Thursday, September 02, 2010
First, there's Lee himself; he was obviously deeply disturbed, and it was so obviously apparent to so many around him. Included in this number are his own relatives, a few "friends" that have been quoted, the people at the Discovery Channel who have said they guessed at the identity of their would-be attacker before anyone in the media had even identified him. Also, naturally, anyone with internet access who may have visited his website and just shrugged him off as some dope on a soapbox, or the criminal justice system which saw fit to release man who stood on a street corner throwing away thousands of dollars in cash who judged that while his actions may have certainly seemed insane, since they weren't exactly illegal, it was okay to let him loose with but a slap upon the wrist and not a thought about committing him to psychiatric care (on the odd chance that it might have actually worked in his case).
I mean, who wants to get involved with a lunatic, right? Not even the people who claim to love him, or the authorities designated to protect the greater society, it seems
Not one of those of people made an effort to help this guy, and in not lifting a finger to help a disturbed man, they put thousands of other lives at risk.
Then there are the morons who find the episode infinitely entertaining; the thoughtless boobs who post snarky comments (mostly anonymously, of course, the cowards) about the humor they find in a situation where a deranged man obsessed with population control meets his own demise at the hands of the police, and in an "ironic"way (is this really irony?), he accomplishes his mission to see the human race destroyed -- by getting himself killed.
I don't find anything even remotely funny in that.
These are the same people who don't realize that even if Lee didn't achieve his ultimate goal, he still put thousands of others at risk (including children), fired a gunshot inside a crowded building, got his hands on explosives despite all that Homeland Security bullshit, and paralyzed an entire city for an afternoon. The actions motivated by his own psychological issues will now be transferred to thousands of others in the form of mental health issues of their own -- both because of their experiences, and because they will now live in (further) fear of the mentally ill.
Of course, those who poke fun at a sick man and a dangerous situation don't see what's lurking on the horizon; the Copycats. Pretty soon, some other lunatic with an untreated-but-everyone-knew-about-it neurosis and a petty axe to grind will decide that what Lee attempted seems like a goddamned good idea. Don't be surprised if in future someone walks into a McDonald's with a flamethrower and demands that every order of large fries have exactly 83 tasty taters in it. It won't be long now before someone walks into IBM headquarters with a bomb and tries to get the corporate bigwigs to turn the company's focus and resources on the "serious problem" of hands-free porn surfing. I'm dreading the day when someone decides that it's about time someone solved the age-old dilemma of why there are only 8 buns in the bag when hot dogs come in packages of 10, and tries to make their point with a Glock, a ton of Ampho, and a fucking manifesto.
And why is it that every deranged idiot has a "manifesto"? Perhaps if the psychological profession put their minds to work on that, they'd be a shade more useful.
This is not over. Not by a long shot.
And in a week or so, after the overpaid-but-otherwise-useless Flapping Rectums on the idiot box have exhausted discussion on the social and political ramifications and motivations of Lee's actions, it will all be forgotten...and nothing will have been learned.
James Jay Lee was a criminal, make no mistake about that. But before he was, he was a man in need of help, and no one could be bothered to give it to him. We're extremely fortunate that no one else paid for that little oversight.
Vis-a-vis James Jay Lee, the Eco-nut Terrorist who took hostages at the Discovery Channel, and was killed by police;
1. I cannot excuse anything Lee did (and I don't want anyone to think I am), but I have some sympathy for the man in this respect, only -- he was someone who needed some serious help, and didn't -- or couldn't --get it. It is absolutely shameful how we treat the mentally ill in this country, and it's only AFTER they do something shocking (but entirely foreseeable) that we even begin to discuss the mental health system (such as it is).
2. There are thousands of assholes, just like this one, walking around just waiting to go off, but no one is willing to make the effort to protect society from them because it's either too expensive, or because no one in the medical profession will admit that when it comes to mental illness, your guess is as good as mine, despite the appearance and assumption of scientific knowledge.
3. You know you're dealing with a potentially-dangerous person when his first demand is that the Human Race be exterminated.
4. No one questions the basic premise of Lee's "manifesto"; that human beings and their technological progress are an existential threat to the continuance of life on this planet, despite the fact that Lee and his ilk a) wouldn't be here without any of it, b) couldn't continue to exist without it, and c) seem to have no trouble using the very technology they decry in getting their own warped message out, or in killing others.
