Again I came close to abandoning this thing, as I've been feeling tapped out of comments and I seem to be repeating myself. Then I think about how everyone else does that too, so I just need something to grab my attention.
Voila, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDdkzjfUnJQ&feature=player_embedded
I saw a post commenting on it on Hot Air, and I couldn't figure out why the commentator was so bent out of shape about it; it was a brilliant kick at the radical Green movement. There was only one problem, which I realized from reading the comments on the post, which is the radical Greens MADE this video.
I don't excuse my ignorance of radical movements, because there are so many already on my radar that these media twits are the least of my immediate concern. That said, if I were to make a video to make them look bad I wouldn't change a thing. You'd think that they'd have enough on the ball to not quote Osama bin Laden to back up their point, but I guess someone had to plumb the depths of cluelessness.
That's all for now. I may restructure a bit, as my new job is a lot busier but for now as long as you have this on a feed you'll get whatever I come up with. Ideas are always welcome, too.
Sunday, 3 October 2010
Wednesday, 8 September 2010
Pastor Terry Jones is an Info Ops genius.
Opening statement: religious wackos of any stripe are intolerant idiots, and Terry Jones of Gainesville Florida certainly fits the bill. He has also however proved the point he was trying to make more perfectly than I could have planned.
His point is that Islam is evil and violent. One would hope that "The Religion of Peace" would step up and prove him wrong, but again it shows its' true colours. The plan (Jones') is to burn a crapload of Korans on Sept 11 2010 in memory of the people killed in the 9/11 attacks, and all sorts of people are running for cover because of what enraged Muslims will do in response.
General Petraeus has caved to these terrorists previously, throwing Israel to the wolves and blaming them for getting Americans killed, so it's no stretch that he's running scared again. Yes, I said the hero of Iraq is a coward and I'd say it to his face about this subject. If Muslims attack American troops because of this burning thing, there will be no blood on Terry Jones' hands. I can't say as much for Gen. Petraeus as he continues to embolden people to make intemperate demands about how us infidels should behave toward our Muslim betters.
The traditional word is "appeasement", and ask the Czechs in 1938 and the rest of Europe a few years later how well that played with the Nazis. Books are cheap and readily available, so burning them is no crime against humanity, merely stupid and inflammatory (literally and figuratively). Jones and his minuscule flock (c. 30 people) will not harm a hair on anyone's head unless they get too close to the bonfire.
Sure they'll piss people off, but they have a legal right (for the moment) to do that in their country. They have threatened no violence to anyone, let alone Muslims worldwide. I see video of the usual rent-a-crowd in Muslim countries protesting and burning American flags and effigies, and that's a proportional response, if you feel you must make one. On the gripping hand, saying over and over again that you'll kill Americans wherever you find them is a strong argument for Jones' postulate that "Islam is of the Devil", because we all know that they mean what they say.
This is international news, caused by a tiny Church and a Facebook page that at this writing had 12,484 "likes". If this was an Info Op to expose an entire religion as spawning dangerous lunatics it would be a brilliant success. I'm pretty sure this latest black eye for Islam is a by-product of a small group of yahoos in the Bible Belt, but yahoos or not, they're on to something here.
His point is that Islam is evil and violent. One would hope that "The Religion of Peace" would step up and prove him wrong, but again it shows its' true colours. The plan (Jones') is to burn a crapload of Korans on Sept 11 2010 in memory of the people killed in the 9/11 attacks, and all sorts of people are running for cover because of what enraged Muslims will do in response.
General Petraeus has caved to these terrorists previously, throwing Israel to the wolves and blaming them for getting Americans killed, so it's no stretch that he's running scared again. Yes, I said the hero of Iraq is a coward and I'd say it to his face about this subject. If Muslims attack American troops because of this burning thing, there will be no blood on Terry Jones' hands. I can't say as much for Gen. Petraeus as he continues to embolden people to make intemperate demands about how us infidels should behave toward our Muslim betters.
