NYC Stuck In Snow? That Was A Union Protest

From the NYPost:

Selfish Sanitation Department bosses from the snow-slammed outer boroughs ordered their drivers to snarl the blizzard cleanup to protest budget cuts -- a disastrous move that turned streets into a minefield for emergency-services vehicles, The Post has learned.

Right or wrong, I believe you're going to see a lot more of this in the future.

BZ

TSA = Joseph McCarthy

Communists were banned by Joseph McCarthy.

Dissenters are banned by the TSA.

So because some chick has the temerity to point out the obvious, that the Emperor actually has no clothes, she is banned by TSA from flying?

Just how does that happen?

OKLAHOMA CITY -- The woman who made national headlines for her near-naked protest at the airport in Oklahoma City is back and once again banned from flying.

A YouTube video put Tammy Banovac in the national spotlight. Banovac says she went through security wearing next-to-nothing, to protest new security rules at airports nationwide.

Is anyone besides me thinking that most of this crap has long-ago exceeded the boundaries of logic and common sense?

12/01/2010 Related Story: Woman Strips Down To Bra, Panties At OKC Airport To Protest TSA Pat-Downs

Banovac was back at the Will Rogers Airport Tuesday (12-28-10) and once again, security says she can't board her flight back home to Phoenix.

Last month security denied her access because they said they found traces of nitrate somewhere on her body.

Now, it's something near her bottom that is raising a red flag.

"The stated reason was there was... They were unable to clear an unusual contour of my buttocks area," said Banovac.

Tammy wouldn't say what the unusual contour was, but says she's sleeping at the airport. She was told she would be allowed to board her flight home Wednesday morning.

And the absurdities just keep on coming.

Isn't this just kind of bordering on some iteration of byzantine Kabuki Theatre?

BZ

P.S.
The major difference between Joseph McCarthy and the TSA?

Russian records, opened following the fall of the Berlin Wall, indicate that McCarthy was correct.

The TSA is clearly not.

Mostly they don't display the common sense that God gave the average houseplant.

2011: Get Prepared

I submit that 2011 will be a year of multiple "tipping points."

It will be the year that the parasites demographically begin to outnumber the hosts.

It will be the year that Caucasoids are truly the minority in Fornicalia.

It will be the year that precedes various state bunkruptcies, to include Fornicalia and Illinois.

It will be the year that sees a number of goods reach an affordability threshold, to include gasoline.

Conversely, it will be a year of greater public unrest, to include a spike in burglary, property and commodity crimes.

It will be a year of greater localized unemployment.

It will be a year of specific inflation -- think food, water, petroleum.

It will be a year of greater-advocated regulations on every level by government.

It will be a year of proffered tax increases on every level.

It will be a year of massively-reduced public works areas, to include law enforcement and fire/emergency response.

Welcome to your New Year.

BZ

Hey, if I can't cross-promote myself, who can I promote?

New end-of-year wrap-up in my train blog, Milepost 154.

The railroad industry was obviously impacted in 2010.

Thanks for reading!

BZ

The Massively-Incompetent Security Fraud That Is TSA:

The TSA is an empty suit, quite literally pulling the puds of American citizens for no real valid reasons save those of "appearance." Whilst grandmothers -- likely your own -- are searched to no end, persons with handguns still, oddly enough, somehow manage to take their weapons -- undiscovered -- from various points A to B:

You've likely already read that, recently, a major carrier pilot placed videos of security issues on YouTube -- but wait, keep reading: he found that Big Sis didn't much care for that at all. Law enforcement officials came to his home in order to repossess his federally-issued firearm -- the one he could lawfully carry onto the flight deck of his multiple-engined jet aircraft with every flight. You might want to view his videos, and listen completely to his narratives.

He makes a series of quite disturbing and incongruous but cogent and logical points. He takes issue, amongst various topics, with hundreds of ground crew operators and aircraft operator employees having essentially unfettered access to aircraft at their home airports. I should, with that in mind, care to point out PSA Flight 1771 -- which augered into the ground near Harmony, California after a fired employee boarded with a .44 magnum revolver on December 7th of 1987. Intending retribution following his firing, the CVR picks up shots fired just before the crash where all 43 persons aboard were killed at an impact speed of 700+ mph. Employees are given a security threat assessment and roughly a 10-year backgrounding, but pilots, for example, hold the yoke of an entire aircraft in their hands. As well as that nasty fire-ax.

His venue might have been a bit, shall we say, unsettlingly-executed. But like many Americans he's clearly fed up with incompetence and aforementioned pointless pud-pulling. Will he be prosecuted? The various applicable sections can be found in Title 49: Transportation, in the eCFR sections involving PART 1544—AIRCRAFT OPERATOR SECURITY: AIR CARRIERS AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS. This section, as with many, can be interpreted rather widely. He would likely have to have specifically stated or posted sensitive secure information. Again, open to interpretation. As you can see, the information I relate is publicly available on the internet, hence the link. The bottom line is this: the pilot is going to become the poster child for "TSA Example." Those would be, I submit, facts in evidence.

There is, however, a gloriously-simple solution to the TSA issue, at heart: profiling.

