Stop Spending My Money On Stupid Crap

When people get all angry and uppity when talk of raising taxes comes around, it's not like there isn't a reason. There are plenty of reasons why so many people are sick of a buttload of wasteful spending and then having politicians tell us that we need higher taxes because there isn't enough revenue. Can't those morons figure this stuff out before they waste a gazillion of our tax dollars? The answer is no and I'm here to give you another example of an insane amount of money that was wasted on a bunch of crap. And by the way, it was pretty much crap from the get-go.

Have you heard of the "virtual fence"? In essence, it was supposed to be a technology based approach that would help secure our borders. No one ever really explained how it would work exactly and when they did try to explain how it would (hypothetically) work, they were still never sure if it would actually work. Even the freaking government knew how far-fetched it was. But do you think that stopped them from going full speed ahead with their project and your money? Of course not.

For the last five years, this unicorn project has been underway. Now, I don't know everything that they have been doing for the last five years, but I do know that they managed to spend ONE BILLION dollars while they were doing it. And if you're thinking that one billion dollars seems like a lot of money, you're damned straight that it is. It's going to seem like an awful lot after I tell you that after five years, this project has finally been deemed un-doable and has been canceled. Finally. One billion dollars later and someone finally pulled their head out of their arse. Great. It would have been a little bit nicer if someone could have pulled their head out of their arse before the one billion dollars had been spent. Perhaps, just maybe, someone could have paid attention to any one of a number of scathing reports that had been put together by the Government Accountability Office and then we wouldn't be in this position. But no. It took a billion dollars to induce said head pulling. Idiots.

And if you're wondering if we got anything at all for that one billion dollars, the answer is yes. Granted, it's not much, but it's something. Is it a billion dollars worth of something? Hell no. According to the New York Times, "In a pilot program in Arizona, it cost about $1 billion to build the system across 53 miles of the state’s border." A billion dollars? For fifty three miles of border? Yes. And mind you that in the "new approach" to border security, "...using mobile surveillance systems and unmanned drones already in the Border Patrol’s arsenal, would cost less than $750 million to cover the remaining 323 miles of Arizona’s border." Uh-huh. I see. Sooooo...if I do the math here, let's see...carry the two...divide into the...bring down the zero...all right then! ONE mile of "border security" cost approximately $18,867,925. That comes out to approximately $3,573 per foot. If you weren't angry before, you should be now.

While I enjoy the thought of unmanned drones whizzing along the border, I have a question. And I'm guessing that I must be missing something because I never even hear this brought up during discussions of border security. What in the world would be wrong with a big ass G-D fence? Have it go about ten stories below ground and about five stories above ground. Make it ten feet thick. Put some barbed wire at the top. Voila! What's wrong with that? I don't understand why it has to be all high-tech. Sure, high-tech is cool as can be, but all I want is for people to be kept out. I don't care if we don't use laser beams or teleporters to keep them out, just keep them out. And stop spending my money on stupid crap that isn't going to work! Spend my money to build a freaking fence and be done with it! At the very least, explain to me why a fence like I've described wouldn't work. But whatever you do, stop spending my money on stupid crap!

moreless

Security Gropes Explained

Worried about flying somewhere for Thanksgiving? Not sure how to feel about getting groped by the TSA? Luckily, there's this handy video (who I must thank my friend, Julie, for posting on Facebook, otherwise I would still be in the dark about all of the procedures) to let you know what to expect when you're expecting to get felt up. You're welcome.

moreless

Is The Groping Worth It

Way too many news stories focusing on the new TSA searches and pat downs. Way too many stories about people who are not happy with the more invasive body searches down by TSA employees. Way too many stories about the upcoming royal wedding. (Seriously. Does anyone really care about that sort of thing anymore? We were all duped into feeling like we should have given a fat rat's ass when Chuck married Di and look how that turned out.) But there aren't near enough stories about what the new TSA searches are supposed to accomplish.