The traditional word is "appeasement", and ask the Czechs in 1938 and the rest of Europe a few years later how well that played with the Nazis. Books are cheap and readily available, so burning them is no crime against humanity, merely stupid and inflammatory (literally and figuratively). Jones and his minuscule flock (c. 30 people) will not harm a hair on anyone's head unless they get too close to the bonfire.
Sure they'll piss people off, but they have a legal right (for the moment) to do that in their country. They have threatened no violence to anyone, let alone Muslims worldwide. I see video of the usual rent-a-crowd in Muslim countries protesting and burning American flags and effigies, and that's a proportional response, if you feel you must make one. On the gripping hand, saying over and over again that you'll kill Americans wherever you find them is a strong argument for Jones' postulate that "Islam is of the Devil", because we all know that they mean what they say.
This is international news, caused by a tiny Church and a Facebook page that at this writing had 12,484 "likes". If this was an Info Op to expose an entire religion as spawning dangerous lunatics it would be a brilliant success. I'm pretty sure this latest black eye for Islam is a by-product of a small group of yahoos in the Bible Belt, but yahoos or not, they're on to something here.
Friday, 3 September 2010
You broke it, you bought it.
This looks like "pick on Slate week", but it's just a coincidence that they're posting stuff that pushes my buttons. Unlike the last thing I wrote about, William Saletan is not being an idiot, it's the subject itself which catches a particular part of the zeitgeist.
The Ground Zero Mosque has been exceptionally polarizing, but most of the energy being expended is negative. To re-cap for posterity (e.g. the future when the links I might put in now won't work), a Muslim community centre/mosque is planned for a property a couple of blocks from the 9/11 attacks in NYC. For a lot of people, this is much too close.
I am one of them, but not from blind xenophobia; indeed, I know the significance to Islam of putting a mosque on conquered territory. A lot of other people feel the same way about it even if they know less history than I do, and this is the part which is increasingly being picked up by the media. To say that some of them (mainstream at least) are shocked by this is accurate, though "perplexed" is likely a better word. Politicians however make their livings by being in touch with public opinion, and more of them in the US particularly are coming down hard against this plan.
Saletan has this to say as his conclusion:
Ground Zero was just the beginning. The case against a mosque there has shifted from extremism to Islam. Now Republicans say their no-mosque rule extends only to Ground Zero, or three blocks from Ground Zero, or whatever exclusion zone the majority feels is appropriate. But the fire of enmity has already spread from terrorism to religion. I don't think New York can contain it.
This is true, and my amazement is that it's taken this long. Apologists keep prating that Islam is not to blame for things done in its' name, but it's no longer just cranks like me who aren't buying it. If Christianity still has to wear the Crusades and the Inquisition (and that's just a start), then Islam will have to work and mature to wash away the stain of violent jihad that is associated with it today. I would argue however that it is fundamentally damaged and this will not be possible.
There is NO separating a belief from the things done in the name of it, particularly if those things are written right into the book. Islamic terrorism isn't a few anti-abortion protesters; the Salafist inspired terrorism and oppression that troubles so much of the world, well, it troubles much of the world. This isn't a tiny radical fringe, this is a violent minority with influential religious opinion underpinning and the support of a sizable number of coreligionists.
The problem really is ideology of any stripe, but Islam is a big target because of what it inspires. Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, and the same place (modern version under the House of Saud) exports its' repressive Wahhabi doctrine throughout the world. (I will insert this for the sake of balance and an attempt at accuracy in terminology, but it changes the end results not one whit) As the keepers of the holiest sites in Islam, they are exceptionally influential morally, and due to all their oil money, in practical doctrinal terms.
Even the very name of the religion (see http://www.submission.org/islam/ ) tells you what it's all about. It has a DEATH SENTENCE for leaving it (apostasy), which should answer any remaining questions you have about why people are touchy about putting a mosque anywhere near where (muslim) religious idiots killed thousands of Americans and others.
The Ground Zero Mosque has been exceptionally polarizing, but most of the energy being expended is negative. To re-cap for posterity (e.g. the future when the links I might put in now won't work), a Muslim community centre/mosque is planned for a property a couple of blocks from the 9/11 attacks in NYC. For a lot of people, this is much too close.
