Have you noticed how quickly the Obama bumper stickers have been disappearing from vehicles? During the months running up to the election and for months afterward, they were everywhere, but after one year in office, sightings are few and far between.
Granted, the CA Central Valley isn't as left-wing as say, Berkeley, where sightings might be more frequent, but it occurred to me yesterday when I actually spotted a faded and peeling “Kerry-Edwards” sticker that the red, white and blue “O” logo once ubiquitous, has become scarce enough that I would have to search one up on the net to remember exactly what they looked like.
I've noticed as well, lately, that criticizing an Obama policy, which for the first few months of his Presidency brought immediate protests that I should give the guy a chance are met now with silence, a change of subject or (by some die-hard BushWhackers) references to something President Bush did that was as bad or worse, a response that immediately brings to my mind an image of a child defending his own misdeeds by pointing out that another kid had done the same. So if Bush told Obama to jump off a bridge, would he?
The disappearance of Obama stickers before they'd scarce had the chance to peel or fade is as good an empirical indicator of the O-Man's declining popularity as all the polls outlining his spectacular plunge in approval ratings.
Just how disenchanted, disappointed or downright embarrassed does someone have to become before undertaking the rather laborious process of removing a bumper sticker? Not to mention the possible humiliation of being observed in the process by your neighbor who listens to conservative talk radio while mowing his lawn.
What has happened to The One We'd Been Waiting For? Why is Obama the Rock Star so quickly looking like a one-hit-wonder, the one hit being his election? Where has all the enthusiastic credulity that led normally discerning, informed people to vote a junior U.S. Senator, (who announced his candidacy after serving a bare 2 years) of no particularly stunning record and of dubious perspicacity in the matter of choosing acquaintances to the highest office in the land gone?
The basic answer is fairly simple. You can't promise people, or allow them to think you've promised everything they want and then deliver nothing without them noticing and becoming a bit touchy about it.
Even the most ardent Obamaphile, if he/she retains the least scrap of intellectual honesty, has to admit that the President has delivered on few of his most oft-repeated promises as of yet. Now apologists may cite all sorts of impediments, unforeseen circumstances and Republican intransigence, but the fact is that with a Democrat majority in both House and Senate, it would be reasonable for those who elected him to expect a bit more return on their vote.
Are all combat troops out of Iraq? Well, no. Of course, he still has 4 months on his campaign promise, and he did make very clear (after he was elected) that a residual force would have to remain. He has been quite careful not to define “residual” with any specific number. Troop levels have been lowered, and troops have been relocated away from some areas, but that was all according to the plan already in place before he took office. Last I checked, we still had 115,000 troops stationed in Iraq. I seriously doubt that the people who voted for then Senator Obama based a good deal on believing his “out of Iraq” promise feel they are getting their vote's worth.
Was Gitmo closed during the first 100 days of Obama's administration? Well, no. In fact, the President only just signed a memorandum half way through this past December officially closing the detention facility and ordering the transfer of prisoners. Problematically, many of the prisoners don't want to leave Gitmo for harsher(!) conditions in US prisons, so their lawyer is talking about suing to prevent the move. Better late than never, and I suppose being “officially closed” even though inmates are still held on the premises is still “officially closed.”
How about all those Congressional negotiations on Health Care “Reform” he promised we'd be able to watch on C-SPAN? Seen any of those?
Then there were all the promises to cut spending. I wonder if a Two Trillion dollar spending increase sounds like “a net spending cut” to those who voted for him because they trusted him to cut the deficit?
Let's not forget the pesky little promise he made to “ban all earmarks.” I suppose those Americans sick to death of pork barrel spending and back room deals to tack extra expenses onto legislation in exchange for votes to pass it understood that “all earmarks” didn't include the almost nine thousand included in the first spending bill he signed.