Let me write that word again, so there is NO mistaking my meaning: P-R-O-F-I-L-I-N-G.

These days, that means profiling MIDDLE EASTERN MEN between a certain age range, and placing THEM under greater scrutiny. Likely, most of all of those profiled will be ISLAMIC. Further, those persons who may APPEAR to fit the above categories should be PROFILED and subject to FURTHER scrutiny. That is appellated the utilization of common sense.

When and if the appearance of the threat changes, the PROFILES should change as well. PROFILING must be FLEXIBLE with the threat base.

But, of course, the TSA being what it is, and various arms of the federal government being what they are, I'm sure you'll enjoy the following story from a member of the US military:

As the Chalk Leader for my flight home from Afghanistan, I witnessed the following:

When we were on our way back from Afghanistan, we flew out of Baghram Air Field. We went through customs at BAF, full body scanners (no groping), had all of our bags searched, the whole nine yards.

Our first stop was Shannon, Ireland to refuel. After that, we had to stop at Indianapolis, Indiana to drop off about 100 folks from the Indiana National Guard. That’s where the stupid started.

First, everyone was forced to get off the plane -- even though the plane wasn’t refueling again. All 330 people got off that plane, rather than let the 100 people from the ING get off. We were filed from the plane to a holding area. No vending machines, no means of escape. Only a male/female latrine.

It’s probably important to mention that we were ALL carrying weapons. Everyone was carrying an M4 Carbine (rifle) and some, like me, were also carrying an M9 pistol. Oh, and our gunners had M-240B machine guns. Of course, the weapons weren’t loaded. And we had been cleared of all ammo well before we even got to customs at Baghram, then AGAIN at customs.

The TSA personnel at the airport seriously considered making us unload all of the baggage from the SECURE cargo hold to have it reinspected. Keep in mind, this cargo had been unpacked, inspected piece by piece by U.S. Customs officials, resealed and had bomb-sniffing dogs give it a one-hour run through. After two hours of sitting in this holding area, the TSA decided not to reinspect our cargo -- just to inspect us again:

Soldiers on the way home from war, who had already been inspected, re-inspected and kept in a SECURE holding area for 2 hours. Okay, whatever. So we lined up to go through security AGAIN.

This is probably another good time to remind you that all of us were carrying actual assault rifles, and some of us were also carrying pistols.

So we’re in line, going through one at a time. One of our soldiers had his Gerber multi-tool. TSA confiscated it. Kind of ridiculous, but it gets better.

A few minutes later, a guy empties his pockets and has a pair of nail clippers. Nail clippers. TSA informs the soldier that they’re going to confiscate his nail clippers. The conversation went something like this:

TSA Guy: You can’t take those on the plane.

Soldier: What? I’ve had them since we left country.

TSA Guy: You’re not supposed to have them.

Soldier: Why?

TSA Guy: They can be used as a weapon.

Soldier: [touches butt stock of the rifle] But this actually is a

weapon. And I’m allowed to take it on.

TSA Guy: Yeah but you can’t use it to take over the plane. You don’t have bullets.

Soldier: And I can take over the plane with nail clippers?

TSA Guy: [awkward silence]

Me: Dude, just give him your damn nail clippers so we can get the f**k out of here. I’ll buy you a new set.

Soldier: [hands nail clippers to TSA guy, makes it through security]

To top it off, the TSA demanded we all be swabbed for “explosive residue” detection. Everyone failed [go figure, we just came home from a war zone], because we tested positive for “Gun Powder Residue." Who the F**K is hiring these people?

This might be a good time to remind everyone that approximately 233 people re-boarded that plane with assault rifles, pistols, and machine guns -- but nothing that could have been used as a weapon.

Can someone please tell me What the F**K happened to OUR country while we were gone?

Sgt. Mad Dog Tracy

And with that, dearest ladies and gentlemen, I slap my forehead once again at governmental incompetence and end this post.

Heavy sigh.

BZ

Right Back Into Politics: The ARROGANCE of Homeland Security

Let's examine this pull quote from today's interview with Janet Napolitano, on Sunday's CNN broadcast of "State of the Union":

Napolitano defended the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, who didn't know about a roundup of terrorist suspects in Britain when asked about the arrests on ABC News earlier this week. The gaffe created an awkward moment for the man in charge of the nation's intelligence community.

Napolitano and President Barack Obama's homeland security adviser, John Brennan, appeared on the show with Clapper. They said Clapper had been preoccupied with handling problems on the Korean peninsula and passage of a nuclear weapons treaty with Russia.

Napolitano said in the CNN interview that homeland security officials were fully aware what was happening in Britain.

"Well, let's be fair," she said. "I knew. John Brennan knew ... So one of the things I think that should be very clear to the American people is that those of us in homeland security who needed to know, we knew."

[I wrote about Clapper's ignorance last Thursday, here.]

So let's be clear, besides "fair":

It's apparently more important that Janet Napolitano knew of London's case arrests than the DNI, the Director of National Intelligence, the US head of the entire intelligence community, the boss of the CIA, the NSA, the NRO, the DIA, and certainly -- many levels down -- Janet Napolitano?

