Do You Feel Safer?

A new political ad by the Republican party begins by asking, "What are Democrats Doing to Keep America Safe?"

The ad goes on to chronicle events such as the closing of Gitmo, the debate over torture, the President's recent meetings with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, and the infamous bowing incident with the Saudi king.

Sure, it's politics, and that is what politicians do. But to answer the question, I'd have to say that, no, I don't feel any safer than I have done for the past eight years, knowing that our borders are not secure and that south american gangs, drug runners, weapons smugglers, illegal aliens, and terrorists have infiltrated our country.

I don't feel safer knowing that the 9/11 hijackers were able to learn to fly an aircraft, but not bother to learn how to land it, and nobody in our intelligence and security services was curious enough to ask why--despite the fact that reports were submitted.

I don't feel safer knowing that HR45, Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, and the Clinton Assault Weapons Ban renewal bill are both waiting in the wings for the right time for Congress to pass them.

I don't feel safer knowing that the President, in his first one hundred days press conference said about the Taliban's efforts to expand their power base in Pakistan, "I feel confident that the nuclear arsenal will remain out of militant hands." I wish I felt that confident. The Taliban has a base only sixty miles away from the Pakistani capital.

Do I feel safer? No, but there's plenty of blame to go around. I haven't felt safer since Ronald Reagan was president.

Somali Pirate Joke

A guy walks into a bar. The bartender says, "Would you like to try our new drink?"

They guy says, "sure, what’s it called?"

The bartender says, "The Somali Pirate."

The guy says, "What's in it?"

The bartender says... "Three shots and a splash."

Arlen Specter jumps ship

Senator Arlen Specter has announced that he will defect--I mean switch--to the Democratic party. This isn't the first time that a senator has changed parties in mid-term. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colorado) did the same thing back in the nineties when he switched from being a Democrat to being a Republican. of course, we all cheered that one, but the truth is that regardless which way a senator decides so swing, it really is a slap in the face to those people who elected him.

I'd like to see a law passed that prevents politicians jumping across the aisle in mid-term. If they want to change, fine. But do it at election time by running as a candidate for the opposing party. They should not betray the trust of those who elected them. I'm not enthused about passing yet another law. It's been said that you can't legislate morality, but when our politicians don't behave honorably and put the will of the people before their own political gain, what else an we do?

At a time when the Democrats are about one senate seat away from the coveted sixty-vote super majority, it is highly irresponsible of Senator Specter to decide to switch. I believe that we have elections so that the final decision on how much power each party wields is left in the hands of the people, not one senator.

Swine Flu - Just Another (missing) Brick in the Wall

Yesterday, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) posted the following on their website:
"In San Luis Potosi, located in central Mexico, 24 cases of influenza-like-illness, with three deaths, have been reported. And from Mexicali, near the border with the United States, four cases of influenza-like-illness, with no deaths, have been reported.

The majority of these cases have occurred in otherwise healthy young adults. Seasonal influenza normally affects the very young and the very old, but these age groups have not been heavily affected in Mexico based on the information above.

CDC has confirmed that seven of 14 respiratory specimens sent to the CDC by the Mexican National Influenza Center are positive for swine influenza virus and are similar to the swine influenza viruses recently identified in the US among residents of California and Texas.

CDC and state public and animal health authorities are currently investigating 8 cases of swine flu in humans in California and Texas that may be related to cases in Mexico."

In Pakistan, we are seeing the Taliban gradually advance on the capital city of Islamabad. If the Taliban is able to take over the capital, they will eventually be able to control Pakistan, which is a nuclear power.

The Times of London reported last Friday that North Korea is now a fully fledged nuclear power, capable of attacking cities in Japan and South Korea. I think this means that North Korea is also capable of exporting nuclear warheads to the highest bidder--including Al Quaeda.

Mexican drug gangs have no trouble crossing the border into Arizona to operate in Phoenix, which they have turned into the number two kidnapping capital of the world.

Am I paranoid, or does it seem like this is the time to build the wall and actually take control of our borders?