He made much, during his campaign about how differently he would handle international diplomacy, impressing many voters who hadn't been comfortable with President Bush's diplomatic style and the perceived unpopularity it had caused. People were waving signs around in Europe protesting President Bush, and he was criticized by foreign leaders, dictators, oppressive governments and even beholden allies at times.
Obama has of course, made a whirlwind of diplomatic appearances overseas, placating antagonistic despots, bowing to foreign kings, scraping to European leaders of countries that owe their safety to the belligerent American insistence on a strong, well armed, modern military, and generally making the rounds trying to atone for American arrogance, lack of engagement and sundry other specific and nonspecific sins.
The result of his efforts, I have been assured, is that America's prestige and image have been improved and enhanced. Yes, so I have been told.
As Obama basks in the glow of his world wide popularity,North Korea tests nuclear missiles and Iran builds nuclear facilities (for power only!) while buddying up to Venezuela. Russia's Putin schemes and pushes the envelope (despite Obama's concession of the Czech and Polish missile defense bases) and China not so subtly makes clear that as long as America keeps coming to them to buy our debt, we should keep our advice, ideas and admonitions to ourselves.
Well, he did get the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, so did Yasser Arafat, Kofi Annan, Jimmy Carter and IPCC/Al Gore, so you can make of that what you will.
Obama apologists (and Obama himself) will often cite the severity of the economic crisis that he “inherited” from Bush as the reason he's been unable to accomplish much in other arenas. But that excuse can't be used indefinitely, especially when the various measures the Obama administration has rushed to implement have accomplished nothing tangible other than speeding the mind boggling increase of the National Debt. We were warned of dire consequences if the massive, complicated, pork-laden “stimulus package” wasn't passed immediately. Now we are being told that another “stimulus package” is necessary, even as our President assures us that the first one is working. As unemployment hits double digits, Obama and his spokespeople insist that without his expensive actions it would be far worse even as they offer conflicting statements regarding just how many jobs the billions of our tax dollars have created or “saved.”
Recently, a bit worried about his falling popularity with those of us who pay the bills, our President has begun talking about fiscal responsibility again, citing the growing deficit and sounding very “tough love” as he promises (again) to cut spending but lecturing us that we'll all have to sacrifice.
He offers a grand new proposal to freeze “discretionary” spending for 3 years, thinking that the American people don't realize (or don't know how to Google and find out) that the “discretionary” spending he's speaking of (once he's done with exemptions) represents only about one sixth of the federal budget, and that “freezing” is not the same thing as “cutting.” The proposed savings amounting to 250 Billion dollars sound rather impressive, until one realizes that to stop actively (and only partially and temporarily) adding to a debt does nothing to reduce it. Being that Obama has at the same time declared he will still push for his health care “reform” which, depending who you ask will cost somewhere up around 800 Billion give or take the odd hundred billion, one can easily imagine that thinking people aren't as easily impressed with his repeat of that campaign promise to go through the budget “line by line” looking for more ways to cut spending.
This brings me to what might be at the heart of the growing disenchantment former supporters are feeling with Obama. People don't like being treated like chumps. They don't like politicos who make promises they can't keep and pretend they have kept them, all the while pointing fingers and laying blame for problems on others while pretending to take responsibility. In short, people don't like the leaders they have elected to pee on their legs and tell them it's raining. It makes them cranky enough to scrape off bumper stickers and cross party lines to vote for someone else.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Martin Luther King Jr. and the Founding Fathers
Martin Luther King, Jr. was born on January 15th, 1929. Dates are useful for textbooks, but unhelpful to almost anyone but historians when it comes to bringing any real information to mind.
In 1929, baby Martin, in his stroller, stood a good chance of having his chin chucked and being cooed at by a number of neighbors who had been actually born into legal bondage. A man or woman who today might just have reached the age when they are given Senior Citizen discounts at the corner cafe might well have been born the property of a United States Citizen prior to Dec. 6th, 1865.
