Color Coded Conditioning

One day you'll tell your grandchildren about this, but they won't believe you. They'll say in disbelief, "you mean they had a color coded chart to tell you how scared to be?"

"Yes," you'll tell them. "And for nine long years it only varied from yellow to orange and back again."

"Why did they change it to orange?"

"Usually to make us forget about a Democratic National Convention or a Republican scandal."

But then a wizened smile will grow across your face and you'll say, "but the comedians and snarky bloggers ridiculed the dumbstupid thing and eventually the government gave up their dang rainbow charts."

Then your precocious little grandkid will pipe up with, "now when they want us to forget they use the neuralyzer!"

"sigh."

"Grams, tell me more about the good-old days!"

Life is Dangerous

(YouTube video)

Retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney wants to be very serious and harsh about profiling. He wants to strip search all 18-28 year old Muslim men at the airport. This isn't "racial profiling" according to him. It's just "profiling."

Here are my random thoughts:

• We'll see more 29-year-old terrorists.
• We'll see more female terrorists.
• We'll see more exploding diapers on children.
• We'll see more terrorists wearing crosses around their necks.
• We won't see any of this because terrorists will pick new targets.
• Osama Bin Laden will do the next attack himself because he can fly without being strip searched.
• I'm not sure any new rules will stop a terrorist who is willing to die.
  
• Is it just me, or did McInerney seem a little bit aroused over his own plans?
• Somebody at FOX News didn't like this idea? Wow.

Also, relying on stereotypes is ineffective and dangerous. Being against this type of profiling is not "political correctness."

And I said this a few days ago, but it's worth repeating: this isn't security. It's a useless, knee-jerk reaction.

On a related note, another bloviating radio host wants to "scrutinize anybody with the name Abdul." What? She's not even on American Idol anymore. Leave her alone.

Rewriting History

"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." — Robert F. Kennedy, 1925 - 1968

From the mouth of Dana Perino, with no objection from Sean Hannity and his pals: "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term."


(YouTube video)

That extraordinary lie is insulting to our entire country. We won't forget that the attacks on September 11, 2001 that killed nearly 3000 people, and the subsequent anthrax attacks, and the 2002 Beltway sniper attacks all happened under the careless watch of President George W. Bush.

I only mention the Beltway sniper attacks because if anybody wants to call the Fort Hood shootings an act of terrorism, then we also must call the Beltway attacks an act of terrorism.

And I'll tell Perino what she owes the American people: the truth or shut up.

Purity Pledge

When I first heard that the GOP was considering a purity pledge for candidates, I assumed they were reacting to recent sex scandals. But no, the list of ten resolutions is just the same old laundry list we've been hearing for years:

1. We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
2. We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run health care;
3. We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
4. We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
5. We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
6. We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
7. We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
8. We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
9. We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
10. We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership.

The first item on the list was enough to make me roll my eyes and clutch my suddenly throbbing skull. Republicans keep telling us they're all about the smaller national debt, and yet, in reality, they are notorious for throwing debt on top of debt.

Number two and number nine on the list kind of go together. The government won't be running health care and our current system already rations in a truly American way. Number three on the list? I thought cap and trade was a market-based approach.

But let me skip to number six. We can't define victory in either war, and anyway we've been told the withdrawal from Iraq is already underway. Our only existing cause in that occupation is to support Iraq's mythical democracy. But the real foolishness is that part about the President -- the commander-in-chief -- abdicating his role and obeying military commanders who want more troops. This is a frightening recipe for permanent war, and it's officially part of the Republican plan. It's totally ineffectual for fighting terrorism, and oh yeah... see pledge number one up there? Can't fight a war without money, honey.

Number eight on the pledge list is another non-surprise. Republicans are really determined to reinforce that whole "party of no" image! It's all about what they oppose. There are no new ideas. In fact, the GOP's biggest innovation might be this whole pledge thing.

It's pure politics, and it's insane. Why elect somebody whose loyalty is to a party and not their country or constituents? We hear a lot of controversy over the pledge of allegiance lately, but I believe there should only be one mandatory pledge. Every day, every elected official should put their hand over their heart and pledge allegiance to the people.

