STAND YOUR GROUND = LICENSE TO KILL

Stripped of legalese and high-sounding bows to an individual's right of self-defense, the essence of stand your ground laws is a license to kill. You find yourself in a ticklish situation with a loud-mouth ahole, you don't have to expend energy in trying to defuse things. You can just blow his sorry a** away.

 

In the Trayvon Martin-George Zimmerman confrontation, whoever survived arguably had a stand-your-ground defense. Zimmerman was allegedly on the  ground getting his head pounded into the concrete, so he was justified in shooting Martin. Never mind that Zimmerman had stupidly put himself in harm's way.

 

If Martin had been the survivor, he most certainly would have had a stand your ground defense. He was being followed by some weird wannabe tough guy who had a gun. If that is not a threatening situation justifying a bit of preventative killing, nothing is.

 

Yeah, standing your ground is a great addition to the Second Amendment. No more need to show a preference for peaceful solutions or defusing actions. Rationality is for losers. The law says you can shoot first. Ain't that great?

F-BOMB IN COURT

Much to the delight of the nation's media, pundits, and assorted talking heads, the prosecutor in his opening statement in the George Zimmerman trial dropped the f-bomb. It was a planned drop, not one of those spur-of-the-moment “oh f***”s. The prosecutor was quoting Mr. Zimmerman in a call the latter had made to the police shortly before slaying another individual, a slaying Mr. Zimmerman claims was self-defense but the state, represented by the prosecutor, asserts was murder.

The prosecutor was not the first lawyer to drop the f-bomb in a trial. Cranky his own self did so almost four decades ago. At the time, Cranky had a little part-time law practice down in Williamsburg, Virginia, where he had grown up and was working on a graduate degree at the Big Green, or The College of W&M. One day a cousin dropped into his office, a young lady he had last seen when she was a child. She was now a young adult and in a bit of a jam.

Seems she had gotten into an argument with another young lady over the affections of a young gentleman, a truck driver as near as Cranky can recall. Some unpleasant words were uttered and there may have been a bit of hair-pulling. The local constabulary became involved, and Cranky's cousin found herself with a court date. Only a misdemeanor was alleged, so it wasn't the crime of the century.

Still, Cranky didn't get into a courtroom much. Thus here was an opportunity to shine. The only witness against Cranky's cousin was the other young lady. In fact, since only a misdemeanor was involved, there was no prosecuting attorney. The complaining young lady took the stand and told the judge her version of events. The judge, incidentally, who Cranky had been before on several other occasions, conducted his court in the head-down position. He was continuously writing and rarely looked up for eye-contact with anyone in the courtroom−attorneys, parties, police officers, spectators, anyone.

The young lady completed her perceptions of the truth as she remembered them. As one might expect, she was just an innocent victim of a wrathful other woman. But Cranky had heard his cousin's version of the incident, and that version included one item that the complaining young lady had not mentioned.

So Cranky got right to it: “Miss Jones, isn't it true that you called my client a 'Mothaf***ing B****'?”

The low rumble of courtroom back-up noise ceased. Jaws of spectators and attending law enforcement officers dropped. The judge looked up from his writing. And the young lady on the stand commenced a flustered bout of hemming and hawing.

Soon after, the judge ended the proceedings by instructing the two young ladies to stay the heck away from each other. Some months later, after several billing notices, Cranky's cousin paid him his $10 fee.

All in all, it was one of Cranky's finest courtroom moments, rivaled only by the time a young male client ran from the courtroom shortly after being told by the judge that he needed to spend some time at a state facility for troublesome youths. After following his client for several hours through the picturesque Colonial Capital, Cranky was able to flag down an officer of the law, who returned Cranky and the adventurous youth to the courtroom.

But that's another story.

BATON BEING PASSED

The big picture significance of Edwardo Snowden and the NSA situation is that the generational baton is being passed. Maybe slowly but certainly inexorably. This doesn't mean that Ed is any sort of hero, or even that he shouldn't spend considerable time in the slammer, provided he eventually surfaces in U.S. custody.

What it does mean is that the generation now on the precipice of power will not be denied, as previous generations on the precipice of power were not denied. The flow of time is inexorable, and no ranting and raving by the likes of Dick Cheney, Bill O'Reilly, and others standing athwart history yelling "Stop" can hold back the tide.

