States Balk At Real ID
I can't help but notice that this article mentions some extremely weak objections to State ID Cards meeting a Federal Standard before being accepted at a Federal level. If someone is entering a Federal Building or boarding a plane, their identity should be established in a reliable manner.
At issue is a law known as Real ID that would require new security
measures for state-issued driver's licenses. The Bush administration
says the law, passed after the Sept. 11 attacks, will hinder
terrorists, con artists and illegal immigrants. Opponents say it will
cost too much and weaken privacy protections.
And how much did 9/11 cost? How about illegal aliens? Voter fraud? Identity theft? Why would any responsible agency be resistant to reliable identification? The argument about weakened privacy is just as flawed. If they're talking about that information being accessed inappropriately, that happens now. There is no reason to think that the information will be less secure and every reason to believe that misuse will be identified quicker than it is now because it can be cross-referenced faster.
What expectation of privacy should there be in boarding a commercial flight or entering a Federal Building? Even without a Real ID standard identification card, any person can still fly or conduct their business inside a Federal Building once they've undergone a secondary screening. If they don't like the idea of a secondary screening... get a Real ID compliant identification card or don't try to engage in activities that require reliable identification.
This should have been done a long time ago. Nobody is being forced to get a particular ID card and it's not a National Registration. All it's doing is making sure that a state driver's license will provide a reliable identification of that person... a minimum standard. What good is an ID card that doesn't ID someone reliably?
But I Thought We Went To War For The Oil?
Barack Obama said today that the Iraq War was to blame for higher oil prices in a slumping economy.
"When you're spending over $50 to fill up your car because the price of oil is four times what it was before Iraq,
you're paying a price for this war," Obama said. "When Iraq is costing
each household about $100 a month, you're paying a price for this war."
So if we went to war for cheap oil, why are prices going up? Of course, if prices had gone down, he would blame the Iraq War for hastening Global Warming, right? Nothing is so good that it can't be spun negatively... against America if possible. What a tool.
1
There is a little wheat in what he's saying, amid all the chaff: what's been going on for the last five years in Iraq has certainly had an impact on oil prices. But it's an impact you can't readily measure, and of course the Chinese and Indians and everyone else would be buying just as much, if not more, oil.
And there is the obvious truth that if Iraq were not so well endowed with oil, we wouldn't have bothered with Saddam, and he wouldn't have had the resources to become worth bothering about.
Posted by: kishnevi at 21 March 2008@13:34:47 (FFHuv)
2And there is the obvious truth that if Iraq were not so well endowed
with oil, we wouldn't have bothered with Saddam, and he wouldn't have
had the resources to become worth bothering about.
I would agree with that much of it. It seems disingenuous for the left to claim we went to war because of oil, then complain because we didn't take any.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 21 March 2008@15:08:14 (Q5ggV)
Shhhh.... It's Secret
Plans for the new headquarters of Canada's Counter-Terror Unit were found in a trashcan in Ottawa.
The 26 blueprints, bearing a Department of
National Defense stamp, reportedly show everything from the location of
the security fence to the floor plan of the new home of the Canadian
Joint Incident Response Unit, the Ottawa Citizen reported.
Did Sandy Burger get a work visa to Canada and nobody noticed?
Hamas Terrorists Fail Mid-Terms, One Gets An "Incomplete"
Two Palestinian terrorists blew themselves up after "mishandling" explosives at a training center.
Palestinian militants accidentally set
off a large blast at a Hamas training base in the central Gaza Strip on
Thursday, killing two members of the violent Islamic group and wounding
another, a Palestinian medical official said.
Too bad it wasn't during the comprehensive final exam, but splodey-dopes should always be this competent. Preferably in large peer-group sessions.
Olympic Boycott?
This is a good idea, but why are the Olympics being held in China in the first place? What did the selection committee think would happen? If they treated China as a responsible nation they would start to act like one?
Moves to punish China over its handling
of violence in Tibet gained momentum Tuesday, with a novel suggestion
for a mini-boycott of the Beijing Olympics by VIPs at the opening
ceremony.
Having the Heads-of-State skip the Opening Ceremonies would send a great message. I like this even better:
U.S. Olympic Committee spokesman Darryl Seibel said there are no rules forcing athletes to attend opening ceremonies.
The Olympic rules forbid any open protest or political expression by the individual athletes, and rightly so. They are there to compete and represent their country, not to try and set foreign policy. They can protest or give interviews all they want before and after the Olympics, but should keep their personal politics to themselves while competing.
I like the thought of everyone skipping the Opening Ceremonies, athletes and world leaders, but it should be an individual decision and they should keep their reasons to themselves until after the Games are over.
Final Question: Why is this idea coming out from the European Union?
Final Question: Why is this idea coming out of the European Union?
Because it's ineffectual? Because they're using St. Jimmeh as a role model?
As I've snarked elsewhere, sure, it worked so well in 1980, why, 9 years later the USSR fell and it was all because of the boycott!!!
And as I saw someone note at Ace's today, Nazi Germany fell just 9 years after the '36 Olympics. So in 9 years commie China will become democratic!!!!