I am one of them, but not from blind xenophobia; indeed, I know the significance to Islam of putting a mosque on conquered territory. A lot of other people feel the same way about it even if they know less history than I do, and this is the part which is increasingly being picked up by the media. To say that some of them (mainstream at least) are shocked by this is accurate, though "perplexed" is likely a better word. Politicians however make their livings by being in touch with public opinion, and more of them in the US particularly are coming down hard against this plan.
Saletan has this to say as his conclusion:
Ground Zero was just the beginning. The case against a mosque there has shifted from extremism to Islam. Now Republicans say their no-mosque rule extends only to Ground Zero, or three blocks from Ground Zero, or whatever exclusion zone the majority feels is appropriate. But the fire of enmity has already spread from terrorism to religion. I don't think New York can contain it.
This is true, and my amazement is that it's taken this long. Apologists keep prating that Islam is not to blame for things done in its' name, but it's no longer just cranks like me who aren't buying it. If Christianity still has to wear the Crusades and the Inquisition (and that's just a start), then Islam will have to work and mature to wash away the stain of violent jihad that is associated with it today. I would argue however that it is fundamentally damaged and this will not be possible.
There is NO separating a belief from the things done in the name of it, particularly if those things are written right into the book. Islamic terrorism isn't a few anti-abortion protesters; the Salafist inspired terrorism and oppression that troubles so much of the world, well, it troubles much of the world. This isn't a tiny radical fringe, this is a violent minority with influential religious opinion underpinning and the support of a sizable number of coreligionists.
The problem really is ideology of any stripe, but Islam is a big target because of what it inspires. Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, and the same place (modern version under the House of Saud) exports its' repressive Wahhabi doctrine throughout the world. (I will insert this for the sake of balance and an attempt at accuracy in terminology, but it changes the end results not one whit) As the keepers of the holiest sites in Islam, they are exceptionally influential morally, and due to all their oil money, in practical doctrinal terms.
Even the very name of the religion (see http://www.submission.org/islam/ ) tells you what it's all about. It has a DEATH SENTENCE for leaving it (apostasy), which should answer any remaining questions you have about why people are touchy about putting a mosque anywhere near where (muslim) religious idiots killed thousands of Americans and others.
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
War Crimes: The Drone Wars
It's a very human failing to demonize your opponents whether in mortal or merely rhetorical combat. I have scathing things to say about all sorts of people here (and elsewhere), but the marvels of editing and hindsight (involving hopefully more editing) allow us to see when we are hectoring. The Slate article I have picked on here could have benefited from some of that. Case in point:
Are the masters of "drone porn" committing war crimes by remote control? It's a bit shocking that more people aren't asking this question. I have a feeling that many of us, particularly liberal Obama supporters (like myself, for instance), haven't wanted to look too closely at what is being done in his name, in our name, when these remote-controlled and often tragically inaccurate weapons of small-group slaughter incinerate innocents from the sky, in what are essentially video-game massacres in which real people die.
Now I will get into how differently I see the world than do these "liberal Obama supporters".
Firstly, the repeated use of some catch(y) phrase throughout your essay lowers the tone of it significantly. "Drone porn" is not inherently inaccurate as a description; it's like crack for senior officers and I've seen it in action. Things that shock lose their effectiveness though overuse (sort of like conventional porn), and beating me with that phrase 16 times in one article is really overdoing it.
That however is mostly a style thing. My second main point is the bandying about of the term "war crime". This sounds clinical, but the few collateral casualties involved in drone strikes is not in scale or intent a war crime. Sure you can play with legal definitions to label it that, but reducing it to this level makes it a meaningless shibboleth instead of an affront to civilization. Firestorming Dresden in '45 is arguably a war crime, as it generated mass casualties for negligible tactical or strategic effect. Taking out the family of some guy who wants to destroy your precious liberal civilization is collateral damage from a legitimate (or at least necessary) military target.
Here's a part where the author loses any semblance of connection with reality:
Are the drone strikes defensible at 4 percent murdered innocents but indefensible at 33 percent? There's no algorithm that synchs up the degree of target importance, the certainty of intelligence that's based on, and potential civilian casualties from the attack. It's a question that's impossible to answer with precision. Which suggests that when murdering civilians is involved, you don't do it at all.
