Lowering the bar - Alot.

So, they've decided to charge SCPOS#34* with using WMD's - yep Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Apparently Saddam did have WMD's but then with this new definition, so does everyone else.

I suppose it fits in with calling Libertarians extremists and potential terrorists.  Or, well, anyone who disagrees with the Obamasiah and his fellow progressives. 


* SCPOS#34 - Scumbag, Cowardly Piece of Shit: Awhile back I decided to never mention the actual names of the glory seeking morons who commit atrocities - so they get numbers.  SCPOS#23 died a few nights ago in Boston, SCPOS#12 offed himself in CT awhile back. Forgot about SCPOS#1 from Colorado (probably because I'm trying to forget about Colorado as well).

The Stupidity Market

I'm not sure who decided having a citizenry of idiots was a good idea, perhaps it was the lawyers, maybe it was the politicians.  When you want to know why the market for something grows,  you need to look for the incentives or disincentives.  In the case of stupidity, it's growing steadily - but why?

Lawyers make it profitable by suing companies because they failed to tell you not to do something incredibly stupid with their product, for example - using your rotary mower as a hedge trimmer.

Health care has lowered the risk of doing something stupid by getting to the point where they can fix things that stupid people do to them selves.

Politicians incentivise stupidity by offering free money to lazy people.

So what's the down side to stupidity?   At the moment, it would seem there is almost none.  It's profitable, it's easy, and the risks are very low.    Don't expect a market like that to do anything except grow.

Can't we just all agree

Obama doesn't like to use the term Terrorist, although his supporter seem to be fine with it when they can link it (no facts required). To the right.  Everyone seems to like the term perhaps more than they should.

So My definition of terrorism agrees with Krauthammers:

A politically motivated attack on civilian targets.

Now keep in mind, when your talking about a theocracy, religion is politics.  This is where things get messy.   So if the religious motivation is to spread, force agreement with, or cause fear of a religious ideology, it's political.  When you start screwing with people who are not of your faith, it's political.  Screw with people of your own faith - it might be politics or it might be doctrinal. 

There's one point here where Krauthammer and I part ways.

And here the president faces a challenge. Will Obama level with the American people and use the word? His administration obsessively adopts language that extirpates any possible connection between Islam and terrorism. It insists on calling jihadists “violent extremists” without ever telling us what they’re extreme about. It even classified the Fort Hood shooting, in which the killer screamed “Allahu Akbar” as he murdered 13 people, as “workplace violence.”
In a speech just last month in Jerusalem, the president referred to the rising tide of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists as the rise of “non-secular parties.”
Non-secular? Isn’t that a euphemism for “religious,” i.e., Islamist?
Yet Obama couldn’t say the word. This is no linguistic triviality. He wouldn’t be tripping over himself to avoid any reference to Islam if it was insignificant.

(emphasis - mine)

Since Fort Hood was a military target, and the attacker a military person, I would classify that as an act of war and Major Nidal Hasan as a traitor.   The inability to point to the globe and say - it was them - is irrelevant. The rest of it? Yep, I agree.

So was Boston a terror attack.  Sadly I think I jumped too soon in an earlier post.  I added Serbian err Chechen + Islam + possible jihaddist + civilian attack and came up with - YES.  It's really a reserved Probably. Maybe all those people being able to run that distance aggravated a feeling of inferiority (probably not).  

I'm not sure why some folks seem to think jumping to Terrorist is useful.  Maybe it's because we know what to do with a terrorist, but a mentally ill person is harder. I do agree with Krauthammer about Benghazi - there was no doubt when that story broke what was really happening so, yes absolutely.


Do I care if Obama used the word Terrorist or Terrorism? No because he really had no way of knowing, and at the time of writing this, I still don't think it's 100% clear (just highly probable) so as much I really dislike the guy, I'm not going to fault him on that point. 

The Problem with Speculating on events

So Borepatch put this up.   I'm not even a tiny bit surprised by any of those comments. 

So Judson Phillips @ Tea Party Nation is spouting facts that aren't. 

So the Huff Post responds with it's own crap

The statement on the website claims these kind of terrorist attacks will happen again, sooner rather than later, because the enemy is determined, and because "we have a government that is not committed to protecting America." The statement goes on to say it's "a pretty safe bet right now that this attack was carried out by an Islamist. ... [O]ur government is not committed to destroying our enemy. Radical Islam is our enemy."
Despite early reports of a mysterious "Saudi national" possibly involved with the bombing, no credible evidence currently links the Boston explosions to Al Qaeda or Islam.
That, of course, has not stopped groups like Tea Party Nation from making the connection themselves. In the aftermath of the attack, Tea Party Nation's opinions were echoed by noted anti-Islam advocate Pamela Geller, who took her own unsubstantiated views to social media:

OK so Tea-Party Nation says something unsubstantiated and gets taken to task by Huff, but the crap spouted by Moore, Mohr, NPR and company is fine.
 
There still is no link between the attack and AL-Qaeda, regardless of  what CBS reports and Al-Qaeda may wish for.   The information so far does not support this.  So why the hell speculate.  When your wrong, it makes you look as stupid as NPR, Michael Moore and, Jay Mohr.  

You're all Idiots.   Stop being in such a hurry to be WRONG.

You want to know why the divide between the right and left is growing? Because the media supports that divide, it sells Simulated News-Like Entertainment©.  This crap is accomplished on both sides by spewing speculative garbage as if it were fact, then counting on the emotional leverage, but also counting on the actual statements to be forgotten if they happen to be wrong.    Yeah, well the Internet Never Forgets.   Congratulations your a Moron for All Eternity. 

I wonder if she feels like an idiot

My deepest sympathies to the families and friends of those killed and injured in the Boston Marathon attack.

This kind of crap how ever does not help.    

NPR's Dina Temple-Raston attempts to blame "Right Wing" (yeah, that us Libertarians, and I guess Republicans) for Boston.

It's good to know NPR is all about In-depth, Unbiased Reporting.

So I wonder if she feels like an idiot.   I've been listening to NPR on and off this morning, you'd think this was 9/11 all over again.  Why do these people think a totalitarian police state will be good for them?   I realize progressives have a mental disorder that prevents the processing of logic and leads to living in a reality not perceivable by the rest of us.  No, she's probably disassociated herself from the reality where she actually said what she said - never happened, nothing to see here, move along.


So there's one guy still running around as I write this (or more likely hiding under a porch) and for that we get this which seems like a slight over-reaction.  Don't get me wrong, the scumbag needs to be caught, preferably dead, I'm not sure I give a shit about his reasons.  He, like most terrorists are simply amoral, cowards, looking to hurt anyone they can because it's easier than actually doing something productive.

OK America time to wake up.  If you close the city down, hide in fear in your homes, let the national guard and police turn the city in to a  police state, the terrorists win.  It's what they wanted, maximum harm, minimum effort.  Don't go this way, you won't like the view down the road.

An Argument in a Resturant

I'm normally pretty good at keeping my cool in public.  This evening I sort of lost it.  There were two couples of older folks (older and I'm 56) chatting in the next booth.  I overheard the usual Progressive crap, never a surprise, around here your either pretty far right or pretty far left, mostly left.

It was when the old man said Wayne LaPierre and the NRA are Terrorists, that I lost it.

This is to the best of my recollection and I'm going to leave things out that didn't really add to the content.   

In a fairly loud voice I asked:  "Are you calling me a terrorist?"
Man: Well LaPierre is.
Me:  Really how do you figure that?
Man: He get's paid $X for every person killed in this country.  (I really don't remember the amount - I was simply too stunned by the idea to really let that sink in.)
Me:  By Who?
Man: By Wal-Mart and by gun companies.
Me:  Really?  The take a count of the dead bodies and send him a check for every one?
Man: Well I'll tell you, He'll get a raise when they manage kill 35,000 in a year.
Me: We are not terrorists, he does not get paid for dead bodies.  Just dividing his salary by the number of people killed doesn't mean he's getting paid by the body and you fucking well know it.
Wife: Well they make laws that keep manufacturers from being sued for defective products.
Me:  Really, Like what?
Man -as they get up to leave:  Like the Remington 870 Semi Automatic Rifle.
Me: The Remington 870 is a 12 guage Pump action shotgun. Your thinking of the Model 700 which is not a Semi Auto, it's a Bolt Action Rifle.  It's also not defective,  So most of your facts are wrong.
Man: It's defective, it kills people.
Me: The rifles in question had either been worn out or modified and were improperly handled.  That's hardly Remingtons fault.

At this point they bailed, with much mumbling.

After a few minutes I'd cooled down enough to go apologize  to the owner who's a friend of mine.  He laughed.  Said he'd put up a sign saying he supported the NRA but it would kill his business - he's right, around here it would.   Because - We are EVIL TERRORISTS

Or maybe they're brainwashed idiots.

.
.
.
Yeah I have to go with option #2

Honestly, if there had been anyone beside me and them in there at the time, I'd like to think I could keep my cool. But I'm just not sure.

A prime example of Progressive Thinking

We've all heard of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). 

What the hell brought that up you ask?  Well somehow (you know how it goes) is stumbled on an article talking about Kate Upton pissing off PETA.

And yet (and this is only one example - the results are typical nationwide) we have this. 

I've check with a friend who's got some experience with animal rights activists and he assures me the numbers shown here might actually be LOW - yep over 90% of their shelter animals get the needle.  And yet, they can bitch about 3 animals getting what seem to be much needed publicity. 

So Once again the Progressive Motto: Our rules only apply to you, not to us - we're too enlightened and superior to need rules.
 
Maybe they're just pissed because they didn't think of it first.