Come that date, freedom (from being actually owned, at least) was recognized as the birthright of everyone in America. Of course, being legally no man or woman's property (as welcome a change as that had been) didn't mean that man or woman was universally recognized as an equal under the law. What it did mean was that, even as an ex-slave or the child of an ex-slave the First Amendment applied to you and you now had in your possession a weapon against oppression and tyranny undreamt of by your ancestors.
Much is made of the fact that many of the Founding Fathers of this country owned slaves, generally by people who, for reasons of their own, wish to downplay the greatness of this country and that of the men who risked their all, pledging their lives to realize the dream that became the United States of America. The Founding Fathers are charged with hypocrisy for daring to voice the Truth that all men are created equal while themselves denying equal rights to those bound in servitude by law. Well, and we are all hypocrites. For who among us does not hold some moral truth or ideal to which we aspire, though we fail miserably to maintain in our own lives?
Circumstances and every day realities dictate matters of conscience far more than we would wish. There are troubles, inequities and injustice that go with every age and are viewed with abhorrence and incredulity by the citizens of later ages. There are such today that will provide the average, decent person of the future targets at which to point, failings to chastise in 20/20 hindsight.
The amazing thing about the Founding Fathers was not that they were human beings, capable (as human beings are) of committing wrongs even while being aware of the wrongs they are committing. It was that they trusted in the intrinsic good of a free, self governing society to correct it's own errors if given the mechanism to do so. To this end, they forced themselves to accept the bare naked fact that they couldn't solve all the ills of the country at one go, and set themselves to ensuring that those who came to continue what they had started would have the means to address these ills.
What allowed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to protest inequality? Who ensured his right to peacefully, but with uncompromisingly direct public speech address the grievous wrongs inflicted on a segment of American citizens?
The Constitution of the United States allowed Dr. King to protest. That right was ensured in writing by men who recognized that the complexities and contentiousness of an issue such as slavery could not be solved by decree without tearing apart the very union they were attempting to build.
These men trusted that the wisdom and essential goodness of the People would lead them to eventually recognize moral truth and strive toward it. “The the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” was their vote of confidence in the country they risked their fortunes, families and lives to establish.
America's detractors cite slavery as one of it's Big Evils, one for which all White Americans hold some sort of collective and never to be expiated guilt. Slavery is evil, of course, we all know that now...well, except for people living in cultures where it is still an accepted (though sometimes officially unlawful) practice. But for thousands of years, throughout much of the populated world, slavery was not considered evil. One human being owning another and directing his whole life was a normal, accepted, traditional practice. Even upon official condemnation of the practice, societies often found ways to get around the law, creating groups of who could be called FINO (Free In Name Only), people who were legally free to direct their own destinies but practically barred from doing any such thing.
It took many civilizations/cultures/countries thousands of years to come to the realization that slavery was evil, and to end it. It took the young United States of America only 89 years from claiming it's independence. But this fact is rarely recognized by those who prefer we self-flagellate over historical sins rather than take pride in our country.
Martin Luther King Jr. believed in America, recognizing it's greatness while having ample reason to be aware of it's imperfections. As a Christian, he was aware as well that he, and all people, no matter how they strive to be righteous of intent, honorable of action and just of purpose, are flawed by their very nature as human beings. This belief and awareness are things he shared with the Founding Fathers who, in securing for their descendants liberty, provided the tools with which he fought to secure equality for his.
In 1929, baby Martin, in his stroller, stood a good chance of having his chin chucked and being cooed at by a number of neighbors who had been actually born into legal bondage. A man or woman who today might just have reached the age when they are given Senior Citizen discounts at the corner cafe might well have been born the property of a United States Citizen prior to Dec. 6th, 1865.
Come that date, freedom (from being actually owned, at least) was recognized as the birthright of everyone in America. Of course, being legally no man or woman's property (as welcome a change as that had been) didn't mean that man or woman was universally recognized as an equal under the law. What it did mean was that, even as an ex-slave or the child of an ex-slave the First Amendment applied to you and you now had in your possession a weapon against oppression and tyranny undreamt of by your ancestors.