We've already seen the memory loss that some Washington politicians have suffered recently, trying to remember if they we briefed on torture techniques. Imagine how little they will remember about their opposition to beefed-up border security if terrorists smuggle a nuke across the border, and an american city disappears in a mushroom cloud.

Will We See Homicide Bombers in America?

Years ago, when I lived in England, it used to be said that what started in America would eventually happen in England. There's some truth to that, of course, but it works the other way too.

A few days before the Easter holiday, British police in Manchester, England nabbed twelve men, eleven of whom are Pakistani nationals who police believed were plotting a series of homicide bombings in Manchester over the upcoming holiday. (As reported by the London Daily Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5133934/Police-to-continue-questioning-terror-suspects-over-Easter-spectacular-bomb-plot.html )

As we've seen for years in the middle east, homicide (previously referred to as suicide) bombers have been very effective at murdering and maiming innocent people, and promoting their political agenda and terrorist goals through the indiscriminate use of explosives.

But until recently, this particular form of terrorism has been generally regarded as something that only happens "over there" in the middle east. Now, as many of us have expected, it looks like these tactics are going to appear in Europe, and, by extension, may soon be coming to the U.S.A. Of course, the Brits have experienced bombing of innocent civilians before. The Irish Republican Army launched a campaign of blowing up public places both in Northern Ireland and the British mainland back in the 1970s. But leaving a car bomb outside Harrod's department store in London is one thing; walking into a crowded shopping center wearing a vest of high explosive and triggering it at the most opportune moment is much more like launching a guided missile--literally a smart bomb.

Much has been written about the best way to detect a homicide bomber a few moments before they trigger their attack, and the Israelis have developed some good methods to take them down by shooting them. But the Brits don't have as much chance to defend themselves like this because their government doesn't permit them to carry personal firearms; that is verboten. So instead they must rely on the slim chance that an armed police officer will be there, and able to thwart the attack.

God forbid that our terrorist enemies will ever launch homicide bombers on american soil, but with 48 out of the 50 states allowing some form of concealed carry of a handgun for its citizens, the chances are a bit better over here that such a despicable attack might be foiled.

Columbine - Ten Years and a Day Later...

As previous generations can recall where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated, many of us, particularly in Colorado recall where we were on the morning that two sick, murderous teenagers carried out their plan to attack their classmates at Columbine High School. I was a computer consultant, at work in an office in downtown Denver. News began to trickle over the internet as I, and my colleagues tried at first to focus on our work. But as more details of the attack emerged, it became harder to concentrate on anything else. I knew enough people in the area to wonder if anybody I had worked with in the past was, at that moment, rushing to CHS, desperate to know if their child was safe--or not.

It seems with the tenth anniversary that our society has reached a watershed. Some of the survivors, now in their twenties, have declared that the attack will not continue to define them. They will remember the events of ten years ago, but will also put it behind them, and move on with their lives. That may be easier for the classmates of the dead to do rather then the parents. But the fact remains that there is a fine line between remembering, and allowing what happened to define the rest of their lives.

Other people have used Columbine, and other criminal acts like it to advance their agenda of disarming Americans. They have called for everything from a ban on handguns, to a renewal of Clinton's expired [sic.] Assault Weapons ban (the city of Denver still has it's own AW ban in place).

On the other hand, more progressive views have prevailed. We now have laws in 48 of the 50 states that enable law abiding citizens to carry a handgun concealed (CCW) for their self-defense. Has blood flowed in the streets since CCW laws were enacted? No, with the exception of some criminals who were shot when they tried to attack an honest, citizen. In fact, statistics show that those people who are approved for issue of a concealed weapons permit are among the top tiers of law-abiding citizens.

Another important development has been the changes that Law enforcement has made in the way that they deal with school shootings. The most significant changes are improvements in communications between various emergency responders, and changes to the tactics employed against active shooters by the first police officers to arrive at the scene. Prior to Columbine, most cops were trained to secure the perimiter of a Columbine-type incident and wait for the SWAT team to show up. Nowadays, it's typical for departments to train their oficers that as soon as four officers are present, they form up as a team and enter the building. I've personally witnessed one of our local departments training for this scenario, and Rapid Entry Deployment works.

