Dog Brothers Public Forum


Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 15, 2017, 08:13:35 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
106214 Posts in 2396 Topics by 1094 Members
Latest Member: Ice Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 237 238 [239] 240 241 ... 308
11901  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / 3 cheers for surveillance cameras! on: May 03, 2010, 06:49:44 AM

Authorities were examining security cameras and other evidence to see if they could identify a possible suspect or motive -- and already had located video of the car being driven to the scene.

"Right now, we have no evidence that this was anything but a one-off" attack, Napolitano told "This Week" this morning.

"Tape is being reviewed and additional forensics are being done in addition to that," she added. "Times Square, I think, now is safe."
11902  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Homeland Security and American Freedom on: May 02, 2010, 04:24:29 PM

Times Square car bomb: police investigate South Park link

Police in New York are investigating whether a car bomb in Times Square was targeted on the makers of South Park over a controversial depiction of the Prophet Mohammed.
11903  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Knife Talk - Reviews and Rants on: May 02, 2010, 04:06:01 PM
DAs are political animals and tend to react along political lines. The DA has a lot of discretion in filing charges or not, or emplaneling a grand jury to review a use of force by a LEO or citizen. An identical shooting that might get you a commendation in Rope and Ride, Texas could get you indicted in Berkely, CA. Your appearance, and the appearance of the weapon you use and the perceptions that engenders in the public and especially a jury can make all the difference in the world.

Note how in some places in the US, so called "assault weapons" are outlawed, despite the fact that flash hiders, pistol grips and bayonet lugs are cosmetic rather than real issues. I have yet to find an incident of a drive by bayoneting, but some laws have been made to forbid such things because of public perceptions of them.

Even if you are an orthodox jew, I wouldn't carry a WWII era Walther with a German proof stamp for defensive purposes. You might be very proud of your custom 1911, but leave "Kill them all, let god sort them out"  off the engraving on the slide, or the mother of pearl grips with the Punisher skull logo.

Ideally, ye,s the use of force should be judged strictly on the merits of the case alone, unfortunately perception and politics can and do factor in to how the case is handled in the criminal and civil courts.
11904  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Knife Talk - Reviews and Rants on: May 02, 2010, 08:53:40 AM
In places like the PRK, it's sound advice. Not as important in free states.

Good luck on LASD, Maxx. It's one of the best agencies in the US, IMHO.
11905  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Knife Talk - Reviews and Rants on: May 01, 2010, 09:12:51 AM
I'm a big fan of Cold Steel knives.
11906  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: May 01, 2010, 09:11:21 AM

Just shooting the cops Americans won't shoot.....
11907  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 30, 2010, 09:23:22 AM
If I make a traffic stop, and I have to say "Tiene liciencia" "Dame sus identificacion" because "No hablo englais", this is what we call "a clue".
11908  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 29, 2010, 08:47:43 PM

Arizona and 'Lawful Contact'   [Andy McCarthy]

My column this morning is about the Arizona immigration law and attempts to make the point (among other points) that the state law is a measured response to a serious economic, social, and law enforcement problem. As I detail, the powers invoked by the statute are tiny compared to the federal government's border enforcement powers, which are not subject to any of the usual protections of the Fourth Amendment's warrant clause.

Contrary to the hysterical charges of racism being leveled at the statute, it does not permit a no-holds-barred inquisition of Hispanic people. Indeed, the state law demands more of police than federal law. To begin with, there is to be no inquiry about a person's immigration status unless the "contact" between the police officer and the person is "lawful" in the first instance.

There are three relevant gradations of contact between a police officer and a person: non-custodial, brief detention, and arrest. The non-custodial context refers generally to any incidental interaction between a police officer and an individual — including those initiated by the individual. A police officer does not need suspicion in order to ask a person a question, but the person is not required to answer and the officer has no lawful authority to detain a person, even fleetingly, absent "reasonable suspicion."

Brief detentions are known in the law as "Terry stops" — thanks to the famous Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). Under Terry, a police officer may only detain a person if the officer has reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity. This standard is not met by a hunch or a generalized suspicion — a cop who says to himself, "Those look like Mexicans, they must be up to no good," does not make the grade. Instead, the officer must be able to articulate specific facts which, together with the logical inference to be drawn from those facts, reasonably suggest that criminal activity has occurred or is imminent. Courts are deferential to the judgment of police officers — the standard is not what any person would think of the facts observed but what an experienced cop acting reasonably and responsibly would think. But there must be specific, describable indicia of criminal activity.

The permissible duration of a Terry stop depends on the circumstances. The Supreme Court has not set in stone some magic moment where a brief detention evolves into an arrest. But arrest happens when the detention has become police custody. At that point, the officer must have probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed.

So the Arizona immigration law does not allow the police officer to have contact with the person unless the contact is lawful. This means if even the briefest detention is involved, the police officer must have reasonable suspicion that some crime has been or is being committed. Absent that, the officer is not permitted to stop the person.

Now, why do I say the Arizona law is more restrictive of police than is federal law? Well, the Supreme Court has held that one common rationale for a permissible Terry stop is to ascertain the identity of the person who is detained. That is, federal law would probably permit an inquiry into citizenship as a part of establishing who the detainee is — again, as long as the officer had a good reason for detaining the person in the first place.

The Arizona law, by contrast, does not give a cop this latitude. Instead, the officer is permitted to attempt to determine the person's immigration status only if, in addition to the initial contact being lawful, there also exists specific "reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States." As I noted above, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence teaches that reasonable suspicion requires specific, articulable facts — not a hunch or generalized suspicion. Thus, the Arizona law requires that there be reasonable suspicion for both the initial stop (e.g., the police officer observed erratic driving and concluded the person might be intoxicated) and for pursuing a line of inquiry about whether the person is an illegal alien.

Two more principles are instructive here. The first involves the complaint that this law may result in a person's being found to be an illegal alien even if the reason the police officer stops him has nothing to do with his immigration status. So what? If the police stop you because you are driving erratically and they find an illegal gun in your car, you may be prosecuted for possession of the gun — the fact that the cops weren't looking for a gun is irrelevant. Ditto if police get a warrant to search your home for stolen appliances and, while lawfully searching, find a bag of cocaine — you can be charged for violating the drug laws even though that is not what the warrant allowed the police to look for. The question is not what the police were expecting to find; it is whether they were lawfully conducting a search in the first place.

