Wholesale.....

Linkerage....

• Obama's Military Tribunals- "Their champion has repudiated them once again"
• Critics Still Haven't Read the 'Torture' Memos-

  "Congress required, in order for there to be a violation of the law, that an interrogator specifically intend that the detainee suffer prolonged physical or mental suffering as a result of the prohibited conduct. Just knowing a person could be injured from the interrogation method is not a violation under Supreme Court rulings interpreting "specific intent" in other criminal statutes."

  There's that "specific intent" thingi which I noted that Scott at Powerline and Andrew McCarthy made mention of here. That "specific"--as opposed to "general"--intent concept makes a difference.
  
  And, Oh-By-The-Way, I love the scare quote around "torture" in the title.
• Panetta's Pelosi Smackdown-"Mrs. Pelosi is now caught in a humiliation of her own design that will only escalate if she insists on an interrogation 'truth commission.'" As I said the other day on That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, the typical congresscritter--anc certainly Mrs. Pelosi--wouldn't know the truth if it were a cluebat applied directly to their foreheads.
  
  

More on Torture...

One of the concepts that I've had in mind regarding "torture", but which I've been so far unable to fully crystallize and enunciate is the idea of "intent".

Like all Air Force pilots, I am a graduate of their Survival School. I have undergone many of the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques which were exposed here, but not "waterboarded"--which I presume was part of an "advanced" Survival School that I did not go to.

I'll be the first to say that these EITs are unpleasant, and that given the choice, I would avoid them.

But more on "intent"....

If I take my gun out, and align the sights on the heart of a man, pull the trigger and kill him, have I committed murder?

I say: It depends.

• If I am a madman in a bell tower, then: Yes. This is murder.
• If I am a political assassin, then: Yes, this too is murder, with a political motivation.
• If I am a soldier in the field, then: No. This is part of combat that is expected of every soldier.
• If I am an executioner in a prison, then: No. I am carrying out the sentence of the state (perhaps of my first two examples).

So the reason behind why you are pulling the trigger has everything to do with how we view the act of pulling the trigger. Intent.

So. Regarding "torture", what if we had the following set of questions and answers...

Questioner #1: Are Navy SEALS subjected to waterboarding as part of their training being tortured?

Respondent: No, it's not torture in the legal sense because you're not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally, all we're trying to do is train them --

Questioner #1: So it's the question of intent?

Respondent: Intent is a huge part.

Questioner #1: So if the intent was to solicit information but not do permanent harm, how is that torture?

Respondent: Well, it... uh... it... one has to look at... ah... it comes out to question of fact as one is determining the intention of the person who is administering the waterboarding. When the Communist Chinese did it, when the Japanese did it, when they did it in the Spanish Inquisition we knew then that was not a training exercise they were engaging in. They were doing it in a way that was violative of all of the statutes recognizing what torture is. What we are doing to our own troops to equip them to deal with any illegal act -- that is not torture.

...and...

Questioner #2: Whether waterboarding is torture you say is an issue of intent. If our officers when waterboarding have no intent and in fact knew absolutely they would do no permanent harm to the person being waterboarded, and the only intent was to get information to save people in this country then they would not have tortured under your definition, isn't that correct?

Respondent: No, not at all. Intent is a fact question, it's a fact specific question.

Questioner #2: So what kind of intent were you talking about?

Respondent: Well, what is the intention of the person doing the act? Was it logical that the result of doing the act would have been to physically or mentally harm the person?

Questioner #2: I said that in my question. The intent was not to physically harm them because they knew there would be no permanent harm -- there would be discomfort but there would be no permanent harm -- knew that for sure. So, is the intent, are you saying it's in the mind of the one being water-boarded, whether they felt they had been tortured. Or is the intent in the mind of the actor who knows beyond any question that he is doing no permanent harm, that he is only making them think he's doing harm.

Respondent: The intent is in the person who would be charged with the offense, the actor, as determined by a trier of fact looking at all of the circumstances. That is ultimately how one decides whether or not that person has the requisite intent.

Of course, in this example, Questioner #1 is Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) and Questioner #2 is Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) and the Respondent is Eric Holder in the recent hearings regarding the "torture" question. And equally obvious, I did not come across this by myself, but must credit Scott at Powerline who expands on the point brought out by Andrew McCarthy. They lay out that Holder is aware of the differences between the intent behind waterboarding. They argue that if the intent of the waterboarding is to train, or to gain information, then waterboarding is clearly not torture. If the intent is to cause pain or discomfort, then it is.

Holder is acting politically here, which comes as no surprise.

And on the topic of....

My infrequent postings here, I confess to being amazed that my (very meager) traffic holds steady. I do notice that I'm getting some referrals from comments I've put up here or there instead of the clicks to the pictures I've used swiped from elsewhere on the intertubes.

Ok. I'm outta here. Saturday chores in preparations to a visit to the NRAAM tomorrow (hopefully!).

It was a light blogging week, but....

I just noticed that it has been a week since I put something up here. Its not that I haven't been active on the intertubes...I have. I'm on vacation now, which means I've been catching up on things around the house (a pool repair project, a new door, fixing the lawnmower [again--groan]), preparing for our 25th Anniversary Vacation (Yeah!), studying for recurrent (Boo!), and spending more time on That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named than I should.

All that said, the topic of the week was, still, "torture". It came in many incarnations...from Zero's decision to not release the photos of the "torture", to Nancy Pelosi's continuing down the bizarre path that They-Only-Told-Me-They-Were-Gonna-"Torture"/I-Was-Only-Briefed-That-There-Was-A-Briefing/The-CIA-Lied-"Mislead"-Congress/No-Make-That-"The-Bush-Administration-Lied". Leon Panetta has now found himself involved.

The "Torturous" video here....

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And on That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named "torture" was still the topic. I posted the following over there (de-identified, of course) to one of my die-hard "torture-is-immoral" oppponents (is that an oxymoron?).

Posted By [Me] on 13 May 2009 07:38 PM

Posted By [A guy with similar views] on 13 May 2009 10:07 AM
...[My first name], help me here.

Maybe this is what you're looking for....

Regarding "torture", [My opponent] and his fellow travelers will say...

Posted By [My opponent] on 12 May 2009 10:05 PM

No, what we do to them defines us....

As they gaze at their navels in the search for every one of our imperfections, they fail to wonder:

If we are defined by what we do to them, is our enemy similarly defined by what they do to us?

