Okay, first the good news: According to an article in today's Wall Street Journal by Scott McCartney (p. D1) the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has "backed off" earlier plans like banning magazines, books and blankets from passengers for the last hour of flight -and turning off the in-flight movie. VERY good moves, since we never wished to exchange any punk terrorists for 100-250 edgy and hostile passengers with nothing to do and minds bereft of occupation!
The next thing for the TSA is to ease up on the rest room edict too. (E.g. no passengers may frequent a rest room in the last hour of flight- which is often more than 1 1/2 hours - for busy hubs with lots of traffic). If need be, allow one of the crew to be at the loo when a passenger must use it, and let her deliver a first warning knock after 5 minutes, and a more rigorous 'watch it, bub' knock - harder delivered - after ten. What we don't need is having to come to the airport wearing diapers! This is not cool.
Now, the bad news, from the same WSJ article: the Republicans, aka Repugs or "reptiles" are still blocking President Obama's nomination for head of the TSA - after 4 months. This is none other than Erroll Southers, who could not be a more optimum choice. Mr. Southers already features FBI experience, plus he used to run security at Los Angeles World airports. In other words, this is no cream puff, or lightweight.
But you'd never know that from the Republican obstructionism - mainly driven by South Carolina's pro-Confederate whackjob, Jim De Mint. Hey, Senator! The Confederacy and its treasonous garbage died out more than 145 years ago!
As WSJ author McCartney observes this is an intolerable situation, especially now in the wake of the Xmas Day incident. Had Southers been at his post as TSA head, then arguably at least the nonsensical "security" edicts that were issued never would have seen the light of day. And the agency would not have lost any precious credibility. As it is we need Southers there now, to man a complex operation and arrive at the correct and appropriate responses. You've all seen the "too heavy" and "too light" commercials for Bud Light I presume?
I agree with McCartney here that the Senate needs to either confirm this gentleman or reject him, but in the wake of the attempted terror hit, this cannot be allowed to drag on. DeMint and his repup fiends are placing us in great jeopardy as they continue this nonsense which undermines our airline security and timely responses. Dragging their heels on one of the most critical appointments. This is bordering now on high treason.
As for criticizing Obama and the Dems, I also concur with McCartney that the repugs have boxed themselves into a corner with their caterwauling: to wit, they can hardly criticize the TSA and national security in general if they are willingly obstructing a nomination - and effectively blocking putting someone in charge of the TSA.
The Repugs need to decide whose side they are on: the nation's or the terrorists. They need to either cooperate, follow....or get the hell out of the way!
The WAR ON TERROR is now called a "man made disaster" by NOBAMA and other demoRATS !!
ReplyDeleteWith thinking like this we can expect another Twin Towers or other mass killing soon ! The idea that is you make it sound less threatening, it will be less threatening is the height of folly. All this does is give a false sense of security, and makes our enemies bolder. Recently we have seen two examples of this. If history teaches us anything it is that vigilence and a strong and able security is the only deterant. It is especially necessary with this opponent, they scoff at our preoccupation with legalism, and teach legalfare in terrorist training which teaches them to use this as a weakness to be taken advantage of. They also use a trait that Americans are generous and forgiving, and have a tendency to want to forget unplesant experiences. They do not admire these traits, they find them a symptom of weakness, and lack of fortitude. The last attempts were tests of our security, and it was found wanting. The next one will be much bigger and done by well trained cadre and much more successful if we don't act now !
PS: RE: 9-1-1 , Bush had been in ofice for only EIGHT MONTHS at the time,and it was PROVEN that ol' Slick Willie' KNEW about BinLaden . When the USS COLE was attacked what did Clinton do ? He 'throws' a few scud missles their way and 'goes home.'
BOTH former President Bushes should have their due place of honor etched into Mt.Rushmore along with THE GREATEST PREZ' of ALL TIME - RONALD REAGAN !!
Oh Yeah , almost forgot.
ReplyDeleteIn a Purdue University classroom, they were discussing the qualifications to be President of the United States. It was pretty simple, the candidate must be a natural born citizen of at least 35years of age.
