Fido enjoys his job too much...

No comment needed!

Happy Birthday Milton Friedman!

Today is Milton Friedman's 100 birthday and in commemoration, here is a classic from the 70's. Back when Donahue wasn't a complete joke.



As true today as it was 1000 years ago and will be 1000 years from now. Not that the mormons in Washington DC will ever know that.

Happy Birthday Professor Friedman!

And thanks to Legal Insurrection for the link Milton Friedman v. Obama/Warren/Lakoff

Police Officer Josh Williams
Waxahachie Texas Police Department
End of Watch: Saturday, July 28, 2012
Age: 44
Tour: 17 years

Police Officer Josh Williams was killed when his patrol car was struck by a drunk driver at approximately 1:30 am.



He was responding to a disturbance at a fast food restaurant in the 600 block of Highway 77. He was turning into the parking lot when his patrol car was struck on the passenger side by an SUV that was driving without its headlights on. The driver of the SUV was taken into custody after being flown to a nearby hospital.



Officer Williams was transported to Baylor Medical Center where he was pronounced dead.

Officer Williams had served with the Waxahachie Police Department for 17 years. He is survived by his wife and three children.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Geopolitical Weekly: The Election, the Presidency and Foreign Policy, July 31st, 2012

By George Friedman

The American presidency is designed to disappoint. Each candidate must promise things that are beyond his power to deliver. No candidate could expect to be elected by emphasizing how little power the office actually has and how voters should therefore expect little from him. So candidates promise great, transformative programs. What the winner actually can deliver depends upon what other institutions, nations and reality will allow him. Though the gap between promises and realities destroys immodest candidates, from the founding fathers' point of view, it protects the republic. They distrusted government in general and the office of the president in particular.

Congress, the Supreme Court and the Federal Reserve Board all circumscribe the president's power over domestic life. This and the authority of the states greatly limit the president's power, just as the country's founders intended. To achieve anything substantial, the president must create a coalition of political interests to shape decision-making in other branches of the government. Yet at the same time -- and this is the main paradox of American political culture -- the presidency is seen as a decisive institution and the person holding that office is seen as being of overriding importance.

Constraints in the Foreign Policy Arena

The president has somewhat more authority in foreign policy, but only marginally so. He is trapped by public opinion, congressional intrusion, and above all, by the realities of geopolitics. Thus, while during his 2000 presidential campaign George W. Bush argued vehemently against nation-building, once in office, he did just that (with precisely the consequences he had warned of on the campaign trail). And regardless of how he modeled his foreign policy during his first campaign, the 9/11 attacks defined his presidency.

Similarly, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to redefine America's relationship with both Europe and the Islamic world. Neither happened. It has been widely and properly noted how little Obama's foreign policy in action has differed from George W. Bush's. It was not that Obama didn't intend to have a different foreign policy, but simply that what the president wants and what actually happens are very different things.

The power often ascribed to the U.S. presidency is overblown. But even so, people -- including leaders -- all over the world still take that power very seriously. They want to believe that someone is in control of what is happening. The thought that no one can control something as vast and complex as a country or the world is a frightening thought. Conspiracy theories offer this comfort, too, since they assume that while evil may govern the world, at least the world is governed. There is, of course, an alternative viewpoint, namely that while no one actually is in charge, the world is still predictable as long as you understand the impersonal forces guiding it. This is an uncomfortable and unacceptable notion to those who would make a difference in the world. For such people, the presidential race -- like political disputes the world over -- is of great significance.

Ultimately, the president does not have the power to transform U.S. foreign policy. Instead, American interests, the structure of the world and the limits of power determine foreign policy.

In the broadest sense, current U.S. foreign policy has been in place for about a century. During that period, the United States has sought to balance and rebalance the international system to contain potential threats in the Eastern Hemisphere, which has been torn by wars. The Western Hemisphere in general, and North America in particular, has not. No president could afford to risk allowing conflict to come to North America.

At one level, presidents do count: The strategy they pursue keeping the Western Hemisphere conflict-free matters. During World War I, the United States intervened after the Germans began to threaten Atlantic sea-lanes and just weeks after the fall of the czar. At this point in the war, the European system seemed about to become unbalanced, with the Germans coming to dominate it. In World War II, the United States followed a similar strategy, allowing the system in both Europe and Asia to become unbalanced before intervening. This was called isolationism, but that is a simplistic description of the strategy of relying on the balance of power to correct itself and only intervening as a last resort.

During the Cold War, the United States adopted the reverse strategy of actively maintaining the balance of power in the Eastern Hemisphere via a process of continual intervention. It should be remembered that American deaths in the Cold War were just under 100,000 (including Vietnam, Korea and lesser conflicts) versus about 116,000 U.S. deaths in World War I, showing that far from being cold, the Cold War was a violent struggle.

The decision to maintain active balancing was a response to a perceived policy failure in World War II. The argument was that prior intervention would have prevented the collapse of the European balance, perhaps blocked Japanese adventurism, and ultimately resulted in fewer deaths than the 400,000 the United States suffered in that conflict. A consensus emerged from World War II that an "internationalist" stance of active balancing was superior to allowing nature to take its course in the hope that the system would balance itself. The Cold War was fought on this strategy.

The Cold War Consensus Breaks

Between 1948 and the Vietnam War, the consensus held. During the Vietnam era, however, a viewpoint emerged in the Democratic Party that the strategy of active balancing actually destabilized the Eastern Hemisphere, causing unnecessary conflict and thereby alienating other countries. This viewpoint maintained that active balancing increased the likelihood of conflict, caused anti-American coalitions to form, and most important, overstated the risk of an unbalanced system and the consequences of imbalance. Vietnam was held up as an example of excessive balancing.

The counterargument was that while active balancing might generate some conflicts, World War I and World War II showed the consequences of allowing the balance of power to take its course. This viewpoint maintained that failing to engage in active and even violent balancing with the Soviet Union would increase the possibility of conflict on the worst terms possible for the United States. Thus, even in the case of Vietnam, active balancing prevented worse outcomes. The argument between those who want the international system to balance itself and the argument of those who want the United States to actively manage the balance has raged ever since George McGovern ran against Richard Nixon in 1972.

