So Many Military Bases

Tom Dispatch wrote an article about the secret and not-so-secret military bases the U.S. is constructing. Thanks to Il Principe for the link to this wonderful article which supports his frequent writings about the subject on Opinione.

In 2003, when the Bush administration invaded Iraq, the Pentagon already had on its drawing boards plans for building a series of permanent mega-bases in that country. (They were charmingly called “enduring camps.”) Once Baghdad fell and it turned out that, Saddam Hussein or no, the U.S. was going to have to fight rather than settle in and let the good times roll,hundreds of micro-bases were added to the mega ones -- 106 of them by 2005, more than 300 in all. Then, in 2005, Washington decided to trade in its embassy in one of Saddam’s old palaces for something a little spiffier. In its place, on a 104-acre plot by the Tigris River in the middle of Baghdad, for at least three-quarters of a billion dollars after cost overruns, it built the largest,most expensive embassy on the planet. It was planned for a staff of 1,000 “diplomats” with all the accoutrements of the good life and plenty of hired help. (Even now, despite much discussion about “ending” the American role in Iraq, further plans are reportedly being made for the embassy’s staff to double.) This was clearly to be U.S. mission control for the Greater Middle East.

The article goes on to describe the incredible proliferation of bases in Afghanistan, naturally at staggering cost. Meanwhile, at home things have not been so good.

What's your opinion? Is this unprecedented military expansion necessary for the security of America? Do you think some of this money could be used better at home?

Please leave a comment.

The Brady Campaign Appeals to Starbucks

Paul Helmke and Dennis Henigan posted an appeal to Starbucks to do the right thing.

Welcome to the open carry movement, an effort by “gun rights” extremists to foist their interpretation of the Second Amendment on the rest of us by openly carrying handguns in public places. While virtually all states have at least some minimal restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons, few states do anything to regulate the “open carry” of firearms.

Particularly in the Bay Area in Northern California, “open carry” adherents have been gathering in Starbucks and other coffee shops and restaurants – their semi-automatic pistols and revolvers in plain view – apparently to make an ideological statement.

Response to the Brady appeals has been positive in some cases. Starbucks however had this to say.

“Starbucks does not have a corporate policy regarding customers and weapons; we defer to federal, state and local laws and regulations regarding this issue.”

The article likens this response to a full endorsement of gun owners doing what they like. I wondered if it could have been an attempt on the part of the famous coffee and refreshment chain to straddle the fence, to avoid taking sides. Whatever their public statement meant, it's about to get clearer.

So, Starbucks, what will it be? Like Peets Tea & Coffee, will you do the socially responsible thing and stand up for the rights of families and children to be free from guns when they visit your coffee shops?

Or will you take the chance that there will be more than just shots of espresso being served up in your stores?

If you think Starbucks is wrong here, sign our petition today:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/starbucks_guns/?rc=brady

What do you think Starbucks will do? Do you think this will pressure Starbucks to either strengthen their statement or "do the right thing" as they say?

Please leave a comment.

A Nice Gift

That special little gift for the man who has everything.

The NRA vs. the Libertarians

The Washington Post published an interesting article about the infighting going on between the NRA and the Libertarian lawyers running the McDonald vs. Chicago case.

The National Rifle Association was on the outside looking in when the Supreme Court handed gun rights activists a landmark victory in 2008.

After the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to gun ownership and that the District's handgun ban was unconstitutional, it was an upstart band of libertarian lawyers that celebrated on the marble steps and received the glory for the breakthrough decision.

The NRA, the nation's premier and most powerful gun rights group, has worked hard not to be in that position again. And because of an unusual intervention recently by the justices, its attorney will be in the mix when the court considers the next big guns case next month.

This was news to me not long ago. One of the commenters gently educated me about the fact that it's not the NRA running these things.

Alan Gura, who has ties to The Cato Institute, will be lead council representing those challenging Chicago area gun laws. But the Supreme Court is also letting Paul Clement, recently hired by the National Rifle Association, offer an argument.

Ilya Shapiro, a Supreme Court scholar at the libertarian Cato Institute, where Gura has ties, wrote, "NRA prefers to seek glory for itself rather than presenting the strongest case for its purported constituency of gun owners." He said in an interview that the NRA's decision to seek time at oral arguments March 2 was "about fundraising, not lawyering."

NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam responded: "Our client is the Second Amendment. We wanted to make sure that all avenues were addressed and all bases covered" in convincing the court that the amendment applies to state and local governments.

That's what I call infighting. What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Texas Man Kills ex-Wife's Boyfriend

The Houston Chronicle reports on the latest domestic violence tragedy. I suppose you can call it that even though it happened in a gas station.

Charges are pending against a man accused of fatally shooting his estranged wife's boyfriend at a gas station in Pasadena Sunday afternoon.

The incident occurred around 1 p.m. at a Valero gas station at Burke and Southmore, where the woman's estranged husband and her boyfriend became involved in a confrontation, said Pasadena Police Department spokesman Vance Mitchell, adding that the nature of the dispute is unknown.

At some point during the confrontation, the woman's estranged husband shot and killed her boyfriend before fleeing the scene in his vehicle.

Officers found the suspect's vehicle shortly after the shooting and became involved in a short chase with the man. During the chase, the suspect crashed his vehicle into another car, but kept on driving and was apprehended shortly in a nearby yard.

Since the article leaves so much to the imagination, I guess we'll just have to fill in some of the blanks. But first let's take a moment to enjoy the humor of Police Spokesman Vance Mitchell. He said, "the nature of the dispute is unknown." That's pretty funny, eh?

I'd say our man was a lawful gun owner up until the moment he decided to change sides. Five minutes before that all the other lawful gun owners would have vehemently defended his right to own guns. Five minutes later, they have nothing to do with him.

Why do gun rights people refuse to admit there are many problem cases in their midst? Why has not one pro-gun voice admitted that The Famous 10% theory makes good sense? Is not this story another perfect example of it?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Home Protection

NorthJersey.com ran an opinion piece that made a lot of sense.

Contrary to the argument that guns are an invaluable asset for home protection, they are in fact virtually useless. Proper weapon maintenance requires that the gun be “safe-kept” after use. That means the weapon should be checked to be sure it is unloaded and then securely “locked down.”

Locking down the weapon requires that it be secured, preferably under lock and key. Having checked the weapon to be sure it is unloaded, the ammunition should then be safe-kept in another locked location. This prevents an unauthorized user, whether a child, intoxicated individual, impulsive personality type or criminal, from creating mayhem while blasting away with the “home protection device.”

This is the dilemma we've discussed many times before. How can one keep his weapons accessible without endangering himself and the family?

So what happens when one hears window glass breaking as an intruder attempts to enter? If the firearm is safely secured, there won’t be enough time to confront a criminal with your weapon. A burglar is not going to wait while you unlock the gun and go to another location to load up with bullets. But to do otherwise, that is, ignore safe weapon handling practices and keep the gun on the nightstand fully loaded, only invites disaster.

While disaster from a burglary, or other violent crime, may strike once in a lifetime, the unsafe handling of a weapon invites disaster 365 days per year.

So, if a loaded gun on the nightstand is not the answer, what is?

Lock the gun away, leave some lights on at night, secure all doors, get an inexpensive alarm system, give an orphaned dog a home, replace the weapon on the nightstand with a phone programmed with 911 or keep a long club under the bed.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

George Carlin on Baseball vs. Football

Thanks to Crooks and Liars for the video. George is indeed the King of Comedy.