29 November 2010

Sara Palin was right about "death panels"

according to Nat Hentoff, quoting Paul Krugman, who came out and said on This Week that we would need "death panels". Krugman clarifies, here, but Hentoff thinks he's canting. So do I.

Airport security protest fails to get off the ground...

and it's probably a good thing, too.

The desire for such a protest is, at least to me, understandable. I am no fan of the new measures. In fact, I haven't been a fan of many of the other measures, all of which exclude--for politically correct reasons--the one measure which frankly makes the most sense, profiling. Like Charles Krauthammer recently put it:

We pretend that we go through this nonsense as a small price paid to ensure the safety of air travel. Rubbish. This has nothing to do with safety - 95 percent of these inspections, searches, shoe removals and pat-downs are ridiculously unnecessary. The only reason we continue to do this is that people are too cowed to even question the absurd taboo against profiling - when the profile of the airline attacker is narrow, concrete, uniquely definable and universally known. So instead of seeking out terrorists, we seek out tubes of gel in stroller pouches.

To me this is just one more thing we'll get used to until one day our grandchildren will inherit a country ruled be a government so invasive and intrusive as to make the present state of affairs look laissez-faire.

Most disconcerting, from the afore-linked article, was the opinion of one Marti Hancock:

"If that's what you have to do to keep us safe, that's what you have to do."

Say, why not telescreens too, even in personal automobiles? That way we'll know what people are up to before they get to the airport.

Do you think Marti will ever say the following? "If sticking your whole hand up my ass is what you have to do to keep us safe, that's what you have to do." Frankly, I wouldn't put it past her, even though, today, she would probably deny it. After all, presently, the only reason she really knows that's what TSA has to do is because TSA is telling her that's what they have to do. On those grounds, an ass-search shouldn't be objectionable either.

All that aside, the reason it's good that the protest failed is that it would have done nothing to TSA. The only people who would have been affected were the passengers, who would have suffered flight delays, baggage mis-haps and the like. Then, of course, there were those families waiting at destinations who would also have been put out by these delays. Who knows how many Thanksgiving weekends would have been ruined by this.

It's one thing to determine a battle needs fought. It's quite another to choose the right battlefield, as well as the most effective strategies and tactics. This was poorly conceived all around.
09 November 2010

Ah, feudalism, where a man's home is his overlord's castle

At least they don't want in our bedrooms.

Until they can say they have found a connection between the environment (or something) and what goes on in there.
04 November 2010
Need more soup? Just add water.

About Me

James Frank SolĂ­s
Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
View my complete profile

Blog Archive

Capitalism