Month: March 2014

11 years ago today

by digby

… we were one day away from the invasion of Iraq. Dick Cheney appeared on Meet the Press. Here’s a little bit of what he said that day:

MR. RUSSERT: How close are we to war?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we are still in the final stages of diplomacy, obviously. That’s one of the main reasons for the president’s meeting today with the British and Spanish prime ministers in the Azores. But there’s no question but what we’re close to the end, if you will, of the diplomatic efforts. We have done virtually everything we can with respect to trying to organize a second resolution in the U.N. Security Council. And, clearly, the president is going to have to make a very, very difficult and important decision here in the next few days.
[…]
MR. RUSSERT: Many Americans and many people around the world are asking one question: Why is it acceptable for the United States to lead a military attack against a nation that has not attacked the United States? What’s your answer?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Tim, we have, I think admittedly, a new and unique set of circumstances we’re trying to deal with here. If you think back to the way we were organized in the last century, the 20th century, to deal with threats to the United States, or to our friends and allies, we had to deal with large states, significant military forces, intercontinental ballistic missiles, the kinds of threats we dealt with throughout the period of the Cold War, all of that changed on September 11 of a year and a half ago. Since that time, we’ve had to deal with the proposition that truly deadly weapons could be delivered to the United States by a handful of terrorists. We saw on 9/11 19 men hijack aircraft with airline tickets and box cutters, kill 3,000 Americans in a couple of hours. That attack would pale into insignificance compared to what could happen, for example, if they had a nuclear weapon and detonated it in the middle of one of our cities, or if they had unleashed weapons of mass destruction, biological weapons of some kind, smallpox or anthrax, on a major attack on the United States. That’s a whole different proposition for us to think about, how we deal with that.

And at the front of our concerns as we try the deal with these issues is the proposition that the al-Qaeda organization is absolutely determined to do everything they can to acquire chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. We found ample evidence of that in the camps and the tunnels and the caves in Afghanistan. We see evidence of it in the interrogations that we have been able to do now on many of the al-Qaeda members that have been captured. We know that they have done everything they could to acquire those capabilities over the years, and we also are confident that if they ever do acquire that kind of capability, there’s no doubt they’ll use it. There’s absolutely nothing to restrain them from doing that.

If you look back at our strategies that we used in the 20th century, specifically, say vis-a-vis the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we had a policy of containment, alliances, NATO in particular very successful at containing the Soviet Union, a policy of deterrence we could hold at risk, those things that they valued with our ballistic missiles and we were able to forestall a conflict throughout that whole period of time; enormously successful policy.

Then you look at the proposition of a handful of terrorists operating in a part of the world where they find sanctuary and safe haven in a rogue state or in an area that’s not even really governed by anybody, developing these capabilities to use against the United States. And how do you apply containment to that situation? How do you deter a terrorist when there’s nothing they value that they’re prepared to defend, when they’re prepared even to sacrifice their own lives in the effort to kill Americans and there’s no piece of real estate that they value highly enough so that a concept of deterrence works.

We have to think new thoughts about how we deal with that threat, and so when we look at the kind of strategy we want to pursue, we do a number of things. We, obviously, want to defend the homeland, so we spend an enormous amount of time and effort trying to make it a tougher target, but we know defense isn’t enough. You’ve got to have good offense, and we’ve gone aggressively after the terrorists wherever we can find them. We worked the financial circuits and the intelligence and law enforcement efforts. We’ve had great success there recently; Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others.

But we also have to address the question of where might these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction, chemical weapons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons? And Saddam Hussein becomes a prime suspect in that regard because of his past track record and because we know he has, in fact, developed these kinds of capabilities, chemical and biological weapons. We know he’s used chemical weapons. We know he’s reconstituted these programs since the Gulf War. We know he’s out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know that he has a long-standing relationship with various terrorist groups, including the al-Qaeda organization.