If we carefully examine Obama's statements during the 2008 campaign and his efforts once in office, we see that he has tried to move U.S. foreign policy away from active balancing in favor of allowing regional balances of power to maintain themselves. He did not move suddenly into this policy, as many of his supporters expected he would. Instead, he eased into it, simultaneously increasing U.S. efforts in Afghanistan while disengaging in other areas to the extent that the U.S. political system and global processes would allow.

Obama's efforts to transition away from active balancing of the system have been seen in Europe, where he has made little attempt to stabilize the economic situation, and in the Far East, where apart from limited military repositioning there have been few changes. Syria also highlights his movement toward the strategy of relying on regional balances. The survival of Syrian President Bashar al Assad's regime would unbalance the region, creating a significant Iranian sphere of influence. Obama's strategy has been not to intervene beyond providing limited covert support to the opposition, but rather to allow the regional balance to deal with the problem. Obama has expected the Saudis and Turks to block the Iranians by undermining al Assad, not because the United States asks them to do so but because it is in their interest to do so.

Obama's perspective draws on that of the critics of the Cold War strategy of active balancing, who maintained that without a major Eurasian power threatening hemispheric hegemony, U.S. intervention is more likely to generate anti-American coalitions and precisely the kind of threat the United States feared when it decided to actively balance. In other words, Obama does not believe that the lessons learned from World War I and World War II apply to the current global system, and that as in Syria, the global power should leave managing the regional balance to local powers.

Romney and Active Balancing

Romney takes the view that active balancing is necessary. In the case of Syria, Romney would argue that by letting the system address the problem, Obama has permitted Iran to probe and retreat without consequences and failed to offer a genuine solution to the core issue. That core issue is that the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq left a vacuum that Iran -- or chaos -- has filled, and that in due course the situation will become so threatening or unstable that the United States will have to intervene. To remedy this, Romney called during his visit to Israel for a decisive solution to the Iran problem, not just for Iran's containment.

Romney also disagrees with Obama's view that there is no significant Eurasian hegemon to worry about. Romney has cited the re-emergence of Russia as a potential threat to American interests that requires U.S. action on a substantial scale. He would also argue that should the United States determine that China represented a threat, the current degree of force being used to balance it would be insufficient. For Romney, the lessons of World Wars I and II and the Cold War mesh. Allowing the balance of power to take its own course only delays American intervention and raises the ultimate price. To him, the Cold War ended as it did because of active balancing by the United States, including war when necessary. Without active balancing, Romney would argue, the Cold War's outcome might have been different and the price for the United States certainly would have been higher.

I also get the sense that Romney is less sensitive to global opinion than Obama. Romney would note that Obama has failed to sway global opinion in any decisive way despite great expectations around the world for an Obama presidency. In Romney's view, this is because satisfying the wishes of the world would be impossible, since they are contradictory. For example, prior to World War II, world opinion outside the Axis powers resented the United States for not intervening. But during the Cold War and the jihadist wars, world opinion resented the United States for intervening. For Romney, global resentment cannot be a guide for U.S. foreign policy. Where Obama would argue that anti-American sentiment fuels terrorism and anti-American coalitions, Romney would argue that ideology and interest, not sentiment, cause any given country to object to the leading world power. Attempting to appease sentiment would thus divert U.S. policy from a realistic course.

Campaign Rhetoric vs. Reality

I have tried to flesh out the kinds of argument each would make if they were not caught in a political campaign, where their goal is not setting out a coherent foreign policy but simply embarrassing the other and winning votes. While nothing suggests this is an ineffective course for a presidential candidate, it forces us to look for actions and hints to determine their actual positions. Based on such actions and hints, I would argue that their disagreement on foreign policy boils down to relying on regional balances versus active balancing.

But I would not necessarily say that this is the choice the country faces. As I have argued from the outset, the American presidency is institutionally weak despite its enormous prestige. It is limited constitutionally, politically and ultimately by the actions of others. Had Japan not attacked the United States, it is unclear that Franklin Roosevelt would have had the freedom to do what he did. Had al Qaeda not attacked on 9/11, I suspect that George W. Bush's presidency would have been dramatically different.

The world shapes U.S. foreign policy. The more active the world, the fewer choices presidents have and the smaller those choices are. Obama has sought to create a space where the United States can disengage from active balancing. Doing so falls within his constitutional powers, and thus far has been politically possible, too. But whether the international system would allow him to continue along this path should he be re-elected is open to question. Jimmy Carter had a similar vision, but the Iranian Revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan wrecked it. George W. Bush saw his opposition to nation-building wrecked by 9/11, and had his presidency crushed under the weight of the main thing he wanted to avoid.

Presidents make history, but not on their own terms. They are constrained and harried on all sides by reality. In selecting a president, it is important to remember that candidates will say what they need to say to be elected, but even when they say what they mean, they will not necessarily be able to pursue their goals. The choice to do so simply isn't up to them. There are two fairly clear foreign policy outlooks in this election. The degree to which the winner matters, however, is unclear, though knowing the inclinations of presidential candidates regardless of their ability to pursue them has some value.

In the end, though, the U.S. presidency was designed to limit the president's ability to rule. He can at most guide, and frequently he cannot even do that. Putting the presidency in perspective allows us to keep our debates in perspective as well.

The Election, the Presidency and Foreign Policy, COPYRIGHT: STRATFOR.COM

Officer Down

Police Officer Jose Torres
Westfield Massachusetts Police Department
End of Watch: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Tour: 27 years

Police Officer Jose Torres was struck and killed by a dump truck while directing traffic at a construction site near the intersection of Pontoosic and Little River Roads at approximately 7:30 am.

He was transported to Baystate Medical Center, where he succumbed to his injuries approximately two hours later.

Officer Torres had served with the Westfield Police Department for 27 years. He is survived by his wife and two children.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

I wonder is Bloomturd will want to ban illegal knifes.

Good news from Salk Lake City

Gun carrying man ends stabbing spree at grocery store

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - A citizen with a gun stopped a knife wielding man as he began stabbing people Thursday evening at the downtown Salt Lake City Smith's store.