5. Some in the environMENTAL movement have now decided that they have the right to decide who lives, who dies, and even who gets born, according to some calculus that even they can't explain, but which somehow aims to leave them alive to enjoy the untrammelled delights of the return of Nature...providing they aren't eaten by a bloody great tiger, or die of malaria after the bulk of we "disgusting human beings" -- and our technology -- are gone.
If you think your average tree-hugger is just a concerned human being who simply has a passion for something warm-and-fuzzy, then guess again; some are aiming at the extinction of the human race (excepting themselves, of course).
6. James Jay Lee is, in his own way, no different than Woodrow Wilson, George Bernard Shaw or Adolf Hitler who's special brand of "Progressivism" always leads to forced sterilization and extermination. There are others, more well-known, more "famous" than he, and they are deserving of careful and closer scrutiny.
7. These folks are always on about the evils of human technology, but have no trouble, apparently, using it when it suits their needs. James Jay Lee had no issue with making free use of guns, explosives and the Internet when it suited his purposes, and in the end, tried to hijack a massive media and broadcasting organization. When a single Squirrel-lover can explain that one to me, in a way that makes it all seem sane, I have a $1,000 bucks for you.
In his own way, James Jay Lee is the enviroMENTAL Al'Qaeda; the idea is promulgated that the West produces nothing of value, and which is little more than poison...unless you just happen to need an AK-47, Semtex, an airliner, nuclear weapons, the Internet or the Media. It's hard to make those things from hemp and bark, I guess.
8. At least James Jay Lee won't be polluting the planet with either his "disgusting" human presence, or any more offspring. In the end, he got his wish. It's my belief the guy was out to commit suicide-by-cop, but he just figured he might make it a more meaningful suicide by blowing up a Daycare center and forcing a media conglomerate to bend to his will.
Now, what's absolutely fascinating to me (and entirely too-predictable) is that people KNOW this guy is a walking time bomb, and yet, no one seems able to stop him before he goes off. Quote from one of Lee's "friends":
Yaya Fanusie, an acquaintance of Lee's, saw him on a
bus, carrying two boxes en route to the building yesterday. She said his going
off the deep end was no surprise.
"He was a danger to society," Fanusie said.
Thanks for the "heads-up", Sweetheart.
If that doesn't make you go "hmmm", try this:
"When we heard the news" yesterday about the
hostage-taking, "we joked, 'It must be that Lee guy,' " said Dave Glanz, a
motion graphics designer who does work for the (Discovery) channel.
Fuck, even his intended victims knew the guy was a walking diaster!
But, it gets better. In the middle of the whole drama, FoxNews' Megyn Kelly manages to get the guy's brother-in-law on the phone, and he says Lee's had a number of known issues for years!
Why is it that everyone seems to know this guy is a menace to himself and others -- and he's still roaming the streets?
The same theme seems to repeat itself with every one of these televised psychodramas that pop up every few years: known crazy finally goes berserk, forty thousand acquaintances who knew he was a danger to himself and others finally decide to break their silence...but only after someone, often many someones, is dead. Why aren't they trying to get the guy help before he flips out? Why does it seem as if there isn't any help to even get? I'm certain that in the following weeks, as more of James Jay Lee's life is revealed (assuming no one forgets about him altogether over Labor Day Weekend), we'll find at least one "Mental Health Professional" who was aware of the danger he posed, but did little more than feed him pills and hope for the best, because, well...that's how modern medicine works.
We don't institutionalize anyone anymore (too expensive). Insurance companies often don't cover mental health issues (too expensive, too esoteric to understand, few reliable predictors for success/failure in treatment which makes it difficult to establish a cost model). When state and budgets need to be cut, the Crazy get the short end of the stick. Mostly because it's more important -- politically -- that drug addicts have clean needles (AIDS-fighting measure), and the inner-city-chronically-unemployed breeder class (coincidentally, the very same people that Lee's brand of Progressivism sought to eliminate through extermination and forced sterilization) be kept alive in order to vote democrat, and PROGRESSIVE democrat, at that.
Figure that one out!