Now, if we simply sit back and operate by 20th century standards with respect to national security strategy, in terms of how we’re going to deal with this, we say wait until we are hit by an identifiable attack from Iraq, the consequences could be devastating for the United States. We have to be prepared to prevent that from happening. I have argued in the past, and would again, if we had been able to pre-empt the attacks of 9/11 would we have done it? And I think absolutely. I think the American people would have supported it. We have to be prepared now to take the kind of bold action that’s being contemplated with respect to Iraq in order to ensure that we don’t get hit with a devastating attack when the terrorists’ organization gets married up with a rogue state that’s willing to provide it with the kinds of deadly capabilities that Saddam Hussein has developed and used over the years.
[…]
MR. RUSSERT: The Los Angeles Times wrote an editorial about the administration and its rationale for war. And let me read it to you and give you a chance to respond: “The Bush administration’s months of attempts to justify quick military action against Iraq have been confusing and unfocused. It kept giving different reasons for invasion. First, it was to disarm Hussein and get him out. Then, as allies got nervous about outside nations deciding ‘regime change,’ the administration for a while rightly stressed disarmament only. Next, the administration was talking about ‘nation-building’ and using Iraq as the cornerstone of creating democracy in the Arab/Muslim world. And that would probably mean U.S. occupation of Iraq for some unspecified time, at open-ended cost. Then, another tactic: The administration tried mightily, and failed, to show a connection between Hussein and the 9/11 perpetrators, Al Qaeda. Had there been real evidence that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks, Americans would have lined up in support of retaliation.”

What do you think is the most important rationale for going to war with Iraq?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think I’ve just given it, Tim, in terms of the combination of his development and use of chemical weapons, his development of biological weapons, his pursuit of nuclear weapons.

MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagree?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I disagree, yes. And you’ll find the CIA, for example, and other key parts of our intelligence community disagree. Let’s talk about the nuclear proposition for a minute. We’ve got, again, a long record here. It’s not as though this is a fresh issue. In the late ’70s, Saddam Hussein acquired nuclear reactors from the French. 1981, the Israelis took out the Osirak reactor and stopped his nuclear weapons development at the time. Throughout the ’80s, he mounted a new effort. I was told when I was defense secretary before the Gulf War that he was eight to 10 years away from a nuclear weapon. And we found out after the Gulf War that he was within one or two years of having a nuclear weapon because he had a massive effort under way that involved four or five different technologies for enriching uranium to produce fissile material.

We know that based on intelligence that he has been very, very good at hiding these kinds of efforts. He’s had years to get good at it and we know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq’s concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.

And when you hear people beating the drums for war, and talking about American “weakness” think of this:

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back with the vice president. Front page in The New York Times: “Anger On Iraq Seen As New Al-Qaeda Recruiting Tool.” The Arab street will rise up, recruit more people. The president has embraced a new road map of the Middle East. Some say that was a political calculation to help with the war in Iraq. What will happen in the Arab street? And will more young Arabs, Muslims sign up to attack the United States? 

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I can’t predict that, Tim. It’s possible. There’s another point of view, though, that I think is very valid here, important not to lose sight of, and to some extent the United States has established over the last several years, going back at least to the ’80’s, an unfortunate practice that we’ve often failed to respond effectively to attacks on the United States. And I think the impression has grown in that part of the world—I think Osama bin Laden believes this and I think Saddam Hussein did, at least up until 9/11—that they could strike the U.S. with impunity, and we had situations in ’83 when the Marine barracks was blown up in Beirut. There was no effective U.S. response. In ’93 the World Trade Center in New York hit; no effective response. In ’96, Khobar Towers, in ’98 the east Africa embassy bombings, in 2000, the USS Cole was hit, and each time there was almost no credible response from the United States to those attacks. 

Everything changed on 9/11 when we got hit here at home and we had a different president in place, who was bound and determined to go forward. And I firmly believe, along with, you know, men like Bernard Lewis, who’s one of the great, I think, students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, towards calming things in that part of the world. People who are moderate, people who want to believe in the United States, and want to support us will be willing to stand up because the United States is going to stand with them and not pull back and disappear when the going gets tough. 

One of the keys, for example, with respect to Iraq is our friends in the region have been willing to step up now and be supportive of what we need to do from a military standpoint because they believe this president will do exactly what he says he will do. They don’t want to stand up and stick their necks out if the U.S. is then going to fade as we have so often in the past, so… 

MR. RUSSERT: But a lot of countries, Mr. Vice President, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, the neighbors of Saddam, other than Kuwait, are not supportive. 

VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I think we will find, Tim, that if in fact we have to do this with military force that there will be sighs of relief in many quarters in the Middle East that the United States finally followed through and deal effectively with what they all perceive to be a major threat, but they’re all reluctant to stand up if Saddam’s still in power and if there’s a possibility he will survive once again to threaten them and to threaten their region. So for the United States to follow through here, be determined, be decisive, do exactly what we said we were going to do, I think we’ll find we’ve got far more friends out there than many people think. 

