Terror alert raised to Elmo level
Our vaunted Homeland Security Department has raised the terror level to Elmo on the Sesame Street terror alert scale, long a resident of our sidebar.
This will give something for the cable news readers to jabber mindlessly about for a few days, and will help Karl Rove with his stated strategy (the only one they have left) of trying to rely on the same tactic which proved so successful the past election, namely, portraying Bush as the only person who can keep you safe from the terrorists lurking behind your shrubbery who are fanatically committed to killing YOU, yes YOU, Mildred Krasmer of Tywhoppety, KY! And your little dog Toto too!!
As a matter of fact, as we've been told repeatedly, if you enjoy freedom, they want to kill you. Apparently, they've got some hang-up about freedom. These "terrists" hate freedom, as I'm sure you've heard dozens of times. And so the best way to fight them is to give up a whole lot of your own freedom in the name of.. freedom. Yeah, that's it.
But above all, remember to be scared, very scared, at all times. Oh yeah, and go shop. Buy a lot of stuff, but don't forget to be really scared at all times.
So scared you can't think critically and will associate yourself mindlessly with any authority who claims to keep you safe, and instantly hate those they tell you would welcome the terrists and give them a parade down Main St. These people, people who hate their own country as much as the terrists do (Remember, there's not any difference between these terrorist lovers and the terrists themselves, so deep is their commitment to destroy the country and their burning hatred of it) are of course, liberals and Democrats.
Why liberals and Democrats hate and are working day and night to destroy the very country they and their families live and work in themselves makes no sense whatsoever, but skip that part, it's not important. After all, when you've heard something 20 times a day for years, it must be true, right?
It's only surprising to me that the government didn't sit on this report of a thwarted terrorist plot until just before the elections. After all, they waited over a month after the fact to announce that they'd made arrests of suspects in the kidnapping of a journalist in Iraq.
I fully believe we can expect some concerted campaign to drive the country into a state of near panic as the elections approach, which the Republicans can continue to try to exploit.
And of course, the media are more than happy to participate and help out, offering breathless and harebrained commentary designed to scare the bejesus out of people beyond all rational levels.
Roosevelt, a true leader, famously warned that all we have to fear is fear itself. By contrast, the only thing this administration, perhaps the worst leadership in the country's history, fears, is that people won't be fearful enough and might actually stand up, think for themselves, and oppose them.
What do you think of this foiled plot and the attendant media frenzy? What do you predict Bush and Republicans will do to exploit this and try to claim that Republicans, and only Republicans, can possibly keep our country safe from attack?
How do you think their attempt to sell the idea that people who don't favor "staying the course" are "cut and run" cowards? Bearing in mind that over half the country opposes staying in Iraq, how well will this strategy work?
How badly will politicians of all stripes hyper-react and rush to microphones and cameras to inflate the danger and propose all sorts of whacky and ineffective things be done in response (mostly things which would financially help their donors or bring money to their districts)?
Mitt Romney, a presumed presidential contender, has already rushed to the mic to explain in detail all the heightened security procedures being instituted at airports. I guess a Governor has to do that, though it seems below his pay grade.
Anyway... is anyone else as cynical about these things as I am? (If that's possible.)
posted by The Inside Dope @ 8/10/2006
20 comments
20 Comments:
I am indeed just as cynical. I posted a response to the madness on my own blog this morning, but focused on a different aspect than you have here.
TID, there is good reason for the reaction. As temporarily painful as it may be, it's probably a good step; and I'm glad that the UK police picked up on this. But, yes, the edgy side of Huck is still cynical:
I'm surprised the new prohibition of liquids on flights wasn't coordinated with corporate America or with health officials.
Airline connections at major airports are so short and airborne beverage service is so poor and inadequate (especially on Delta)that millions of business travelers have come to rely on airport coffee kiosks and shops for $5 cups of coffee and $3 bottles of water. All of these businesses will suffer as a result. I sold all my shares in Starbuck's this morning.
We should also warn Americans about the health hazards of flying jammed in a coach seat while dehydrated and with bad breath. We will see a rise in sinus blocks and potentially fatal blood clots in coach passengers as a result of poor circulation and dehydration. And don't forget to warn passengers not to drink the bacteria-filled water from the sinks in aircraft lavatories!
