I was watching a show called Future Weapons. There is this company called Pinnacle Armor developing body armor called Dragon Skin that is constructed like fish scales – a bunch of overlapping discs. It works because the discs are about indestructible and because they overlap and spread out the force.

This shit is mighty-serious. The guy was testing it by shooting it repeatedly with 5.56mm and 7.62mm steel-core rifle rounds. Zero penetration. So they put the test dummy on top of a grenade and blew it up. It tore up the rig and made a mess of the armor – butzero penetration. Of course, your brain would be liquid. Regardless, technology has finally given us actual personal armor again. It’s actual bullet proof.

After seeing this show I thought: Why isn’t the military using this armor? Right now we use heavy steel plates and brittle ceramic stuff. Well, of course, it’s bureaucratic political bullshit. First, Dec 20,2006, the National Institute of Justice certified the armor. Then, in August 3, 2007, for some reason, someone reviewed the tests and declared it wasn’t enough data to support Pinnacle Armor’s 6-year warranty. August 20, 2007 the US Test Laboratory tested nine six-year-old Dragon Skin vests. All the ballistics tests passed. Pinnacle resubmitted their vest for certification, but the application was rejected because the tests had not been properly documented. WTF?

I also read hear-say about problems with the armor in hot weather – the scales don’t rebound quickly enough when multiple pieces of shrapnel or bullets are hitting them. FFS though, Uncle Sam, give these assholes some money and stop jerking them around. In the next decade I want to see actual bulletproof coveralls with climate control – talk about saving money on healthcare.

Noisy Dove stops to remember, honor, and thank the soldiers who have given their lives for our country and those still fighting and preserving our freedom.

Dear Noisy Dove,

The recently passed illegal immigration law in Arizona is apparently supported by 70% of the state’s voters, yet President Obama in a public ceremony called the bill, and so the people, misguided. He spoke generally of a different kind of reform needed. What sort would that be? …other than writing out a US birth certificate for anyone who wants one.

Obama is part of a group that doesn’t like that illegal immigration is illegal. (this group also likes to scare Latinos and other minorities away from the Republican vote) Instead of trying to make wander-in immigration legal, Obama’s group over the years has made enforcing immigration laws exceedingly difficult – that’s why illegal immigration is so popular among immigrants.

Arizona’s new law simply makes illegal immigration illegal under Arizona law, and requires officers to check citizenship status if there is probable cause to believe a suspect is an illegal immigrant. So essentially this law is undoing Progressive efforts to make a law they don’t agree with unenforceable. Obama doesn’t like that so he’s propped up one of his Straw Men again.

Obama can’t argue the logic of the law. AZ has half a million illegal immigrants and the number is growing while Mexican drug violence is seeping over the border. Schools are crowded and hurting for funds while parents are unemployed or under employed watching debt and taxes rise and incomes fall. And the Federal government refuses to secure the border. What does he expect a border State to do?

Obama’s Straw Man in this case is the usual Liberal argument against most anything they can’t counter logically: Racial. He calls it irresponsible and misguided – something that will: “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.”

What I call irresponsible is an insecure border that leaks thousands of illegal immigrants per day. What’s misguided is hampering law enforcement because you disagree with a law. One notion of fairness that many Americans cherish – especially legal immigrants – is the notion that anyone can become an American if they’re willing to go through the process. (not many countries allow this). And one thing that undermines trust between police and their communities is overburdening the police with hundreds of unidentifiable people entering those communities on a daily basis and then limiting how police can go about enforcing laws that are clearly and blatantly being broken.

Fundamentally, I think it’s lofty, arrogant, and un-American for the Federal government to tell a border state how it should or shouldn’t enforce immigration laws, within reason. And within reason, there is no smaller thing one can do to enforce immigration law than to require a police officer to check citizenship status when that officer has serious reason to question citizenship.

Obama also argues that this law is an example of why the Fed needs to pass immigration reform – to prevent more state laws from appearing that make a Federal law also a State law and require State enforcement. This would be a sound argument – although contradictory – if he were planning anything more than a soft political give-away.

What needs to happen first is our borders need to be secured. Right now this will require the National Guard, and is an optimal job for them. I would have disagreed with this a few years ago. Militarizing the border between us and one of our closest allies is bad for relations, and just looks jackassish. But things are getting serious. Ranchers have trash laden paths through their property and some are taking border security into their own hands. Mexico is fighting what is essentially an insurgency, which is coming over our weak border. And of course, we have unidentifiable people and illegal drugs poring through.

Long term, a serious barrier needs to be constructed. The border fence idea was good, but the contractors screwed it up. Regardless, a triple barrier with a road running down it would be ideal, along with ever improving surveillance equipment. It doesn’t matter how well you’re catching illegals if they’re pouring back in just as fast.

Next would be dealing with the current illegal immigrants. Now, I understand Amnesty is a bad word. But seriously, a society like ours, in most cases, is going to offer some type of stream-lined path to established illegal immigrants, it just is, that’s just how we are. The key to amnesty not breaking our society down is to observe step 1: Secure the borders.

Once the border is secure, and the current illegals are given amnesty or shipped off, we can then look at current immigration law. According to many farmers – for example – migrant workers are essential to their business. These workers are often undocumented and the jobs they do won’t be had by citizens. So certainly, a migrant worker program could be helpful.

The path to citizenship could also be examined, because bottom line, when people are literally risking life and limb to get here with the purpose of building a better and honest life, the legal path should be at least competitive with the shark-infested and 50-mile-desert-walk options.

As for the Arizona law’s probable affect, I agree with Squab Dove:

I say let’s see the arizona law in practice and see if the proof is in the pudding.  Maybe this new law will be really effective.  Maybe totally useless.  who knows.  AT LEAST Arizona is bucking up and doing something.  They are taking charge, as they should be.  Its good not to rely on the fed too much.  I think we need the states taking matters into their own hands more.  This is different though to some degree because it is the national border and hence a matter of national security.  So the fed should be asking Arizona what they need and how the fed can support their efforts to secure the border, not calling them misguided and offering shit on a stick as an alternate solution, or worse, amnesty…

Instead of vilifying AZ and talking about irresponsibility and boycotts for one’s own personal political gain, one should embrace such ideas as part of the 50 laboratories of democracy, freedom, and prosperity we have here – one of our greatest and least utilized strengths. And after implementation, let’s be honest about the results. *cynical laugh*

Something has to be done, and what has to be done isn’t going to be soft or pretty and will require more than creating new bureaucracy and shoveling more money – which is all this Leftist Congress will do.

And listen – Republicans – take it easy on this one. Don’t go getting all blustered over amnesty. Who cares, seriously. The Latino voting block is a perfect fit under the Republican tenants. Don’t let the Liberals paint you as anti-Latino bigots. They’re already picking recent immigrants off with all these lofty entitlement promises. In other words, if you need political points in your district, and you have Latinos, don’t hammer on amnesty. The key is border security and only hippies and modern Socialists will argue with that.

It’s fine for passive citizens whose allegiance is more or less irrelevant. If you were a functioning part of the framework –allegiance would be different. A soldier, for example, can’t question his orders. He must obey them, unless of course they are illegal. Our current climate nearly has solders requiring basic training in military law – with all the appeasement we’ve been attempting in Iraq when civilians get killed.

Sometimes bad things have to happen to protect good things, and we need people willing to do the bad things. Those are patriots. Those are men like Oliver North who stand up and take blame honorably. Those men are like the SEAL team that shot those poor confused pirates in the head.

Sacrifice. Your people before yourself. Patriotism.

I wouldn’t call the US a big company. Yeah, the government is, but the United States of America and the Constitution are much more than that. They are an idea. That is what America is – it’s not just this jackass government. I don’t understand how one can be a patriot “for now” unless they plan to change some core beliefs – like becoming a socialist.

If Denmark (referenced from previous post) or any country wants to impose their government on my people – I’ll fight them for no other reason than the fact that a foreign – unelected – group is compelling something on my people. This is a primal patriotic response. The Taliban and Al Qaeda use it to convince people who don’t know any better to fight the Iraqi and Afghan governments.

Also – if our government became unjust or oppressive – like Iraq and Afghanistan WERE – that would be a different story. I would then fight the government as a patriot to the United States of America. Of course, some of the people I would be fighting would also be patriots. It’s a matter of politics at such a points.

Regardless, politics doesn’t dilute the meaning of patriotism. Patriots put their society before themselves. And despite the trends in word use, patriotism is just as important during times of peace. Patriots support and protect their society in millions of ways besides killing rivals and aggressors – like trimming tree branches away from stop signs and clearing snow away from fire hydrants.

Interesting. We each seem to nurse a different though similar definition of patriotism. Dr. Dove, I don’t think you strayed at all. Do I understand correctly that patriot for you equals someone in total agreement with the current powers that be?

I’m wondering if I am a patriot. Now that I am an adult, do I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America? I don’t think I do. I pledge allegiance to the interests of God and his Church. I’ll be obedient to USA’s laws until they conflict with that first allegiance. By your definition of patriot, Noisy Dove, the society I put before myself is the Church.

