Virginia Governor Considers Armed Teachers

"I think that’s a reasonable discussion that ought to be had,” he said."  "Reasonable" is defined as "based on good sense."  The arming of school administrators is not based on good sense.  A lethal weapon in the hands of a minimally trained person who's capacity to shoot, even in self-defense, to kill another individual would be highly problematic is not a reasonable alternative.  No matter how it may look in the movies, it is not a normal human capacity to face another and shoot to kill.  Range shooting will not provide any assurance of such accuracy at a moving, threatening target that innocents would be safe from their "protector."  Police officers are trained and trained again and again to face threatening situations to provide choices exercising good judgment. Distinguishing an angry parent from a deadly threat is not a task for an inexperienced teacher.  Should a threat occur at a school the responding police officers, some in civilian clothes, would be forced to encounter a situation with one or more armed criminals and one or more school administrators, each armed as well while scared and scattered throughout the premises.  Putting the innocents and the first responders in these situations is not reasonable.

Gov. McDonnell, I suspect, considers this proposal reasonable because he accepts the virtual reality packaged by the NRA and its proponents.  It is the core issue facing us today as to whether we will choose to break from this conceived matrix.  To those who recognize the reality of the carnage around us, it is irrational to answer gun violence with more guns.  To those who choose to live within the NRA matrix, the arming of school administrators is rational and reasonable.  I am reminded of the story of two Nazi SS officers walking near the gas ovens in some unnamed concentration camp.  They discuss various alternative ways to improve capacity within the ovens.  To them the discussion, as it is circumscribed by their constructed matrix of "final solution," is of reasonable alternatives and is rational.  To anyone outside and in the real world of moral values the discussion is wholly irrational.

The deaths of our children have been too horrible and the lives of those who remain are too precious to be valued within an irrational, packaged NRA matrix.

http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/mcdonnell-says-idea-of-armed-school-officials-worthy-of-discussion/article_06eed61d-eea9-5050-a797-8e0987687e85.html

Chuck, the Constitution and Assault Weapons

A friend recently sent me a link to a video of Chuck Woolery (an actor) who, with an assault style weapon in his hand, argues in defense of gun ownership.  He begins his argument asserting the Constitution.  Chuck says that "our founding fathers wanted every citizen to be armed equal to the army" for protection against a sovereign bent on destroying our freedoms and they wrote the 2nd Amendment to enforce that protection.  Well, pilgrim, I am about an Abrams tank, Patriot missile and a few dozen hand grenades short of my basic load.  The only "Red Dawn" or Stalin or Hitler in our future is in a paranoid dream.  Believing that the possession of an assault rifle by every American could stop an Adolf is delusional. But we can look at the possibility. How would this new Adolf takeover here?  One way would be for "Big Brother" to be elected by the vote of a majority of our citizens.  By one count there are 207,643,594 eligible voters in the U.S.  So assuming they all vote (not likely) then 103,821,798, 50% plus one, citizens would have voted Adolf into office.  I'll grant you that there are times when chunks of the electorate appear stupid to me.  But, that's a whole lot of stupidity,  Yet we, being in a small segment of the 103,821,796 minority, might feel the need to rebel and, having our assault weapons cleaned and ready, we charge.

But, it's not likely that we charge, because we fundamentally believe in a democracy.  Right?  And our belief in democracy is greater then our belief in a right to bear arms because we bear arms to protect the existence of our democracy.  So, let's say these 103,821,798 also vote Adolf's cronies into power in Congress.  A couple of Supreme Court appointments and it is OVER for our democracy.  Of course, the murder of democracy would have to take place within a two year period before the next elections which could change the control of Congress.   Ahhh, you say, what if both parties are evil??  I'll save that for later.

Now putting laws and threat of impeachment aside, let's suppose that Adolf takes extraordinary executive control of the country by something like presidential edict.  He or she (Ohhh, yes, they too can be evil) would probably try to maintain citizen support while suppressing dissension and individual rights first by trickery (WMD's somewhere in our neighborhoods) or bribery (darn entitlements!). That failing or insufficient for Adolf's ego, he declares martial law.  So Adolf now sits in the White House surrounded by merely 40 or 50 suck-ups as his enforcers.

Now all occurred while the also evil left-wing media (or maybe it's a right wing Adolf??) does nothing but support a left wing Adolf.  There is no Fox News (or MSNBC) to inform citizens.  There are no bloggers, tweeters, or internet from which the "truth" that will keep us free can be taken.  All occurred without vigorous opposition from politicians and their parties.  The local, state and federal law enforcement officers, the ones who live with their families down the street, would have to be expected to bow to the orders of a dictator with oath, law and conscience forgotten.  And when someone must go out to enforce martial law, the leadership of the Army and the Marines will, damning the Constitution they swore to protect against all enemies, foreign and domestic, take to the streets and shoot us.

Unless we have an assault rifle.

Or maybe we see the imposition of one or more taxes or the type of health care or the hunting restriction on baited fields or whatever single or multiple government action as too intrusive, abrasive, unnecessary or stupid.  Petitioning, picketing, debating, compromising, and even our massing together to vote is just not enough to bring about a change to our way of thinking.  G. Washington himself led an Army to repress a tax revolt.  So there must be something very special about a democracy and about it's right to defend itself against a minority. Putting aside the issue of just who the fuck you think you are to impose any personal belief by force, I reckon nothing can be done. 

Unless we have an assault rifle.

I am a gun owner and support gun possession under reasonable regulation.  Canada, I understand, requires a gun purchaser to come in with two others who will attest to the purchaser's character before the sale can be completed. That seems to be one reasonable requirement.  If I haven't stopped an intruder or two with eight rounds in one clip I shouldn't own a gun.  Large capacity magazines should be restricted.  If I need to buy more than one firearm in a thirty day period, unless a strictly licensed dealer/collector, I may need to see a mental health provider and seriously rethink my Christmas shopping choices for the family.  I see NO rational excuse for general ownership of assault rifles.

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays and a very Happy New Year to all.

"DIA sending hundreds more spies overseas"

Two factors appear to drive the DIA expansion, the "convergence of the military and intelligence agencies that has blurred their once-distinct missions" and "a rare syncing of personalities and interests among top officials at the Pentagon and CIA, many of whom switched from one organization to the other to take their current jobs." A definition of "war" had been promoted for internal political objectives and is now accepted without challenge. This "war" includes no bounds of territory or time. Continuing to expand within this unlimited universe, makes sense only to a mind unwilling to challenge its developing paradigms.

This expansion of the DIA is not the issue. It merely begs the question of the legitimacy of the "new war." The use of drones, unlimited detentions and a myriad of other methods within this "war" are changing our culture, our society, our morality. "Words had to change their ordinary meaning and to take that which was now given them. Reckless audacity came to be considered the courage of a loyal ally; prudent hesitation, specious cowardice; moderation was held to be a cloak for unmanliness; ability to see all sides of a question, inaptness to act on any...The advocate of extreme measures was always trustworthy; his opponent a man to be suspected...." Thucydides

From a practical perspective, the expanded DIA may now complement CIA actions while we are at this "war." Once someone in power declares this "war" ended it will be very difficult to cut these missions and manpower. Once the "crossover" of officials and personnel between the two has ended or these veterans of our two recent, real wars have retired, the relationships between the CIA and DIA will breakdown. Each will work to self-justify dominance and existence. Multiple intelligence agencies operating clandestine "information" seekers worked during a real WW II. It was obvious after that war that one agency should have sole authority. It is obvious now as well. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/dia-to-send-hundreds-more-spies-overseas/2012/12/01/97463e4e-399b-11e2-b01f-5f55b193f58f_story.html