Second, all of the above takes place within the context of the the civil rights laws. Under Section 1983 of Title 42, United States Code, state law enforcement officers may be sued if they deprive a person of any rights, privileges or immunities to which the Constitution entitles him. Police officers who enforce the law in bad faith, who harrass people without a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been or is about to be committed, are liable to civil suit. The legal, financial, and professional consequences of violating the civil rights laws can be very damaging.

As I indicated in my column, I agree with Byron: The people who are complaining about this law almost certainly either have not read it or are demagogues who would make the same absurd claims no matter what they law said.

11909  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 28, 2010, 10:51:58 PM
**I like every point here.**

April 27th, 2010 11:41 am
How Could They Do That in Arizona!The Arizona Hysteria

Racist! Nativist! Profiler! Xenophobe!

Write or say anything about illegal immigration, and one should expect to be called all of that and more—even if a strong supporter of legal immigration. Illegal alien becomes undocumented worker. Anti-immigrant replaces anti-illegal-immigration. “Comprehensive” is a euphemism for amnesty. Triangulation abounds. A fiery op-ed grandstands and deplores the Arizona law, but offers no guidance about illegal immigration — and blames the employer for doing something that the ethnic lobby in fact welcomes.

Nevertheless, here it goes from a supporter of legal immigration: how are we to make sense of the current Arizona debate? One should show concern about some elements of the law, but only in the context of the desperation of the citizens of Arizona. And one should show some skepticism concerning mounting liberal anguish, so often expressed by those whose daily lives are completely unaffected by the revolutionary demographic, cultural, and legal transformations occurring in the American Southwest.

As I understand the opposition to the recent Arizona law, it boils down to something like the following: the federal government’s past decision not to enforce its own law should always trump the state’s right to honor it. That raises interesting questions: Does the state contravene federal authority by exercising it? If the federal government does not protect the borders of a state, does the state have a right to do it itself? The federal government has seemed in the past to be saying that if one circumvented a federal law, and was known to have circumvented federal law with recognized impunity, then there was no longer a law to be enforced.

A Losing Political Issue

The politics of illegal immigration are a losing proposition for liberals (one can see that in the resort to euphemism), even if they don’t quite see it that way. Here are ten considerations why.

Law?—What Law?

First, there is the simplicity of the argument. One either wishes or does not wish existing law to be enforced. If the answer is no, and citizens can pick and chose which laws they would like to obey, in theory why should we have to pay taxes or respect the speed limit? Note that liberal Democrats do not suggest that we overturn immigration law and de jure open the border — only that we continue to do that de facto. Confusion between legal and illegal immigration is essential for the open borders argument, since  a proper distinction between the two makes the present policy  indefensible—especially since it discriminates against those waiting in line to come to America legally (e.g., somehow our attention is turned to the illegal alien’s plight and not the burdensome paperwork and government obstacles that the dutiful legal immigrant must face).

Why Wave the Flag of the Country I Don’t Wish to Return To?

Second, often the protests against enforcement of immigration law are strangely couched within a general climate of anger at the U.S. government (and/or the American people) for some such illiberal transgression (review the placards, flags, etc. at May Day immigration rallies). Fairly or not, the anger at the U.S. and the nostalgia for Mexico distill into the absurd, something like either “I am furious at the country I insist on staying in, and fond of the country I most certainly do not wish to return to” or “I am angry at you so you better let angry me stay with you!” Such mixed messages confuse the electorate. As in the case with the Palestinians, there is an effort to graft a foreign policy issue (protecting an international border) onto domestic identity politics, to inject an inflammatory race/class element into the debate by creating oppressors, victims, and grievances along racial divides.

Big Brother Mexico?

Third, Mexico is no help. Now it weighs in with all sorts of moral censure for Arizonians — this from a corrupt government whose very policies are predicated on exporting a million indigenous people a year, while it seeks to lure wealthy “gringos” to invest in second-homes in Baja. The absence of millions from Oaxaca or Chiapas ensures billions in remittances, less expenditures for social services, and fewer dissident citizens. But the construct of Mexico as the concerned parent of its own lost children is by now so implausible that even its sympathizers do not take it seriously. Mexico has lost all credibility on these issues, expressing concern for its own citizens only when they seem to have crossed the border — and left Mexico.

It’s Not a Race Issue

Fourth, there really is a new popular groundswell to close the borders. Most against illegal immigration, especially in the case of minorities and Mexican-American citizens, keep rather mum about their feelings. But that silence should not be interpreted as antagonism to enforcing the law. Many minorities realize that the greatest hindrance to a natural rise in wages for entry level jobs has been the option for an employer to hire illegal aliens, who, at least in their 20s and 30s, will work harder for less pay with fewer complaints (when sick, or disabled, or elderly, the worker is directed by the employer to the social services agencies and replaced by someone younger as a new cycle of exploitation begins). In this context, the old race card is less effective. The general population is beginning to see not that Americans (of all races who oppose illegal immigration) are racist, but that the open borders movement has itself a racially chauvinistic theme to it, albeit articulated honestly only on university campuses and in Chicano-Latino departments, as a sort of “payback” for the Mexican War, where redress for “lost” land is finally to be had through demography.

Bad Times

Fifth, we are in a deep recession, in which the jobs that for so long seemed unappealing to American citizens are now not all that unappealing. The interior of California suffers from 20% Depression-style unemployment; many of the jobless are first and second-generation Mexican-Americans, who would have some leverage with employers if there were not an alternative illegal labor poll.

A Fence—How Quaint!

Sixth, the so-called unworkable fence mostly works; it either keeps border crossers out or diverts them to unfenced areas. (There is a reason why Obama has ordered its completion tabled). It used to be sophisticated wisdom to tsk-tsk something as reductive as walls, usually by adducing the theory that if an occasional alien made it over or under a wall, then it was of no utility, without acknowledging the fence’s effectiveness in deterring most would-be crossers. But where the fence has gone up, crossings have gone down; and where it is not yet completed crossings have increased.

