to a Bowl Game with 8 wins or more.
5.  The Atlanta Falcons will win the Super Bowl over the Denver Broncos
6.  Barack Obama will be above 58% approval on 12/31/2013
7.  John Boehner will not be the Speaker of the House on 12/31/2013
8.  I will weigh less than 175 lbs on 12/31/2013 (currently 192)
9.  "Lincoln" will win the Best Picture Oscar
10.  Barack Obama will replace 2 members of the Supreme Court

2013 Resolutions

I invite my fellow bloggers to post their own.  First, here are the ones I made last year, and a brief measure of performance.

1.  Eat better.  Low carb, all year. NO
2.  Exercise more.  Even a little bit is better than nothing.  NO
3.  Curse less.  I'm an educated, reasonably articulate man, but I can curse like a Sailor.  It's time to put that away.  NO
4.  Be a "nicer" guy.  I don't think the first thing that comes to people's minds when they think of me is that I'm a "nice guy".  I guess I'm okay with that, as I don't really strive to be seen that way.  In 2012, I think I'd like to be seen as a "nicer guy", at least nicer than 2011.  NO
5.  Be more patient. In all things.  With all people.  YES
6.  Be there more for my family.  In all ways.  NO
7.  Smile more.  NO
8.  Strive to develop a more nuanced sense of humor; value lightness more, sarcasm less.  NO
9.  Work around the house more, in the house less.  NO
10.  Read more books, fewer URL's.  YES

So now, here are my 2013 Resolutions...some will look very familiar

1.  Eat better.  Low carb all year
2.  Take my vitamins and supplements, daily
3.  Exercise more.  Even a little bit is better than nothing.
4.  Curse less.
5.  Be nicer, smile more
6.  Do more professional writing
7.  Be there for my family more---especially for The Kitten
8.  Stop expecting things to happen around the house--do them, take ownership
9.  Breathe.  Count to five.
10.  Be more charitable.

A Deduction We Can All Live Without

Did you know there are a few states with no individual income tax? Of course you did. Some states avoid taxes because they're big tourist destinations and generate a lot of revenue from that. Alaska because they have oil revenue. Washington State has a "business and occupation tax" so Microsoft and Boeing pays everybody's tax I guess. Some states even have constitution restrictions on income tax. And then, there are states like mine that tax the living hell out of their citizens.

But one benefit in states like mine is we get a deduction for our states taxes on our federal returns. Now think about this. If citizen x in a high tax state pays 10k in state (and local) tax, and that is deducted from their federal tax liability, then folks in low or no tax states have to pay more and are thereby subsidizing state governments in high tax states.

National Review did a study on the elimination of this tax and found it would increase federal revenues $800 billion over ten years. Not enough money to get us out of trouble but hey, it's a start. Low income folks would pay less than 100 bucks more but the 250k and over bunch would pay over 5k more. But there's a problem. According to the NY Times "The seven states that account for 90 percent of state and local tax deductions (including sales and property taxes) —(are) New York, New Jersey, California, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois and Massachusetts." Hmmmm? The deduction, according to the Times is a way for Washington to support the states that do the most to support their "most vulnerable citizens and neediest cities." Neediest cities? I'm not quite sure what that means but it sounds very Detroit-ish.

I would love to see the elimination of this deduction because it requires rich liberals to put their money where their mouth is. They voted Democrat time and again. They supported this crazy profligate spending time and again. Now it's time to pay up.

So do I think it will happen? HELL NO!

Ahem...it appears a certain Blogger has fallen down on the job...so here it is, BFFFFA!

Let's see, how does it go?  Something about getting things off one's chest.  Pick a current event and ask if the circumstance has you feeling cheated, wronged, etc (e.g. "What's wrong? Did your Meet the Press show-and-tell prop get you in trouble with the authorities?).  Then add some directive comments:  "C'mon people, emote! Let loose right here on BFFFFA!...or words to that effect. 

Oh, that's right, the most important item: insert picture of an unfortunate corpulent person to make some of us feel better about our own lack of self-discipline (or "glandular problem").