It's revealing that the comments on this article in Slate (Slate, of all places) were overwhelmingly dismissive. He goes on to refer to these drone targets as "criminals", demanding that we cease military operations against them. That legalistic attitude has already cost us any chance of success in Afghanistan, we don't need more if it.
The key thing is that regardless of certain peoples' sensitivities, there is a war going on. It's ugly (as are they all) and mistakes will be made. More importantly than this understanding of mistakes is the concept that this is an ideological war, and the only way to stamp out an ideology is to kill enough of its' adherents that they can't trouble you too much.
This comes to my third point about this hack job of an article. There is a whole lot of "we create more terrorists than we kill with _" floating around, and a fair bit of it settled here. First, I don't buy that, at least as far as it makes things any worse for us. The kids of a jihadist are brainwashed from birth to despise us "kufr", so killing them is merely proactive counter terrorism, and pissing them off doesn't change their attitude. At least after we blow dad into a red mist they know that we can and will kill them, and that sort of lesson will take with at least a few of them. Overall: net gain to our side.
Not nice and certainly not "liberal", but when we forget the basics "The Gods of the Copybook Headings, with terror and slaughter return!" The (historic, not rosy-hindsight-noble-savage) North American aboriginal peoples knew the score: kids are future warriors and women can breed more of them; you want to remove a threat, you remove ALL of it.
The NA Indians were by no means alone in this appreciation of ugly reality, but I use this as contrast to what is actually occurring on the North West Frontier these days. The locals (mostly Pakistanis) are happy to get rid of these guys and if it takes American Hellfires to do it, so be it, and there is no wholesale slaughter of non-combatants. On the other side of the Durand Line the Afghans (still Pashtuns) are complaining that the new COIN ("don't break anything") doctrine is strengthening the Taliban and other bad actors by removing the only stick we could use against them.
The only thing which will create more terrorists (besides all that Saudi money bankrolling them) is weakness and encouragement from us. And don't even get me going on Mr Rosenbaum's assertion that "There are those who argue that even the threat of a nuclear strike is a war crime". How about this: retreat to your liberal la-la land with your fellow travelers and leave dealing with the messy real world to those of us who live here.
Are the masters of "drone porn" committing war crimes by remote control? It's a bit shocking that more people aren't asking this question. I have a feeling that many of us, particularly liberal Obama supporters (like myself, for instance), haven't wanted to look too closely at what is being done in his name, in our name, when these remote-controlled and often tragically inaccurate weapons of small-group slaughter incinerate innocents from the sky, in what are essentially video-game massacres in which real people die.
Now I will get into how differently I see the world than do these "liberal Obama supporters".
Firstly, the repeated use of some catch(y) phrase throughout your essay lowers the tone of it significantly. "Drone porn" is not inherently inaccurate as a description; it's like crack for senior officers and I've seen it in action. Things that shock lose their effectiveness though overuse (sort of like conventional porn), and beating me with that phrase 16 times in one article is really overdoing it.
That however is mostly a style thing. My second main point is the bandying about of the term "war crime". This sounds clinical, but the few collateral casualties involved in drone strikes is not in scale or intent a war crime. Sure you can play with legal definitions to label it that, but reducing it to this level makes it a meaningless shibboleth instead of an affront to civilization. Firestorming Dresden in '45 is arguably a war crime, as it generated mass casualties for negligible tactical or strategic effect. Taking out the family of some guy who wants to destroy your precious liberal civilization is collateral damage from a legitimate (or at least necessary) military target.
Here's a part where the author loses any semblance of connection with reality:
Are the drone strikes defensible at 4 percent murdered innocents but indefensible at 33 percent? There's no algorithm that synchs up the degree of target importance, the certainty of intelligence that's based on, and potential civilian casualties from the attack. It's a question that's impossible to answer with precision. Which suggests that when murdering civilians is involved, you don't do it at all.
