Applicable reasoning
This is a response to the letter “Support for gun control” (Dec. 29). The writer suggested the Second Amendment was only meant for the weapons available when it was written.
Following that reasoning, the First Amendment only applies to newspapers, since TV and the Internet were not around.
If free speech is only allowed in newspapers, I could see print making a big comeback.
KEVIN LONG
Pfafftown
Resorting to violence
In light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Conn., many people are up in arms with respect to the issue of gun control, as well as the factors that cause people to resort to violence as a medium of expression.
No one needs an assault rifle or an automatic handgun; these are military-grade weapons that need to be kept within the realm of the armed forces. Simply for the purposes of protection, a consumer-grade handgun performs adequately. Further, a handgun is easier to separate from its abuser if it cannot fire off 30 rounds, without reloading, in just a few seconds. A gun that meets the criteria of an “assault rifle” should not be registered to consumers; for people who enjoy shooting for sport, licensed clubs may lease the guns for use inside a closed range.
Another concern is the question, “What causes people to resort to violence?” The answer is simple: mental health and emotional disturbance. Through many budget cuts over the years, there are very few government-funded mental-health institutions remaining, and the majority of insurance providers and employers no longer pay for their customers and employees, respectively, to obtain aid from private institutions. Also, as a concluding point, violence-centric video games – even with people who spend up to seven hours a day gaming – may disillusion their consumers with reality to a slight degree, but not nearly enough to influence one to go on a shooting rampage in an elementary school subsequent to killing his or her mother.
LUCAS ROSENBLATT
Lewisville
Reflections
This New Year causes one to reflect on the problems of modern society; they are not new. Partisanship and self interests have existed through the centuries and peoples have been divided into differing classes. Females were suppressed and different groups were subjected to slavery, as still occurs in our world.
America has sought to affirm the truth of equality for all citizens under a creator of all, as the Declaration of Independence declares and our laws seek to provide. Laws based on human inclinations are subject to selfish indulgences: drug consumption, sexual exploitations, and deadly violence.
Many groups discount the spiritual foundation of equality for America’s citizens by removing all references to faith in God in public meetings and public places. They promote inclinations to do as they please, which leads to immorality, disregarding the sacredness of human fetuses and demeaning the motherly nature of women.
People are not equal, as one observes in sports, ethnic features, even in artistic and physical skills, but our laws establish political equality because of faith in a Lord of all, manifesting Christ’s spirit.
Enforcing this truth is a challenge many nations failed to realize and they no longer exist. Our forefathers understood this and prescribed freedom of religion in our Constitution. Unless American citizens endorse this truth, our nation will cease to exist, as a moral society.
JIM HELVEY
Winston-Salem
A shift from violence
In 1882, Ordinance No. 67 was enacted in Dodge City, Kan., banning any deadly weapon, concealed or otherwise, from being carried by anyone other than a U.S. law officer. That signaled a shift from Wild West violence toward civilized democracy.
My taxes support dedicated, trained police officers and active military personnel to protect my family and community, with force if necessary. These are the only people I trust to do this job. It’s a flawed system, this “well-regulated militia” referred to by the Second Amendment, but it’s an improvement on anarchy.
As an unarmed civilian and a parent of a young child, I do not welcome the unschooled judgment of an armed vigilante with a semi-automatic weapon to protect us. It does not impinge upon Second Amendment rights to regulate firearms responsibly. That amendment should not eclipse our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as they did at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be bought back from civilians, their possession limited to governmental police and military organizations only. Sales of guns and ammunition must be banned from the Internet.
MARY SIEBERT
Lewisville
"This is a response to the letter “Support for gun control” (Dec. 29). The writer suggested the Second Amendment was only meant for the weapons available when it was written.
ReplyDeleteFollowing that reasoning, the First Amendment only applies to newspapers, since TV and the Internet were not around."
Kevin Long
I wonder if people proposed just taking some of African Americans' civil rights if people would go along with it. Like maybe, they could have a job, but just some jobs.