The generation on the precipice of power is a nerdy group. Computerized social media and computerized everything else have been their environment. They are the first generation fully a product of the Information Age. They don't see 9/11 as older generations do. Older generations see 9/11 as a momentous, paradigm-threatening event epitomizing and releasing forces that must be defeated. The precipice generation is not so sure. Many of its members have no strong recollections of "Before." They came to adulthood in uncertainty. Sometimes they wonder what all the fuss is about.

What they do see, in the United States that is, is a government and ruling class that can be somewhat hysterical. Every minor issue has the potential of going viral, of causing massive and conflicting paranoias. The members of the precipice generation may have concerns about the aggressiveness and rigidity of foreign powers and ideologies, but they have similar concerns about the aggressiveness and rigidity of the right and left sides of the political and cultural spectrums in their own country.

Edwardo Snowden, Bradley Manning, they represent a generational rebellion against the old order. And us members of the old order? We best prepare for change, at least as far as the dominance of our world view is concerned.

WORST ELECTION CHOICE EVER?

Voters in the Commonwealth of Virginia (not a state, Dude; we're a Commonwealth) may be facing the worst election choice in the history of democracy, a history stretching back to at least Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, and their pals in ancient Greece.

Okay, that might be an overstatement. At least the two candidates for November's gubernatorial election are not crooks (that we know of). And at least the election appears to be real and not one of those pro forma phony (and often crooked) things held in many parts of the world.

Still, for voters in the vicinity of the political spectrum's center, it is hard to imagine two more unpalatable candidates than Republican Ken Cuccinelli and Democrat Terry McAuliffe. The Cuch is one of those far right whack jobs who have pretty much captured the Republican Party. Terry Boy is a Virginian mostly by virtue of paying Virginia taxes. The Cuch got his party's nomination by hijacking the nomination process from an open primary to a convention dominated by like-minded again'ers (those against just about anything). Terry Boy is on the verge of getting his party's nomination because the Virginia version of his party is devoid of state-wide leadership at the moment.

Do issues matter in this election? Probably some. What will probably matter most, however, is turn out. If turn out is low, the advantage goes to the Cuch who can count on the rabid support of fellow again'ers. If Terry Boy can persuade enough middle-of-the-roaders to overcome their apathy and show up at the pols, he has a chance.

But that's a lot of apathy for Terry Boy to overcome.

CONSERVATIVES AS GRADUATION SPEAKERS?

A conservative was complaining on a recent radio show that only a small percentage of graduation speakers at colleges and universities are of the conservative persuasion. Well, duh.

Of course conservatives are not well represented at graduation ceremonies. Graduations are a time of happiness, a time of optimism. Who wants to hear gloom and doom at such events? Gloom and doom may be correct. We may all be going to hell in a hand basket. But really, is that what you want to hear at your graduation, or your kid’s graduation?

Conservatives are all about gloom and doom. And about the past. They are ever moaning about the lost paradises of yesteryear. As a general matter, they are only happy when opining on two topics: their own alleged victimhood at the hands of liberals and the mainstream media, and the alleged decaying state of society.

Occasionally, a conservative will come along who doesn’t sound like Dr. Grump ninety percent of the time. Ronald Reagan was one such individual. But by and large, conservatives impress the rest of the populace as dour and dogmatic, incapable of expressing a positive view of the future without tying it to a particular political stance or a static economic structure.

So yes, Conservatives, you might be under-represented on graduation stages. But most of us get enough of cranky old aunts and uncles at Thanksgiving dinner. Who wants to hear one at a graduation?

"POSITIVE RESPONSE"

A local radio station has been running an ad by a medical clinic specializing in the sexual problems of the American male, the major problem apparently being the erectile dysfunction (ED) epidemic that is making the nation's obesity epidemic look like small potatoes (small potatoes, obesity, get it?). The ad suggests that the clinic focuses on the really hard cases (oops, another poor word choice), experiments with combinations of almost two hundred medicines, has successfully helped a 94-year old, and promises a positive response right there in the clinic or your money back.