Maybe it's all a secret attempt to make Amtrak profitable.
Step 1: Scare everyone
Step 2: Bring some troops home
Step 3: Put Gay Amendments on the ballot
All of this equals...
A Republican victory in November
Not that I'm cynical or anything
I'd think all the predatory airport vendors would benefit, rather than suffer. After all, they're making people throw away all the beverages they brought with them, making it necessary to buy some from the airport thieves.
After a long flight, they'll have to replace all the stuff they thought they could bring along to drink.
I'm not affected by this stuff, as when I fly, I fly the Dope Jet, but I'd seriously reconsider flying now that the hassle level has gone past my acceptible level.
And I haven't heard a lot about this story, as the cable news yappers make my skin crawl as they try to fill the hours with basically nothing, but what I'd like to know is just what intelligence information did they get that made a complete ban on any liquid or gel on any planes necessary???
I mean, that sounds pretty amazing. What were they planning? Bringing napalm on board disqugsed as a can of Barbasol? Bringing a bottle of gasoline in a gatorade bottle?
It just seems so extreme to be banning ALL liquids or gels of any sort. Surely the bomb sniffing machines can detect something like that.
And it's unknown how long this alert will last. So if they go back to the normal precautions, won't it then be that much easier for this unnamed attack to take place THEN?
Seriously, where does this madness end?
They'll keep getting scared of this, then that, then the other method of supposed attack until everyone wishing to fly will have to sit in a quarentine area for a week before boarding while every inch of their body is probed and their luggage, which will now consist of perhaps a change of underwear only, will undergo thorough chemical analysis.
The point being, that anything can be a weapon, any one who's determined to breach airline security will be able to do so.
So how much of this crap is justified and at what point is it simply a waste of time? Where is the balance between convenience, privacy, expediency, and freedom.... and security?
Since there is no such thing as absolute security, where do you draw the line?
HA! No.... you cynical? Get out!
But I do think you're catching on.
HA! No.... you cynical? Get out!
But I do think you're catching on.
Reminds me of a quote from Frank Zappa which has always stuck with me. He said that you can never be too cynical.
Gee Dope, I didn't know you had a fleet of your very own airlines! Next time I fly - I haven't gotten on a plane in over 10 years - I will most definitely fly DOPE AIRLINES!!
As for your reminder to GO SHOP! for national security reasons, well I just mailed that to the husband, and for the environments sake I am greenly shopping online, besides,(big white pearly smile with 'my colors' shade of lipstick) my favorite color is green.
How much do you think I need to spend to keep our country secure Dope? I have also brought out my years supply of duct tape. Now that's security!! I think my husband has all our plumbing, gaslines and maybe even walls and cieling held together by duct tape, so I know our own private "homeland" is secure. Except of course where the rain and snow have kind of softened the duct tape, I do notice a few leaks here and there in the plumbing, a few of the gas lines to the appliances smell funny and some of the walls and part of the cieling is loose and saggy but I know we are SAFE using DUCT TAPE or is DUCK TAPE.. or my what if he used the wrong kind....
Jim do you have much room to talk. You lost to Andrea Zinga. I hear you forgot that the district was more than just Rock Island County.
Yeah, what Dope just said. :)
What's unfortunate though is Jim will either say your comment is too long to reply to (way past Dick and Jane length) or he'll take his ball and go home, again.
Someday we'll have to get on airplanes in our underwear sans carry-on luggage while we occupy Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and France. And Jimbo here will feel safer because of it. Then he'll call people "hybrid-socialists" with an agenda when they oppose boarding planes naked and invading Lybia.
Don't get me wrong - I think it's great the folks in the UK caught this. What stands out (to me at least) is that they caught it without needing to make everyone in the damn airport dump their drinks and empty their shampoo bottles.
That's truly a gem KK! VERY funny.
And yes, when we're living in times which test the credulity of any thinking person, it's kind of necessary to maintain a sense of humor about it.
Actually, the best way to protest and resist this rougue administration is to simply refuse to be afraid.