One Big Travel Advisory?

Seventh, Mexico is now more violent than Iraq. The unrest is spilling across the borders. The old shrill argument that criminals, drug smugglers, and violence in general are spreading into the American southwest from Mexico is not longer quite so shrill.

11 Million—Then, Now, Forever?

Eighth, the numbers are cumulative. We talked of “eleven million illegal aliens” in 2001, and still talk of “eleven million illegal aliens” in 2010. In fact, most suspect that there is more likely somewhere between 12 and 20 million. (Do the math of annual arrivals and add them to the existing pool, factoring in voluntary and coerced deportations).

Money for Mexico?

Ninth, we are at last turning to the issue of remittances: How can expatriates send back some $20-30 billion in remittances, if they are impoverished and in need of extensive entitlements and subsidies to cushion the harshness of life in America? Do those lost billions hurt the U.S. economy? Are they a indirect subsidy for Mexico City? Were such funds ever taxed completely or off-the-books cash income? Remittances are Mexico’s second largest source of foreign exchange; that it comes so often off the sweat of minimum-wage workers seems especially ironic, given Mexico’s protestations about human rights.

The California Canary

Tenth, California’s meltdown is instructive. If about half the nation’s illegal aliens reside in the state, and its problems are in at least in some part attributable to soaring costs in educating hundreds of thousands of non-English-speaking students, a growing number of aliens in prison and the criminal justice system, real problems of collecting off-the-books income and payroll taxes, expanding entitlements, and unsustainable social services, do we wish to avoid its model?

The Law’s a Mess?

The enforcement of the law, such as it is, has become Byzantine: illegal aliens in California pay a third of the college tuition as non-resident citizens; police routinely inquire about all sorts of possible criminal behavior — except the violation of federal immigration statutes. Past, once-and-for-all, final, absolutely-no-more amnesties encourage more illegal entries on the expectation of more such no-more amnesties.

Bottom line. I can understand the liberal desire for open borders. For some, it is genuine humanitarianism — that the U.S. is wealthy enough to absorb a quarter of the impoverished population of Mexico. For others, it is policy by anecdote: helping a long-employed nanny with a car payment or a loyal gardener with a legal matter by extension translates into support for de facto open borders. I have met over the years literally hundreds of Bay Area residents who have assured me that because they have developed a close relationship with Juan, their lawn mower, by extension everyone in nearby Redwood City — which they do not frequent and keep their children away from — ipso facto is like Juan and thus should be given amnesty.

On the political side, Democrats clearly welcome new voting constituents. Illegal aliens becoming citizens, at least for a generation or so, translates into more entitlements and a larger government to administer.  (Note how there is not a liberal outcry that we do not let in enough computer programers from India, small businessmen from France and Germany, or doctors from Korea).  Then there is the gerrymandering of the American Southwest to reflect new demographic realities, and the pipe-dream of a salad bowl of unassimilated peoples in need of a paternalistic liberal technocratic governing class — all that apparently is worth the firestorm of trying to ram through something so unpopular as “comprehensive” reform.

Not Quite So Easy

Do conservatives have the winning argument? For now yes — simply close the border , fine employers of illegal aliens, and allow the pool of aliens to become static. Fining employers both stops illegal immigration and is sometimes cheered on by the Left, as if the worker has no culpability for breaking the law (e.g., a liberal can damn unscrupulous employers and thereby oppose illegal immigration without confronting the La Raza bloc). Some will marry citizens. Some will voluntarily return to Mexico. Some will be picked up through the normal government vigilance we all face — traffic infractions, necessary court appearances, interaction with state agencies. And while we argue over the policy concerning the remaining majority of illegal aliens and such contentious issues as green-cards, guest workers, and so-called earned citizenship, the pool at least in theory shrinks.

Yet if I were a Republican policy-maker I would be very wary of mass deportations. A gradualist approach, clearly delineated, is preferable, in which those who have been here five years (to pick an arbitrary number), are gainfully employed, and are free of a criminal record should have some avenue for applying for citizenship (one can fight it out whether they should pay a fine, stay or return to Mexico in the process, and get/not get preference over new applicants.)

Again, one should avoid immediate, mass deportations (it would resemble something catastrophic like the Pakistani-Indian exchanges of the late 1940s), and yet not reward the breaking of federal law. Good luck with that.

Finally, legal immigration should be reformed and reflect new realities. Millions of highly educated and skilled foreigners from Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe are dying to enter the U.S. Rather than base immigration criteria on anchor children, accidental birth in the U.S. without concern for legality, and family ties, we need at least in part to start giving preference to those of all races and nationalities who will come with critical skills, and in turn rely less on the social service entitlement industry. They should come from as many diverse places as possible to prevent the sort of focused ethnic tribalism and chauvinism we have seen in the case of Mexico’s cynicism.
11910  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 28, 2010, 10:41:19 AM
I like Mexico's laws on illegal aliens:
11911  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: April 28, 2010, 02:52:12 AM
Dr. Paul, despite the occasional moments of lucidity, is batsh*t crazy.
11912  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: April 27, 2010, 07:00:59 PM

Who you gonna believe?
11913  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Immigration issues on: April 27, 2010, 11:03:54 AM

A carefully crafted immigration law in Arizona
April 26, 2010
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs the illegal-immigration bill — which will go into effect this summer — at the Arizona Department of Transportation in Phoenix on Friday. (David Wallace, The Arizona Republic/AP) 


The chattering class is aghast at Arizona's new immigration law. "Harkens back to apartheid," says the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Cynthia Tucker. "Shameful," says the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne. "Terrible…an invitation to abuse," says the New York Times' David Brooks.

For his part, President Obama calls the law "misguided" and says it "threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Obama has ordered the Justice Department to "closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation."

Has anyone actually read the law? Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.

The law requires police to check with federal authorities on a person's immigration status, if officers have stopped that person for some legitimate reason and come to suspect that he or she might be in the U.S. illegally. The heart of the law is this provision: "For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…"

Critics have focused on the term "reasonable suspicion" to suggest that the law would give police the power to pick anyone out of a crowd for any reason and force them to prove they are in the U.S. legally. Some foresee mass civil rights violations targeting Hispanics.