While, just as in every religious sect, in Islam there are different interpretations of the meaning of religious texts, the Sura 9:29 says...

"You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth - among those who received the scripture - until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly."

...and I have seen this alternative translation...

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are people of the book (i.e. Christians or Jews) until they pay the Jiyza with willing submission and feel themselves subdued."

Also relevant is Sura 9:30...

"They have set up their religious leaders and scholars as lords, instead of GOD. Others deified the Messiah, son of Mary. They were all commanded to worship only one god. There is no god except He. Be He glorified, high above having any partners."

When a Christian or Jew listens to a preacher or a Pope, the Islamists believe that they are blaspheming God/Allah. They call us "polytheists" for employing these intermediaries between ourselves and God. Moreover, whenever we elect people to represent us in a democracy, they believe that we are elevating a man to a place that God ought to occupy.

Christians and Jews share the Old Testament, and therefore the Book of Genesis. In Genesis, we see the story that God created the Heavens and Earth in six days, and on the seventh day He rested. He created a day free of work so that He could stop and appreciate--love--all that He had created. And, of course, one of the things that He created was man. Moreover, man was created in His image. [This idea itself is enough for the Islamists to believe that we are heretics.] But given that we are in His image, one of the things we accept is that we too have a day free of work in which we set aside time to worship Him and appreciate the wider world. But, because God also gave us freedom....we are also free not to worship. That choice may generate some consequences in this life or the next, but the point being that we are free to make that choice in our religious life.

The Islamists don't believe in this freedom, either in the choice of whether to worship or to whom. They believe that Allah determines and controls everything. They believe that the reason that the very molecules in our bodies do not fly apart into a random oblivion is only due to Allah's will. To deny Allah's will, either directly or by maintaining another faith, is blasphemy.

The Islamists also believe that any lands which were ever Islamic are always to be Islamic. The "Israel Problem" is a combination of their quest to reclaim territory and a fight against freedom-loving non-believers.

And speaking of freedom-loving non-believers, the Islamists are almost as unhappy with democratic Muslim states and Muslim states who cooperate with the West as they are with the West itself. They believe that any Muslim who casts a vote is denigrating that which is due to Allah. They were especially incensed at Saudi Arabia for allowing the infidel West to defile their lands in Desert Storm. They remain unhappy that SA does business with the West.

What this all adds up to is that the Islamists believe they have a duty--a religious duty--to fight anyone who denies Allah or Muslims who cooperate with these infidels.

I imagine you're wondering: Why did I take you down this path?

Well, I did this to again make the case that we are in an existential fight against a measurable portion of Islam. Like it or not, we are in the worst sort of war: A religious war. Beyond the lands that the Islamists seek to retake and rule under Sharia, they are also after our religious hearts. They seek to take everything we have: Our lands; our freedoms; and our religions. It is a telling omen that when Steve Centani and Olaf Wiig were kidnapped by the Palistinians in Gaza, one of the conditions of their release was that they were made to convert to Islam at gunpoint. You can pooh-pooh this by reasoning that a forced conversion is not a valid conversion, but how can you be sure? Does not God have the power to recognize conversions? Moreover, this is entirely consistent with how the Islamists view the world. We believe we have the freedom to make our own religious choices; They believe in no such thing. They are completely intolerant.

And when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed sawed off the head of the Jewish Daniel Pearl, he too was being completely consistent. They believe they have the right, and the duty, to rid the world of those who do not believe as they do.

So after we captured Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, we found him to be resistant to all our efforts at getting what he knew. So then we gnashed our teeth and asked the OLC to give a legal opinion on just how enhanced our Enhanced Interrogation Techniques could be. So after we decided how and whether we could waterboard him, he gave up Abu Zubaydah after the EIT. When we captured Zubaydah and found him also resistant to our questioning, we waterboarded him and then Zubaydah gave up KSM. KSM also resisted until waterboarded, and through all these EITs, we learned information that saved American lives.

[My opponent] says: So what? We could have learned what they knew without resorting to these EITs--this "torture". He can't possibly know this. You can never know the conditions on the path that you chose not to take. Moreover, he cannot know the fourth dimension here--the time required to yield the same results if we chose to take some less "torturous" techniques. This is why Zero retains his Jack Bauer exception to the ticking time-bomb scenario. And this also makes those who decried the previous administration over "torture", yet continue to support Zero, hypocrites on this matter.

Christians are commanded to turn the other cheek. Yet we are also allowed to defend our beliefs.

FWIW, if you've reached this far and are interested in more of I've come across here, this post speaks to the Recent Statements of Islamic Ideology as heard through bin Laden and Zarqawi and this post speaks to Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise. I read all of the first and can recommend it, and the introduction of the second and can recommend it to that point.

Public sector pensions....

I know I've spoken to a number of folks at work about the coming bubble in public sector pensions. I've probably also mentioned it in a post or two here, but haven't put in a label to help me find them (fixed now).

But anyway, the public sector is in real trouble. They (we?) are being buried by the obligations for the pensions promised to their employees. In fact, these pensions have been over-promised, and with the fall of the market in which these pensions have been invested, under-delivered.

Vallejo, California is in bankruptcy. George Will obliquely notes that when the Navy closed a facility there, the revenues to the city went down, but the pension obligations did not. I read recently that their median firefighter income was nearly three times that of the median income of a Vallejo resident.

"...An independent citizens’ group, citing information obtained from city payroll records, demonstrated that the median income of a uniformed Vallejo Fire Department official in 2006 topped $157,000, while the median income of Vallejo residents sat around $54,000. The top-paid fire department employee’s W-2 form reported a whopping $359,000 in gross income during his last year of employment, a figure that would appear to guarantee a pension wage equal to or greater than the average enjoyed by his still-working former colleagues...."

California, of course, is itself in budget trouble.

And, here, we see that as part of their reactions to this budget trouble, California is going to let go "nearly 2000 firefighters".

"...About $81 million would be slashed from Cal-Fire's budget, eliminating more than 600 full-time and 1,100 seasonal firefighting positions -- no doubt it will slow response time...."

So, to put two and two together, firefighters are being let go, and those that remain are seeing pressure to their (over-promised and under-delivered) retirement plans.

One has to believe that the police and firefighter forces across the country will have similar issues.

