I think Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich gave a great response to last nights Fox News/Google Debate questions. This response, however, sticks out most in my mind as being straight-forward and what I have come to expect from Gingrich since the Reagan Debate. It’s a mix of experience and common sense, about what will work and what won’t. His also pointed poke at Megan’s question is very truthful. If we only look at how Congress is now many things are impossible. Not because of one side, but both the right and the left.
Let me know your favorite part of the debate last night, or what you disliked about the debate. * You can find the comment section to the left of this post where it says leave a comment.*
Lawmakers are considering a House bill that would give Americans who hold permits to carry firearms in their home states the right to carry their weapons across state lines. Although many states have entered into voluntary agreements, there is no nationwide framework for honoring permits and licenses uniformly. A bipartisan bill, co-authored by Reps. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., and Heath Shuler, D-N.C., aims to change that.
This details changes in airport screening that might be beneficial, for once, that can make it less invasive for children and parents.
(Reuters) – Moody’s cut the credit ratings of two French banks on Wednesday because of their exposure to Greece’s debt, highlighting growing risks to Europe’s financial sector from a deepening euro zone sovereign debt crisis. Continue Reading
Until the events of September 11 and the anthrax attacks of 2001, biological weapons had never been a major public concern in the United States. Today, the possibility of their use by terrorists against Western states looms large as an international security concern. In Biological Weapons, Jeanne Guillemin provides a highly accessible and compelling account of the circumstances under which scientists, soldiers, and statesmen were able to mobilize resources for extensive biological weapons programs and analyzes why such weapons, targeted against civilians, were never used in a major conflict.
This book is essential for understanding the relevance of the historical restraints placed on the use of biological weapons for today’s world. It serves as an excellent introduction to the problems biological weapons pose for contemporary policymakers and public officials, particularly in the United States. How can we best deter the use of such weapons? What are the resulting policies of the Department of Homeland Security? How can we constrain proliferation? Jeanne Guillemin wisely points out that these are vitally important questions for all Americans to consider and investigate—all the more so because the development of these weapons has been carried out under a veil of secrecy, with their frightening potential open to exploitation by the media and government. Public awareness through education can help calm fears in today’s tension-filled climate and promote constructive political action to cut the risks of a biological weapons catastrophe.
Biological Weapons is required reading for every concerned citizen, government policymaker, public health official, and national security analyst who wants to understand this complex and timely issue.