But then the same could be said about just about every arm of Homeland Security... most especially FEMA. Brownie did not do a good job, and nobody since has either.
###
2 hours ago
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
March 10, 2012
December 2, 2011
Rand Paul sides with ACLU?
When Alabama's Republican Senator Jeff Sessions proposed an amendment to a just-passed bill that would give the President the authority to continue jailing a terrorist suspect found not guilty by a court, Kentucky's Tea Party darling Rand Paul showed his libertarian streak.
“There is one thing and one thing only protecting innocent Americans from being detained at will at the hands of a too-powerful state – our Constitution, and the checks we put on government power.”
That is precisely the ACLU's position.
###
September 11, 2011
October 3, 2010
The Controversial Non Sequitur Muhammad Comic Strip
H/T New Humanist via Hemant...
Take note of Wiley Miller‘s comic strip Non Sequitur in your newspaper this weekend if it regularly appears there.
Several newspapers are rejecting this Sunday’s strip in advance.
What’s so offensive about it?
So that’s where we’re at now. Some papers are scared shitless because someone is simply implying the existence of a drawing of Muhammad.
Miller was equally disturbed:
They have, haven’t they?
When the comic shows up on his syndicate’s website this weekend, please post it wherever you can.
So here it is...
~~
Take note of Wiley Miller‘s comic strip Non Sequitur in your newspaper this weekend if it regularly appears there.
Several newspapers are rejecting this Sunday’s strip in advance.
What’s so offensive about it?
[It] depicts a lazy, sunny park scene with the caption, “Picture book title voted least likely to ever find a publisher… ‘Where’s Muhammad?’” Characters in the park are buying ice cream, fishing, roller skating, etc. No character is depicted as even Middle Eastern.
So that’s where we’re at now. Some papers are scared shitless because someone is simply implying the existence of a drawing of Muhammad.
Miller was equally disturbed:
“[T]he irony of editors being afraid to run even such a tame cartoon as this that satirizes the blinding fear in media regarding anything surrounding Islam sadly speaks for itself. Indeed, the terrorists have won.”
They have, haven’t they?
When the comic shows up on his syndicate’s website this weekend, please post it wherever you can.
So here it is...
~~
December 28, 2009
Chicken Littleism
How Hysteria = a Win for Terrorists
About two years ago the Cato Institute’s Ben Friedman wrote an article in the Washington Times regarding what he called the Politics of Chicken Littleism, and how media hysteria and the use of the Precautionary Principle is giving the Terrorists just what they want. The goal of terrorism is to instill terror, and because of hysterical reporting and commentary surrounding even amateurish, failed terroristic efforts, the terrorists are winning.
Friedman identified some recent examples of the Principle’s application, such as the U.S. involvement in the Iraq war. The excuse for the war was that Saddam had WMDs, and the reactionary assault on Iraqi sovereignty was "necessary" as a "preventive measure." The reactionary definition of the Precautionary Principle as applied to the "War on Terror" could be summarized:
About two years ago the Cato Institute’s Ben Friedman wrote an article in the Washington Times regarding what he called the Politics of Chicken Littleism, and how media hysteria and the use of the Precautionary Principle is giving the Terrorists just what they want. The goal of terrorism is to instill terror, and because of hysterical reporting and commentary surrounding even amateurish, failed terroristic efforts, the terrorists are winning.
Friedman identified some recent examples of the Principle’s application, such as the U.S. involvement in the Iraq war. The excuse for the war was that Saddam had WMDs, and the reactionary assault on Iraqi sovereignty was "necessary" as a "preventive measure." The reactionary definition of the Precautionary Principle as applied to the "War on Terror" could be summarized:
“…any threat to national security should be met with preventive action, regardless of cost or the remoteness of the risk.”
Keep in mind that bit about cost, then consider the unnecessary clamor over the “Underwear Bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.
That the pre-boarding security systems failed is undeniable, but media hysteria and wingnut reactionism is playing right into the hands of terrorists. The delusional boy failed in his attempt at martyrdom (thanks to quick reacting fellow passengers) and is now talking his head off providing some (hopefully) good intelligence.
So this must mean that, in the end, the premptive transportation security system worked and terrorism failed, right?
Wrong
A single, amateur terrorist failed, not because of the premptive systems we have instituted, but because of individual passengers who did not want to become victims. Terrorism came out a big winner.
As evidence, witness the reactionaries marching to the pulpit...