That's the ridiculousness of liberals' argument on gun control.
Nice letter Mr. Long. You obviously understand the absurd nature of the liberal mind (and I use that term loosely).
False analogy.
DeleteOh, that's right, they don't teach how to identify a false analogy until seventh grade, and as we know, Tiny spent three years in 6th grade, then gave it up.
"According to the FBI, over 1.5 million background checks on customers were requested by gun dealers to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System in December. Nearly 500,000 of those were in the six days before Christmas.
ReplyDeleteIt was the highest number ever in a single month, surpassing the previous record set in November."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8987359/Americans-buy-record-numbers-of-guns-for-Christmas.html
______
There are almost no assault weapons of any type to be had anywhere. They are all sold out and into the general populace.
The sad part of this story is that many of these guns would have never even made it to the streets of America if Obama and his liberal Democratic friends weren't so over zealous about taking away people's guns rights.
Here is one of Tiny's posts from Thursday:
DeleteBuckyJanuary 3, 2013 3:28 PM
Washington (CNN) -- The FBI performed nearly 2.8 million background checks on people wanting to buy guns in December, a record month that capped a record year.
----------------------
So on Thursday, it was 2.8 million, but today it has shrunk to 1.5 million. Tomorrow it might be three trillion, about the same as the number of illegal aliens who voted in the 2012 election.
As always, stupid is as stupid does.
:D
DeleteI'm quoting the newspaper's statistics, you blithering moron, not my own.
DeleteWell, that's a relief...when Tiny makes up his own stats, which is frequently, it quickly gets into the billions or trillions.
DeleteBy the way, the actual figure, from the FBI itself, is 2.78 million Chicken Littles peeing in their little panties.
Or was it 1.5 million? I heard a rumor that it was 7.53 million. Jeez, who knows?
Wounded Knee
ReplyDeleteDecember 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota.
These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began AFTER the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. When the final round had flown, of the 297 dead or dying, two thirds (200) were women and children.
Around 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, over half cut down by friendly fire from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms.
Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry were deemed “National Heros” and awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of cowardice.
We do not hear of Wounded Knee today. It is not mentioned in our history classes or books.
What little does exist about Wounded Knee is normally the sanitized “Official Government Explanation” or the historically and factually
inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre on the movie screen.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment-
The right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government.
The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept, musket balls were a precious commodity in the wilds of early America, and were certainly not wasted “target shooting”.
The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States.
As time goes on the average citizen in the United States continues to lose personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times unjust bills are passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, then expanded and continued by Barack Obama is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”.
Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be taken away for “our safety”.
Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts.
In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction.
Good people will abide by the law, defective people will always find a way around it.
And another thought Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power- governments.
That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments.
Who do governments target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…
Deletebut only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat.
Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise.
Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”.
Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we shouldn’t be in such a hurry to surrender our Right to Bear Arms.
Without the Second Amendment we have no right to defend ourselves and our families.
Yes, the white man was a scoundrel with no morals to speak of. Still is for that matter. As Mark Twain said: “There are many humorous things in the world, among them the white man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages”
DeleteYour ancestors and mine were the worst, Spain and England.
DeleteOnce again, Tiny cuts and pastes other people's writing without giving credit. It is called plagiarism and/or copyright infringement and can have serious consequences.
DeleteAt the least, it shows the low character of the person doing it.
"...and refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defense purposes should such tyranny rise in the United States."
DeleteGood luck defending yourself against the US armed forces or the armed forces of any country for that matter with that .22 of yours! This ain't the 18th century where my musket is as good as your musket which is as good as any weapon (outside of a cannon) that any armed force on land could bring. If that truly is the sole purpose for the 2nd, then it is as obsolete and irrelevant as the section that states slaves should count as 3/5 of a person.
It also might be pointed out that the Lakota Sioux at Wounded Knee were not US citizens.