The ad raises a number of troubling images, one of course being that of a 94-year old guy gettin' it on. Perhaps the most troubling images, however, involve what might constitute a "positive response." Here's one image. A patient is lying on a bed, or maybe just a gurney. He might be completely naked, or maybe just his head and groin are uncovered. Four or five medical types with clipboards and pens are gathered around. The group might consist of one or two doctors, maybe an intern, and several nurses, most likely elderly. They are watching for movement.

"There, it twitched."

"No, that was strong enough."

"Well, it was certainly close."

"It could have been just a PH." (PH being an acronym for the medical term "penile hiccup.")

Now, if the ad is producing images such as this, perhaps the clinic's advertizing efforts need some adjustment. No matter how bad a fella's problems are, the possibility of group observation of his groin by serious medical types might be more than he is willing to chance.

A much better "positive response" image could involve young Swedish masseuses wearing the official uniform of the Swedish Bikini Team. Of course, developing a tactful, and legal, ED ad featuring Swedish masseuses would certainly be a challenge. But if you're promising a "positive response" or your money back, you gotta offer more than a group of dour medical types watching intently for the effects of a pill.

FIFTY SHADES OF, WHATEVER

Cranky is a little more than one month short of seventy. Cranky's wife is much younger, by a year to be more precise. So Cranky has a trophy wife.

But should that trophy wife be reading "Fifty Shades of Grey"?

Really, how is Cranky supposed to respond? Dinner at MacDonalds?

Or maybe washing the dishes one night.

Or being sure to put the toilet seat down.

Or vacuuming.

Or not complaining about his bunion. (You would be amazed at the size of that thing.)

Or maybe emailing Carolyn Hax for advice. (Note emailing instead of writing; Cranky is not unaware of social media and the Information Age.)

Or thinking, "It's just a phase."

Or suggesting more Nora Roberts.

Or recommending a different arthritis medication.

Or mentioning his heart condition.

Such weighty issues make Cranky sleepy. Time for a nap.

THE GOVERNMENT PROMISES NOT TO. . . .

After a thirteen-hour filibuster, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky extracted a promise from the Government to not drone him while he was having a frappe cappuccino or something at a cafe. Whether the promise is valid in just Kentucky or encompasses the entire country is a little unclear, but subsequent negotiations between the Senator and the Government will presumably clear up that particular point.

Now some might contend that Senator Paul's fear of a personal droning was a little unrealistic. After all, the Government's theoretical capability of doing something does not necessarily mean that the something will be done. But one individual's seemingly irrational fear is another's distinct possibility, even likelihood, and the Constitution's guarantee of freedom from fear makes no distinction between the rational and the irrational, and indeed authorizes no branch of Government to make the distinction. Embedded in the Constitution's Preamble−"in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity"− is certainly the right to rationally or irrationally fear whatever one wants.

In any case, Senator Paul's success in achieving a personal promise from the Government concerning a particular fear of his has established a precedent. Taken to its logical conclusion, the precedent is that each and every citizen is entitled to a promise or promises from the Government to refrain from inflicting some unpleasantness upon him or her. Once the scope of this precedent becomes widely recognized, the deluge will begin. To cope, the Government might need to establish a new agency, the Department of Personal Promises, or DOPP. So much for balancing the budget.

An initial promise that many a citizen will request is "to not take my guns away." Despite the Second Amendment, more than two centuries of widespread gun-ownership, and promises galore by politicians over the years and across the political spectrums, fear of Government confiscation of guns is rampant in many areas of the country. So every citizen who desires a promise of no confiscation will be entitle to a personal letter from the Government: "Dear Mr. LaPierre, We the Government promise not to take your guns away. s/The Government."

Of course, given how deeply entrenched is the fear of gun confiscation, the promise will likely have to be re-expressed every month or so.

Other possible Government promises concerning fears some citizens might find unrealistic include:

) To not have your home nuked.

) To not have a microchip planted in your brain to control your thoughts.

) To not have poisonous snakes dropped in your backyard.

) To not have spider colonies put in your attic.

) To not be required to listen to Fox Noise at least four hours a day.

) To not be required to listen to MSNBC at least four hours a day.

) To not have black UN helicopters following you around.

And so on. A Government agency with the sole mission of promising citizens that their personal fears about Government intrusion won't come to pass might go a long way toward dampening the current epidemic of national paranoia. It certainly couldn't hurt. You have my word.

