No More Troops for Afghanistan | Malou Innocent | Cato Institute: Commentary

No More Troops for Afghanistan | Malou Innocent | Cato Institute: Commentary: "A long-term, large-scale presence is not necessary to disrupt al Qaeda, and going after the group does not require Washington to pacify the entire country. Denying a sanctuary to terrorists that seek to attack the U.S. can be done through aerial surveillance, retaining covert operatives for discrete operations against specific targets, and ongoing intelligence-sharing with countries in the region. Overall, remaining in Afghanistan is more likely to tarnish America's reputation and undermine U.S. security than would withdrawal."

Nobel Panel Defends Obama Peace Prize Decision - Political News - FOXNews.com

Nobel Panel Defends Obama Peace Prize Decision - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

'All these things have contributed to -- I wouldn't say a safer world -- but a world with less tension,'"

"The left-leaning committee whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the country's role in combating climate change."

Tracking Your Taxes: Is Essential Air Service Really Essential? - Political News - FOXNews.com

Tracking Your Taxes: Is Essential Air Service Really Essential? - Political News - FOXNews.com: "Critics say the program is out of control. Subsidies were supposed to be no higher than $200 per ticket for cities less than 210 miles from a sizable airport, but in practice, the limit is not enforced.

Consider these ticket prices and taxpayer subsidies:

-- Cape Girardeau, Mo., to St. Louis: ticket price $189, taxpayer subsidy $1,939.

-- Glendive Mont., to Billings: ticket price $233, taxpayer subsidy $2,526.

-- Alamogordo, N.M., to Albuquerque: ticket price $192, taxpayer subsidy $2,270

-- Harve, Mont., to Billings: ticket price $233, �taxpayer subsidy, $2887

-- Ely, Nev., to Denver: ticket price $300, taxpayer subsidy $4,504.

The program serves roughly 3,000 people per day -- �mostly businessmen, who critics argue can and should pay more for their flight. Instead, Congress continues to increase the taxpayers' portion of the ticket."

Telecomutting Conservation

Report: Two of every five of workers telecommute | Business Tech - CNET News: "The company's research showed that just one day of telecommuting saved between 16- and 23-kilowatt hours of electricity, equal to 12 hours of electricity use. That single day also helps at the pump, cutting out 1.4 gallons of gas on average and slashing CO2 emissions by 17 to 23 kilograms."

Should Christians Carry? A Christian's View of Self-Defense

Should Christians Carry? A Christian's View of
Self-Defense: "Exodus 22:2-3 in the Amplified Bible reads, 'If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no blood shed for him. 3But if the sun has risen [so he can be seen], blood must be shed for slaying him. The thief [if he lives] must make full restitution. If he has nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.' These are important verses that favor self-defense. Seemingly complex at first, they are really quite simple when studied more closely. One must keep in mind that at the time that this was written, the level of artificial light we have today did not exist. Moonlight could not be relied upon to sufficiently light a home. If a thief broke into a home, and the master of the house was awakened, the homeowner could legally kill the thief without fear of retribution. The reason for this was simple: At night, the homeowner could not see the thief well enough to discern what (if any) weapons he may have had. He did not know the thief's intentions. He was already at a disadvantage due to the low light and the fact that his home was invaded. Also, since it was night, he could not quickly gain assistance from others. His ability to apprehend the thief was greatly diminished, if not altogether removed. Consequently, the law allowed him to 'kill first and ask questions later.' However, in the daylight, the homeowner was able to see his attacker and his weapons. He was more likely to be able to see if he were up against a hardened murderer or a homeless man simply trying to steal food. The homeowner had the advantage because he could now call for help and could more easily detain the thief."

Why the Gun is Civilization

Cornered Cat - Why the Gun is Civilization: "When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender."

"Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act."

WORLD Magazine | Hidden pain | Matt Anderson | Sep 26, 09

WORLD Magazine | Hidden pain | Matt Anderson | Sep 26, 09: "I learned early in my career that woman generally don't mention abortions unless specifically asked."

