io9 blogs on Evan Booth, who devised weapons built from items found inside an airport, after you go through security.

via Instagram http://instagram.com/p/h3hjbnSroA/

From the original post on io9:

Shotguns are not allowed through airport security. But what does that matter if you can build one from items purchased in an airport gift shop? The break-action shotgun pictured above was made from Red Bull cans, a hair dryer, batteries and a can of Axe body spray – and it can blast a handful of pocket change through a sheet of drywall.

My dad always says that if someone wants to hurt you bad enough, they'll find a way to do it. However, it looks like they don't even have to try that hard. All they have to do is get a little clever. To me, knowing that this is possible is NOT scary. This has been possible for years and will go one being possible. Why am I not afraid? Simple: the overwhelming majority of people on Earth are not killers, terrorists or psychopaths. The overwhelming majority of people in airports are just trying to travel, just like you. And if you happen to have the bad luck of ending up on a plane or in a terminal at the same time as a killer, terrorist or a psychopath, take stock in knowing that it was just random bad luck.

Or, if you swung by Evan Booth's website, you may have already learned how to arm yourself against the insanely unlikely event of being on a plane or in a terminal at the same time as a mean person. That's ultimately my point. All these security measures at airports (taking off our shoes, x-raying our bags/coats/laptops etc, backscatter x-raying our bodies and sometimes getting felt up by a TSA agent) are not going to stop someone who really wants to hurt people.

The likelihood of getting hit by a car, even killed by one, is infinitely higher than of getting killed, or even harmed, in an air-travel-related act of violence. But do we ban cars, stop ourselves from crossing the street, or avoid leaving our homes? Of course not. Yet we act like we can stop someone if they really want to be horrible at the airport.

But the odds are in our favor. So, why bother living in fear? Why bother making air travel such a huge pain in the ass? Sure, keep x-raying bags and making me empty my pockets, but can I please keep my shoes on and my water bottle filled?

Read the original post on io9: http://goo.gl/4CHNg0

Al Qaeda thinks they can weaken our economy by making us overspend on security. War is bad for the economy since when?

via Instagram http://instagram.com/p/eNSgqESrsH/

Read the original Reuters article here: http://is.gd/IPbP9n

Read my commentary here:

Riiight, good plan, Al Qaeda! Have you even been paying attention?!? The USG has spent trillion$ on TWO WARS (three if you count Obama's Drone Wars) and billion$ more on "homeland security" and according to "experts" our economy is coming back. Oh yeah and if you bothered to do any research, you'd know that we invent our money out of thin air. How else does our economy crash in 2008 and some how have nearly a trillion dollars injected into it before 2009??? Do you think the Fed just had $700 billion laying around?

The only thing dumber than thinking you can kill our economy by making us go to war is thinking terrorism will change anything for the better.

Idiots.

Ballpoint Adventures for January 24, 2006: Al Qaeda had Nothing to Do with Bird Flu

Following up on the Ballpoint strip from the 23rd, Billy explains how a certain somebody in the White House is making everyone paranoid.

Yet another supposed "terrorist plot" has been "foiled."

One thing I've noticed about the various terrorist plots foiled by the USG is that they've all involved undercover USG-types posing as Al Qaeda or someone else.  When those dudes in Florida wanted to blow up the Sears Tower, they were to get everything from weapons to boots (BOOTS!) from their Al Qaeda guy.  Their Al Qaeda guy was actually FBI.  Turns out they had zero means to do what they wanted to do.

Likewise, that kid who wanted to leave a bomb at a Christmas tree lighting ceremony in Oregon (I think) a year or two ago--he was a kid who was dealing with, who he thought was an Al Qaeda guy, but was actually an FBI guy.  This was a kid who had no means to commit his act of terror.

And again, recently with this supposed Iranian plot.  Check out what Reuters reported:

U.S. court documents accuse Arbabsiar, a naturalized U.S. citizen with an Iranian passport, of paying $100,000 to an informant, who had posed as an associate of a Mexican drug cartel but in fact worked for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency and alerted the authorities to the plot.

Now, there aren't enough specifics here to say it's essentially a case of entrapment (like we can say about the previous two examples), but if the USG is sticking to form, we can certainly consider it a strong possibility until we know for sure.  But seriously, we really shouldn't be surprised if suddenly this story drops out of the media entirely in a few days like those previous stories I mentioned.

It's just another example of this trumped up (non-)war on terror.