CHARLOTTESVILLE CATFIGHT

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell needed this like the proverbial hole in the head. The University of Virginia catfight between Board of Visitors member Helen Dragas and University President Teresa Sullivan has resurfaced. In spite of her ineptitude, and failure, last year in attempting to remove Ms. Sullivan from office, Ms. Dragas remained on the Board and indeed was reappointed by Governor McDonnell for another term, a reappointment confirmed by the Virginia Legislature in January.

Ms. Dragas apparently celebrated her reappointment by presenting Ms. Sullivan with a list of 65 goals for the latter to meet in the current school year. The number was pared down a bit by the full Board of Visitors but reportedly still remains formidable. Thus the conflict that captured the nation’s attention last June appears posed for round two.

And just when things were going well for the Governor. In recent weeks he was able to get a compromise tax plan through the state’s cantankerous Legislature, and he has received kudos for being a voice of reason—one of the few in the Republican Party—on the desirability of mitigating the effects of the sequester. So thanks a lot, Helen. You too Teresa, although Helen’s thick-headedness and tone-deafness seem the real problems here.

After all, 65 goals? That sounds like micromanagement carried to an exponential power. Was micromanagement your field of concentration at the University’s Darden School of Business, Helen? And Darden, is Helen a typical example of your output? And what about the dimwit who, after the events of last summer, put Helen on the Board of Visitors’ three-person evaluation committee? Wasn’t anything else available? Say, the prom committee, or the meeting scheduling committee?

But in large measure due to the interplay of three stereotypes, the situation certainly has entertainment value. The first stereotype is the Catfight, two women going at each other. MEOW, scratch, scratch. The second stereotype is the Queen Bee, a woman who reaches a high position turning on female peers and subordinates. Incidentally, the Review section of the March 2-3 Wall Street Journal features an article entitled “The Tyranny of the Queen Bee.”

And the third stereotype is exemplified by this very column: males getting an inordinate amount of pleasure watching Catfights and Queen Bees. A Seinfeld episode captured the stereotype, with Jerry, Kramer, George, and assorted other males, including several cops, enjoying Elaine’s travails with another female.

So, Helen and Teresa, don’t let up. Deep down inside, we really are enjoying this. MEOW, scratch, scratch. Who's getting the keg?

s/Cranky, a Wahoo Alum (BA,’65; JD,’72)

MATT DILLON AND GUN RIGHTS

With all the citing of precedents in the current debate over guns, an important figure in American history has been ignored. The views of Matt Dillon, one of the nation's Founding Fathers, have received practically no attention.

Mr. Dillon, as he was usually called by Chester, his trusty helper, had an unequivocal approach to guns: you couldn't wear your gun in Dodge City, where Mr. Dillon was the marshal. And this wasn't just about your modern day assault weapon with a magazine holding dozens, or hundreds, of rounds. This was about your old-timey six-shot revolver.

Yes, Mr. Dillon understood a basic thing about guns: they are frigging dangerous, particularly after you've had a few drinks in the Long Branch Saloon and have become enamored of Miss Kitty. Better you settle your problems with fisticuffs rather than lead, steel, uranium, or whatever bullets happen to be made of at your particular moment of history.

Remember in the beginning of each episode of Gunsmoke how Mr. Dillon slapped leather with some bad guy? Mr. Dillon wasn't the fastest on the draw, but he was the one standing when the smoke cleared. Wouldn't it be great to see Wayne LaPierre as the bad guy, standing there with an AR-15, a Glock, and bandoleers over his shoulders and across his chest? Hey Wayne, even with all that firepower you think you got a chance against Mr. Dillon? He ain't like those Congressional fru-fru boys, and girls, you've been pushing around for the last couple of decades.

Boot Hill, here we come.

GUNS AND MENTAL HEALTH

Perhaps even the NRA could agree with the proposition that individuals with serious mental health problems should not have guns. A no-brainer, right? But at what point, if any, do extreme political views indicate a serious mental health problem that would prohibit an individual from possessing a gun?

Take an individual on the extreme radical left. Does the espousal of armed overthrow of the U.S. government and its replacement with a Communist dictatorship indicate a serious mental health problem?