Police say the suspect purchased a knife inside the store and then turned it into a weapon. Smith's employee Dorothy Espinoza says, "He pulled it out and stood outside the Smiths in the foyer. And just started stabbing people and yelling you killed my people. You killed my people."

Espinoza says, the knife wielding man seriously injured two people. "There is blood all over. One got stabbed in the stomach and got stabbed in the head and held his hands and got stabbed all over the arms."

Then, before the suspect could find another victim - a citizen with a gun stopped the madness. "A guy pulled gun on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. So, he dropped his weapon and the people from Smith's grabbed him."

Should be have a waiting period on knife purchases or am I'm giving these idiots too many ideas.

I for one am shocked, shocked....

One of the many points I make in debates with supporters of Obamacare, or the ACA, aka socialized medicine is a simple question. Where are you going to get the doctors?

Well the paper of records, the New York Times is actually asking that. It would have been nice of them to ask that three years ago when this monstrosity was being rammed through the Congress by using our tax dollars to bribe senators (Hey Many Landrieu, yes you, the biggest whore in the history of Louisiana). Better late than never but I think it will be used for showcasing "objectivity" or some crap like that.

Doctor Shortage Likely to Worsen With Health Law

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — In the Inland Empire, an economically depressed region in Southern California, President Obama’s health care law is expected to extend insurance coverage to more than 300,000 people by 2014. But coverage will not necessarily translate into care: Local health experts doubt there will be enough doctors to meet the area’s needs. There are not enough now.

Other places around the country, including the Mississippi Delta, Detroit and suburban Phoenix, face similar problems. The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015 the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. And that number will more than double by 2025, as the expansion of insurance coverage and the aging of baby boomers drive up demand for care. Even without the health care law, the shortfall of doctors in 2025 would still exceed 100,000.

Health experts, including many who support the law, say there is little that the government or the medical profession will be able to do to close the gap by 2014, when the law begins extending coverage to about 30 million Americans. It typically takes a decade to train a doctor...

...Experts describe a doctor shortage as an “invisible problem.” Patients still get care, but the process is often slow and difficult. In Riverside, it has left residents driving long distances to doctors, languishing on waiting lists, overusing emergency rooms and even forgoing care.

“It results in delayed care and higher levels of acuity,” said Dustin Corcoran, the chief executive of the California Medical Association, which represents 35,000 physicians. People “access the health care system through the emergency department, rather than establishing a relationship with a primary care physician who might keep them from getting sicker.”...

...Moreover, across the country, fewer than half of primary care clinicians were accepting new Medicaid patients as of 2008, making it hard for the poor to find care even when they are eligible for Medicaid. The expansion of Medicaid accounts for more than one-third of the overall growth in coverage in President Obama’s health care law.

Providers say they are bracing for the surge of the newly insured into an already strained system.

Temetry Lindsey, the chief executive of Inland Behavioral & Health Services, which provides medical care to about 12,000 area residents, many of them low income, said she was speeding patient-processing systems, packing doctors’ schedules tighter and seeking to hire more physicians....

...But the provisions within the law are expected to increase the number of primary care doctors by perhaps 3,000 in the coming decade. Communities around the country need about 45,000.

Many health experts in California said that while they welcomed the expansion of coverage, they expected that the state simply would not be ready for the new demand. “It’s going to be necessary to use the resources that we have smarter” in light of the doctor shortages, said Dr. Mark D. Smith, who heads the California HealthCare Foundation, a nonprofit group....

Now you can read the full article and it has some interesting points but I saw this one most interesting. Take a look at this chart.

Notice the shortage of doctors is worse with Obamacare. And an interesting point throughout the article and from the lips of the propagandists who push this crap. The constant use of the term "expansion of coverage" or words to that effect. Funny, there is no expansion of healthcare or medicine but of "coverage" So I'm sick, I've got cancer or diabetes or asthma and now I have coverage. Do I have care is the question. The answer is not as much as before. And you will pay more for less.

On that subject the point not mentioned is the lack of legal reform in Obamacare. Lawsuits are a major cause of medical inflation and until that is controlled by limiting punitive damages (not actual damages) it's a moot point.

Dr Thomas Sowell put it best after the Supreme Court ruled last month, "You said you could not afford to pay for doctors, medicines and hospitals, but you can afford to pay for the doctors, medicines and hospitals and bureaucrats that are coming?"

There are a few good poihts raised in this article such as allowing nurses to do more than they do now. I will add allowing a PA to do a lot more will help with minor case (e.g. flu, sprains, etc) and allow MDs to concentrate on more critical issues. But Obamacare will not increase the number of medial providers. If anything it will make medicine a less attractive career field for smart students.

But remember, you will have coverage.

Good news from Arkansas

A cop killer is getting what he deserves.

PARAGOULD, Ark. – An Arkansas man who shot a police officer during a traffic stop last year, then coldly shot him again in the face while he was pleading for his life, was sentenced to death on Saturday.

Jerry Lard was convicted Thursday of capital murder, and a Greene County judge agreed with the jury that the 38-year-old should die for killing Trumann police officer Jonathan Schmidt in April 2011.

Schmidt's father, Donald Schmidt Sr., welcomed the decision, saying the youngest of his son's three children, who turns 3 years old in October, will grow up not knowing his father.

"It's given me an overwhelming sense of relief," Schmidt said. "For some of the family members who lost their husband -- the children, they'll never get to see their father again. Only time will heal their wounds."...

...Prosecutor Scott Ellington, in a statement, said seeking the death sentence always involves a lot of thought and prayer, but that he saw no other option in the case of Lard, who also fired on but missed Schmidt's partner, Sgt. Corey Overstreet, during the confrontation.

"The jury echoed the commitment of the community to protect those who protect us. I am very proud of their courage and fortitude. I know it wasn't an easy decision, but it is one that had to be made," Ellington said.

Lard's attorneys didn't deny that he killed Schmidt, but they say Lard was mentally ill or deficient and should be spared execution.

Overstreet testified that he showed up as backup last year after Schmidt pulled over a car in which Lard was a passenger.