Translation of "Napolitano-speak" to the DNI and to American's DEM:

1. I knew more than Clapper;

2. I don't mind throwing him under the bus;

3. I'm covering my ass no matter what Clapper says;

So let's again be clear; it seems to me that we're only getting two predominant "ances" from America's intelligence community these days: ignorance or arrogance. Take your pick; it's hourly-dependent.

Or do I miss my mark?

BZ

Merry Christmas, Everyone

Merry Christmas, all my dearest readers. God bless you, your family and loved ones, and our valiant troops stationed the world over.

BZ

START: Stating The Obvious

Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret) has some very specific thoughts about the recently-ratified START treaty, and it's readily apparent the Admiral doesn't think Mr Obama is much of a negotiator.

From the US Naval Institute:

President Barack Obama was outmaneuvered by the Russians and should have abandoned the New START negotiations instead of seeking a political victory, says former nuclear plans monitor Vice Admiral Jerry Miller, USN (Ret).

“The Obama administration is continuing a dated policy in which we cannot even unilaterally reduce our own inventory of weapons and delivery systems without being on parity with the Russians,” Miller told the U.S. Naval Institute in Annapolis, Md. “We could give up plenty of deployed delivery systems and not adversely affect our national security one bit, but New START prohibits such action - so we are now stuck with some outmoded and useless elements in our nuke force.”

After meeting resistance from several Republicans, the U.S. Senate ratified the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) with Russia by a vote of 71-26 on Wednesday.

“The Soviets/Russians were done in by Reagan and our missile defense program because they cannot afford to build such a system,” said Miller. “They instead try to counter our program with rhetoric at the bargaining table. And they won by outmaneuvering Obama. START plays right into their hands.”

Something was immediately amiss when I heard that the Russians were "threatening" that the START treaty could not be modified by the United States in any way.

In my estimation, the Russians are in absolutely no position to dictate terms -- except where capitulation is the only considered result on the US side.

Read this, and notice one sentence in particular on which the Russians have focused -- like a laser beam -- for years:

Former President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) is often credited with bankrupting the U.S.S.R. because the Soviets were unable to keep pace with the technology being developed by the United States.

“We have always been superior in quality of our nuclear force, so we did not have to negotiate with a party we do not trust,” said Miller. “If Obama wanted to save some money and improve national defense, he should have gotten out of the nuke negations and acted unilaterally. START is simply a political victory for Obama.”

Miller, who helped prepare the National Strategic Target List and Single Integrated Operational Plan for waging nuclear war and later participated in arms control meetings with the Soviet government, expressed concern that START could leave the United States vulnerable to other emerging threats.

“The treaty prohibits the conversion of an existing ballistic missile system into a missile defense system,” said Miller. “We might want to do that with a Trident or an ICBM sometime in the future, particularly if the Chinese alleged threat materializes.”

Encapsulated, it's this: the Russians are scared shitless that we should develop a missile defense shield. Something capable of DEFEATING their INCOMING missiles. Hello??

So they've done and are doing their best to politically ensure we cannot enable -- not develop, but enable -- same.

We have it. We can't politically use it.

And Mr Obama just gave that up so he can "feel good."

Welcome to 2011, you Leftist bastards.

BZ

US Intelligence Community: Incompetence Reigns Supreme

In a recent interview (Monday afternoon, 12-20) with ABC's Diane Sawyer, she threw a softball question to the national DNI (Director of National Intelligence), Gen James Clapper, regarding recent arrests, in London, of twelve terror suspects.

He had no idea what she was talking about.

TRANSCRIPT:

(mid-interview:)

SAWYER: But we wondered. How did they stay in control with so much information coming in every day?

For instance, the afternoon of our interview, the day’s news had been filled with the terror arrests– twelve people in London just that morning.

But when we asked the Director of Intelligence:

SAWYER to CLAPPER: London -- how serious is it, any implication that it was coming here? Any of the things that they have seen were coming here?

[PAUSE, Clapper looks puzzled, stumped]

SAWYER: Dr. Clapper?

Chief Counterterrorism Advisor JOHN BRENNAN: You read the arrests of the 12 individuals by the British this morning.

CLAPPER: Oh.

BRENNAN: This is something that the British informed us about early this morning that it was taking place.

[SAWYER: Later in the interview, I came back to the director -- did he really not know?]

SAWYER: I was a little surprised you didn’t know about London, Director Clapper.

CLAPPER: Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t.

See the video here:



From ABCNews.com:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was caught off guard Monday by a question on the widely-covered arrest of 12 men in an alleged terror plot in London. Today, Clapper's spokeswoman admits that it was because he had not been briefed on the arrests.

Clapper's office had declined to say whether he knew about the specific disrupted plot but issued a statement calling Sawyer's question "ambiguous." Today, his office appears to have changed their position.

Because, after all, the "indians" know that current administrative policy is predicated only but upon idealistic philosophy, ignorance and inexperience.

I have connections with the "indians" on a local, state and federal level because I am still in law enforcement and I have a federal background.

It is the "chiefs" who cannot seem to get their collective acts together. And that, to anyone in a LE bureaucracy, is no surprise -- particularly federally.

As Big Sis, Janet Napolitano said: they're "on it" 24/7, 364 days a year -- to prevent "man-caused disasters." Not terrorism. God forbid - [Sorry for the use of God].

