Floating tech incubator piques interest of more than 100 startups (Wired UK):
One of the problems with our immigration system is that we can't give enough visas to scientists and engineers that want to come here and work for US corporations and pay high taxes. Anyone who wants to come here illegally, however, is going to be able to get government support and funding and not pay 1% of the taxes one of those engineers we are keeping out would. Tech companies in Silicon Valley have been talking about putting a cruise ship just outside US waters so those engineers and scientists could work here via 'day passes'. Another group is considering building labs and offices on a former cruise ship so they would have access to the US for employees and material but not be hemmed in by government regulations.
There's a movement called 'seasteading' that thinks we could build communities out in international waters; think 'Waterworld' and 'Atlas Shrugged'. First adopters would be server farms and financial institutions and tech firms. If the cost was low enough, you'd see artist colonies and tourism (go to 'Freedonia' and do whatever drugs you want, fire automatic guns with chainsaw bayonets, get medical treatments that work but are only five years into the FDA's ten-year approval system). It would be safer than you'd think since they'd determine who could and couldn't join, what building standards were and could organize a self-defense and police force. There is an anti-aircraft platform outside the British waters that people have taken over and have sovereignty. 'Sealand' has server farms and some financial institutions that claim residence. It used to give out passports that the UK honored and was actually attacked by pirates trying to put their own people in power; the UK refused to help as 'Sealand' is out of their jurisdiction.
It has an appeal, the idea of a new land without lawyers or regulations or bureaucrats or politicians. I hope they make it.
'via Blog this'
Friday, May 11, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Gay Marriage, Obama and The Added Charm
There's a phrase I love but rarely use, 'with the added charm of being meaningless.' I heard it in an old Bogart movie; Bogart and his friend were paratroopers and his friend had a mysterious past. The friend ends up dead, Bogart is having a drink with the man he realizes is the killer and makes a toast, 'Geronimo.' The villain says it's a quaint toast with the added charm of being meaningless. I use it when I am strongly contemptuous of something or someone. I am going to use it today.
Obama (the dog eater) came out for gay marriage. Well, sort of. Not really. It's evolving. In 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire while running for state senator where he said he was in favor of gay marriage and would oppose laws banning it. Then he ran for president and suddenly he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. For years, though, he's said his 'understanding' of the issue is 'evolving'. It gave him plausible deniability and allowed for him to appear friendly to gay donors and also religious voters. Now, though, he has stated he's for gay marriage. Which means he's going to press for the Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed by Congress, right?
No. But he's declared that he's going to order the attorney general to not defend it in lawsuits, right?
No. But he's going to require companies bidding for government contacts to provide benefits to same-sex couples, right?
No. But he's going to order Obamacare to give coverage to same-sex couples, right?
No. But he's going to use the threat of losing public funds to coerce the states to make gay marriage legal, right?
No. He said that he believes in states' rights and won't interfere with their banning of gay marriage. So he's doing nothing at all?
No. He's cashing the checks of gay donors that were refusing to donate unless he supported gay marriage. He was going to lose tens of millions of dollars otherwise.
So Obama's support of gay marriage has the added charm of being meaningless. It changes nothing. He can recognize same-sex relationships in the federal bureaucracy and the military without Congress. He can give those rights to hundreds of thousands of people and there'd be no way to stop him. He won't though.
Obama (the dog eater) came out for gay marriage. Well, sort of. Not really. It's evolving. In 1996, Obama filled out a questionnaire while running for state senator where he said he was in favor of gay marriage and would oppose laws banning it. Then he ran for president and suddenly he supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman. For years, though, he's said his 'understanding' of the issue is 'evolving'. It gave him plausible deniability and allowed for him to appear friendly to gay donors and also religious voters. Now, though, he has stated he's for gay marriage. Which means he's going to press for the Defense of Marriage Act to be repealed by Congress, right?
No. But he's declared that he's going to order the attorney general to not defend it in lawsuits, right?
No. But he's going to require companies bidding for government contacts to provide benefits to same-sex couples, right?
No. But he's going to order Obamacare to give coverage to same-sex couples, right?
No. But he's going to use the threat of losing public funds to coerce the states to make gay marriage legal, right?
No. He said that he believes in states' rights and won't interfere with their banning of gay marriage. So he's doing nothing at all?
No. He's cashing the checks of gay donors that were refusing to donate unless he supported gay marriage. He was going to lose tens of millions of dollars otherwise.
So Obama's support of gay marriage has the added charm of being meaningless. It changes nothing. He can recognize same-sex relationships in the federal bureaucracy and the military without Congress. He can give those rights to hundreds of thousands of people and there'd be no way to stop him. He won't though.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
Forward To The PAST!
Obama looks to move 'forward' with comparisons to Bush's policies - The Hill's Ballot Box:
"The reelection campaign aimed to remind voters about the winning campaign in 2008."
That's all they got. Bush, who left office willingly on January 20, 2009, was not a good president. I think he's a good man and a kind man and did what he thought was right, but he was a bad president. But let me be clear, he was not Nixon. He was not filled with hate, did not punish his enemies with the force of the federal government and tried to work with the other side whenever possible. He doesn't deserve the vitriol he's gotten from this administration, the constant attacks and insults and slights. After four years out of office, the man should be forgiven his errors and the world should move on.
The problem is that Obama has nothing positive to campaign on. The economy is horrible, unemployment is terrible, inflation is rising and we are less respected internationally than when Bush was president. The public doesn't want Obamacare, doesn't want trillion dollars of new debt every year and doesn't want the government to constantly expand.
Yes, we killed Osama, but we used methods of interrogation Obama campaigned against at a facility Obama campaigned to close and a military Obama wants to shrink from bases in a country Obama was against invading. He still took sixteen hours to give the order and gave operational control to an admiral for the express purpose of insulating himself from blame if the operation failed. Was it a gutsy call for Hoover to go after Al Capone? Is it a gutsy call when the FBI goes after a serial killer?
He passed Obamacare which no one wanted and is unconstitutional to boot, he let the military kill Osama and...? His campaign slogan is 'Forward' but there's nothing forward-looking in his policies. New Deal control of the economy, Great Society entitlement expansion and...? We've got five trillion in debt and...?
Forward. I do not think this word means what you think this word means.
'via Blog this'
"The reelection campaign aimed to remind voters about the winning campaign in 2008."