I will preach that sin is wrong. I will proselytize all who’ll listen. Any woman being forced into abortion will find shelter in my home. Today these aren’t issues – in America. But they are elsewhere right now in the world, and it is feasible they may one day reach these shores. Americans will say, “These laws are best for us.” I will say different. Does that make me the true patriot, rising above popular opinion to seek the truest best interest for American society, or does it make me part of a subversive counter-cultural underground? I think the latter, and I think the latter is who we are called to be. ?

Professor Dove, if the free practice of your faith was illegal, would you still consider yourself an American patriot?

Isn’t our first loyalty as Christians called to be for other Christians? If the US pushes sanctions against Denmark for promoting Lutheranism against other religions, on whose side do we stand?

Patriot — a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.

Listen, a patriot is someone who puts his society before himself. That’s it.

People that vote in their own interest, like Obama said he expected his supporters to, the ones who chant, “yes we can” those aren’t patriots.

People who voted for Obama because they didn’t take economics and think he will do best for our country, those people probably are patriots.

People who voted for Mc Cain because they hate tall people: not patriots.

Understand?

And yeah, the Nazis were patriots, and damn fine patriots too, Rommel for example. Rommel fought brilliantly against Germany’s enemies. He was close to Hitler, and saw the insanity, saw him sending half of the finest military ever seen into an irrational campaign against Stalin, and may have had something to do with the bomb attempt on Hitler’s life. That’s patriotic. If Rommel were some idiot living in his mother’s basement who simply felt this or that, and tried killing old Adolf, well that little shit wouldn’t have been a patriot.

Abdul Haq was a patriot too, but he fought the Soviet backed communist government of his country. After the Soviets left, and thus the US, he fought the Taliban and died doing it.

Tim McVeigh was not a patriot. He was a selfish seeker of attention, angry with his country for being mean to him – boohoo.

Obama’s neighbor, that one who’s wife blew up those police: not patriots. They were upset with their government so they tried making a point by killing government and police (patriots). That’s butt-hurt-ism, like the German boy living in his mom’s basement.

Protesting: patriotic.

Sit-ins that shut down buildings: unpatriotic.

Is this clear enough? It’s like the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Rub the Liberal of your windshield if this seems smudgy. It’s a black and white issue.

I don’t want any more, “Boo hoo people called me a patriot because I didn’t think we could clean Sadam’s clock and democratize Iraq.”

Well then, stop using characterizations. I’d like to think I have something to learn from Liberal thinkers, but all they do, as you’ve done today, is state general needs and characterizations along with the ever present Bush bash:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.

I can’t really blame you at this point though. All Obama has proven to be is a symbol – a mascot to be carted around and make fancy vague sunshine speeches while Nancy and Reid force through the most god-awful legislative concoctions man kind will likely ever know.

I don’t know how to learn anything from any of this. That’s why I keep telling you to explain the policies you support. You read a British magazine. You like it. So you let them do your economic thinking because they’re smarter than you? Seriously? Your admitting that my insulting accusation was true – you believe something without understanding it because you like believing in it. You have a “very British” perspective… That’s lame Dr. Dove – totally lame. I hate believing half the conclusions I’ve come to.

And I’m not getting emotional about a political side – ffs. Thanks for assuming I could actually care though. What annoys me is when anyone makes illogical or useless arguments, or simply states things generally without explanation to refute something I’ve carefully explained.

That’s why it’s exhausting you know. When you have an idea that you can’t explain, nothing is more exhausting than having it challenged. That’s why I said before: if you can’t explain something just say so. But don’t pull out comfortable Liberal falsities you choose to believe then be surprised when I call bullshit. And when I call bullshit don’t call me partisan – or ranting Noisy Dove – just because the bullshit is on the left today.

Give me a logical reason to support one of your ideas. If you do I’ll support it. Until then I’m going to assume that, if we have 10 chickens that each lay one egg every other day we will get 5 eggs per day. And if we slaughter one chicken, yes, we will have a great deal of much needed meat that we can use to proudly and historically feed people with, I’ll agree with that. But I won’t believe we will continue to have 5 eggs per day. And I won’t believe that we have increased our overall protein intake. It has nothing to do with ideology. It’s just logical.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps

Hey now. There’s no need to get offensive. You were ranting. You love ranting.

I get really exhausted having these conversations. My personal beliefs on politics and economics are distinctly British. Its probably because I’ve been getting my news from the Economist since medical school. I let them think for me on this kind of stuff. They know more than me. The magazine is socially liberal and economically conservative. Oddly, they think Bush was one of the worst presidents in U.S. history.