What fewer people have noticed is the phrase "lawful contact," which defines what must be going on before police even think about checking immigration status. "That means the officer is already engaged in some detention of an individual because he's violated some other law," says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri Kansas City Law School professor who helped draft the measure. "The most likely context where this law would come into play is a traffic stop."

As far as "reasonable suspicion" is concerned, there is a great deal of case law dealing with the idea, but in immigration matters, it means a combination of circumstances that, taken together, cause the officer to suspect lawbreaking. It's not race -- Arizona's new law specifically says race and ethnicity cannot be the sole factors in determining a reasonable suspicion.

For example: "Arizona already has a state law on human smuggling," says Kobach. "An officer stops a group of people in a car that is speeding. The car is overloaded. Nobody had identification. The driver acts evasively. They are on a known smuggling corridor." That is a not uncommon occurrence in Arizona, and any officer would reasonably suspect that the people in the car were illegal. Under the new law, the officer would get in touch with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to check on their status.

But what if the driver of the car had shown the officer his driver's license? The law clearly says that if someone produces a valid Arizona driver's license, or other state-issued identification, they are presumed to be here legally. There's no reasonable suspicion.

Is having to produce a driver's license too burdensome? These days, natural-born U.S. citizens, and everybody else, too, are required to show a driver's license to get on an airplane, to check into a hotel, even to purchase some over-the-counter allergy medicines. If it's a burden, it's a burden on everyone.

Still, critics worry the law would force some people to carry their papers, just like in an old movie. The fact is, since the 1940s, federal law has required non-citizens in this country to carry, on their person, the documentation proving they are here legally -- green card, work visa, etc. That hasn't changed.

Kobach, a Republican who is now running for Kansas Secretary of State, was the chief adviser to Attorney General John Ashcroft on immigration issues from 2001 to 2003. He has successfully defended Arizona immigration laws in the past. "The bill was drafted in expectation that the open-borders crowd would almost certainly bring a lawsuit," he says. "It's drafted to withstand judicial scrutiny."

The bottom line is, it's a good law, sensibly written and rigorously focused -- no matter what the critics say.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts appears on
11914  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Fascism, liberal fascism, progressivism: on: April 27, 2010, 09:57:42 AM
Nice how the media can fill it's days with their "Tea Party, threat or menace" stories but ignore this and the Arizona riots.
11915  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!) on: April 26, 2010, 06:28:54 AM
I agree with "Draw Mohammed day". I posted the article because I liked how the author pointed out that islam alone has to threaten and murder those that refuse to live by it's theology.
11916  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!) on: April 25, 2010, 04:25:17 PM

Comic Depictions of Mohammed: Knowing When to Hold and When to Fold
posted at 1:56 pm on April 24, 2010 by Howard Portnoy

Did you hear the latest knee-slapper about Moses? Actually, I don’t have a joke about Moses to share, though if I did and chose to, I wouldn’t need to go into hiding. If the joke were sufficiently tasteless or insulting, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League might issue a statement. Beyond that I know of no organized source or form of ritual retribution I would summarily face for my sacrilege. I wouldn’t need to live in mortal fear that some rabbi would assign a price to my head, instructing his congregants to hunt me down, machete in hand. That is because in my religion—and I suspect in yours—that just isn’t how things are done.
It’s not how they should be done in any religion, but sadly that just isn’t the world we live in.
Much has been written in recent days on the pickle “South Park” creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone put themselves in by depicting (or rather not depicting by dressing him in a bear costume) the prophet Mohammed in an episode of their popular cartoon series. By now, the absurdly over-the-top reaction of a New York-based jihadist group has been too ubiquitously documented to require reprise here.
Much of what I’ve seen in commentaries adopts the same point of view as an editorial in today’s New York Post titled “Cowardly Central.” The bottom line of the editorial is summed up in a single, closing sentence: “And until the West decides—culturally and collectively—not to take it any longer, it’s only going to get worse.”
The general point is hard to dispute. Behind it is the attitude—in a very real sense it was a warning—that we Americans conveyed in the days and weeks after 9/11 by flying the American flag and displaying posters showing Old Glory and carrying the legend “These colors don’t run.”
But there is an important distinction between that situation and this one. It is one thing to stand tall and hang tough as a nation. It is quite another to do the same when you as an individual have been singled out and have a bounty on your head.
Before you exception me your exceptions, understand: I agree with the general tenet that if you give the islamist cretins an inch, they’ll take a mile, and that we should not tolerate their threats, which are little more in the end than thinly veiled excuses to kill more of us “non-believers.” They certainly needed no provocation to wantonly murder 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11, and we now know from another headline this morning that they will keep on trying with every last breath in their being.
That eventuality—a day when the last of these monstrous miscreants takes his last breath—is something to be devoutly wished for. But until it arrives, we need to do what it takes to survive—both en masse and as individuals. If that means we resist depicting their prophet, so be it. It’s a small sacrifice to make it if means living to fight another day.
It is a truism of survival that under threatening circumstances it is important first and foremost to keep you head. At this critical juncture in the lives of Trey Parker and Matt Stone, let us all pray that they are able to keep theirs.
11917  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: April 24, 2010, 04:16:58 PM

How's that hopey-changey thing working out for Israel?
11918  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Case Study: A shooting in Philly on: April 24, 2010, 03:33:06 PM
The important lessons from this case is to expect a very detailed investigation, if someone is seriously injured/killed. I have no doubt that investigators have lots of eyewitness statements from multiple parties present at various times that night. I expect all sorts of surveillance camera footage from that night has been obtained and a good picture of the amount of alcohol consumed has been put together from reciepts and interviews with waitstaff.

You want uninvolved witnesses telling the detectives "He said he was sorry" "He tried to leave" "He wasn't the problem".
11919  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Case Study: A shooting in Philly on: April 23, 2010, 10:37:24 PM
If it's not worth dying over, being crippled over, going to prison over, it's not worth fighting over.