At one point, Schmidt asked Lard his name and birthday and radioed the information back. Schmidt walked to Lard's side of the car.

"When he opened the door, a hand reached out and started shooting Jonathan," Overstreet said.

Overstreet went to reach for his gun, but he said Lard pointed his weapon at him, so he scrambled between the vehicles. He heard gunshots.

Video taken the night of the shooting from dashboard cameras in the police cars showed Schmidt helping Overstreet back onto his feet after he fell, The Jonesboro Sun reported.

Lard swore and shot at Schmidt, who said, "Please, don't shoot me again."

A medical examiner told the jury Schmidt was shot four times, in the chin, neck, right wrist and chest, though a protective vest blocked that shot.

I go back to this quote.

Lard's attorneys didn't deny that he killed Schmidt, but they say Lard was mentally ill or deficient and should be spared execution.

Madam, if this is the mental problem of your client then he needs to be eliminated from the human gene pool.

This won't bring the officer back but he can rest a little easier and his family can know Arkansas will send his killer to the death he deserved.

RIP Officer Schmidt.

Officer Down

Deputy Sheriff William Mast, Jr.
Watauga County Sheriff's Office, North Carolina
End of Watch: Thursday, July 26, 2012
Age: 23
Tour: 3 years

Deputy Sheriff William Mast was shot and killed as he responded to a 911 call with an open line at a trailer home on Hardin Road in Deep Gap, North Carolina, at approximately 1:00 am.

Upon arriving at the scene he began walking towards the house when he was shot in the face. It is believed the subject who shot him intentionally ambushed him. Another deputy with him returned fire killing the suspect.

Deputy Mast is survived by his expectant wife.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Football fantasies, past and future!

New Orleans Saints unveil 'Rebirth' statue outside Superdome


NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana -- The blocked punt that etched Steve Gleason into Saints lore and became symbolic of New Orleans' resilience in the face of disaster is now immortalized in a 9-foot statue outside the Superdome.


"That statue is not about football," Gleason, straining to speak because of the effects of ALS, said moments before the formal unveiling on a rain-soaked Friday afternoon. "It's a symbol of the commitment and perseverance that this community took on before that game.


"There were 75,000 people in that stadium and few hundred thousand others outside the stadium who had already committed themselves to coming back and rebuilding this community. So that statue is a symbol of what they did. And I think that moment was the moment when we as a team got to share that commitment and perseverance with the rest of the world."


Gleason famously blocked the ball off of the foot of Atlanta punter Michael Koenen and into the end zone for a Saints touchdown on Sept. 25, 2006, the night the rebuilt Superdome and the city of New Orleans hosted an NFL game for the first time after Hurricane Katrina.


The statue, entitled "Rebirth," depicts Gleason fully outstretched in a dive, his hands smothering the ball as it leaves Koenen's foot...

I remember that game and that was the turning point. Took the house down! And the Peyton/Brees era was really born.

On the subject of Peyton,

From the Saints training camp, they's put this up.  A collect "up yours!" to the NFL's Commissioner.  Nothing will be better than winning the Superbowl in New Orleans next February and to see Goodell have to hand the Lombardi Trophy to Tom Benson.  But that is TBD.

One can always dream!  Have a great weekend!

UPDATE:

The team with former Saint Steve Gleason at the statue unveiling.

Security Weekly: The Persistent Threat to Soft Targets, July 26, 2012

By Scott Stewart

In the early hours of July 20, a gunman entered a packed movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and opened fire on the audience that had gathered to watch the premiere of the new Batman movie, The Dark Knight Rises. The gunman killed 12 people and injured 58 others. Though police are looking for potential accomplices, the attack appears to have been conducted by James Holmes, a lone gunman who, according to some police reports, may have had a delusional fixation on the Joker, a violent villain from an earlier Batman movie.

On July 18, just two days before the Colorado attack, a man reportedly disguised in a wig and posing as an American tourist in the Black Sea resort town of Burgas, Bulgaria, detonated an improvised explosive device hidden in his backpack as a group of Israeli tourists boarded a bus bound for their hotel. The blast killed five Israelis and the Bulgarian bus driver and wounded dozens more. It is unclear if the incident was an intentional suicide attack; the device could have detonated prematurely as the man placed it on the bus. In any case, the tourists clearly were the intended targets.

The Burgas attacker has not yet been identified. Based on his profile, there is some speculation that he could have been a grassroots jihadist. However, it is also possible that he was acting on behalf of Iran and that this attack was merely the latest installment in the ongoing covert war between Iran and Israel.

While these two attacks occurred on different continents and were committed by people with different motivations and objectives, they nonetheless have one thing in common: They were directed against what are referred to in security parlance as "soft" targets, or targets that do not have much security. Soft targets are much easier to attack than hard targets, which deter attacks by maintaining a comparatively strong security presence.

Evolution of Targets and Tactics

In the 1960s, the beginning of the modern terrorism era, there were few hard targets. In the 1970s, the American radical leftist Weather Underground Organization was able to conduct successful bombing attacks against the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and the State Department buildings -- the very heart of the U.S. government. At the same time commercial airliners were easy targets for political dissidents, terrorists and criminal hijackers.

Nongovernmental organizations were also seen as soft targets. The Black September Organization conducted an operation targeting Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympic Games, and Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, known as Carlos the Jackal, and his compatriots seized the OPEC headquarters in Vienna in December 1975.

Embassies did not fare much better. During the 1970s, militant groups seized control of embassies in several cities, including Stockholm, The Hague, Khartoum and Kuala Lumpur. The 1970s concluded with the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and the storming and destruction of the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. The 1980s saw major attacks against U.S. diplomatic posts in Beirut (twice) and Kuwait.

Just as the Weather Underground Organization attacks prompted security improvements at the U.S. government buildings they had targeted, the attacks against U.S. and other embassies prompted increased security at their diplomatic missions. However, this turned into a long process. The cost of providing security for diplomatic posts strained already meager foreign affairs budgets. For most countries, including the United States, security was not increased at all diplomatic missions. Rather, security was improved in accordance with a threat matrix that assessed the risk levels at various missions. Those deemed more at risk received funding before those deemed less at risk.

