I'm always late to chime in on social issues. For one thing, I spend so much of my time reading foreign newspapers, I rarely read domestic ones -- I have used up all my energy for newspaper reading. So I only find out about things when they begin to appear on blogs (which may be before or after the newspapers get them).
For another thing, I always tend to assume that the latest social uproar will simply vanish. I assumed the Schiavo thing would cease to be of interest long before it was. The absence of television from Grim's Hall probably contributes to this -- I never know when something has gone into a 24/7 cycle. I can only judge a story based on its merits, and the merits of these stories are often rather thin.
I knew of Sheehan a week or two ago -- I'm not sure which -- because Sovay mentioned it to me in a telephone call. I made a note of it because it seemed important to her, but I didn't follow up.
Well, we've gotten to the point that it is obviously a social phenomenon now. Winds of Change has a roundup. I suppose I'll chip in, too.
Cindy Sheehan is a grieving mother. I sympathize entirely with the motivation. I cannot imagine what the loss of my son would do to me; I would be grateful to the world, I think, if it refused to judge any action I took for at least a year or two afterwards. And so, applying the Golden Rule, I shall refuse to judge her.
I hope she finds the peace she needs. I have no use for those who are using her to further their ends -- nor those who are so heartless as to speak ill of her, in the depth of her pain.
Yes, I know she was a radical before the war began. That means nothing. She is a Gold Star mother, and so she is due a full measure of kindness from us. May she find her peace. May those who are trying to use her get what they deserve. As for those who have sneered at her character -- no one asks you to approve of her, or what she thinks, or how she feels. All I ask is that you let her rage, and pass on, without judgment. That, at least, is only what we should want for ourselves if, under an evil star, we should find ourselves brought to her fate.
Sheehan
WR
I haven't had much time to write this weekend, but I do have a few notes from some other sites that may interest you.
Feddie at Southern Appeal has put up that post he promised, asking for reader comments on the 4th Amendment issues around the NY Subway searches.
Cassandra had a good post about a new fatwa, which in turn gave rise to this post at The Fourth Rail.
I also wrote this at The Fourth Rail, examining some issues raised by Yon and Wretchard.
Enjoy.
OPVALOR
The Castle and BlackFive describe Operation Valor IT, a project to get technology to the wounded of our mission in Iraq. Soldiers' Angels has more.
The idea is that IED wounds are of a sort that can cut off traditional means of communication between the wounded and family. Voice-activated computers and software can rebuild those links. Op. Valor IT is designed to get the technology to those who need it.
There are those who have said that "flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." Here is a chance to honor and to aid those who have indeed been seriously wounded. There will be others, but here is one.
cake
Yesterday was a nearly fourteen hour day for me, but along about evening I did take an hour off work to go swimming. I have mentioned the swimming lake before. It's about a quarter mile long, a hundred yards or so wide, filling a deep depression in the hills between two weirs on one of the feeders of the Rappahannock river. There are two places where it's easy to enter and leave because it is rocky there, but the rest of the long edges are dangerous because they are deep, silty mud.
Our closest neighbors have three boys, ages nine through twelve, all of whom have names starting with the letter "D." The effect of this is that I know one of them is named Dylan, but not which one, and the others' names are lost on me. The youngest of the boys is the one who brought me the eggs the other day.
When I got down to the lake, the three were in one of the shallow places, stirring up a ton of mud and engaged in their favorite sport -- turtle hunting. I gather that their mother lets them keep turtles they catch for a few days, but only a few, so they're always hunting new ones as replacements. I left them to their sport and took my laps around the lake.
When I finished, I settled down in one end of the lake and started doing breathing exercises and kata under water. The water helps you by adding some small extra resistance to the exercise. In short order, the boys came over and splashed into the water around me.
"You're really brave to swim all the way to the end of the lake," the oldest said.
"It's not that hard," I told them.
"Will you take us, then?"
Groan. Now I've done it... their mother is going to kill me.
I gave them a severe look. "Can you swim?" I asked.
"Yes!" all three answered at once.
"I know you can dog paddle," I replied. "But can you swim?"
Well, they promised they could, so I told them we'd swim across the lake and back -- a couple hundred yards or so -- and then, if they did that well, we could take the long swim. We only got maybe halfway across before the youngest was panting and needed to turn back.