Frank Miller: Great Writer and Great Fear Monger? Yeah, probably.

Frank Miller, the man who wrote some of my favorite comic stories ever, has a new graphic novel called "Holy Terror".  If you're familiar with his previous work "300" and his politics, you'll not be too surprised that this new book is about super-heroes going up against jihadists. Spencer Ackerman has reviewed it negatively (understandably) for Wired.  Toward the end of the review, Ackerman explains:

And following 9/11, Miller himself had a sophisticated, complex reaction, intolerant of anyone’s easy pieties. As David Brothers at Comic Alliance reminds, Miller contributed to a volume called 9-11 Artists Respond by offering a scathing, stark series of captions — “I’m sick of flags. I’m sick of God. I’ve seen the power of faith.” — over a haunting illustration of the World Trade Center wreckage.

But it wasn’t God who knocked down the Towers. It was fanatics who believed themselves to have deciphered His true message. Miller doesn’t realize that by portraying them as true disciples of Islam, he’s giving the murderers what they want most. That’s the real terror of Holy Terror, the real lie, and the real naïveté.

Absolutely right.  However, Ackerman glosses over the real truth behind what brought those towers down.  Here's the comment I left on the review:

I never read "300" but I saw the movie and found it to be racist, xenophobic and very much a reflection of Bush-era foreign policy. So, Ackerman's take on "Holy Terror" doesn't surprise me at all. But I think it's an important thing to note, that, while a Believer would defend God and say "God didn't knock down those towers, it was fanatics," an atheist would point out that it's the belief in that god, itself, that did it. Of course, then you put every major religious belief system on the hook (which is why you never see it taken that far). We can't challenge all religions everywhere, now, can we?

But I don't think planet-wide atheism would solve things, either.  Fear-mongering isn't always about religion.  Sure, it was for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the colonization of North and South America ("Convert or die" was the option given to many natives), but often it's about whatever the fear-mongers can get their hands on.  The Soviets were, according to President Reagan, literally, "The Evil Empire" when 30 seconds of thought would have reminded us that they have spouses and children and homes and hopes and dreams *just like us*.  And we all know that the human tendency toward the fear of "The Other" goes back much further than the Soviets and so does said fear's exploitation by humanity's "great" leaders.

That's really what brought the Towers down ten years ago--fear.  Those extremists were terrified of what would happen to their culture, their beliefs, their loved ones if America wasn't stopped.  Likewise, Frank Miller is terrified what will happen to his culture if Islam isn't stopped.  What's worse is that it seems like he wants us all to feel that way, too.  And that is really really sad and kind of scary.

Sorry for the long comment.

I'm just glad Frank Miller has an outlet for his fears!  After watching Thomas P.M. Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" seminar on C-SPAN a couple times, I think I truly understand why terrorism happens.  In that seminar Barnett concludes that the majority of the violence in the world comes from regions of low connectivity.  In other words, the people committing the violence don't feel connected to the world around them.  They feel powerless and out of control.  Connected people feel that their voice is heard.  Frank Miller's voice is heard by a lot of people.  I wonder what he would do if suddenly his audience and book deals vanished.  As a writer, myself, I know firsthand that it takes an impossible amount of passion and belief in/for a story to see it through to the end.  Now imagine all that passion and belief with no where to go.

As much as I wish Miller would stop writing, I'd definitely prefer literary terrorism to the literal kind.  Then again, he could just get a blog like the rest of us.

That seminar from Barnett is really quite excellent. I highly recommend you watch it either at the Google Video link above or here on C-SPAN.

UPDATE 16:45:

Someone commented on the above-mentioned Wired article and basically put forth the idea that some of Miller's fears are true, saying in part:

Certainly many Muslims and Arabs are very much the peace loving types that Bush espoused, and that you seem to think all non-Al Qaeda-card-carrying Muslims are -- but it's telling that a few cartoons will get Muslims protesting in the streets about offending Islam, while the bombings carried out in the name of their prophet around the world seem to mostly go unmentioned. The "Not in our name" protests are far and few between.

Ugh... I hate this kind of disguised racism, so I had to say something:

I don't think anyone is saying Islam is a perfect religion with believers who are flawed, just like the rest of us. I think the point is that painting them *all* (or even most of them) as violent people willing to kill for their beliefs is unfair and a mistake. The "connections" you describe are pretty tenuous. I have a good friend who is Muslim and I dated a Muslim, as well. I'm an atheist. They both knew this and they never tried to kill me. Not once! I even had my friend play Jesus in a web video I shot. Does it sound like they have connections to terrorism? Are they acting like extremist Muslims? I don't think so.

