A Bloody Game of Chess

From Crooks and Liars:

Over the weekend, Ayman al Zawahri, al Qaeda’s No. 2 man, released the latest in a series of bizarre videos, this time discussing his barely coherent “insights” on the war in Iraq. The video was quickly seized upon by partisans on both sides on the U.S. political divide, but one side seems wrong.

...

But if Zawahri’s comments are important when they bolster White House talking points, then they’re equally important when they don’t.

...

[quote on C&L from ABC News]In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda’s number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.

“This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap,” Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.

Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, “We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson.”

The usual folks came out and said that Zawahri, as supported by his video quoted above, favors the Democratic withdrawal plan, and that pullout is the proof Zawahri needs to show the U.S. is defeated.

But I have to agree with Steve at C&L. Zawahri indeed wants us to stay as long as possible so he can kill more of our troops. Look at the last 2 paragraphs of the quote above. He says the bill will deprive us of the opportunity to trap and kill more U.S. troops.

Now, like Steve at C&L, I see that Zawahri is a total lunatic and really, I don't think you can lend creedence to anything he says. But the Administratiuon sure does, so following that logic train, you have to regard everything he says, even if it starkly disagrees with your current policy. Thus, it seems to me that playing into the terrorists' hands...giving them what they want...is protracting, endlessly, our occupation of Iraq.

Read more...

The Death of Coffee: Friday Beer Selection

Today's beer selection is an American take on a British standby. If you've ever had a British brown ale - smooth, low carbonation, malty-sweet - you know what a standard it is. But as we've done with everything in our Great American Quest for the Extreme, Rogue Ales Brewery presents us with

Hazelnut Brown Nectar.

As an avid coffee-drinker as well, this beer contains the best of both worlds of beer and coffee: hazelnut and...beer.

What I like about Rogue, besides for the fact that they brew terrific beer, is that they actually list their ingredients right on the bottle right down to the "Free Range Coastal Water."It gives homebrewers a chance to try to copy truly incredible beers. On top of that, Rogue has started selling their specialized yeast strain, Pac Man. This is the strain of yeast they use in most, if not all, of their beers and they have cultivated it and made it available for home brewers. I am thrilled.

I digress. The beer:

This is a really creamy looking beer, with a nice light tan lace. It is a lovely shade of dark mahogany with reddish hues when held up to light.

There is a huge malty assault on the nose, with a very prominent hazelnut aroma. Underneath it all is a well-balanced toasted and roasted malt with a hint of a deep fruit (think date or prune).

We have another winner here. This beer has a balanced mix of toasted and roasted malts up front with a big backbone of sweetness; just like a solid British brown ale should have. And along that same line is a medium body with low, smooth carbonation that roils and boils as it settles. There is just a quick burst of spicy hops for balance. Along the way there are hints of chocolate and charred wood with that same hint of prune fruitiness found in the nose. But what sets it apart from just any other solid British brown is this lovely, sweet, mild nuttiness from the hazelnut extract. There is no mistaking its presence, but it does so much to the overall character of the beer.

This would be an amazing dessert beer. I imagine what this tastes like along a heavy square of tiramisu or a nice thick chocolate cake; the same stuff you'd drink coffee with. But now that you have a hazelnut beer, who needs coffee?

Read more...

Gun Laws--What is and What Should be

I started writing this in the comments, but then it got so long, I decided to add it as an article. I apologize for 'hogging' the blog and I promise to shut up for a couple days.

b mac, thanks for your comments, though I'd like to steer you to the following sites, lest you think all pro-gun people are conservatives: Pro-Gun Progressive, Liberals with Guns, and Pink Pistols.

Jefferson also said (quoting Cesare Beccaria), "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man,’’ and "No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

I do agree with what Jefferson was saying in your quote, but we need to cautious as to what we give up in the name of protecting society. One only has to look to the "war on terror" and the resulting Patriot Act to see what I mean.