In the case of d), Be apologetic, make it very clear "We are leaving", then leave.
11920  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: April 22, 2010, 08:27:48 PM

Sharia comes to South Park.
11921  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: April 21, 2010, 11:22:44 PM

NSFW, but funny!
11922  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: MMA versus Reality/Survival based skills on: April 21, 2010, 07:25:22 PM

Well worth reading.
11923  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: MMA versus Reality/Survival based skills on: April 21, 2010, 06:55:17 PM
He should have, but the real world is full of shoulda, woulda, coulda.
11924  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: MMA versus Reality/Survival based skills on: April 21, 2010, 06:24:02 PM

Femoral artery bleeds very quickly
The femoral artery can quickly lose large amounts of blood when severed, as in the shooting death of Sean Taylor.
Related Content
•Killing of Taylor appears 'random,' chief says
•Police seek mysterious intruder in Sean Taylor slaying

- Each thigh contains a femoral artery.

- The femoral artery is the major blood vessel that supplies blood to the legs.

- It is a continuation of the external iliac artery, which comes from the abdominal aorta.

- It begins in the lower abdomen and travels from the hip to the knee.

- If the femoral artery is severed, a patient could bleed to death in minutes

A gunshot to the femoral artery -- like the one suffered Monday by football star Sean Taylor -- can quickly spiral out of control, with a person losing 20 percent of his blood in a matter of minutes, doctors say.

The femoral artery runs from the abdomen to the knee, carrying blood to the lower extremities.

First responders, family members and friends said as soon as the bullet tore through Taylor's flesh, his blood began flowing.

The body contains about five liters, or about 20 cups, of blood. It is unknown how much blood Taylor, who died from his injuries Tuesday morning at Jackson Memorial Hospital, lost between when he was shot and when emergency personnel responded. Police said they received the call for help about 15 minutes after the shooting.

''When you're bleeding, the ability to control hemorrhaging is vitally important,'' Dr. David Feldbaum, chief of vascular surgery for Memorial Hospital Pembroke, said Tuesday. ``The longer he bled, the more likely he would not survive. Seconds may not matter that much, but minutes do.''

''In a matter of minutes you could lose up to two liters of blood,'' added Dr. Fahim Habib, a trauma surgeon at Jackson Memorial. ``In several minutes, you could bleed to death.''

Habib said it is possible to lose up to 20 percent of one's blood through the femoral artery, which is two to three centimeters wide.

Compounding the problem: The artery is surrounded by blood vessels, which bleed when damaged and are very difficult to repair, Feldbaum said.

''When we operate on the femoral artery we have to be very careful to control the blood vessels,'' Feldbaum says. ``The area is not localized where the bullet hit.''

Although Feldbaum did not operate on Taylor, 24, he said the Washington Redskins safety may have had other injuries besides a punctured femoral artery.

''You get injuries to other important structures like nerves and veins,'' he says. ``You won't know for sure until you get results from pathologists.''

Taylor's family has requested that his medical records remain confidential.

Had Taylor survived, there was a high chance of permanent brain damage, said family friend and attorney Richard Sharpstein.

''Before he got to the hospital, before paramedics controlled the bleeding, he lost blood that transports nutrients to vital organs. At that time you get cell death, ischemia,'' Feldbaum says.

''It has to be reversed to maintain function'' of the heart, kidneys, brain and other organs.

In top shape, Taylor who stood 6 feet, 2 inches and weighed 212 pounds, ''probably could have lost a significant amount of blood without dying,'' Feldbaum says.

``But at some point you run out, and once your brain and heart start to die, it's not a salvageable situation.''
11925  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: MMA versus Reality/Survival based skills on: April 21, 2010, 05:44:07 PM
And if it had been a nice sharp knife? If he'd gone for the femoral instead?
11926  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: MMA versus Reality/Survival based skills on: April 21, 2010, 05:40:00 PM
Who says it's the same person? I knew a deputy sheriff that was trying to cuff a subject at a family disturbance when a teenaged girl impaled him with a large kitchen knife. He was lucky to survive and was medically retired after that. I'm pretty sure that isn't allowed in MMA, but having additional assailants jump in with weapons does happen in the real world.
11927  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: MMA versus Reality/Survival based skills on: April 21, 2010, 11:48:39 AM
You mean like a mount countered by a knife to the kidneys?
11928  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Case Study: A shooting in Philly on: April 21, 2010, 10:17:33 AM
No, it isn't. However, I doubt it's the totality of the judge's ruling.

Normally, a prelim is where the charges are formally filed and the judge rules if there is probable cause for the charges. Once the case goes to trial, the defense can try to claim self defense and bring in expert witnesses on the topic.
11929  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Tactical Gun Issues on: April 21, 2010, 09:26:14 AM
I disagree with Gabe Suarez on this point: If challenged "Police! Drop your weapon!" the next sound should be your gun clattering to the ground. The only thing that should move is your hands, going limp.

You can buy a new gun. You can't buy a new head.
11930  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Case Study: A shooting in Philly on: April 21, 2010, 08:57:59 AM
No matter who wins or loses, everyone lost in this case.

"Don't go stupid places and do stupid things with stupid people".

Taking a gun when you are going to be drinking is stupid. In most places, it's very illegal. If the place you are going to drink is so potentially dangerous, don't go there. OC spray and a c2 Taser are good things to have for those big grey areas between talking and deadly force, if legal where you live.

11931  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Tactical Gun Issues on: April 21, 2010, 08:49:26 AM
1. Off duty cop or armed citizen, your cell phone is your best friend. Get on 911 and tell dispatch what is happening where, who you are and what you look like. Hopefully, this info will reach responding officers before they reach you.

2. If you have time to do this , holster your weapon prior to the uniforms arriving if possible. Put distance between yourself and the bad guy/s if possible.