That's all they got. Bush, who left office willingly on January 20, 2009, was not a good president. I think he's a good man and a kind man and did what he thought was right, but he was a bad president. But let me be clear, he was not Nixon. He was not filled with hate, did not punish his enemies with the force of the federal government and tried to work with the other side whenever possible. He doesn't deserve the vitriol he's gotten from this administration, the constant attacks and insults and slights. After four years out of office, the man should be forgiven his errors and the world should move on.
The problem is that Obama has nothing positive to campaign on. The economy is horrible, unemployment is terrible, inflation is rising and we are less respected internationally than when Bush was president. The public doesn't want Obamacare, doesn't want trillion dollars of new debt every year and doesn't want the government to constantly expand.
Yes, we killed Osama, but we used methods of interrogation Obama campaigned against at a facility Obama campaigned to close and a military Obama wants to shrink from bases in a country Obama was against invading. He still took sixteen hours to give the order and gave operational control to an admiral for the express purpose of insulating himself from blame if the operation failed. Was it a gutsy call for Hoover to go after Al Capone? Is it a gutsy call when the FBI goes after a serial killer?
He passed Obamacare which no one wanted and is unconstitutional to boot, he let the military kill Osama and...? His campaign slogan is 'Forward' but there's nothing forward-looking in his policies. New Deal control of the economy, Great Society entitlement expansion and...? We've got five trillion in debt and...?
Forward. I do not think this word means what you think this word means.
'via Blog this'
Saturday, May 5, 2012
No, really, they make it too easy. Obama 2012: Just Because
If Obama wins, what would he do in a second term? - The Washington Post:
"The president’s advisers are naturally reluctant to discuss what happens if their candidate wins in November. They don’t want to appear overconfident or undercut the messages of the campaign. None were willing to speak on the record."
Read that again. Obama's running for re-election. Nobody wants to talk about what he would do if he wins. It's a secret.
'via Blog this'
"The president’s advisers are naturally reluctant to discuss what happens if their candidate wins in November. They don’t want to appear overconfident or undercut the messages of the campaign. None were willing to speak on the record."
Read that again. Obama's running for re-election. Nobody wants to talk about what he would do if he wins. It's a secret.
'via Blog this'
More, Please!
Mitt Romney issues Ohio challenge to President Obama | cleveland.com:
One of Obama's greatest challenges in this election is that, for the first time in his life, he's actually going to have a real opponent. Obama won elections by having primary challengers removed from the ballot and using divorce records to discredit his opponent and to get the Republican candidate to drop out. McCain ran a pathetic campaign that refused to say anything bad or negative about Obama (for example, that he ATE A DOG) and was stunned that the media that loved him when he was a maverick turned on him when he ran against a Democrat. Obama, when he is not using a teleprompter, is good for at least three 'uh' per sentence and is amazingly thin-skinned. His campaign won't drop the Romney dog 'issue' and keeps reintroducing it time and time again because he simply can't accept anything he has ever done is less than awe-inspiring.
Obama really needs people to ignore the horrible economy and the jobless rate and the way he is making us weaker internationally and focus on anything bad he can think of about a man who's:
'via Blog this'
One of Obama's greatest challenges in this election is that, for the first time in his life, he's actually going to have a real opponent. Obama won elections by having primary challengers removed from the ballot and using divorce records to discredit his opponent and to get the Republican candidate to drop out. McCain ran a pathetic campaign that refused to say anything bad or negative about Obama (for example, that he ATE A DOG) and was stunned that the media that loved him when he was a maverick turned on him when he ran against a Democrat. Obama, when he is not using a teleprompter, is good for at least three 'uh' per sentence and is amazingly thin-skinned. His campaign won't drop the Romney dog 'issue' and keeps reintroducing it time and time again because he simply can't accept anything he has ever done is less than awe-inspiring.
Obama really needs people to ignore the horrible economy and the jobless rate and the way he is making us weaker internationally and focus on anything bad he can think of about a man who's:
- an expert on turning around economies and
- was a moderate governor in one of the most liberal states in the country and
- sober and not cheating on his wife and
- not a fanatic on social issues and
- has spent almost six years running for president, only losing to the man the media backed
- is far more moderate than Obama, who was more to the left than the only member of Congress to declare himself a socialist.
Romney isn't falling into the trap of defining himself by whatever Obama says he is. Romney is pushing for the conversation to be about the failed economic policies of Obama. Obama wants to run against social conservatives in Congress when the Republican party hasn't been less socially conservative and more fiscally conservative... ever. The 'war on women' thing Obama is pushing is to cover up that Republicans don't really care about abortion any more. While the population is getting (slightly) more pro-life, everyone not on the left seems to agree that abortion isn't important when people are not working and Washington is spending us into extinction. It really IS the economy and neither the Republican party nor the public really want to talk about immigration (more illegal immigrants are leaving the US than are coming in; they are deporting themselves) or racism (a black man is running for re-election to the presidency) or sexism (actual sexism is illegal, more women graduate from college than men and I've already talked about abortion). Romney's temperament is too polite and even-keeled to make him look racist by attacking Obama harshly and Romney's whole tone is 'Obama tried but his policies are wrong and don't work,' not 'Obama is a commie muslim terrorist who wasn't born in the US!' I really thing Obama is going to lose this election. More, please!
'via Blog this'
The Obama-Supporting Media goes to the dogs
Literally.
President Dog-Eater's minions are still attacking Romney on his putting a dog in a crate on the roof of his station wagon in 1983. Even though they are looking more and more foolish as they claim Obama eating dogs isn't relevant but Romney taking his dog on vacations is. CBS, formerly the most trusted name in news, has a photo essay on presidents and dogs, showing Obama cradling his dog's head (the dog is named BO, as in Barack Obama). The 'story' is that someone released a report that dogs relieve stress, so they choose to do a photo essay on presidents and their dogs. They also happen to show Obama, the current president and the first president to eat a dog, with his dog. Either this is bias towards Obama or CBS ran out of news.
Part of what makes this whole dog scandal irresistible is that the Left can't admit that they hold anti-American and conflicting principles. Multiculturalism holds that every culture is equally wonderful except for America's. Obama put the dog-eating story in his biography because it was multicultural and un-American and therefore better. He talks about how the Indonesian muslim tradition allows animist and pagan beliefs and rituals such as the belief that eating an animal allows you to gain mystical power from the spirit of the beast. The paragraph ends with his stepfather promising that Obama would get to eat tiger. Tiger is rare and usually a protected or endangered species, certainly not an animal for the dinner table. If a bitter gun-clinger hunted the tiger, he would be attacked on the Left as a butcher and killer of a majestic animal not meant for sport. If the tiger is hunted and butchered and given to a small child on the belief that the tiger's spirit will pass to the kid, however, it is a beautiful example of a diverse and wonderful culture equal to our own. If an American kills the dog or tiger, bad. If someone from a non-Western culture kills a dog or tiger, good. Putting a dog crate on the roof of a car to take the dog on vacation means you aren't fit to be president. Eating dog as a child and talking about it in a memoir with no revulsion or shame means you are multicultural and fit to be president.