Be brave, the right will hate you for it!!
Jimbo,
I guess it'll boil down to what happens, and if it happens. Then we'll see if it did us a lot of good to have you and others running around with your hair on fire, shaking in your boots that the terrorists are about to come marching down your street.
Countries have lived under much greater terrorist threat than we currently face for decades, Israel chief among them.
I don't think they freak out and live in a state of quaking fear, mindlessly throwing billions of dollars at the problem willy-nilly with no apparent logic or plan at all.
But then again, Israel has spent billions of our dollars I guess, and they've recently gone a bit nuts.
At any rate, I sure get a good laugh out of "hybrid socialist."
That's good Jim. Did you recently read that in a book? You seem very fond of the term and like to use it at every opportunity.
Hybrid-socialism sounds like a good, accurate description of our present system of government, which I get the feeling you'd like to change in a fundamental way. (no pun intended)
Anyone can obviously see how the Bush administration has cynically tried to manipulate nearly everything for their political benefit. It's sound bites and public relations masquaradeing as governance and leadership.
They don't do anything as much as they simply sell the image or impression that they're doing something.
They know that if the public was aware of the things they actualyl are actually doing, there'd be a revolt, hence the need for such duplicity and smoke and mirrors.
It's clear that they've been purposely trotting out minor and almost laughably inept "terror plots" in the past, such as the band of misfits in Miami, and about one ridiculous thing every week while Ashcroft was the top cop.
And someone (I'll have to try and find it) has actually constructed a time line which shows how every time something came up which threatened to make Bush look bad, or a negative story broke, they'd announce a terror alert or something similar to distract the public. It's pretty convincing to see the timeline.
As I ask in my post, when does all this paranoia and billions in security measures cross the line into delusion and essentially a national nervous breakdown?
You apparently think that, what? That we should bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb untill all the terrorists are dead? (as if that's possible)
Frankly, I'm not sure what you think we should do because continuing to do what we are currently doing, only more of it, is simply wrong, utterly ineffective, and almost farcical in many instances.
And thousands of men, women, and children are DYING because of it. (and not just "evil-doers" or people with a different religion and skin color, which apparently is ok with some people. Sooner or later, if it hasn't already, it will be someone you know or love.)
I'm all for measures to tighten security at ports, and other common sense security measures more along the lines of law enforcement. But those never seem to get done and Bush underfunds them routinely.
In the meantime, billions are squandered giving money to companies and buying every manner of security crap of dubious purpose or effectiveness, contracting out security services to companies and others who saw a bonanza in "homeland" security and are raking in millions.
But this system of random spasms of security at airports is pretty iffy as to it's effectiveness.
The system simply does not exist to protect us from any determined terrorist attacks. Period.
If there is one, please let me know.
The best way to prevent them would be to stop creating new committed terrorists by the millions around the globe.
We're doing just that by invading muslim countries which pose no threat to the U.S. and then allowing the country to be looted, destroying the infrastructure, the military and government, and then trying to pound a square political peg into a round hole for years at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of tragic deaths, while the country suffers more than they ever suffered under Hussein, and all the while refusing to come to grips with the fact that it was all a mistake, isn't working, and will never ever work.
If one didn't know better, you'd think Bush was doing everything possible to ensure a near endless war.
He's made Iraq more powerful and influential than they ever were, handed bin Laden and other radical leaders every thing they could ever dream of. All of the lives and billions have only HELPED the very people we were supposedly out to supress.
Basically, our troops are dying while Bush and the right try to figure out some way to get out of Iraq without admitting they were dead wrong all along.
People are dying so Bush can save face.
And I might be a "hybrid socialist" (If you say so) but even I can figure out that not invading, bombing, killing, and raping the inhabitants of muslim countries would probably help keep us a little safer too. (not to mention it would be much more Christian-like, don't you think?)
Jim, tell us just what do you propose we do to prevent an attack?
Or are you living under the delusion that it's possible to make this country completely safe somehow?
And after an attack, which hopefully won't ever occur, just what do you think we should do then? Pick another country to invade? Kill millions more?
And finally, isn't this supposed to be the home of the brave?