From Der Spiegel:

SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word "terrorism." Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?

Napolitano: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Unfortunately, Napolitano does not insist that her department works the entire year. There is apparently one day off. But, on the other hand, they will likely -- being Leftists -- clearly identify that one sole day. Yes?



-- Yes, our intelligence apparatus, in DC, is apparently that broken.

BZ

So Long, 2010! And Good Riddance??

The poofters at Jib-Jab seem to have summed things up quite handily:

BZ

P.S.

2011 is gonna kick national and global ass. BOHICA.

P.P.S.

Thanks, Tim!

FCC's Internet Power Grab: Passed

From WSJ.com:

The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency's two Republican members rejecting the measure.

"For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness," FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered "a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment."

Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC's new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.

The FCC's action "is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure," said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn't support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet "because it wants to, not because it needs to."

The governmental camel's nose is in the tent.

Next comes the entire camel.

Senator Jim Demint (R-SC) pointed out that a federal court earlier ruled that the FCC has no authority to regulate the Internet, and a bipartisan group of senators and representatives warned current FCC Chairman Julius Genechowski not to attempt to impose a regulatory regime on the Internet earlier this year.

In a statement issued following the FCC ruling, Demint wrote:

The Obama Administration has ignored evidence that this federal takeover will hang a millstone of regulatory and legal uncertainty around the neck of a vibrant sector of our economy.

"Proceeding on its own liberal whims rather than facts, this FCC has chosen to grant itself broad authority to limit how businesses can bring the internet to consumers in faster and more innovative ways.

“Americans loudly demanded a more limited federal government this November, but the Obama Administration has dedicated itself to expanding centralized government planning. Today, unelected bureaucrats rammed through an internet takeover, even after Congress and courts warned them not to.

“To keep the internet economy thriving, this decision must be reversed. Regulatory reform will be a top priority for Republicans in the next Congress, and I intend to prevent the FCC or any government agency from unilaterally burdening our recovering economy with baseless regulation.

"In order to provide the stability businesses need to grow, I will work with my fellow senators to see passage of my FCC Act, which would ensure that the FCC can only use its rulemaking powers where there is clear evidence of a harmful market failure, as well as the REINS Act, which would add the accountability of a Congressional vote before any government agency’s proposed major regulations may be finalized.”

Your thoughts about this?

BZ

More Gun Regulations: Not Just Coming, They're HERE

Tim Frazier and I were just commenting about this general topic. Lead, toxicity, environmental regulations, ammunition.

From YahooNews:

WASHINGTON – The federal agency that monitors gun sales wants weapons dealers near the Mexican border to start reporting multiple sales of high-powered rifles, according to a notice published in the Federal Register.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has asked the White House budget office to approve an emergency request requiring border-area gun dealers to report the sales of two or more rifles to the same customer within a five-day period.

The emergency request, published Friday in the Federal Register, is likely to face stiff opposition from gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association. ATF wants the Office of Budget Management to approve the request by Jan. 5.

Perhaps on its face, not unreasonable considering the circumstances?

Do the BZ "logical extension."

Might you suppose these "emergent regulations" could find themselves migrating further north, west and east, my dearest readers?

Forewarned is forearmed.

BZ

P.S.

Liberals & Leftists: please place an enlarged copy of this sign on the entryway to your home. Stand up! Proclaim loudly and smartly that you are "anti-gun"!

Or:

FCC: Wanting To CONTROL & LIMIT Your Free Speech On The Internet

Tuesday -- tomorrow -- will be the day.

Robert McDowell, in his Wall Street Journal article entitled "The FCC's Threat To Internet Freedom" writes:

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

Further, Mr McDowell asks: "what really demands repair"?

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

And there you initially have it: various entities and governments -- the United States included -- hate that the internet isn't controlled and regulated to the nth-degree. They hate that it can't be halted or taxed or censored at the flick of a switch.

And how's this for a "power grab" by my logical extension:

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

"Heavy-handed" indeed -- way too kind, in my estimation.

Investors.com fears the worst as well.

I myself dislike WikiLeaks and Assange. You've read that numerous times, here on BZ. But never have I advocated the systemic shutdown or limitation of the internet. I want the sources, the leaks, identified and handled themselves, individually.

This is my Libertarian Streak coming out: yes, I'm sure there are many people who don't care for the freedom of the internet. It's the freedom to access porn -- a huge industry. It's the freedom to waste time -- ask management at work. It's the freedom to write things people may not care to read about themselves -- ask Bill O'Reilly. It's the freedom to put one's entire life up to display and scrutiny -- ask people who register on Facebook, etc.

But it's freedom. It's the freedom to communicate how or what or why one wishes, when one wishes. It's one roadway that many wish didn't exist where, every once in a while or -- more accurately, much of the time -- facts get transmitted that various individuals and organizations don't care for you to know.

It's freedom of choice. The internet is a tool and, like many tools, it can be used wisely or it can be abused. A baseball bat can hit a home run, or it can kill a human being. Therefore, baseball bats need to be severely regulated with a concomitant tax placed on them, or eliminated outright.