3. No matter having done all this, expect to be proned out at gunpoint, cuffed and placed in the back of a patrol car until everything is sorted out. Don't argue, don't hesitate to do exactly what you are told to do. When guns come out, things get very dangerous and can go bad very quickly. Understand that everyone's heartbeat is elevated and adrenilyn is pumping. If you want to argue police procedure, wait until the scene is secured and the weapons are reholstered/reracked.
11932  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: April 20, 2010, 11:40:08 AM
If I recall correctly, the Aryan Brotherhood was originally the "Diamond Tooth" gang, and then the "Bluebird" gang before taking on overt nazi symbolism. The gang originated in the CA. prison system as a reaction to white inmates being targeted by black and hispanic inmates. Some AB OGs can be identified by the bluebird tattoo.
11933  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: April 20, 2010, 01:09:58 AM

Saudi Arabia announces nuclear centre
By Abeer Allam in Riyadh

Published: April 18 2010 14:37 | Last updated: April 18 2010 14:37

Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil supplier, is set to establish a civilian nuclear and renewable energy centre to help meet increasing demand for power as the country pushes forward with economic expansion plans.

The official Saudi press agency said on Saturday that the new centre, the King Abdullah City for Nuclear and Renewable Energy, would be based in Riyadh and would be led by Hashim Abdullah Yamani, a former commerce and trade minister.

11934  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: April 20, 2010, 01:03:41 AM

NYC Militia Plot to Kill Cops Foiled

Thank goodness police broke up this evil plot by crazed militia types no doubt influenced by the wild-eyed tea partiers.

Oh, wait, it was the Crips and Bloods, those naughty Democrat constituents? Move along, nothing to see here. Well, I just hope they filled out their Census forms before they all were rounded up.
A massive gang takedown in Queens uncovered a rare alliance between Bloods and Crips and a ruthless plot to assassinate cops, authorities said Friday.

The revelations came as law enforcement unveiled the chilling results of long-running "Operation Under Siege" - 104 suspects, dozens of guns, two slayings and piles of drugs and cash.

The sprawling case was built on wiretaps - including recordings of gang associate Keith Livingston, who blabbed about plans to protect his drug turf by killing cops on patrol.

"He intended to position himself on rooftops and shoot police officers who were compromising his business in Far Rockaway and South Jamaica," Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said.

"Before his deadly plans could be carried out, detectives arrested him and seized a defaced 9-mm. Hi-Point rifle, among other weapons."

Livingston's plot was only one facet of an investigation that began two years ago when police and prosecutors began looking into a drugs-and-guns network in Far Rockaway.

By Friday, they had arrested 104 people, closed two murder cases, and exposed ties between Far Rockaway Crips and the Bloods in South Jamaica.

The Crips, working to lock up the drug trade at four housing projects, bought cocaine, heroin and marijuana from a gang that should have been their enemy.

"The Bloods in South Jamaica aren't loyal to the Bloods in Far Rockaway, who were feuding with the Crips," a law enforcement source said. "That's what made this so unusual."

In fact, some of the Bloods in Far Rockaway were actually part of four Crips sets known collectively as Flocc - the last "c" standing for Crips.

One of the Flocc leaders was charged with shooting at an occupied NYPD car in January during an altercation with members of a Bloods set known as "Klick Klack." The cops were not hurt.

Livingston was arrested in September after he was heard on his cell phone complaining he was fed up with cops on foot patrol along Sutphin Blvd. in South Jamaica.

The officers were part of Operation Impact, an NYPD initiative that floods crime-ridden areas with rookie cops.

"[He] was unhappy with the fact that the police were out there, aggressively doing their job," said Deputy Chief Robert Boyce, head of the NYPD's Gang Division. "He stated that he wanted to shoot a police officer, to get them out of the way, from a rooftop."

Police secured a warrant and arrested Livingston hours later at his home on 160th St., recovering two guns, including the camouflage Hi-Point.

Livingston, charged with gun possession and conspiracy, is being held on $250,000 bail. His lawyer did not return a call.
Last month when nine clowns running around in the woods in Michigan were arrested, including a registered Democrat, it was national news for a week. Now we have 104 violent gangbangers arrested with murder on their minds.

I wonder if anyone has notified Frank Rich and the Southern Poverty Law Center?
11935  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: April 20, 2010, 12:10:22 AM
With a drug problem. Which is also pretty redundant.

Funny enough, today's racially segregated prison came out of the 60's/70s racial militants.
11936  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Anti-semitism & Jews on: April 19, 2010, 06:42:52 PM
Wow, who knew neo-nazi prison gangs would be anti-semetic?  rolleyes
11937  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Emergency Tips and Emergency Medicine on: April 19, 2010, 03:14:24 AM
Hi all. Great thread! I just finished EMT school and passed the NREMT-Basic exam. Looking forward to getting out there and learning how to actually "do the job."

Good for you for stepping up to do this job. It's a sacred thing to run towards what others run from to save lives.
11938  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Media Issues on: April 18, 2010, 07:57:03 PM

Chicago: Muslim who murdered family on orders from "Allah" now the victim, "suffering greatly" in jail

This Chicago Sun-Times story, after being more honest than AP by noting that Larry killed all these people because he believed he had some responsibility before Allah to do so, makes sure to include the standard disclaimer from a local Muslim group -- the kind of thing that is usually as a matter of course appended to any story about a Muslim committing violence in the name of Islam: Islam condemns, Islam forbids, Islam is peace, etc. etc. etc.

The sheer pro-forma aspect of such disclaimers, and their frequent employ, ought to give some people pause. But it doesn't. In any case, it is here once again disingenuous. James Larry murdered his family, according to this Chicago Tribune report, after complaining that his wife was not behaving according to Islamic standards, and saying that the Qur'an was telling him to kill (which it certainly does do -- see 2:191, 4:89, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, etc.). Now, honor killing, which is also the subject of a blizzard of Islamic disclaimers whenever it appears in the news, is nonetheless relatively common in many Muslim countries, and is effectively encouraged by the fact that honor murderers often are given lighter sentences than other murderers.

Syria recently scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences for honor killings, but "the new law says a man can still benefit from extenuating circumstances in crimes of passion or honour 'provided he serves a prison term of no less than two years in the case of killing.'"

That's right: two years for murder!

In 2003 the Jordanian Parliament voted down on Islamic grounds a provision designed to stiffen penalties for honor killings. Al-Jazeera reported that "Islamists and conservatives said the laws violated religious traditions and would destroy families and values."