Delete31 7th cavalry troopers were killed, and 36 wounded.
The Indian casualties are unknown because the cavalrymen tried to cover up what they had done...estimates place the number of deaths at between 150 and 300 men, women and children.
At any rate, none of this has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment or gun control....just the usual Tiny drivel.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
DeleteBenjamin Franklin
I am going to quarrel with the premise that armed citizens cannot challenge a nation's army, cited above by dotnet, and in the past by OT. Bucky has noted that armed citizens have challenged their governments and are at this time, citing Libya and Syria. OT in an uncharacteristically artless response noted that both are not part of the US, true but irrelevant, as Bucky this time has a point.
DeleteYes, on the face of it, an AR-15 or AK-47 is a poor match for an M1 or T72 tank, or an Apache or an Mi24 helicopter, but those two insurgencies did indeed start with people wielding small arms, and grew from there (from a small acorn doth a mighty acorn grow).
By themselves, the insurgents could not have prevailed against a cohesive military (and in Libya's case, without some helpful air support). But, once the revolt got moving, then the miiitaries' cohesion and loyalty broke down. So, the assumption that insurgents in the US would be facing a loyal and cohesive military is not necessarily a given.
That said, the above is a "thought experiment," as there is no remote requirement for an armed revolution in the US. We just had an election. We will have elections for generations. But, the premise of the right to defend against oppression remains, just the same. IMO.
Should be a "mighty oak," not a "mighty acorn." Working OT on a long miserable day.
DeleteHa, ha. Know about those kind of days.
DeleteBut Libya and Syria have no relevance if it comes to a "revolt" in the US. In both cases, and all others, we were either the interveners or the co-pilots of intervention. In every case, we practiced restraint for two reasons:
1. It was to our benefit to support the civilian population against the powers that be.
2. No matter what happened, ultimately, we were not threatened by the outcome.
In the case of an internal revolt, one that threatens the power of the US government, all such bets are off.
We have already seen how that works in the case of Waco, Ruby Ridge, the 2nd Wounded Knee and many other minor instances. In the end, the US government took whatever action that they saw as necessary.
Imagine moving the Viet Cong to South Carolina, where they would have been a direct threat to the US government. The US response would have been quite different. They might at first have tried to avoid civilian casualties, but if at any point the insurrection had had any chance of succeeding, the US military would not have hesitated to wipe South Carolina off the map.
And the idea that the military might roll over to the insurgents ignores a simple fact...that the military in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and everywhere else already suffered from low morale and low committment to the goals of the government, and that many, even a majority, were tribally committed to something other than the central government.
That is not true in the US. Our military establishment is far from perfect, but morale is as high as any military anywhere in the world. And our military is carefully designed to avoid the kind of tribalism found elsewhere.
It would require a prolonged conflict to bring about the collapse that we have seen elsewhere. And anyone who has actually been in a combat zone and seen the awesome power that can be brought to bear knows that there is no chance of a prolonged conflict.
If your insurrection begins in Clemmons, I can call in a few air strikes and erase you from the planet...all of you, innocent and guilty alike. Want to move what's left to Kernersville? A few Apaches will finish you off. So move to downtown Winston-Salem and a small SEAL team will complete the job.
Your average gun nut with his pitiful "assault rifle" has no idea what he is up against. During the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania in 1794, local farmers raised an armed force of about 7,000 "troops", thinking that they could defy the feeble US government. They even had a flag, and imagined themselves victorious.
But when President Washington and "Lighthorse" Harry Lee took the field with 12-13,000 troops, the imagination disappeared and the rebels collapsed.
People love to talk big, but realty always intervenes.
" if Obama and his liberal Democratic friends weren't so over zealous about taking away people's guns rights." Ridiculous statement. No one is pushing to have the 2nd Amendment repealed, although someday it could be. Porn is considered free speech under the 1st Amendment. Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, tits, George Carlin's 7 dirty words you cannot say on TV, Why? It's free speech. I don't think those words have ever murdered anyone, yet they are regulated. It was the basis for the U.S. Supreme Court decision that helped establish the extent to which the federal government could regulate speech on broadcast television and radio in the United States. Again, no one is calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, only that it be "well regulated."