It's censorship, plain and simple. It's outright, naked regulation and control of speech. The FCC is deciding, by itself, to ignore the courts and make its own grab for power.

And it's wrong.

Domino Theory applied to freedom? Am I out of line?

BZ

US Military's "Don't Ask - Don't Tell": Gone

Gone. Voted out by the US Senate two days ago on Saturday the 18th, the bill is now headed to the desk of Mr Obama where, clearly, it will be signed. From The Washington Times:

Setting the stage for a major social change, the Senate voted Saturday to overturn the military's policy banning openly gay and lesbian troops, know as "don't ask, don't tell," sending the repeal to President Obama for his signature.

The 65-31vote, with eight Republicans joining Democrats, marks the beginning of the end for the 17-year-old policy, though the Pentagon and White House will need to make certain certifications before the ban officially is repealed.

I would ask my readers, particularly those who have served in the military itself and are aware of not just the societal but mechanical and operational ramifications of this bill, to weigh in please.

BZ

Sunday's Angel Flight

Whilst we prepare for Christmas -- today, Sunday -- let's stop for a moment to consider those who are perhaps the most needy and the loneliest of all Americans; spending their holidays in a foreign and hostile land.

Some of them make the ultimate sacrifice so that we -- you, me -- can ourselves feel secure in our beds and at our tables this Christmas season.

The Angel Flight, I submit, is not only aptly named -- but an honor.

God bless America. The last, best hope of the entire planet.

Merry Christmas.

BZ

P.S.

Thanks, Chris.

1. Omnibus Bill: FAIL - 2. Reid: Earmarks GOOD

1. Omnibus Bill: FAIL

Of course, that is a good thing. I noted some of the ridiculous earmarks here. From The Washington Times:

Senate Democrats conceded defeat Thursday and pulled their $1.1 trillion spending bill loaded with earmarks from the chamber floor, stymied by Republicans who unified to block the massive bill in the final days of a contentious session of Congress.

Angered at what happened, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said nine Republicans, who had earlier promised to vote for the bill, had withdrawn their support in the last 24 hours. And he berated fellow lawmakers for ceding spending authority to the executive branch.

But Republicans said one lesson they learned from last month's election that big spending bills - in this case, a 1,924-page measure Democrats produced just two days earlier - shouldn't be jammed through the chamber with short-circuited debate.

Let us not forget that Mr Obama, this same year, excoriated earmarks and used the following as an example for same:

That had marked a reversal from earlier this year, when Mr. Obama had decried pork-laden bills and had even vowed to veto a bill that included funding for an alternate production line for an engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter - both of which were included in the spending bill.

But wait; there's more. Harry Reid, in a perfect example of what is entirely wrong with DC, said:

2. Earmarks Are What We're Supposed To Do:

Again, from The Washington Times:

That's our job. That's what we're supposed to do," Mr. Reid, Nevada Democrat, said as he chastised fellow senators who, while having requested pork-barrel spending earlier this year, are now decrying their inclusion in the spending bill.

Mr. Reid challenged those senators to voluntarily agree to strip their own earmarks out of the bill, and said so far, nobody has taken him up on that.

Earmarks are just one of the fights that have broken out over the 1,924-page spending bill, which Democrats unveiled this week and have said they'll soon push to have lawmakers vote on.

As of noon, official copies of the bill were still not available in the Senate's document room, though versions were available online and in the Congressional Record.

Again, I bring up the BZ Truth In Spending Policy:

If a given DC politician wants to bring pork home for museums or oyster safety or maple syrup research, then each earmark should have its own stand-alone bill. Each point or potential bill should require its own numbered application. Then: 1) citizens would be able to SEE just how MANY ridiculous porkulets there were; 2) DC pols would have to actually VOTE on each one -- which would at least mandate a small amount of energy be expended before spending taxpayers' cash and 3) taxpayers could scrutinize politicians more closely and be able to better gauge their spending habits and trends. NO RIDERS.

Those in DC still do not "get" the message broadcasted, lo, just one month ago.

BZ

RFIDs For Christmas: Beware

You think the new X-Box is "hot" for Christmas?

How about RFID readers stealing your credit card information for Christmas?

Just what is RFID? That stands for "Radio Frequency IDentification." Chips embedded in any number of items may actually broadcast, from a limited to a longer range, select information contained within those various items. Things you might have on your person utilizing RFID technology would include credit/debit cards and American passports issued after 2006. RFID technology is also commonly utilized for electronic toll payments on bridges and causeways.

The RFID chip contained within certain credit cards are of the passive variety: they have no power source and require an external electromagnetic field to initiate a signal transmission. RFID "readers" (also known as interrogators), portrayed in the video above, can in fact be utilized covertly to capture information on passive chips.

As you can see, RFID is very popular in terms of selling and marketing. It is also very popular in businesses and venues that need to keep track of inventory. In that vein, the RFID concept has been in use for many years -- first enabled and utilized on American railroads to keep track of vast trains. RFID tags, placed on cars and locomotives, run past an RFID reader and the markup of a train is instantly captured for reference and archival by dispatchers, yardmasters and railroad personnel.

And if the above video isn't enough, Boing Boing TV shows you, on this video, just how to hack information from RFID-encrusted credit cards.