Or just take a leftist-leaning individual who believes entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security are more important than balanced federal government budgets, even over the long term. Does this cavalier attitude toward deficit spending, toward unbalanced budgets, indicate a serious mental health problem?

Incidentally, the most definitely right-leaning Dick Cheney once said approvingly that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter." Does such a statement indicate the former Vice President has a serious mental health problem and consequently should have his guns confiscated? Actually, in the case of the former VP, the mental health issue is preempted by the competence issue. In shooting a hunting companion in the face, Mr. Cheney arguably displayed gross incompetence in the handling of a firearm. Ideally, such a level of incompetence should result in placement on the "No Guns For You" list.

Moving to the other end of the political spectrum, would a yard sign such as the following indicate a serious mental health problem: "The Second Amendment is the only thing between the People and Tyranny"? Some on the left might say so.

Thus the matter of guns and mental health is no easy thing to fit one's mind around. Fortunately, the nation has a Congress of predominately sane individuals who should be able to produce appropriate guidance.

OBAMA SHOULD GO BIG ON ENTITLEMENT REFORM

Democrats pretend it doesn't exist. Republicans acknowledge it but are unrealistic in their solutions. What is it? An aging population. The proportion of Americans over 65 has risen from 6.8 percent in 1940, to 12.4 percent in 2000, to 13.0 percent in 2010. The Census Bureau estimate for 2025 is 17.9 percent.

But the two major entitlement programs−Medicare and particularly Social Security−are implicitly based on unchanging demographics. Medicare was revamped by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2012−Obamacare−a very complex, and controversial, piece of legislation. The changes made in Medicare might be sufficient to ensure viability for some time to come, but continued monitoring will be necessary.

Social Security, on the other hand, is certainly unsustainable in its present form over the long term. What is the long term? Different observers have different opinions, which means disagreement, which in turn means a barrier to action. Consequently, the nation plods along, meandering into the future and hoping for the best.

At the very least, Social Security's age qualifications should be reexamined, and needs requirements should be considered. But many Democrats want to maintain Social Security in its present form, damn the changing demographics and the unlikelihood of maintaining the status quo solely through sizeable tax increases. As for Republicans, many of them want no tax component at all in any solution, meaning that they don't really have realistic solutions.

Significantly complicating the issue is fear on the part of both fervent Democrats and fervent Republicans of making a political mistake. Keep your head down. Let the other guy step into the line of fire.

This is where Obama should go big. The political center, where the majority of Americans reside, is not that much concerned about who is in power. The center wants solutions to problems. Obama, not having to run for office again, does not have to worry as much about offending the extremes on the left or the right. He does not have to tippy-toe around. He can throw out big ideas, big solutions, and let the chips fall where they may. An explicit proposal to revamp Social Security through both spending and revenue changes would put the left and right extremes on the defensive.

So, Big O, go for it.

CAN DEMOCRATS REMAIN THE ADULT PARTY?

For several years, the Democratic Party has been the nation's adult party, the party of reason, of logic, of compromise. But the characterization was not so much earned as bestowed by default. With the Republican Party resembling a group of infants going through the terrible twos−unrestrained desires, zero self-control, tantrums−appearing to be the adults required little effort.

As a result of being perceived as the adult party, Democrats largely triumphed in the November election and the year-end fiscal cliff standoff. In the election, Mr. Mitt and supporters did not come across as serious people with serious policies. They were all buzz words and absence of details. In the fiscal cliff mess, Republicans, particularly the House Republicans, seemed locked in an unstructured childhood fantasy that only they comprehended, and not really very well.

But in the political world, adulthood is not something that is necessarily permanent. Regressing to political childhood is all too easy, particularly when segments of your party are strongly ideological and bereft of any appreciation for opposing views or of what can reasonably be accomplished.

The Achilles heel of the Democrats, the factor that could destroy the current adult status of the party, is an inability on the part of some to see the need for a long-term balancing of government revenue and expenditures. Segments of the Democratic Party see a problem or an injustice and immediately want to throw money at it, damn the budgetary consequences. Or they refuse to acknowledge that circumstances change and that what were once acceptable monetary solutions are no longer appropriate.