Detroit unveils it's latest innovation: Driver-equipped air bags

IF HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES ARE OUTLAWED THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES

Liberal host of Meet the Press and gun outlaw, David Gregory, is in hot water with law enforcement officials in our nation's capital for his blatant disregard of DC's common sense gun laws regarding possession of high capacity magazines. These laws, designed to protect our children, make it a crime to possess high capacity magazines whether attached to a gun or not. Flaunting his stature as a 1st Amendment-cloaked political talk show host, Mr. Gregory, in his attempt to show NRA Executive VP, Wayne LaPierre, whose Amendment cloak was stronger, held up an actual illegal (in DC) high capacity ammunition clip as he attempted to show how Mr LaPierre and his 3.4 million radical NRA members were putting children at risk by resisting legislation that would make possession of these magazines a federal crime.

Alleged criminal in the act of committing a gun crime.

Mr. Gregory could not have illustrated the folly of his argument any better:

- Did Mr. Gregory have any intent to do harm with his detached empty magazine (other than to the case of those who seek to protect the Second Amendment)? No.

 - Did Mr. Gregory's magazine, a piece of sheet metal enveloping a spring and folded and planished into a banana-shaped curve, pose any danger (besides a mass emotional meltdown of the membership of Code Pink and other liberal groups) to any human anywhere on the planet? No.

- Should Mr. Gregory, who has no past criminal record, be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Absolutely.

And that is the point. If it is the law of the land, then in our society, where rule of law presides, the law must be obeyed, no matter how ludicrous or ineffective or misguided the law may be. Until such legislation is rescinded, either by elected legislators (the ideal choice) or by judicial review (the more common modern day choice), then the law should be enforced. And THAT is why I, and lots of other American citizens, who have never knowingly violated a single gun law in the US, resist even more such laws. More laws are not the answer to this issue (or for that matter, MOST issues in a free society). Stronger enforcement of the laws we already have is. Every felon arrested in possession of a firearm should go directly to prison, do not pass go, do not get bail, etc, instead of walking the streets while out on bail and being paid to go to the polls in November. The mentally ill pose a much more difficult challenge to be sure, but it is most certainly in need of serious societal review and debate first and foremost before adding still more legislation that would put Mr. Gregory and his gun outlaw ilk at even greater risk of going to prison with no criminal intent.

And I'll bet ever-so-wise Mr. Gregory and his producers still don't see the irony in their predicament.

On "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

Many an hour of my pre-teen/teen life was spent with the Lord of the Rings Trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien.  I devoured those books; I wrote little messages in Elvish, I created visions of the characters and creatures, and I generally longed for a film adaptation of the books.

For some reason, I skipped over The Hobbit entirely.  Perhaps it was its billing as a "children's book", which for me--a young man frustrated by childhood--was the kiss of death.  Perhaps it was the Rankin and Bass animated version of the book, which I found to be substandard, and which came out during the prime years in which I was reading the LOTR series for the first time.  But the sad truth is that I only read the Hobbit all the way through for the first time about two years ago.  I found it to be much as I thought it would be--of interest, but of much less interest than the LOTR series.  The story moves along at a good clip (in the book), something that can't always be said for the longer volumes of LOTR.  But it just isn't as good of a story. Furthermore,  Dwarfs are among the least interesting characters Tolkien introduced us to, paling in comparison to Elves (for instance), or the Uruk-hai. 

Which brings us to Peter Jackson's long awaited rendering of The Hobbit for the bigscreen, the first of three of which (An Unexpected Journey) I went to see today.  My bottom line?  Good, not great.   Lots to unpack here, so if you aren't a Tolkien geek, you may want to go elsewhere.

First of all, it would be almost impossible for The Hobbit NOT to suffer by comparison to the Lord of the Rings trilogy as made by Jackson.  In my view, these are among the finest films ever made.  Technically perfect, wonderfully acted, true-enough to the story, and loaded with heroism and derring do, I remember the sense of anticipation I had as I waited for the first (The Fellowship of the Ring) to come out in December 2001, and I remember being crestfallen at its conclusion, wondering how I would pass the next year waiting for "The Two Towers".  When "The Return of the King concluded, I may even have had tears in my eyes--not from the storyline, but from a sense of finally having grasped something of real perfection. 