And a manual of Islamic law certified as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy by Al-Azhar University, the most respected authority in Sunni Islam, says that "retaliation is obligatory against anyone who kills a human being purely intentionally and without right." However, "not subject to retaliation" is "a father or mother (or their fathers or mothers) for killing their offspring, or offspring's offspring." ('Umdat al-Salik o1.1-2).

In other words, someone who kills his child incurs no legal penalty under Islamic law.

That's why these honor killings keep happening -- because they are broadly tolerated, even encouraged, by Islamic teachings and attitudes. Yet no authorities are calling Islamic leaders to account for this. But in light of all this, James Larry ought not to be dismissed as a simple madman, and the Islamic community let off with the standard "Islam condemns, Islam forbids" disclaimer. Instead, there ought to be a serious public discussion about how the texts and teachings of Islam are used by Islamic jihadists to justify violence, and how they can be and are used even by violent creepy lunatics like James Larry to justify wanton slaughter. Only then can any effective steps be taken to try to prevent future murders like these.

But nothing like that is going to be done. Even to suggest that it should be done is "Islamophobic." And so instead, more people will be murdered in the future the way James Larry's family was murdered.

"Murder suspect 'suffering greatly,' his lawyer says: Bail denied Wisconsin man accused of killing 4 in his family," by Rummana Hussain for the Chicago Sun-Times, April 17:

The Wisconsin man charged with killing four family members and seriously injuring two other relatives in a hail of bullets as they slept at his sister's Marquette Park home suffers from a "multitude" of mental health illnesses, his attorney said Friday.
James Larry, a 32-year-old Muslim convert who allegedly told authorities he was ordered by "Allah" to carry out the carnage, has been under doctors' care since 2002 and recently received psychiatric treatment in Janesville, Wis., said Julie Koehler, an assistant Cook County public defender.

Koehler said Larry was crying, his head bowed, when prosecutors detailed how he allegedly killed his pregnant wife, Twanda Thompson, 19; son, Jihad, 7 months, pregnant niece Keyshai Fields, 16, and 3-year-old Keleasha Larry, another niece.

"He is suffering greatly," Koehler said, after Judge Peggy Chiampas ordered Larry held without bond.

Larry also shot his 57-year-old mother, Leona Larry, and a nephew Demond Larry, 13, before dawn Wednesday. Both remain in critical condition, Assistant State's Attorney Jamie Santini said.

The body count could have been worse, Santini added. He said Torino Hill, a 35-year-old man living in the home's basement, was spared when James Larry's gun jammed and another niece, 12, escaped injury when she ran down the street and called police....

James Larry, who has a lengthy criminal record, admitted his role in the shooting spree, told detectives he knew his wife and 16-year-old niece were pregnant and even led police to the 9mm handgun he allegedly used in the shooting, Santini said.

"That's not the lot, turn left. It's the first vacant lot off the alley on the left," Larry directed officers, according to a police report.

James Larry also allegedly told officers he wished he "had more bullets."

"I wish I had more bullets. Kill me. I threw the gun in a vacant lot by the police station. I'll show you," James Larry said, according to the report.

A relative said that when James Larry looked to the sky and didn't see the moon or the sun before dawn Wednesday, "that meant Allah told him to take his family."

On Friday, several local Muslim leaders and organizations denounced the murders and stressed that the Islamic faith should not be associated with the tragedy.

James Larry's sister Keshai -- the mother of three victims, including the two dead girls -- joined Inner-City Muslim Action Network members and Jewish and Christian leaders later in the afternoon to show solidarity with the religious groups, IMAN's executive director Rami Nashashibi said.

For years, the Marquette Park-based IMAN has been involved in many anti-violence efforts in the neighborhood and is taking an active role in assisting the victims, Nashashibi said.

"We find this type of horrific violence absolutely incompatible with any understanding or any expression of Islam," he said.
11939  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: April 18, 2010, 09:28:25 AM
They could have done more "verbal judo", but bottom line, shelly caused himself the problems that resulted. If he had cooperated, he probably would have been walking away within 5 to 10 minutes. Instead, he probably caught multiple charges and at least one night in Clark County Detention Center and bail bonding and legal fees.
11940  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: MMA versus Reality/Survival based skills on: April 18, 2010, 09:20:05 AM
I have a couple of questions so rather than multiple topics/threads I have loaded them up here.

1. Do you feel there is a difference between the skills taught for the ring/octagon versus the skills needed to survive a real attack on the street?  If so, how do you focus on teaching these skills?

Yes. If it doesn't involve weapons and multiple assailants in a variety of environments and criminal and civil legalities, it ain't prepping you for "the street".

11941  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Smart power! on: April 17, 2010, 10:26:54 PM

I'm sure this will all turn out well, right Obama voters?
11942  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Nuclear War, WMD issues on: April 17, 2010, 10:13:19 PM

Mark Steyn: Obama's nuke summit dangerously delusional

In years to come – assuming, for the purposes of argument, there are any years to come – scholars will look back at President Barack Obama's Nuclear Security Summit and marvel. For once, the cheap comparisons with 1930s appeasement barely suffice: To be sure, in 1933, the great powers were meeting in Geneva and holding utopian arms-control talks even as Hitler was taking office in Berlin. But it's difficult to imagine Neville Chamberlain in 1938 hosting a conference on the dangers of rearmament, and inviting America, France, Brazil, Liberia and Thailand ...but not even mentioning Germany.

Yet that's what Obama just did: He held a nuclear gabfest in 2010, the biggest meeting of world leaders on American soil since the founding of the United Nations 65 years ago – and Iran wasn't on the agenda.

**Read it all.**
11943  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: April 17, 2010, 10:08:47 AM
Proper Contact/cover positioning would have required an angle and distance for the cover officer.

My analysis is that the officers read the subject as being a low level threat (Forecasting saves time, but when you encounter the subject that you misjudge as low level, your family can end up getting a folded up flag with bagpipes in the background). They were going to punt the call and go back into service until he got stupid.

11944  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: April 17, 2010, 09:55:10 AM

Those are both valid points, and it wasn't good contact/cover positioning, but once the subject became non-compliant, it was dealt with as needed.