The other two seemed to be doing well, so I made them swim back with me to ensure that the youngest got to the shallow water all right, and then I told them they could swim to the end of the lake with me. I explained where the deep channels were, and to stay clear of the muddy sides so they didn't get fouled. Then, we started off.
It was apparently a lot harder than they thought it would be. We only got about halfway on the long stretch before they pronounced that they were ready to go back again. No problem -- I didn't really want to be swimming in deep water with somebody else's kids anyway. We swam back, and then I had to go home, and they went back to hunting turtles in the shallows.
I had to work the rest of the night, but along about ten o'clock my wife came up to the office to say that we'd had visitors. The boy's mother, she said, had come by.
"Uh-oh," I said.
"And she brought you a cake," my wife added. "She was really touched that you'd taken time out to spend with her boys."
Apparently the boys had gone home and told her the whole thing. Instead of being mad, she was touched. Which is how it should be, I guess, but somehow it isn't what I expected.
Still, when I was a boy, a lot of men took time out of their lives to teach me things. It's only fair to pass on the favor, and it turns out to be a bigger pleasure than I would have expected.
Also, the cake is delicious.
Pagans
"Pagan" is a word that comes from the Latin paganus, "country-dweller," which in turn comes from pagus, "the country." It is one of the great ironies that modern Pagans are therefore mostly urban, with the countryside being ruled over by Baptists.
Nevertheless, I think most of the Pagans I've known have aspired to 'the rural life,' even though few of them have lived it. Some push out and give it a try, like this lady, who is demanding a bit of respect from the local school board with help from the ACLU.
This is twice in a week that I'm coming down on the same side of something as the ACLU. I learned of the case over at Southern Appeal, while checking to see if Feddie has put up that post on 4th Amendment issues yet. I know he's overwhelmed with business-related matters now.
Anyway, back to the pagans.
Grim's Hall has always been a defender of the various neo-pagan faiths, ever since that time I decided to get into it with the Raving Atheist over Forn Sidr, a faith based on ancient Germanic customs and mythology. We don't normally discuss religion here in any other context than this one: defending people's Constitutional rights. That Constitutionalism is at the core of most of my political beliefs, which is why I want to know precisely how the NY Subway searches comply with the 4th Amendment, or at least have it spelled out frankly that they do not so we can be conscious about the fact that we are making a particular exception, for a particular reason.
I don't care for protestors as a rule. People who go out of their way to make a scene just to make a point irritate me a great deal. I think that this particular lady would be doing herself and her neighbors a service if she accepted their sensibilities and left them to their prayers. Sometimes self-sacrifice is the nobler path.
Nevertheless, it seems plain enough to me that she has a right to be considered on equal terms as any other religious leader. Those terms are: if you're going to have a public prayer associated with a legislative or executive body, you must not establish that the prayer be delivered by a particular religion. On the other hand, whoever delivers it must also not pretend to greater unity than exists -- whether a Baptist or a Pagan delivers the prayer, it must be couched in terms that really are acceptable to all parties present.
If I'm going to pray for us at a government meeting, I don't get to tell the Father of All that we have gathered in the hope that gun-control advocates will be reformed. If you're giving the prayer, you don't get to claim that we've gathered in the hope that our hearts might all embrace pacifism.
Either one is a plain lie, for one thing, which you ought to be careful about delivering to a divine being. It's also in bad taste.
If the lady's willing to accept those rules -- and I don't know if she is, having so little regard for her neighbors' wishes in other respects -- she ought to be considered same as anyone. I'm sure we all sat quietly at a neighbor's table, growing up, while the head of the house delivered a Grace that we didn't find entirely comfortable.
It's the same principle at work here, with the additional consideration that a head of household has far greater authority to choose the terms of the prayer. The table sits in the house, and the guest is under the roof of the house.
The government house belongs to us all. Therefore, if we are going to have a public prayer, we must be extra careful to show respect to all of our fellow Americans.
UPDATE: Besides, look how much fun it is to be a pagan... well, even just for a few days in Ireland.
Iraq
I suppose it was inevitable that dog bombs would prove to be real. Naturally, in this era, anything that seems too ridiculous or cruel to be true will prove out to be. It is the method of the particular type of enemy we face to find the places where kindness or decency blinds the normal man, and strike from that blindness.
Michael Yon has an excellent piece from Mosul, which is analyzed capably by Wretchard. I wish to think it over before saying more about it.
