There's only one part of this post I really have to argue with: the matter of internal security.
I concur that some internal security and covert action are necessary. I noted, in the recently released al Qaeda documents, that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies must be having some success in foiling real enemy action (which encounters are classified, I'm sure), because AQ were forced to respond by changing strategy and tactics.
But really now -- the TSA? It could not possibly be less of what we want. It is monumentally ineffective. Its approach to security is not only incorrect and inefficient, but seemingly designed to cow and humiliate the innocent, to promote ignorami and bullies and pay them good money, and to yet further undermine the already shaky trust between citizen and government. They are a shining example of everything that is weak and stupid about America.
And then we have other recent initiatives, such as the FBI pushing (yet again) for the power to force ISPs to build back doors into everybody's email accounts. It is (still) both an abysmal idea from a technical standpoint, and a mortal insult to the Fourth Amendment. Whoever is responsible for this sort of lobbying is making their agency look like a bunch of morons. Federal law enforcement already has plenty of power to do its job. As previously mentioned, and as is clear from the lack of terrorist wins in the US, obviously they've been successful at their job.
If we want real security, intelligent and effective while yet being respectful of freedom (no, scratch that -- passionate endorsers of freedom; who look at a free people as a resource rather than as a liability, and plan accordingly) -- then these are not good models. It makes me wonder whether our nation is capable of, or even interested in, defending itself anymore. Except of course from citizens who criticize the regime and dare to take the Constitution at face value.
I totally and completely agree with you that the TSA is stupid. At best it would only stop terrorists by sheer chance, and would be unlikely to stop a clever terrorist at all. Its main effect is to unnecessarily make Americans hostile toward their own government, and it makes matters worse by diligently covering its own ass every time its employees do something idiotic, such as attempting to search colostomy bags or grope toddlers.
This is "security theater," and its prevalance is itself a sign that we don't really take the threat all that seriously. If we were more serious about this we would arm airplane crews, focus our surveillance on likely terrorists, and stop wasting all this time and money harrasing travelers at random.
And then we have other recent initiatives, such as the FBI pushing (yet again) for the power to force ISPs to build back doors into everybody's email accounts. It is (still) both an abysmal idea from a technical standpoint, and a mortal insult to the Fourth Amendment.
Especially bad idea because if -- or more likely when -- the locations of the back doors leaked out to cybercriminals, it could facilitate a major crime wave. Heck, with the FBI's embrace of Muslim terrorist front organizations, it could easily leak out to the terrorists themselves and be used to help plan their next attacks, since government agents and officials also communicate by e-mail.
If we want real security, intelligent and effective while yet being respectful of freedom (no, scratch that -- passionate endorsers of freedom; who look at a free people as a resource rather than as a liability, and plan accordingly) -- then these are not good models. It makes me wonder whether our nation is capable of, or even interested in, defending itself anymore. Except of course from citizens who criticize the regime and dare to take the Constitution at face value.
We need better security, especially at entry-points such as ports and the border. Our lack of meaningful effort in this regard is a sign that we do not take the situation seriously. I hope -- perhaps against realism -- that our next President takes this situation in hand, devotes real resources to prevent terrorists from entering the country, and replaces the TSA with a useful transportation security system.
Oh, btw -- yes, we obviously aren't being totally incompetent, because Al Qaeda hasn't been able to carry out a large terrorist attack on American soil since 9-11, and their small-scale attacks have had very limited effect. They don't seem to be able to get a lot of terrorists into America, armed and ready for action rather than Internet posting.
Their two main post-September 11th successes were the Beltway Snipers and the traitorous Major Hasan, and the first had only minor impact while the second was a one-off incident.
A sign that we don't take this very seriously yet is that Major Hasan isn't facing the death penalty for treason, despite the fact that his crime actually fits the rigid Constitutional criteria for such.
Interesting you should bring up those two incidents, because in both, a free and armed citizenry could play a large role at the point of contact.
As for the Beltway Snipers: true, you can't do much against a hidden man with a rifle, with your concealed handgun, after he's already shooting at you. But what if someone happened to walk around a corner and catch those guys in place, or setting up or breaking down?
As for Hasan: what does it say about our country when soldiers on a military base aren't allowed to bear arms?
Did you notice that the AQ papers called for public shootings in Europe where people are generally disarmed?
That's one example what I mean when I say that American security efforts need to look at a free people as a resource rather than as a liability. Right now they almost never do, not at any level, local or state or especially federal.
Completely agree with you here: we are sacrificing one of our major national advantages when we treat having a free and armed citizenry as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. It's of course gotten worse under this Administration: they've tried to deny the very existence of the enemy and thus have no coherent strategy.