How can you tell if you have a card with an RFID chip? Look for the small logo of curved broadcast waves on its face.

What can you do to attempt some measure of security, since it's estimated that over 100-million customers might be at risk? I might start with the suggestion made in the first video: check into a shield pouch from Identity Stronghold. Hint: the US government is a customer.

Forewarned, ladies and gentlemen, is forearmed. And this problem / "solution" will not stop with credit cards. Some entities and concerns would like to see you implanted.

Of final consideration: who and or what will make RFID chipping mandatory?

Merry Christmas.

BZ

As You Fly This Christmas Week, Be Comforted By TSA:

After you've been given your very own personal federal colonoscopy and groping, think of this:

The TSA clearly states that the concomitant technology makes us much safer.

Experts tell ABC News that every year since the September 11 terror attacks, federal agencies have conducted random, covert "red team tests," where undercover agents try to see just how much they can get past security checks at major U.S. airports. And while the Department of Homeland Security closely guards the results as classified, those that have leaked in media reports have been shocking.

And if you enjoyed that, you'll enjoy this as you stand in queue awaiting your radiative and philangitized "close up," so to speak:

According to one report, undercover TSA agents testing security at a Newark airport terminal on one day in 2006 found that TSA screeners failed to detect concealed bombs and guns 20 out of 22 times.

Aaah, comfortable now, are we?

Merry Christmas!

BZ

Where Are YOU?

Please take a moment, answer this brief series of questions.

I was Conservative, with a bent towards Libertarianism.

Where are you?

BZ

The "Bush Tax Cuts" Extension -- Would YOU Vote For The Bill?

Even early on, I was not in favor of the bill.

In those intervening days the bill has been bastardized and bloated to the point that it resembles an Obaka Porkulus submission. If one would object to that, why is it that so many Republicans seem to be interested in voting for the BTC "deal"?

Let us speak and me write plainly: the Demorats have, as we well know, hijacked much of our current political language. The so-called "Bush Tax Cuts" are NOT cuts at all. These are nothing more than our current tax rates. There are NO "cuts" involved. A failure to extend the current tax rates means a massive tax hike. Those are the facts.

Labeling the current rate as "Bush Tax Cuts" is akin to the Demorats -- traditionally -- calling a failure to increase a given federal department's yearly budget a "cut."

First, in re "the deal" -- who has actually read the thing?

Second, the cost: $1.1 TRILLION and over 1,900 pages.

As Politico writes:

In a scene reminiscent of the movie “Casablanca,” top Republicans expressed shock, shock that there was gambling still in Rick’s Cafe even after their own members have been quietly working to write the bill and gather GOP votes for passage.

Third, there are 6,488 earmarks within.

You read that correctly. And here are but a few:

$277,000 for potato pest management in Wisconsin
$246,000 for bovine tuberculosis in Michigan and Minnesota
$522,000 for cranberry and blueberry disease and breeding in New Jersey
$500,000 for oyster safety in Florida
$349,000 for swine waste management in North Carolina
$413,000 for peanut research in Alabama
$247,000 for virus free wine grapes in Washington
$208,000 beaver management in North Carolina
$94,000 for blackbird management in Louisiana
$165,000 for maple syrup research in Vermont
$235,000 for noxious weed management in Nevada
$100,000 for the Edgar Allen Poe Cottage Visitor’s Center in New York
$300,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society in Hawaii
$400,000 for solar parking canopies and plug-in electric stations in Kansas

Ladies and gentlemen, I submit this as nothing more than clear proof that DC politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle did NOT receive the recent transmission from the American People, broadcast in the clear, this past November during the mid-terms:

STOP SPENDING.

These bastards simply cannot contain themselves. Your money isn't really yours; it belongs to them. You are simply a Money Factory with a limitless production line and the temporary holder of cash that must be funneled to DC.

Yet, some Republican senators are actually thinking about supporting it (Bennett of Utah, Bond of Missouri, Voinovich of Ohio and Collins of Maine).

Luckily, John Thune (R, South Dakota) speaks the obvious:

The attempt by Democrat leadership to rush through a nearly 2,000-page spending bill in the final days of the lame-duck session ignores the clear will expressed by the voters this past election," Thune said in a statement. "This bill is loaded up with pork projects and should not get a vote. Congress should listen to the American people and stop this reckless spending.”

This is the time to take a stand, Republicans, right out of the gate following the November mid-terms.

But are you more interested in "going along to get along"?

Just another day in "Political Exclusionary Paradise"?

So, dearest readers: how would YOU vote?

Because, after all, if you vote this bill down then you allow the current tax rates to expire. And they won't go down; oh no no no. Tax rates will go up come January 1st.

What's your strategy then?

BZ

In The Midst Of Insanity:

So steps Ron Paul.

I wouldn't have imagined.

Mr Paul has certainly instigated some lunatic fringe concepts in his time.



That being said, the one clarion call to which he has consistently insisted is an audit upon the Federal Reserve.

And I couldn't agree more.

However:

After years of blocking him from a leadership position, Mr.Paul’s fellow Republicans have named him chairman of the House subcommittee on domestic monetary policy, which oversees the Federal Reserve as well as the currency and the valuation of the dollar.