As for moderate Muslims not speaking out against extremist Islam, I agree, but then again, how many moderate Christians do we hear speaking out against the extremist Christianity that denies global warming, hates gay soldiers and is somehow simultaneously both pro-life and pro-war at the same time? Hell, while we're at it, I'd love to hear from moderate Jews who are against the occupation of Palestine. However, I also understand why it doesn't happen. How would you like it if I asked you to prove you're not an ethnocentric, paranoid racist? Wouldn't you mind me demanding that you prove your innocence to me?

That's the key, by the way, to know whether you're being unfair to someone else.  Point your judgment or accusations back on yourself.  Do they fit? Or not? And why?

In this commenter's case, he was demanding Muslims prove they aren't supporters of terrorists and aren't terrorists themselves.  But when a similar question is put to him, how would he like it?  He'd probably make excuses about how no group he is affiliated with is responsible for the death of thousands.  To which I would say: "Oh, you're not American then? Because they killed A LOT of people--half-a-million in Iraq, alone!  Probably billions if you go back to the Native Americans during the time of western expansion!  So, go ahead, prove you're not a genocidal maniac like so many other Americans throughout history. Or maybe you don't like someone demanding you prove you're not like other people of your kind since you're pretty sure you're not."

Earliest form of 911 Exploitation by the Media Came Just Days After

I won't go on about this too much, but I remember right after 911 seeing the "911" issue of People Magazine.  I know it's a rag, but I was really surprised and shocked at what I saw inside of it.  I scanned in the parts that offended me the most and set up a web page detailing everything, including a pissed off email I sent to the editor at the time.  Check out this page here: http://thepete.com/disgustingpeople/

Please forgive the crappy design and layout--it was a time long before Flickr, blogging or even Web 2.0.

 

 

It Has to Be Said: Why 9/11/11 is bugging the shit out of me

Wow... I'm having to unfollow some folks who insist on posting 911-related photos. I wasn't a NYC resident on 9/11/1 but I don't know why people need to relive this event annually and usually do so without recognizing the horrible overreaction it inspired from its victims.  I saw Newsweek's latest magazine cover which seems blissfully unaware of the positive spin it provides on death, war, torture and violence.  Then I saw, in a sad, self-congratulatory Photoshop montage of tweets,  sycophantic followers taking joy in praising said cover (man, that made me angry). I am too scared to look to the TV media because I can easily imagine the absurd depths they'll descend to in order to "properly" exploit the 10th anniversary of 911.

Even my absolute favorite podcast, Stuff You Should Know, got in on the 911-act and talked about "How the World Trade Center Memorial Works."  Usually they talk about things we should know, instead, they talked about stuff we're going to already know because everyone and their uncle is covering that memorial.  I would say that they handled it well, but not handling it at all would be the better path as, really, do you need to bother with this since so many other folks already are?

So, the day after tomorrow, we are going to remember the 3000ish people who died ten years ago on that day in New York, Pennsylvania and in Virginia at the Pentagon... but who will remember the hundreds of thousands who died in Afghanistan and Iraq thanks to the way we reacted?  And what about the tortured, the disappeared and our place in history?  All of these things will be ignored while we desperately try to convince ourselves that 911 justified everything we've done.

A Japanese person I know recently told me that the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki taught Japan that the only way to respond to violence is with peace.  Responding with violence just means more violence.

What is so hard to grasp about this concept?

666cast episode 54: It's the all Osama bin Laden episode! He's dead, but he's not gone!

It’s the all Osama bin Laden episode! He’s dead, but he’s not gone! Why was killing him wrong? Why shouldn’t we celebrate his death? How does this change squat? Answers to all of these questions AND more in this week’s 666cast!

Oh and here’s the FBI’s Most Wanted page for ObL as of this posting:

It doesn’t mention 911. Go figure.

Episode 54 of the 666cast is hosted at Archive.org.

Please subscribe to the feed.

Don’t forget to visit webstore666!

Killing the killer, who's the savage now?

From motherjones:

White House counterterrorism adviser: “There was a female who was in fact in the line of fire…to shield bin Laden from the gunfire,” which speaks to “the nature of the individual.”

Everything you want to know about bin Laden’s death, explained. And updated.