It's revealing that the comments on this article in Slate (Slate, of all places) were overwhelmingly dismissive. He goes on to refer to these drone targets as "criminals", demanding that we cease military operations against them. That legalistic attitude has already cost us any chance of success in Afghanistan, we don't need more if it.
The key thing is that regardless of certain peoples' sensitivities, there is a war going on. It's ugly (as are they all) and mistakes will be made. More importantly than this understanding of mistakes is the concept that this is an ideological war, and the only way to stamp out an ideology is to kill enough of its' adherents that they can't trouble you too much.
This comes to my third point about this hack job of an article. There is a whole lot of "we create more terrorists than we kill with _" floating around, and a fair bit of it settled here. First, I don't buy that, at least as far as it makes things any worse for us. The kids of a jihadist are brainwashed from birth to despise us "kufr", so killing them is merely proactive counter terrorism, and pissing them off doesn't change their attitude. At least after we blow dad into a red mist they know that we can and will kill them, and that sort of lesson will take with at least a few of them. Overall: net gain to our side.
Not nice and certainly not "liberal", but when we forget the basics "The Gods of the Copybook Headings, with terror and slaughter return!" The (historic, not rosy-hindsight-noble-savage) North American aboriginal peoples knew the score: kids are future warriors and women can breed more of them; you want to remove a threat, you remove ALL of it.
The NA Indians were by no means alone in this appreciation of ugly reality, but I use this as contrast to what is actually occurring on the North West Frontier these days. The locals (mostly Pakistanis) are happy to get rid of these guys and if it takes American Hellfires to do it, so be it, and there is no wholesale slaughter of non-combatants. On the other side of the Durand Line the Afghans (still Pashtuns) are complaining that the new COIN ("don't break anything") doctrine is strengthening the Taliban and other bad actors by removing the only stick we could use against them.
The only thing which will create more terrorists (besides all that Saudi money bankrolling them) is weakness and encouragement from us. And don't even get me going on Mr Rosenbaum's assertion that "There are those who argue that even the threat of a nuclear strike is a war crime". How about this: retreat to your liberal la-la land with your fellow travelers and leave dealing with the messy real world to those of us who live here.
Tuesday, 24 August 2010
Conjecture junction
Just when I was feeling a lack of things to write about that I haven't beaten to a repetitive pulp, salvation comes from of all places Facebook.
Accordingly, the topic du jour is "Conspiracy Theories", specifically those that people adopt without recognizing them as such. It's arguable that if people recognized something as a conspiracy theory (negative connotation of irrationality and unverifiable intended) they wouldn't adopt it. A good old conspiracy on the other hand...
In some ways this is uncharacteristically personal for me, as it was triggered by something posted by a friend, or at least someone who remains so at the time of writing. I've cut people loose before and I'll do it again any time that I need to if they become liabilities or it's clear we no longer have anything in common. We're very close to this point presently because B (let's call him that) seems to be getting sucked in by what I consider dark, irrational forces.
As is plain to anyone who reads this (and I don't think anyone who doesn't know me personally does anyway) you cannot say something that I consider foolish and not have me call you on it. Accordingly, if you post something that talks about how the Israel lobby, aided by "the Rothschilds" controls the media and whitewashes everything in Israel's favour, I'll be all over you.
Firstly, though B denies it, this is standard "Jewish big business controlling the world" conspiracy. Secondly it's patently absurd, especially the media angle; Israel is regularly vilified in the media, the media being largely a product of the leftist puppy mills masquerading as Universities these days.
So, it's apparent that he is sucking this stuff up without any rational or empirical analysis, and despite my intellectual limitations I am an absolute scourge of people like that. What depresses me is that facts and proof, verifiable falsifiable information, has no effect on people who buy into these things.
The foundation of any Conspiracy Theory is something, and it can be anything, that CANNOT BE PROVED. One of the more egregious examples is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. I watched it happen, live on TV, so these idiots are not going to tell me that it was a "controlled demolition". I've seen them though, arguing that the lack of evidence for their allegation is due to a Mossad/CIA plot involving a fictional substance dubbed "nano thermite".