When did it become "manly" to run around tearing at your face and waving your arms yelling about how we have to do whatever Dear Leader tells us to or the evil-doers will stand over us and make us suffer an unimaginably brutal slow death while uulating the entire time?
After all, just what is it that we're supposed to do that we're not already (ineptly) doing to keep the country "safe"??
Again, the best thing that we could possibly do to decrease the liklihood of attack and provide for the security of the country is to get the hell out of soverign countries, stop acting like miltaristic overlord thugs who think we can just take whatever we feel like, and go back to treating other nations with the basic respect we expect from them.
That's made us the most admired and emulated nation on earth for over two centuries. Now the disasterous misrule of one president and his far right enablers has taken us from that rightly deserved position of honor and respect to being reviled and hated by most of the planet.
I might paraphrase your question and throw it back to you,
What will it take for you to snap out of it and realize that it's Bush and his policies and the "war against terror" that has both made us much more vulnerable and much more likely to be attacked?
When will you admit that they lied like theives to drag us into this utter disaster, and folks like you are still following like sheep, scared of the boogie men they constantly tell you to be scared of, by using words like "evil", monsters, islamofascists, and dozens and dozens of truly dangerous and ridiculous words all designed to dehumanize the enemy, whoever the hell that might be this week, and keep you TOO FRIGHTENED TO THINK STRAIGHT.
And you swallow all the BS every time they tell you how almost super-humanly sophisticated they are, how they're capable of anything, even though their worst attack was accomplished with freaking box cutters, for God's sake! And even that was a stroke of luck. If the air national guard had been doing their jobs, and most importantly, if BUSH and Condi hadn't simply IGNORED several specific and credible warnings that bin Laden was determined to strike in a big way in the U.S., 9-11 would likely have been prevented.
Just like a child clinging to their Dad's leg when it's dark out and they hear thunder, you and others seem unable to let go of Bush's leg while they tell you ghost stories about the giant kid eating monsters who make the lightening and have rays that will suck your guts out of your belly button and that they're behind every tree. They've got you scared beyond all reason and believing all manner of hyper-inflated threats.
You're so scared that you're actually EAGER to eat up each new and improved scary story to the point where you truly believe that some guys hanging out in caves are capable of literally anything your imagination can concoct.
Tomorrow some cable show might run some piece about how terrorists could poison ice cream, and you'll shake in your boots and say a prayer later when you drive by Dairy Queen and look twice at that dark skinned person in line at the drive thru.
And if pressed, you'd probably vote to jail swarthy looking people and allow the government to listen in to anyone's phone and internet communications at any time for any reason with no court approval, would gladly allow Bush to determine "enemies of the state" and lock them up without charges or trial, and a host of things which would render the constitution meaningless.
I don't feel it's an exageration or a stretch to say that you'd likely support the country going to a true police state.
And next time Rumsfeld or Bush or any number of their shills in the media tell you about how very, very scary these people are and how they want to kill YOU personally, (and Christians in particular) and our only hope is to continue to throw billions and billions and perpetually get Americans murdered and in turn murder Iraqi citizens in the name of Jesus, you'll be ready to stand up and salute and pledge your undying loyalty to the authoritative image you think will protect you.
See how it works?
Despots and dictators throughout history have been well aware of the value of a scared population, as well as the necessity of an enemy to fight in keeping and expanding power.
Hermann Goering, the notorious Nazi, said while awaiting trial at Nuremberg,
""Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Perhaps no other administration in our history has relied on that fact more than this one.
And the sad fact is, you're falling for it.
In January of 2003 FBI and CIA whistleblowers told Capitol Hill Blue that the White House was scripting phony terror alerts to maintain hysteria, upkeep President Bush’s approval ratings and milk extra defense funding.
Numerous questions need to be asked about this latest attempt by the dirty Neo-Fascist slugs to bully people into placating to being treated like slaves and updates on the frothing propaganda being spewed by the news networks need to be quantified.
Shalom,
--- Prof. Leland Milton Goldblatt, Ph.D. ®
http://www.prof.faithweb.com
http://drgoldblatt.blogspot.com/
New Dr. Goldblatt's Message Board: http://www.eboards4all.com/867960/
Nico,
Before I get started pointing out where you've been brainwashed and where you're thinking veers into dangerous territory, perhaps you should first explain just who these people are that you say don't "value human life in general", for instance.