ReplyDeleteI can't say fuck on TV, but I can own a weapon of mass destruction. Why can't guns be stamped with a bar code so they can be regulated like any other product we buy, bullets too?
DeleteI think they should ban those pedophilic, gay bucks from men's bathrooms before they ban 'assault weapons'. Look at all of the mayhem they've caused.
DeleteWhat do you think Bob?
le neant = {rien}
DeleteBob, as you know, firearms have serial numbers stamped on their receivers. New firearms also have bar codes applied to their packaging. The nature of firearms and their use might make barcoding the SN's a bit difficult, at least to keep them from wearing, but perhaps they could be laser etched in some way.
DeleteAmmunition is a bit different. We can't be stamping numbers on the sides of shell cases, as we don't want to weaken them in spots. Cases have some info on their bases, but not much room for individual ID's. To some extent ammunition is a bit fungible. Again, perhaps some sort of laser etching might be possible without compromising case integrity.
ah, ") I know very little about the operations of guns. When my father died, I had the sheriff's department come and unload the 3 he had in the desk beside his bed. I shot a double barrel 16 gauge Remington (?) shotgun at a Turkey Shoot at Lewisville School.
DeleteGood afternoon folks!
ReplyDeleteLTE 1: Of course, the definition of "speech" has been redefined to now include money which would be news to the founders. Technological changes can turn a reasonable idea from hundreds of years ago into "what were they thinking?" if the original idea isn't being revisited on a constant basis to ensure its relevance. The original reasoning behind the 2nd is no longer valid despite the protests of those yahoos who believe they can hold off the US armed forces with their .22's.
LTE 2: Mr. Rosenblatt makes some valid observations in his last paragraph. The US needs to revisit its mental health systems and recognize that mental health is as vital as physical health. I also agree with Mr. Rosenblatt's position on violent video games. If there really were a connection between video games and violence, there would be an uptick in violence that occurs following each new release of a blockbuster violent game, but that does not seem to be the case.
LTE 3: Freedom of religion is for individuals to worship under whichever religion they choose without govermental favoritism towards any. The founders' belief that there were certain rights that "all men" (which at that time meant just free males) were endowed with by a Creator or "Nature's Creator" is actually a deist belief as opposed to Christian. The best way to ensure an individual's right to freedom of religion is to ensure that the govt remains neutral in regards to religion which entails removing all govt sectarian references that are not inclusive.
LTE 4: "That signaled a shift from Wild West violence toward civilized democracy." - we seem to be going in the opposite direction these days.
Because of the nature of our changing society, and our government's inept ability to control our borders, there will be a greater need to own a gun in the 21st Century, than in the last.
DeleteI'm sure the Founders would be surprised at a number of things that are now considered speech, aside from money spent on expression. Sorry to bring up the matter of setting cloth on fire in public places, even stolen cloth, as being deemed speech, but that is what you get with the Living Document philosophy. It cuts (or shoots) both ways.
DeleteNeed to be a bit careful when talking about the founding fathers and "original intent".
DeleteFirst and foremost is the fact that the "Founding Fathers" vociferously disagreed on almost everything.
Of the first 5 Presidents, 4 owned slaves while in office…John Adams the exception.
Of the next 5, 4 owned slaves, 2 while in office. And so on.
One of the first exercises of "freedom of speech" was symbolic, the dumping of tea into Boston harbor by the Sons of Liberty. They broke and entered and stole someone else's tea and dumped it overboard, creating a terrible mess, thus creating one of our great icons of liberty.
Many other actions of the Sons of Liberty went far beyond property crime, to acts of terrorism against law abiding British loyalists, ranging from harassment to torture to assassination.