Medicare and Social Security are two areas in which current policies are financially not sustainable over the long term. The population is aging. The proportion of people over 65 has risen from 6.8 percent in 1940, to 12.4 percent in 2000, to 13.0 percent in 2010. The Census Bureau estimate for 2025 is 17.9 percent. For Medicare and Social Security to remain viable over the decades ahead, such factors as age qualifications and needs requirements need to be revaluated. Can the Democratic Party participate in this revaluation? Or is the Party poised to abandoned the adult world for childhood fantasies?

THE REPUBLICAN GOAL: TO REMAIN A VIRGIN

To remain a virgin appears to be the primary goal of most Republicans in the fiscal cliff maneuverings, virginity to Republican true believers meaning never having voted to increase taxes. The easiest way to maintain one's tax virginity in the current circumstances is to do nothing and go over the fiscal cliff, let the automatic tax increases occur, and then quickly vote to reduce them, if not for everyone at least for everyone but the very rich.

If instead, a Republican, before the fiscal cliff is reached on January 1, votes to make permanent the current temporary rates on all but the very rich, his action (there aren't that many Republican hers in Congress) could be interpreted as an affirmative vote to increase taxes on those very rich. The Republican could argue that technically he was still a virgin, but technical political virginity is a tough case to make, just as is the case for technical sexual virginity among sexually active youth.

Granted, John Boehner's (most definitely not pronounced "Boner's") Plan B, which would have raised tax rates only on the very rich, was blessed by Pope Grover the First. But really, what does a Pope actually understand about virginity? Parenthetically, is virginity a requirement for being Pope, and if so, is it unquestioned virginity or just technical virginity?

Anyway, the reason the fiscal cliff mess is going down to the wire may be to enable Republicans to maintain their virginity. Instead of criticizing their actions, or non-actions, the sinners among us ought to stand in admiration of their restraint, a restraint that we sinners obviously lacked in the back seat of that '58 Edsel oh so many years ago, even if it was just a technical violation.

GUNS AND TECHNOLOGY

Here's the problem with the Constitution's Second Amendment: technology. When the Bill of Rights−with the Second Amendment−was adopted in 1791, "arms" were ye olde muzzle-loading musket, ye olde flintlock pistol, in short, ye olde old. Two rounds a minute would be a good rate of fire with these weapons.

Today, "arms" might, depending on who is doing the defining, include a fully automatic AR-15 spitting out 800 rounds per minute. How long would it take a Revolutionary War soldier to fire 800 rounds? At two rounds a minute, 400 hundred minutes, or more than six and a half hours.

So a Constitutional provision that protected the right to own a weapon firing two rounds a minute is now protecting the right to spray 800 rounds a minute? Even if the Constitutional protection is limited to semi-automatic weapons, an AR-15 in semi-automatic mode can spew 50 or more rounds a minute, depending on the quickness of the shooter's trigger finger and the size of the weapon's magazine. In the Founding Fathers' era, a shooter would need close to half an hour to get off 50 rounds.

Maybe it's time to repeal the Second Amendment, or at least adopt Justice Antonin Scalia's strict constructionist approach to Constitutional interpretation: the Constitution means what it meant when adopted in the closing years of the 18th Century. As for the term "arms," that means the Second Amendment's protection is limited to two rounds per minute.

What say you, NRA?

OVER THE CLIFF

What th' hell, Thelma, let's go over the cliff. It can't be any worse than watching the ridiculous minuet the donkeys and elephants in Washington and the talking heads there and in the Big Apple are engaged in. High school student councils across the nation do a better job of governing, and you remember what kind of dorks were on student council.

Besides, how bad can the likely consequences be? The nation would return to the tax rates of the later Clinton years. Remember those years? They were a time of budget surpluses, full employment, prosperity. W, draft-dodging Dick Cheney, and their myopic followers hadn't yet put the nation on a path to economic and fiscal disaster by cutting taxes−and consequently revenues−undertaking two wars on the nation's credit card, authorizing a prescription drug program for Medicare without paying for it, and in general making hedge fund managers look like responsible fiduciaries.

And for good measure, conducting foreign policy in a manner that would make Attila the Hun envious.