C&I
A special award in the 2005 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest was this little entry:
India, which hangs like a wet washcloth from the towel rack of Asia, presented itself to Tex as he landed in Delhi (or was it Bombay?), as if it mattered because Tex finally had an idea to make his mark and fortune and that idea was a chain of steak houses to serve the millions and he wondered, as he deplaned down the steep, shiny, steel steps, why no one had thought of it before.I gave out a burst of laughter when I got to "steak houses." It was a brief burst, but laughter is all to rare these days, so I value it where I find it.
Ken Aclin
Shreveport, LA
So today, reading Hong Kong's Asia Times, I came across this article, entitled "Delhi's cowboys ride urban range." Given that this is real, well, this is as good a joke as the first one.
The past few days India's capital city of New Delhi has been witness to a peculiar sight - cowboys (many on motorcycles) with lassos spanning the city to round up cattle. The Indian version of the Pamplona bull run or the American cattle roundup has begun following the announcement of a cash award of US$50 per cow caught, announced by the Delhi high court to rid the city of the traffic menace.Oh, but it gets better.
There has been an intelligence report that stray dogs that live next to the prime minister's residence are a potential hazard as they move in and out of the high-security zone, given their friendly access to the security guards. Any one of the dogs can be stitched up with a remote-controlled bomb.Why, yes it could, I guess...
One reason authorities in Delhi and several cities and towns in India have been unable to launch a crusade to rid themselves of vagabond cattle is religion. Cows remain a very touchy subject due to religious sentiments. The animal is revered by the Hindus, addressed as Gau Mata (meaning, the cow is like a mother). Indian history has several instances of Hindu-Muslim riots erupting over cows being slaughtered, sometimes deliberately to incite violence.... But apart from religion there are other factors that complicate the task, not least the animal rights activists who make it a point to criticize any government action or inaction.Animal rights activists rioting against motorcycle-riding Indian Cowboys, lariats in hand! Skulking veterinary terrorists, performing surgery to turn stray dogs into wandering bombs in order to get at the prime minister!
I can see I am going to have to make good on the advice given me by John Ryan, my old friend, professional gambler, and Australian good-for-nothing. He once told me that, no matter what else I did in my life, "Don't miss India!"
Somehow, I'm just going to have to get out there.
dr
You might want to get by and congratulate Doc Russia, who appears to have had a good day. Although the patient died, he didn't die without receiving every last chance that medical science could give him.
Doc's excitement comes through in his prose. We all die sometime, but I think we would be glad to know that the attempt to save us means this much to the people who undertake it. You can't expect them to care about you personally -- they don't know a thing about you, really, and will meet a hundred more just like you. Failing that, though, you can take comfort in the excitement and interest they have for the technical challenge of keeping you alive.
It's been interesting to read through Doc's career as a med student. I find I've learned quite a bit about medicine, both in areas I knew nothing about and areas I have learned something about for professional reasons. Those of you who were slogging on through my description of temporary v. permanent wound cavities as re: bullet wounds, for example, will learn a bit more on the topic from this post.
VC
Visit Cassandra, who hopefully will prove to me that it is not. The evidence she has cited so far runs in the other direction.
I have no fear for myself: I have known for years that I am broken. But for the rest of you, those on the Right, I shall be disappointed if she cannot defeat the position I have staked.
UPDATE (as of 0530 Monday morning): In fairness to all, I think two warnings are deserved. First, I'm feeling particularly evil today. Second, I intend to play the so-called "Devil's advocate" here. I'll be happy to break lances with any of you, not just Cassandra, but you'll have to prove that the staked position is wrong. It can be done; I think I have proven the opposite position more than once.
Today, though, I just feel like fighting. Be fairly warned.
wh
The AFP has put the headline "Men Do Have Trouble Hearing Women" on this story:
Men who are accused of never listening by women now have an excuse - women's voices are more difficult for men to listen to than other men's.That is to miss the point entirely. The right headline is this:
Reports say researchers at Sheffield University in northern England have discovered startling differences in the way the brain responds to male and female sounds.
The research shows men decipher female voices using the auditory part of the brain that processes music, while male voices engage a simpler mechanism.
"When I said that your voice was like music to me -- a song to soothe the savage beast -- I was but speaking God's own truth."
I've never said those exact words to anyone, but we've all said something like them, to certain special women of whom it was really true. That truth has lain hidden and unproven until now, but it always was true.