Here's a fun trick: read an article about a politician in trouble and count how many sentences it takes before their political party is mentioned. If it's a Republican, you'll be told that in one or two sentences. If it's a Democrat, they won't mention it in the first two paragraphs. A recent article about Democrat John Edwards, the 2004 VP candidate and 2008 presidential candidate who is facing thirty years in jail for using campaign donations to cover up the fact he fathered a child with his mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, never mentioned his political affiliation. He stole campaign funds from a 98-year-old woman to pay off his mistress who he was having live with his aide (he had the aide claim paternity even though the aide was married and had a vasectomy) while he was running for president. The Left can't mention his party, however. It's not like he took his dog on vacation.
President Dog-Eater's minions are still attacking Romney on his putting a dog in a crate on the roof of his station wagon in 1983. Even though they are looking more and more foolish as they claim Obama eating dogs isn't relevant but Romney taking his dog on vacations is. CBS, formerly the most trusted name in news, has a photo essay on presidents and dogs, showing Obama cradling his dog's head (the dog is named BO, as in Barack Obama). The 'story' is that someone released a report that dogs relieve stress, so they choose to do a photo essay on presidents and their dogs. They also happen to show Obama, the current president and the first president to eat a dog, with his dog. Either this is bias towards Obama or CBS ran out of news.
Part of what makes this whole dog scandal irresistible is that the Left can't admit that they hold anti-American and conflicting principles. Multiculturalism holds that every culture is equally wonderful except for America's. Obama put the dog-eating story in his biography because it was multicultural and un-American and therefore better. He talks about how the Indonesian muslim tradition allows animist and pagan beliefs and rituals such as the belief that eating an animal allows you to gain mystical power from the spirit of the beast. The paragraph ends with his stepfather promising that Obama would get to eat tiger. Tiger is rare and usually a protected or endangered species, certainly not an animal for the dinner table. If a bitter gun-clinger hunted the tiger, he would be attacked on the Left as a butcher and killer of a majestic animal not meant for sport. If the tiger is hunted and butchered and given to a small child on the belief that the tiger's spirit will pass to the kid, however, it is a beautiful example of a diverse and wonderful culture equal to our own. If an American kills the dog or tiger, bad. If someone from a non-Western culture kills a dog or tiger, good. Putting a dog crate on the roof of a car to take the dog on vacation means you aren't fit to be president. Eating dog as a child and talking about it in a memoir with no revulsion or shame means you are multicultural and fit to be president.
Here's a fun trick: read an article about a politician in trouble and count how many sentences it takes before their political party is mentioned. If it's a Republican, you'll be told that in one or two sentences. If it's a Democrat, they won't mention it in the first two paragraphs. A recent article about Democrat John Edwards, the 2004 VP candidate and 2008 presidential candidate who is facing thirty years in jail for using campaign donations to cover up the fact he fathered a child with his mistress while his wife was dying of cancer, never mentioned his political affiliation. He stole campaign funds from a 98-year-old woman to pay off his mistress who he was having live with his aide (he had the aide claim paternity even though the aide was married and had a vasectomy) while he was running for president. The Left can't mention his party, however. It's not like he took his dog on vacation.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Gay Marriage and Gayness In General
I 'liked' George Takei on Facebook and get his posts, mostly funny pictures with a pun describing them. He did a post today about North Carolina and a no-gay-marriage amendment up for a vote soon. As an Evil Conservative I'm supposed to hate gay marriage and the mainstreaming of gayness in our culture but I don't and it makes me angry that we're in this fight. Part of conservatism is a live-and-let-live mentality towards most social issues. I mentioned in my Mad Men post that I love beautiful women and Christina Hendricks is pretty much the center of the Venn diagram in regards to what I find attractive. Liking tall and busty redheads doesn't affect my opinion on the UN or energy policy or the fact that our president ate dog (HE ATE DOG! DOG! I LIKE DOGS! DOGS ARE NOT FOR EATING!) and bragged about it. It affects who I date and do a google image search for and that's really about it. Gay people getting married doesn't seem like a problem for me. The one argument I've heard that was even slightly compelling against gay marriage is that it would be a tool polygamists would use in arguing that polygamy should be legal. It stopped being slightly compelling when I learned that the British government recognizes polygamy on some levels but gay marriage is not. Gays are gay, gays get in long-term relationships and gays have to deal with the legal problems of property ownership, not getting benefits a straight couple gets (insurance, pension, etc), the division of assets after a breakup and so on.
Part of the anti-gay bias, I think, is the confusion with homosexuality and pedophilia. It started with the Greeks liking grown men to 'mentor' teen boys and the Catholic Church perpetuated it with their silence about pedophile priests. Some people think that gay means you'll molest boys. It ignores men that molest girls as well as women that molest boys. To be blunt, it's a stupid argument.
Another part of anti-gay bias might be better described as a bias against those not following traditional gender roles. Back in the 1980s, there was a 'Saturday Night Live' character called Pat whose sex was impossible to tell. The gag was that Pat would say something that sounded like proof Pat was one sex (It's that time of month I hate...) and then finish the sentence with something that made it ambiguous (you know, bill time!). It was funny in part because the other people in the sketch knew that it didn't matter and it shouldn't matter but they just wanted to know. I've said, when a woman talks about something difficult and painful in regards to women's fashion or hygiene, that if I were a woman, I'd be the hairiest lesbian anybody ever saw. I had a friend that was a drag queen and even he used dancer's leggings rather than shave his legs. I occasionally wear polo shirts and khakis because they're comfortable and acceptable pretty much everywhere. My haircut is pretty basic, relatively short and parted on the side. A few weeks ago I watched a cute animal video (cute animals constitute about 40% of the internet with porn being another 40% and everything else taking what's left) and the zookeeper being interviewed had my haircut and was wearing a polo shirt and khakis. It took a few minutes to realize she was a woman. When I figured it out, I was vaguely bothered for a moment. I had no idea of her sexual preference and didn't give a damn but her appearance not being gender-appropriate was bothersome enough that I consciously noticed it.