MR. RUSSERT: And Jordan and Pakistan and countries like that will be stable? 

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I think so. I think weakness, vacillation, and unwillingness of the United States to stand with our friends, that is provocative. It’s encouraged people like Osama bin Laden, as I say, to launch repeated strikes against the United States, and our people overseas and here at home, with the view that he could, in fact, do so with impunity and now he knows different.

If only we’d be tougher nothing bad would ever happen.

I urge you to go and read the whole thing. It’s absolutely shocking in its arrogant mendacity. We now know that at least 80% of what he said was a lie. In fact, it was pretty obvious even at the time (although the degree to which this man in particular — cosseted as he was by Villagers like Tim Russert — had altered the intelligence was hard to imagine at the time.)

And after you read that interview again, ask yourself why we — or anyone else — should automatically trust the US Government to be telling us the truth. A little humility is called for before the people of this world — and this country — will have confidence in its integrity again. Indeed, if there was one thing that this administration was tasked with doing, it was that. The ongoing scandals around CIA torture and the NSA surveillance prove that it’s still a long way from achieving that goal.

Oh, and you have to love this:

MR. RUSSERT: In order to pay for this war, would the president consider suspending his proposed tax cut? 

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don’t believe that’s the right course of action, Tim. This is one of those times when as important as the war on terror is and as important as the problem of Iraq is, we’ve also got a lot of other balls in the air. And an American president these days doesn’t have the choice of focusing on only one thing. We’ve also got to deal with the Middle East peace process, with Israelis and Palestinians which we did this week. We’ve got to deal with the domestic economy. It’s very important to get the economy growing again. And one of the reasons we’ve had a fall-off in revenue, obviously, is a slow economy and we need to get growth started again. We can’t wait until after we’ve dealt with our military problems to get the economy growing again. So we believe the tax cut is good, long-term growth policy for our economy. And that’s the best way for us to be able to afford the kind of things we’re going to have to do internationally.

That’s right.  National security issues all come down to the US being “strong” and there’s never been an economic problem that can’t be solved with a tax cut.  It must be nice to live in such a simple world.

Scientists are alarmed. Why aren’t policymakers?

by David Atkins

It’s almost as if they’re trying to tell us something:

A new study sponsored by Nasa’s Goddard Space Flight Center has highlighted the prospect that global industrial civilisation could collapse in coming decades due to unsustainable resource exploitation and increasingly unequal wealth distribution.

Noting that warnings of ‘collapse’ are often seen to be fringe or controversial, the study attempts to make sense of compelling historical data showing that “the process of rise-and-collapse is actually a recurrent cycle found throughout history.” Cases of severe civilisational disruption due to “precipitous collapse – often lasting centuries – have been quite common.”

The research project is based on a new cross-disciplinary ‘Human And Nature DYnamical’ (HANDY) model, led by applied mathematician Safa Motesharri of the US National Science Foundation-supported National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, in association with a team of natural and social scientists. The study based on the HANDY model has been accepted for publication in the peer-reviewed Elsevier journal, Ecological Economics…

Another scenario focuses on the role of continued resource exploitation, finding that “with a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed by the Elites.”

In both scenarios, Elite wealth monopolies mean that they are buffered from the most “detrimental effects of the environmental collapse until much later than the Commoners”, allowing them to “continue ‘business as usual’ despite the impending catastrophe.” The same mechanism, they argue, could explain how “historical collapses were allowed to occur by elites who appear to be oblivious to the catastrophic trajectory (most clearly apparent in the Roman and Mayan cases).”

Applying this lesson to our contemporary predicament, the study warns that:

“While some members of society might raise the alarm that the system is moving towards an impending collapse and therefore advocate structural changes to society in order to avoid it, Elites and their supporters, who opposed making these changes, could point to the long sustainable trajectory ‘so far’ in support of doing nothing.”

However, the scientists point out that the worst-case scenarios are by no means inevitable, and suggest that appropriate policy and structural changes could avoid collapse, if not pave the way toward a more stable civilisation.

The two key solutions are to reduce economic inequality so as to ensure fairer distribution of resources, and to dramatically reduce resource consumption by relying on less intensive renewable resources and reducing population growth.

Most of the answers are pretty obvious, really. Reduce inequality, tax excessive wealth globally, invest heavily in renewable energies to stop CO2 pollution, provide contraceptive and abortion services to empower women and reduce birthrates in the developing world.