I cannot condone what James Jay Lee did, and I shudder to think what might have happened if he had gotten to the Day Care center in that building (that might have been his intended target all along; we'll soon find out), but he's just another in a long line of warnings that our mental health system pretty much sucks, in all respects. He's also a stellar example of human stupidity: people know this guy's a crackpot, and no one tries to help him very much, nor do they report him to the authorities. The few times he IS in contact with the authorities, no one finds him crazy enough to lock up. We'll soon discover that where treatment was available to Lee, it was of the predictable "Tell me about your Mother, that'll-be-$400-for-the-45-minute-hour-thank-you-and-here-take-this-pill-that-may-improve-your-condition-or-turn-you-into-a-zombie-your-guess-is-as-good-as-mine-don't-let-the-door-hit-you-on-the-way-out-next-sucker-please!" sort. This should be our first lesson; someone should have noticed, someone should have cared, and a better standard of treatment might have been available, if anyone had.
The second lesson of James Jay Lee, one we really shouldn't need to relearn, is that Eco-this-that-and-the-other is largely a scam, perpetrated by the well-informed-and-ill-intentioned upon the will-intentioned-but-ill-informed. Or in this case, the ill-equipped. And it often drives people to the most extreme behavior, as people try to make themselves "Carbon-neutral" or show their devotion to "the Cause". Al Gore and this execrable author Lee was on about, Daniel Quinn, now have blood on their hands. I'm positive neither will give back any of the money they made from peddling their stupidity, though.
Then there's the lesson of extremism.
The Discovery Channel runs eco-friendly programming all day long, and somehow this idiot (Lee) singles it out for not promoting the Eco-agenda enough. I wonder how many more Lee's are in the environMENTAL movement who believe that a network that devotes pretty much 24-hour-a-day/7-day-a-week programming devoted to the natural world is insufficiently solicitous of the Green Message? The Discovery Channel is absolutely lousy with David Attenborough, or shows in which some hippie douchebag (Ed Begley, Jr.) show you how to turn your own turds into everything from cough syrup to rocket fuel.
And this wasn't good enough for James Jay Lee?
Some people in Tree-hugger-Land had better start getting a grip, taking stock of the more dangerous people within their ranks, and start reining some of these nutjobs in, before they go beyond mere advocacy and make the great leap to terrorism. Because that's what Lee's little drama was. That it was terrorism on behalf of Mother Gaia doesn't make it any less ugly.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Coulter may be a lot of things: she can sure write a book, and make an argument. She can cause the Libtards to wail and gnash their teeth in agony. She's a smart lady, even if she can't pick a Presidential winner to save her life.
But an enemy of conservatives? Never. She's just committed the mortal sin (in conservative politics, anyways) of exercising her own (better) judgement. If there's anything that drives the perpetually-panty-bunched crazy it's a lack of mindless orthodoxy, you know, that thing they often ascribe to their political opposite numbers --- and in that context, describe as a mental defect.
This "debate" is mostly symptomatic of what's really wrong with modern Conservatism; it's lack of pragmatism, and the hijacking of the term itself.
If you are a Conservative, then you should be, by definition, in favor of defending the values of Classical Liberalism, as they apply to American life. What you seek to conserve is that which was created by (Classically) liberal means. The most basic of these values are these:
a) Freedom of expression, association, conscience and religion
b) The ability to question, audit, examine, and even challenge, authority
c) The right to exercise those freedoms without having your column dropped, and your personal e-mail exposed by a website that no one in his right mind reads anymore, and which uses the word "God" the way most people use commas.
World Net Daily is, of course, free to hire and employ anyone they wish to. They should just stop pretending that their decision to drop Coulter as regular contributor had anything to do with "conservatism". I used to read WND regularly, and they're a bunch of morons who wouldn't know real "conservatism" if it bit them on the ass. If it can't be viewed though the simple mindset of God-Guns-and-Gays, then it isn't a subject worthy of "Real" conservatism to the WND type.
Somehow, many self-proclaimed conservatives have forgotten that individuals have rights. Usually because there are some aspects of individual freedom which conflict with religious dogma, and because today's Christian has often been robbed of the capacity to rationally reconcile the two. This causes him to lose the ability to compromise, or even to admit that he might not always be right.
They are right in some respects; abortion is an abomination, and gays should not be married if only to preserve the traditions of the institution. But to object to someone taking a speaking engagement because you believe the people she's speaking to are disgusting sinners whom the Good Lord has decided to punish with AIDS, is taking things a smidgen too far. You are, in effect, arguing that Ann Coulter's freedom of speech and associations, the gay group's right to invite whoever they decide they want to listen to, can't co-exist with your right to be a bunch of Bible-Thumping douchebags.