In some cases, this approach has worked well for the United States. For example, despite the persistent jihadist threat in Yemen, the new embassy compound in Sanaa, which was completed in the early 1990s and constructed to the strict security specifications laid out by the Inman Commission in 1985, has proved to be a very difficult target to attack. However, as embassies became more difficult to attack, militants turned to easier targets. Often this has involved targeting diplomats outside the secure embassy compound, as was the case in the 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan, and the April 2010 failed suicide bombing attack against the motorcade carrying the British ambassador to Yemen.

Transnational groups also changed regions to find softer embassy targets. This shift was evident in August 1998, when al Qaeda attacked U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. Similarly, during the 1991 Gulf War, Iraqi agents attempted to conduct terrorist attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities in Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok and Beijing -- far from the Middle East. The February 2012 attack against an Israeli Embassy employee in New Delhi is an example of both changing the region and targeting an employee away from the security of the embassy.

There was a similar trend with airliners, which initially were very vulnerable to attack. After many high-profile hijackings, such as that of TWA Flight 847, airliner security, particularly in the West, was increased. But as security was increased in one place, hijackers began to shift operations to places where security was less robust, such as Bangkok or Karachi. And as security was improved globally and hijackings became more difficult in the 1980s, attackers shifted their tactics and began using improvised explosive devices against airliners.

In response to security measures implemented after bombing attacks in the 1980s, attackers underwent yet another paradigm shift. In December 1994, Philippine Airlines Flight 434 was attacked with an improvised explosive device that had been carried onto the aircraft in separate components, assembled in the plane's restroom and left on board when the attacker left at an intermediate stop on a multiple city flight. This attack was a dry run for a plan against multiple airlines called Operation Bojinka. The operational mastermind of Bojinka, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, would later plan the 9/11 attacks on the United States.

When security measures were put in place to protect against Bojinka-style attacks in the 1990s, jihadists adapted again and conducted the 9/11 attacks using a different method of attack. When security measures were put in place to counter 9/11-style attacks, jihadists quickly responded by shifting to onboard suicide attacks with concealed improvised explosive devices inside shoes. When that tactic was discovered and shoes began to be screened, jihadists changed to camouflaged containers filled with liquid explosives. Security measures were adjusted to restrict the quantity of liquids that people could take aboard aircraft, and jihadists altered the paradigm once more and attempted underwear bombing using a device with no metal components. When security measures were taken to increase passenger screening in response to the underwear bombing, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula decided to attack cargo aircraft with improvised explosive devices hidden in printer cartridges. Currently, there is a concern that the next evolutionary step will be to hide non-metallic improvised explosive devices in body cavities or to surgically implant them in suicide bombers.

While some jihadists have remained fixated on hardened airline targets, other attackers -- especially grassroot and lone wolf attackers who do not possess the ability to attack hardened targets -- have sought other, softer airline targets to attack. After Israeli airline El Al beefed up security on its airliners in the 1980s, the Abu Nidal Organization compensated by attacking crowds of El Al customers at ticket counters outside of airport security in Rome and Vienna in 1985. Then in November 2002, jihadists attempted to attack an Israeli airliner in Mombasa, Kenya, with SA-7 surface-to-air missiles. More recently, a dual suicide bombing in the arrival lounge of Moscow's Domodedovo Airport in January 2011 killed 35 and injured more than 160, proving that areas outside an airport's security measures are vulnerable to attack. Further illustrating this vulnerability was an attack at an airport in Frankfurt, Germany, in March 2011. In that attack, a jihadist killed two U.S. airmen and wounded two others at the airport's bus departure area.

Other Targets

As embassies and other government installations have become more difficult to attack, we have noted a discernable trend toward the targeting of hotels, which are similarly symbolic of Western influence and are often described in jihadist literature as spy dens and brothels. In many cities of the developing world, major hotels are frequented by foreign tourists, journalists, visiting officials and military officers, and local government and business leaders. In addition, high-profile restaurants have been attacked in places such as Bali, Indonesia, Mumbai, India, and Marrakech, Morocco. There have also been attacks on theaters in Moscow and Mogadishu, on schools in Beslan, Russia, and Toulouse, France, and on marketplaces all over the world.

As long as there are groups or individuals bent on conducting attacks -- whatever their motivation -- they will be able to find vulnerable soft targets to attack. It is impossible to protect every potential target. In fact, it is often said that when you try to protect everything, you end up protecting nothing. Not even the vast manpower of the Chinese government or the advanced security technology employed by the U.S. government can cover every potential target.

While attacks against soft targets are an unfortunate prospect in the contemporary world -- if not throughout all human history -- people are not helpless in defending against them. Terrorism is a continuing concern, but it is one that can be understood. Once understood, measures can be taken to thwart terrorist plots and mitigate the effects of attacks.

Perhaps the most important and fundamental point to understand about terrorism is that attacks do not appear out of nowhere. Individuals planning a terrorist attack follow a discernible cycle, and that cycle and the behaviors associated with it can be detected. The places where terrorism-related behavior can be most readily observed are referred to as vulnerabilities in the terrorist attack cycle.

As the attacks in Aurora and Burgas are investigated, authorities very likely will uncover behaviors in the perpetrators that could have prevented the attacks if they were properly investigated. Every attacker -- even a lone wolf assailant -- leaves evidence of a pending attack. This fact was brought up by the recent release of a report by the William H. Webster Commission into the investigation of 2009 Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan. The report highlighted the mistakes made in the investigation of Hasan, who was brought to the FBI's attention prior to the attack.

But since it is impossible for any government to prevent all attacks, people have to assume responsibility for their own security. This means citizens need to report possible planning activity when it is spotted. Such reporting helped avert an attack in July 2011 against a restaurant outside of Ft. Hood, Texas.

The threat against soft targets necessitates practicing common sense security measures. It also involves practicing an appropriate degree of situational awareness of the environment a person is in, as well as establishing appropriate contingency plans for families and businesses.

The Persistent Threat to Soft Targets COPYRIGHT: STRATFOR.COM

Blogolanch!