Red Flags

I procrastinated digging through the shit pile of misinformation surrounding Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at Fort Hood last Thursday. But now it's apparent that the man had ties to Muslim extremists, and his military colleagues missed some glaring clues:

Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the gunman who killed 13 at America's Fort Hood military base, once gave a lecture to other doctors in which he said non-believers should be beheaded and have boiling oil poured down their throats.

He also told colleagues at America's top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.

His colleagues were also psychiatrists. I'm not sure what that says about the profession if people with the proper knowledge and experience could not see that Hasan was dangerous. Hell, American high school students, ever since Columbine, have been expected to report any threats immediately. You'd think these professionals would know better. Military base shootings have happened before.

But we are slow learners in many ways. As if on cue, the anti-Muslim rhetoric is being revved up by, of course, the religious-right:


(Media Matters video)

So Pat Robertson believes that Islam is "a violent political system bent on the overthrow of the governments of the world and world domination." Funny, but I guess that's also how Muslim extremists see other religions too! And with a prominent figure like Robertson sounding like he's embracing a new crusade against the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, we're doomed for perpetual conflict.

Our religions aren't helping us. Well, certainly not fundamentalism. I'm not sure what comes first though. Fundamentalism and then violence? Or a warped desire for violence which searches for some kind of justification in religion. Whatever the religion, the mindset is the same.

Rational and politically moderate people will continue to look for answers for a long time. But the conservative media has predictably jumped to blame who else but President Obama. Unless they can find a red flag titled "Hasan Determined to Strike in US," I think they need to stick to reality. And until a proper investigation is completed, maybe our only response can be sorrow.

Guantanamo Baywatch

I was going to blog about the ridiculous fear mongering over the plan to close Gitmo. Much of the hysteria is regarding where to keep these alleged terrorists while they await trial, and of course, much of the hysteria is ripe for parody.

First, there is the childish belief that detainees are supervillains, and somehow our world-class prison industrial complex can't hold them. Then there are the farcical scenarios where the prisoners are released into the general population. Inevitably, we hear the raucous cries from the not-in-my-backyard crowd. (Hey, I'm looking out my window right now, and my backyard isn't a maximum security prison either!)

But a controversy so absurd is best handled by The Daily Show (if video doesn't show, click here):

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Guantanamo Baywatch - The Final Season

Daily Show Full Episodes
Daily Show Tickets

More Funny Videos
Comedians on Tour

Still, I feel one element has been left out of this ongoing discussion. We're forgetting why the Guantanamo Bay Prison was opened in the first place. The location was ostensibly selected for its security. But let's get real. The location was really selected for its legal ambiguity. John Yoo famously opined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees. Furthermore, the US has no Status of Forces Agreement with Cuba, and thus the Bush administration argued that US courts could not review detentions. However, the Supreme Court ruled otherwise...

So at this point, closing Guantanamo is largely symbolic. And because it's so symbolic to us and the rest of the world, it is also wise. It shows the world that we've renewed our commitment to our founding principles of liberty and justice.

Homeland Security Idol

American Idol meets DHS in ABC's new reality show Homeland Security USA. Tonight, I watched it so you don't have to.

From the start, a faceless and booming voice-of-authority tells us how brave men and women safeguard our country and enforce our laws while patrolling our borders. I assume they mean these border regions that nearly 2/3 of the US population lives in, and the ACLU refers to as a "constitution-free zone."

So how do you turn an absurd bureaucracy with an Orwellian name into fun family entertainment? Well, you have to have some zany characters like the Swiss belly dancer who, in broken English, wanted to know if she would get a refund on her airline ticket because she was being sent back home. I was waiting to hear her sing, but then I remembered that show doesn't start until next week.

A reality show has to promise a lot of suspense. Oh look, we caught a terrorist using his real name and birth date! Oh wait. A case of mistaken identity. But how nice of the kindly agents to tell the family, after traumatizing their children with guns, how to handle the situation in the future. (We don't hear what this advice is, by the way.)

The producers must have an easy time making this show. Everything is right out of the Bush-Cheney propaganda handbook. They stick to the official script that DHS is securing the United States from terrorist threats and attacks. But where were the threats? The umpteen pounds of drugs confiscated don't scare me in the least. Make them legal already. The barbecued bats from Thailand? That's definitely gross and they might have made a few people sick, but I wish our government could put the same effort into inspecting imports which are a very real threat.