This idea that Christians are a put-upon and oppressed group that has no political power, and which is continually victimized by libertine society has finally gotten to the point where I can't stand to listen to it anymore. You're beginning to sound like Al Sharpton does when it comes to race, and it's off-putting, as well as infantile. And while you cry about all the intolerance for the Christian point of view, you show an astounding amount of intolerance for your enemies; What happened to the Christian virtues of "Turn the Other Cheek", "Love thy neighbor" or "Love the Sinner, but Hate the Sin?"
Oh, right. That was all propaganda; Jesus didn't really mean to love that particular Sinner, he really meant something else entirely, you see.
Scream all you want about Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, and how they're reviving the "Old and Forgotten America", pulling in half-a-million people at a rally, and that somehow this is living proof of a Christian revival in America; most of the people there didn't show up to pray -- they went because they want a fucking job, lower taxes, and no part of ObamaCare, and this was a better way of showing their displeasure with their government than firebombing the White House would be. The truth is that Palin and Beck are starting to get on my nerves, too.
It's not that I disagree with them,or most of the Stick-up-their-Ass Conservatives; I don't, on most subjects, it's just that they're insufferable douchebags in action. As soon as they get off the"This is our country, and these are our rights" stuff and mention that word...God...they lose me, mostly because they use it as a marketing tool to differentiate themselves from the democrats they'd like to replace, or Keith Olbermann.
And that's what the morons at World Net Daily are: insufferable douchebags who on the one hand bemoan that the world does not pay heed to, nor tolerate their values -- the values espoused by the Constitution, those values that made America great, and of which they claim to be the great defenders -- while on the other, they deny that very courtesy they reserve for themselves to one of their own because she extended those rights and courtesies to another group of people condemned by the Almighty.
I'll bet half the people who think this way are probably closet fags, themselves, and twice as bad and insufferable as most liberals. At least you can get a libtard to shut up by saying, as loudly as you can, so as to draw attention "what if we replaced the word "Chardonnay" with"Black"or "Woman"? Would you find it funny then? Well, would you...?"
Doesn't matter what the subject or context is; that line always stops 'em dead in their tracks.
I stopped calling myself a Conservative once I had realized that most of the people who were doing likewise were some of the stupidest sons-of-bitches I had ever seen in my life, who didn't have a thought in their head that wasn't in some way lifted right out of Scripture, or planted there by Pastor Bob after he got in a quick reach-around and a $10 donation. They compound this stupidity by failing to realize that much of what they advocate for (mostly, their advocacy is against this or that) would make them indistinguishable from the Taliban.
Ann Coulter should be able to speak about conservatism, or any other subject, she wants, to anyone she chooses to grace with her intelligence and eloquence.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
It basically can be summed up:
1. Hey, we're leaving Iraq! We won! And I (Barack Obama, Saviour of the Universe) am making sure the moment is properly recorded for posterity so that, one day, the history books can be forged in such a way by legions of brain-dead liberal historians as to present My August Personage as a successful war-time president.
2. I am now focused on the economy, free of the distraction of Iraq. Boy, if you thought I was focused before, well, you just watch me focus now! I mentioned the Middle Class! I used the word "investment"! Just imagine what I could do about that Economy when I'm really, really focused on it! I've repeated the Bill Clinton mantra about people working harder for less-and-less; it worked for him, by all rights it should work for me, too!
P.S. I'm already thinking of fascinating ways to spend the money (i.e. find even more ridiculous ways to waste it by giving reparations to the Brothas an' Sistahs, under the guise of "investments") "saved" by ceasing "combat operations" which were light on actual combat, but pretty heavy on wasting money to build outhouses and bring electricity to people maybe one-generation removed from hunter-gather status... who will fucking still hate us anyways.
3. I mentioned George Bush in a way that gave him (slight) credit for something...anything. So now you republicans can shut the fuck up about me being ungracious and blaming George Bush for everything from the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, to simple chronic halitosis, to a sputtering economy. I said something nice about him, see? I can be bi-partisan and unideological, even if I looked as if I were about to choke while I said it.
I doubt very many people actually watched that speech. Tomorrow, when it's remarked about how few people actually did watch, it will be spun that one can't expect a huge television audience on a Tuesday night in Prime-Time.
In any case, it was wholly unnecessary.
Primarily this will be because no one actually gives a crap about anything Obama has to say,anymore. Most folks automatically assume that if Obama's lips are moving, he's lying, or blaming George Bush for something, or spouting glaring contradictions three or four times per paragraph. People are sick and tired of hearing Barack Obama speak, on any subject, at any time.