We could have a really boring argument over what percentage of gender is biological in nature and how much is imprinted on us but whatever is imprinted onto us is almost never consciously chosen. One of the terms for homosexual is 'queer' which originally meant unusual and not fitting in. People know that it's not socially acceptable to be prejudiced against gays; there are serious social and legal consequences for it. You can lose your job in the private sector and almost certainly lose it in the public sector and people will think you're a hateful asshole if you show honest prejudice against gays. I think that it is a good thing for our society that homosexuality is acceptable. I mentioned that I like George Takei who is a proud gay. I was inspired to talk about this when watching an interview of John Barrowman, an actor who plays a recurring character on 'Doctor Who' (yeah, I said I was a geek) and came to find out that the actor (who plays a slutty bisexual from the future) is a flaming gay guy who is hilarious and raunchy. The interview is great and fun and he talks about his 'partner' (can I say that that is an awkward term and I wish it would go away?) and it hit me that out gay people tend to be pretty cool. Not sure if it's because boring and uptight gays tend to stay in the closet somewhat but it is interesting. Look, I am not an expert in gender studies and this post is running long already. Gay marriage doesn't hurt society. Hatred does. Forcing people into the margins does. If you can't handle a flamboyant gay couple at the next table or the next door down, I hear the Amish are hiring.
Part of the anti-gay bias, I think, is the confusion with homosexuality and pedophilia. It started with the Greeks liking grown men to 'mentor' teen boys and the Catholic Church perpetuated it with their silence about pedophile priests. Some people think that gay means you'll molest boys. It ignores men that molest girls as well as women that molest boys. To be blunt, it's a stupid argument.
Another part of anti-gay bias might be better described as a bias against those not following traditional gender roles. Back in the 1980s, there was a 'Saturday Night Live' character called Pat whose sex was impossible to tell. The gag was that Pat would say something that sounded like proof Pat was one sex (It's that time of month I hate...) and then finish the sentence with something that made it ambiguous (you know, bill time!). It was funny in part because the other people in the sketch knew that it didn't matter and it shouldn't matter but they just wanted to know. I've said, when a woman talks about something difficult and painful in regards to women's fashion or hygiene, that if I were a woman, I'd be the hairiest lesbian anybody ever saw. I had a friend that was a drag queen and even he used dancer's leggings rather than shave his legs. I occasionally wear polo shirts and khakis because they're comfortable and acceptable pretty much everywhere. My haircut is pretty basic, relatively short and parted on the side. A few weeks ago I watched a cute animal video (cute animals constitute about 40% of the internet with porn being another 40% and everything else taking what's left) and the zookeeper being interviewed had my haircut and was wearing a polo shirt and khakis. It took a few minutes to realize she was a woman. When I figured it out, I was vaguely bothered for a moment. I had no idea of her sexual preference and didn't give a damn but her appearance not being gender-appropriate was bothersome enough that I consciously noticed it.
We could have a really boring argument over what percentage of gender is biological in nature and how much is imprinted on us but whatever is imprinted onto us is almost never consciously chosen. One of the terms for homosexual is 'queer' which originally meant unusual and not fitting in. People know that it's not socially acceptable to be prejudiced against gays; there are serious social and legal consequences for it. You can lose your job in the private sector and almost certainly lose it in the public sector and people will think you're a hateful asshole if you show honest prejudice against gays. I think that it is a good thing for our society that homosexuality is acceptable. I mentioned that I like George Takei who is a proud gay. I was inspired to talk about this when watching an interview of John Barrowman, an actor who plays a recurring character on 'Doctor Who' (yeah, I said I was a geek) and came to find out that the actor (who plays a slutty bisexual from the future) is a flaming gay guy who is hilarious and raunchy. The interview is great and fun and he talks about his 'partner' (can I say that that is an awkward term and I wish it would go away?) and it hit me that out gay people tend to be pretty cool. Not sure if it's because boring and uptight gays tend to stay in the closet somewhat but it is interesting. Look, I am not an expert in gender studies and this post is running long already. Gay marriage doesn't hurt society. Hatred does. Forcing people into the margins does. If you can't handle a flamboyant gay couple at the next table or the next door down, I hear the Amish are hiring.
Four Dead in Ohio
I used to go to Kent State. May 4 was usually in finals week and people went a bit goofy about the shootings. I had several professors that were there during the shootings (one was in the parking lot and hid behind his briefcase) and talked about how shocking it was. The facts are this: there were protests over Nixon bombing Cambodia as part of the Vietnam War, the ROTC building was burned down and the fire department was kept back by protesters so the fire couldn't be put out, there was a riot where businesses were broken into and looted, the Ohio National Guard was pulled out of Akron (there was a Teamsters strike and trucks were being shot at and having rocks dropped from overpasses) and put on campus, there was a protest at the bottom of a hill that turned violent, gas grenades were used, the ONG backed up the hill before turning around and firing started. Four died.
I've heard about the incident from people that were there and I have been on that hill. I also was there at the same time of day as the shooting. From the point of the shooters, there was a dorm on the left side of the parking lot and a few thousand people lived in dorms to their left. Right behind the parking lot is a path for the people in those dorms to get to the classes on the right. Behind that path is an empty field and beyond them are dorms for another few thousand people. In a minute during that time of the day, over an thousand people walk past that parking lot. If you're concentrating on the people in the lot, climb up a small hill and turn around, you're suddenly seeing over a thousand people heading towards you. The hill itself is steep and has a lot of exposed roots; I took that hill once as a shortcut and it wasn't worth climbing it to save three minutes. The shooters were wearing gas masks and holding heavy and bulky rifles. Their visibility would have been poor and their peripheral vision gone. When they turned around, they'd have seen a thousand people and, not knowing the ebb and flow of foot traffic, it would have been a shock. Thirteen seconds of shooting later, four were dead and nine injured.
The shootings weren't justified. Not at all. Not even close. They weren't shooting at people climbing the hill, they shot indiscriminately. Bullets were pulled out of a dorm several hundred yards away and the kids walking to and from their dorms were shot. My guess, from what I heard from witnesses and walking the ground, is that one of the shooters panicked or tripped and fired and all the other ONG thought they were getting shot at and also panicked. We think of National Guard troops as competent and as well-trained as active military. After a decade of two wars in the Middle East, the National Guard is well-trained and know what they are doing. Back in the Vietnam era, however, the National Guard were kids whose parents had money or pull and got them into the Guard so they didn't have to go to Vietnam. They were tired and stressed out from guarding overpasses and then sent to Kent to have thousands of people their own age throw rocks and call them baby killers. They wouldn't have been well-trained in marksmanship or basic gun safety (like not putting your finger on the trigger until you are going to fire). As an Evil Conservative, I hate to say this, but the damnhippies are in the right. The Guard were protected from prosecution and the state and federal governments did their best to sweep it under the rug. Reagan, who was California's governor, gave an angry speech blaming the damnhippies (I can't find the speech on youtube though I'm sure it's in some of the documentaries about this) that was pretty embarrassing if you're a fan of his. It's one of the things that really helped to radicalize the Baby Boomer generation because it was so unfair and wrong and there was no justice.