It is now eleven years after my trip to the theater so see the first installment of the Lord of the Rings.  The series won a ton of Oscars, and is universally regarded as great film-making.  I have since then, re-watched the movies several times over.  I have even re-read the books.

And so I come to The Hobbit a bit biased--by my past, and by Jackson's past.  He had a huge bar to clear for me, and he didn't do it.  Not that the Hobbit isn't good--it is.  It simply isn't great, or even near great.

First of all, there simply isn't as much "story" to work with.  Three long movies is a movie and a half too many to capture the storyline of the Hobbit, even as three movies were one movie too few to get all the great parts of the LOTR books onto the screen.  I will of course, go to watch the next two installments as they are released--out of curiosity, out of wanting to see good movies, and out of a sense of respect and awe for what Jackson can accomplish on screen.  I will not do so because I feel somehow drawn or compelled, as I was with the earlier movies.

Secondly, let's face it.  Dwarfs are kind of boring.  I was SO relieved when Thorin's band wound up at Rivendell so that I could look at good looking creatures with gravitas.  Elves--simply put--are bad asses.  These Dwarfs though are a far cry from the relatively immobile and quite rotund "Gimli" from The Fellowship, exhibiting great athletic skill and nimble feet.

Thirdly--Jackson has taken a bit of a "George Lucas" turn on us in this first installment, in that some of the characters (trolls and goblins) get remade into cockney dwarf rats, adding a comicality (and immaturity) to creatures which were heretofore simply only to be feared. Additionally, one of Gandalf's order (Radogast the Brown) appears to have a great load of birdshit streaming down the side of his head, something I simply wasn't able to take my eyes off of.   In his defense, Jackson has the books to fall back upon--which were indeed aimed at a younger audience.  

Finally, we're back to Gandalf the Grey--before his "resurrection" after the battle with the Balrog.  He seems less sure of himself, less powerful (because he is) and much more in need of a good bath and change of robes.

What's good about The Hobbit?  Well, mostly everything.  If you don't have the biases that I have, you're treated to a rollicking good time, with some of the most amazing special effects around.  The movie opens with a familiar Bilbo and Frodo (from the first movies), ostensibly earlier in the day in which their three movies begin.  The fellow playing a young Bilbo is doing a great job so far, and I'm sure I'll grow to like him even more as the movies go on.  And Gandalf is still a wonderful character.  Nothing bad about the Grey Wizard.

My recommendation?  Go see the movie--you won't regret the decision.  But try and keep your expectations packaged up and filed among great memories of years gone by. 

Happy Christmas to All, Old School

Old Testament Prophecy of Jesus' Birth: Isaiah 7:14 and Isaiah 9:6
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Birth of Jesus by Botticelli

The Angel Gabriel Speaks to Mary: Luke 1:26-38
"And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee , named Nazareth , to a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.
And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. For with God nothing shall be impossible.
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her."

An Angel Speaks to Joseph in a Dream: Mat. 1:18-25
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS."

The Birth of the Baby Jesus: Luke 2:1-7
"And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria .) And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.
And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth , into Judaea, unto the city of David , which is called Bethlehem ; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

The Shepherds Receive Heavenly Visitors: Luke 8-20
And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.
And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.
And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.
¹⁵And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.
And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them."

Wise Men Come to Bethlehem Bearing Gifts: Matthew 2:1-13
^"Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem , Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem , in the land of Juda , art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel .
Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently what time the star appeared. And he sent them to Bethlehem , and said, Go and search diligently for the young child; and when ye have found him, bring me word again, that I may come and worship him also.
When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was. When they saw the star, they rejoiced with exceeding great joy.
And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense and myrrh.
And being warned of God in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. And when they were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt , and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him."
I'm ending the King James Christmas story quotes now. If you want to find out what happened next to Joseph, Mary, and the Baby Jesus, turn to Matthew, chapter 1, verses 14-23.
For those of us who follow Jesus, the biblical Christmas story isn't just a historical event. It's a story that beacons to us-just as it did to the shepherds and the wise men-to go and find Jesus. He's waiting for you to call his name. Do that, and you will experience the truth of the Christmas story.