Much is made of the fact that many of the Founding Fathers of this country owned slaves, generally by people who, for reasons of their own, wish to downplay the greatness of this country and that of the men who risked their all, pledging their lives to realize the dream that became the United States of America. The Founding Fathers are charged with hypocrisy for daring to voice the Truth that all men are created equal while themselves denying equal rights to those bound in servitude by law. Well, and we are all hypocrites. For who among us does not hold some moral truth or ideal to which we aspire, though we fail miserably to maintain in our own lives?
Circumstances and every day realities dictate matters of conscience far more than we would wish. There are troubles, inequities and injustice that go with every age and are viewed with abhorrence and incredulity by the citizens of later ages. There are such today that will provide the average, decent person of the future targets at which to point, failings to chastise in 20/20 hindsight.
The amazing thing about the Founding Fathers was not that they were human beings, capable (as human beings are) of committing wrongs even while being aware of the wrongs they are committing. It was that they trusted in the intrinsic good of a free, self governing society to correct it's own errors if given the mechanism to do so. To this end, they forced themselves to accept the bare naked fact that they couldn't solve all the ills of the country at one go, and set themselves to ensuring that those who came to continue what they had started would have the means to address these ills.
What allowed Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to protest inequality? Who ensured his right to peacefully, but with uncompromisingly direct public speech address the grievous wrongs inflicted on a segment of American citizens?
The Constitution of the United States allowed Dr. King to protest. That right was ensured in writing by men who recognized that the complexities and contentiousness of an issue such as slavery could not be solved by decree without tearing apart the very union they were attempting to build.
These men trusted that the wisdom and essential goodness of the People would lead them to eventually recognize moral truth and strive toward it. “The the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” was their vote of confidence in the country they risked their fortunes, families and lives to establish.
America's detractors cite slavery as one of it's Big Evils, one for which all White Americans hold some sort of collective and never to be expiated guilt. Slavery is evil, of course, we all know that now...well, except for people living in cultures where it is still an accepted (though sometimes officially unlawful) practice. But for thousands of years, throughout much of the populated world, slavery was not considered evil. One human being owning another and directing his whole life was a normal, accepted, traditional practice. Even upon official condemnation of the practice, societies often found ways to get around the law, creating groups of who could be called FINO (Free In Name Only), people who were legally free to direct their own destinies but practically barred from doing any such thing.
It took many civilizations/cultures/countries thousands of years to come to the realization that slavery was evil, and to end it. It took the young United States of America only 89 years from claiming it's independence. But this fact is rarely recognized by those who prefer we self-flagellate over historical sins rather than take pride in our country.
Martin Luther King Jr. believed in America, recognizing it's greatness while having ample reason to be aware of it's imperfections. As a Christian, he was aware as well that he, and all people, no matter how they strive to be righteous of intent, honorable of action and just of purpose, are flawed by their very nature as human beings. This belief and awareness are things he shared with the Founding Fathers who, in securing for their descendants liberty, provided the tools with which he fought to secure equality for his.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Harry Reid and the politics of racismud slinging
So, as most everyone knows by now, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., put his foot in his mouth once again. The authors of a new book, "Game Change", quoted him as saying that he believed the nation was ready to elect a "light-skinned" black man "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
Naturally, in this country that is so steeped in racism and bigotry that an African American could never be elected President...er...ahem.
Let me begin again.
Despite the fact that an African American man was elected to the highest office in the land a little over a year ago, our country is still sodden with the belief that there is blatant or latent racism behind every utterance even remotely related to the subject that issues from the mouth of a White man.
Really? Do people honestly believe that? Or is it just that the charge of racism has become such a favored and convenient weapon?