Why is there no room for this romanticism, which has proven out in the harshest light of science? Why, here, do we first look to the cynic -- "Men really don't hear you!" -- rather than the romantic, whose promises bind his heart and his life? It is just easier? Or have we stopped believing in love? -- our society, I mean, not each of us.
Pray, now, believe the other things we say. For those of us who are honorable men, at least, say only what we mean: and we will keep our word to you.
MT
The Manila Times ("Since 1898") has an article today on the upcoming elections. Looks like about one in ten voters is expected to be a "flying voter," i.e., somebody who has managed to register in more than one place so they can cast their vote at least twice.
Should be fun.
HB
My baby sister was born on this date. She's grown up and run off to Minnesota since then, and I haven't seen her in most of a year. Still, I know she reads the blog, though she doesn't comment -- I think she's afraid of you people, who are of course a contentious and boisterous lot. And welcome, just that way.
Anyway, happy birthday, Juli. I wish you all the best.
mvw
Part I here.
I promised to keep y'all informed, so here we are.
The wife saw Captain Moonshine driving around the other day. Apparently the local judge feels that this is the sort of person who ought to be granted bail.
The next night? Twenty-four gunshots. Hopefully one of the blackguards actually hit his target this time. At this rate, I'm going to have to start giving marksmanship lessons to the locals, just so they can finish this business and I can get some rest.
No more news yet. I'll keep an ear out for you.
UPDATE: Apparently I misunderstood the wee wife, who informs me that in fact she has no idea what Captain Moonshine looks like. She saw someone visiting an abandoned house nearby, which I thought she had said was owned by the fellow. But she says she doesn't know that, either. One of us is seriously confused, and I suspect it may be me.
As to the twenty-four gunshots, though, that part was right on. Ah, well. Maybe there are two feuds.
Who cares, anyway? The only interaction I've had with the "neighbors" has been pleasant enough. The one fellow who owns the horses down the way has proven to be good conversation. The local dogs are all friendly. And one of the kids from down the way brought me a dozen eggs today, laid by local hens. I didn't ask for them; I don't know why he decided to bring them. But there we are.
Good line
OK, so an illegal immigrant got past the FBI's background checks, got a job as a Border Patrol officer, and then used his position to smuggle in more illegals.
Beautiful.
Dan Melson asks at the end of a fine piece, "I know neither party's heart is in it, but can't they at least pretend to care?"
Hat tip: Smash.
VK
Nobody who navigates the blogosphere regularly will first learn here about Venomous Kate's lost teeth. Still, I know a few of you out there don't otherwise read blogs, so now you know.
I'm not actually a reader of Electric Venom. No offense, Kate -- there's just so much time (less every day, thanks to work). I learned about the business elsewhere. I can't even remember where, it's been mentioned so many places. Still, it's good when you can do something that will really help someone in need. Of course, there are always so many people, it can be hard to pick your shots.
It's not too often someone proud will ask for help, though. My best to the lady.
Nope
The folks at the Corner are having an idle debate today over whether enough things have been named after Ronald Reagan, or if perhaps it might be time to stop. The occasion of the debate is a proposal to rename Washington, D.C.'s 16th street after him.
There's quite a lot of opinion against more renamings, for reasons that Mark Steyn hits beautifully. I agree with Mr. Steyn, as indeed I so often do.
But there is one idea that I had to comment on:
NEVER ENOUGH REAGAN. [Mark R. Levin]Sorry, lads. I have to stand against that notion. I have a dear friend who would die of a heart attack if that happened.
If it were up to me, Maryland itself would be renamed Reagan.
Bombs
Baldilocks is on the track of the NYCLU's suit over the NYPD's random searches on the NY Subway.
I have to admit, I've been a bit concerned about this too. I've been asking a lot of lawyers, and bloggers, about the question. I'm not clear on exactly why it's legally OK for the police to deny access to a public subway to anyone who won't waive their 4th Amendment rights. So far, I've found several people willing to take a stab at it, but no one who can actually defend their position in the face of attack. This seems questionably Constitutional to me.
I understand why it is necessary, of course. Unlike the NYCLU, I don't think the police are doing anything immoral. What I want to know is, how is it Constitutional?