Source: King James Version of the Bible, (Philadelphia: National Publishing Company. 1978).

Gone But Not Forgotten

It's was Stalin's birthday a couple of days ago. I'm afraid I missed it in all the holiday hubbub. He was born 133 years ago. You know a lot of people think he was Russian, not true. He was Georgian (Soviet Georgia not Gone With the Wind Georgia). He lived by the rule "no man, no problem". Conservative estimates of Stalin's mass killings come in around 6-8 million. But if you add in the Ukrainian forced famine, the Great Purge (who needs those old Bolsheviks anyway?) the German POWs worked to death in the gulags, the Eastern Europeans murdered in NKVD massacres; well, the numbers really improve (upwards of 20 million). To show you what a cut-up Uncle Joe was, he got toasty one night at a party and the old lady started talking shit, as they tend to do in situations like this. So he went home and strangled her. What a cad! Hey, she shoulda seen it coming OK? It's not like she's married to Jozef the Plumber. Anyway, by my estimates he's responsible for about 200k death per year of his life. Guys, those are Hall of Fame numbers.

So, a tip of the hat and a Happy Birthday to Uncle Joe Stalin. You are missed, but our loss is Satan's gain.

Annual Christmas Party Horror

As many of you know, I am "Mr. Christmas".  I love everything about the season.  In college, my decorations went up the day after Halloween.  I am obsessed with Christmas music.  I love the smell of Christmas candles.  You get the picture.

Most years, I hold a Christmas Party, though I haven't had one for four years. We came close last year, but the renovation wasn't completely done, and so the Kitten put the kibosh on the idea.  The two previous years, the house was being renovated, or was in need of renovation.

The last party I had was in my Crystal City apartment in 2009.  I gave up the apartment soon after, but it was a typical, city-fied party in a decent sized apartment.  Good bartenders, finger food, lamely decorated apartment.  Everyone had fun.  Most people were return attendees.

This year's party was different.  Since "my" people and "the Kitten's" people were coming, my style of party was clearly not in the cards.  Whereas I would take the nice shrimp wheel from Harris Teeter and lay it down on the table (minus its clear plastic cover), Talbot County standard dictated its being laid out on an appropriate serving platter. This approach conveyed throughout all aspects of the party.

The result?  Magnificence.  The Kitten worked her ass off and decorated our house beautifully.  I handled the alcohol, the caterer and the parking guy.

Only problem was, my physiology decided to get in the way.  I awoke yesterday and began to distribute bodily waste through all available exits.  At 1130, after a trip to the Acme and a parking lot vomit, I came home and told the Kitten I was going to bed for two hours.  The party started at 3, so that meant I was stiffing her in the home-stretch.  Not my best moment.

Our party was 3-7; I made it until 5pm.  I said goodbye to a few good friends and family members, then went up to bed--yes, once again stiffing the Kitten.

I awoke today at noon, weakened and dehydrated, but generally better.

For those of you who came and either didn't see me or saw me walking around like something from a Stephen King novel, I am sorry.  I hope you enjoyed yourselves.

The Kitten?  She outdid herself.  She never wanted to have the party in the first place, but she did it for me.  And I took a knee.

Hopefully a better performance next year.

All We Need is Hate

As any good amateur cultural anthropologist knows we are all tribalists. Given our heads we will divid ourselves into overlapping clans, groups, sub-groups and bands. It just our nature. We all want to fit in, to get along, have group protection etc. CW belongs to the "ex-Navy" clan, the "UVA" clan, the "owns an up-scale European car and you don't" clan and the "short guys who buys their suits at Joesph A. Bank" clan. Some groups are more cohesive than others. Some have a real, formal structure and some don't. Some offer tangible benefits some don't.  I doubt I could walk out of a cigar store and ask a fellow patron whom I had never met to loan me twenty bucks because we both like Cohibas, but if we were both Freemasons and I had good reason, maybe so.

