Archive for December, 2009

More Knee-jerk Nonsense on the Way from TSA


2009
12.26

Yesterday, a Nigerian performed an epic fail that has been called an Attempt At Terrorism.  No, sensationalizing pundits, it was an attempted mass murder.  Or was it?  If you’re a suicide bomber, why wait til you’re in the U.S. (all the way from economically poor Nigeria, via Amsterdam) to set the stuff off?  Wouldn’t it have been more likely to cause the loss at 30,000 feet — especially since it was described as more apt to cause flames than an explosion?  Or maybe the guy was just another dull-tool Nigerian trying to build himself a place of importance in the world?

Regardless, this is sure to mount another wave of ineffective and pointless procedures from the equally ineffective and pointless TSA.  When Richard the Shoe Bomber did his schtick, he got life, and we all got to take our shoes off for the rest of OUR lives.  When gel was used in Europe, we all got to have our toiletries confiscated… or the great joy of buying new toothpaste in every town.  These make perfect sense.  After all, the only ways to blow up a plane are gels and shoes, right?  Besides, its working.  There hasn’t been another “Terrorist” attack since the World Trade Center, so we must be on the right path, right?  Or not.  Consider that we hadn’t had one before either.  Regardless, if a shoe bomb ends up with us all taking our shoes off, and gel ends up with us all having our toiletries limited or confiscated, it’s a sure bet that this is going to have similar fall-out.  Since he had the powder taped to his leg, I’m guessing we’ll all have to take our pants off now.  Aren’t you glad he didn’t hide the stuff up his rectum?

For all intents and purposes, the only Terrorism going on these days is performed by us — on other nations and upon ourselves.  We’re all sick of it, so when are we going to take a stand, declare ourselves patriots and freedom fighters, and demand that these inane antics and stupid human tricks stop?  All of those shoe checks?  For nothing.  All of that confiscated hair gel?  Like urinating in grey flannel pants, it may have given us a warm feeling, but Al Queda apparently failed to notice.  You can be they see us terrorizing ourselves, though.

Enough is enough, and this is way past that state.  Europe isn’t inundated by bombings, even though they don’t employ such tactics on trains, etc.  Then again, they’re also not invading Afghanistan.  Perhaps its time we dispensed of the pointless “Simon Says” exercises and started trying some bonhomie instead.  A bit of good will would likely go a lot farther than these after-the-fact acts of terrorism we perpetuate upon ourselves.  Speak out.  Tell them you’re fed up of being forced to act like we’re living in fear.  Tell them you’re sick and tired of us giving them reason to mess with us, sick of us terrorizing ourselves, and that it’s time for the Wag The Dog tactics to stop.  Please, do it now.  The next one may very well use something “private” to conceal the goods, and then this nonsense will really get out of hand!

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

The Daily Price Of Freedom


2009
12.22

Just last week I posted on the notion that the price of Liberty is affording that same inalienable right to others around you.  This week, I got to experience personal tyranny in a way that I haven’t seen in a few years.  Someone who owns a domain and forum pushing his weight around, banning people for disagreeing with him, or objecting to his questionable business tactics.  It became a lesson in the concept of Public.  If he owns a place where people are invited to gather and talk, share ideas, etc., does he have the ethical right to expel them from that online society if he doesn’t like the person?

At first glance, it may seem like a “My house, my rules” situation.  On further inspection, though, one finds that it isn’t his house.  By inviting the general public into the forum, he made it a public place.  As such, speech which poses no threat or actual libel should be free.  That you don’t LIKE someone isn’t cause to ban that person.  If he starts trashing you there on your own forum, that may be seen as tacky, but even then, the libertarian option is that the opposing view gets a voice as well; you can disagree with him and present your side, but it’s still not okay to just toss someone out for disagreeing or thinking poorly of you. (more…)

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

The High Price of Liberty


2009
12.17

These days, it seems everyone expects instant gratification, perceives entitlements that they haven’t earned or inherited, don’t deserve.  That’s one side of the coin.  On the other side (still the same coin,) there are those who claim right to control the behaviors of others, at the expense of their civil liberties.  Unwarranted censorship is performed by moderators of online forums — people telling other people what they may or may not say, and how they may and may not express those sentiments.  This is done under the guise of representing the best interest of the members as a whole, but most often is simply the result of a control freak being put in charge of that forum.  Put it in the context of a corporeal situation.  Who would tolerate someone asserting himself so deeply in a conversation between two other people? (more…)

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)

Banks Refuse To Finance At Lower Rates


2009
12.13

People are up-in-arms because they’re frustrated that banks are refusing to refinance their homes at a lower rate.  Let’s get real for a minute.  Banks are for-profit institutions, just like any other business.  If they are able to sell their widget (loan money) for 10 percent elsewhere, why should they loan it to us for 5.9%?  Part of this is the bemoaned Wall Street angle, but mostly I’m referring to the fact that they’ve already got you by the short hairs in a higher interest rate, so where is the advantage to them to refinance? (more…)

Digg This
Reddit This
Stumble Now!
Buzz This
Vote on DZone
Share on Facebook
Bookmark this on Delicious
Kick It on DotNetKicks.com
Shout it
Share on LinkedIn
Bookmark this on Technorati
Post on Twitter
Google Buzz (aka. Google Reader)