I'm hoping that Mitt Romnmey has a fundamentally-better understanding of the issue than does Obama, or than did George W. Bush. If not, it might not be until 2017 or even 2021 before we see this clearly -- and by then, it might be too late because we might already be fighting a much more intense war.
I have no illusions that Romney won't be yet another enthusiast of big imperial government, but at least he might be more realistic than Obama about certain problems.
Then again, the US electorate might express its wishful-thinking solidarity with the French, and vote itself another round of unicorn farts.
And either way, economic factors may collapse the current US government by 2017 or 2021 no matter who's in office.
Romney sucks, but he's better than Obama because he is at least proceeding from the assumption that he would be President of and hence would want to run things for the BENEFIT of the United States of America. Furthermore, while he's no libertarian, he's at least suspicious of expanding the role of government in our lives. Obama imagines himself God-King of the World and thus above crass national self-interest, and his assumptions about what benefits the world are taken directly from the Radical Left, so he sees American power as a problem, not an achievement.
Then again, the US electorate might express its wishful-thinking solidarity with the French, and vote itself another round of unicorn farts.
The turn of France and Greece to the hard Left means that the European Union is doomed, and also that its doom was always inevitable (because it could not generate institutions robust enough to survive a European Great Power's turn towards insanity. Greece is going to crash really hard, and probably wind up Eurofascist. The French crash is going to be softer, because France has more resources and reputation, but it's still going to be hard on the French because the French are also incredibly arrogant and will thus persist in imagining their actions brilliant even as the ground comes up to meet them. France may also go Eurofascist, because the French people are going to be furious when they realize what their elected officials have done (as for blaming themselves, one should remember that no electorate, especially not a French one, ever does that).
And either way, economic factors may collapse the current US government by 2017 or 2021 no matter who's in office.
If Obama is re-elected war is very likely during his remaining term, because it will be the last chance for America's enemies to get a free strike. The war would probably not start as a war with America -- Israel, India, South Korea or one of the European Powers become likely victims of the first major aggressions. It will likely expand to include America though, because it will include provocations against our allies which no President will be able to ignore, unless he wishes to be impeached.
Under a President Romney, economic policies would tend to be better (because he wouldn't be actively sabotaging things, whether by intent or delusion, the way Obama does). There might be the beginnings of a recovery as investors decide the moment is right now to go back into the markets. Fundamental flaws in our policies may not get rapidly fixed, but they also will not get rapidly worse, and the market may figure out ways around them without Obama constantly coming up with some new way of screwing investors.
Nations which don't produce culture and art which you like don't deserve to exist, nor their people to live? Congratulations, you've managed to come up with a theory of cultural evolution crueller than that professed by Adolf Hitler!
Funny that, Germany was one of those cultural wastelands. After all, I can't think of any worthwhile composers, musicians, artists, or writers from Nazi Germany, can you?
The arbitrary cruelty of the principle you espouse is not magically mitigated by the fact that you happen to hate a country that Hitler loved. Adolf Hitler was evil because of what he believed and the acts he took because of his beliefs, rather than merely evil by ascription. You're viewing with equanamity the deaths of tens of millions of people because you theoretically dislike their countries, which was the same sort of evil as in Hitler's worldview. Unlike Hitler, you dislike these countries over trivialities: Hitler, at least, was moral enough to recognize that a race-hatred should be based on deeper disagreements: he did not, for instance, afaik base his hatred of the Slavs on a dislike for Polish foods or dances. Hence, the worldview you have here expressed is slightly but tangibly worse than Hitler's.
Both had cultures. All humans have cultures. And even though Hitler drove out many of Germany's greatest artists, writers and so forth, even Nazi Germany had a culture: inedeed, it still had a great culture. Nazi Germany was evil because it attacked other countries without provocation and murdered captives without sane reason, not because it was tacky.
I concur that some internal security and covert action are necessary. I noted, in the recently released al Qaeda documents, that American law enforcement and intelligence agencies must be having some success in foiling real enemy action (which encounters are classified, I'm sure), because AQ were forced to respond by changing strategy and tactics.
But really now -- the TSA? It could not possibly be less of what we want. It is monumentally ineffective. Its approach to security is not only incorrect and inefficient, but seemingly designed to cow and humiliate the innocent, to promote ignorami and bullies and pay them good money, and to yet further undermine the already shaky trust between citizen and government. They are a shining example of everything that is weak and stupid about America.
And then we have other recent initiatives, such as the FBI pushing (yet again) for the power to force ISPs to build back doors into everybody's email accounts. It is (still) both an abysmal idea from a technical standpoint, and a mortal insult to the Fourth Amendment. Whoever is responsible for this sort of lobbying is making their agency look like a bunch of morons. Federal law enforcement already has plenty of power to do its job. As previously mentioned, and as is clear from the lack of terrorist wins in the US, obviously they've been successful at their job.