Barack is being criticized for not being a negotiator, for not buttering up the likes of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Maybe there's something to the criticism, although making nice with the Boehners and McConnells of the world would be beyond the ability of most sane people. But the real problem does not appear to be making nice but ideological rigidity. The Republican party of the second decade of the 21st (and maybe last) Century is in the hands of the lowest common denominator. Egged on by Fox Noise, conservative talk radio, the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, and their fellow travelers, the members of the lowest common denominator appear ready to take the nation into the economic abyss.

So why fight it? Let's join hands, stomp on the accelerator, and go over the edge. The uncertainty has an appeal that a future of partisan bickering, intransigence, nitpicking, and political gamesmanship lacks.

BENGHAZI: A FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS

In an effort to create a Watergate-level scandal, Fox Noise and its flunkies in the U.S. Congress (talking about you, Senators McCain and Graham), are making an already murky event much more opaque. Here’s a framework for analyzing and interpreting what has transpired. The framework doesn’t provide answers but merely tries to separate the important questions and issues from the unimportant, and to highlight the complicating facets of the matter.

First, it is helpful to think of events in Benghazi as taking place in three phases: the pre-event phase, the attacks themselves, and the public explanation aftermath. Second, not just the U.S. State Department was involved. The attack was against both a State Department consulate and a significant operational center for U.S. intelligence operations. And third, the attack occurred at a moment when demonstrations were erupting in various locations in the Islamic world over an inflammatory anti-Islamic video produced by an individual in the United States.

The interplay of these factors makes for a very messy picture that is ripe for simplistic political exploitation by those so inclined (talking about you, Fox Noise).

First, consider the three phases, or timelines. In the pre-event phase, the broad issue was the security of U.S. embassies, consulates, bases, and personnel around the world. Was the security of the consulate and operational base in Benghazi neglected? Reports are that additional security was requested in the months before the attacks. But were these unusual requests, or are they common? The fact that requests were made and rejected is not in and of itself sufficient to establish negligence. Security levels are dependent in part on the perceived threat and in part on adequate resources. Tradeoffs are necessary, and within limits defensible whatever the outcome. The decision to not increase security in Benghazi is one that must be judged from a broad perspective and with a number of considerations in mind.

The actual event phase lasted only a few short hours. Questions have been asked about when the Secretaries of State and Defense were informed, when the leaderships of the intelligent organizations were informed, when the President was informed, as if early knowledge by any of these individuals had the potential for making a difference in what transpired. Given the relatively short elapsed time of the events and the remoteness of the location relative to major collections of U.S. forces, early, even immediate, notification of the highest levels of government, if it did not occur, would likely have made little difference. Complicating the situation was the lack of clarity about what was actually happening. The more pertinent issues concern the responses at lower levels of the government agencies involved. Establishing the timelines of these responses is necessary to get a clear picture of what happened, but focusing on when the President was told is little more than political gamesmanship.

Phase three of the events was the shifting public explanations that stretched over several weeks. Opponents of the Obama Administration see in the shifting explanations a conspiracy or conspiracies amounting to something on the level of a Watergate scandal. But the much more likely explanation is confusion arising from the involvement of multiple, and secretive, agencies of the U.S. Government: State, Defense, intelligence agencies, and maybe more. It would be wonderful if government were a well-functioning machine, but it’s not and that’s just the way of things. And it’s not just government. Very few large organizations, if any, operate smoothly.

Compounding the confusion was the fact that demonstrations were occurring in many locations in the Islamic world over a video produced in the United States. Distinguishing a violent demonstration from an organized terrorist attack is easy only if you’re a commentator in a comfortable safe studio and you have the time and energy to quibble over the difference between “extremist” and “terrorist.”

So did the confusing responses leave the U.S. Government looking good, or even competent? No. But were they the result of conspiring public officials trying to accomplish something that even Fox Noise can’t quite pinpoint? If your answer is yes, you have qualified for citizenship in United States of Paranoid America.

UPPER BODY STRENGTH

One of the great things about the Internets is that any yahoo can broadcast his or her opinions to the World. The World might not be listening, but that's the World's problem. Anyway, Cranky reacted negatively to a recent op-ed in Rupert's paper, The Wall Street Journal. Cranky sent the WSJ a letter to the editor, which apparently fell on deaf ears. But the World should have the benefit of Cranky's thoughts, so here is his unpublished letter. (UPDATE: The WSJ did in fact publish an edited and abbreviated version of the letter on November 20.)