The only thing I got out of that speech was....a strange wave of nostalgia for Jimmy Carter. I immediately had a belt, and then went out to the shed to flagellate myself.
This speech was the swan song of a failed Administration. We just haven't realized it yet.
Why does the military find it necessary to label things things, especially wartime operations, the way it does? Operation Desert Shield, Operation Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now, Operation New Dawn, are merely examples of the Madison Avenue mindset that seems to dominate military operations these days. Of course, these names are a fair bit better-sounding than the activities they're coined to misrepresent; after all, how many people would support something if you called it "Operation Kill Terrorist Douchebag Towelhead Camelfuckers"? It's certainly a far better description of what the actual mission is supposed to be, but I guess it offends the sensibilities of today's soft-headed pseudo-intellectuals who run our government machinery and media. Even the activities of War seem to be tailored to make them more media-friendly. I know this was "one of the lessons of Vietnam", but sometimes it appears as if someone has taken this concept way too far.
At best, these made-for-bumper-sticker monikers often lead to something in diametric opposition to what the War on Terror is supposed to be; a systematic destruction of terrorist groups, a degrading of their ability to conduct operations, and leaving a lot of dead jihadis in their wake. As soon as you call something "Iraqi Freedom" the focus seems to shift from killing bad guys and making would-be bad guys think three or four times before taking up arms against the United States or terror bombing a Sbarro's in Cincinnati, to building schools, roads and water treatment plants for people who don't deserve any of it, and are certainly ungracious when you give them to them, free-of-charge. Also, the word "Freedom" doesn't necessarily apply in quite the proper context; freedom from what? Saddam Hussein? There will be another Saddam along any day now, if not in Iraq, then someplace else, and if the next incarnation does appear in Baghdad, we'll probably regret having spoken of freedom and democracy and ending combat operations, because that individual will, probably, have been once protected by U.S. guns and the recipient of massive U.S. political and monetary largess. If it all doesn't all lead to some form of Iranian hegemony in the Persian Gulf. An even worse scenario.
All Operation Iraqi Freedom did was to eliminate Saddam Hussein in order to make room for someone potentially worse. Am I arguing it was better to leave Saddam Hussein in power? Hell no. Am I making the argument of "better the devil you know...?", certainly not. I am making the argument that American lives and treasure were expended to "give freedom to" a bunch of desert-dwelling scumbags who have no idea what that is, or what it's good for, and that an Administration which has no stomach for War (even a justified one) is basically spinning retreat as Victory. I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt that a democratic-free-market-pluralistic Iraq will ever emerge. The only way it could have would have been for the United States and it's allies to engage in a war so terrible as to make the average Muslim think about the fundamental weaknesses and failures of his culture, and then expend the energy necessary to bring about reform from within. We did not do that because it would have been very messy and would have deprived the numbskulls in the Pentagon and government of a really neat slogan.
Note to democrats: do not take a Victory Lap over this"Official end to combat operations in Iraq", because I can promise you that within a generation (perhaps sooner), we'll be back because the job wasn't done properly the first two times we were there. Besides, it's not like you actually did anything to contribute to "Victory", notwithstanding "voting for it before you voted against it", opposing the Surge in Iraq before you copied it in Afghanistan, accusing American troops of War Crimes, attempting to destroy the reputations of the Generals in charge before embracing them as your saviours, your indecent glee over Abu Ghraib, and giving aid and comfort to the Enemy with your political posturing and rhetoric about the subject of War.
Note to republicans: don't you dare try to spin this as a Victory, either. Victory would have been a sweeping cultural change that would have seen Muslims evolve into human beings ready to deal with modernity without resort to violence, after a suitable period of resorting to drinking out of mud puddles and subsisting on thistles and insects, instead of what we got: a new generation of unreformed Muslims who will inhabit an even worse country than what we found, and who will, predictably, blame a decade of American occupation for it in all respects. They will see signs of that occupation everywhere, in everything from flush toilets to university libraries.
"Victory" in Iraq would have -- and should have -- entailed more bodies, more misery, more abject counter-terror, designed to send two distinct and unmistakable messages:
a) Don't fuck with the United States, and
b) Get your heads out of the mental constipation of a 7th Century death-cult of extreme superstition promulgated by a child-molesting mental case, and join the rest of us in the 21st, you assholes.