Last Sunday I posted on a great billboard and I sent Legal Insurrection the link. Dr Jacobson and his crew were nice enough to link to my blog. Man, did this up my stats!

June 25th was my greatest blog hit day of all time, 2056. Normally I get 100-300 a day. As of this morning the total number of hits on this post are 2526. But the really funny part is I only got three comments on the post and they are an argument on my white text on black background!

Again, thanks Legal Insurrection for this!

Vermin walking on a great woman's grave.

Forgive me if I’m blunt but what is happening with Dr Sally Ride after her death is disgusting.

Until the day after she died I had no idea of her sexual orientation. OK, she is gay and has been in a relationship with another woman for 27 years. Now many in the blogosphere/Twitterverse are trying to make that the issue of the day.

This is a woman of multiple accomplishments throughout her life. A doctorate in physics, professor at a university, was a member of both shuttle loss panels and ran her own business to encourage young women to go into science. Oh, BTY, she was the first American woman in space.

But starting with a Twitter comment by Andrew Sullivan the world knows something she decided to keep confidential for three decades. Gee, where are the privacy advocates on this? Not to mention Sullivan seems to want to use her death to push for expanded benefits for gay parters.

Yo Andy, Dr Ride wanted (for whatever reason) to keep her orientation private and you’re using her death to push your political objective. Excuse me if I call you a leech. So please, STFU and go away and let her parter and family bury her while celebrating her life and accomplishments. You are quite capable of making an ass of yourself on other matters.

RIP Dr Ride...hopefully these morons go away.

Officer Down

Police Officer Matthew Tyner
Colorado Springs Colorado Police Department
End of Watch: Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Tour: 16 years

Police Officer Matt Tyner was killed in a motorcycle accident while performing traffic enforcement on Austin Bluffs Parkway, Oro Blanco Drive and Old Farm Drive, shortly after 2:30 pm.

His motorcycle collided with another vehicle, causing him to suffer fatal injuries.

Officer Tyner had served with the Colorado Springs Police Department for 13 years and had previously served with the Kansas City Police Department for six years. He was assigned to the Specialized Enforcement Motorcycle Unit.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

Yes, Bloomberg really doesn't understand....

Earlier this week I posted on how the idiot Mayor of New York showed himself as the fool he is. Here is another look of his idiocy.

Why officers won't do what Bloomberg suggests

No matter where you stand on the issue of citizens’ gun ownership (full disclosure: I’m a lifetime member of the NRA), I have to believe just about every PoliceOne Member will be as appalled as I had been upon hearing about the comments of Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday’s episode of CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight.”

The Mayor of New York has long been an anti-gun activist, and has chosen to use the dreadful tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, to press his political agenda.

My jawbone about hit my clavicle when a very good friend of mine called me on the phone yesterday and told me that Bloomberg stated on national television, “I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe.”

Well, Mr. Bloomberg, I do understand why officers in this great nation will not do what you suggest.

Because they have sworn an oath to protect their communities from criminals.

They have studied diligently and trained vigorously to meet whatever evil that may confront them on the streets anytime they go 10-8.

They have taken it upon themselves to be the sheepdogs protecting the flock from the wolves.

They take their duties seriously, and no matter where they stand on the Second Amendment in the United States Constitution Bill of Rights, they approach their jobs with professionalism and valor so great that it will forever evade your imagination.

Bloomberg’s comments reveal his utter disdain for the victims of the tragedy in Aurora — New Jersey Governor Christie correctly assessed, in my opinion, that Bloomberg is simply using the dead and wounded as "political pawns."

Bloomberg’s comments also reveal his complete lack of comprehension about police officers and the profession of policing.

Bloomberg could begin any sentence thusly, and be completely correct.

“I don’t understand why police officers...”

Yes, Mr. Mayor, you most certainly don’t.

Here’s to the Warriors. Here’s to American LEOs.

Yes Mr Mayor, you are beneath contempt. Hopefully you won't bring more disgrace to your office by just shutting the hell up.

Officer Down

Officer Chad Morimoto
Honolulu Hawaii Police Department
End of Watch: Monday, July 23, 2012
Tour: 8 years
Badge # 2987

Officer Chad Morimoto was killed in a motorcycle accident while participating in a training course at approximately 11:45 am.

He was performing motorcycle escort training at Mililani District Park when he crashed on Lanikuhana Avenue, between Keaoopua Street and Kuahelani Avenue.

Officer Morimoto had served with the Honolulu Police Department for eight years and was assigned to the Traffic Division.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh. 

Geopolitical Weekly: Consequences of the Fall of the Syrian Regime, July 24, 2012

By George Friedman

We have entered the endgame in Syria. That doesn't mean that we have reached the end by any means, but it does mean that the precondition has been met for the fall of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad. We have argued that so long as the military and security apparatus remain intact and effective, the regime could endure. Although they continue to function, neither appears intact any longer; their control of key areas such as Damascus and Aleppo is in doubt, and the reliability of their personnel, given defections, is no longer certain. We had thought that there was a reasonable chance of the al Assad regime surviving completely. That is no longer the case. At a certain point -- in our view, after the defection of a Syrian pilot June 21 and then the defection of the Tlass clan -- key members of the regime began to recalculate the probability of survival and their interests. The regime has not unraveled, but it is unraveling.

The speculation over al Assad's whereabouts and heavy fighting in Damascus is simply part of the regime's problems. Rumors, whether true or not, create uncertainty that the regime cannot afford right now. The outcome is unclear. On the one hand, a new regime might emerge that could exercise control. On the other hand, Syria could collapse into a Lebanon situation in which it disintegrates into regions held by various factions, with no effective central government.

The Russian and Chinese Strategy

The geopolitical picture is somewhat clearer than the internal political picture. Whatever else happens, it is unlikely that al Assad will be able to return to unchallenged rule. The United States, France and other European countries have opposed his regime. Russia, China and Iran have supported it, each for different reasons. The Russians opposed the West's calls to intervene, which were grounded on human rights concerns, fearing that the proposed intervention was simply a subterfuge to extend Western power and that it would be used against them. The Chinese also supported the Syrians, in part for these same reasons. Both Moscow and Beijing hoped to avoid legitimizing Western pressure based on human rights considerations -- something they had each faced at one time or another. In addition, Russia and China wanted the United States in particular focused on the Middle East rather than on them. They would not have minded a military intervention that would have bogged down the United States, but the United States declined to give that to them.