“which speaks to “the nature of the individual.”

Not to mention the nature of the individual pulling the trigger.

I’ve read and heard some disturbing things since Obama’s announcement that bin Laden had been killed, last night.  My wife read something from a Facebook status that went something like this: “3000 souls are smiling tonight.”

Ugh.

Really?

Smiling?

I would have been fine with “3000 souls can finally rest in peace” but they’re smiling?

It seems like people have forgotten just how much time, effort and blood, it’s taken to get to this point. 

More Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq than died in the WTC and Pentagon attacks on 9/11/1.  An untold number of non-American civilians have died in both countries, as well.  Weddings were bombed, innocent civilians tortured by our soldiers, as well.  We invaded two countries and spent over a trillion to fight the terror war that we like to say Osama bin Laden started with us on 9/11/1. 

The catch is, he declared that war years earlier, we just didn’t notice.  See, we’ve been viewed as an enemy by a lot of the Middle East since long before 9/11.  So long that, when one looks at the history of American policy objectively, one can’t help but wonder how long our enemies will take it lying down.  In fact, Chalmers Johnson, in his 2000 book “Blowback,” suggested that, if the USG continues it’s current foreign policy as is, it might see attacks on US soil.

Seeing as 9/11 was not the beginning of the war on terror, it’s a mistake to think that this is somehow the end of it.  We have done much to inspire our enemies and to think that just because bin Laden is gone, there won’t be another head for this hydra is to not understand history.

Not only does this not change anything (as one friend of mine posted on Facebook last night) but it doesn’t somehow erase the atrocities the American government has committed over it’s 250 year lifespan. 

Since last night, I’ve been kind of haunted by this moment imagined in my head of people cheering and shouting in celebration of bin Laden’s death when one yells, without recognizing the irony, “who’s the savage now?!?!”

The answer to that, of course, has always been: us.

EFFYOU.ORG: EFFYOU to alleged terrorism fighters who don't go after ACTUAL terrorists.

EFFYOU.ORG: EFFYOU to alleged terrorism fighters who don't go after ACTUAL terrorists.

effyouorg:

All of the folks out there that are going after Al Qaeda or other extremist-types with the actual means to cause physical harm, GOOD ON YOU!  Keep up the good work!!  All the other folks out there who go after pissed off kids and other losers who have precisely zero means to commit the acts they say they want to commit: EFF YOU.

Among the principles the United States was founded on, none of them encourages or condones the arrest of people who would LIKE to harm others but can’t actually do it.  In fact, one of the most basic concepts behind our country is the idea that every human is entitled to freedom of thought.

What happens when you find a 21 year-old guy or a 19 year-old kid who are pissed off at the government and dream of killing people?

Nothing.

Well…

Read the rest at http://effyou.org

The USG trumps up threat then tells us how they're protecting us from it.

This is something I’ve noticed the USG and the FBI doing for a while.  See if you can notice what’s wrong with the following cutting from a November 28, 2010 article at LATimes.com reporting on a 19 year-old naturalized American (originally from Somalia) who wanted to blow up a bunch of Americans (I’ll add italics to make it obvious):

“The threat was very real,” said Arthur Balizan, special agent in charge of the FBI in Oregon. “Our investigation shows that Mohamud was absolutely committed to carrying out an attack on a very grand scale.”

According to the FBI, they arrested Mohamud after he dialed a cellphone that he thought would detonate a huge bomb — six 55-gallon drums, diesel fuel and a large box of screws — in a large white van parked near the tree lighting.

But the bomb was a fake built by the FBI, and the packed crowds who enjoyed a youth choir and a symphony orchestra at Friday’s holiday celebration at Pioneer Courthouse Square were never in danger, authorities said.

Let me break this down for you:

The FBI finds this teenager who’s pissed at the USG, builds a pretend bomb for him, hands him the detonator and then arrests him when he activates it.

Where’s the crime there, exactly?

I mean, sure, he’s “wrongthinking” like in the Orwell novel, 1984, but wrongthinking isn’t illegal (yet). 

On top of that, this guy had no obvious means to make a bomb to kill anyone on his own.  He’s a kid.  I remember how moody and obnoxious I was when I was 19! (If you think I’m bad now!) 

Why is it that we only hear about these toothless tigers and not actual threats being foiled by the FBI?  Hell, the Times Square Bomber from earlier this year failed in his attempt to blow up a bomb only because he was a complete and utter fucktard.  The FBI didn’t catch him beforehand and nearly lost him as he tried to flee the country. 