Jefferson's letter to King George, which became known as the "Declaration of Independence", was merely a symbolic gesture. No one seriously believed that the American colonists could challenge the greatest military power in the world.
"Offensive expression" is exactly the kind of expression that needs protection. No one really complains about non-offensive expression. "Gee, I wish you guys wouldn't do that."
If you are going to allow censorship of any form then you have to give the government the ability to decide what they feel is offensive. How easily is that power abused? This abuse by the government is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent through freedom of speech. How long before some forms of religious or political speech would become offensive and censored?
You also have to realize that by living in a free society you are going to be exposed to things and people that may be offensive to you. The point is that everyone has different ideas about what is offensive. Do you honestly want to give someone else the power to decide what is acceptable for you?
On Moratorium Day in 1969, thousands of us in Viet Nam risked courts martial by wearing black armbands. Who better to protest the war than those of us who were there, witnessing it with our own eyes and ears?
To make a fuss over somebody burning a flag is to misunderstand the whole point of the 1st Amendment. You can be sure that most of the "Founding Fathers" would have not only gotten the point, but approved.
Interesting, American colonists challenged the greatest military power of the time, and at least put up enough of a showing to bring foreign intervention. Sorta reminds of the argument about the right to arm against oppression above. As do your arguments re the Boston Tea Party, etc.
Delete(Wow, AL is putting it all over ND).
As for the government setting rules on offensive expression, no, I don't really want limits set, but to some extent rules have to be set. Now, I don't really give a rodent's backside about flag burning, provided the burner didn't swipe it from me or the local post office; sorry, that's not freedom of expression, that is theft, though some court has ruled stealing and burning is OK, too. I cited the flag issue as an example of the Constitution's court-affirmed malleability. The flag really ain't my bag; coerced you-know-what is, something overlooked by folks who are otherwise constitutional libertarians.
As for the Founders' intents, you are correct. They were all over the place. Note the passage of the Alien and Sedition Act not long after the ratification of the Constitution.
Thus, that malleability moves on to money for contributions as speech and on to the shapelessly worded Second Amendment, about which there were various Founders' takes.
I didn't finish my comments re government setting limits on expression. At some point, limits are set. I cannot spray paint maledictions about leftist institutions on OT's condo building without (quite rightly) incurring criminal and civil opprobrium for the crime/tort. If I were to stand with a bullhorn outside the White House at 2AM and shout maledicta about leftists, I suspect the WH police would relocate me, quite possibly to the big house.
DeleteMy argument about things like flag burning basically revolves around your rights ending at my nose's beginning. If you want to fire up Old Glory on a summer Saturday evening on Trade St during a musical performance, well, be my guest. I'll be interested to see what the police say about that. I'll go your bail on it, anyway. Now, come over to my place, and burn my worn out flag in the fire pit, be my guest, and I'll run the cops off and furnish the beer along with flag.
As for the black armbands, on the face of it, no harm no foul, as they say. I'm not sure about military discipline, but that was, to steal a line, the wrong war fought at the wrong time in the wrong place the wrong way. And by a disintegrating Army that needed to be rebuilt after the war.
DeleteNow, there was the matter of fragging 2nd LT's. Not sure about that form of self-expression.
I am trying to write a book, which may or may not actually happen, so am not watching the football game, but am being bombarded by e-mails from friends who are Bama fans and friends who are ND fans.
DeleteOf course, Bamas are ecstatic and Irish are despondent, but it is only halftime, so...
I have had a wonderful life in sports, despite being less than talented, because I figured out early on that understanding the game and applying that understanding was more than half the battle. In fact, at one point, I actually coached high school and military sports and considered making that a career.
Glad I didn't, because that would have been a bit limited for me. I rarely watch much of any sports nowadays except for an occasional women's tennis match and the annual Bama-LSU game, which is pretty much the national championship year in year out.