Kent State, which was not a liberal campus (it was known for its good business school) wasn't over it when I was there twenty years later. A lot of damnhippies went there because the shootings made them think it was a liberal university and that became a self-fulfilling prophecy. I was there for the first Gulf War (the one where we defended a repressive regime against another repressive regime, not the one where we defeated a repressive regime to create a repressive regime that is a haven for terrorists) and the damnhippies were loud but didn't do a lot of protesting because they were getting high and listening to indie rock and alternative rock. No, really, they were my roomies, I watched them and stepped over their passed-out bodies. I left Kent around the time they finally installed a memorial which was panned a pretty ugly and meaningless (and was next to the architecture school, ironically). Today's generation are more radical by far than mine (during my time at Kent, the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed while the Chinese Communists became factory owners oppressing their workers for profit) and are now Occupying city centers and their parents' basements. What a long, strange trip it's been.
I've heard about the incident from people that were there and I have been on that hill. I also was there at the same time of day as the shooting. From the point of the shooters, there was a dorm on the left side of the parking lot and a few thousand people lived in dorms to their left. Right behind the parking lot is a path for the people in those dorms to get to the classes on the right. Behind that path is an empty field and beyond them are dorms for another few thousand people. In a minute during that time of the day, over an thousand people walk past that parking lot. If you're concentrating on the people in the lot, climb up a small hill and turn around, you're suddenly seeing over a thousand people heading towards you. The hill itself is steep and has a lot of exposed roots; I took that hill once as a shortcut and it wasn't worth climbing it to save three minutes. The shooters were wearing gas masks and holding heavy and bulky rifles. Their visibility would have been poor and their peripheral vision gone. When they turned around, they'd have seen a thousand people and, not knowing the ebb and flow of foot traffic, it would have been a shock. Thirteen seconds of shooting later, four were dead and nine injured.
The shootings weren't justified. Not at all. Not even close. They weren't shooting at people climbing the hill, they shot indiscriminately. Bullets were pulled out of a dorm several hundred yards away and the kids walking to and from their dorms were shot. My guess, from what I heard from witnesses and walking the ground, is that one of the shooters panicked or tripped and fired and all the other ONG thought they were getting shot at and also panicked. We think of National Guard troops as competent and as well-trained as active military. After a decade of two wars in the Middle East, the National Guard is well-trained and know what they are doing. Back in the Vietnam era, however, the National Guard were kids whose parents had money or pull and got them into the Guard so they didn't have to go to Vietnam. They were tired and stressed out from guarding overpasses and then sent to Kent to have thousands of people their own age throw rocks and call them baby killers. They wouldn't have been well-trained in marksmanship or basic gun safety (like not putting your finger on the trigger until you are going to fire). As an Evil Conservative, I hate to say this, but the damnhippies are in the right. The Guard were protected from prosecution and the state and federal governments did their best to sweep it under the rug. Reagan, who was California's governor, gave an angry speech blaming the damnhippies (I can't find the speech on youtube though I'm sure it's in some of the documentaries about this) that was pretty embarrassing if you're a fan of his. It's one of the things that really helped to radicalize the Baby Boomer generation because it was so unfair and wrong and there was no justice.
Kent State, which was not a liberal campus (it was known for its good business school) wasn't over it when I was there twenty years later. A lot of damnhippies went there because the shootings made them think it was a liberal university and that became a self-fulfilling prophecy. I was there for the first Gulf War (the one where we defended a repressive regime against another repressive regime, not the one where we defeated a repressive regime to create a repressive regime that is a haven for terrorists) and the damnhippies were loud but didn't do a lot of protesting because they were getting high and listening to indie rock and alternative rock. No, really, they were my roomies, I watched them and stepped over their passed-out bodies. I left Kent around the time they finally installed a memorial which was panned a pretty ugly and meaningless (and was next to the architecture school, ironically). Today's generation are more radical by far than mine (during my time at Kent, the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed while the Chinese Communists became factory owners oppressing their workers for profit) and are now Occupying city centers and their parents' basements. What a long, strange trip it's been.
May the Fourth be with you!
I'm a geek. This should come as no surprise; my blog's name is about how I want a jetpack. Today, as you can see by the pun in my title, is Star Wars day. I'm a big fan of Star Wars. I was a little kid when the first one came out and it just blew me away. The epic story, the special effects, the aliens everywhere, the technology that seems so much more plausible than Star Trek. Star Trek was too clean, too pristine while Star Wars was gritty and grimy and seemed so realistic. The music was amazing and a friend and I used to listen to the soundtrack on vinyl as elementary school kids. My dad used Star Wars to get me interested in science by giving me a telescope and taking me to planetarium shows and giving me science books.
George Lucas is a controversial figure in some ways due to the prequels that the fans HATE and that he can come off as surly when talking about the fanboys. Hell, there's a movie called 'The People versus George Lucas'. Still, his movies made millions of people happy for two generations and he's always been great when it comes to letting people make fan movies in his franchise. There are thousands of people who were inspired to work in movies because of his work and his special effects company, Industrial Lights and Magic, have created a large percentage of new movie technology, especially when it comes to CGI. He's the movie version of Steve Jobs. And the first three movies are damn good, especially 'Empire'. So Happy Star Wars Day! Or as R2 would say, beep-boop-chirp-doop-weet!
George Lucas is a controversial figure in some ways due to the prequels that the fans HATE and that he can come off as surly when talking about the fanboys. Hell, there's a movie called 'The People versus George Lucas'. Still, his movies made millions of people happy for two generations and he's always been great when it comes to letting people make fan movies in his franchise. There are thousands of people who were inspired to work in movies because of his work and his special effects company, Industrial Lights and Magic, have created a large percentage of new movie technology, especially when it comes to CGI. He's the movie version of Steve Jobs. And the first three movies are damn good, especially 'Empire'. So Happy Star Wars Day! Or as R2 would say, beep-boop-chirp-doop-weet!