However, one girl in the class immediately started in on how unfair was the requirement to be a natural born citizen. In short, her opinion was that this requirement prevented many capable individuals from becoming president.
The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, "What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-Section?"
These are the same 18-year-olds that elected the current President of the United States.
Yes, they are among us and they vote! MAY GOD HELP US ONE AND ALL !
Pastor Mike wrote:
ReplyDelete"The class was taking it in and letting her rant, but everyone's jaw hit the floor when she wrapped up her argument by stating, "What makes a natural born citizen any more qualified to lead this country than one born by C-Section?"
These are the same 18-year-olds that elected the current President of the United States. "
Well, leave it to old Pastor Mike to drag out one of the dopiest and remote examples and apply it to all 18 year olds. Talk about generalizing from the particular to the general.
And where exactly did you dig this chestnut up?
You're a joke. On your blog you never did properly address my put down of your nonsense that Xmas means "christ" is left out of Christmas. You had to bring in all sorts of rot about Nazis and swastikas to muddy the discussion. All totally irrelevant to the specific point that X is the Greek symbool for Christ so can be fully substituted for it, unlike the regular letter 'x' which is not the same.
You are the king of strawmen and red herrings as your comments show here.
Bush, when he became president, had the job and responsibility of protecting this country and he blew it! You can't blame Clinton for what Bush failed to do. And you can't blame 18 years olds because Obama got elected.
If you don't like so many youth (who are old enough to die for their country btw) to vote, then your side has to stop acting like looney tunes and foul old men - like Cheney.
Mike wrote: "The WAR ON TERROR is now called a "man made disaster" by NOBAMA and other demoRATS !!
ReplyDeleteThe 'war on terror' was always an IDIOTIC appellation, since one can only make war on another nation state or organized human enemy not a MEANS or METHOD of warfare!
Thus, it was stupid, ignorant and inappropriate - plus irrational - from the start. It's like some dope saying "the war on cooking bad meals" or the "war on bad sex". Totally dumb.
All Obama did is make the vocabulary more irrational, and he also well understood if the stupid' war on terror' stuck we would be in perpetual war- fighting forever, since of course, there would never be a state of zero terror. Given our exploitatitive policies in which capitalism is secured by military intervention, there'd never be an end.
But as it is we see military-imperial overstretch is not working, any more than it did for the Romans. As the Financial Times pointed out (Dec. 30), if the U.S. continues its military presence in Iraq and afghanistan another 15 years, our national debt will reach 85% of GDP. This is according to the IMF and World Bank.
If we were to spend 20 years in such "wars" the national debt would overtake the GDP and NO nation has ever survived that condition.
Even the Romans, as the article noted, became increasingly absolutist over which wars and territory they'd fight for and which they would not. Ultimately, in order to manage to last their 500 years (we've only been around about 240) they decided all distant wars were out. There had to be an imminent enemy at the "door" to mandate the resources for their legions to fight.
"With thinking like this we can expect another Twin Towers or other mass killing soon ! "
Nonsense! That is, provided your Repugs get off their asses and stop blocking key, critical appointments-nominations, like Southers for TSA head.
Also get this straight, unlike the current case - wherein the CIA never kept its people in DC or other agencies, or the president informed of Abdulmutallab (See yesterday's lead story in The Financial Times), Bush was actually WARNED on August 6, 2001 IN A STRATEGIC BRIEFING PAPER: 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack' - more than a month before and DID NOTHING about it! He had the heads up on an imminent attack, never mind Clinton knowing about al Qaeda, and Bush did nada!
Worse, if you will climb out of your delusional cubby hole and consult the actual tapes and transcripts of the air tower conversations - released after the 9/11 Commission Report advised it- you will see in the timing logs that Air Force jets were already in the air before the first jetliner struck the twin towers.
At least nine minutes before, Bush was reading 'My Pet goat' to a bunch of elementary school kids in FLA. He was informed, and he sat stupefied on his ass for SEVEN freaking minutes. Thus, allowing the incoming hijacked jetliners to close on the towers with NO hope of intercepting them.