Rep. Pete Hoekstra, (R-Michigan) is the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, and on FOX News Sunday, Rep. Hoekstra suggested that President Obama was responsible for the security failures, and that Mr. Abdulmutallab's ability to board the flight was evidence that the administration doesn’t take preparedness seriously. "The threat to the United States is real. I think this administration has downplayed it," said Hoekstra.
Rep. Peter King (R-New York) got into the act as well, speaking on CBS's Face the Nation. “We do need the full-body scan, especially when you have countries like Nigeria, which have inadequate security to begin with; then you have passengers transiting in Amsterdam and coming here.”
Not to worry, fellas, awareness is heightened and additional security measures were being instituted before you could rush in front of the nearest camera, and even the innocent will pay the price for something that could have happened... but didn't.
The goal of terrorists is being realized thanks to a shrill media, pompous politicians and over-reacting bureaucrats. The terrorist act attempted by Mr. Abdulmutallab achieved its purpose without the taking of a single life, and now we'll be lucky if the TSA doesn’t require us to strip to our shorts and submit to a full-body, hands-on pat down and cavity search.
It may indeed be prudent to institute precautions in our efforts to protect people from terrorists, and that pre-boarding security screening is necessary, but to what extent do we allow the invasion? How much liberty are we willing to sacrifice? In every instance we must, in spite of the desperate warnings, consider the cost. One of America’s greatest wordsmiths, Benjamin Franklin, in a February 17, 1775 address to the Pennsylvania Assembly, observed that “…they who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
You can put me on Ben's side when it comes to matters like these. Considering the rarity of success the terrorists have enjoyed, I am of the opinion that we have sacrificed quite enough of our freedom.
~~
August 24, 2009
Doom and Gloom
I heard it again the other day… how President George W. Bush kept us safe for seven years… I guess in a way it must be the truth, but then I have to wonder…
Hasn’t President Obama hasn’t kept us safe for the past 217 days? Didn’t most of our presidents keep us safe for most of all of their terms in office? Previous to 9/11, the only attacks by foreign terrorists on American soil that I can remember were Pearl Harbor and the first World Trade Center attack.
So what are people saying when they say, “The President Has Kept Us Safe”? That WSJ blog post is more than a year old. I’ve read it a few times and I still don’t understand the point. To me, saying Bush kept us safe is a trite statement about a trite president. The statement itself is senseless. I understand neither the left wingers chafing nor the right wing venom circulating the sphere, calling Obama a weak defender of America.
How is it that so many of our people become so single-sided and fail to understand that every issue has multiple facets?
Folks who read me know I disliked the shrub (I was predisposed. He was my governor before he was your president, and he screwed up my Rangers before that). He was, in my opinion, a figurative leader of the most blunderbuss administration since Millard Fillmore occupied the residence. Astute readers may also have noticed that I tend to liken Bush to a puppet, with the real problem being the hand(s) inside the puppet.
To give Bush credit, however, toward the end he seemed to have somewhat figured this out. Ashcroft and Rummy were gone before the middle of the second term, and Cheney was more than somewhat marginalized. In the end, George W. Bush, if considered as an individual, would likely be judged an okay guy; but very likely not the savior of post 9/11 America.
But who would be?
If Al Gore had won in 2000 things would have been different, but probably not better. Osama’s plans were well into the action stages long before the election, so the attack would have transpired regardless. The only difference would have been Gore’s reaction.
Likely it is only Iraq that would have been different, as I feel certain even Gore would have gone to Afghanistan after bin Laden, and I feel just as certain there would still have been no attacks on American soil to follow. So, I have to chuckle a little when I think of what the wingers might be saying if Gore had won, managed a second term, and then skated to 2008 without another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The only thing likely to have changed would be which wingers were slinging what kind of crap.
But Bush won and things went badly. Some really poor policy decisions were made. Gore would likely have made poor decisions too, and at some point in our future America will likely look back at our excesses and recognize them as the reasons for troubles yet to come. The bad guys of the world would point to unlawful or unwise actions and use them to excuse untold terror. To the world, we very likely will always be the evil America. If Gore had won they would have found another excuse, but we would still be the evil America.
Not Letting Bush Up; the Mistakes
Regardless, we have to play the hand we’ve been dealt. The inexplicable decision of the Bush administration to invade Iraq, pushing Afghanistan to the sidelines and letting bin Laden have room to run, has fruitlessly caused the deaths of thousands of America’s youth, and most certainly rendered our country less safe in the long run. With Iraq, Bush divided our country and the world. With his oddball policies and bizarre actions towards our supposed allies, he alienated almost the entire planet.