Finally, we're treated to the new American experience of airport security theater. The bizarre scene of a boy around age 11 dutifully reporting the contents of his backpack to an agent made me wonder if Bush ever envisioned a Youth League. Hey, it's not too late, George. You've got two weeks left.

The message of the show was clear. Shut up. We're doing this for your own good. Now stand still while we put this collar around your neck.

I rate this show "code red." Be on high alert if you dare to watch it.

Connectedness

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." — George Santayana

On a holiday to give thanks, I watched the Mumbai Massacre unfold on TV. I don't have anything authoritative to say on the tragedy. I haven't even sorted out the facts on who did it and why. I don't have anything profound to say either.

But the story of Alan and Naomi Scherr does touch me. Naomi was 13 and her father, Alan, was 54. They were on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to India with the Synchronicity Foundation to teach seminars on meditation. I didn't know these people, but by all accounts that I have read, the two were pursuing peace and tranquility. And then they met with anger and violence. Like so many victims in Mumbai, they would have extended a helping hand to those same people who would rather use guns and bombs. It's an eternal paradox.

My hope right now is that India does not imitate the disastrous policies of the US, and that the US, at the very least, ends our wars and the shameful practice of torture. We are all to blame for the suffering we cause each other.

We'll All Be Collared

Thanks to Crooks and Liars for reporting on the approaching police state. The Department of Homeland security would really like to put the electric- shock dog collar on all of us for our own good. Ok, I'm just kidding. Actually, it's a bracelet not a collar.

A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers.

This bracelet would:

• take the place of an airline boarding pass
• contain personal information about the traveler
• be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage
• shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes.

I don't think it's a joke, but will the average person submit to this? Sadly and cynically, I think so. Look at the lack of resistance to the very real body-scanning machines installed in several airports. "If it speeds things up and I can keep my shoes on..." seems to be the prevailing sentiment regarding that technology.

But these shock bracelets... certainly people will resist? Or will the straps be colored red white and blue and emblazoned with "Support Our Troops"? This way everybody will know it's their patriotic duty to comply.

But certainly, everybody realizes there will be mistakes. Here is a scenario. Airport security wants to immobilize the obnoxious fist-waving drunk. They click the remote and kill your grandma instead... Which brings me to another question. How does this system work? Is the system set up so one button immobilizes everybody? Because how do you target the terrorist or obnoxious asshole? Ask him for his seat number first? What if the wrong passenger number is punched in?

Regardless, this system cannot make us safer. Here I go thinking like a terrorist again...

Add two new steps to taking over the plane. Step one, remove or disable your shock bracelet. Step two, use your hacked remote to trigger everybody else's bracelet. Then, effortlessly continue with your hijacking now that all the passengers have been immobilized.

Hey, if these bracelets are seen as a triumph in the war on terror, maybe we'll be compelled to wear them all the time. I mean not just at the airport but from cradle to grave. Probably implanted in our skin. Nobody will ever give the government crap again. Nobody will ever protest. Nobody will ever raise their voice. Nobody will ever resist. How could you?

Or how should we?

I see only one valid use for these bracelets. Put them on all politicians when they take office.

X-Ray Vision

Ten U.S. airports are installing new body-scanning machines that produce whole-body images that reveal your most private parts. Feel safer yet?

I certainly don't. With a tiny bit of brainstorming, I can come up with a few holes in this system.

Obese people can hide items under their folds of fat. Skinny people can conceal items in their body cavities. People can simply disguise things in their carry-on bag. Or multiple people can carry on weapon parts to be assembled on-board. And if a suicide-bomber is caught with a device, what's stopping him from detonating it right there in the airport killing hundreds? Keep in mind, I came up with these genius ideas and I'm not even a criminal mastermind.

The alternative to submitting to the indignity of the full body scan is a full body pat down. What baffles me the most is that people don't seem to mind this invasion of privacy. I'm hearing a lot of comments like "well if it speeds things up and I can keep my shoes on..." Are we getting too used to these humiliations? Today the airport, tomorrow the mall.

Another issue is who views these body scans? We are told a security person in a separate room views the image and immediately deletes it. Call me cynical, but I estimate in 6 months a voyeuristic body scan web site will pop up. Viewing primo celebrity shots will cost extra of course. They can call the web site "Security Theater."