The idea of a CT is to provide an explanation that fits your narrative, in other words to fit events to your worldview (evidence be damned). Preconceptions are particularly resistant to any assault by reasoned debate; most people are intellectually lazy and and find it easier to accept pre-digested ideas. I frequently need to change my views on things as new information comes to me, but not on everything. If your ideas are well founded on facts, only a change in the FACTS, not merely other ideas will necessitate a change.
The ongoing debasement of the English language notwithstanding, I am not Humpty Dumpty; words have particular meanings, not just whatever I decide that they mean. In that vein, the objects of my ire today are properly called Conspiracy Conjectures. A theory is something that originated as a falsifiable hypothesis and was verified by reapeatable testing, and these conspiracies are none of that. Conjecture (paraphrasing from Oxford) is a half-assed idea based on incorrect or incomplete information.
I'm not going to waste time debunking specific things today, but I did my best to make B think about what he's posting. Some of our mutual aquaintances believe some questionable things, and I think this is rubbing off on B. I've asked him for specific examples and some quantifiable info (names and numbers); something tells me that I won't be getting it, but I'd like to be surprised here. And yes, we did land on the Moon.
Accordingly, the topic du jour is "Conspiracy Theories", specifically those that people adopt without recognizing them as such. It's arguable that if people recognized something as a conspiracy theory (negative connotation of irrationality and unverifiable intended) they wouldn't adopt it. A good old conspiracy on the other hand...
In some ways this is uncharacteristically personal for me, as it was triggered by something posted by a friend, or at least someone who remains so at the time of writing. I've cut people loose before and I'll do it again any time that I need to if they become liabilities or it's clear we no longer have anything in common. We're very close to this point presently because B (let's call him that) seems to be getting sucked in by what I consider dark, irrational forces.
As is plain to anyone who reads this (and I don't think anyone who doesn't know me personally does anyway) you cannot say something that I consider foolish and not have me call you on it. Accordingly, if you post something that talks about how the Israel lobby, aided by "the Rothschilds" controls the media and whitewashes everything in Israel's favour, I'll be all over you.
Firstly, though B denies it, this is standard "Jewish big business controlling the world" conspiracy. Secondly it's patently absurd, especially the media angle; Israel is regularly vilified in the media, the media being largely a product of the leftist puppy mills masquerading as Universities these days.
So, it's apparent that he is sucking this stuff up without any rational or empirical analysis, and despite my intellectual limitations I am an absolute scourge of people like that. What depresses me is that facts and proof, verifiable falsifiable information, has no effect on people who buy into these things.
The foundation of any Conspiracy Theory is something, and it can be anything, that CANNOT BE PROVED. One of the more egregious examples is the collapse of the World Trade Center towers on 9/11/2001. I watched it happen, live on TV, so these idiots are not going to tell me that it was a "controlled demolition". I've seen them though, arguing that the lack of evidence for their allegation is due to a Mossad/CIA plot involving a fictional substance dubbed "nano thermite".
The idea of a CT is to provide an explanation that fits your narrative, in other words to fit events to your worldview (evidence be damned). Preconceptions are particularly resistant to any assault by reasoned debate; most people are intellectually lazy and and find it easier to accept pre-digested ideas. I frequently need to change my views on things as new information comes to me, but not on everything. If your ideas are well founded on facts, only a change in the FACTS, not merely other ideas will necessitate a change.
The ongoing debasement of the English language notwithstanding, I am not Humpty Dumpty; words have particular meanings, not just whatever I decide that they mean. In that vein, the objects of my ire today are properly called Conspiracy Conjectures. A theory is something that originated as a falsifiable hypothesis and was verified by reapeatable testing, and these conspiracies are none of that. Conjecture (paraphrasing from Oxford) is a half-assed idea based on incorrect or incomplete information.
I'm not going to waste time debunking specific things today, but I did my best to make B think about what he's posting. Some of our mutual aquaintances believe some questionable things, and I think this is rubbing off on B. I've asked him for specific examples and some quantifiable info (names and numbers); something tells me that I won't be getting it, but I'd like to be surprised here. And yes, we did land on the Moon.