American liberal political philosophy is no more illogical than American conservative political philosophy. Whenever I read something that says Bush was nobly defending our nation, and that Obama has a secret ulterior motive, I can’t help but to put on a liberal American hat and start fighting for their ideology. I just can’t help it.

I hate strong political views, because they’re dangerous, and almost across the board based on a simplified version of reality that jives with some kind of flawed political ideology. Look at the current healthcare reform bill. It is a total disaster, and the price tag is like a trillion dollars. I can almost guarantee it will make healthcare worse for everyone. Look at the war in Iraq. The American people were led to support it based on a lie. Its cost us at least a trillion dollars, and we still may loose the damned thing. On top of that, it has cost the U.S credibility throughout the world.

My point is that I don’t think we should have such strong emotional ties to political ideas. Good doesn’t come from it. They can devolve into the kind of nonsense conversations that noisydove and drdove get into.

I suppose my point is that our political conversations would be a lot more informative if they weren’t filled with characterizations of the opposing side. I have something to learn from American conservatism. You all have something to learn from American liberalism.

If the housing act – whatever the name of that was – the thing that make Fannie and Freddie – such overregulation – the world wouldn’t be in this mess…

Did you ever take even one economics class Dr. Dove? And seriously, I understand your point. It’s the point made by every other Liberal. We need to do this to help these. This isn’t fair. I think reducing the income of the rich is worth helping the poor. I don’t need to hear any more of that. I’d like to know HOW your programs are supposed to work, scientifically, fundamentally, philosophically, specifically – because they never have.

Here’s some more Noisy Dove ranting for you. Since calling my honest conclusions a Noisy Dove rant seems to make you feel superior – or less threatened perhaps:

Obama’s health reform won’t be helpful to the 40 million uninsured because it’s not health reform. If you can tell me how it WILL help the uninsured I’ll sure as shit support it.

The economic stimulus did nothing for any ‘little guy’ unless that ‘little guy’ runs an asphalt business or works in government.

Obama is already shrinking the gap between the poor and rich. The fact he got elected did that. The Dem policies continue the trend. Business is scared shitless of expansion. Most are tapering down – fearing over capacity, higher taxes, higher energy costs, and higher employment costs. That means entrepreneurs are struggling or hesitating to start or expand the industries that will feed and cloth us in the coming decade – due to lack of investment. You know, like solar panels and stuff, ironically.

And this monetization – this making of dollars out of this air, that’s reducing the gap more than anything. Once this downturn is over, and the pent up cash hits the market, what do you think will happen to the value of the dollar now that these hundreds of billions were magically produced? Inflation. Inflation is basically a tax on anyone who owns dollars.

This was adorable:

I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger.

So tell me then Dr. Dove, because Glenn and I would like to know. How will any of these policies help or better

represent the poor. I know that is your camp’s image: The guys out to fight evil business and help the poor poor. But all I see are ideas that harm business, the thing that actually does help the poor. All I see is a legacy of trapping the poor in housing projects and spreading a sense of entitlement.

And are you trying to say Obama think making everyone poor will make the country stronger? Or are you saying his

policies will somehow make poor people richer? I’d like to know how. If you don’t understand how just say so – because that’s what I think. I think you have no grasp of economic principle but like the feeling of compassion – so you buy into this illogical garbage.

For Noisy Dove: Ok, that was a beautiful Noisy Dove political rant, but you’re missing my point. I’ll try to explain.

For Professor Dove: My belief that Obama is trying to merge to two Americas is based on his background and political actions. Apart from a few token consessions, nothing he’s done has been for those with power and money. That’s basically the opposite of GWB. Obama’s pushing this current healthcare reform, which will be harmful to everyone except the 40 million uninsured Americans. The democratic goody-bag (aka economic stimulus) did little for businesses, and much more for “the little guy.”  And as to your comment:

“It does, however, appear that Obama is trying something drastic to help the poor.  But capitalism doesn’t exist without the poor.  It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how America will look in 15 years as far as the inner city world, the well-off world, and how the overall economy will function.”

I have no idea how things will look. I just know that Obama is trying to shrink the gap between the rich and the poor. Unlike Noisy Dove and Glenn Beck, he doesn’t think policies designed to do so will destroy the country. He just thinks it is the moral imperative of a government to represent all the people, including (if not especially) the poor and ignorant. Some, including Obama, actually think shrinking the gap between rich and poor will make the country stronger. If the bank CEOs had been under tighter control, the world wouldn’t be in an economic down turn. His policies reflect his ideals.