So when the economy continues to tank (as I think it will), when you make that call to 911, will anyone be there to answer?

"This is a time bomb that has been building for years."

[Isn't that a mixed metaphor? I think so, but I've been guilty of these sorts of errors many times in the past, and given that I'm not the best wordsmith, I'm the last one to criticize.]

But, so says an editorial at IBD (seen via Gerard's edge notes).

They are speaking, of course, of the "retirement bubble", or more precisely "the-failure-to-plan-for-your-retirement bubble".

One of my favorite co-posters on That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named has had a frequent theme that our retirement plans are in danger. He believes that we may approach a point where enough Americans are panicked enough about their retirement prospects that they may willingly sign over their 401k and other retirement accounts to the .gov.

With the caveat that I have fallen for conspiracy theories before, I think this is plausible. I think the rebound that the market is currently undergoing is a Bear Bounce. As I write this, the Market as a reflection of the health of our retirement plans has already lost 40% [(Dow 14000-Dow 8400)/Dow 14000]. How will the American people react if they lose another 40% from today's number? I think it is very possible that they (we?) will willingly run into the kind embrace of our Cuh-munnity-Organizer-in-Chief who will promise us a Socialist Workers' Paradise.

Conspiracy theory or not? Plausible or not? I sometimes question the steadfast-ness of Americans to hold on to their freedoms.

The editorial points out that the pension plans at medium and large companies have switched from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. However the editorial does not address the growing burden that public sector retirement plans--defined benefit plans--are facing. California is a harbinger here. When your local fireman or policeman sees his retirement plan fail--as the private world has foreseen--just how willing will he be to answer your call to 911?

Disingenuosity....

OK, I'm pretty sure that's not a word. But if it was a word, it would mean "the act of being disingenuous".

One of the things that bugged me during the Clinton years was the Democrat's defense that we should "Move on. This is a private matter." Well--of course a sexual act, in the workplace, with a subordinate is not "just a private matter". That the act involved a subordinate, and took place in the workplace made it very much more than just a private matter.

Moreover, when Clinton lied about this while under oath, these same defenders would say "Everybody lies about sex." Again--No. Everybody does not lie when confronted with their infidelity. And given that these lies took place while under oath, and given that the liar was an attorney (not to mention the Chief Executive), these lies came with a more foul stench.

Those who were offering these defenses were simply being disingenuous. They were intentionally arguing something that was not being argued to avoid having to defend the indefensable.

So, what brought me to this point?

Today, the conservatives are all up in arms about an amendment to a Hate Crimes bill that would include pedophiles as a protected class. Stop the ACLU. Gateway Pundit. Hannity. JD Hayworth was covering the topic ad infinitum today on his radio show.

Hate crimes laws are stupid on their face. They require an underlying crime and then we have to delve into the thoughts of the accused to see if hate was present or not, and if so, that would warrant further punishment. We are punishing people on something as intangible as their thoughts.

Also at issue is the question of pedophiles. I've got no problem with the legal system punishing someone for sexually abusing children. However, once they have served their sentence, we cannot continue to punish them as pedophiles. If we are convinced that a pedophile can never be reformed, then their sentences ought to be life. If we let them out of prison, they become ex-offenders.

We also have to ask why these crimes need to become federal crimes. Why are state laws insufficient to deal with hate crime?

Moreover, these same Hate Crimes laws set up protected classes, which was at issue today. That issue--should pedophiles be protected from hate crimes--should be obvious.

Yes they should. I disagree with hate crimes laws for any protected class, but if we're going to have these laws, we have to fundamentally believe that no one deserves to be attacked for a perceived identity. This is the essence of hate crimes legislation.

Let's say that a pedophile gets out of prison and moves into your neighborhood. If this were my neighborhood, I wouldn't be too happy about this, but the right answer is to be careful with your kids. You simply cannot justify preemptively beating him up because he used to be a pedophile and he now lives in your neighborhood.

And this is what makes this a hate crime.

The Republicans and conservatives are being just as disingenuous about this point as the Democrats were when they defended Clinton's lies.

Put me down as a....

"Me neither".

Gregory Kane, Washington Examiner:

"...I don’t care that al-Qaeda operatives Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah were waterboarded after Sept. 11, 2001...."

More....

"...We were in a war against terrorists. War is called war for a reason. It’s because nasty things get done in a war, lots of them. The Allies killed hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians in bombing raids during World War II. Should we have NOT bombed Germany and Japan because killing civilians violates our principles and destroys our values?

Or does torture violate our principles and destroy our values while wholesale killing of civilians is acceptable?...

....and, finally....

"...If it’s worth fighting for, it’s worth fighting dirty for."

I agree entirely. If we have something worth defending, we have to stop gazing our our navels and be willing to bring to our enemy a horror they cannot imagine.

h/t HotAir headlines.

Home Depot and Lowe's....

So, anyhoo, I had some errands today that took me initially to Home Depot and then to Lowe's because Home Depot didn't have one item that was on my list.

And as I was in the garden section at Home Depot getting a fitting to fix a leaky hose, I spied a guy reaching for something from an upper shelf and in doing so, exposing his concealed weapon in a OWB black leather holster. [Makes me glad that I carry in a IWB holster.]

And then, as I was driving out of the parking lot a Lowe's, a guy crossed the lane in front of me wearing his sidearm openly.

Maybe not limited to Arizona, but these sights are certainly not seen in many places in America.

Now, if ammo prices would come back to earth, maybe I would get out to shoot more.

A Couple O'.....

Updates....

• I asked here if, given the increasing instability in Pakistan, we weren't developing a plan to go in and grab up their nukes. And now the New York Times is questioning the stability of these same Pakistani nukes.
• And most recently, I noted the "Torture" question circling the lefty drain and the "logic" used by Jon Stewart to, among other things, claim that Harry Truman committed a war crime by dropping the atomic bombs on Japan. You really do owe yourself 17 minutes of your day to watch Bill Whittle take this claim apart piece by piece.

Jon Stewart and Torture....

In preface, I don't like the mixing of politics and comedy. It diminishes the seriousness of the issues in front of us, and many times, in practice, the comedy isn't all that funny.

Further, the prime practicioner of this practice, Jon Stewart, has an irritating "Clown nose on/Clown nose off" approach to his guests. He delivers serious points, but when confronted with serious rebuttal points, he immediately slips into the comedic role. Moreover, Stewart has a very bad habit of filibustering the people who he invites as guests, leaving his viewers with an uneven, if not one-sided debate.