What exactly was racist about Mr. Reid's comments? Is it racist to refer to President Obama as a light-skinned Black man? Isn't he? Is it racist to refer to a Negro dialect? If so, is it racist because there is nothing recognizably different in the speech of most Black and White Americans? Black folks and White folks will both tell you they can almost always discern the difference over the phone, when they can't see with whom they are speaking. Or is it racist simply because of the word, "Negro?" Mr. Reid is seventy something years old as far as I recall. In his youth, "Negro" was the respectful word to use. Sure, we don't generally use it now, but it can't be a racist term in and of itself, or why does the United Negro College Fund still use it?
Now don't get me wrong. I can't help chuckling a wee bit over Harry Reid being hoisted a while on his own petard. I mean, he's been happy enough to play the racism card when it has suited him to do so, labeling legislation calling for English to be the National language of the United States, "racist", and more recently comparing people who are against the Health Care "reform" bill to historical supporters of slavery.
But on the other hand, I am sick to the very bone marrow with the histrionic displays of false outrage we are subjected to on an almost daily basis on the part of politicos far more intent on attacking rivals, discrediting opponents and amassing power and influence than in doing the work we elect them to do.
Someone on "our side" is attacked, spuriously charged with racism, exposed as a philanderer, or subjected to trumped up ethics charges. People on "their side" sputter with outrage and demand apologies, deem those apologies (once made) as insufficient and demand resignations, investigations and censure. "Our side" sputters in indignant offense, accuses "their side" of playing partisan politics, and resentfully accuse the media of being biased and in on the witch hunt.
But then the positions are reversed, and "our side" justifies behaving just like "their side" did by crying, "double standard" and pointing out all the times "their side" wronged someone on "our side" as justification for wronging someone on "their side" right back.
Sounds like a bunch of little kids in a recess yard, doesn't it? But these are the decision makers, the idiots who form our policies, enact our laws, and above all, spend our money.
Do I wish Harry Reid would resign? Of course I do! I wish to jimminies he'd resign, because he and I are on opposite sides of the political debate about 90 percent of the time!
The question is, should he resign because he made a "racist" comment? I have to ask, is he a racist? I cannot see into the man's heart and soul, but I have absolutely no reason to suspect him of any other form of racism but the soft racism of low expectations that is woven so deeply through so many Democrat-supported policies. Therefore, I can only assume that all he was guilty of was making the politically useful (to his opponents) mistake of saying something politically stupid.
I had a brief fantasy wherein some Personage on "our side", being asked whether or not Senator Reid should be forced to resign because of his unfortunate comment, replies something to the effect of, "Of course not. He obviously didn't intend to be offensive to anyone. I don't think he should be forced to resign anymore than I thought Trent Lott should have been forced to resign. It's time we stopped pointing fingers and playing, "Gotcha!"
Naturally, in this country that is so steeped in racism and bigotry that an African American could never be elected President...er...ahem.
Let me begin again.
Despite the fact that an African American man was elected to the highest office in the land a little over a year ago, our country is still sodden with the belief that there is blatant or latent racism behind every utterance even remotely related to the subject that issues from the mouth of a White man.
Really? Do people honestly believe that? Or is it just that the charge of racism has become such a favored and convenient weapon?
What exactly was racist about Mr. Reid's comments? Is it racist to refer to President Obama as a light-skinned Black man? Isn't he? Is it racist to refer to a Negro dialect? If so, is it racist because there is nothing recognizably different in the speech of most Black and White Americans? Black folks and White folks will both tell you they can almost always discern the difference over the phone, when they can't see with whom they are speaking. Or is it racist simply because of the word, "Negro?" Mr. Reid is seventy something years old as far as I recall. In his youth, "Negro" was the respectful word to use. Sure, we don't generally use it now, but it can't be a racist term in and of itself, or why does the United Negro College Fund still use it?
Now don't get me wrong. I can't help chuckling a wee bit over Harry Reid being hoisted a while on his own petard. I mean, he's been happy enough to play the racism card when it has suited him to do so, labeling legislation calling for English to be the National language of the United States, "racist", and more recently comparing people who are against the Health Care "reform" bill to historical supporters of slavery.