It's easy to take a tragedy like Columbine and simply call for everybody to be disarmed. But that is not a logical, or a suitable strategy. The founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment for some very good reasons that had nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. If we take the disarmament, gun banning argument and apply it to car accidents, for example, nobody would be able to travel long distances quickly. If we applied the same argument to injuries from power tools, construction would take three times as long. Life is full of trade-offs. But trading guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens for perceived safety is a mistake. Ben Franklin talked about that.

I wonder if Columbine would have turned out any differently if a few people with concealed carry permits and handguns had been on-scene when the attack began?

A Follow-Up on Captain Philips and the Pirates

I'm glad to admit that I was wrong. I said that, "sadly, my prediction is that eventually the situation will be negotiated and that large sums of money will pass from the insurance companies to the pirates. And the next day, the pirates will be out on the water hijacking more merchant ships for their cargo or ransom."

I'm so glad that a Navy SEAL team proved me wrong, and that their snipers were able solve the problem with three precisely aimed shots. It's a cheaper alternative than paying a ransom, and it rids the world of three parasites.

Go Navy!

DHS Backpedals on "Rightwing Extremists"

I'm sure that nobody at the Department of Homeland Security could have foreseen the firestorm of protests that a short report on possible threats of domestic terrorism by rightwing extremists has stirred up.

The report implied that military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan might stage attacks in this country: "The possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks"

Today, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano apologized for offending veterans.

It's good that she did that, and the report has been removed from the DHS website, but my question is this: What action has been taken against the person or department that created the report in the first place? Has anyone taken them behind the woodshed for a little discussion about how our veterans have served their country with honor and distinction, and how they are probably the last people who would ever give up their beliefs and love of country to stage any sort of attack?

What exactly is this mindset at DHS, and how pervasive is it?

Economics and Morality

It seems everybody these days has an opinion on how the economy should be fixed. One thing that I haven't heard anybody really discuss is one underlying cause of the mess in which we now find ourselves. It isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, it isn't a capitalist or socialist trait either.

It's been said that when the founding fathers created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they made the assumption that the people of this country were basically moral people; that there were certain basic values of human decency that would prevail in most people's behavior, most of the time.

I'm talking about ideals like Trust, Honesty, Honor, and giving some consideration to the other guy.

If Bernie Madoff had thought for a moment before the first time he ever swindled money out of an investor who trusted him, if Madoff had just said to himself, "I can't steal these people's investments. They trust me to look after their money. They are going to need that money for their retirement." How different might things be? Perhaps that ninety-year old Madoff investor (featured on TV recently) would not have been forced to go back to work bagging groceries so that he can afford to eat.

In 1994, Illinois Congressman Dan Rostenkowski was indicted and imprisoned on charges of trading in officially purchased stamps for cash at the House of Representatives post office and keeping non-existent employees on his payroll. Imagine the how different the situation might have been if the congressman had said to himself, "the people who elected me expect me to behave with honesty, honor, and dignity, and that is what I shall do." But instead, brought shame and mis-trust to the office of congressman.

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Whatever financial hocus pocus our governments--both state and federal--try to conjure up to get the economy back on track, none of it is going to work unless the people in charge at all levels are honorable people who put the good of their country before their own self-interest.

The Founding Fathers understood that. Our politicians, public servants, financiers, and everyone who makes decisions that affect the lives of others need to understand it too.

The Pirate Hostage Situation Off the Horn of Africa

A day or two ago, we had a nasty little hostage situation 350 miles off the coast of Somalia, where four pirates were holding a ship's captain--Capt. Richard Phillips--in a lifeboat that was out of fuel. Thankfully, the ship, Maersk Alabama, was retaken by the crew, and has sailed on to its destination. The Navy destroyer USS Bainbridge is standing watch over the captain.