We know what has to be done as a species. There just isn’t the political will, because obscenely rich people like staying obscenely rich.

.

Saturday Night at the Movies

Quark, strangeness and charm

By Dennis Hartley

Quirky lodgings: The Grand Budapest Hotel

The big whirl of little atoms: Particle Fever

Nothing to see here folks …

by digby

Just get on with your business…

This winter has been a tale of two Americas: The Midwest is just beginning to thaw out from a battery of epic cold snaps, while Californians might feel that they pretty much skipped winter altogether. In fact, new NOAA data reveal that California’s winter (December through February) was the warmest in the 119-year record, 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit above the 20th century average.

Yeah, I know it’s cruel to complain about endless summer. Until you think about this:

California, supplier of nearly half of all US fruits, veggies, and nuts, is on track to experience the driest year in the past half millennium. Farms use about 80 percent of the state’s “developed water,” or water that’s moved from its natural source to other areas via pipes and aqueducts.

As the maps above show, much of California’s agriculture is concentrated in the parts of the state that the drought has hit the hardest. For example: Monterey County, which is currently enduring an “exceptional drought,” according to the US Drought Monitor, grew nearly half of America’s lettuce and broccoli in 2012.

I guess if you hate salads, it’s no big deal.

.

The wardoves of the GOP

by digby

Well bowl me over with a feather. You mean libertarian, isolationist Rand Paul from Kentucky is just like the rest of the Republican Party, rattling his sabre the minute he gets the chance? Say it ain’t so!

It is our role as a global leader to be the strongest nation in opposing Russia’s latest aggression.

Putin must be punished for violating the Budapest Memorandum, and Russia must learn that the U.S. will isolate it if it insists on acting like a rogue nation.

This does not and should not require military action. No one in the U.S. is calling for this. But it will require other actions and leadership, both of which President Obama unfortunately lacks…

I would reinstitute the missile-defense shields President Obama abandoned in 2009 in Poland and the Czech Republic …

The real problem is that Russia’s President is not currently fearful or threatened in any way by America’s President, despite his country’s blatant aggression.

Missile defense! Now there’s a Big Gummint boondoggle for you. And one might think that being upset that the US isn’t threatening enough wouldn’t be a libertarian position, but there it is …

I guess my point is that if what you care about is an anti-interventionist foreign policy, you are obviously in a minority in American politics. But your best chance of actually not intervening is voting for non-interventionist Democrats, who have at least some influence in their party. For instance, Syria. It is highly doubtful that the President would have backed off without the British no vote and the impending no vote in the House led by anti-war Democrats. It’s not much, but it’s what we have to work with. If libertarians could get past their obsession with keeping taxes low for millionaires, they could add their numbers to the existing anti-war liberals and have a real impact. But as long as they fall for Rand Paul’s flim-flam, they will be a totally marginal presence in American politics. The American right loves war. It’s their main organizing principle. As bad as the Democrats are on these issues, and they are bad, they will always at least have to pay some attention to the doves in their ranks. There are a hell of a lot more of them than there are peacenik Republicans. As Paul proved this week, even the GOP doves are warmongers.

Well, when it suits them. There are times, as when Paul was speaking of college students back in 2009 when he made the non-interventionist case and called for a strong pullback from global military adventures. Who knows what he really believes?

.

Outsourcing negativity works

by digby

From the “stuff that common sense will tell you but that political science proves” file:

Abstract: Prior work finds that voters punish candidates for sponsoring attack ads. What remains unknown is the extent to which a negative ad is more effective if it is sponsored by a party or independent group instead. We conducted three experiments in which we randomly assigned participants to view a negative ad that was identical except for its sponsor.

We find that candidates can benefit from having a party or group “do their dirty work,” but particularly if a group does, and that the most likely explanation for why this is the case is that many voters simply do not connect candidates to the ads sponsored by parties and groups. We also find that in some circumstances a group-sponsored attack produces less polarization than one sponsored by a party. We conclude by discussing the implications our research has for current debates about the proper role of independent groups in electoral politics.

I’m pretty sure that people doing attack ads instinctively understand that it’s better if a nasty attack comes from some anodyne sounding “group” than the candidate doing the attacking. A superficial observation of human nature will tell you that many of us generally don’t like mean and nasty people and think the less of them for being that way. (I will make an exception for rightwingers, who prefer mean and nasty.) So it stands to reason that if you’re trying to get the votes of undecided or independent voters, it’s a good idea to put some distance between yourself and negative attacks.