Perhaps the so-called "squeeky wheel" does insist upon major greasing?

He is now to lead a federal oversight committee.

Republicans had blocked Mr.Paul from leading the monetary policy panel once before, and banking executives reportedly urged them to do so again.

But Republicans on Capitol Hill increasingly recognize that Mr.Paul has a following — among his supporters from 2008 and within the Tea Party, which helped the Republicans recapture the House majority by picking up Mr.Paul’s longstanding and highly vocal opposition to the federal debt.

Conservatives have to pick up and acknowledge truth wherever and however it exists.

We must administer and utilize the tools we deign when and how we can.

And who can deny that we absolute must know where our money goes and how it is handled?

BZ

A Monday Truth:

So-called "bi-partisanship" ALWAYS involves:

- Me
-You

. . . losing something.

Go ahead: prove me wrong.

bz

Paradigm Shift

- PROCESSING

- PROCESSING

The BZ blog is encompassing basic philosophical challenges and potential core changes.

Stand by for abeyant fundamental paradigm shifts. . .

bz

P.S.

I am now working with Mozilla Firefox and have been so for roughly the past four months. I am also alternately blogging from not only a PC but my MacBook Pro with OSX.

Perhaps this is Ancient History to some of you, but I find MF to be quite so MUCH better than Internet Exploder. I cannot recommend it higher. Clearly, I am a late comer to Firefox -- but perhaps better late than never. When using MF I find my internet experience isn't subject to the prevailing prairie winds, tidal pull, sunspots, and phases of the moon according to The GatesMeister.

P.P.S.
I have had one day off in the past two weeks -- today -- and I am slotted to attend mandatory AOT training then back into my regular work schedule. I'll attempt to keep blogging as much as possible but work, as we all know, tends to interfere with the best of our Blogospheric Intentions.

Does it not?

Trying To Connect The Dots

I suspect that one of my greatest blogging flaws might be my tendency to eschew very limited-scope and highly-focused blogposts.

I submit that this is an area where, for example, Texas Fred absolutely excels, hence his great popularity. He has found a blogging formula that is sharp, focused, logical and popular: identify a specific topic or individual story, feature its source, provide the requisite links, then weigh in with salient commentary that either supports or negates the primary point.

It is, frankly, an excellent model for a blog. You may not realize it, but that's precisely what Texas Fred does on a daily basis. That's his model.

I admit my flaws up front: I wish I could do this. Focus like a laser beam. But the way my brain is patterned, I find myself primarily unable to strictly limit my posts in a Texas Fred kind of way. And therein I have to publicly recognize the success of TF as opposed to the "hit-and-miss" nature of my own microscopic address in the Blogosphere.

I just find it so damned difficult to narrow my focus whilst my brain literally explodes into any number of -- what I consider to be -- tangents from an original theme.

I guess I just can't lock in on a limited topic. Perhaps it's what people now call ADD. Back "then," it was called "just being a boy." Perhaps I am simply undisciplined.

Which brings me to now:

It's time that I try to identify how there are so many national and global "dots to connect."

In DC, the Demorats are like "girls gone wild." One party Demorat said, literally, "fuck the president"; another (Rep. Jerrold Nadler of N.Y.) said "we can't trust him."

House Demorats completely rejected out of hand Mr Obama's tax deal with the GOP (Whip Count here).

Further, Demorats decided to shelve -- at least for a while -- the DREAM act.

On the other hand, what was the final GOP count from the November midterms?

Final House Race Decided; GOP Net Gain: 63 Seats.

These are truly tumultuous times, America. . .

And they are, in my opinion, about to get bloodily violent.

BZ

P.S.
Question for my dearest readers:

Should I take a tip from Texas Fred and other bloggers who more closely focus their blogposts? Are my individual posts too wide and too unfocused -- as to my current themes?

Is it time to abandon my scattershot model and more narrowly focus my posts?

Would you want to read more narrowly-focused posts?

Obama's FCC: Time To Regulate News Via A "Public Value Test"

Clear Demorat FCC Commissioner Michael Joseph Copps (04-13-1940), another ancient and withered GOWP (Guilty Overeducated White Person) indicated radio licenses could be continued only but if they "demonstrate measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest."

Copps outlined a plan for a "Public Value Test" every four years that would make the license renewal of broadcasters contingent upon meeting federal criteria such as the delivery of news, diversity, the conducting of community input meetings and local programming requirements.



If radio and television is on Mr Copps' radar, then so must be blogs, necessarily so.

They are a means of communication, are they not?

Mr Copps, of course, envisions not only "race quotas" but in his purple-planet skies, "gender quotas" and "income quotas."

As some have said: "Fox -- meet hen-house."

So to speak.

Mr Copps also said:

Arguments rage over the right to secretly manage and prioritize content and to favor the affluent saw it as an affront to free speech. Barton also asked whether "five commissioners can do a better job of ensuring that Americans have access to a wide diversity of content and viewpoints than Americans can themselves by expressing their preferences ... in the vigorously competitive marketplace."

Bloggers and Conservatives beware: your First Amendment existence may be on the table -- once again.

And -- imagine this -- at the behest of Demorat/Progressive/Leftist elements.