Michael O'Hanlon's op-ed, "A Challenge for Female Marines" (Nov. 13), accepts without question what Cranky considers the fallacy of excessive upper body strength as a necessity for individuals in Marine or Army infantry positions. Mr. O'Hanlon cites two components of Marine Corps testing in the Corps' Infantry Officer Course: endurance and upper body strength. He gives each equal importance.

But writing as an individual who served in Vietnam for two and a half years (1966-69), was an Infantry platoon leader in an Airborne unit (the 173rd Airborne Brigade), and retired from the Army Reserve with the rank of Colonel after 31 years of service, Cranky firmly believes that endurance is far more important than upper body strength for successful service in the Infantry, particularly when the tests of upper body strength are contrived and subjective.

Mr. O'Hanlon mentions three strength standards demanded of Marine Corps infantry officers. The first is being able to lift oneself−while wearing body armor and carrying a pack−up and over walls. He calls this essential in modern combat.

But what are the details of this standard? How high are the walls: 4 feet, 6 feet, 8 feet, 10 feet? What is the combat load? Is there any research as to what and how often walls of various sizes are encountered? Or is the standard just a seat-of-the-pants estimate by someone who just happens to be blessed with superior upper body strength? During his time as an infantry platoon leader in Vietnam and later as an infantry advisor to a Vietnamese infantry unit, Cranky encountered zero walls in need of climbing. But then, that was the nature of the jungle and the rice paddies.

Second, Mr. O'Hanlon describes as also essential being able to move a wounded fellow Marine across a field to safety. Does that mean being able to lift and carry a wounded comrade? Or is dragging permitted? And is any adjustment made for whether the comrade is bigger than normal and the carrier smaller? Cranky will bet the mortgage that in few, if any, infantry companies in the Marines or the Army can every single individual carry every other individual for a meaningful distance. There just have to be some outliers.

Third, Mr. O'Hanlon notes as essential being able to haul part of a dismantled mortar to an ambush site. Finally, we have a requirement that is somewhat realistic. One of Cranky's "commands" was of a 81mm mortar platoon in an infantry company. Actually, there were only about fifteen members of the platoon, and the platoon had only one, rather than the more normal two or three, mortars, but such were the conditions in '67. Anyway, the mortar base plate, the tube, the tripod, and the mortar rounds certainly made for heavy loads. But they were loads of endurance and stamina much more than of upper body strength.

Cranky has two daughters, one a graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy. Neither has exceptional upper body strength. But both have completed a number of marathons and several 50-mile ultramarathons. One has completed a 100-mile ultramarathon. Both have accompanied Cranky on grueling multi-week backpacking trips into remote wilderness areas in various Western states. In Cranky's opinion, each has both the endurance and upper body strength necessary for the infantry, provided the upper body strength standard is not based on a figment of some weightlifter's imagination.

A SCANDAL MAZE

This thing is really getting complicated. A short time ago it was reported that the object of Paula Broadwell's ire, Jill Kelly of Tampa, Florida, who first alerted the FBI through an agent who was a "friend," has had extensive correspondence with the current Afghan Commander, Marine General John Allen. As the cliche goes, you couldn't make this up. Here's a chart of the players. Connecting the boxes should keep the nation occupied for many months.

WANTED: BIOGRAPHER(S)

Events of the last few days have convinced Cranky that he needs a biographer. As an exemplary federal government bureaucrat for many years, Cranky enjoyed a career that could serve as a model for aspiring young federal bureaucrats. Cranky's accomplishments are many and well-known, but a detailed biography is really the best avenue for telling the complete story, for enabling the public to fully appreciate Cranky's bureaucratic greatness.

The first requirement for Cranky's biographer is that she be a she. It is well known that in most instances the deepest communications occur between individuals of the opposite sex. And Cranky's full story will require deep communication.

Also, to avoid the loss of understanding that can occur when works are translated from one language to another, a biographer for each major language should be involved. Thus, in addition to an English biographer, there is need at the very least for a Swedish biographer, a French biographer, an Italian biographer, and an Hispanic biographer.

And then there's the Orient with its many languages and huge number of potential readers. Each language will require its own biographer.

The project is daunting but the rewards will be great. Now let's get started with selecting those biographers.