It’s always nice to have common sense scientifically validated. But it is common sense.

.

Infrastructure is for panty-waists

by digby

Whateves:

Eight people have been found dead in the smoldering rubble of two upper Manhattan buildings leveled by a gas explosion that injured more than 70 others, and rescuers are still sifting through the ruins as they search for three who remain missing.

Rescue crews brought in a backhoe and bulldozer to look for more buried victims as firefighters battled flareups in the wreckage of the two five-story buildings that collapsed Wednesday morning on 116th and Park Avenue, sending tremors as far as a mile and spewing debris for blocks.

Workers were about 40 percent to 50 percent through the rubble by Thursday night, using sound devices and putting telescopic video cameras into small voids to see if anyone was in there.

Still, I doubt anything will be done about aging infrastructure until Wall Street itself is swallowed by a sink hole.

Which could happen. Easily:

.

Fair and balanced 2003-style

by digby

I was just going through the archives looking for some stuff about the anti-war rallies from 11 years ago and came across this:

Saturday, March 15, 2003

Proud To Be An American 


I just saw some fair and balanced footage of rallies, with scrupulously equal time given to the story of the hundreds of anti-war rallies thoughout the world and the one “Patriot” rally in Atlanta on CNN. They reported that the pro-war rally had expected 10,000 but were happily surprised to have doubled that number. The organizers finally feel they are “getting their message out.” 

To the melodic strains of Lee Greenwood, I watched one of the speakers whip the crowd into a frenzy by saying, “”e thought they were the only ones out there…the ones with hairy underarms…lesbians or whatever.” (Much hooting and laughing from the crowd) “We thought we were surrounded by…California.” (booooooo) “But that’s not true. We surround them!” 

The commentator said that most of speeches were primarily concerned with criticizing Hollywood and anti-war protesters. 

Has anyone heard a lot of speechifying at the anti-war rallies against fellow citizens? I have been to some and watched a bunch on C-Span, and I don’t remember anybody saying anything disrespectful of the American people, but rather the speakers confined themselves to the politicians who are making war policy — which, after all, is the traditional way of politics. 

I could respond in kind and insult say…the entire red-state region with rude comments about certain rural stereotypes, but that wouldn’t be polite. 


UPDATE: 

Here’s the transcript. I forgot about the “freaks in limousines.” Note the fawning CNN commentary: 

DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, promoters here were predicting a crowd of about 10,000 here at Atlanta, at the Rally for America, but they’re now saying on the podium that they have more than doubled that.

Let’s take a look at this crowd. People coming out today, decked out in their red, white and blue, thousands of people. Thousands of people carrying banners and signs, offering patriotic sentiments and supporting U.S. troops.

A part of what you’re looking at could also be the power of talk radio. Stations across the country have been promoting rallies for America. They’ve been striking a chord that seems to resonate deeply with people in this crowd. They are pro-U.S., pro-military.

And some of the featured speakers also taking shots at anti-war demonstrators, particularly Hollywood celebrities protesting war in Iraq.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We were starting to believe that we were surrounded by them, by the ones that are the freaks in the limousine, the ones with the hairy armpits and the lesbian, whatever that is. We thought we were being surrounded by California.

Today, today, I’m proud to tell you they are clear, we surround them

(END VIDEO CLIP)

MATTINGLY: Things wrapping up right now. They just had the song, “Proud to be an American” playing. People singing along with it.

Again quite a few thousand more people than they expected for this rally, particularly with this kind of rain. So promoters very happy with the showing here today and people leaving with a very good feeling that their opinion is being made known across the country.

Back to you.

WHITFIELD: And David, to make it clear, the folks that are assembling there in Atlanta say this is not a pro-war rally but instead, it is one showing patriotism, showing support of the troops, as you mentioned, as well as the president’s plans?

MATTINGLY: That is the theme here, support for the troops, for American soldiers right now in the Middle East. They say they don’t want a repeat of what they saw after Vietnam, where soldiers came home and were not treated with respect. They want to make sure that does not happen again this time.

But there are some political undercurrents going on. There’s a lot of signs here, a very partisan in support of the president, and a lot of signs critical of anti-war protesters, as we showed you before

Fun times. 