Last week I was having lunch with a friend who coached high school and lower level college basketball for many years when another old friend of ours sat down and asked who we thought would win tonight.
We both laughed. Most people watch the ball in football games. But the game is usually decided by the big boys on the line of scrimmage. If you watch Bama play, you will note that their big boys are usually better than the other guy's big boys, and more importantly, you will note that they keep shifting new guys into the line all night long, big guys who are still better than the other guys big guys.
Since sport is crazy, anything can happen. ND could pull off a miracle comeback. But it will take a miracle, because Bama's big boys are better than theirs, and go much deeper.
A year from now, it won't matter anyway.
As the briefly great Cowboys' running back Duane Thomas once said of the Super Bowl, "If this game is such a big deal, why are they going to play another one next year?"
And yes, the fragging happened, and from my limited experience, it was sad, but often justified.
DeleteWhen a fool officer unnecessarily risks the life of his men, and the higher ups will not listen, the men will inevitably protect themselves.
I knew Ollie North in Viet Nam. He was crazy as can be, but a great and fearless platoon leader. His men would have, and often did, follow him into the jaws of hell. I don't think that they ever considered fragging him.
We're about to find out if McCain hates Obama more than he respects Hagel. I wouldn't think he'd vote against him, but he's been so petty...nothing surprises me anymore.
ReplyDeleteHagel seems a little weird. But he apparently supports traditional sexuality, so he gets my support.
DeleteMcCain will vote for Hagel. I predict.
Hagel is more than a little weird...he is a Republican who, unlike Tiny and "his" ilk, has both a dick and a brain...either one rarer in that party than any day in June.
Delete"What is so rare as a day in June..."
___James Russell Lowell (1819-1891)
Who inspired Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken
Republicans love to swagger around bragging about how tough they are, dodging the draft while starting wars with other people's blood, wars that they cannot finish, accusing anyone who criticizes their military stupidity as "unpatriotic".
But when confronted with real military heroes like John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, they are the first to try to tear them down because they know that real heroes have dicks and brains and they don't.
Chuck Hagel served as an infantry sergeant in Viet Nam and won the two awards most prized by any infantryman, the Combat Infantryman's Badge and the Purple Heart, two in the latter case. Yet just watch the yapping cowards attack him during the confirmation hearings.
Fortunately, he will prevail and go on to complete the banishment of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and help to bring us a new slimmer, trimmer and better military.
It has been a long time since the US military actually won any war. Chuck's basic philosophy is that our military should be designed to win wars, not accomplish the impossible, as Dickless Cheney put it, "export democracy".
As to whether John McCain, or Allen West or Donald Trump or Tiny approves...who cares?
Yeah, it's just interesting to me to see if McCain would go against a fellow Vietnam vet and (presumable) friend for the sake of his personal vendetta.
DeleteAnger can really twist people. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee, kind of thing.
I don't know, obviously, how McCain will vote. But, generally a Prez should be able to pick people to implement his policies, with the "advice and consent" of the Senate, unless the candidate is clearly unfit for the job. Unfitness would be obvious inability to fill the position or an ideological agenda that distorts the role of the job. Thus, Hagel should be approved, even though I am leery of his stance on defense cuts. But, there was an election recently, as I noted elsewhere, and as Obama noted in his first term, he won.
DeleteCuts are inevitable and needed. There is no more wasteful area of spending than defense. The Navy, Air Force and the Army have had ridiculously expensive weapons systems that they didn't want or need forced upon them by Congress.
DeletePeople who get hysterical over high tech weapons have little idea of what today's and tomorrow's battlefield looks like. Recently, the Chinese demonstrated their newest aircraft carrier.
A friend of mine who is a retired admiral in the carrier world said "Well, the Chinese have now made it to 1945."
The real struggle for the immediate future is going to be in drones, cruise missiles and other areas of remote warfare, areas in which Russia, China and Iran are beginning to challenge us and in some cases, exceed us.
As to the Notre Dame miracle, forget it.