Reviewing Stuff I've Seen: Mad Men, Season 5 Episode 7
I'm a big fan of 'Mad Men'. It pretty much hits all my likes for TV or movies:
- History and historical accuracy. It's done a wonderful job of reflecting the era and getting all those details right. From the fashion* to the technology to how people acted back then, it's a lot like looking at Life magazine from back in the day.
- Good writing and wit. Roger Sterling is like an American James Bond, if James Bond wasn't a government worker.
- Long story arcs and character development. The best for this was 'Babylon 5', where the entire five-year story arc was written out so you'd see something in one season that would pay off four years later.
- Beautiful women. The only problem is that Elizabeth Moss is actually pretty but they do their best to make her not pretty and to emphasize her nose. She was the president's daughter in 'West Wing'. She was cute in that and now there's at least one shot per episode where she turns and I'm glad the show isn't in 3D. I know for a fact that they had mirror technology in 1959.
- You can't tell in the first five minutes what's going to happen but it always plays fair. One of the disadvantages of reading a lot when you're a kid is you've seen mediocre plots hundreds of times and you can see how it's going to end and that is so annoying. My mom and I are good at rolling our eyes at the same time because the story has telegraphed itself.
- Good directing. Several of the actors have directed episodes this season and done a wonderful job. It's one of the perks lead actors get when renewing a contract because it doesn't cost the studio anything. Star Trek is pretty famous for doing that.
- An alum of 'Firefly' is in it. Christina Hendricks played Saffron in two episodes. Shiny!
This season almost didn't happen because the network decided to try to cut the budget of their runaway successful series. I'm glad it's back on but I miss Betty Draper (she's had one episode and I think ten seconds in another episode). Yes, the character is a horrible person but January Jones does a wonderful job with her and, as previously stated, I like beautiful women. Megan seemed like such a mistake at first but she's wonderful and the actress is just doing an amazing job. Plus I like beautiful women.
So this episode. Pretty good. I'm a big fan of Sally Draper (the actress is wonderful and I think she's going to make the transition from child actor to adult pretty well- I've seen some interviews and she seems to have a good head on her shoulders) and an episode that's Sally-centric is always a lot of fun. Sally manages to get to go to stay with Don for a bit by breaking her step-grandma's ankle with a phone cord. Don's in-laws are in from Montreal to see him get a major award for writing a letter about stopping working with cigarette companies. Her mom is a cougar (le wow) and her father is a communist and an ass. Roger meets with his wife who is handling the 60s very well (great outfit and makeup- there was a line of light eyeliner above the mascara that caught my eye) and gets her to do some research for him on rich guys giving Don his major award. Roger had inherited the Lucky Strike account and it was at one time 70% of their agency's income so this season Roger is trying to regain his relevance. He had a cute bit with Sally where he acted like she was his partner; Roger is a male slut and while him dating a junior high student would normally sound horrifying, he managed to behave himself with her and you can see how he must have been wonderful with his daughter and heartbroken when she stopped liking him. The only creepy part was when Sally caught Don's mother-in-law giving a blow job to Roger.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
He makes it too easy, really.
Presidential Proclamation -- Loyalty Day, 2012 | The White House:
President Obama declared May First to be 'Loyalty Day'. May First, the International Workers' Day, the day that celebrates communism and all it's done for us. It's now 'Loyalty Day'. As with most everything written for Obama, it has the added charm of being impenetrable fluff. People defend the country and also community organize. Our country has struggled 'against threats from within and without'. There's no there there. It's the intellectual equivalent of fragmented sentences, phrases with the added charm of being meaningless. Sure, it equates fighting for your country with making sure people are properly enfranchised but I don't see where 'loyalty' comes into it. Back in the 1950s, liberals went insane over 'loyalty oaths', statements that teachers and bureaucrats had to sign saying they weren't going to support foreign foes. It was a stupid idea; people committing treason wouldn't have a problem signing it and people concerned about civil liberties which our enemies are against would have a problem with the oath.
Loyalty Day sounds like something you'd hear about in totalitarian regimes, not the US. To declare the day most associated with communism as Loyalty Day is so tone-deaf they'd either have to be idiots or such True Believers that they can't comprehend that a people who rebelled against a king would feel uncomfortable about Loyalty Day.
'via Blog this'
President Obama declared May First to be 'Loyalty Day'. May First, the International Workers' Day, the day that celebrates communism and all it's done for us. It's now 'Loyalty Day'. As with most everything written for Obama, it has the added charm of being impenetrable fluff. People defend the country and also community organize. Our country has struggled 'against threats from within and without'. There's no there there. It's the intellectual equivalent of fragmented sentences, phrases with the added charm of being meaningless. Sure, it equates fighting for your country with making sure people are properly enfranchised but I don't see where 'loyalty' comes into it. Back in the 1950s, liberals went insane over 'loyalty oaths', statements that teachers and bureaucrats had to sign saying they weren't going to support foreign foes. It was a stupid idea; people committing treason wouldn't have a problem signing it and people concerned about civil liberties which our enemies are against would have a problem with the oath.
Loyalty Day sounds like something you'd hear about in totalitarian regimes, not the US. To declare the day most associated with communism as Loyalty Day is so tone-deaf they'd either have to be idiots or such True Believers that they can't comprehend that a people who rebelled against a king would feel uncomfortable about Loyalty Day.
'via Blog this'
They're reading 1984 like it was a how-to manual
Senate Passes Bill to Let IRS Take Passports From Tardy Taxpayers:
The Senate passed a highway construction bill and included in the highway construction bill, which is supposed to be about highway construction, a provision to take the passports of anyone the IRS claims might owe more than $50,000 in back taxes. There doesn't need to be a trial or going before a judge at all. The IRS just needs to claim someone owes the money and they can't leave the US until they pay up and then go through the process afterwards of appealing the... well, it can't be called a judgement because there's no judge or defense attorney or protection under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and it can't be fought in a federal court. There's not a lot of people fleeing the country to avoid paying their taxes, either. The Republicans in the Senate fought against this but failed. The Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid (who's a Mormon but never had any of the anti-Mormon attacks Romney gets from the media), put it in the bill but won't discuss it with the media.