What doesn’t kill them makes them stronger

by digby

I wish I could understand liberals’ conviction that the Republicans are on the run and it’s smooth sailing from here on in. Because it looks to me as if they’ve still got plenty of juice:

Facing a possible defeat in the Senate, the White House is considering delaying a vote on President Obama’s choice for surgeon general or withdrawing the nomination altogether, an acknowledgment of its fraying relationship with Senate Democrats.

The nominee, Dr. Vivek H. Murthy, an internist and political ally of the president’s, has come under criticism from the National Rifle Association, and opposition from the gun-rights group has grown so intense that it has placed Democrats from conservative states, several of whom are up for re-election this year, in a difficult spot.

Senate aides said Friday that as many as 10 Democrats are believed to be considering a vote against Dr. Murthy, who has voiced support for various gun control measures like an assault weapons ban, mandatory safety training and ammunition sales limits.

This is the crap the right has always run (and won) on. It’s about fear and dominance — which they portray as “freedom.”

After Newtown you’d think this would be impossible. After Trayvon you’d think they’d be ashamed. But they are anything but. And, not only are they marching around high fiving each other, they’re strong-arming the Democrats in red states as usual and the Democrats in red states will feel compelled to do their bidding.

They are flexing their muscle and it’s working. Again. Wake me when something changes.

.

In Texas, it’s totally legal to murder a kid if he’s sleeping with your daughter

by David Atkins

Girl sneaks boyfriend into bedroom. Dad hears noises. Dad comes bursting into room with gun. Girl freaks out, claims she’s being raped. Dad talks to the boyfriend for a while. Dad shoots and kills boyfriend.

Dad will probably not be charged:

The Houston father who police say fatally shot a 17-year-old boy who was inside his daughter’s bedroom early Thursday morning will likely not be charged, an area prosecutor told MyFoxHouston.com.

Although a grand jury will review the case, prosecutor Warren Diepraam said it is unlikely that the father will be charged.

“What was going on in the person’s mind at the time of the shooting, [not] what they found out after the fact” is key, Diepraam said. “They’re looking at what he was thinking when he made the decision to shoot.”

The investigation into the shooting is ongoing, and a grand jury will ultimately decide if charges are appropriate. But so far it appears the father, who was only identified as a 55-year-old in reports, was awaken by one of his other children at about 2:20 a.m. He was told someone was in his 16-year-old daughter’s bedroom and he grabbed his gun.

He reportedly found the teen in bed with his daughter and confronted him. His daughter apparently told him she did not know the boy.

The father said he told the teen not to move, but reportedly saw the teen reach for something, at which point police say the father opened fire. The teen did not have a gun. His daughter later confessed that she snuck her boyfriend, 17, into the house, the report said.

Certain parts of the this country are certifiably insane.

Update: I am utterly amazed at the number of people who want to lay all the blame on the daughter in this scenario. Let’s be very clear: yes, what she did is immoral. But she didn’t pull the trigger. She didn’t kill him. The father did. Nor should we be terribly surprised that the daughter of the sort of violent man who would straight up murder this kid would be too afraid to tell him the truth about her sex life. I imagine the truth wouldn’t have gone down well with Daddy.

Yes, the daughter panicked. But she wasn’t carrying a gun. Daddy panicked too, but since he was carrying a gun an innocent kid is now dead.

A lot of people out there harbor fantasies about killing “evildoers.” A lot of guys out there want to be able to murder their daughter’s rapist and have society sanction that. Even had she been telling the truth, the father and his gun don’t get to serve as judge, jury and executioner. Daddy and his gun are not a court of law. The daughter wasn’t on the stand to perjure herself, and she committed no crime. Had the father shown an ounce of self-restraint and called the police, the situation would have resolved itself quickly and she would have recanted her lie. Daddy, his temper and his gun cut justice short.

It also highlights everything wrong with Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground. This kid was unarmed and posed no threat to anyone. The father says that he felt threatened and saw the kid “reach for something.” Well, unfortunately this innocent young man is dead now, so we’ll never know if he did make a sudden move or not. He’s not around anymore to tell his side of the story. Insanely, the burden of proof is now on the state to demonstrate that violent men with guns didn’t “feel threatened” by something or other. In the vast majority of cases, the only violent threat in a room with an armed man is the armed man himself.

Update 2: Removed the racial identifier in the title. There was a picture of a man being taken to the hospital that I assumed was the victim, but instead it was the father.

.