I would be happy to accept as an answer, if it were clearly stated, "It is not Constitutional: but the Constitution is not, as famously held, a suicide-pact." That would be good enough for me: I can understand that a pressing, war-brought necessity can cause us to have to set aside certain usual rights for a time. The same thing happens in the case of other serious emergencies, like hurricanes; in the aftermath, it may be necessary to go so far as to institute Martial Law or shoot-on-sight orders for looters.
The advantage of this answer is that it allows the searches, which really seem to be necessary, without diluting the power of the 4th. We understand that the 4th should apply in all but emergency situations. But we also recognize that we have an emergency situation.
Feddie at Southern Appeal promised to put up a post requesting legal insight into this, when I talked to him about it the other day by email. I'll gently prod him to remember to do it; I think it's a very important point.
Writing
So this is why all of you keep coming around here...
A study of 7,000 people in their early 20s, 40s and 60s found that those who drank within safe limits had better verbal skills, memory and speed of thinking than those at the extremes of the drinking spectrum. The safe consumption level was considered to be 14 to 28 standard drinks a week for a man and seven to 14 for a woman.Time for some more poetry:
Questions ranged from verbal reasoning problems to tests of short-term memory. Surprisingly, perhaps, teetotallers were twice as likely as occasional drinkers to achieve the lowest scores.
Bryan Rodgers, from ANU's Centre for Mental Health Research, said moderate drinkers not only performed the best, but also seemed to be the healthiest. "This does not necessarily show moderate alcohol use is good for our brains - there may be other reasons we haven't measured to explain the poor performance of non-drinkers," Dr Rodgers said.
That can make you really think!
Putting those four beers away
Makes for better word play!
Better poems, better thought,
Better health is thereby bought!
A merry life to you and me!
A drink right now, and then three!
Yep, that's fine stuff. I'm going to bet that a "standard drink" in Australia is a pint, too, not just one of those wee 12-once cans we use around here.
UPDATE: More beer-related poetry at Cassandra's.
Guns
My wife, who reads the blog though she has never commented here, asks for fewer gun-related stories, as she finds them somewhat dull. I shall certainly try, in case others among you feel the same way; but I do have to reply to this editorial that JHD sent me. It's from the NY Times, which has never understood the issue, has no interest in understanding the issue, and is simply throwing around assertions without backing.
The occasion for the editorial is an NRA-proposed boycott of certain oil companies, because those companies refuse to allow workers to keep firearms locked in their cars if those cars are parked on company property.
ConocoPhillips ran afoul of the N.R.A. when it joined in a challenge to a law passed by the Oklahoma Legislature that would strip businesses of their gun-control rights on company property. The state gun lobby jumped on the issue after a dozen workers were fired at a paper mill for violating a ban on keeping guns in their cars parked in company lots.In the Times' mind, the "right" at work here is "the right to gun control," which is a right that may be expressed by individuals and even corporations, and which ought to be enforced by the courts:
Responsible corporations sued, pointing out that they are liable for workers' safety. They cited estimates that more than a dozen killings occur each week in the nation's workplaces because angry employees are able to put their hands on guns.There are several things to be said.
1) There are no "gun-control rights" pertaining to corporations, or individuals. What is at issue here is not the "right" to control guns, but the private property right to limit access to what one owns.
It is the right, that is, to put up a sign that says "no guns here," and have someone prosecuted for trespass if he ignores the sign; or fire him, if he is an employee, because he has committed the crime of trespass.
The right to keep and bear arms, however, actually is a right: a Constitutional right, one that is recognized by the Justice Department, and what is now almost the totality of the scholarship, as a right pertaining to individuals. The Senate bill that the Times is on about also recognizes that nature, in quite strong language, which the Geek quotes at length.
When private property rights come into opposition with basic Constitutional rights, it is the private property right that normally gives way. By "gives way," I don't mean that it is voided, but that it has to accept some restrictions. The usual one in cases of this sort is the notion that public accomodations (which include gas stations) have fewer such rights than private homes.
If someone wished to assert this type of private property right over any other sort of Constitutional or civil right, the Times would be foresquare in the opposition. They would never endure a corporation putting up a sign that violated first amendment rights -- e.g., "No Episcopalians." They would never endure a violation of fourteenth amendment rights -- e.g., "No immigrants." They would probably not support even a violation of "freedom of association" rights that are not otherwise Constitutionally protected: "No Communists," or "No gays."
An individual is free not to invite Episcopalians to his house, but he cannot refuse to employ them if he has a business.