And among all the reckless and basicallly extreme accusations you use, just which one's can't be applied to us?
And I should point out that, contrary to what you suggest, no one is saying we shouldn't be "vigilant" against terror attacks.
Also, last I heard, Republicans are firmly in charge of the entire government from top to bottom. Why ask Dems how to get them out of this mess?
But I see what you mean. I think it's simple. Go to any Dem candidates' web site or some of the party sites and simply READ what the Dems would do to get out of this mess.
Don't sit there expecting to hear any Dem proposals on cable talk shows.
Jim, I should thank you. If you had won we may of had a race on our hands. It is a sure victory for Phil now.
I do commend you for "throwing your hat in the ring." Also, I wish you the best in your future endeavors.
Sorry for the shot below the belt, but Zinga man come on. As you can tell I am not her biggest fan.
I'm glad to see that none of this has disrupted the President's vacation.
I think I heard that Chimpy was cutting his precious vacation down to just a week.
And it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if Mowen had enough support. I think he could have been exposed as a pretty radical theocrat who supports government funding of religious organizations and more, and an anti-government candidate trying like heck to become part of the government, evidently to kill it.
Yea, I definitly wouldn't have supported any of the man's ideas. However, I think he would have scored points by just not being Zinga. She is still looked down upon for bringing a man's health into a race, and for good reason. Also, she has no ideas, she wants the courts to decide everything,and the biggest initative she is pushing is bringing more kids to commununity college, which is a noble cause, but I think she just trying to pick up some of the BHC vote. Since there is already a very dicounted rate for metrolink to the BHC students. I believe it is 30 dollars a semester.
Mowen's religous right ideas may have not won him the seat, but I think if he would have kept quiet and not told people what he was going to do, and just spew the crap about Phil not being selected by the people, he would have had a shot. Zinga does not, atleast the stradegy doesn't seem to be working right now.
Just for starters, it's a radical idea to mix government with religion.
How's that?
This isn't about "efficiency" to you, it's a weasel-like attempt to blur the line between church and state.
Why lie about it?
I suppose that were this country so unlucky to have this policy expanded, with tax dollars flowing to church organizations, we'd find that, lo and behold, it was only Christian organizations which were "efficient" and thus worthy of government funding.
And assuming that church groups could provide the level of help any more efficiently that government agencys is simply conjecture.
There's no evidence of that, and comparing the two is of course, comparing apples and oranges anyway.
By the wording of your comment above, it seems clear that you're not so sure the government should have ANY role in social services or aid to the poor.
That too, is a radical notion, which would not only take our society back to the 19th century, but is anti-Christian and immoral by almost anyone's understanding of basic Christian teachings.
The American people are very generous and already do a great deal as individuals and various social service agencies, including church organizations, in helping the less fortunate.
But pull the plug on government programs, and there is simply no way that private charity is going to take up the slack.
If your disingenous argument is that groups affiliated with religions should receive public funding because they may be more "efficient" in providing aid, then the solution isn't to hand them money, but to work to improve the efficiency of programs already in place.
Churches should never be put in a position where they depend on public tax dollars for support. It will pervert and distort their very natures, and introduce corruption and fraud on a scale likely larger than any government fraud and abuse which currently exists.
It's a bad idea, and a majority of Americans can see it's a bad idea.
The fact that the government is currently funneling money to chosen Christian organizations is something most Americans aren't even aware of.
This isn't by accident.
If it was better publicized, I think people would howl.
That's why I think your views are radical. They're pretty far away from where the country is at, despite the fact that the constant drumbeat of right wing media might make you think they're not.
People are sick of these radical ideas and attempts to fundementally change government by essentially destroying it.
Government needs to be improved, not destroyed.
And I think the days of ideologues and their radical ideas, which may have held some appeal to many on first blush, but which crumble under closer examination, are on the wane.
I have to go pay my property taxes now. I only pray to God that they're not going to some religious organizations. I can donate to them on my own.