But we can be defined by what we aren't (or don't want to be) as much as by what we are (or want to be). The Democrats have done an amazing job of bringing all sorts of groups into the "Against Hate" tribe. Of course there are all kinds of sets and subsets of this group, and they can be redefined, repositioned and re-prioritized at will. For example let's say the high priests of the clan "Against Hate" wants to promote gun confiscation. Now you may have members of "Against Hate" who aren't that keen on the idea, but do care about racism (a subset of "Against Hate"). So you redefine gun-control as racist: e.g. Chicago Police Commissioner Garry McCarthy "Federal laws...facilitate the flow of illegal firearms into our urban centers...that are killing our brown and black children." So, if you're against racism then you must be against guns. And the beauty of it is, this shell game can be played with just about any issue from taxes to abortion, you name it. The effect is if you oppose Democratic policies you are not a member of "Against Hate" therefore you must be a member of "For Hate", which is usually designated as "Republicans" with all their subsets like the Tea Party, the NRA, white males (subset rednecks), fatty foods, fossil fuels etc.

Now you may can see through all this nonsense, but this is the age of the "low information" voter. This is just marketing to and motivating consumers to buy, as any good advertiser would do with any product be it toothpaste or cars or erectile dysfunction drugs (not that I would know anything about those). They don't sell Budweiser as the beer of overweight lumps farting in their Lazy Boy, they sell it as the drink of choice for young guys chatting up hotties in a single's bar. They sell to our aspirations first, our prejudices second. Ronald Reagan positioned the Republican Party as the "Americans for the American Way" clan and the Democratic Party as the party of special interests against the "American Way".  Race-hustlers, radical feminists, appeasers and peaceniks were all subsets of the Democratic Party; and against "Americans for the American Way" whatever party you identified with.

Conservatives better get busy cracking this nut rather than bending over backwards individually with this "I'm a different kind of Republican" rubbish. If you're in the tribe you're in the tribe, so either redefine perceptions or the Democrats will be right when they say the Republican "brand" is dead.



         

Two Random Thoughts

I'm supposed to be helping the Kitten prepare for our Christmas Party tomorrow (sorry if you weren't invited, must have been an oversight), but two things are on my mind and worth sharing:

1.  Increasing unmarriedness of American society.  Read this article last night--about the rise of unmarried America.  It begins to become clear to me that the more "single" America becomes, the less responsibility its citizens feel to future generations, and the more they feel that government owes them something in the here and now.  This is not a good trend for our country.

2.  I keep coming back to this abortion/gun control nexus.  In 1973, the Supreme Court pulled off one of the most tortured, contrived, and irresponsible decisions in its history, to wit Rowe v. Wade.  In it, the justices found that a woman had a constitutional right to an abortion though the practice and thought never occurred to the founders.  Instead, they found the "right" within the "penumbra" of the right to privacy.  So be it.  But with guns, the founders were EXPLICIT.  There really is no serious debate, and the Supreme Court has time and again upheld this explicit, individual right.  So why is it that the left--who hold up the fragile, tenuous, ridiculously argued and constitutionally specious "right" to an abortion--cannot seem to get its collective mind around the far more explicit right to bear arms? 

Obama Takes Us Cliff Diving

Well, if there were ever a doubt what the President's political strategy was in the "fiscal cliff" deliberations, there can be no more.  His strategy boils down to this:  1) Maximize new revenue from increased tax rates 2) minimize spending cuts 3) minimize any structural changes to entitlements and 4) create as much political trouble for the Republican Party as possible.  Anyone who believes the President was negotiating in good faith simply hasn't followed the story, and they are simply not capable of being convinced.

Read this story from this morning's Washington Post on how things unraveled last night.  It really is quite evident the extent to which the President held the whip hand, and how far Boehner was going to get a deal.  The Problem was, Obama isn't interested in a deal.  At least not one in which his opponent survives to fight another day.

Barack Obama has seized this moment to exact as much political damage as he can upon the Republican Party.  He can do this for several reasons: 1) he is in a good position 2) he does not mind going over the cliff at all--it provides him with a ton of revenue, significant debt reduction and serious defense spending decreases--what's not for a Democrat to love and 3) he knows that if he waits long enough, he'll get what he wants.