But here is Stewart's Daily Show session with Cliff May, introduced as the head of "The Foundation of the Defence of Democracies".

Part 1

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 1
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Part 2

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 2
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Part 3

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Cliff May Unedited Interview Pt. 3
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis First 100 Days

Stewart at 1:20 of Part 2 brings up the issue of whether dropping the atomic bomb on Japan was tortuous. May gets Stewart to say at 5:55 that he thinks that Truman was a war criminal for dropping the atomic bomb. Wow.

The point that I would have liked to see May use to rebut Stewart regarding the atomic bombs is that when we dropped those atomic bombs, we saw the rate of civilian casualties drop. Our campaign of firebombing cities was causing more casualties than our use of the atomic bombs. How can Stewart claim that we were immoral by dropping the atomic bombs, but avoid the greater casualties we were bringing the Japanese through firebombing?

At 3:00 of Part 2, Stewart asks if it is "OK that we violate every ethical standard that this country has been based on, and even if by doing so, people are still going to die...." and he answers (or more correctly, filibusters) his own question with "I'd rather hold my head up high, and say as a country, 'We lived up to the ideals of our Founding Fathers, the Constitution, and the family of nations [whatever that means], and not gone past the point that would bring most people moral concern...., why can't we do that to every criminal in prison'...."

Here's the problem with that approach....

• First of all, it is an ethical standard of this country to do what is necessary to protect its citizens. Killing is immoral, but that is not an absolute. We make no apology for killing our enemies.
  
• "Moral Concern" is not universal. It is immoral in most Western cultures for a man to have multiple wives. In other cultures, that is not the case.
• The "why can't we do this to every criminal in prison" point is completely disingenuous or reflective of someone who doesn't understand what is going on here. A Prisoner of War is not necessarily a criminal. We're not holding him because he has violated some law. We are holding him to keep him off the battlefield. [And this bypasses completely the point that May makes that these al Qaeda prisoners do not qualify as POWs. They are "illegal combatants"--a point touched on in this interesting article, which I only skimmed. ] Stewart makes the mistake of substituting law enforcement for war. We are back to 9/10.
  

At 4:04 of Part 2, May makes a very good point regarding that we do use lines between coercion and torture, where those lines are and where they ought to be.

At 2:42 of Part 3, Stewart suggest an alternative to torture that we need to get better information by learning Arabic, learning more about the culture, and otherwise avoiding the need to resort to "torture". What he is missing is the 4th dimension--time. If we are faced with the Ticking Time Bomb scenario, we don't know if we have the time to get the information we seek by asking nicely. Stewart would sacrifice American lives to give us that time.

Stewart engages in what I have elsewhere labeled as "Navel-Gazing". He believes this is all about us and how we believe others perceive us. It is not about our enemies, or how they are behaving.

h/t Tigerhawk, via Ed Driscoll and Glenn.

Pakistan....

A couple of days ago, I was involved in an email exchange with an internet-friend who has long said that the next big war--and perhaps an apocolyptic war--would begin in Pakistan.

I responded that what is really needed is a plan to go in and grab up their nukes. However, I added that I don't think that Zero has the stones for any such thing. It is not his style in the least. He is too busy spending money that we don't have for programs that we don't need, not to mention his penchant for nationalizing wide swathes of our economy. [I digress.] More to point, SecState Clinton has said that "'we can’t even contemplate' the consequences if the Taliban were permitted to overrun nuclear- armed Pakistan". But, according to one of my favorite milblogs, we had better be contemplating precisely this possibility.

I pointed out in my email that given the risk that a Taliban nuke would give to the world and the West, perhaps a wise military unit would be preparing for just this sort of mission--with or without West Wing approval. And, that brings up a whole new set of unsettling, or "unthinkable" questions.

So, what do I see this morning in a HotAir headline?

"Petraeus: Next Two Weeks Critical to Pakistan's Survival"

"...Petraeus also said wearily that "we've heard it all before" from the Pakistanis and he is looking to see concrete action by the government to destroy the Taliban in the next two weeks before determining the United States' next course of action, which is presently set on propping up the Pakistani government and military with counterinsurgency training and foreign aid...." [my emphasis]

Question: Are we telegraphing/threatening just this sort of move? Is Petraeus reading my mind?

OK. Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon....

....I'm claiming the copyright to the words "President Turtledove".

Yep....

We are in the very best of hands. This is the Vice-President of the United States of America woofing down on his double dip.

h/t-hillbuz, via ace.

Related: "What if Biden's the smart one?"

To my tens and tens of readers....

Most of you stop by via a link to some picture I've swiped from the intertubes somewhere, but for those who actually come here for the dreck I write, I've got "personal stuff" going on right now, and posting will be light....very light.

I may or may not share that "personal stuff", although at some point I'm pretty sure I'll return to more active posting.

Another in a series of scenes from a Layover....

So there I was, checking into the hotel in Orlando, when the first thing I see is.......

A Pokemon convention.

A roomful of 8 year old boys playing a game with dice and cards. However, two sub-groups caught my eyes.

• The 14-16 year olds who brought out the question: "Do you guys ever expect to get laid? Ever?"
• The 30-somethings who brought out the question: "Are you some kind of pervert, or what?"
  

A random thought....

Last night, Fox News--as they should be--was all over the story of the SEAL snipers shooting the three Somali pirates and the rescue of the kidnapped Capt. Phillips. O'Reilly touched on it, as did Greta (Prolly others too. I forget who now). They were amazed that these shots could be made. Don't get me wrong--three simultaneous shots from a platform which is moving with the sea to an enclosed lifeboat which is also moving with the sea onto targets which are certainly moving inside the lifeboat is an amazing feat. But this is something that we hire--and train--SEAL snipers to be ready to do.

One of the former-SEAL guests on Fox last night explained how the SEALs got onto the ship. His explanation was something that rang familar to me. In my past life as a C130 pilot, we called this a "Duck Drop".

A SEAL inflatable boat is rigged with a parachute. The SEALs and this boat are loaded into a C130 and they head off for their drop zone. They drop the boat into the water, followed shortly thereafter by the SEALs. The SEALs swim to their boat, de-rig the parachute, and head off for their target--in this case the USS Bainbridge. They would, of course, do this all at night and would approach the Bainbridge from the side away from the lifeboat.