Seems the FBI can only catch a terrorist if they arm him and supply him first. It’s like a literal version of the “Straw Man Argument” where you, effectively, make a false statement and then prove it wrong to show how cool you are.  This time, they prop up this kid as a terrorist and then brag about it when they take him down.

There’s something deeply wrong about this.

Islam and the West: (not) keeping things in perspective

From blogdrop.posterous.com:

Just to put this into perspective, Ariana Huffington transported, for free, around 10,000 New Yorkers to Washington DC for the Rally for Sanity and/or Fear on October 30, 2010.  That’s a third of the Taliban and more than Al Qaeda.

Here’s another graphic I nicked from blogdrop.posterous.com:

If you are pro-life you should be horrified by this.  Of course, if you are pro-only-your-own-life, you’ve already rationalized this away.  Sad, either way.

SEE THAT, Anti-Mosque-at-Ground-Zero Protesters? You’re HELPING THE TERRORISTS! (seriously)!

officialssay:

“By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor… It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.”

—

Taliban operative Zabihullah, on how the mosque controversy is benefiting the Taliban. 

If we respect people’s freedom (even their freedom to be insensitive to people’s feelings about 911) the terrorists DON’T win. Why do you anti-mosque-types not get this? Maybe you just WANT to hate? That could be…

(Blogged this on my lifestream by accident so here it is where it belongs on Website666.com)

#WTFObama: #DontBelieveTheHype: US Mil "withdrawal" from Iraq just a rebranding--56k will stay.

US Withdraws Last Combat Brigade from Iraq, But 56,000 Troops Remain

The US has officially withdrawn its last designated combat brigade from Iraq, two weeks ahead of a deadline for the withdrawal of some 14,000 troops. In a surprise announcement, the Pentagon said the last combat brigade crossed over into Kuwait earlier today. Although the withdrawal has been hailed as a major milestone in the Iraq war and an end to combat operations, most of the remaining 56,000 US troops are still trained in combat and will continue to carry out armed attacks. The Obama administration also plans to double its private military force in Iraq to an estimated 7,000 contractors. According to the New York Times, the bulk of the private military force will be deployed at five compounds across Iraq, where they’ll perform duties including operating drones, deploying reaction forces and operating radars to detect militant attacks. In an interview on Democracy Now! earlier this month, independent journalist Jeremy Scahill said the Obama administration’s withdrawal plan amounts to a rebranded occupation.

Jeremy Scahill: “What is essentially unfolding here is a downsized and rebranded occupation, Obama-style, that is going to necessitate a surge in private forces. The State Department is asking for MRAP vehicles, armored vehicles, for Black Hawk helicopters and for these paramilitary forces. So, yes, you can say that officially combat has ended, but in reality you’re continuing it through the back door by bringing in these paramilitary forces and classifying them as diplomatic security, which was Bush’s game from the very beginning.”

via democracynow.org

Sadly, this is what I was expecting.  I’m sure anyone paying attention isn’t surprised by the fact that we’re leaving a huge stack of troops behind.  What’s next from the O-man? A giant “Mission Accomplished” banner and an aircraft-carrier-based photo-op?

Are the Lies the Lying Government Officials tell actually lies? Or...?

newsweek:

“What does it mean to tell the truth about a war? Is it a lie, technically speaking, for the Administration to say that it has faith in Hamid Karzai’s government and regards him as a legitimate leader—or is it just absurd? Is it a lie to say that we have a plan for Afghanistan that makes any sense at all? If you put it that way, each of the WikiLeaks documents—from an account of an armed showdown between the Afghan police and the Afghan Army, to a few lines about a local interdiction official taking seventy-five-dollar bribes, to a sad exchange about an aid scam involving orphans—is a pixel in a picture that does, indeed, contradict official accounts of the war, and rather drastically so.”

—

The New Yorker: Wikileaks and the War

  (via southpol)

So, they are lying?

Like it even matters.

Who freaked out in 2000 when it was obvious to anyone paying attention that there was no clear winner in the election?  Or that it’s Congress’ job to settle ties, not the Supreme Court’s?

What public rose up to demand impeachment when it became obvious the Bush Administration’s USG had violated international law several times over, least of all by invading countries unprovoked?

Every single one of us wander the streets of our cities and towns knowing full well that the cash in our pockets isn’t worth anything tangible, yet we just keep pretending that’s not true.