I have to hand it to President Obama--he is playing a strong hand flawlessly.  He will achieve his political goals here, but it will be a Pyrrhic Victory.  The country will suffer as a result of the President's inability/unwillingness to deal with structural holes in long term entitlement spending.  He will no longer be in office when this harvest is reaped. 

And don't come at me with these "Boehner's caucus is a bunch of right wing loonies who he can't even control".  Plan B failed because it asked people who are ideologically disposed to vote against tax increases to increase taxes without ANY SPENDING CUTS from the President.  This is on the President--had Boehner gotten ANYTHING on spending cuts, he could have gone to his caucus and made a case. Read the article posted above--his adversary at the negotiating table gave him nothing. 

On Newtown

In a conversation this morning with my brother Sean, he he noted correctly my silence thus far on the tragic events of last week in Newtown, CT.  Like the rest of America, I was deeply saddened and then enraged at the senseless killings.  Words have not suggested themselves until now, largely because I had not thought through the horror.  After some deliberation, I have a few thoughts--some directly connected to the murders and some that suggest themselves as a result of the discourse raging in the media these days.  Much thinking remains, and I have more questions now than answers. 

First, I remain far less enamored than most conservatives of the Second Amendment as currently written.  I have written here before that the presence of so many guns in our society--both legally and illegally owned--is problematic and directly contributes to the culture of violence from which events like Newtown are spawned.  I depart from the vitriol of the moment by saying that there really is one and only one answer to this, and that is to change the Constitution. Our Founders gave us this magnificent document with enshrined liberties codified in the Bill of Rights, and they gave us methods of amending it.  I am amused by the propensity of some who would cry from the highest mountaintops "freedom of the Press" when national security secrets are leaked, but who look at the protection given to those who would own guns by the same document as being somehow less legitimate. 

There was no shortage of serious gun control laws on the Connecticut books--yet this tragedy still occurred.  Banning guns--besides being unconstitutional, seems unlikely to do anything but remove guns from the law-abiding.  But--there HAS to be more that we can do that can make 1) the number of guns in circulation decline and 2) make it more difficult for those that are in circulation to be used in violent crimes.  Three ideas suggest themselves.

First--why not tax guns and bullets, heavily?  What you tax, you seek to discourage, and I seek to discourage the proliferation of guns.  I support the individual right to keep and bear arms, and I do not consider taxation to be an "abridgement".

Or maybe--as a formerly conservative now totally gone squishy left-of-center buddy of mine has suggested--we should require that every gun purchased be covered by a liability insurance policy, one that could provide compensation to victims of crimes aided and abetted by the gun.

Perhaps we could have the same checks we use for the purchase of firearms applied to the purchase of ammunition?

"But CW, all you are doing is punishing the law-abiding.  Criminals would neither pay the tax nor the insurance premium."  Yes.  I understand that.  But I continue to believe that the presence of guns in the hands of criminals is DIRECTLY RELATED to the presence of guns in the hands of the law-abiding.  Fewer guns owned by the law-abiding WOULD EVENTUALLY mean fewer owned by criminals.  Wouldn't happen overnight, and of course, there would be situations like Chicago--in which the law abiding have trouble owning weapons but criminals don't--but Chicago's would be less likely if these policies were implemented nationally. 

Let's talk now about hypocrisy, shall we?  I love seeing the Hollywood elite come out of their chalets to decry the violence of Newtown and demonizing the NRA and its members--whilst flooding the culture with movies and other media in which gunplay/murder/and violence are glorified. 

Or, there is the hypocrisy of the liberal elite in its wailing for the murder of 20 children in a classroom without a second thought for the 3000 children killed in utero every day.  Not the same thing, I understand.  But not different enough to be dismissed, the "innocence" of the victim being well established in each case.

Finally, there is the discussion of guns in schools, which is one that causes even reasonable liberals' heads to explode.  Would the presence of an openly armed guard have dissuaded Mr. Lanza from his crimes?  Would an armed guard have been able to save the lives of ANY of the people killed in this instance or in other school shootings?  Would a teacher or administrator with a concealed carry permit have been able to mitigate this tragedy?  The inability of the left to calmly and rationally discuss these issues is one that I find incredibly frustrating.  We make laws that designate areas as "no gun zones" and then expect murderers to follow these laws. 