But the Russian and Chinese game was subtler than that. It focused on Iran. As we have argued, if the al Assad regime were to survive and were to be isolated from the West, it would be primarily dependent on Iran, its main patron. Iran had supplied trainers, special operations troops, supplies and money to sustain the regime. For Iran, the events in Syria represented a tremendous opportunity. Iran already held a powerful position in Iraq, not quite dominating it but heavily influencing it. If the al Assad regime survived and had Iranian support to thank for its survival, Syria would become even more dependent on Iran than was Iraq. This would shore up the Iranian position in Iraq, but more important, it would have created an Iranian sphere of influence stretching from western Afghanistan to Lebanon, where Hezbollah is an Iranian ally.

The Russians and Chinese clearly understood that if this had happened, the United States would have had an intense interest in undermining the Iranian sphere of influence -- and would have had to devote massive resources to doing so. Russia and China benefitted greatly in the post-9/11 world, when the United States was obsessed with the Islamic world and had little interest or resources to devote to China and Russia. With the end of the Afghanistan war looming, this respite seemed likely to end. Underwriting Iranian hegemony over a region that would inevitably draw the United States' attention was a low-cost, high-return strategy.

The Chinese primarily provided political cover, keeping the Russians from having to operate alone diplomatically. They devoted no resources to the Syrian conflict but did continue to oppose sanctions against Iran and provided trade opportunities for Iran. The Russians made a much larger commitment, providing material and political support to the al Assad regime.

It seems the Russians began calculating the end for the regime some time ago. Russia continued to deliver ammunition and other supplies to Syria but pulled back on a delivery of helicopters. Several attempts to deliver the helicopters "failed" when British insurers of the ship pulled coverage. That was the reason the Russians gave for not delivering the helicopters, but obviously the Russians could have insured the ship themselves. They were backing off from supporting al Assad, their intelligence indicating trouble in Damascus. In the last few days the Russians have moved to the point where they had their ambassador to France suggest that the time had come for al Assad to leave -- then, of course, he denied having made the statement.

A Strategic Blow to Iran

As the Russians withdraw support, Iran is now left extremely exposed. There had been a sense of inevitability in Iran's rise in the region, particularly in the Arabian Peninsula. The decline of al Assad's regime is a strategic blow to the Iranians in two ways. First, the wide-reaching sphere of influence they were creating clearly won't happen now. Second, Iran will rapidly move from being an ascendant power to a power on the defensive.

The place where this will become most apparent is in Iraq. For Iran, Iraq represents a fundamental national security interest. Having fought a bloody war with Iraq in the 1980s, the Iranians have an overriding interest in assuring that Iraq remains at least neutral and preferably pro-Iranian. While Iran was ascendant, Iraqi politicians felt that they had to be accommodating. However, in the same way that Syrian generals had to recalculate their positions, Iraqi politicians have to do the same. With sanctions -- whatever their effectiveness -- being imposed on Iran, and with Iran's position in Syria unraveling, the psychology in Iraq might change.

This is particularly the case because of intensifying Turkish interest in Iraq. In recent days the Turks have announced plans for pipelines in Iraq to oil fields in the south and in the north. Turkish economic activity is intensifying. Turkey is the only regional power that can challenge Iran militarily. It uses that power against the Kurds in Iraq. But more to the point, if a country builds a pipeline, it must ensure access to it, either politically or militarily. Turkey does not want to militarily involve itself in Iraq, but it does want political influence to guarantee its interests. Thus, just as the Iranians are in retreat, the Turks have an interest in, if not supplanting them, certainly supplementing them.

The pressure on Iran is now intense, and it will be interesting to see the political consequences. There was consensus on the Syrian strategy, but with failure of the strategy, that consensus dissolves. This will have an impact inside of Iran, possibly even more than the sanctions. Governments have trouble managing reversals.

Other Consequences

From the American point of view, al Assad's decline opens two opportunities. First, its policy of no direct military intervention but unremitting political and, to a lesser extent, economic pressure appears to be working in this instance. More precisely, even if it had no effect, it will appear that it did, which will enhance the ability of the United States to influence events in other countries without actually having to intervene.

Second, the current situation opens the door for a genuine balance of power in the region that does not require constant American intervention. One of the consequences of the events in Syria is that Turkey has had to reconsider its policy toward countries on its periphery. In the case of Iraq, Turkey has an interest in suppressing the Kurdistan Workers' Party militants who have taken refuge there and defending oil and other economic interests. Turkey's strategy is moving from avoiding all confrontations to avoiding major military commitments while pursuing its political interests. In the end, that means that Turkey will begin moving into a position of balancing Iran for its own interests in Iraq.

This relieves the United States of the burden of containing Iran. We continue to regard the Iranian sphere of influence as a greater threat to American and regional interests than Iran's nuclear program. The decline of al Assad solves the major problem. It also increases the sense of vulnerability in Iran. Depending on how close they are to creating a deliverable nuclear weapon -- and our view is that they are not close -- the Iranians may feel it necessary to moderate their position.

A major loser in this is Israel. Israel had maintained a clear understanding with the al Assad regime. If the al Assad regime restrained Hezbollah, Israel would have no objection to al Assad's dominating Lebanon. That agreement has frayed since the United States pushed al Assad's influence out of Lebanon in 2006. Nevertheless, the Israelis preferred al Assad to the Sunnis -- until it appeared that the Iranians would dominate Syria. But the possibility of either an Islamist regime in Damascus or, more likely, Lebanese-style instability cannot please the Israelis. They are already experiencing jihadist threats in Sinai. The idea of having similar problems in Syria, where the other side of the border is the Galilee rather than the Negev, must make them nervous.