The House Republicans have said they won't support this and even Obama has talked about vetoing a bill with this in it. My gut says that it's going to be used by the Obama campaign to complain about the Republicans in Congress; everything is either the fault of Bush or the House being controlled by Republicans since Jan 2011. The other possibility is that it can be used against Republican donors. Obama recently called out eight donors to Romney BY NAME, saying that "Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law," even though none of them have been indicted or accused of any crimes. It's an old tactic (the Clintons early in their administration took copies of dozens of FBI files on their opponents to the White House as blackmail) but the Obama administration is taking it further. On the whim of a bureaucrat, your right to travel as a free citizen can be taken away. The Obama administration wanted to force those bidding on federal contracts to disclose which campaigns they donated to but have stopped trying to do so after public pressure.
If you're a policy wonk, you've heard the phrase 'chilling effect' before. It means that X will make it less likely that people will do Y out of fear of retribution. The Obama administration is throwing out as many chilling effects as they can, partly because massive bureaucracy creates areas of regulation never dreamed up by Congress and partly because they like it. I'll do a whole post later about what I call the 'Nixon test', but when I judge laws and regulations by asking if I'd be comfortable with Nixon having that power and not liking me. If the President of the United States calls you out during a speech by name, saying you've been on the wrong side of the law and are questionable for donating to his opponent is a powerful and terrifying thing. Bureaucrats that support the president on the federal or state or local level can be inspired to look for ways to investigate or attack you. Remember 'Joe the Plumber'? Obama came on his lawn, started talking to him and announced that, at a certain point, Obama thought you'd have made enough money and the government should spread the rest around? A state official went through several databases to get dirt on 'Joe the Plumber' because he asked a question that Obama fumbled the answer to. Obama was elected to the Senate in part because his campaign went after sealed divorce records in the primary and general election.
They're reading 1984 like it was a how-to manual.
'via Blog this'
The Senate passed a highway construction bill and included in the highway construction bill, which is supposed to be about highway construction, a provision to take the passports of anyone the IRS claims might owe more than $50,000 in back taxes. There doesn't need to be a trial or going before a judge at all. The IRS just needs to claim someone owes the money and they can't leave the US until they pay up and then go through the process afterwards of appealing the... well, it can't be called a judgement because there's no judge or defense attorney or protection under the Fourth and Fifth Amendment and it can't be fought in a federal court. There's not a lot of people fleeing the country to avoid paying their taxes, either. The Republicans in the Senate fought against this but failed. The Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid (who's a Mormon but never had any of the anti-Mormon attacks Romney gets from the media), put it in the bill but won't discuss it with the media.
The House Republicans have said they won't support this and even Obama has talked about vetoing a bill with this in it. My gut says that it's going to be used by the Obama campaign to complain about the Republicans in Congress; everything is either the fault of Bush or the House being controlled by Republicans since Jan 2011. The other possibility is that it can be used against Republican donors. Obama recently called out eight donors to Romney BY NAME, saying that "Quite a few have been on the wrong side of the law," even though none of them have been indicted or accused of any crimes. It's an old tactic (the Clintons early in their administration took copies of dozens of FBI files on their opponents to the White House as blackmail) but the Obama administration is taking it further. On the whim of a bureaucrat, your right to travel as a free citizen can be taken away. The Obama administration wanted to force those bidding on federal contracts to disclose which campaigns they donated to but have stopped trying to do so after public pressure.
If you're a policy wonk, you've heard the phrase 'chilling effect' before. It means that X will make it less likely that people will do Y out of fear of retribution. The Obama administration is throwing out as many chilling effects as they can, partly because massive bureaucracy creates areas of regulation never dreamed up by Congress and partly because they like it. I'll do a whole post later about what I call the 'Nixon test', but when I judge laws and regulations by asking if I'd be comfortable with Nixon having that power and not liking me. If the President of the United States calls you out during a speech by name, saying you've been on the wrong side of the law and are questionable for donating to his opponent is a powerful and terrifying thing. Bureaucrats that support the president on the federal or state or local level can be inspired to look for ways to investigate or attack you. Remember 'Joe the Plumber'? Obama came on his lawn, started talking to him and announced that, at a certain point, Obama thought you'd have made enough money and the government should spread the rest around? A state official went through several databases to get dirt on 'Joe the Plumber' because he asked a question that Obama fumbled the answer to. Obama was elected to the Senate in part because his campaign went after sealed divorce records in the primary and general election.
They're reading 1984 like it was a how-to manual.
'via Blog this'
My God, He's A MORON!
Obama campaign puts Bo on the trail - The Washington Post:
Obama's campaign and other Democrats have been attacking Romney for years over a story that, in the early 1980s, he put his dog in a cage on the roof of his station wagon so the dog could go on trips with him. The first attacks were done by the Clinton campaign in 2007 (her campaign also said McCain wasn't a legal American and ineligible to be President- her campaign started the Birther movement) and Obama's people have been pushing it hard recently. A blogger (Jim Treacher at dailycaller.com) discovered that Obama wrote about eating dog as a child and a million Obama-eats-dog jokes were made. The Obama campaign is furious that their plan backfired and are both pushing the Romney-is-a-bad-dog-owner thing and also saying that it's ridiculous to talk about Obama being even worse to dogs. Last Saturday, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Obama made several dog-eating jokes. Two days later, he's trying to get dog lovers to vote against the guy who takes his dog on vacation and vote for the guy who eats dogs.
If you watch the White House interact with the media, they continuously lie and spin when there's no real reason to other than the belief that Obama is perfect in every way and it is inconceivable that he could ever be wrong. The current press secretary, Jay Carney, is especially bad at it and it's a guilty pleasure watching the press corps make him twist in the wind. I have to admit, however, he did make a good joke when asked about the drama; he refused to comment so he could keep 'out of the doghouse.'
'via Blog this'
Obama's campaign and other Democrats have been attacking Romney for years over a story that, in the early 1980s, he put his dog in a cage on the roof of his station wagon so the dog could go on trips with him. The first attacks were done by the Clinton campaign in 2007 (her campaign also said McCain wasn't a legal American and ineligible to be President- her campaign started the Birther movement) and Obama's people have been pushing it hard recently. A blogger (Jim Treacher at dailycaller.com) discovered that Obama wrote about eating dog as a child and a million Obama-eats-dog jokes were made. The Obama campaign is furious that their plan backfired and are both pushing the Romney-is-a-bad-dog-owner thing and also saying that it's ridiculous to talk about Obama being even worse to dogs. Last Saturday, at the White House Correspondents Dinner, Obama made several dog-eating jokes. Two days later, he's trying to get dog lovers to vote against the guy who takes his dog on vacation and vote for the guy who eats dogs.