All I read about is how passengers hate them. I have yet to read if they actually do any good. Now, maybe you have more faith in the TSA than I do and think that of course they do some good. But do they really? Seriously, the United States seems to be a bit reactionary whenever it comes to air travel regulations. Some guy tries to blow up a plane with his shoe? Next thing you know, we're all taking our shoes off. Some guy tried to put together a liquid bomb in mid air? Next thing you know, we can't take more than three ounces of any liquid on a plane. (No one has ever explained why three was the magic number in that instance. No, instead they just settled upon three and that's the way it has been ever since.) It's like there has to be an attempt first and then the policy will be fashioned. I'm not so sure that's the best way to go about this.

Here's the thing: All of these more invasive searches that they've been doing lately? Yeah. Those. Tell me, would they have been able to stop, say, the Grundle Bomber? You might also know him as the Underwear Bomber. Can they see stuff like that? I don't know. The reason why I don't know is that no one has answered that question. I'm guessing that they probably couldn't do much about something like that, but that's purely a guess based upon the little faith that I have in most government operations.

If the TSA would just come out and explain why these extra measures are necessary, perhaps some of the uproar would die down. The bottom line is that we all want to be safe, but we don't necessarily want to be groped by a stranger in order to be safe. And mind you, so far, none of the implements that have been, well, implemented have thwarted anything. Not one thing. All failed attempts haven't been taken down by the TSA. No, all failed attempts have been taken down in the air by other passengers. So, I'm not sure how feeling up my breasts, no matter how soft and supple they may be, is going to help thwart future attacks...especially since I'm not a terrorist.

moreless

Point and Fire, Please

There still seems to be a lot of talk about the whole Christmas Day attempted bombing debacle that went on that Northwest flight over Detroit. The thing is that with all of the talk that is going on, the one thing that I don't hear being talked about is who is going to be fired and when. Clearly, this is an incident that has firing potential, isn't it? Shouldn't someone have been fired by now? (Or at the very least, had their head placed on a pike of some sort? Oh, wait. That wouldn't really be the "least", but probably rather the "most", wouldn't it?)

Since no one has been fired yet, I was at least hoping for things to evolve to the point where someone would be fired. After all, how many people lost their jobs after the September 11 attacks? Heads had to have rolled then, right? So how many was it? 50? 100? 10? Oh, that's right. None. ::: sigh ::: Am I supposed to expect that this is going to be any different? I think I'm supposed to expect that, but tell you what...I don't think that I'm going to expect that. Just for kicks. Just this once. Just this once I'm not going to expect anything and then I'll see how that works for me. I'm guessing it's going to work pretty well.

Here's what President Barry had to say in his little press conference dealio about the whole Undiebomber ordeal:

"I will accept that intelligence, by its nature, is imperfect. But it is increasingly clear that intelligence was not fully analyzed or fully leveraged. That's not acceptable and I will not tolerate it. The information was there. Agencies and analysts who needed it had access to it. And our professionals were trained to look for it and to bring it all together. The US government had sufficient information to have uncovered this plot and to potentially disrupt the Christmas day attack, but our intelligence community failed to connect those dots. We have to do better, and we will do better, and we have to do it quickly. American lives are on the line."

First of all, are there "dots", plural? It seems to me like there might just be "dot" singular. I mean, what more do you need to act on than the guy's Dad going to a US embassy and saying that his son is a radical nutjob who wants to attack the United States? That seems like a dot. I don't know that you need another dot to connect it to, really. It's not even a very small dot. Seems like a pretty big dot to me.

Second, the part about having to do better and having to do better quickly. Um, since September 11, 2001, haven't we been spending so much money on this that it would make your head spin and never stop spinning? (Nancy Pelosi is excluded from answering that question, as I'm pretty sure that her head spins around on a fairly regular basis.) We've been spending money on this and trying to get good at this for over eight years! What exactly does he mean by "quickly" in the sense that he used it in? I would have thought that they'd have it down by now, but apparently, not so much.

Some other highlights of President Barry's response to this matter include: "While there will be a tendency for finger pointing, I will not tolerate it." Huh. See, I for one, I would like to see a little finger pointing. I could tolerate that. Because in reality, someone screwed up. And if you ask one person who screwed up and they point to someone else and say that they are the screw up, then you check that out. Maybe the person screwed up and maybe they didn't, but you have to follow the direction that the finger is pointing in to get some sort of an idea as to who was the incompetent moron who let this guy on a plane with a load of explosive strapped to his grundle, don't you? I think you do!

Fine, you don't want to point fingers? How about some head nodding? Just nod your head in the guy's general direction and we'll know what you mean.

Robert Gibbs, the usually snarky and sarcastic (he's snarkastic) press secretary said something along those same lines when he said Tuesday that "The president will not find acceptable a response where everybody gets in a circle and points at someone else. The American people won’t accept that.” Uh, Gibbsey? Yeah, as one of those American people that you mention there, I should tell you that I will accept finger pointing, but I will not accept men with TNT-laden genitals on board my aircraft. That's what I won't accept. Point all the fingers you want, but just keep guys with explosive laden genitalia off of the planes. OK. Thanks.

Oh! I almost forgot the other highlight of President Barry's talk (which had the "I'm deeply disappointed in you" tone that you received from your parents when you screwed up as a teenager). He said "In the days ahead, I will announce further steps to disrupt attacks, including better integration of information and enhanced passenger screening for air travel." Enhanced passenger screening for air travel? Good Lord, man. Now what?! Seriously. We already have it to a point where we practically have to disrobe completely in order to make it through airport security. We can't carry anything that resembles a gel or a liquid or a concentrate. At any given point in the process we're made to stand shoeless, beltless, scarfless, and hatless. And for the purpose of what? Because let me just remind folks of something. All of this passenger screening that we're doing right now has never caught and thwarted an attack. Surprise!

Think about it. Has there been anything that has come out of having us do all of that? No, there hasn't. No one has been stopped at security because they were made to take off their hat and there was a ticking time bomb underneath it. (And to think that in that scenario, they would have made it through if it weren't for those meddling security screeners!) That's never happened. No one has ever had their evil plan thwarted at the security checkpoints. I don't know what that means, but it means something. Feel free to let me know what that is if you happen to know.

President Barry can say whatever he wants to about making sure that we do better and that we're going to do better, but I don't think that I am going to feel better unless someone (and I'm thinking more than one someone) gets fired. The guy's dad told us that his son was a lunatic who wanted to attack the US. THAT isn't enough to get the guy on a no-fly list or at least on some sort of watch list? (I have NO idea what the watch list does, by the way. What are we watching them for, exactly? Sudden movements? Loins full of gunpowder? I don't get it.) Whoever it was that took that message, I want that person fired. Whoever it was that didn't do anything about it, I want that person fired. I kind of want Janet Napolitano fired for saying "The system worked" after all of this had first gone down. (The system didn't "work". The system didn't do anything, you pinhead.) Once I see some finger pointing, some head nodding and some people getting fired, then we can talk about how safe we are. Because until the same people (who were responsible for allowing all of the puzzle pieces to fall into place in order to almost doom nearly 300 people to a bomb-y death over God-forsaken Detroit) are fired and are not allowed to continue to do their job in the most crappy manner possible, no one is safe. Besides, why wouldn't you want to fire them?

moreless

No One Wants To See That

As I'm sure you've probably heard, some jackass following in the footsteps (as the Weird Beard followers do) of other al Qaida losers thought he was trying to blow up a plane on Christmas Day as it flew in for landing in Detroit. Now, I've been to Detroit, so I can understand the feeling of wanting to off yourself upon approach, but bringing a plane load of people along with you is really unnecessary. I mean, they might not be thrilled about the idea either, but it's their choice. It's really not up to an inept terrorist to make that decision.

Here's the thing. Despite this guy's complete moronic-ness (made that up), it could have been a total disaster. Planes blowing up are usually nothing short of total disaster. And it's really not clear to me why it didn't work. Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that he had the bomb woven or strapped or sewn or something into his underwear. Behold!

Wow. I'm a little surprised that he chose the groinal region to conceal an explosive device. After all, men are so touchy/feely about their grundles (there's probably a pun in there somewhere), the thought of any harm coming to it usually causes them to recoil immediately and gasp in horror. But I'm guessing that he chose that region because it would likely go undetected with any sort of normal, non-invasive pat-down that is sometimes administered as an attempt to feign some sort of safety measure for those who are flying. That's probably a given. What isn't really so much a given is whether or not these inadequate measures provide enough security to folks that are traveling by way of the airs that they really feel secure, or if it's the way that I suspect and that it doesn't do much of anything, but when you're the one flying and barely being patted down, you prefer not to think about the fact that it's useless and you could be seated next to a maniac with a bomb strapped to his grundle.

Anyway, the point of this is that even though this guy got on the plane in a different country (Amsterdam, I believe) that is reason for the US to heighten their security measures at airports. Now, I don't have a problem with that. Anything that we can do to help planes and the people on them become less 'splode-y, I'm all for it. And what's not to be for? Flying? Good. Flying safely? Good. Flying without getting blown to smithereens at 20,000 feet? Gooooood!! But have you heard what they're doing?

According to the folks over there at MSNBC.com "All travelers flying into the U.S. from 14 nations considered high risk will be patted down and have carry-on luggage searched under new security procedures starting Monday."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

I'm sorry...starting when? Monday? Monday. This Monday? Tomorrow, Monday? THAT Monday? Monday? Perhaps the TSA was not aware that this guy tried to blow up this plane on Christmas Day. Um, that was nine days ago. NINE days. And NOW, NINE days later, NOW they've decided that folks from the sand lands (Oh, come on! You know that's what they mean! They're not doing this with the French!) will be searched?! It took them nine days to come to that conclusion?! What's wrong with nine hours? Why did it take so long? Actually, why in the world weren't we already doing this? In case no one has noticed, we're kind of in the middle of a couple of wars with those sorts of countries. The Iraq. The Afghanistan. Both high risk. Both war zones. It would not seem unusual to have had these policies instituted...oh, say...right around...September 12, 2001? What is going on over there at the TSA? Nine days? Seriously?

In case you're wondering (or preparing for a stint on Jeopardy!) the 14 nations are referred to as being "Afghanistan, Algeria, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and Yemen." The article at MSNBC says that those countries "...are on the list as countries of interest." Countries of interest? What the heck is a country of interest? Is that like how when some guy's wife disappears and it's totally obvious that he did it (a la Scott Peterson) but they just don't have enough to pin it on them just yet so they call them a "person of interest"? Is that what's going on here? Are we so soft that we have to call these God forsaken lands "countries of interest"? Huh. I can't imagine why we're not winning this thing sooner. Way to make the whole country sound like a pussy there, TSA. And if you were still able to count after reading that and realizing that there were only 10, the other four are "Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria" because "...they have long been identified as "state sponsors of terrorism" by the United States.

CUBA?! Cuba. We're calling Cuba a "state sponsor of terrorism" but we're calling freaking Pakistan a "country of interest"? Oh, we are so doomed. (I need more alligators for my moat.) Are they kidding? Well, hopefully they're coming up with something other than just catchy titles for places to keep us safe. Hopefully they've got a little bit more than that. What about screening procedures? Anything new there?

Glad you asked. According to The Washington Post the number of full body imaging machines (think really big X-ray) at airports is increasing. The machines "...scan passengers' bodies and produce X-ray-like images that can reveal objects concealed beneath clothes." It's been that if the Undiebomber had gone through one that it would have most likely revealed his extra package he had concealed in his package area. And even though it's an X-ray, I don't think that there's a whole lot to worry about as far as feeling like you're going through some sort of virtual strip search. Do you feel violated when you have a regular X-ray or MRI? It's the same thing. And it would make stuff a whole lot safer and easier. Whew! I'm glad that's in the works. What now? People have a problem with this? Oh, good Lord, what's wrong now?

Well, if you're asking a one Kate Hanni, the founder of FlyersRights.org, she'll tell you that "The price of liberty is too high" and that "...the full-body scanners may not catch the criminals and will subject the rest of us to intrusive and virtual strip searches." Oh, for cryin' out loud, what is wrong with you, woman? Does this look too intrusive?! Does it?! Behold!

Of course it doesn't! What about this? Behold!

Oh, look! A gun! And you're telling me that the price of liberty is too high? I'm looking at my chart here (and that gun) and the price of liberty does not seem to be quite as high as the price of life. Life? Extremely valuable on my chart. Liberty? Definitely a close second. The founding fathers even had it in that order. Life, liberty, justice for all. Maybe you've heard of it. Anyway, I have no idea what she's talking about. Do you really care if someone sees an X-ray version of yourself? I can't imagine that you do, but if you do, please tell me why because I don't get it. It's not like you're getting Playboy centerfold images here. Please. And an invasion of privacy? Spare me. Have you flown lately? It's like a leper colony on most planes. Do you think that anyone really wants to invade any of those folks privacy to the point of having to see them sans clothing? I don't think that we do!

Really, I think that the only issue with the full body screening system is what we're going to pay the screeners. Because let's face it, they're going to be looking at some pretty gnarly folks going through those things. They're going to need a higher than average salary and an extra week of vacation time. Their insurance plan is going to have to include excellent vision coverage. (I worry that some might close their eyes so tightly after a few years of having to look at so many people that you really don't want to look at with clothes on, let alone scanned, that they could cause permanent damage to their ocular facilities. They're going to need Botox also. All of that eye closing could really induce facial wrinkles at a much faster than normal rate. Ooh! Hair plugs, too!)

And in the end, what are we really talking about here? Not getting blown up, that is correct. You want me to strip naked and do a cartwheel through that little metal detector gate thing? If that's going to assure me that I'm going to land at my destination in one piece and not being scattered across a tri-state area in bite sized bits, I'm all for it. Hold my shoes and stand back. I never was very good at cartwheels. (Helmets! Those screeners are going to need some helmets as well!)

moreless

President....Pelosi??

Doomed! That's what we are. Doomed! We are now at the mercy of TV network and cable executives to do the right thing in order to prevent every day life from turning into a potential reality show stunt. That isn't the sort of scenario I was prepared for. Invasion by those from a foreign land? Sure. The bullying pulpit of religious extremists? Absolutely. But how can one prepare to hope that someone who it notoriously known for doing the opposite of the right thing to do the right thing at a time when it's needed most? No one can prepare for that.

Here's the story: By now, you have inevitably heard of a one Michaele Salahi and a one Tareq Salahi. (You can pronounce those any way you'd like, I'm not going to stop you.) They are the couple who inexplicably were able to attend President Barry's State Dinner without an invite or without being on the guest list. That's right. They crashed the White House dinner party. Normally, I am in favor of various stunts which expose the incompetency of various organizations. But in a stunt that had the potential to make the phrase "President Nancy Pelosi" a reality, I'm not so impressed.

See, these two jokers didn't just crash the party. They shook hands with President Barry. They were right next to that other guy, what's his name? Right. Vice President Biden. They were right there with President Barry and Joey Veep. (I'm still working on a catchy nickname for Joe Biden. So far I've ruled out Veepy Joe, but bear with me. It could take a while.) Now, I don't know much about anthrax or any of those other biological weapons, but if they were using their sneaky powers for evil instead of asshattery, couldn't they have very easily anthraxed ol' President Barry and that Joe guy right there on the spot? I think they could have! And then where would we be? That's right! President Nancy Pelosi. God help us all. (You want to be scared even more than that? You know who is FOURTH in line for the Presidency? That's right. Robert Byrd! The barely conscious, semi-aware, 182-year old Robert Byrd! Good Lord...)