Another president may have done better or worse, but for the moment the homeland seems reasonably safe, and it may or may not be due to the policies of any president. Our foreign wars may very well be that which keeps the homeland safe. After all, why would terrorists cross the oceans to kill Americans when we come to them and they can so easily achieve the same purpose on their own soil?
So did George W. Bush really keep us safe? Has Obama kept us safe since? Both concepts are jokes. Have we ever been safe? Will we ever be… regardless of who occupies the White House?
Just because there have been no attacks on our homeland since 9/11 does not mean we are safe today. Barring some astounding and dramatic change in human nature, we will not be safe ten, twenty or even a hundred years from now. There likely was nothing anyone could have done different in 2001 or since that would have changed this outcome. Just as in our domestic politics, the wingnuts of the world are driving humanity to ruin.
If we are to survive we must find our way out of the wings. Somewhere, there must be people of moderate mind. Somewhere.
~~
Hasn’t President Obama hasn’t kept us safe for the past 217 days? Didn’t most of our presidents keep us safe for most of all of their terms in office? Previous to 9/11, the only attacks by foreign terrorists on American soil that I can remember were Pearl Harbor and the first World Trade Center attack.
So what are people saying when they say, “The President Has Kept Us Safe”? That WSJ blog post is more than a year old. I’ve read it a few times and I still don’t understand the point. To me, saying Bush kept us safe is a trite statement about a trite president. The statement itself is senseless. I understand neither the left wingers chafing nor the right wing venom circulating the sphere, calling Obama a weak defender of America.
How is it that so many of our people become so single-sided and fail to understand that every issue has multiple facets?
Folks who read me know I disliked the shrub (I was predisposed. He was my governor before he was your president, and he screwed up my Rangers before that). He was, in my opinion, a figurative leader of the most blunderbuss administration since Millard Fillmore occupied the residence. Astute readers may also have noticed that I tend to liken Bush to a puppet, with the real problem being the hand(s) inside the puppet.
To give Bush credit, however, toward the end he seemed to have somewhat figured this out. Ashcroft and Rummy were gone before the middle of the second term, and Cheney was more than somewhat marginalized. In the end, George W. Bush, if considered as an individual, would likely be judged an okay guy; but very likely not the savior of post 9/11 America.
But who would be?
If Al Gore had won in 2000 things would have been different, but probably not better. Osama’s plans were well into the action stages long before the election, so the attack would have transpired regardless. The only difference would have been Gore’s reaction.
Likely it is only Iraq that would have been different, as I feel certain even Gore would have gone to Afghanistan after bin Laden, and I feel just as certain there would still have been no attacks on American soil to follow. So, I have to chuckle a little when I think of what the wingers might be saying if Gore had won, managed a second term, and then skated to 2008 without another terrorist attack on U.S. soil. The only thing likely to have changed would be which wingers were slinging what kind of crap.
But Bush won and things went badly. Some really poor policy decisions were made. Gore would likely have made poor decisions too, and at some point in our future America will likely look back at our excesses and recognize them as the reasons for troubles yet to come. The bad guys of the world would point to unlawful or unwise actions and use them to excuse untold terror. To the world, we very likely will always be the evil America. If Gore had won they would have found another excuse, but we would still be the evil America.
Not Letting Bush Up; the Mistakes
Regardless, we have to play the hand we’ve been dealt. The inexplicable decision of the Bush administration to invade Iraq, pushing Afghanistan to the sidelines and letting bin Laden have room to run, has fruitlessly caused the deaths of thousands of America’s youth, and most certainly rendered our country less safe in the long run. With Iraq, Bush divided our country and the world. With his oddball policies and bizarre actions towards our supposed allies, he alienated almost the entire planet.
Another president may have done better or worse, but for the moment the homeland seems reasonably safe, and it may or may not be due to the policies of any president. Our foreign wars may very well be that which keeps the homeland safe. After all, why would terrorists cross the oceans to kill Americans when we come to them and they can so easily achieve the same purpose on their own soil?
So did George W. Bush really keep us safe? Has Obama kept us safe since? Both concepts are jokes. Have we ever been safe? Will we ever be… regardless of who occupies the White House?
Just because there have been no attacks on our homeland since 9/11 does not mean we are safe today. Barring some astounding and dramatic change in human nature, we will not be safe ten, twenty or even a hundred years from now. There likely was nothing anyone could have done different in 2001 or since that would have changed this outcome. Just as in our domestic politics, the wingnuts of the world are driving humanity to ruin.
If we are to survive we must find our way out of the wings. Somewhere, there must be people of moderate mind. Somewhere.
~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)