If you watch the White House interact with the media, they continuously lie and spin when there's no real reason to other than the belief that Obama is perfect in every way and it is inconceivable that he could ever be wrong. The current press secretary, Jay Carney, is especially bad at it and it's a guilty pleasure watching the press corps make him twist in the wind. I have to admit, however, he did make a good joke when asked about the drama; he refused to comment so he could keep 'out of the doghouse.'
'via Blog this'
NATO Summit, the Chicago Way and Fortress America
No-Fly Zone To Be Enforced By Shoot-To-Kill Order During NATO Summit « CBS Chicago:
NATO has the occasional summit and there's going to be one soon in Chicago. These summits are met with massive protests and this should be an especially bad one with the Occupy movement active. Chicago has a tradition of police riots as well as regular rioting. There's also lots and lots of old fashioned murder and mayhem in Chicago so this has the potential of being very bad. There's a high-rise condo building that's actually locking residents in for several days as it's going to be too dangerous to have doors that open near the summit site.
The article that inspired this blog post is about how the Air Force has been ordered to shoot down planes that come within ten miles of the summit. Non-commercial flights aren't supposed to enter that zone anyway, since there are airports and skyscrapers and millions of people at risk if your plane's engine conks out. Similar zones exist around most cities for this reason. They aren't shoot-to-kill zones, however. The White House under Clinton was almost hit by a small plane (it crashed onto the South Lawn, I believe) and there were fighter jets dispatched during the Bush administration when planes got too close to the White House. It's rare, but there are morons with pilot's licenses.
The shoot-to-kill thing troubles me because we've seen this administration decide that it can kill Americans that it considers terrorists anywhere in the world without so much as an indictment (a DA famously said that he could get a ham sandwich indicted as an example of how easy the process is). The administration has produced a legal brief explaining how it found this right, but the brief is classified. No, really. Obama is using drones in the Middle East to kill people at several times the rate that Bush did, even though Obama said that it was wrong to do so. Just like how Guantanamo's terrorist prison was going to be closed by him, except it wasn't. Now he's okay with shooting down planes over a major American city if the need arises.
One of the problems with a big government is that it has mission creep. It keeps making more and more jobs for itself, new mandates and regulations. Remember how the TSA was going to do security at the airports only? Not anymore. They have searched train passengers AFTER they arrived at their destination and checked IDs at a Social Security office. It's not what the law establishing them gave them the right to do, but that doesn't matter. They can expand themselves to the point where they are checking IDs (but not to see if someone's an illegal alien, heavens, no) at federal building which would be the job of local security or the US Marshalls. The Department of Education recently bought shotguns and conducted a SWAT-style raid (body armor, automatic weapons, the whole bit) on the house of the husband of a woman possibly involved in student loan fraud. This was before the Department of Homeland Security bought 450,000,000 rounds of pistol ammo. At the rate of usage in the Iraq war, that's six years and five months worth of ammunition usage. Does the Department of Education need a SWAT team? Does the TSA need to interfere with the current security at federal buildings? You have duplication of equipment and forces doing the same job poorly at several times the cost. There's no accountability to the voters because Congress didn't write any laws giving authority to do these things.
The problem with the War on Terror is that it's a tactic. You can sit around and come up with two or three ideas for terror attacks an hour without much effort. Here are five:
'via Blog this'
NATO has the occasional summit and there's going to be one soon in Chicago. These summits are met with massive protests and this should be an especially bad one with the Occupy movement active. Chicago has a tradition of police riots as well as regular rioting. There's also lots and lots of old fashioned murder and mayhem in Chicago so this has the potential of being very bad. There's a high-rise condo building that's actually locking residents in for several days as it's going to be too dangerous to have doors that open near the summit site.
The article that inspired this blog post is about how the Air Force has been ordered to shoot down planes that come within ten miles of the summit. Non-commercial flights aren't supposed to enter that zone anyway, since there are airports and skyscrapers and millions of people at risk if your plane's engine conks out. Similar zones exist around most cities for this reason. They aren't shoot-to-kill zones, however. The White House under Clinton was almost hit by a small plane (it crashed onto the South Lawn, I believe) and there were fighter jets dispatched during the Bush administration when planes got too close to the White House. It's rare, but there are morons with pilot's licenses.
The shoot-to-kill thing troubles me because we've seen this administration decide that it can kill Americans that it considers terrorists anywhere in the world without so much as an indictment (a DA famously said that he could get a ham sandwich indicted as an example of how easy the process is). The administration has produced a legal brief explaining how it found this right, but the brief is classified. No, really. Obama is using drones in the Middle East to kill people at several times the rate that Bush did, even though Obama said that it was wrong to do so. Just like how Guantanamo's terrorist prison was going to be closed by him, except it wasn't. Now he's okay with shooting down planes over a major American city if the need arises.
One of the problems with a big government is that it has mission creep. It keeps making more and more jobs for itself, new mandates and regulations. Remember how the TSA was going to do security at the airports only? Not anymore. They have searched train passengers AFTER they arrived at their destination and checked IDs at a Social Security office. It's not what the law establishing them gave them the right to do, but that doesn't matter. They can expand themselves to the point where they are checking IDs (but not to see if someone's an illegal alien, heavens, no) at federal building which would be the job of local security or the US Marshalls. The Department of Education recently bought shotguns and conducted a SWAT-style raid (body armor, automatic weapons, the whole bit) on the house of the husband of a woman possibly involved in student loan fraud. This was before the Department of Homeland Security bought 450,000,000 rounds of pistol ammo. At the rate of usage in the Iraq war, that's six years and five months worth of ammunition usage. Does the Department of Education need a SWAT team? Does the TSA need to interfere with the current security at federal buildings? You have duplication of equipment and forces doing the same job poorly at several times the cost. There's no accountability to the voters because Congress didn't write any laws giving authority to do these things.
The problem with the War on Terror is that it's a tactic. You can sit around and come up with two or three ideas for terror attacks an hour without much effort. Here are five:
- Using crop dusters to spray chemical weapons around a water reservoir.
- Two or three truck bombs (think Oklahoma City) detonate during rush hour on bridges in New York.
- Car bomb in the tailgating section of a stadium.
- Suicide bomber at the TSA checkpoint in an airport.
- Truck bomb parked on train tracks next to a bridge.
Between one and three terrorists are required for those attacks. Right now, as I write this, I can hear a prop airplane flying a few miles away. I'm not terrified because the chance of it being a terrorist is one in billions. The goal of terrorism is terror. The terrorists want us scared because scared people are stupid and make bad decisions. The TSA and the DHS were stupid decisions and so is shooting down planes over Chicago.
'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)