Can we talk about marksmanship for a minute? I'm having a hard time understanding how civilian cops drilled this guy four times and still didn't manage to send him to his eternal reward.

Are the Killeen police actually having a hard time understanding center of mass, or did their ROE actually restrict them from killing a guy who was clearly out for as much innocent blood as he could spill?

Or could we at least note that the standard-issue Killeen police sidearm offers woefully inadequate stopping power?

Possibly. Probably, in fact.

But think about that... what more evidence could you possibly need that a "Presidential Cogno-Prosthesis" (awesome term, BTW) is actually a fantastic idea?

I'm sure many pundits of the day thought the first caveman to tie his stone knife to the end of a stick was a real SOB, not to mention a pantywaist who lacked the guts to face his enemies mano a mano.

And they went on thinking that way, right up until he skewered them with his new "spear."

--> A true leader doesn't hide behind a mask even if you are trying to justify it as having "facts at hand" and "using technology". <--

Without question. BUT...

--> This means that he can't talk from the heart. <--

So what? Talking "from the heart" is what got us INTO this mess. I want MY leader to be a heartless bastard who takes the CORRECT action, regardless of what insipid whispers emanate from the bloodless hole in his chest. I want him to understand and embrace the creative destruction that lies at the foundation of Capitalism, and to choose liberty EVEN WHEN the occasional incompetent gets run over as a result.

There. Have I established my bona fides yet?

The point is that a leader is only as good as what goes on between his ears. As national issues increase in complexity, the smart leader responds by making use of tools that enhance his ability to keep all the plates in the air.

You guys are upset because BHO uses what amounts to a heads-up display. I contend that this is silly, because ALL leaders at his level either use such a display already or soon will. They HAVE to... otherwise those who don't (or who use theirs in an unskillful fashion) will quickly look like dolts compared to those who have them and use them well.

I contend that, if you're gonna be upset with BHO--and G-d knows I certainly am--it should be because his policy positions STINK.

Sure, he's a little ham-fisted in how he manages his real-time data feed. But seriously... if he were totally smooth about it, would you like him any more? Of course not, because his policy positions would STILL stink just as bad.

My conclusion: quit nitpicking and focus on the stuff that matters, like the fact that BHO is trying to mangle the Constitution and drive the US economy into the toilet. This focus on teleprompters is a pointless distraction.

Oh, stop it.

You can compare and contrast Rush and Obama in lots of non-trivial and enlightening ways. The fact of the matter is that they are BOTH deeply in the public eye, and they BOTH have a strongly vested interest in demonstrating mastery over an impossibly broad range of topics under conditions over which they actually have some control.

What do you want, that I abase myself before the altar of Rush and ritually repudiate Obama three times before I can get on with a point that has NOTHING to do with either one's policy positions?

Sheesh. If you want to check my bona fides, trouble yourself to click the link attached to my user name and read what I've written over the years. Otherwise, try reading for comprehension and quit acting like a liberal.

Oh, no question!

Seriously, I don't mean to suggest that any trained monkey could hold an arbitrary national conversation if only he had good enough IT support. I'd even go so far as to suggest that, if the guy at the mike isn't DEEPLY versed in his subject matter, the HUD would prove more of a distraction than not.

But when a caller brings up an obscure San Francisco city council ruling, the fact that a guy like Rush or Jason Lewis is able to comment intelligently AT ALL suggests to me that there's probably a minion someplace running a Google search and getting the pertinent facts up on screen. The potential field of discussion is just too vast--and one man's time too limited--for it to be otherwise.

I hasten to emphasize that this is a GOOD THING, since it enables Limbaugh-level analytic powers to be brought to bear against a far broader set of questions than would otherwise be possible.

Haha, good point! :)

I don't know about that.

Rush does it with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek--half the brain tied behind his back, talent on loan from G-d, and all that--but at the end of the day we listeners rarely can tell the difference between data he offers off the top of his head and stuff he grabs off his screen. Sure, we know his support staff is THERE... but he doesn't go out of his way to identify his data source every time he opens his mouth.

And, really, why SHOULD he? That's the whole point... the general in the command center may have a network of THOUSANDS gathering data, processing it into useful information, and getting it up on the situation screen, but it's still HIM making the call. Every general does it that way because generals who don't are the ones who lose wars.

Look, I don't want to get into a discussion of whether or not BHO is qualified for his job. Not only should that be pretty obvious, but it really isn't my point. It may be YOUR point, but it isn't MINE.

MY point is simply that--given modern technology--the POTUS would be crazy NOT to use real-time info support. HOW he uses it is an entirely different question, and the answer will probably be a function of the man's overall competence, which in this case is obviously in question.

Part of the HOW question is whether the POTUS ought to emulate the typical talk-show host, who really doesn't go out of his way to correct the impression that his facts and figures are coming off the top of his head instead of out of a box. The answer to that question is intimately tied up with a pretty unsophisticated notion on the part of the general public of what it means to be "informed." Remember how we thought it was dumb of the media to harp on Palin over that silly "Bush Doctrine" question? Well, the same principle applies here.

The bottom line (MINE, anyway): if getting his facts out of a box leaves the POTUS better equipped to do his critical THINKING, then I'm all for it.

Of course.

Look, I think Obama's a dunderhead. However he's using the tools at his disposal--ANY tools--will reflect his essential dunderheadedness.

All I'm saying is that, if the "heads-up display" concept works for fighter pilots AND for pundits, why NOT for the POTUS? The presence of such a tool wouldn't REMOVE the requirement for competence in the POTUS, but it MIGHT enhance whatever competence is natively already there.

I hear you.

It's precisely the same reasoning that requires a young naval officer to be able to diagram every system on the ship WITHOUT any external reference... because, when the ship's been hit, the deckplates are awash with blood, and your hair's on fire, odds are you aren't going to have the luxury of looking anything up. I get it.

On the other hand: "Are we going to allow him to have this technological advantage when he's answering questions with other foreign dignitaries as well then?"

HELL, YES!!! I want the POTUS to have every CONCEIVABLE advantage when dealing with our adversaries... and make no mistake, at some level even our closest allies are exactly that. But I ALSO want the POTUIS to be prepared to function when his support systems are NOT available.

It's a tough nut to crack.

Mark, I think you may have hit the nail right on the thumb.

There IS a difference between being an entertainer like Rush and POTUS like BHO. Lots of them, in fact. But there are also a few similarities, and ONE of those similarities is that both are expected to be able to speak intelligently and with depth on an impossibly broad range of issues at the drop of a metaphorical hat.

Now, I'm reasonably confident that nobody formulates Rush's answers but Rush. So I have to imagine that what shows up on his screen is mostly background info... specific facts and figures that he can cite to support the argument he's making. It's not that he isn't FAMILIAR with those facts and figures, but there are just so MANY of them that nobody could reasonably be expected to track ALL of them with perfect accuracy. Especially with half his brain tied behind his back, you know, just to make it fair. :)

Personally, I think BHO is an empty suit. Given that, it's probably more likely that what shows up on HIS screen are canned answers and pre-positioned one-liners written against a carefully workshopped list of potential questions. And, frankly, that would be an open and perfectly legitimate invitation to public scorn.

But we don't KNOW that's the case... not yet, anyway. And I think we have to be careful, because that teleprompter DOES contain the germ of a very good idea, IF it's used the way Rush uses his. Think about it... why WOULDN'T we want our leaders to be equipped with all the cybernetic enhancement they can carry? But the key concept is ENHANCEMENT... not replacement.

So let's encourage the smart uses of information technology by our leaders... and, of course, let's reserve the right to knock the hell out of the dumb ones. I'm just sayin'.