Essay: Targeted drone killing

A new technology, which reduces the incidence of occupation forces and civilian casualties, extends into a gap in the continuum between law enforcement and war.

This was first published in the Dayton Review on February 20, 2013. It is scheduled for publication in Chum for Thought: Blood in the Water (2014).

Targeted drone killing

We don’t seem to have a problem with missile-armed drones here in central Iowa, but there are those among us who are worried about black helicopters coming for them in the night. However, people in villages in other places watch armed drones circling overhead every day. Somebody (and anyone else near them) is probably going to get blown to bits pretty soon. There is no safe place to hide and there is no safe place for your children to play. That has got to get on your nerves.

The rise of global terrorism has required governments to develop new policies and procedures. This is unlike any war that has ever been and it’s not easy to wrap our minds around how things are having to change. Lethal actions are no longer taken exclusively against nation states, but against widely dispersed and diverse groups and individuals.

Terrorist groups often gravitate to parts of the world that have inadequate rule of law, such as effective law enforcement and extradition treaties. Still, they may pose real dangers to the security of the United States, its citizens, and to others that have the support of the United States. Further, available technology has the capacity to multiply the massive damage that even a small terrorist organization can produce.

Historically, military responses have required

Essay: Confucius, Emerson, and Ginsberg

Information and comments on the essay:

Confucius, Emerson, and Ginsberg

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKX0N1cTNqMTY1N2c/edit?usp=sharing

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

Confucius, Emerson, and Ginsberg

The classic tenants of Confucianism and Taoism take disparate, but not mutually-exclusive, views of existence. While only Confucians would seek to give advice for improving society, elements of both views are important to a balanced and healthful existence within a society.

Confucianism is all about improving society. Individuals are expected to yield to established laws and the greater good of the community. The fundamental concept for maintaining society is the competence and fairness of public servants, which earns respectful honor and loyalty (for others, family, ancestors, public servants, and tradition). Law and tradition are looked to for guidance. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains:

Confucius' social philosophy largely revolves around the concept of ren, “compassion” or “loving others.” Cultivating or practicing such concern for others involved deprecating oneself. … Learning self-restraint involves studying and mastering li, the ritual forms and rules of propriety through which one expresses respect for superiors and enacts his role in society in such a way that he himself is worthy of respect and admiration. A concern for propriety should inform

Essay: A rant on “Second Amendment remedies”

Information and comments on the essay:

A rant on “Second Amendment remedies”

From the book: Chum for Thought: Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters by David Satterlee

Find out more, including where to buy books and ebooks

Read or download this essay as a PDF file at: ttps://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4eNv8KtePyKZkhnYUN6bXEzRUE/edit?usp=sharing

#Guns #Law #Militia #Patriot

Read by the author:

Chum For Thought:
Throwing Ideas into Dangerous Waters

A rant on “Second Amendment remedies”

The concept of “exercising Second Amendment options” is alarming and disturbing. With that thoroughly in mind, I offer the following fictional tongue-in-cheek monologue to shine a bit of light on a not-so-modern evil.

I just heard that some people have been saying that we should use guns to get “Second Amendment remedies.” I’m not exactly clear on which people they think should be shot. Is it just Liberals in general, Liberal politicians, or anyone whose ideas run counter to those of the one toting a piece? I don’t know about you, but I thought shooting people for political purposes was frowned on.

Maybe it’s even illegal at the local, state, or federal level.

My daddy always told me to leave my guns at home when I went voting. He said, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.” He also used to say, “You go shooting all the foxes and you’ll put ol’ Roy out of a job with nothing to bark at.”

I especially remember the time Daddy explained to me that if I still had my eye on that Johnson girl, that I had best make nice to her daddy, even if I did hate his guts. And I couldn’t just up and shoot Donnie Joe when I found out that