Jim, have we ever discovered why you're such a theocrat that you immediately accuse anyone who opposes your desire to conflate christianity with government as "anti-Christian", "hate filled" or now, anti-religion?
You're dumb as dirt if you think that, and I know you can't find any thing I've ever written which suggests that I am anti-religion in any way, let alone anti-Christian.
Those are just the last refuge of someone who is dancing around their true agenda.
And as well, I'd point out your attempt to again mischaracterize what I've said. I am not saying we need to throw "more money" at government.
But you want to cut ALL money to government programs, which will cause real harm to real people.
I think Jesus would walk up to your face and tell you you've really lost your way in thinking that government, or anything which helps the "least" among us should be spurned and not supported.
You want religious orgs to do the work, then fine. Give them money out of your own pocket.
But there is simply NO precedent, nor any good reason to go into the incredible mess of providing tax money to religious groups.
First of all, it would mean that ANY group should be eligible to provide aid, no matter what, including wiccan or rastafarians, or several other religions of which I'm certain you have a dim view of.
Christians think they can help the poor by trying to bring them to Jesus or whatever their particular belief is. Well, Rastafarians might think that they can help the poor by encouraging them to smoke pot, and Wiccans might require them to attend pagan ceremonies before getting aid.
Why would anyone in their right mind want to open that can of worms?
Everyone in the history of this country has been sane enough to realize that there simply must be a clear separation between church and state. What is it about you that suddenly thinks it's an ok idea?
That's like me suddenly advocating that the poor and hungry should have to work at corporate work farms in order to get aid.
Why suddenly decide that a long respected and established common sense division between church and state should be tossed out and abandoned?
And again, I'd be glad to fill you in on why I'm anti-religion, if that were the case.
Tell us why you think anyone who opposes your radical theocratic notions is "anti-Christian" or "Anti-Religion" in your view.
Hang on there Jim,
You say my statements "claim" I'm anti-Christian.
WHERE Jim. Give ONE example, if you can.
I've asked you to please point out which statements show that and you keep weaseling out of it.
Please do so. Simply saying that I'm anti-Christian doesn't make it so Jim. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.
I am telling you that I've not said anything remotely "anti-Christian" and have asked you repeatedly to back up your name-calling. You can't.
You asked me why I said you had radical ideas, and I specifically explained how and why.
Do the same.
And yes, if you can't grasp why anyone would object to public money going to religious organizations, then I'm afraid you must have slept through civics classes and have a very peculiar understanding of established constitutional law and precepts.
Why aren't churches taxed?
Because they are something different and apart from public entities.
Certainly, if ALL citizens, be they religious or not, are going to be forced to support the religous efforts of one particular sect or religion or religions different from their own, then churches should be fully taxed like all businesses, right? If they want to play that game, then let them jump in all the way.
I've explained at some length why I and the majority of the country object to the blurring or erasure of the line between church and state. The founding father's were smart enough to write it into the constitution, and it doesn't take a lot of smarts to realize why it's a bad idea all around.
I've given specific reasons wny it's both damaging and harmful for both church and government, yet you continue to play dumb.
And correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought I was free to discuss related issues here if I choose to, whether you bring them up or not. Sorry if that throws you for a loop.
What makes you a theocrat?
I'm not certain, but I'd be the farm that you believe the following things which qualifies you as a theocrat, or someone who believes that moving the country further towards a theocracy is the correct path to take.
The simple fact that you belive that the way you interpret your particular religious text (in this case, the Bible) should be the basis of law governing people's behavior, even if it's not harmful to others.
The fact that you have expressed the belief that your particular religious beliefs is the only truth and your desire to impose that particular view of morality on all citizens through laws restricting people's rights and freedoms.
The fact that you likely believe that America is a Christian nation, and that therefore it should be assumed that everyone must follow not only Christian beliefs, but the particular beliefs of fundementalists.
That you believe that everyone who doesn't follow the word of God, as you happen to perceive it, are sinners and that it's perfectly alright to punish and ostracize those who don't happen to believe as you do by force of law.
Now if the above statements are wrong and don't reflect, at least to a large part, your views and beliefs, then say so.
Post a Comment
<< Home