As for the demonization of the NRA....I don't think conservatives are on the right side of this one.  Let's look at the NRA's "liberal" counterpart, the ACLU.  Conservatives LOVE to demonize the ACLU for doing essentially the same thing as the NRA does--and that is, advocating for constitutionally protected individual rights.  Time for conservatives and the NRA to put on their "big boy pants" on the abuse.  That said, it is notable that the ACLU -- whose mission is the following:  "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country" chooses to ignore the second amendment almost completely. 

Let's Ban Schizophrenia

Ok full disclosure, I have an autistic kid. If you know anything about autism you know it's a spectrum disorder that can go from the, I suppose non-sentient (who knows) to the socially awkward, ultra-nerd. My kid is about in the middle. I've been around families with three autistic kids that pretty much screamed day and night so I'm thankful for what we have. My son can do math, read and write (if that's what you want to call it) but he will never hold a job. Left to his own devices he would happily spend his days playing video games (racing games, geography games: NO SHOOTERS!), looking at books, eating Doritos, grapes and Hershey bars (it seems) and harassing daddy to bring him out for a grilled cheese sandwich. He can be very belligerent but is never violent. The worst he'll do is slam doors and stamp his feet. He hates swearing and will demand you stop immediately, loves rock music (Bon Jovi, it's his mother's fault!) and Aquafina water bottles (don't ask).

The reason I bring this up is according to press accounts the shooter in this latest mass murder had Asperger's Syndrome. Now someone with Asperger's is at the top of the spectrum. They are for all intents and purposes normal (my wife hates that word) but just really, really nerdy! I have an Asperger's guy who comes in and does some data entry for me and he's a really sweet kid. But he wants to "hang out" and watch Ironman movies and such. I even watched half of The Avengers with him a couple of weeks ago because it's hard to tell him, well you know. But his parents know he's safe and they're nice folks so I can see myself watching Spiderman III sometime in the near future. I asked him a while ago how he likes being out of high school. He said he didn't miss school at all and there are probably a lot of people there who were glad to see him go. That's heartbreaking to me. He wants to be sociable, and he's interested in girls (I can tell) but he simply does not know how, and he has the awareness to feel rejection. So in a way my kid is the better off.

Now Asperger's is not exclusive of mental illness. This young man in Connecticut may have slipped into schizophrenia or some other mental pathology. The fact is we are all mad given the right conditions but I think the worst is social isolation. We've all seen the conditions some prisoners of war have endured but if they do it as a group they're usually ok. It's that group support that gets them through. But if you isolate someone, that can be the worst for one's mental health. And I suspect that's what happened to this guy. He had no friends, no future (as he saw it) and slipped deeper and deeper into the abyss. And as Nietzsche said "If you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."

Have a look at the last few mass killers. In Aurora, Co. the guy was obviously intelligent, he planned the attack, booby-trapped his apartment, and he was crazy as a Junebug. Go down the list from the Unibomber to Columbine to this latest tragedy. Is there any doubt these people would have found a way to kill if guns were not available? Not in my opinion. And the ACLU's de facto denial of essential mental health services for folks who desperately need them on the grounds that the incompetent mentally ill choose not to receive those services, is, pardon me but insane.

What I'm saying is these are mental health issues not gun issues. I'm not opposed to reasonable regulation of firearms. If States want to require registration, some weapons training, even require gun-safes if one has multiple firearms then I'm all for it. Now I'm not talking about slow-walking gun permits in places like Chicago or D.C. because the locals don't agree with the 2nd. Amendment. We have a right to own and possess firearms but again reasonable regulation accepted. As a gun owner the last thing I want is the irresponsible use of firearms. I don't want the mentally ill, criminals, felons, the violence prone to have access to firearms. But disarming tax-paying, law abiding America is not the answer.

The Hammer's First Annual Cheerleader Review

As you well know I'm a big proponent of only beautiful, shapely young women being allowed the privilege of representing our colleges and universities as cheerleaders. I have nothing against homely women or skinny women, and I'm not suggesting attractive women are in any way superior apart from their obvious attributes, but I believe cheerleaders are a unique component of American culture which has no equivalent elsewhere in the world. Other sports in other countries have tried to duplicate it, even our professional sports teams have tried, but in the end it all turns into some manner of licentious jumping around before howling drunks more analogous to a strip club than a sporting event. 