They should never have given them to the Chinese. It's like that Dean of what, Columbia? who attacked Ahmadinejihad after inviting him. I thought that was petty, if he felt that way he should have boycotted the speech and said why or kept him from coming, not attack him in that childish manner.
The only difference between a boycott this year and 1980 is that in 1980 the people being screwed were pretty much all under 20 and were most likely never going to get the chance again. Now? Many are pro-athletes and will likely be back in 4 years.
Posted by: Veeshir at 19 March 2008@10:50:12 (zXUuJ)
2
Not a full boycott Veeshir, just the Opening Ceremonies. I agree about a total boycott... causes more problems than it solves.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 19 March 2008@11:51:17 (Q5ggV)
I would suggest that any boycott makes you look ineffectual, weak and useless. Again, that's why the EUnuchs are for it. That's their specialty.
Denying the commies the Olympics in the first place was the way to go. I mean, is anybody really surprised that China murders dissenters?
Since they gave them the Olympics in the first place, they tacitly approved of the detention and murder of political dissidents, to act all upset about it now is just lame and an exercise in trying to convince me they are Shocked! Shocked! I tell you that commie dictators are oppressive and murderous.
My favorite was the local despot saying that the security forces didn't carry guns and most of the dead were either killed by the rioters or died while trying to escape. That's what cartoon/Hollywood villains say.
Posted by: Veeshir at 19 March 2008@12:33:41 (zXUuJ)
4
The first line in the post argued that China shouldn't have gotten the Olympics in the first place. Complaining about it now, without doing anything further, would be ineffectual, weak, and useless. Not doing anything at all is tacitly condoning them, or that's what they will believe anyway. Shaming them goes farther in their culture than it would in ours, so boycotting the Opening Ceremonies can at least send that message without depriving our athletes their opportunity to compete.
I would just as soon stop having the Olympics if countries like China can host them. It makes a mockery of what the Olympics were intended to represent. The fact that professionals were allowed to compete was bad enough, the whole program is a joke now. I don't watch any of it on TV and probably never will. I don't see the point.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 20 March 2008@02:35:06 (Q5ggV)
Just For Self-Defense
The 57-year-old man who was in a coma after being exposed to a deadly poison in his hotel room has told his brother it was just "for self-defense".
"He just confirmed that it was not intended for anybody," Erich
Bergendorff said in a telephone interview from his home north of San Diego in Escondido "It was something that would be used for his own purposes, for self-defense."
Ricin is illegal for individuals to make or possess any reason. Saying it was for self-defense is ludicrous.
Police say they also found firearms in the room, along with castor
beans — from which ricin is derived — and four "anarchists cookbooks"
in the room, marked at sections describing how to make ricin. But
officials have said they have not found evidence in the motel room or
elsewhere of contamination and have downplayed the possibility that
Roger Bergendorff posed a threat.
Nope, just a patriotic American attempting to exercise his Second Amendment rights and being oppressed by our fascist government. I really hate the MSM... really. They'll downplay domestic terrorism because 'that's what the police told them'... but call the police and the administration liars and incompetents when the story disturbs their narrative.
Give Chavez What He Wants
South American thug Hugo Chavez wants to be put on the United States' list of "State Sponsors of Terrorism" so they "can shove it".
"They threatened to put us on the list of terrorists that
they've got there. Great, let them make their list and shove it
in their ... pocket," Chavez said with a pause for comic
effect.
Interesting. I've written before about this dictator here, and here, and here. Notably (perhaps only to me, heh), in the comments of that last post I stated:
By putting them on the list, we stop buying their oil. Stop buying
their oil, their economy takes the hit. The economy takes the hit, the
people take a more active role in removing the problem, which is Chavez.
If
they're already disaffected with his policies because it screws up
their lives, they're going to become more disaffected if continuing his
policies screw up their lives even further. Nationalism isn't going to
save him because he's beaten that horse to death already. Besides, they
are a state sponsor of
terrorism, let's call it as we see it and let the chips fall where they
may. That's the morally courageous path.
"Please don't throw me in that briar patch! put me on that State Sponsor of Terrorism List!" Br'er Rabbit Chavez doesn't want on that list because then we don't buy his oil. The thing to do is, give him what he says he wants and let him reap that harvest.
The War Crimes Trial Of Charles Taylor
A chilling story over at doubleplusundead. I would have linked directly to the story and just given the hat-tip, but dpu has a humorous story just below this one that will get your mind off warcrimes. Check out both and enjoy.
1
Required reading for those who believe everyone is inherently good.
Posted by: DRJ at 13 March 2008@20:54:47 (wE7Og)
2
I believe people are inherently good... it's just that not everyone is people. This is what I'd call a monster, not some prostitute who got caught up in a scandal.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 13 March 2008@22:24:26 (Q5ggV)
This Would Be Awesome For Our Military
New technologies are often developed specifically for the battlefield, then adapted for commercial use. I don't see any mention of a military application in this article, but it would be a nice tool for Special Forces and other trigger-pullers.
Users have to specifically think about voicing words for them to be
picked up by the band, but it saves them from saying potentially
sensitive things while on a cellphone in public.