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Imperial Chicken Cordon Bleu
I pondered something about Iran and how to deal with that situation (nukes, particularly, government in general) but I lack enthusiasm for that at the moment. No, the thing that increasingly steams my beans is the growing oppression we in the formerly free West are being subjected to. For the moment this is mostly a problem in the increasingly totalitarian USA, but the virus spreads to our ruling class every time the Yanks touch down on our soil.
Most recently, and not at all close to home, is Obama's performance in L.A. when his peeps shut down entire neighbourhoods for hours so his O-ness could hold a fundraiser at a supporter's house. This has definite parallels with the recent G20/G8 foolishness in Toronto, and outrageous police-state security is de rigeur every time the Americans are involved.
Security and paranoia go hand-in-glove, and both are MAJOR industries in the US. The harsh truth is that when you're up against suicide bombers, no amount to security is foolproof. Certainly most domestic threats against Western aren't at that level, so the shutting down of entire sections of any visited municipality is overkill from either end of the threat spectrum.
Secrecy, swiftness and frequent changes of plan are the keys to minimizing exposure to hostile action. Dates are rarely secret but times can be fudged, routes can be varied, and all it will take is a standard police escort for the VIP convoy. This applies only of course if effectiveness and economy of effort/minimal public disruption are the objectives.
There is however that pesky evidence that keeping "the Principal" safe is not the primary purpose; rather it's keeping the hoi poloi (us) in their place. Tune your news antennae to "egregious security overreach" and I'm sure you'll see more of this, certainly with the current American Imperial house.
Most recently, and not at all close to home, is Obama's performance in L.A. when his peeps shut down entire neighbourhoods for hours so his O-ness could hold a fundraiser at a supporter's house. This has definite parallels with the recent G20/G8 foolishness in Toronto, and outrageous police-state security is de rigeur every time the Americans are involved.
Security and paranoia go hand-in-glove, and both are MAJOR industries in the US. The harsh truth is that when you're up against suicide bombers, no amount to security is foolproof. Certainly most domestic threats against Western aren't at that level, so the shutting down of entire sections of any visited municipality is overkill from either end of the threat spectrum.
Secrecy, swiftness and frequent changes of plan are the keys to minimizing exposure to hostile action. Dates are rarely secret but times can be fudged, routes can be varied, and all it will take is a standard police escort for the VIP convoy. This applies only of course if effectiveness and economy of effort/minimal public disruption are the objectives.
There is however that pesky evidence that keeping "the Principal" safe is not the primary purpose; rather it's keeping the hoi poloi (us) in their place. Tune your news antennae to "egregious security overreach" and I'm sure you'll see more of this, certainly with the current American Imperial house.
Friday, 6 August 2010
Insecurity Theatre
I admit to falling behind here, but it's summer and I'm on vacation so I make no excuses. There is a fair bit of stuff that gets my goat from time-to-time, but I need to have some sort of answer to the goat-getting happenings before I can get a decent rant going.
Although no promises are made for a neat solution to the security theatre making travel such an invasive chore these days, the creeping Orwellian tendencies of certain agencies are more and more on my radar these days. I have already decided that I will NOT undergo a full body scan of the sort today's link talks about; if they want to know what's under my clothes they'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.
Even better, I'll stay in Canada until the Americans realize that no-one anywhere else in the world is more likely to go on a shooting rampage than they are. Likewise there are enough drugs and explosives available in the U.S. and enough illegals pouring over their southern borders that any air traveller (or driver for that matter) coming from anywhere else is not likely to make a material difference if you let ordinary people and law enforcement do what comes naturally when something bad appears.
The full truth of United 93 can never be known, but we can be certain that left alone the scum who hijacked that plane wouldn't have crashed it in that field. It's not much of a choice, but if I knew I was going to die I'd do whatever I could to not take any (more) innocent people with me, and I'm sure that's what Todd Beamer was thinking in his last moments.
As the underwear bomber of last Xmas showed, the best and last line of defence is a self-preserving public who remember the real lesson of 9/11/2001; don't let the terrorists do what they want. Jasper Schuringa likely had that lesson in mind when he jumped Abdulmutallab, and he was the only thing that took any active role in preventing another air massacre. The system, for all of it's obnoxious security agents, scanners, no-fly lists etc. failed epically.