Because that's exactly what the airports are creating -- ostentatious displays of expensive technology to give an illusion of safety. But so far the results are more like a dysfunctional sideshow that has cost the economy $26billion.

Flying the not-so-friendly skies is an inherently dangerous adventure. Planes crashed and sometimes exploded long before we were targeted by terrorists. Security measures should concentrate on keeping the bad guys out of the cockpit. That protects the people on the ground. The people on the plane are already taking a calculated risk.

Beating Big Brother to the Punch

Last night Stephen Colbert interviewed his favorite terrorist, Hasan Elahi. In 2002, Elahi, a US citizen, found out he was probably on the terrorist watch list when he was detained by the FBI on suspicion of hoarding explosives. He did not have explosives, but the FBI refused to give him a written letter clearing him of suspicion, and instead asked him to "check in with them periodically." Elahi beat Big Brother to the punch by launching his web site Tracking Transience which follows his every move.



The US terrorist watch lists contain over 700,000 names including some very unlikely suspects like Nelson Mandela and Edward Kennedy. The ACLU states "This is not just a problem of numbers. The numbers are merely a symptom. What's needed is fairness. If the government is going to rely on these kinds of lists, they need checks and balances to ensure that innocent people are protected."

Daily Terror

To be menaced by invisible flying monsters is a sure sign of mental illness. If the whole town is terrorized, it's mass hysteria. I imagine such hysteria would look a lot like Hitchcock's 1963 film The Birds but without the birds. This strange concept is an ongoing project by artist Martijn Hendriks. Hendriks is digitally removing all the birds from the classic film. Clips of the reconstructed fiction can be found here, here and here.

But those imaginary monsters are still clearly fiction. The Guardian takes us half a step into reality in the recent article I'm Loving Aliens Instead. Writer Jon Ronson follows UK pop star Robbie Williams to the Nevada desert to explore another paranormal threat -- UFO's! Yes, seems Williams wants to believe in aliens. When he is asked why aliens do not reveal themselves to humans, he gives this explanation:

"I think maybe they're making mistakes," he replies. "I think the shield comes off by mistake and they were there all the time." He pauses. "I don't want to hear any debunking because I want to believe."

So, the guy is definitely not a skeptic. How far do you take it though? If you are a believer, is there a point where you stop and say "wow, this is just too ridiculous!" I'd think most people would question the sanity of these people:

Apparently, a woman tells Ayda, a number of conference attendees spotted a battle between two giant reptilian beings in the desert outside the hotel the other night.

"Did anyone take any photographs of the battle?" Ayda asks her.

"No," she says, "but someone collected a tissue sample and gave it to Dr Roger Leir. He might show it to you, if you can find him."

In a world where nearly everybody has a cell phone with a digital camera built in... in a world where we are always ready to film a dog eating vomit... you'd think somebody would capture an epic battle between giant reptilian beings!

So, I ask what exactly do YOU fear? Are our favorite fears real or imaginary? Or should I ask are our favorite fears real or manufactured political distractions?

It's easy to laugh at the UFO believers and the ghostbusters, but are liquid bombs really a threat to air travel? Are we in danger if our government doesn't have unchecked surveillance powers? Have we underestimated the risks of climate change? We need to have real debates about these issues and stop swatting at invisible flying monsters.

Code Orange

I'm going to take a break from my usual nonsense and post some important links about the presidential elections.

Has Hillary Clinton lost it? I'm not talking about the election. I mean, has she gone a little nuts? Here she is mocking Barack Obama with "the sky will open, the light will come down." In a NY Times op-ed column titled The Audacity of Hopelessness , Frank Rich writes:

This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

And then on FOX news, Bill Kristol recommends that Clinton embrace the politics of fear. Obviously, that technique has worked so well for Republicans in the last seven years. On Thursday nights "Countdown" Keith Olberman presented the Time line of fear confirming what I had always suspected: every code orange terror alert has corresponded to some other bit of news the Bush administration wanted to obfuscate.

Are we going to see more of these terror alerts right before the November elections? When terror strikes, liberals and the right vote further apart. And as we saw in the 2004 election, when terrorism is on voters' minds, the voters embrace candidates they perceived as stronger on national security.

Because neither Democratic candidate seems particularly tough on terror, I suggest the Democratic nominee carefully selects his or her running mate. I recommend Lyndie England. Nobody will ever say she is soft on terror.