End result: One SEAL team inserted onto the Bainbridge without the pirates knowing.

As for the shooting, as I have explained, that everything involved was moving makes for the amazing part. However, for those who do not shoot, a 25-30 yard shot with a scoped rifle is a piece of cake. I--more of a pistol shooter than a rifle shooter--could get a completely inexperienced shooter to place their shots onto a non-moving target at twice that distance in a couple of hours. For the SEAL snipers, this was routine. Making those simultaneous shots at 500 or 600 yards would earn them "props" (no pun intended) inside their world, but I would imagine that the short distance involved here would mean they would be forever chastised if they hadn't made the shots.

There were apparently two sets of orders from Zero on this. Why two? What changed from his first orders to his second? The citation here makes it seem as though the arrival of the SEALs changed things. Maybe so.

But my random thought here was political. Phillips had tried to escape once earlier in his captivity. And the pirates had already shot at the Navy with no return fire delivered.

I'm glad things "ended" as they did. There is still the question of what to do with the captured pirate. He is apparently quite young, but he is still a pirate. The "foreign-policy-as-law-enforcement" will be their first approach, but giving this pirate too many "rights" has a downside too. Then too are the foreign policy issues: Despite the thriving business that Somalian piracy has become, many countries have had much more aggressive stances on this than we have. India sank a pirate mothership. The Saudis have had their success. The Germans too. And of course, the French (!) have an aggressive rescue policy.

I'm just playing armchair political observer here, but might it be that the second set of orders came after Zero had received advice (Rahmbo?) to make this situation go away or face being the President who allowed four skinny Somalians in an out-of-gas lifeboat to face down his U.S. Navy?

You have got to be freaking kidding me².....

$92 for a box of 1000 small rifle primers, which are unavailable, but listed at Midway for $27.99.

You have got to freaking kidding me......

9mm plinking ammo at nearly $22 a box. At least they have some, which is more than can be said for most ammo retailers, but this is ridiculous.

I am hoping that ammo (and ammo components) is doing today what gasoline did last summer.

Naturally, I blame Obama.

"Surviving in....

"....a post-American world". Well said.

h/t neo-neocon.

On Obama and Pirates....

Jon over at Exurban League has a wickedly cutting take on Obama and the current crisis with Pirates. The fellas over there are getting all sorts of attention for this, from a mention on Hugh Hewitt's show to another mention on Rush's show to a hit on HotAir's headlines. It is quite a funny bit, and you ought to take some time to read it.

However, I'd like to take the question a bit more seriously.

There are all sorts of comments here and there in the 'sphere to the effect that we can't take action to free Capt. Phillips without unnecessarily endangering him. Apparently, he has tried to escape, only to be recaptured.

I think we are missing a crucial point: Shipping in the area is already in danger. There are reports of as many as 200 hostages being held from as many as a dozen ships. Each one of these hostages is being held in as real a threat to life as Capt. Phillips is enduring.

The Somali pirates are Muslim, but the point of their piracy seems to be financial rather than the political aims of the al Qaeda terrorists. This, I think, is a distinction without a difference.

As I admit to in the sidebar, I am an airline pilot. And here is what I know.....

Federal Air Marshals and Federal Flight Deck Officers (armed pilots) are on commercial flights today because aviation remains in danger from terrorists. These law enforcement officers are there to keep someone from taking control of another airplane. If there is no FAM or FFDO onboard, the American passenger should know that the government of the United States will send fighters up to keep a hijacked airplane from another 9/11 attack. The government, in one capacity or another, will act to keep that from happening. Allowing another airplane to be hijacked is unacceptable.

In the not-so-distant past, we had a religious group resist a search by the BATF and barricade themselves inside their compound. There was a whole host of things the government did wrong leading up to the search. I've always believed that because the Branch Davidians were harming no one with their peculiar apocolyptic views, that they should have been left alone. That said, the government should expect, once shots have been exchanged, that everyone involved should respect the law enforcement and legal system, and the Davidians clearly did not do this. At some point, the government decided to send in the tanks.

Whenever I fly, I know that a law enforcement officer might have to shoot someone. And as a shooter, I know that sometimes bullets overpenetrate or completely miss their targets. Further, as I have said, if there are no government shooters on a hijacked flight, everyone should know that it is likely that an Air Force fighter will shoot that plane down rather than allow it to impact another American target. In the interests of the larger good, we have to know that the passengers are expendable.

Captain Phillips, having already demonstrated his honor by exchanging himself for some of his men, and his bravery with his escape attempt, will also know that he is expendable.

This piracy cannot continue. That the failed state of Somalia has created the incentive for these criminals to enter into their piracy is no excuse for us to tolerate it. The French (!) have already been more bold than we have been, and the Chinese are flexing their muscles in the Indian Ocean. We must end this thing, even if it means that some innocents are hurt or killed. Allowing skinny Somalians to standoff against the US Navy is unacceptable.

"This is not a failure of regulation of any kind, particularly of banking...."

....Rather, it’s a failure of over-regulation and a lack of free markets.

I so wish....

....that this sort of thing surprised me. But I'm afraid it doesn't.

Obamas fly in chef 860 miles... just to make pizza

h/t JammieWearingFool, via a HotAir comment to President Pantywaist.

A Little Gun-Bloggin'.....

So anyhoo, yesterday I had the chance to make it out to Dillon Precision for more "stuff" for the RL-550B that Mrs. Azlib got me for Christmas.



I picked up a couple of sets of dies and caliber conversion kits, an extra quick change assembly, and a video detailing how to assemble and set up the press.

I can tell already: Reloading is requiring a steep up-front investment. The press ran the Mrs. $390 or so, and I spent $355 yesterday, and I'm not nearly done. To complete the Dillon hardware I have in mind, I've still got to get a scale (prolly electronic) and maybe their case trimmer, not to mention the odds-and-ends like a bullet puller and a reliable set of calipers (at a minimum). I'll have a $1000 into this thing before I reload the first round. Once I've got that taken care of, I've got to finagle a space to do this work. My first choice (outside building the backyard workshop/storage shed that the wife and I discussed last week) will be to use the "bar" area of the house. That idea prolly isn't going to float (she's got plans for that space already), so I'm left with recovering some garage space for a decent reloading bench. And that will require getting rid of crap cleaning up the things that have accumulated in every corner of my garage.