This is your great guy Bush, who not only likely allowed the attacks to occur, in order to profit from the war state spending and (e.g. Halliburton, Bechtel etc) contracts that would ensue - but also to know he'd be able to get fascist laws enacted that rip civil liberties away, like the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act of 2006.
As with religion and theology, you need to read and learn a lot more before you make these daft comments.
"All Obama did is make the vocabulary more irrational"
ReplyDeleteSorry, that should read:
All Obama did is make the vocabulary more rational
copernicus wrote:
ReplyDelete"The 'war on terror' was always an IDIOTIC appellation, since one can only make war on another nation state or organized human enemy not a MEANS or METHOD of warfare!
Thus, it was stupid, ignorant and inappropriate - plus irrational - from the start. It's like some dope saying "the war on cooking bad meals" or the "war on bad sex". Totally dumb."
Damn! You totally hit that out of the park! I doubt Pastor Mike will get it though since he doesn't seem to have two brain cells to rub together. But anyone who does should understand you can say "war on al Qaeda" but not "war on terror".
This use of the term was intentional, however, and marked another attempt to control the language to control people's minds.
You should read the book, 'Collateral Language', 2002 and how the Bushies and media helped legitimize the misuse of language, and in the process the misuse and degeneracy of thought to wage this bogus "war". Which actually only elevates the other side to equal parity with the U.S. instead of leaving them scum criminals.
Look first at the term "terrorism" and whether Americans are "terrorized." In fact, as Andy Rooney noted in a column last year, the word "terrorism" means (by the Oxford dictionary) the "systematic use of terror as a means of coercion."
But this does NOT describe the American scene. Americans may be hyper-vigilant, may be more aware, possibly anxious - but they are not cowed, or 'coerced'. I see as many going on planes, boats, trains etc. as ever - and not even with the screenings that the Israelis use!
As Rooney notes, "the most frightening thing we see each day is Bill O'Reilly". Who also openly hoped on one show that San Francisco might be attacked to "teach them a lesson". These are the whackos the right wing obeys and heaps love on while they call the other side "demo-rats".
Neither is the "war on terror" a genuine war in any standard or conventional sense. A genuine war - as it has always been fought and defined- requires a specific nation state as enemy. Not a gaggle of robed lunatics with a fancy name.
Neither can a real war be open-ended. There must be parameters for closure. What are the criteria for victory? For the enemy's surrender? Without naming such criteria, you have NO war! You may have open-ended, indiscriminate and unending aggression, but not a war. You may have "pre-emptive" invasions and overthrowing of sovereign states in succession. But these amount to state-sponsored terror, more than "war".
It follows, that if there is no real war, there is no real "war footing", or "time of war", or whatever. Especially if increased taxes aren't being demanded to pay for it, since as you pointed out the national debt is catching up with the GDP.
Neither was 9-11 an "act of War" - as you note. Since such can only occur by one nation state against another. The Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor was indeed an "act of war". But not 9-11. That was a major international crime- and merited an international (FBI, Interpol etc.) response. NOT a military response! That was just want bin Laden wanted! To get us endlessly embroiled in never ending wars to spend our treasury dry!
So long as we buy into the web of media deceit, thereby enabling a plethora of collateral language', we will be caught in the vise of the war meme and its fallout. This mental trap begins with accepting 9-11 as an "act of war".
CRISIS IS THE RALLYING CRY OF THE TYRANT!!
ReplyDelete-James Madison
Never let a crisis go to waste. -Rahm Emanuel.
Obama campaigned on HOPE and CHANGE, but he is governing as chicken little. Have you noticed everything is a crisis? Have you ever noticed that when he announces a crisis, he and his liberal law makers legislate a catastrophe in response? So he is not your usual chicken little that is running around screeching that the sky is falling. He is actively working to make sure that it falls. As he is demonstrating his Cloward-Pivens strategy, I don't think he is any more interested in saving our country than the 9/11 hijackers were interested in having a safe flight.
Pssst , hey Caleb , you drunk and posting again ?
Pastor Mike wrote:
ReplyDelete"Obama campaigned on HOPE and CHANGE, but he is governing as chicken little. Have you noticed everything is a crisis? Have you ever noticed that when he announces a crisis, he and his liberal law makers legislate a catastrophe in response?"