But on the other hand, I am sick to the very bone marrow with the histrionic displays of false outrage we are subjected to on an almost daily basis on the part of politicos far more intent on attacking rivals, discrediting opponents and amassing power and influence than in doing the work we elect them to do.
Someone on "our side" is attacked, spuriously charged with racism, exposed as a philanderer, or subjected to trumped up ethics charges. People on "their side" sputter with outrage and demand apologies, deem those apologies (once made) as insufficient and demand resignations, investigations and censure. "Our side" sputters in indignant offense, accuses "their side" of playing partisan politics, and resentfully accuse the media of being biased and in on the witch hunt.
But then the positions are reversed, and "our side" justifies behaving just like "their side" did by crying, "double standard" and pointing out all the times "their side" wronged someone on "our side" as justification for wronging someone on "their side" right back.
Sounds like a bunch of little kids in a recess yard, doesn't it? But these are the decision makers, the idiots who form our policies, enact our laws, and above all, spend our money.
Do I wish Harry Reid would resign? Of course I do! I wish to jimminies he'd resign, because he and I are on opposite sides of the political debate about 90 percent of the time!
The question is, should he resign because he made a "racist" comment? I have to ask, is he a racist? I cannot see into the man's heart and soul, but I have absolutely no reason to suspect him of any other form of racism but the soft racism of low expectations that is woven so deeply through so many Democrat-supported policies. Therefore, I can only assume that all he was guilty of was making the politically useful (to his opponents) mistake of saying something politically stupid.
I had a brief fantasy wherein some Personage on "our side", being asked whether or not Senator Reid should be forced to resign because of his unfortunate comment, replies something to the effect of, "Of course not. He obviously didn't intend to be offensive to anyone. I don't think he should be forced to resign anymore than I thought Trent Lott should have been forced to resign. It's time we stopped pointing fingers and playing, "Gotcha!"
Friday, January 8, 2010
Two hundred eighty-nine people are not dead.
Two hundred eighty-nine people are not dead. No thanks to the exasperating, intrusive, time-killing, expensive "security measures" that have been incrementally making air travel into an even more unpleasant, wearying process than it had already been prior to 9/11. Remember when it was annoying that one had to arrive at the airport a whole hour before a flight? And, how irritating it was to have to remove your bangle bracelets and pocket full of change before walking through the scanner?
On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Unpronouncable earned himself the comic names, "Undybomber"or "Pantybomber" by stuffing what he hoped would be a firey and unexpected death for a planeload of innocent people, lifetimes of pain, sadness and bereavement for untold hundreds of their family members and friends and shock, terror and a bellyful of sick helplessness for millions of Americans down his pants. Very cutsie, the names various pundits have come up with...would they have done so had he been successful?
He might well have been, but for the fact that his bomb functioned only slightly worse than the security measures supposedly designed to protect us.
Despite all those exasperating, intrusive, expensive "security measures" I just mentioned, your son coming home from college, your fiance coming home from a business trip, your coworker coming home from her honeymoon could still be dead if something hadn't gone wrong when the young Muslim man, whose own father was concerned enough about his radical religious views to report him to the CIA but who was still allowed on the plane, detonated the bomb he'd walked through the entire airport wearing.
Our government's response? Are we finally going to leave off confiscating any tube of toothpaste weighing more than 3 ounces, hauling random citizens out of the airport lines for extra harrassment and constantly blaring announcements throughout airports about not leaving bags unattended and focus our manpower, vigilance and financial outlay on identifying and scrutinizing Muslim passengers, particularly those that have been schooled in countries known to be terrorist hotbeds, who have come to the attention of authorities in other countries due to his connections with Muslim extremists and who, as early as their teens have spoken out to defend the Taliban?
Don't be silly. Why would we do what is practical and might actually work?