Rebel Interrogators Want Investigation | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary

Rebel Interrogators Want Investigation | Nat Hentoff | Cato Institute: Commentary: "he said he began his investigation 'in part because of expressions of concern by Agency (CIA) employees that the actions in which they were involved, or of which they were aware, would be determined by judicial authorities in the US or abroad to be illegal.'

And strikingly, he added, 'Many expressed to me personally their feelings that what the Agency was doing was fundamentally inconsistent with long established U.S. Government policy and with American values, and was based on strained legal reasoning.' (Washington Post, Aug. 24)."

'During an interview with Jason Leopold of The Public Record (pubrecord.org), Aug. 23, Kleinman said — Mr. President take heed — "I've had the honor of testifying before four committees of Congress and I am always astounded at the profound political partisan politics that surround this issue. I'm a professional interrogator. I have 25 years of experience in this and I don't have any concern whatsoever that an investigation into how we conducted ourselves since 9/11 would in any way undermine our ability to continue gathering intelligence."

Significantly, in this land of the free and home of the brave, Kleinman added: "I have friends in the intelligence community who won't speak up because to do so is almost a career-ender."'

The Real School Indoctrination Scandal | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary

The Real School Indoctrination Scandal | Will Wilkinson | Cato Institute: Commentary: "Yet in 30 states, local school boards choose textbooks for their entire school districts. In the remaining 20, state-level boards choose textbooks for an entire state. Because statewide markets in California and Texas are so huge, the best bet for the big textbook publishing companies is to tailor their products to the tastes of textbook adoption committees in one or both states, leaving small-state committees with little influence.

We are a spectacularly diverse society, yet we have somehow settled on a system in which enormous captive populations of students are made to learn the same exact thing from the same boring book. When policy requires that every impressionable young mind in a town, city, or state be exposed to one set of assumptions about ethnicity and gender, one approach to religion, one version of American history, one account of Christopher Columbus, one interpretation of the Civil War or the New Deal, you can bet there will be wrenching conflict. And you can bet that the one-size-fits-all textbooks that emerge from this politicized selection process will fit no one. Mind-numbing blandness is the key to their success."

"The ideological differences that fuel the textbook wars wouldn't be such a big deal if we had an education system in which parents, armed with school vouchers or education tax credits, had the power to choose their kids' curricula by choosing their school. With greater school choice, the K–12 textbook market would come to more closely resemble the college textbook market—a lively, competitive scrum where individual instructors select from a wide array of texts embodying different perspectives and pedagogical assumptions."

"Through trial and error and the test of time, certain texts are recognized for excellence and gain market share, but instructors are never at a loss for alternatives. One might worry that greater school choice could lead to a cacophonous Babel of incompatible, ideological educations. Yet, despite dizzying curricular variety, college-level school choice has not kept graduates of Brigham Young and Brown from working amicably side by side in the same companies."

Obama's Speech to Students Teaches Lesson About Power | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary

Obama's Speech to Students Teaches Lesson About Power | Neal McCluskey | Cato Institute: Commentary: "For decades more and more power has been concentrated in Washington, so reasonable people with legitimate disagreements have had to fight much more – and much harder – over what goes on in DC. The trend has only accelerated over the last couple of years, with bank bailouts, the stimulus, takeovers of Chrysler and GM, and potentially much greater federal involvement in health care."

"Ours, however, is an extremely diverse nation, which has been a huge source of strength for centuries, but also dooms any centralization to conflict."

"To solve the problem, we obviously don't need more centralization, though for several mistaken reasons some liberals and conservatives are demanding just that. No, what we need is the very opposite: school choice. Let parents choose schools that best meet their kids' needs and desires and that share their values. Rather than forcing diverse people to battle over government schools, let them educate their children with the freedom that is supposed to define American life.

If we do that – if we cease forcing people to fight – we can put this ugly speech brawl behind us, and ensure that nothing like it happens again."