And then come the components, which have been lately hard (read: "impossible") to find.

The savings of reloading vs. buying factory ammo is substantial, but I still have to get up that slope. I imagine I'll enjoy the reloading, and will certainly enjoy the more-frequent shooting that reloading will allow (not to mention missing the frustrations of ammo unavailability), but this will require some work to get me there. Ah...just what I need: Another project.

However, I also had the opportunity yesterday to stop by the Scottsdale Gun Club.



If you've never been, the SGC is a first-class operation, as you would expect to find in tony Scottsdale. They too are suffering from a shortage of ammo, but otherwise were quite busy. The reasoning behind why gun shops across the country have been busy has been well discussed.

But along these lines, I ran across another in a series of Things-I-Never-Thought-I'd-See....



You can click this cell-phone photo to see what caught my eye. There, in the lower left window of the Suburban in the foreground, is an Obama/Biden sticker. The folks who got out of the Suburban, looking to be a grandmother, a mother, and two teenaged kids, are either the most-clueless fools on the planet, or some of the bravest. I really don't know what to make of their California license plate (which I have obscured). Are they vacationing/visiting from out of state and hoping to take in some forbidden taboo? Was one of the kids researching the guns that are available in nearby Arizona for some term paper? Or are they just generally clueless about the connection between the idiots that they support and what goes on inside the SGC?

Teleprompter Jesus....

...A richly-deserved term for Zero's habit of relying on his teleprompter to tell him what is on his mind, is now morphing into....

President Strawman. Once again, Zero erects the strawman with the implication that "the Bush administration was fighting Islam", and now President Strawman will reverse course and knock that strawman down.

[OK. OK. OK. It's only 8am and I see I've already used up my daily quota of mixed metaphors. Gotta work on that.]

And speaking of....

Gerard....

Go ahead, I dare you.

Just try to get through this video without smiling.

You know.....

I don't know why, but I guess I have to wonder just what came in this box. I can't help it, but the answer that keeps popping into my head is.....

Ammo.

h/t: Gerard.

A note to mark....

....the passage of a (very) small milestone: On checking my Sitemeter stats, I found that I was the 6000th visitor to my humble blog. I am still getting a (relative) ton of my visitors from the two Michelle Obama photos I used a while back. If you're here via these photos: Welcome. This is my humble effort at chronicling my views of the world, and I'm glad you stopped through. I don't pretend to be influential in the least.

On my previous mention of computer problems.....I am still battling this thing. This evening, I had an update to Adobe Flash that would not install completely, and would lock up the computer completely. After three attempts at installing this stupid thing, I did a System Restore. I am now running both a Webroot Antivirus scan and a Trend Micro Internet Security scan, and these two things in conjunction with Mozilla is bringing this thing to a crawl. Hope things improve.

Hey. What could possibly go wrong?

Should Obama Control the Internet?

h/t Hotair headlines.

My recent absence....

....was due to my previously cited spring-time busy-ness, and a laptop acting up to the point of hiring a hacker computer expert to fix it.

Back to normal now, though. [Well, "normal" being a relative term, I guess.]

Reinforcing my 3½ Minute Rule on YouTube videos...

You really should take a look at this one....



Where is our American version of this guy?

Seen on a number of blogs, but I first watched it via The Anchoress, who, although I am not Catholic, writes a wonderful blog.

20 Minutes.....

It is kind of an unwritten rule that a You Tube should not be more than 3 minutes long. Put up an 8 minute video and your audience will click off at 3½ minutes. On our own, we have exceptionally short attention spans, and much of the internet does nothing to improve this.

But you should find a way to book 20 minutes of your life away from everything else to enjoy Mike Rowe.



From the always-interesting Gerard.

This was kinda scary....

....Not in a dangerous way, and I have to admit I am partially bragging on this point.

I went to the IDPA match last night. It turned out to be the night they shoot under USPSA rules, so it was a little different than I am used to.

The scary part was that there were 4 cops there. I felt like that scene in Magnum Force...



These guys shot OK, but not nearly at the level that you'd expect cops to perform at. I suck, and being a fat guy twice their age who shoots better than they did (and who kept my gun running flawlessly the whole night) ought to make these guys think a bit. It sure made me think: Lord, don't ever let these guys pull their guns near me.

[R]ecent lawlessness, situational constitutionalism and institutional derangement....

Which George Will says describes the Congress in the first days of the Obama administration.

Go. Read it.

I'm beginning to get a suspicious feeling.....

And not just the same "I-Hate-Obama-and-Everything-He's-Doing" feeling. If I'm counting things right, he still has 18 vacancies to fill at Treasury. Geithner is a one-man act, and it isn't going well: They're developing a plan on when to plan to tell us about their plan for the economy. I'm betting that half of these vacancies are due to some of the problems (primarily past taxes) that brought the Zero administration so much attention earlier, but there may be some vacancies due to either Zero being unable to find capable person for the jobs or a willing approach to leave the jobs open. There are calls for Geithner's head, of course, but paradoxically, the vacancies at Treasury almost ensure that no matter how badly Geithner may be handling things, his job is safe.

Whatever the case, Geithner (and by extension, Zero) are handling things badly. The economy is in bad enough shape that this cannot be a one-man job for very long. Geithner will have a heart attack before we get things fixed....there is simply too much to do. Zero had better start something else before Geithner strokes out or something.

Hey! Look!....

Zero's wearing his flag pin!



Swiped from these knuckleheads, courtesy of Ace's sidebar.

The Nose on Your Face....

Swiped from Iowahawk, who is about the funniest guy on the intertubes.

You simply must...

Click Here: What will history say about Obama?

[And damn my poor bloggin' skilz. Somebody knows how to grab that photo and link it along, but it ain't me.]

"Pakistan Implodes"

Via Glenn, I see Richard Fernandez of Belmont Club offer...

"...The reason the Pakistani crisis seems to be coming out of the blue is because Washington is preoccupied by so much else. The world is still dangerous; perhaps even more so today than when George W. Bushchimp left office to the delight of so many on the Left. But contrary to expectation, America’s enemies did not stop their depradations upon the ascension of The One...."

Zero is being mocked by the Associated Press. He's in over his head, which is something that we who were his opponents were saying last summer. His approach on foreign policy--that we can just talk our way into a world of peace and happiness--isn't working with those who really, seriously, oppose us. We have elected a man of little substance, and now we're paying the price for that.