BZ

"Dandy" Don Meredith: 1938 to 2010

Don Meredith, former expansion-team quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys (1960 to 1968), was just as famous -- perhaps even more so -- as the "color" announcer for the earliest iteration of Monday Night Football.


It is interesting to note that, as I prepared this post, I saw photo after photo of Howard Cosell embracing or hugging or touching Don Meredith -- and Frank Gifford uninvolved or looking away. There is no doubt that Meredith had a folksy, unassuming and likeable way about him whilst, at the same time, many described Gifford as a much colder and unapproachable individual. Photos seem to, that I've noticed, bear this out.

There is no question that Meredith lived his life as he saw fit. He drank heavily, smoked, joked, poked fun at everything including himself.

He loved hard, laughed hard, lived hard. As a quarterback, when he was "on" -- he was ON.

At the end of any given episode of Monday Night Football, when losers were identified and obvious, he would lapse into his own warbling interpretation of Willie Nelson's "turn out the lights, the party's over."

And when Dandy Don declared such, you knew the party was indeed over for that given team.

Don Meredith suffered a brain hemorrhage, and then lapsed into a coma. He passed away this past Sunday, December 5th, in Santa Fe, New Mexico, with his wife Susan at his side -- at age 72.

I watched many a Monday Night Football game with my father; he was a huge Dallas Cowboys fan throughout his life. Though actually born in Minnesota, he embraced Texas as "his state" and the Cowboys as "his team."



I watched Don Meredith throw; I also watched him transition to Monday Night Football.

This is just another small portion of my past excusing itself and, truly, moving aside.

God bless you, Don. You were what you were and nothing more or less. People loved you because you were so open, so plain, so obvious. I don't really think there was much of a mean bone in your entire body.

Give me another lucky ten years, dude, I'll be right there with you.

BZ

Republicans: Immediately Invertebrate?

Have John Boehner and Mitch McConnell sold the Republicans and, by extension, Conservatives down the river already?

There are rumors issuing forth from DC that this may be the case.

Sub-Frequency Buzz indicates the GOP may be in the midst of a "deal" with Demorats and, by extension, Mr Obama -- which would extend the "Bush tax cuts" for only a period of two years -- oddly enough, by the end of Mr Obama's reign.

In exchange, SFB indicates the GOP may agree to an additional 13 months of federal unemployment benefits.

My God, ladies and gentlemen, is the betrayal beginning so soon?

BEWARE of how the media may portray these agreements!

Why is it that the Republicans, particularly in winning and strong times, refuse to stand up and fight for themselves? Why won't the "Bush tax cuts" be continued permanently? Because they aren't "tax cuts" -- the are simply the current tax rates.

Ben Bernanke already said, this past Sunday (12-05-10) on 60 Minutes, that it will take roughly another FIVE YEARS to bring unemployment to 5%.



We -- I'm sorry, Republicans -- possess the House Bully Pulpit at this time and we -- I'm sorry, Republicans -- refuse to actually wield this power.

As Obama boasted: "we won, you lost."

You bastards are already cutting deals when you DO NOT HAVE TO.

You canNOT provide federal unemployment benefits for 155 weeks.

The Republicans did not EVEN FIGHT FOR A MONTH.

____________________________


The time is here, ladies and gentlemen.

The Republicans apparently will not fight for anyone --

-- for anything.

One of two things will occur:

- There will be a Third Party;
- Or the Republicans will be completely subsumed by another party.

This simply cannot continue.

I say:

NO MORE BETRAYAL!

BZ

P.S.
On the other hand, the Leftists believe that, with a "compromise" of the two-year extension, Mr Obama has "sold" the entire "progressive movement" "down the river" as well.

That makes me smile.

Mr Obama can't satisfy anyone, it seems.

Welcome to a portion of the real world, Mr Obama.

Sorry as hell about how reality interferes with isolated and educational theory.

And our current crisis trumps Pearl Harbor retrospectives, I'm afraid.

PPS:

This isn't a deal -- this is a surrender.

And yet, consider this: Obama blinked.

The Epitome of Elitist Leftist Arrogant Thought:

You need go no farther than here:

Julian. I am a former British diplomat. In the course of my former duties I helped to coordinate multilateral action against a brutal regime in the Balkans, impose sanctions on a renegade state threatening ethnic cleansing, and negotiate a debt relief programme for an impoverished nation.

None of this would have been possible without the security and secrecy of diplomatic correspondence, and the protection of that correspondence from publication under the laws of the UK and many other liberal and democratic states.

An embassy which cannot securely offer advice or pass messages back to London is an embassy which cannot operate. Diplomacy cannot operate without discretion and the protection of sources. This applies to the UK and the UN as much as the US.

In publishing this massive volume of correspondence, Wikileaks is not highlighting specific cases of wrongdoing but undermining the entire process of diplomacy. If you can publish US cables then you can publish UK telegrams and UN emails.

My question to you is: why should we not hold you personally responsible when next an international crisis goes unresolved because diplomats cannot function.

Julian Assange: If you trim the vast editorial letter to the singular question actually asked, I would be happy to give it my attention.

Any thoughts on Mr Assange? I have some, and they're not pleasant.

BZ