But here's where the situation begins to unravel: Captain Philips attempted to escape by jumping off the lifeboat and swimming away! Go Captain Philips! That is a brave and ballsy thing to do. Surely we could expect that the security forces monitoring this situation would be ready to assist in such an endeavor? Well, apparently not. The captain was recaptured and brought back on board the lifeboat by the pirates.

As if that isn't bad enough, we now hear that other pirates are converging on the lifeboat, bringing with them dozens of hostages taken from other ship hijackings; sort of a pirate's convention. Now, the Navy and the FBI negotiators will have to deal with additional factors that make this incident much more complicated. The old saying that "He who hesitates is lost" is apparently not one that our hostage negotiators are familiar with. They should follow Captain Philip's example of decisive leadership.

Sadly, my prediction is that eventually the situation will be negotiated and that large sums of money will pass from the insurance companies to the pirates. And the next day, the pirates will be out on the water hijacking more merchant ships for their cargo or ransom.

Diplomats and corporations can discuss and debate all they want. The only real diplomatic policy is the one that the Marines used two hundred years ago. You have to kill enough pirates that the rest give up.

Another Pirate Attack on the High Seas

As I write this, the standoff is still going on between pirates who boarded the merchant vessel Maersk Alabama about 350 miles off the coast of Somalia, and the US Navy destroyer, Bainbridge. The captain of the Maersk Alabama is also the former skipper of the USS Cole. He put himself in the position of becoming the only hostage for the pirates so that his crew could take back their ship and sail on to their destination. So now we have a standoff between a handful of pirates in a small boat, who are holding the captain, and the USS Bainbridge with remote support from the hostage negotiators of the FBI.

So I wonder, how long is the Bainbridge expected to to remain on station, waiting for the FBI to negotiate with a handful of third-world criminals for the safe return of the Maersk Alabama's captain, who has already proved himself to be an officer and a gentleman? Who makes that decision? The FBI? The ship's insurance company? Or the pirates? Putting aside any tactical considerations, such as snipers being able to make precision shots on the pirates from the rolling deck of a ship, why are we waiting? Where is the downside in shooting dead all the pirates clustered around the captain? This situation needs to be brought to an end very quickly. The longer it lasts the less control our people will have over it.

Funny how history repeats itself

"It's the economy, Stupid."

That's the phrase that accompanied Bill Clinton's entry into the White House for his first term as President. The democrat Clinton was president after a republican, George Bush the elder. The U.S. economy was in decline. Now we have another democrat president succeeding a republican president, George Bush junior. Coincidence? Of course. But what shouldn't be coincidence is the dismal state of the economy. Have we learned nothing since then?

Think back to the 1980s for a moment. This was the era of "The Me generation," Remember the movie, "Wall Street," where one of the characters states that Greed is good? Well, the people who were in college then, or starting off in their careers must have taken those sentiments to heart, because a generation later, they are the people running the economy. We have people like Bernie Madoff, who apparently thinks that it's acceptable to defraud people of their retirement savings. But that isn't the entire story. Madoff promised greater returns on investment than other companies. So, many people simply followed their greed for more money and signed over their cash to him. Perhaps if those investors had stopped to wonder why Madoff could offer higher percentages than other institutions, they may have been more cautious about investing with him, or they may have diversified their savings. But no, most of these investors dumped huge sums into Madoff's hands because they allowed greed, not fiscal responsibility, to guide them.

And now we hear that two cabinet nominees have failed to pay all their taxes. I give both these people the benefit of the doubt that they are honorable men who did not deliberately try to avoid paying their taxes. But it begs the question: If you cannot manage your own financial affairs properly, how can We the People expect you to manage your government responsibilities?

But this is all water under the bridge at this point. The real issue now is whether We the People have confidence in the politicians in Washington D.C. to understand the underlying problems in the economy that got all of us into this mess, and then do the right things to fix the problem. This will likely require many of these politicians to make some hard decisions about whether they put their own interests before those of the nation , or not.