We, The People, are used to dealing with lies—all the time.  Whether it’s God, Santa, our money, our government or the fact that Diet Coke is really no better for you than regular Coke.  We lie to each other and ourselves all the time and this shock that the USG is lying to us about war is, you guessed it: a lie.  This one, like many of them is to make us feel better.

No one in the USG should worry.  Both endless wars can continue. We have no ability to stop them from doing so and even if we did we wouldn’t use that ability.

And that is no lie.

All This For 500 Al Queda?

underpaidgenius:

David Sanger and Mark Mazetti, New Estimate of Strength of Al Qaeda Is Offered

American intelligence agencies believe that there are most likely fewer than 500 members of the group in a region [Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas]  where the United States has poured nearly 100,000 troops.

This is proof that the US government is cracked. We are spending billions every month to wage a ‘war’ — in reality, to attempt to suppress a terrorist movement — than comprises a few hundred hard core radicals.

Afghanistan is not a ‘country’ in any sense, and neither is Pakistan, really. We are wrestling with shadows.

Insanity.

Sociopathy.

I’ve been saying for years that Al Qeada is a joke and that we have little (if anything) to truly fear from these guys.  The USG has us as scared of a handful of idiots in the desert as we were of the Soviet Union.  This is absurd and our leaders should be ashamed.

There are about a thousand things we could be better spending hundreds of billions of dollars on that would save more lives right here inside America.

Where are we going to get the money to pay for free health care for all Americans? I’m pretty sure ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would help pay for it.  That way my step-dad doesn’t have to die of the cancer that is killing him.

But no, let’s keep on being scared of nothing so we can keep the funds flowing into the military industrial complex that runs our government.

Sociopathy.

The Disturbing Truth: Our Government is Protecting Us from Nothing

Dig that crazy redaction! It's like the FOIA request from the ACLU that got this doc released got us
a whole lot of nothing--of course, despite appearances, it gave us enough rope to hang the Bushies
with... if only the Obamites will bother...

After reading today's column from Andrew Sullivan at TheAtlantic.com, I have had my fears reinforced and have come to feel that the United States Government has been and continues to be a sociopathic entity. Sullivan's column is called "The American Way Of Torture" and includes select quotes from the Office of the Inspector General's report on how the CIA systemically tortured terror suspects during the Bush years. There are some disturbing truths that Sullivan's piece forces us to consider:

1) this new OIG report pretty much damns the Bush Administration by proving they not only endorsed torture, but did so in writing.

2) this was definitely torture--what else do you call it when detainees are left in their own excrement?

3) Sullivan makes the point best:

In the past, the US was known for being a country whose soldiers would never mistreat prisoners; now, the US wants the world to know that US custody is something to be dreaded.

This is the same technique used by Grand Moff Tarkin in the original Star Wars movie--his exact line was "Fear will keep the systems in line..."

So yes, all those Daily Show jokes about Cheney were accurate: the United States was run by an evil, cartoonish bad guy.

Now this next part popped into my head thanks to Democracy Now, quoting one leader who spoke about Afghanistan:

The insurgency in Afghanistan didn’t just happen overnight, and we won’t defeat it overnight. This will not be quick nor easy. But we must never forget, this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven, from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting; this is fundamental to the defense of our people.

That's not an old quote from Bush--that's Obama speaking at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Phoenix, Arizona, last week.

So, here comes Obama, explaining that we have no choice but to be in Afghanistan, mimicking the same rhetoric that came from the Bush 43 Admin for so many years. We did it because the Taliban were harboring Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. My question is, how big a threat is Al Qaeda to America? OK, fine, Obama, they're plotting
against us--but how many of us can they really kill?

In 2008 34,017 Americans were killed in car accidents according to the DOT.

In 2005 (the most recent year numbers are available) 159,217 Americans died of lung cancer alone according to the CDC.

In 2007 around 2 million people worldwide were killed by AIDS according to Avert.org.

In 2007 terrorism caused 22,685 deaths worldwide according to the US National Counter Terrorism Center. The number of American civilian deaths by terrorism is almost non-existent since Americans have to leave the country to be killed by a terrorist.

What this all means is that terrorism is a tiny, tiny, tiny threat to the American way of life. Yet, the Bush administration and now the Obama administration thinks it's worth ignoring our morals and our principles to stop the killing of less than 23,000 Earthlings while seven times that number die of lung cancer in America, alone. 53,005 died of colorectal cancer, 27,259 American women died of gynecological cancers, 41,116 American women died of breast cancer--and I could go on.