If we want real security, intelligent and effective while yet being respectful of freedom (no, scratch that -- passionate endorsers of freedom; who look at a free people as a resource rather than as a liability, and plan accordingly) -- then these are not good models. It makes me wonder whether our nation is capable of, or even interested in, defending itself anymore. Except of course from citizens who criticize the regime and dare to take the Constitution at face value.
Reply
This is "security theater," and its prevalance is itself a sign that we don't really take the threat all that seriously. If we were more serious about this we would arm airplane crews, focus our surveillance on likely terrorists, and stop wasting all this time and money harrasing travelers at random.
And then we have other recent initiatives, such as the FBI pushing (yet again) for the power to force ISPs to build back doors into everybody's email accounts. It is (still) both an abysmal idea from a technical standpoint, and a mortal insult to the Fourth Amendment.
Especially bad idea because if -- or more likely when -- the locations of the back doors leaked out to cybercriminals, it could facilitate a major crime wave. Heck, with the FBI's embrace of Muslim terrorist front organizations, it could easily leak out to the terrorists themselves and be used to help plan their next attacks, since government agents and officials also communicate by e-mail.
If we want real security, intelligent and effective while yet being respectful of freedom (no, scratch that -- passionate endorsers of freedom; who look at a free people as a resource rather than as a liability, and plan accordingly) -- then these are not good models. It makes me wonder whether our nation is capable of, or even interested in, defending itself anymore. Except of course from citizens who criticize the regime and dare to take the Constitution at face value.
We need better security, especially at entry-points such as ports and the border. Our lack of meaningful effort in this regard is a sign that we do not take the situation seriously. I hope -- perhaps against realism -- that our next President takes this situation in hand, devotes real resources to prevent terrorists from entering the country, and replaces the TSA with a useful transportation security system.
Reply
Their two main post-September 11th successes were the Beltway Snipers and the traitorous Major Hasan, and the first had only minor impact while the second was a one-off incident.
A sign that we don't take this very seriously yet is that Major Hasan isn't facing the death penalty for treason, despite the fact that his crime actually fits the rigid Constitutional criteria for such.
Reply
As for the Beltway Snipers: true, you can't do much against a hidden man with a rifle, with your concealed handgun, after he's already shooting at you. But what if someone happened to walk around a corner and catch those guys in place, or setting up or breaking down?
As for Hasan: what does it say about our country when soldiers on a military base aren't allowed to bear arms?
Did you notice that the AQ papers called for public shootings in Europe where people are generally disarmed?
That's one example what I mean when I say that American security efforts need to look at a free people as a resource rather than as a liability. Right now they almost never do, not at any level, local or state or especially federal.
Reply
I'm hoping that Mitt Romnmey has a fundamentally-better understanding of the issue than does Obama, or than did George W. Bush. If not, it might not be until 2017 or even 2021 before we see this clearly -- and by then, it might be too late because we might already be fighting a much more intense war.
Reply
I have no illusions that Romney won't be yet another enthusiast of big imperial government, but at least he might be more realistic than Obama about certain problems.
Then again, the US electorate might express its wishful-thinking solidarity with the French, and vote itself another round of unicorn farts.
And either way, economic factors may collapse the current US government by 2017 or 2021 no matter who's in office.
Reply
Then again, the US electorate might express its wishful-thinking solidarity with the French, and vote itself another round of unicorn farts.
The turn of France and Greece to the hard Left means that the European Union is doomed, and also that its doom was always inevitable (because it could not generate institutions robust enough to survive a European Great Power's turn towards insanity. Greece is going to crash really hard, and probably wind up Eurofascist. The French crash is going to be softer, because France has more resources and reputation, but it's still going to be hard on the French because the French are also incredibly arrogant and will thus persist in imagining their actions brilliant even as the ground comes up to meet them. France may also go Eurofascist, because the French people are going to be furious when they realize what their elected officials have done (as for blaming themselves, one should remember that no electorate, especially not a French one, ever does that).
And either way, economic factors may collapse the current US government by 2017 or 2021 no matter who's in office.
If Obama is re-elected war is very likely during his remaining term, because it will be the last chance for America's enemies to get a free strike. The war would probably not start as a war with America -- Israel, India, South Korea or one of the European Powers become likely victims of the first major aggressions. It will likely expand to include America though, because it will include provocations against our allies which no President will be able to ignore, unless he wishes to be impeached.
Under a President Romney, economic policies would tend to be better (because he wouldn't be actively sabotaging things, whether by intent or delusion, the way Obama does). There might be the beginnings of a recovery as investors decide the moment is right now to go back into the markets. Fundamental flaws in our policies may not get rapidly fixed, but they also will not get rapidly worse, and the market may figure out ways around them without Obama constantly coming up with some new way of screwing investors.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment