The world we choose to live in ...

as revealed by this little anecdote:

http://www.mybottlesup.com/2009/10/tsa-agents-took-my-son/

... and if you thought airport security makes us safer ...

Check this out, safety freaks!:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/tsa-screenings-kill-americans-highways/

So is your dead body better off smeared on a highway or a runway?

Do those who choose to restrict your freedom actually increase your safety? Seems not.

Consider this article which points out that radiation poisoning from the scanners is just as likely to kill you as a terrorist's bomb:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1331185/Airport-body-scanners-just-likely-kill-terrorist-bombs.html

The principle of unintended consequences comes to the forefront once more.

As I heard in an old cowboy movie way back when, "Ain't nothin' more peaceful than a dead man!"

Cower on in pious oblivion, you obsequious sheeple.

We're all in this together

... and then they came for me, and there was no one to ...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20023341-245.html

Enjoy your freedom!

Note to self:

Glenn Greenwald once agan posts a good summary of the state of our tawdry world:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/17/gates/index.html

The above deals with military and empire costs vs life in a civilized world, and torture as a tactic that is legal only in the exceptionally cowardly US.

Here's one for the security-conscious ladies

I don't make this stuff up, ... ... honest.

"A Gizmodo investigation has revealed 100 of the photographs saved by the Gen 2 millimeter wave scanner from Brijot Imaging Systems, Inc., obtained by a FOIA request after it was recently revealed that U.S. Marshals operating the machine in the Orlando, Florida courthouse had improperly-perhaps illegally-saved images of the scans of public servants and private citizens."

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/tsa-sees-sanitary-napkins-body-scans/

Creepy.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but, ... ... really!!?

Here is one suggestion on how to deal with all this:

"

Since the Department of Homeland Security ordered enhanced screening measures, anyone who refuses their random assignment to the backscatter machines has been subject to invasive pat-downs that, in many cases, have seen screeners groping passengers' genitals and breasts. Not even children are exempt.

Many fliers choose to opt-out over concerns about the health effects of exposure to x-rays, or because they do not wish to be seen in the nude by a stranger.

Techniques being employed against American travelers are actually more invasive than methods used by the US military to screen Afghan civilians. Military policy holds that overly invasive searches of Afghans might inflame anti-American sentiment and violence in the region. That's apparently not a concern with Americans.

The "superfantastic" twist to "National Opt-Out Day": If you feel the screenings are humiliating, let the government share your embarrassment (pun intended) by wearing a kilt. And if you're, ahem, ballsy enough, join the protest wearing it like a true Scotsman, sans underpants.

The idea was first suggested by The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg, who writes:

Think about it -- if you're a male, and you want to bollix-up the nonsensical airport security-industrial complex, one way to do so would be to wear a kilt. If nothing else, this will cause TSA employees to throw up their hands in disgust. If you want to go the extra extra mile, I suggest commando-style kilt-wearing. While it is probably illegal to fly without pants, I can't imagine that it's illegal to fly without underpants. If you are Scottish, or part Scottish, or know someone who is Scottish, or eat Scottish salmon, or enjoy Scotch, or have a vestigial affection for "Braveheart" despite Mel Gibson, you can plausibly claim some sort of multicultural diversity privilege -- the term "True Scotsman" refers to soldiers who honor their tradition and heritage by wearing kilts without drawers underneath.

The snarky and unsanitary proposal seems to evoke images of recent stories, like the man in San Diego who told TSA screeners, "I'll have you arrested if you touch my junk," only to be escorted out of the airport and threatened with a $10,000 civil lawsuit."

“mendocracy. As in, rule by liars.”

Here's a fun bit of reading:

http://www.alternet.org/story/148826/16_of_the_dumbest_things_americans_believe_--_and_the_right-wing_lies_behind_them

How many of these concepts do you believe in?

Canada'a national embarrassment - it's PM

Mindless acceptance of fealty to Israel - ...

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20101108/harper-israel-101108/20101108/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Why doesn't Harper just pack up a go to Israel if he's such a fan of the newest fascist/pirate state in the mid-east? Even Israelis are allowed to bad mouth the Israeli gov't in Israel, but Canadians can't do that here.

A familiar story in this new age of security

How do you like this stuff?

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/09/manning/index.html

Where have we heard this before ...

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/11/08/justice-dept-no-legal-authority-for-court-to-oversee-obamas-assassinations/

This is the very definition of an absolute dictatorship, at least so far as I understand such a system.

One hopes that the court will stand up against the call for such blatant tyranny.

A Khadr summary

FYI:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/10/30-6

Every person who supports the Nuremburg trials and subsequent international treaties regarding war crimes and child soldiers should be very disturbed by the state of our society now that Omar has had his day in an American 'court'.

I wish I knew how to get Canada's Treaty obligations enforced. There is certainly no entity in our current government/legal structure who seems the slightest bit interested in doing what these laws, treaties and the Supreme Court of Canada say is required.

A Republican speaks the truth!!???

This is from Ron Paul:

"Some will argue that these arms deals are international trade which we should encourage and applaud. Sadly, the United States does not build much that we can export these days. But the fact is that the U.S. weapons industry is underwritten by the American taxpayer. From research and development to acquisition by the U.S. military, the costs of the U.S. arms industry are borne by American citizens. But, as so-called private companies, the enormous profits they make selling weapons to countries like Saudi Arabia are of course privatized. So the costs are socialized and the profits are privatized. There is a word for this arrangement, and it is not “capitalism.”"

Think about it the next time you yell 'Support the troops".