Nice trick there in changing the subject when you were pinned down by Copernicus' excellent point that BUSH blew it and allowed the 9-1l attacks to happen. He received the actual briefing paper more than a month in advance, then when the attacks did begin, sat on his butt reading a children's story book.
This is your grand here and protector and you have the absolute over the top nerve to talk about Rahm and Obama creating crises?
You need to take a med, and also wake those brain cells up. If you can't approrpiately rebut Copernicus' or Caleb's arguments you need to phone it in. Or maybe put a fork in yourself. You're done.
To Caleb:
ReplyDeleteVery good points! Never mind ol' Pastor Mike, he's just jealous you know so much more than he does. I definitely will plan to get the book 'Collateral Language'.
You are also absolutely correct that one can say "wage war on al Qaeda" but not "war on terror" since it is impossible to wage a war on a methodology. It is a pity the Republicans have so destroyed the language it is barely recognizable any more.
Calling estate taxes "death taxes", and the Medicare Medical Commission a "death panel" and calling the removal of the Bush tax cuts a "tax increase" and so on. It's a wonder anyone can salvage a brain with this language assault or better, language rape.
Caleb, the first sign the opponent has lost is that he's dodged the key issue and arguments. When the Pastor changed the subject to creating crisis he lost the argument about who was really responsible for allowing the twin towers to fall.
It's that bloody simple.
Pastor Mike wrote: CRISIS IS THE RALLYING CRY OF THE TYRANT!!
ReplyDelete-James Madison
Jeebus, don't you just love this guy? He talks about me being drunk then quotes Madison about exploiting crisis when that's all right wingers have done the past two years. Tried to use a phony crisis of "terror" and threats of such to scare americans into voting McCain or now to scare 'em into voting republican this year.
These guys make up crises about any and everything: health care...we're gonna get 'death panels', Obama....he ain't a real citizen or real Christian, the twin towers.... another such will occur if Obama is still in, never mind Bush allowed the last to occur with his laziness and ineptitude. (I don't go so far as copernicus to say he *let it happen*)
Thanks, jani for your kind words. I knew I had whupped Pastor Mike's butt as soon as I saw his reply and how he changed the topic. He knew he was beaten by copernicus and me and this was his way of showing capitulation.
Hey, I'm ok with it...
Mike wrote: "Obama campaigned on HOPE and CHANGE, but he is governing as chicken little. Have you noticed everything is a crisis? Have you ever noticed that when he announces a crisis, he and his liberal law makers legislate a catastrophe in response?"
ReplyDeleteActually I didn't know that. Obama governing as "chicken little", how so? What I see is a guy who is ready and willing to confront critical issues before they reach crisis stage - unlike Bush (who despite people warning him that it was a bad idea to bundle FEMA into Homeland Security, did it just the same and then couldn't grasp why there was nor apid response to Katrina)
Obama meanwhile, as with 99% of the educated economical universe, realized that given the blow out of the economy by the credit crisis, the government had to act on the demand side to boost jobs and productivity. This meant pumping money into the financial system in order to avert a 2nd great depression which would clearly have befallen us otherwise.
All the pointers were there, from the enormous amount of toxic assets on banks' book decreasing their equity and willingness to loan, to the spiralling numbers of home foreclosures even among moderate income earners. He thus solved a critical problem which Bush would likely had allowed to spiral into another 1933. Twenty million out of work instead of 8 million, and half all the country's homes gone instead of 20%
He also dealt appropriately with the health care crisis, which anyone who has insurance can tell you is real. I do not regard the bills on offer as 100% perfect, but something is better than nothing.
Meanwhile, on the climate front, we know a crisis is impending as we approach the conditions for a runaway greenhouse effect - and Obama has acted appropriately by having his EPA enact and enforce carbon input controls. If congress won't pass the carbon minimizing laws needed, this is the way to go.
Meanwhile, the FALSE crises are all on the part of the American Right - from trying to scare people with "death panels" (in health reform) to the latest strategy of using the Xmas incident to terrify the American populace into voting repup this year.