And I'm sure you're aware there has been an insidious, subtle subversion of this revered institution taking place behind the scenes these last few years. This is never spoken of. There has been no public debate, no questions or investigations, in fact no acknowledgement that there is even a problem; such is the nature of the politically correct, group-think environment we live in today. Well I for one will not stand for it. I will not acquiesce to some misguided, prudish, expurgated version of the college athletic experience under the guise of "cheerleading is gymnastics therefore a sport unto itself" bulljive. No friends, I stand up for the rights of gorgeous, curvaceous young women not out of some base, lascivious desire but as a celebration of virtuous American beauty that has heretofore set the standard for the world. My task is a lonely one, and I am prepared for a shower of hateful criticism, but I feel strongly about this issue and I will not be dissuaded.

So, let's get started. First let's examine how NOT to do it. I give you first prize for the WORST cheerleaders in the country; the North Carolina State Wolfpack.

Not only is this young women unattractive and flat chested (not that unusual), but her companion is a fat, beer-gutted Sansabelt wearing lump. If I wanted to see fat bastards jumping around I can watch a Jets game. This is appallingly bad and since this is my alma mater it is especially troubling for me.
Now, as you can see, the rest of the ACC ain't much better, apart from (drum roll please)... The Clemson Tigers, who seem to get it. Some are so bad as to be offensive. In fact, I'll venture to say if Mike Nifong had arrested the Duke cheerleaders he'd be Senator today. He would certainly get my vote.

But the best conference is without doubt the Pac 12. And the best of the best are the USC Trojans.

Rest assured I will continue to stay on top of this issue.

Big Fat Friday Free For All

What's got you down this holiday season, friend?  Worried that the rich aren't paying enough income taxes?  Concerned that your idiotic stances on domestic fossil fuel development might actually impede our recovery? 

Talk through it, friends.  We're here to help.

Let's Push Our Advantage

Ok we lost, but not by much. Obama won 51% with what Brit Hume described as the best "get out the vote" effort in the history of electoral politics. And I agree. Factor in the successful cyber-attack on Romney's "Project Orca",  the 2-3-10%(who knows) in voter fraud, the millions upon millions in free pro-Obama media, the changing national demographics and it's surprising Romney did as well as he did. But we are not without resources.

As the map shows, we have 30 Republican governors and Republican control (according to wikipedia) in at least 27 State legislatures. Now Nebraska is officially non-partisan but we all know it's Republican. And in some of these States you can figure the Democrats have at least veto power over most legislation, plus some States (like mine) the cabinet positions are directly elected, so it's not absolute control. But the point is, the closer we get to the people, the more power we Republicans have.

We need to use that power. We should organize those States and go on the attack. We should vote in the State houses calling for fiscal responsibility by the Federal government. It takes two thirds of the State Legislatures to call for a Constitutional Convention and that's one tool we could use to pressure Congress. The Feds are always threatening the States with withholding funds if they don't enact this or that. That tactic cuts both ways. We should threaten the Federal government as a bloc in areas like highway funds and the like. Threaten to withhold taxes to the Feds. What are they going to do, send in the Army? We should attack in the courts on 10th. Amendment grounds. We should not cooperate with Obamacare mandates. We should be a pain in the ass at every turn!

Furthermor we can do things within our own States. We need to attack the underlying cause of the Democrat majority. They own the media, they own big labor but most importantly they own education. We should no longer tolerate the Stalinist discrimination of conservatives on campus. We pay the bills and there is no way a State university faculty should self-describe 85-90% liberal. This is an outrage and it must change. This intolerable situation ripples through all our society and we have allowed this to go on much too long!

The fact is there is a lot of things we can do and should do. The Democrats didn't get in this position overnight. They had an organized, coordinated long term plan of attack, as should we. So, let's stop worrying about the power we don't have and get to work in leveraging the power we do have. In five or ten years we can make the federal government almost irrelevant, just as the founders envisioned.  Let's make them think they lost the election.