Reason #7012....

....That government management of the economy won't work.

Energy Dept. Said to Err on Coal Project

“This is math illiteracy on a grand scale and with global consequences.”

Folks, when the rocket scientists at NASA can launch into space a huge telescope with a near-sighted lens, and can slam a probe into Mars because they mixed up meters and feet, and now the watchers of a coal project can make a half a billion dollar math error, we ought to call into question the idea that if only we had more regulators--more oversight--more something--we could finally fix our problems.

We can't. Regulations and regulators are fine. They serve an important purpose.

But to rely on them to fix every problem--before they become problems--just doesn't work. Regulators--unlike those inside the industries they regulate--have no direct interest in seeing things actually work. They can make that half billion dollar mistake and keep their jobs. Maybe they won't get that next promotion to GS-XX, but they'll still be employed.

Wh...Wha.....What'd He Say?

Fox News: Obama Considering Deploying Troops to U.S.-Mexico Border

President Obama says he's considering whether to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border...

and simultaneously,

"I'm not interested in militarizing the border."

Can sumbody splain me that?

Channeling my Inner Bonnie Raitt....

♪♫ ♪Let's Give Them Something to Talk Blog About ♪♫ ♪

• WSJ: Islam Should Prove It's a Religion of Peace written by...a Muslim

  ....Many Muslims seem to believe that it is acceptable to teach hatred and violence in the name of their religion -- while at the same time expecting the world to respect Islam as a religion of peace, love and harmony....
  
  ...So, Islamic scholars and clerics, it is up to you to produce a Shariah book that will be accepted in the Islamic world and that teaches that Jews are not pigs and monkeys, that declaring war to spread Islam is unacceptable, and that killing apostates is a crime. Such a book would prove that Islam is a religion of peace.

• WSJ (again): He Says the Darndnest Things About His Life and New Quest
  Stephen Moore interviews Art Linkletter
  

  About Barack Obama, he says: "He's intelligent, a born performer and ambitious, like I was, but that spending bill [the stimulus] is the most terrible mistake in our history. I never thought I would see so much debt."
  
  His passion is Social Security reform. "...At first Social Security was a terrific idea. Give people some financial security in their old age," he says. But the taxes grew and grew over his lifetime -- to 15% from 2% of each paycheck. "And as the time went on, this huge fund became an ATM machine for Congress. And now all they have left are IOUs. Nobody owns anything." He says: "I was one of the first people to ever pay Social Security, at age 22 starting in 1935. But now the program has become a rip-off, just like the guy [Bernard Madoff] who did the Ponzi scheme. We need to stop the congressional raid on the trust fund and turn this tax money back over to individuals so they can own it and control it."
  

[FWIW, my emphases]

Friedman on Libertarianism...

The Debt Star...

Courtesy of The Smallest Minority, one of my favorite 2A and mostly libertarian, and Arizona bloggers (whom I should visit more often).

[And, BTW, the "I have altered the pool" image is one that I once used as my signature image on That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named. That kid still cracks me up.]

A (Very) Little Linkery...

Via Glenn, I see "How to Get Your Family out of a Financial Crisis".

Yes. I see no reason why that won't work.

Savannah & Charleston Report

WifeofAzlib and I had a great time on our little getaway. I liked Savannah more than she did, but we were both impressed with Charleston, and especially our little walking tour.

However, while we were gone, SonofAzlib noticed a little watery sound coming from under the kitchen sink. On exploring, he found one of the sinks was leaking badly, and the entire space was full of a black mold. He (wonderfully) tore out the damaged areas, and now, in addition to a March full of tree trimming, taxes, study for recurrent, manage a dwindling 401k account, truck maintenance, and other chores, I've got to rebuild a cabinet and install a new sink and faucet set.

File this under....

"How can you have a revolution when everyone is watching TV?"

With regard to my previous, I do manage to bounce a bit through the blog world. Today I noticed this, via a comment over at Gerard's house. I agree that we may be facing the need to have a revolution, but that the public may be too lazy to have one.

Recent and forecast posting.....

As a way of providing an explanation to my tens and tens of readers for the dearth of posting here recently, I claim a busy schedule. For most people, the Spring is supposed to be carefree and quite unlike the busy Holiday weeks of Winter.

However, for me, it seems as if each Spring is busier than the previous. We were able to get to see Dau#1ofAZlib in early February, and make a scramble out to our Undisclosed Location in the middle of the month. We're trying to find a way to get our retirement cabin built without driving ourselves into bankruptcy. The Spring is also the time for me to get the oranges off the trees and do whatever trimming they require before the summer months. And, as it turns out, I have my annual Recurrent training to prepare and finish. And WifeofAzlib and I are planning a little excursion to Savannah and Charleston, if her job doesn't interfere too much.

So, this is all a long-winded explanation of why I can go a week or so between posts. I'll get back to this, but for the time being, things will be sparse.

So, anyhooo....

I think I've mentioned somewhere that we are a family with pets. Specifically, a cat and five dogs. Most of these "belong" to WifeofAzlib, but I do claim the one large dog (a yellow lab).

As with children, they occasionally get sick and require a trip to the vet.

Today, it was our littlest dog, Lola, a Yorkie who has been blind for some years. I often joke that she is our dog who needs a seeing-eye dog, but in truth she makes out as well as can be expected. That said, she is a fragile breed with a disability, and as such, WifeofAzlib often pampers her.

However a day or two ago, Lola began to walk in circles and become not responsive to sound. And this prompted our trip to the vet today. Our vet is a dear kind man who has treated our many pets for years. He diagnosed an inner ear problem.

That's not why I write today.

In his lobby, I couldn't help but notice this magazine....



The "Tails" magazine franchise is a complimentary magazine seen in a number of communities meant as a medium for veterinary offices or maybe pet stores. This means that it is high on advertising and low on content.

And Barack Obama graces the cover of this magazine--this free, low-content magazine--in a story telling us how the Obamas going to get a dog for their girls. So, get the girls a dog already. How hard is it? There are about a thousand shelters or breeders who would be happy to put their puppy in your hands. Quit holding out the "hope" [**snicker**] of a dog for your girls and just get one.

And, are there no magazine covers that Obama would turn down?

No. You don't say....

"By a 2-to-1 margin Americans believe that no matter how bad things are, Congress can make them worse."