As for what gun laws should be unconstitutional, that may be difficult to answer and it depends if you are talking about what is, or what I think should be. Under current case law, most gun laws are consititutional. The Supreme Court hasn't heard a 2nd Amendment case since the 1930's. The Federal Gun Free School Zone Act was declared unconstitutional in the 1990's, but on interstate commerce grounds. Congress went ahead and passed it again and said it was interstate commerce. There have been some lower court rulings, most recently the Ct. of App. for the District of Columbia overturned the ban on handguns that had been in place since the 1970's. They stated that there is an individual right to bear arms.

In my opinion, the right to bear arms is a fundamental right (just like the rest of the bill of rights) and should be given the same treatment as other fundamental rights, strict scrutiny:
1. First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
2. The law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (over-inclusive) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.
3. Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest.

One could reasonably argue that the government has an interest in protecting the citizens of this nation from criminals. Most gun laws would probably be based on this, though many would fail (2) and (3). Most gun laws encompass a great deal of lawful behavior and affect a great number of lawful gun owners. Many of our laws do little to discourage criminal behavior, therefore I wold be hard pressed to find many laws that would be constitutional. A law that prohibits sound suppressors only protects me from fictional movie hit-men. I am unable to find any documentation that they are used in any significant amount of crimes. The now defunct Assault Weapons Ban had no measurable effect on crime, so it would also fail to be constitutional.

Read more...

VT Part II--Guns and Crazy People

I don't recall if it was the same day or the day after, but we started to get an idea pretty quickly that Cho suffered from some kind of mental illness, which prompted the question, "how was he allowed to buy a gun?" If you have ever purchased a firearm from a dealer, then you filled out a BATFE form 4473. Among the questions it has, it asks if you have ever been "adjudicated mentally defective" or "committed to a mental institution." There is a substantial amount of case law on what this means and it varies from state to state. For the most part, in MI, it means that you cannot own a firearm under any of these conditions:

1. You have been involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility for a mental illness or substance abuse. This would not apply if it was only for observation or if you were released and discharge papers said you were not mentally ill.

2. A court has found you unable to care for yourself or manage your own affairs. This doesn't have to be for a mental illness. It could be for something else, such as a closed head injury.

3. You have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.

For the most part, this law is ok. The bar is set pretty high for involuntary admissions and incompotency adjudications. These people are supposedly a danger to themselves or others. I do have a few problems with this system. This ban is a lifetime ban. If you recover from one of these things it doesn't matter, you are still not permitted to ever own a firearm. I think that there should be some process where you can have your right restored by filing a motion and providing evidence that you are no longer a danger to yourself or others. The other problem I have is that most people facing possible admission are not aware that they face a possible lifetime ban on owning firearms. From my own involvement, I have never heard a judge inform the person about this law. I also wonder if their lawyer has informed them.

The above mentioned conditions are supposed to be reported to the federal government and placed in the National Instant Check System (NICS). After you fill out the 4473, the saleperson makes a call to the NICS and gives them you name, address and SSN. You can be approved, denied, or delayed. Presumably, if you fall under one of the barred categories, you will be denied. From what I have read, Cho was involuntarily admitted, but then released. I also believe he may have had his record expunged, which would have removed him from a denied category.

Despite my concerns, I am comfortable with denying firearms to people that are currently suicidal or homicidal. There needs to be due process and it cannot be made on just the owrd of one professional. There have been numerous calls to make changes to the law. Some have been minor and mostly involve increasing funding to the NICS. Others have called for expanding the definition of who cannot own firearms to encompass a larger group of the mentally ill. This is a major problem and we should not easily deny a right to any group. There is evidence that shows some groups of mentally ill are at a higher risk of violent behavior. Most seem to suggest that this risk may be better explained by substance abuse or poverty. Additionally, the rate of violence is still relatively low. The perception that mentally ill people are dangerous is mostly a myth.

I think that expanding the ban on the mentally ill from owning firearms is a bad idea and we would be better served at focusing on how we could improve services and access to services. The budget for mental health services in MI has remained the same for the past 8 years or so, despite an increase in costs. We could also benefit from re-opening mental hospitals, with modern, humane treatment methods. Many of the people that should be in those hispitals are instead in prison. Our current system is not the answer. I am not placng the blame for Cho's actions on the mental health system. Hindsight is 20/20, but I do think that society would benefit from improvement in this area.