Or maybe just before an assault? Granted, once the bullets start flying... noise discipline is very low priority. But for the setup and coordination phase? Definitely something to look at.
Venezuela Finally "Disturbing" United States
I've written about the South American thug Hugo Chavez more than once and still believe there is a strong possibility he'll move on Colombia soon. Although the State Department has now said that the information found on laptops used by FARC leaders was "disturbing", they're not ready to add Venezuela to the list of state sponsors of terrorism.
"The information that has emerged so far is worrisome. I
would even call it disturbing because it does seem to indicate
a degree of dialogue and discussion between members of the
government of Venezuela and the FARC that have to be
explained," he told reporters. "But ... we are very early in
the process and it would be a mistake to jump to conclusions."
Let's recap a bit to see if we're feeling froggy. First, Chavez buddies up with known sponsors of terror like Ahmadinejad and Castro. Second, the FARC computers. Third, constantly attacks the United States in speeches and at the United Nations, calling our President "the devil". Fourth, gets really angry when a terrorist buddy is killed in another country... mad enough to cut off diplomatic relations and send troops to the border. Fifth, threatens to cut off sales of oil to the United States even though nobody else will buy it. Sixth, tries to nationalize a private company from the United States and refuses to consider any compensation for the theft. Seventh...
Screw it, hell yes I'm feeling froggy. I think I'll just go ahead and jump to the fat, juicy conclusion that this guy is a sponsor of terrorists, is a terrorist himself, and is probably impotent... ok, maybe I won't jump to that last one. But, it would explain a lot, wouldn't it? Put him on the list Condoleezza... make the jump, it's not that far.
1
I agree with you but I also think the Bush Administration can't, even if it agrees with us. This is another in a long line of consequences from the "Bush lied, people died" meme: The Bush Administration can't take the lead in identifying terrorism. Instead, it has to wait until others (the public, the Democrats, France/Britain, etc.) clamor for something and only then can the Administration "reluctantly" acquiesce.
Of course, that doesn't stop the Administration from working behind the scenes to deal with Chavez and I assume/hope they are.
Posted by: DRJ at 13 March 2008@11:47:24 (wE7Og)
2
On one level you're right of course... that would be the politically wise thing for the administration. One of the things I like about President Bush is that he has the moral courage to make a decision and go forward if he believes it to be the right thing.
Not so great when I disagree with him... but I can respect it.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 13 March 2008@12:16:42 (Q5ggV)
3
There is this argument against putting Chavez on the terrorism list: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/andres_oppenheimer/story/454645.html
Oppenheimer isn't exactly a fan of Bush--he's criticized almost everything the Administration has done regarding Latin America, most often basing himself on the idea that they are not paying the region enough attention--but he loathes Chavez.
Posted by: kishnevi at 13 March 2008@20:31:07 (FFHuv)
4
A fair argument and maybe correct. I don't think so though. By putting them on the list, we stop buying their oil. Stop buying their oil, their economy takes the hit. The economy takes the hit, the people take a more active role in removing the problem, which is Chavez.
If they're already disaffected with his policies because it screws up their lives, they're going to become more disaffected if continuing his policies screw up their lives even further. Nationalism isn't going to save him because he's beaten that horse to death already. Besides, they are a state sponsor of terrorism, let's call it as we see it and let the chips fall where they may. That's the morally courageous path.
Posted by: Stashiu3 at 13 March 2008@22:18:51 (Q5ggV)
Sites are added to the Moronosphere and Gerbil Nation blogrolls by request. I got everyone on there who was there when they were made, so email me if you know of a new addition. Some of these are on the main blogroll as well and will remain duplicated.
The main blogroll is at my own discretion. I gratefully accept suggestions by email, but I don't do blogroll exchanges. If a site is there, it's because I personally recommend it. If it's one that is not updated often, check out the archives and you'll probably see why it's there. I will rarely remove a site from the main blogroll once it's there.
Recent Comments
sillyblindharper
*rustle, rustle* **looks around empty thread** SQUEaK! entry
Comments are not moderated and users are not registered. This means that I have little to no control over who posts a comment or the content of that comment. Therefore, comments other than my own do not reflect any viewpoint of mine, no matter how long it appears as I will likely remove comments that cross the line of decency. If a comment is removed, a notation that the comment was there will be inserted. Any questions or concerns about posts, comments, copyright, or other issues may be addressed by emailing me at "stashiu3 AT gmail DOT com" replacing the AT with @ and DOT with a period. If that's too complicated, maybe you shouldn't be on the internet without supervision. Just sayin'
Blog Notes
If you have suggestions for the blog, put them in a comment to the original welcome post, a comment to any other post, or email me at the contact below. Be well.
Stash
About Me
I am a Psychiatric Nurse who retired from the Army after 24 years total service. I started out as a Private E-1, made Sergeant E-5 in 23 months, then went to nursing school and ROTC to get commissioned. I am interested in politics where I lean heavily conservative, movies, music, and books. Hopefully you will enjoy what you see and come back often.
Contact me
Stashiu3 AT gmail DOT com
(Replace the "AT" with "@" and the "DOT" with ".")