Also...

"Following passage of the stimulus bill, consumer confidence fell to a record low. It has been falling to new lows will regularity since early 2008. Confidence in the nation’s banking system also has plummeted.

President’s Obama’s overall approval ratings have remained steady and high since his inauguration. However, Republicans have gained ground on Democrats in Generic Congressional Ballot polling.

Most Americans believe tax cuts are good for the economy, and half (48%) say that more government spending is bad for the economy.

Polling last week showed that 67% of Americans trust their own judgment on economic matters more than the trust the average member of Congress. Forty-nine percent (49%) trust their own judgment more than the president’s."

I dunno....

...Maybe its just me, but the first thing I noticed is that their lips are moving.

“...The stabilization of the global economy and financial markets remains our highest priority....”

Also,

"...The authorities are still at a loss on the best course of action 18 months after the credit crisis broke out...."

Noooo. Ya' think?

Personally, I'm of half a mind that they really do know what they're doing--crashing the dollar to bring about the greatest concentration of economic power ever considered.

"...President Barack Obama will pivot quickly...."

"...to address a budget deficit that could now approach $2 trillion this year...."

Why that "could approach $2 trillion this year" isn't italicized and bolded, and followed by an exclamation point is something that I can't understand.

That said, the very idea of such a pivot makes me dizzy and makes me wonder: Now he's concerned about the deficit? What about the "crisis"(!), the "catastrophe"(!!)?



Zero has taken us Off The Deep End. We may have been headed there anyway, but his concern now, that he has his Stimulus package, is duplicitous. But what else is new?

Kevin's....

...Leviathon post. Well worth your time.

I saw this while on the treadmill...

...on my last trip, and it literally, stopped me in my tracks.

"We Are All Socialists Now"

Isn't this what Joe the Plumber exposed?



Not the cover art to the Newsweek story above, but somehow apt anyway....

"...The people who say they are qualified to micromanage the affairs of the world...."

"...can't do arithmetic well enough to be a successful bank teller, and can't figure out whether to put an apostrophe in it is."

I've often had these same thoughts--that those who cannot do, teach, and that those who cannot teach, regulate--but am rarely able to coalesce these thoughts in my own head, much less get them out onto (cyber)-paper.

"...It smacks of an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting held in a bar...."

Courtesy of Glenn, I see that "We're Heading Toward a Global Weimar". I too have a number of disagreements here, primarily with the idea that merging the G-8 and the U.N. Security Council will accomplish anything. The Security Council has little of accomplishment on it's own, and why giving them a role in financial regulation is beyond me.

Its a good thing...

...We have a President who

"...wants to rein in a hyperactive, unitary executive that works to insinuate itself into every nook and cranny by intelligence overreach."

Oh. Wait a minute.

Nevermind.

Obama's NSC Will Get New Power

Zero....

As will surprise no one who has read this blog for any time, I am less-than-impressed with Barack Obama. He is a leftist with ties to Marxists (Alinsky, Ayers), racists (Wright), and idiots (Biden).

But with his first two weeks, Obama has demonstrated one of the traits not commented on widely in recent days: Inexperience with leadership.

Obama has little experience at running anything larger than his former Senate office. His Harvard Law Review days show little evidence of leadership. He is our Community-Organizer-in-Chief, now cast into a leadership role, and he is floundering.

His Cabinet choices are appalling. Clinton is damaged goods (her husband's speaking fees from foreign sources), Holder is a politically-tied Attorney General, Geithner is a tax cheat. Richardson, Daschle and Killefer had to withdraw. His Labor Department nominee is in trouble. These are mistakes that those who have not lead make.

He is being treated rudely by the families of those killed in the GWOT. A leader would know how to assuage these people.

Iran and North Korea taunt him. Is Pakistan deliberately trying to embarass him?

His stimulus plan, while it may pass, has damaged him.

On That-Forum-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named, I have been challenged for addressing Obama as "Zero". However, for a man of no accomplishment, who screws up half his cabinet appointments, who offers no solutions to our problems, who offends the families of our heros, who tin-horn dictators around the world openly mock, the term "Zero" seems to be apt.

His weakness is everywhere.

Told you so.

Peter Schiff Hedges His Opinion....

....Not.

Schiff: "Stimulus Bill Will Lead to 'Unmitigated Disaster'"

h/t Allahpundit over at Hot Air.

Joe Biden:

Dope.
(Image swiped from The American Thinker.)

"If we do everything right, if we do it with absolute certainty, there's still a 30 percent chance we're going to get it wrong,"

Grammys and Oscars....

So yesterday, after landing my flight from JFK to LAX, the lead Flight Attendant told me that we had two nominees on board.

I had noticed the first at the gate in JFK. I'm pretty sure it was George Clinton and a woman I took to be his wife. (The Grammy nominee list is here, but it is not searchable, and I didn't take the time to look at every name. Maybe Clinton is there; maybe not.)



Although he did not have the wigs/hats/etc that he wears on stage, he is still hard not to notice.

As is my habit, I stood in the door to greet as many of our passengers as I could (especially our First Class passengers). I noticed that the Clintons were completely cold to my greeting....not acknowledging me in any way. At the gate in LAX, they were equally cool. They struck me as people who believed they were better than "The Hired Help".

I also noticed a happy, friendly woman who pleasantly acknowledged both the greeting I offered in JFK and my "goodbye" in LAX.

As it turns out, the same Flight Attendant said that she is an Oscar nominee...for cinematography.

Why is it that some people at the pinnacle of their careers can be so warm and happy about it, and others project coolness?

I wish we had been here sooner....

Via Hot Air, I see this WaPo article which headlines...

"Senate Lacks Votes to Pass Stimulus"

This is obviously good news. I've been against these tax incentives/bailouts/stimuli from the start. We have been poorly served, both by the congresscritters and the Fed who have gotten us into this mess, and by the idiots trying to get us out.

I thought I had written about McCain suspending his campaign, but now can't find it. I do remember being alarmed at the stunt. While I could see where he might see the moment as one where he could offer leadership, I thought that suspending his campaign spoke of desperation. That said, a bit more principled opposition to the whole idea of the bailouts would have served us well.

Today, with the backbone that the House Republicans offered a week ago, perhaps the Senate R's will also slow this train down. Before we rush at full speed right over the cliff.

More here, and here.