Read more...

Thoughts on VT, Part I

I have wanted to comment on this since it happened, but decided to wait until more information had been released. I also wanted to see what, if any, legislation was proposed in response. I caught a fair amount of the coverage that day from MSNBC, CNN, and Fox. As is typical, they filled in what they didn't know by talking to experts, including former FBI and BATFE agents, profilers, and psychologists. Some of the speculation started wandering into the riduculous and I eventually just tunred the TV off.

Once the initial shock wore off, I started to wonder what would happen. These kinds of events are often followed by questions as to how it happened, then by calls to take steps to prevent it from happening again. These proposals are often knee-jerk and short-sighted. Some have little to do with what actually happened. Others can erode the rights of the people in ways that didn't seem possible at the time.

In 1999, Michigan was on it's way to passing shall-issue CCW. There was support in both houses of the legislature and Gov. Engler indicated he would sign a bill. In April of that year, two students killed 12 people in Littleton, Colorado, and Gov. Engler withdrew his support. It would be another year before legislation was tried again. This event also ushered in numerous zero-tolerence policies, in which students could be expelled for bringing drugs or weapons into schools. This included drugs like Motrim and weapons like butter knives.

At VT, despite calls by the Governor of Virginia for restraint, there were calls for action. Carolyn McCarthy issued a press release and proposed legislation several days later. The Violence Policy Center also didn't take very long before trying to exploit the tragedy. News pundits also threw in their takes. I won't reference them all, but I did want to point out an interesting one. Dan Simpson, from the Toledo Blade suggests a disarmament scheme that seems right out of Stalinist Russia. He suggests: The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm. Random, warrantless,searches?!?! Special squads of police?!? I will say that at least Mr. Simpson seems to be consistent in his disregard for the Bill of Rights.

Despite these calls for action, there were numerous calls for restraint. Some, from groups like the NRA, were not much of a surprise. Neither were the ones from pro-2nd Amendment politicians, like Ron Paul (R-TX), John Murtha (D-PA), and Craig Thomas (R-WY). I was surprised to hear these same calls echoed by Harry Reid, John Kerry and Bill Clinton. Reid has been luke warm on gun rights and Kerry and Clinton have been cold, to say the least. In the case of the last two, I doubt a change of heart, but maybe a sense that gun control should not be a major platform for the Democratic Party.

In the interest of full disclosure, I need to say that I am not in favor of most gun-control. I wish the Supreme Court would use the same strict scrutiny reserved for 1st Amendment issues and apply it to 2nd Amendment issues. If so, most gun laws would disappear. Despite this, I doubt you would see an increase in crime. There is a tremendous amount of research that shows that most gun laws do little to prevent crime and that crime rates are more tied into issues like poverty and substance abuse. As for what happened at VT and why, I honestly don't know. The best I can come up with is that there are some truly determined, evil people in the world and no easy explinations as to why. I remember sitting in a clinical meeting around 8 or 9 years ago. One of the presenting was the head of MSU's Psychiatry residency program. We were discussing violent behavior in youth and he was asked about causes. He said there seemed to be a number of facors, like sexual abuse, poor parentling, neglect, etc. He also said that some people are just evil or sociopathic and that science and medicine can't always explain why this happens.

I have more to write on the mental health implications, but I save that for another entry.

Read more...

Joel's Dialog of the Day

Okay, my first "Dialogue of the Day" comes courtesy of the hit HBO show Entourage, which is one of my absolute favorites:

Vince: I think they're right, you're soft on her.

E: Oh yeah and you were real tough this morning Vince.

Turtle: You're both pussies okay? And this is the problem with having a hot lookin' agent.

Drama: That's the problem with hot lookin' women in the workplace in general. They should be barred because no man can say no to them.

E: You should run for President on that one Drama.

Drama: You can't run on the truth E.

Read more...

The Circle Expands

Kegs are a community endeavor. In the spirit of such a community of beer lovers, Around the Keg is expanding its contributors to allow the meanderings and baseless opinions of a few very trusted beer lovers.

So say hello and raise a pint to steves, robert and joel!

Read more...