1. The best fight is the one you avoid having.

2. Second best is the one you finish before your opponent recognizes that it's started.
11945  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: April 17, 2010, 09:40:39 AM
That's the McD's by Circus Circus.  about 2 blocks away from "naked city" which has been/is drug and gang crime central for a while.  Nice clip for a technique demo.  Where is the other side of the fight tho'?  (if it was the guy walking out of the driveway, why didn't they detain him too?)

**Because Mr. Shell necklace decided to become the focus of attention by becoming non-compliant.**

The usual routine tho', refuse to lay down for the bear, get mauled by the bear.  The guy would have saved himself some pain if he had just put his hands on the car like the cop asked.  "step up to my car" his local vernacular for "hands on the hood" OOps!

I wish I had more info for the whole situation but, given the format and legalities, I will never know........  It looks sloppy.

If Shell-necklace had just complied, and there were no wants/warrants for him and no serious injuries from the fight, he might have been cut loose with a warning or at the most, given a summons to muni-court for a "disturbing the peace" charge.
11946  DBMA Martial Arts Forum / Martial Arts Topics / Re: Law Enforcement issues on: April 16, 2010, 10:31:07 PM

11947  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Tax Policy on: April 15, 2010, 12:46:33 PM
Thus far, I like the fair tax concept the best.
11948  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Libertarian Issues on: April 15, 2010, 11:54:34 AM
You'll note that law enFORCEment has the use of force implied in the title. Without enforcement, there is no rule of law. It's worked pretty darn well for western civilization up to this point. Also, most calls are handled strictly by officer presence and verbal skills and the use of deadly force is a very tiny part of most officer's performance of their duties.
11949  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / 'Russia engineered air crash that killed President Kaczynski,' on: April 13, 2010, 09:44:48 PM
'Russia engineered air crash that killed President Kaczynski,' claims Polish MP
By Mail Foreign Service
Last updated at 8:09 AM on 13th April 2010
Comments (91) Add to My Stories The Russian government prevented the Polish president's plane from landing four times to divert him from a ceremony to mark the 70th anniversary of the Katyn massacre, according to an MP.

Artur Gorski said the Russians 'came up with some dubious reasons' that the aircraft couldn't land because they feared President Leck Kaczynski's presence would overshadow a similar event hosted by the Russian prime minister a few days before.
And their alleged plan ended in disaster when the Polish pilots made one final and disastrous attempt to land, killing Mr Kaczynski, his wife, and 94 others on board the plane.

Read more:
11950  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: April 13, 2010, 09:01:47 AM

Tuesday, April 13, 2010
The Coming Oil Shortage?

It hasn't received much play on this side of the Atlantic (oddly enough), but the U.S. military is warning of a severe oil shortage by 2015.

According to a new study produced by Norfolk-based Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), the current surplus in oil production could evaporate within two years, leading to potentially crippling shortages by the middle of this decade.

The U.K. Guardian reports the assessment was forwarded by JFCOM's Commander, Marine Corps General James Mattis. His signature underscores the importance of the study, since a MAJCOM commander typically doesn't "sign out" all intel reports produced by his organization.
JFCOM analysts believe the global shortage will mushroom quickly, reaching 10 million barrels a day within three years after "peak oil"--the moment when demand permanently exceeds supply.

The consequences of the shortfall would be devastating. As outlined in the JFCOM study:

"While it is difficult to predict precisely what economic, political, and strategic effects such a shortfall might produce, it surely would reduce the prospects for growth in both the developing and developed worlds. Such an economic slowdown would exacerbate other unresolved tensions, push fragile and failing states further down the path toward collapse, and perhaps have serious economic impact on both China and India."

While the report doesn't address the potential impact on the United States, you don't need to be an energy analyst to understand that $200 a barrel oil would crush any hopes of an economic recovery and severely impact our military--the largest "single" user of energy in the world.

Still, a cautionary note (or two) is in order. While JFCOM strives to provide an "intellectual foundation" for joint force development, the command's expertise in energy intelligence is limited. Meanwhile, the intel community's experts in such matters (based at the CIA and Department of Energy) have either remained silent--at least publicly--or they offer a more optimistic scenario.

Lionel Badal, a researcher in peak oil theories at King's College in London, told the Guardian that DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has been saying that "peak oil" is still decades away. In light of the JFCOM report, he wonders if DOE is sticking with its rosy scenario.

The military assessment was released as oil surged past $100 a barrel in Great Britain, and retail gasoline prices are approaching $3.00 a gallon in much of the United States. During the shortage that followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005, gas climbed to more than $4.00 a gallon in the U.S.; that level is widely considered a "tipping point," when the public demands action to increase supplies.

Unfortunately, there may be little the United States can do to bolster supplies in the current regulatory environment. President Obama recently approved off-shore drilling along portions of the east coast, but the rest of our coastline (and much of Alaska) remains off-limits. Additionally, environmental challenges often delay the opening of new fields for years.

In an unguarded moment on the campaign trail, then-candidate Barack Obama said his only real regret about $4.00 gasoline was that prices reached that level "so quickly." Based on that statement, it stands to reason that some in the administration see much higher energy prices as inevitable--a development that could be used to spur the development of alternative fuels. Never mind that so-called green fuels can't meet our needs for decades to come.
ADDENDUM: The JFCOM study is merely the latest to warn of a coming oil shortage. The Guardian reports that the U.K. Energy Minister convened a meeting with top industrialists two weeks ago, apparently reversing his previous position that peak oil was not a short-term problem. Officials at the Paris-based International Energy Agency have voiced similar concerns, though the organization has (officially) stated that energy supplies will remain sufficient.

It's also worth noting that General Mattis, the commander who put his signature on the controversial report, has a reputation for being blunt--sometimes a little too blunt, as evidenced by his famous remarks about how much "fun" it is to shoot terrorists. This time around, Mattis seems appears willing to stake his reputation and credibility on the report, which goes against the "official" U.S. government position on the issue. If no one else is willing to sound the alarm, Jim Mattis has no qualms about stepping up to the plate.
Pages: 1 ... 237 238 [239] 240 241 ... 308
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!