If one cannot tell the difference between the generation of false crises for political advantage and the solution of real crises that are impending, I would argue that s/he doesn't know what they are talking about.
As always, the tone of the discussion on this blog is people putting their brains into neutral and descend to banal put downs when the subject of Bush (or ANY righteous topic)comes up. I have no doubt the guy had his short comings, but the "blame Bush" mindset at times comes perilously close to a lynching mentality.
ReplyDeleteWhat next ... Bush responsible for erratic meteor activity ?...how about holding him responsible for the crucifixion of Christ? It seems there are no limits to these excesses.
PS:
ReplyDeleteWasn't there a end of year " dead line "
Iran Warns West It Will Make Its Own Nuclear Fuel
Saturday
TEHRAN, Iran — Iran warned on Saturday the West has until the end of the month to accept Tehran's counterproposal to a U.N.-drafted plan on a nuclear exchange, or the country will start producing nuclear fuel on its own.
Wait , didn't Obama give IRAN an end of the year dead line .. Why are they giving us one now ?
"What next ... Bush responsible for erratic meteor activity ?...how about holding him responsible for the crucifixion of Christ? It seems there are no limits to these excesses."
ReplyDeleteWhat a bozo! Hey dude, no one is heaping all these on your master and hero! As usual, go with the most extreme and inflated hypberbole in order to try to duck what Bush was really responsible for.
But this is typical of Bush overs who won't own up to the fact their boy sat onn his ass for seven minutes while those two planes were closing on the twin towers as Copernicus noted. Before that (Aug. 6, 2001) he received the briefing paper on bin Laden determined to attack and did nothing.
Yet you and your fellow morons want to put all that on Clinton, as you now huff and puff, exaggerate and say we want to put the crucifixion and meteor strikes on Bush. No, we just want you to own up to his actual neglect, and disasters, from 9-11 to Katrina.
But your comments show you've lost all intllectual moorings and now exist only in the world of bombast, and hypberbolic red herrings.
Go back to your own pathetic blog and try to make yourself more useful, honey. And don't let the door bang you in the butt on the way out.
Pastor Mike blabbered: "Wait , didn't Obama give IRAN an end of the year dead line .. Why are they giving us one now ?"
ReplyDeleteThey aren't. They're just notifying us of their own timetable and plans and asserting they have the right as a sovereign nation to also use atomic power for their energy needs.
Besides, Obama gave no 'deadline'. He said he would like to see some action by the end of the year but didn't make it an absolute demand.
In any case the U.S., with more than 12,000 armed nuclear warheads has no business ordering other countries around unless the U.S. begins by showing its own example, like getting rid of at least half its arsenal to start.
As I said, you don't know your butt from a hole in the ground. Time for you to buzz off.
jani wrote:
ReplyDeleteBesides, Obama gave no 'deadline'. He said he would like to see some action by the end of the year but didn't make it an absolute demand.
--
Not strictly true. Obama did actually give a deadline. If you refer to the Financial Times (January 3, p. 3) and the article 'Options Shrink for Obama as He Weighs Tougher Stance' you will read:
"The Islamic Republic has now misse the year end deadline to agree to a proposal that would have reduced the tension over its nuclear programme"
The article also notes, however, that responding to this will be extremely difficult - say if the U.S. imposes sanctions. The reason - according to top strategists and Iran experts, is that such sanctions would inflict lots more pain on the Iranian people (many of whom are opposed to the regime) but very little pain on the regime itself.
This gets to the heart of how to deal with terrorist states, their regimes- while not alienating their people. In addition as the FT article notes:
"Further punitive measures could embolden a regime that has blamed the mass protests on the U.S."
One thing we DON'T want to do, is anything that will cause much more harm to those same protestors!
Aside from this, your essential point remains intact, that Mike has gone off message (for his convenience) instead of showing exactly how Bush protected the country while sitting on his duff for seven minutes in that Florida school reading 'My Pet Goat'. And earlier ignoring the briefing paper, 'Bin Laden Determined to attack'.
The claptrap about blaming the crucifixion and meteor aberrations on Bush is just plain old Mike being Mike. Sometimes he can't help himself go give him a break.