But perhaps the most important losers will be Russia and China. Russia, like Iran, has suffered a significant setback in its foreign policy that will have psychological consequences. The situation in Syria has halted the foreign-policy momentum the Russians had built up. But more important, the Russian and Chinese hope has been that the United States would continue to treat them as secondary issues while it focused on the Middle East. The decline of al Assad and the resulting dynamic in the region increases the possibility that the United States can disengage from the region. This is not something the Russians or Chinese want, but in the end, they did not have the power to create the outcome in Syria that they had wanted.

The strategy of the dominant power is to encourage a balance of power that contains threats without requiring direct intervention. This was the British strategy, but it has not been one that the United States has managed well. After the jihadist wars, there is a maturation under way in U.S. strategy. That means allowing the intrinsic dynamic in the region to work, intervening only as the final recourse. The events in Syria appear to be simply about the survival of the al Assad regime. But they have far greater significance in terms of limiting Iranian power, creating a local balance of power and freeing the United States to focus on global issues, including Russia and China.

Consequences of the Fall of the Syrian Regime

Officer Down

Border Patrol Agent James R. Dominguez
United States DHS - Customs and Border Protection - Border Patrol, U.S. Government
End of Watch: Thursday, July 19, 2012
Age: 41
Tour: 12 years
Badge # U211

Border Patrol Agent James Dominguez was struck and killed by a vehicle while assisting a disabled motorist on US 90 near Cline, Texas.

The disabled vehicle had experienced a flat tire. Agent Dominguez was assisting the driver pick up some of the tire debris when he was struck from behind by a large pickup truck.

Agent Dominguez had served with the United States Border Patrol for 12 years and was assigned to the Del Rio Sector. He is survived by his wife, son, three daughters, father, and brother. His brother serves with the Border Patrol and his father is retired from the Border Patrol.

Rest in Peace Bro…We’ll Continue The Watch

Day is done, Gone the sun, From the lake, From the hills, From the sky. All is well, Safely rest, God is nigh.

I never thought Bloonturd could be so con temptable.....

The hypocrisy of the mayor of Gotham City (you can't idle your car but he can, he wants you on a subway but his ass is in a limo and private help), aka New York is beyond belief but his single minded rush to seize guns shows what he really is.

Bloomberg occasionally comes on the national scene because of one outrage or anther, the latest being his desire to ban large soda's from the serfs in his city. But something to remember when you look at his comments is he brings himself into this. He calls friendly media and gets himself up on the TV to give an opinion. And for some reason he always wants to take more liberty from law abiding citizen. Be it smoking anywhere, cokes or trans fats, here always wants government to handle more of your life.

Now here is putting his nose into a murder two thousand miles away for his political issue, gun control. Not that anything he wants will stop murder but listen to him.

He wants cops to go on strike. Hey idiot, if I walk off the job I'm fired, New York rules don't apply everywhere in case you don't know. But unlike you, cops are actual public servants. You and the multiple assistant mayors of New York, among the city council members, etc, are leeches. But we're the ones actually needed by society. We are the ones the people rely on to protect themselves from the criminals out there. You know, the ones that legally can't have guns and will not be affected by those laws you want to impose on the general public, leaving them much less secure.

Mr Bloomberg, we all know you have higher ambitions but your ideas won't go in middle America. In case you missed it there is a whole other country between Gotham and California and fortunately they will keep you away from the White House (although the New York electorate may put you in the Senate, God help us...then again you or Up Chuck Schumer, not much difference).

Bloomturd, you are not helping...then again you don't want to help. So again, don't go away mad. Just go away. This is time for the adults to handle a problem.

This was great....

About two years ago I was on Legal Insurrection and found a reference to Pat at And So It Goes in Shreveport. I checked this site out and really enjoyed the blog and started to exchange posts with Pat regularly.  Pat and I really linked when a little over a year ago she posted on CPL Blaird Scott of the Shreveport PD  and we worked on getting him support in his time of need.

Beth and I planned to go to the Blue Knights International Convention this week and I asked Pat earlier this year if she and Steve wanted to meet. Pat was very enthuastic  and suggested we met for lunch and some time together in Jefferson.   Unfortunately the convention was bumped (my promotion assessment and Beth's school) but we still met up on Sunday afternoon in Jefferson.  

After driving up Sunday morning (and seeing the greatest billboard ever!) Beth and I met Pat and Steve at the Auntie Skinner's, a great restaurant and bar.  After driving up for 5 hours a beer was definitely needed.  Talking with these two was like catching up with old friends from high school.  After a great lunch (too much food) served by a waitress who busted her ass for this place (Charlene) we were walking out and found this small horse guarding the door.

Actually he was a guide dog for one of the other customers.  I can't recall his name but he was 106 pounds.

After checking in at the Excelsior House  we got a beautiful room across from Pat and Steve.  We both didn’t want to leave the  bed but we had the town to check out and some shopping to do.  Besides we had lunch to burn off!

Pat and Steve took us on a tour of the B&B.  The building was beautiful with each of the rooms having antique furniture, often over a century old.  I love real wood and just look at some of these bed and other items.

The Grant Room

The Hayes Room

After looking around there we took a tour of the town’s stores.  Beth was on the prowl for antiques and I gotta say there were some good things to buy there.  And we met some new friends.  

Beth's new broach

After a few hours in the heat and the a few purchases (including a brooch Beth will wear at the wedding) we took a power nap.  After meeting after 6:00 pm we went looking for dinner then ended up back at Auntie Skinner's,  To no surprise (she said she was working a double) Charlene was still there and still going at full speed (Damned, I remember being young and full of energy like that).  Even got the same table.  Dinner and more beer over great conversation.  

Pat and Steve then took us on a walking tour of the town and pointed out the history, especially in the Civil War.  

After getting back to the Excelsior we spent the next few hours out back killing beer and scotch, I enjoyed a Rocky Patel and we all talked the night away.  Beth and I regrettably had to call the night early as she had school Monday morning.  Cannot wait to see Pat and Steve again.  In the Blue Knights we have a saying, “There are no strangers here.  Just friends you haven’t met yet.”  Hopefully we can do brewery tour together soon!

After getting up at 4:30 Monday morning (man I used to go to sleep at this time!) we got on the road and made some great time.  Got home just in time to get Beth to class.

Not exactly a weekend but a great day and two new great friends.  Nothing better!