Responding to China's Hackers

Any counterattack on China's hackers should concentrate on the Party's biggest weakness, corruption. US hackers should concentrate on tracing Communist Party corruption and then leaking it to the press. As a secondary target, we should try, covertly, to provide software to the Chinese people that punches holes in the Great Firewall of China. If we both expose the regime's corruption and at the same time make it easier for ordinary Chinese to know what's really going on, it will both injure and scare the Chinese Communist Party.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304652804579572320276145640?mg=reno64-wsj

Gay Marriage Backers Should Not Copy McCarthyism

I am in favor of gay marriage as long as it's state legislation, as opposed to court order. Further, I think that all 50 (57?) states should have to recognize marriages performed in other states, whether or not the marriage could be legally performed in the state that the couple moved into.  That said, I find the hounding of people out of their jobs on this issue to be appalling and Un-American.  (Harry Reid said it first.)  These black listings go much farther than Joe McCarthy ever thought of doing, because the targets this time are much more numerous, and the alleged actions so minor. A $1000 contribution in 2008 to a group advocating marriage be limited to one man with one woman should not be an offence that gets you fired.  The only way the gay marriage issue will be worked out is if both sides play by the traditional American rules for political disagreements, and avoid retaliation for opposing viewpoints.  I don't understand how zealots like the Washington Blade editorial staff think this kind of behavior helps their cause.  It doesn't.  It makes opponents dig in and resist.  It seems clear to me that gay marriage is going to be enacted in most states in the next 15 years.  Civil recognition of marriages performed in other states has traditionally been the law. Harassing people for small political contributions will only make it take longer and leave a deep residue of bitter distrust.  The whole point should be that this change is not a big deal that's going to revolutionize America.  Gay couples that I know just want the house with a white picket fence and legal rights equivalent to straight couples.  The contractual obligations and benefits of marriage are desirable, and are well defined in law.  This change requires only that magistrates can legally marry gay couples.  It does not and should not require religious institutions to marry gay couples against their faith.  Marriage is a civil contract upon which inheritance is based.  The true American way is for everyone to be as tolerant as possible.  Gay couples should not force themselves on churches who do not want to marry them.  Conservative churches should allow as how civil marriage, as opposed to religious marriage, is not really their business from a legal point of view.  They can talk against it and don't have to recognize it religiously, but once it's the law they have to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/375159/new-pitchfork-persecutors-john-fund

The ghost of Senator Joseph McCarthy is green with envy. Being anti-gay marriage gets you fired almost as quickly as being labeled a communist did back in McCarthy's day. I can imagine the questions Leftists will be asking soon in Senate hearings. "Are you now, or have you ever been, opposed to gay marriage?" It was only 2 years ago that the Community Organizer in Chief made the change in his position on gay marriage that we all were waiting for. Should our Dear Leader be censored for his position back then? I think Mr. Capehart was right in his original off-the-cuff position on the air. I wonder if his change in opinion was due to management threats to fire Mr. Capehart if he didn't correct his statements to the new, intolerant orthodoxy. Personally, my view of gay marriage has evolved over time. I would vote in favor of it on any referendum now. Twenty years ago, I don't think I would have. However, I have been publicly in favor of it longer than the Chicago Prodigy in Chief. At this point, I think it would be wise for the gay community to take yes for an answer. Once the opposition to gay marriage sees that not much has changed after it's legal, the opposition will lose strength based on experience. Right now, they just have fears that are being reinforced by the McCarthyism of militant gay marriage supporters. I think their fears are summed up by an old Bob Hope joke. In 1975, Hope said, “I’ve just flown in from California, where they’ve made homosexuality legal. I thought I’d get out before they make it compulsory.” Give the opposition time to work through the fact that they have lost and then discover that not all that much has changed. 

The article I reacted to:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/05/13/no-tolerance-for-discomfort-over-michael-sam-or-the-kiss/

Why No Effort to Support Benghazi?

The part of the Benghazi debacle that really bothers me is during the attack. As far as I can tell, absolutely no military effort was made to support our people under attack. Why didn't the USAF scramble F-16 fighters from Aviano in Northern Italy to be over Benghazi for air support? Aviano should have been able to launch armed and fueled F-16 aircraft within 2-3 hours, assuming a maximum effort. Cruising speed for an F-16 is 577 mph. The distance from Aviano to Benghazi is 2256 miles. So it seems that Benghazi is less than 4 hours flight time from Aviano, Italy, so our folks in Benghazi could have had air support by the time the CIA Annex was attacked. USAF tanker aircraft are stationed at Sigonella in Sicily which could have refueled the F-16 aircraft from Aviano so that they could stay over Benghazi for a while once they got there. As a side comment, Sigonella is used as a transit airfield for aircraft deploying to the Middle East or returning to the US from the Middle East. It is about a 2.5 hour flight from Benghazi. I really want to know if any fighter aircraft happened to be at Sigonella on 9/11/12. As a Vietnam era USAF veteran, I think our failure to even attempt to send any assistance to our people under attack is shameful. I really want to know why no effort was made.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/377577/republicans-move-benghazi-charles-krauthammer

On Further Review:

I know that KC-135 and KC-10 aircraft can and do fly out of Sigonella.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
However, on further review,  it seems to be true that no tankers were there for 9/11/12. I assumed that it was likely that a couple of tankers were rotated through there almost constantly, but that, perhaps, was a mistake.

I got the cruising speed here
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.m...
F-16 squadrons at Aviano here
http://en.wikipedia/Aviano_Air_Base

Assuming that the Generals and Admirals testifying in Congress are telling the truth, there were no military assets that could get to Benghazi in 12 hours or less.  If we didn’t have any assets that could get to Benghazi, the question becomes why not?  The date of the attack as the 11^th anniversary of the 9/11/2001.  Why didn’t we have tankers in place in Sigonella, Italy, just in case we needed to move the bombers from Aviano to somewhere in North Africa?  It’s not like there was no turmoil or risk in the region.  

Inequality Is Gone When We're All Broke

The fastest and easiest way to create income equality is to impoverish everyone. At least that seems to be the Democrats' preferred method at the moment. You are not supposed to notice that 11 of the 25 richest counties in the US are suburbs of Washington, DC. You are also meant to overlook the fact that income inequality has increased during the reign of the Community Organizer in Chief.