If the goal was in fact ensuring that transportation and the economy kept moving smoothly, bags would still be x-rayed and metal/explosives detectors would still be used. We would also do what has worked (more often than not) forever and "profile" people.
It is a fact that people who are up to something tend to behave strangely. Those damned "naked" scanners wouldn't pick up the very thing (explosive shorts) that they were rushed into action to prevent, but security or boarding agents doing their job and not afraid of being sued for racism or "islamophobia" would have picked Abdulmutallab up before he even boarded, simply for being just a bit too suspicious. All of these overlapping intelligence agencies that don't talk to each other suck resources for little return, and in general the entire system keeps expanding in an effort to cover every possible angle.
Life is risky, and to live it at all we have to allow for some danger. Determining a point of diminishing returns on something like transportation security is fraught, but it's that difficult because of the zero-fault culture we keep moving toward. I can't sort it all out, but here's how you keep planes safe:
Yes, most people are sheep, but there are some sheepdogs out there and it only takes one or two to make all of the difference when things hit the fan. Less is in fact occasionally more, at least more effective when all of the "more" keeps tripping over itself and loses its purpose.
Although no promises are made for a neat solution to the security theatre making travel such an invasive chore these days, the creeping Orwellian tendencies of certain agencies are more and more on my radar these days. I have already decided that I will NOT undergo a full body scan of the sort today's link talks about; if they want to know what's under my clothes they'll have to do it the old-fashioned way.
Even better, I'll stay in Canada until the Americans realize that no-one anywhere else in the world is more likely to go on a shooting rampage than they are. Likewise there are enough drugs and explosives available in the U.S. and enough illegals pouring over their southern borders that any air traveller (or driver for that matter) coming from anywhere else is not likely to make a material difference if you let ordinary people and law enforcement do what comes naturally when something bad appears.
The full truth of United 93 can never be known, but we can be certain that left alone the scum who hijacked that plane wouldn't have crashed it in that field. It's not much of a choice, but if I knew I was going to die I'd do whatever I could to not take any (more) innocent people with me, and I'm sure that's what Todd Beamer was thinking in his last moments.
As the underwear bomber of last Xmas showed, the best and last line of defence is a self-preserving public who remember the real lesson of 9/11/2001; don't let the terrorists do what they want. Jasper Schuringa likely had that lesson in mind when he jumped Abdulmutallab, and he was the only thing that took any active role in preventing another air massacre. The system, for all of it's obnoxious security agents, scanners, no-fly lists etc. failed epically.
If the goal was in fact ensuring that transportation and the economy kept moving smoothly, bags would still be x-rayed and metal/explosives detectors would still be used. We would also do what has worked (more often than not) forever and "profile" people.
It is a fact that people who are up to something tend to behave strangely. Those damned "naked" scanners wouldn't pick up the very thing (explosive shorts) that they were rushed into action to prevent, but security or boarding agents doing their job and not afraid of being sued for racism or "islamophobia" would have picked Abdulmutallab up before he even boarded, simply for being just a bit too suspicious. All of these overlapping intelligence agencies that don't talk to each other suck resources for little return, and in general the entire system keeps expanding in an effort to cover every possible angle.
Life is risky, and to live it at all we have to allow for some danger. Determining a point of diminishing returns on something like transportation security is fraught, but it's that difficult because of the zero-fault culture we keep moving toward. I can't sort it all out, but here's how you keep planes safe:
- metal detectors, etc. screen out the guns knives and bombs;
- cockpit doors are locked for the duration of the flight, thus removing physical takeover of the plane as an option, and;
- Attached to the seat in front of each passenger is an 18" hardwood truncheon. Most effective use of the truncheon in close quarters will be demonstrated as part of the safety lecture.
Yes, most people are sheep, but there are some sheepdogs out there and it only takes one or two to make all of the difference when things hit the fan. Less is in fact occasionally more, at least more effective when all of the "more" keeps tripping over itself and loses its purpose.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)