So, in the end, our government is "protecting" us from nothing. We're spending over a trillion dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan to stop this threat which does not even really exist. My only conclusion is that our government actually enjoys being horrible to people--it's literally sociopathic. Either that, or our government is too addicted to fear, or rock-stupid, to check and compare the statistics, which took me about 30 minutes to do.

With all these people dying of Cancer in the US right now, wouldn't it be nice to have a War on Cancer, instead of a War on Terror?

Huge Bombing in Baghdad "Raises Questions" about USGIs Leaving Iraq

Huge Bombing in Baghdad "Raises Questions" about USGIs Leaving Iraq, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

Capped this article just now on my iPhone (source) and it makes me wonder if more violence will be used as an all too convenient excuse to "find" ourselves "forced" to leave troops in Iraq.

Forget that Iraq will have to take over their own country eventually, there are those who will use this bombing and any further violence as an excuse to keep our men and women over there.

In fact, new violence in Iraq is such a convenient excuse that it makes me wonder just who was behind the bombing and whose side they are on.

ObamaWatch: Obama Admin Considering Indefinite Jailing for Terror Suspects #obamawtf

ObamaWatch: Obama Admin Considering Indefinite Jailing for Terror Suspects #obamawtf, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

My sister-in-law, Lisa (she runs OnLisaReinsRadar.com ), Tweeted yesterday about how every day there's something new from the Obama camp that makes her what to ask "WTF?"

I agreed and suggested a daily ObamaWTF Tweet. Here's mine for today, taken from today's DemocracyNow.org headlines:

Obama Considers “Preventive Detention” for Indefinite Jailings

The Obama administration, meanwhile, is reportedly considering a “preventive detention” system that would indefinitely jail terror suspects in the United States without bringing them to trial. The New York Times reports President Obama discussed the proposal at a meeting with human rights advocates at the White House. Two anonymous advocates told the Times that Obama indicated he favored applying the system to future cases, not prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. Obama is set to deliver a speech later today outlining his plans on how to deal with closing Guantanamo.

Original here: www.democracynow.org/2009/5/21/headlines#5

This'll be no big deal assuming Obama doesn't do it--but why is he considering this at all? I think there's an amendment in the Bill of Rights promising due process and a speedy trial or something like that.

Dems Debate Whether to Investigate Crimes of Bush Admin or: Why I Refuse Party Affiliation

Dems Debate Whether to Investigate Crimes of Bush Admin or: Why I Refuse Party Affiliation, originally uploaded by thepetecom.

Geh... This is just sad beyond words. WashingtonPost.com is reporting that the Democrats in Washington are torn as to whether or not to go after Bush Admin officials for approving torture.

So, FOR YEARS there have been loads of evidence that the Bush Administration committed crimes. The GAO actually found that they had violated federal law (go to the GAO website and do a search for "covert propaganda"). We all know that acts of torture were committed in Iraq, we know the Bush Admin misled us into war in Iraq and mismanaged our war in Afghanistan.

Yet, no investigation let alone impeachment hearings for any Bushites.

The excuse while Bush was in office was "We can't impeach him now, there just aren't enough votes."

Then, once the Democrats took the majority in Congress, the excuse became "Well, there's not enough time left before Bush steps down."

For anyone who thinks the law should be enforced the last eight years have been very hard.

But it's not getting any easier now. If EVERYTHING ELSE wasn't enough for you, Obama just released memos PROVING Bush officials were down with torture--those of us with morals would THINK we'd finally see some criminal charges.

Maybe we still will--but not before the Democrats debate about WHETHER TO ENFORCE THE LAW.

This is why I refuse to be in either political party. The Democrats are wondering if international and US law needs to be enforced and the Republicans feel the law can go to hell if the cause is just.

The most depressing thing of all is that Obama was supposed to change all of this. Now we see that Democrats and Republicans, alike, believe that the law is to be enforced on the little people and that for the rich (mostly white) folks in government, the law is simply not a concern if one's motives are pure.

I said mostly white, above, because now, apparently, Obama is in violation of the law too--international law demands that war crimminals be prosecuted.

So while I'll never call him "King Barry," Barack Obama is, and will continue to be, above the law until he goes after the Bush Administration.

Progress?