2) I don't have access to the "estimates" that are on offer here, so I can't analyze them. I'm sure someone will in the fullness of time.
However, it strikes me that they are somewhat irrelevant to the debate at hand. An employee who has decided to shoot his fellow employees is not going to be restrained by a sign that says "No guns," if he is not restrained by the laws against murder, assault, carrying weapons of any sort in any place with the intent to committ illegal violence, or any of the other laws that apply.
All of that is already illegal. It is subject to both criminal punishments, and civil punishments in the case that harm is caused.
The only thing that is at issue is whether a corporation may insist that employees contract away a Constitutional right. May I write in my contracts that employees agree not to practice a certain faith? If they are Muslims, can I legally require them not to practice their daily prayers on company property, or company time?
What if one fears that "people who practice Islam," like "people who carry guns," are likely to harm others around them? The evidence is against both propositions, but the perception may be real enough. Is that perception enough to override the Constitution? Should it be?
I think the Times would argue that it is not, and should not be, in any case except this one.
3) The civil liability issue for the corporations is a real issue, but it can't be resolved in this way. The argument is that corporations are liable if someone is shot on their property, and therefore they have to be able to protect people on their property from being shot. Fair enough; but as pointed out above, a sign that says "No guns" is no protection whatsoever from crimes of this type.
The legal argument they are imagining is: "We have an obligation to protect people on our property from violence of this type. We obviously can't afford to put armed security everywhere, which is might really stop this sort of violence. However, we did put up a sign that said 'no guns,' so it's not our fault." That prevents no one from being shot, however; it's only to escape the corporation having to pay out legal damages.
At least as compelling a legal argument would be, "We have an obligation to protect people on our property from violence of this type. We obviously can't afford to put armed security everywhere, which might really stop this sort of violence. However, we do permit our employees the access to the tools they need to defend themselves."
That should be just as likely to avoid damages as the first argument. In addition, it might actually prevent deaths from workplace shootings, because it means that someone might be in the position to prevent it.
The Times continues:
Most Americans do not believe that the right to bear arms applies to an employer's parking lot, to a church or to many of the other places where politicians have declared open season because they fear the out-of-control gun movement.I'm not sure what their evidence is for this assertion, but it is of course perfectly irrelevant even if it were true. I've seen polling data suggesting that "most Americans" believe that homosexuality should be illegal, but that doesn't mean it should in fact be illegal.
The entire reason for having Constitutional rights in a democracy is to protect rights from popular encroachment. Of course it is rights that are not popular which are in most danger.
They are still rights, written in the Constitution, and they must be protected. They ought to be protected by the government, which is required by its own Constitution to do so.
m16
Amid this excellent bit of photoblogging by Michael Yon, there is an insightful comment. He was right there during a firefight with insurgents, who almost escaped:
The lack of power of the American M-4 and M-16 rifles is astonishing. So many people and cars shot-up, but they just keep going and going. For a moment, it appeared the terrorists might get away.That's right. The engine block of even the least well-constructed vehicle will absorb 5.56mm rounds. This is one reason why cars "stopped" in this fashion by American forces are frequently shot with hundreds of rounds. It's not bloodthirstyness: it's necessity.
This may be a useful piece of advice if you should ever find yourselves being shot at by anyone: the engine block will stop pistol and light rifle rounds. Your door will not. Your window will slightly deflect bullets sometimes, but not reliably. Choose your cover accordingly.
Unfortunately, the military is planning its new weapon in the usual, bid-taking and tech-oriented fashion. The proper way to choose a new battle rifle is by polling actual Marines and combat soldiers. If there's one piece of equipment not to skimp on, this is the one.
If they did, I will bet you this one is the one they would choose. Notably, it's exactly the opposite of everything the military thinks it wants in a battle rifle: it's heavy, it chooses tons of power instead of being able to carry lots of ammunition, and it involves very little of 'the latest technology.' Plus, it's long and solid rather than modular and collapsible.
Nevertheless, it has every advantage over both the M-16/M-4, and the suggested replacements. It comes of a good family, whose battle record is as solid and proven as it is possible to find. And the long, solid concept has advantages as well as disadvantages, if you will only take the time to train to exploit them: we have seen bayonet charges on quite a few occasions in Iraq, and -- as USMC pugil stick training indicates -- even an unloaded rifle, if it is long and solid, makes an excellent weapon.