How these two ass clowns were able to make in into the party is inexplicable. It is completely without splick. Oh, and how did the world find out about it? Do you think that the Secret Service realized their own mistake on their own? No, of course not. The world found out about it because these two ass clowns posted the photos on freaking Facebook, for cryin' out loud! See, this Michaele Salahi, yeah, she is auditioning for the Bravo reality show The Real Housewives of DC. Shocking, I know. I guess that having "White House Gate Crasher" on your resume is a plus in that situation? I can't imagine.

Of course, initially the Secret Service denied that it was a problem and according to a one Ed Donovan, a spokesman for the Secret Service, "It's important to note that they went through all the security screenings - the magnetometer screening - just like all the other guests did...And, Obama and others under Secret Service protection had their usual security details with them at the dinner." Um, what now? Clearly they did not go through all of the security screenings, otherwise the one that showed that they weren't on the list would have prevented this! And it's good to know that President Barry and others had their security detail with them during this security breach and still had no idea what was going on. HOW does that help the situation to tell us that?! It doesn't seem to!

Since then, the Secret Service has retracted their audacity and admitted that they blew it. According to the huffy folks over there at The Huffington Post, "Director Mark Sullivan told the AP that his agency failed to verify whether the couple was invited to the party and expressed his deep concern and embarrassment. He went on to say that measures have been taken to ensure this will not happen again." There are also being criminal charges considered against the pair.

Now, I can't say that I support them being charged criminally. After all, they were allowed in. That's hardly trespassing. If you go to someone's house and they open the door and you say, "Can I come in?" and they say, "You betcha" (I'm apparently envisioning Sarah Palin's house in this example) are you trespassing? I don't think you are. The Secret Service might be annoyed with these folks, but they hardly have grounds for a case. And that's and opinion coming from someone who is not a lawyer, doesn't play one on TV and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I have watched a lot of Law and Order, however.

I am SO dying to know what they said to get in. I am also SO afraid it's going to be something like, "Yuh-HUH! We are SO invited to this, dude!"

But back to the doom. What do you think these assclowns are doing now? That's right, they're preparing to make the rounds on the talk show circuit. Oh, but they're not satisfied with just having their faces on TV for ten minutes. No, they want to be paid an amount of money that is rumored to be mid six figures. These guys want $500,000 at least to appear on talk shows. Are you kidding me?

Do you see the dilemma? These network execs are going to want this interview. People are going to be pissed off if they pay them that much for it. But I guarantee you, someone will. Some sleazy network out there is going to do it. And when they do, be prepared for the onslaught of gate crashers at every public event that every public official is attending. Real life will be turned into an episode of Jackass.

I can understand wanting the interview, but seriously, what do you think that you're going to learn from an interview that the public doesn't already know? I can't imagine anything. If currently they are considering criminal charges, I highly doubt that the lawyers that these folks have hired (and don't kid yourself; they have plenty of lawyers on this one) are going to allow them to speak about anything that anyone wants to know. If they haven't already explained what it was that they said to get into the Presidential wing-ding, I don't know that they're going to be talking about it on some national TV show. I can see them sitting there and talking about things that we already know, but I cannot fathom how they could have any new information to share with us that their lawyers would allow.

Any network that pays these sleazebags a dime for what they did is simply encouraging breaching national security for monetary profit. And seriously, do you really think that your little interview with these two is going to propel your ratings into the next stratosphere? I can't imagine that it would. I can't imagine that paying $500,000+ for an interview would net you a profit that would make it worth it. It's just economically impossible.

Anyone who says that this was just a "harmless prank" is a moron. It's only a "harmless prank" because nothing happened, you moron. The potential for disaster was HUGE. I mean HUGE. Must I say it again? President Nancy Pelosi. God help us....

moreless