No, our government's response is to bandy about ideas for new tiresome, intrusive restrictions and indignities. Restricting the number or size of carry on luggage pieces. Um...the guy carried the bomb in his underwear. No bathroom use during the last hour of flight. Um...bombs can be detonated any time during a flight. No books, laptops or blankets covering your lap. Um...the bomb was covered by his pants.
The latest idea is "full body scanning." This, not surprisingly since it is expensive, is being suggested with some enthusiasm (wonder how much the manufacturers are spending for that enthusiasm?). We are offered the consolation that although this scanning will bare us quite literally to the view of an airport employee we don't know, it will not be the one looking us in the face as we step into the scanner and then turn from side to side as obediently as a trained terrier, and our faces will be blurred in the image actually seen by the anonymous airport employee.
Of course, if someone is well informed enough to know that such scanners are in use, they will no doubt click on the obvious solution as quickly as I did and shove the explosives into a body...er....opening, thus foiling the scanner. What then? Do we all drop our pants, bend over and spread at a wall opening so an anonymous airport employee can perform a cavity search on us?
Will it take the prospect of being literally rather than figuratively reamed before we demand that our government quit worrying about offending political correctness and start worrying about offending us?
On Christmas Day, Umar Farouk Unpronouncable earned himself the comic names, "Undybomber"or "Pantybomber" by stuffing what he hoped would be a firey and unexpected death for a planeload of innocent people, lifetimes of pain, sadness and bereavement for untold hundreds of their family members and friends and shock, terror and a bellyful of sick helplessness for millions of Americans down his pants. Very cutsie, the names various pundits have come up with...would they have done so had he been successful?
He might well have been, but for the fact that his bomb functioned only slightly worse than the security measures supposedly designed to protect us.
Despite all those exasperating, intrusive, expensive "security measures" I just mentioned, your son coming home from college, your fiance coming home from a business trip, your coworker coming home from her honeymoon could still be dead if something hadn't gone wrong when the young Muslim man, whose own father was concerned enough about his radical religious views to report him to the CIA but who was still allowed on the plane, detonated the bomb he'd walked through the entire airport wearing.
Our government's response? Are we finally going to leave off confiscating any tube of toothpaste weighing more than 3 ounces, hauling random citizens out of the airport lines for extra harrassment and constantly blaring announcements throughout airports about not leaving bags unattended and focus our manpower, vigilance and financial outlay on identifying and scrutinizing Muslim passengers, particularly those that have been schooled in countries known to be terrorist hotbeds, who have come to the attention of authorities in other countries due to his connections with Muslim extremists and who, as early as their teens have spoken out to defend the Taliban?
Don't be silly. Why would we do what is practical and might actually work?
No, our government's response is to bandy about ideas for new tiresome, intrusive restrictions and indignities. Restricting the number or size of carry on luggage pieces. Um...the guy carried the bomb in his underwear. No bathroom use during the last hour of flight. Um...bombs can be detonated any time during a flight. No books, laptops or blankets covering your lap. Um...the bomb was covered by his pants.
The latest idea is "full body scanning." This, not surprisingly since it is expensive, is being suggested with some enthusiasm (wonder how much the manufacturers are spending for that enthusiasm?). We are offered the consolation that although this scanning will bare us quite literally to the view of an airport employee we don't know, it will not be the one looking us in the face as we step into the scanner and then turn from side to side as obediently as a trained terrier, and our faces will be blurred in the image actually seen by the anonymous airport employee.
Of course, if someone is well informed enough to know that such scanners are in use, they will no doubt click on the obvious solution as quickly as I did and shove the explosives into a body...er....opening, thus foiling the scanner. What then? Do we all drop our pants, bend over and spread at a wall opening so an anonymous airport employee can perform a cavity search on us?
Will it take the prospect of being literally rather than figuratively reamed before we demand that our government quit worrying about offending political correctness and start worrying about offending us?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)