But that would have been insensitive, wouldn't it? Those who think that way have forgotten the lessons of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
In the end, the entire debacle of the War in Iraq can be summed up, thus: a Great, Big, Expensive Public Relations Campaign...with Guns.
I'm not certain that will exactly bring much comfort to all those who gave a son, daughter or a limb, or cause them to celebrate Victory.
This woman needs a husband, quickly and desperately.
Then again, one look at that mugshot seems to imply that there just isn't enough Viagra in the world to help you do the deed. Then again, I've heard that most black men would screw a telephone pole if it held still long enough, and I'm pretty positive, based on appearances only, this one has at least one Baby Daddy somewhere, so I could be wrong.
Some men have no standards, beyond a) breathing and b) offering.
With regards to this woman, the male mantra of "close your eyes and she can be anyone you want her to be" doesn't apply; I couldn't imagine my way through a rut with that for all the tea in China, and if I did find myself in the unfortunate and desperate straits required to even think about doing it, I would have to rush right home and scrub myself thoroughly with a Brillo pad.
The crackpipe is merely the icing on the cake, and probably par for the course.
They could have asked me in 2004, when I left for good; I would have saved everyone a great deal of trouble, and money, and none of this would have come as a great shock.
Now, as to Barack Obama and Kirsten Gillibrand;
When large corporations give large amounts of (other people's) cash to such medocrities, it's usually because the corporation simply hopes to buy the votes and support of people who are, literally, either too dumb to recognize graft when they see it, or worse, whom the corporation believes are just as corrupt as they are.
Kirsten Gillbrand is, and has been, nothing but a placeholder -- a reliable vote that backs up that other abomination, Charles Schumer, in a den of thieves (the U.S. Congress) that steals far more money from the taxpayer and it's customers than the board of Citigroup could imagine in their wildest of dreams. She needs to be a goner come November, even if that means electing whatever chimpazee someone taught to speak that ultimately runs against her.
Barack Obama is with us for at least 2 more years, unfortunately, butit behooves us to dilligently take note of who puts money in his pockets, too, if only to ensure that he doesn't pull the Full Mugabe and use his position to line his own pockets while his country slides into chaos.
The TSA people are calling this a "dry run" and they assure us that they had Air Marshalls aboard the flight the entire time. Yeah, like that would have helped? They're obviously trying to spin this incident by making it all look as if they had these guys all the time. I'll bet the presence of Air Marshalls was a mere face-saving coincidence.
Nice job, TSA. these guys got on the plane, and one of them has been placing mock bombs on others for what seems like a while now. The fact that air marshalls are aboard means nothing; these two should never have gotten on board in the first place. TSA stopped one of these guys initially because of his baggy clothing, and then when they found his fake bombs, let him go anyway!
You just have to love this part:
"Because al Soofi’s mock bombs did not contain actual explosive material, TSA allowed him to board the plane and fly to Chicago. While defying common sense, carrying mock IEDs does not defy TSA security. Apparently neither does the fact that al Soofi was carrying $7,000 in cash and was destined
And to make matters worse, he threw security off a second time by the simple expedient of changing flights at the last minute. Your government asleep at the switch. I'm so freakin' happy we unionized and federalized airport security, aren't you? I'll never fly again.
Of course, the response to all of this will not be stricter guidelines concerning anything that looks like an IED, whether it has explosives in it, or not. The response will not involve heavier and closer scrutiny of Muslims, because that would be, like, insensitive...and stuff. The response will be an avalanche of Congressional stupidity that will make flying more expensive, more intrusive, more uncomfortable, more restrictive and more expensive than ever. The people who will bear the brunt of an updates security regime (i.e. having their rights violated so as to not insult Islam) will be AVERAGE AMERICANS who just want to go somewhere.
It's what Congress is good at: slamming barn doors after the horses have already shit and fled, and failing to see the obvious solution -- keep fucking Muslims off fucking airplanes -- and if you must let them get on, then subject them to the same level of scrutiny the Left has afforded Sarah Palin's womb.
And to top it all off we'll probably be "treated" to a lofty, Teleprompter-fed speech about how awesome our Homeland Security is by the Great Vacationer in Chief. If there's anyone who knows less about security than TSA and Congress, it's President Marriott Suites. It's a fucking joke.
Muslims can cry all they want about being misunderstood, and their religion being one of peace, but clear-headed, right-thinking people know better. These guys are still trying to kill people aboard airliners in the name of their "God". Just how, exactly, are those the actions of a peaceful people?