A paving company dump truck with some trailer equipment was trying to make a legal turnaround after he missed his turn, when a fuel tanker came up over the crest of the hill and caught him broadside overturning the rig. The tanker was fully loaded with fuel and both trucks burst into flames. Luckily, both drivers made it clear with only minor burns. But then the fire spread to a nearby warehouse, that just happened to be filled with fireworks! And then the fire melted an underground natural gas main!
If you made that up, no one would believe you.
http://dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/06/29/news/doc4c2a081dc1222483643052.txt
UPDATE: Police have filed charges against the driver of the dump truck for not having a proper license to operate the vehicle, and for making an illegal U-turn. It also turns out that the fireworks in the warehouse were illegal as well, perhaps dashing the hopes of the politician running for office who's wife owns the warehouse and was charged as well.
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Monday, June 28, 2010
Media Broadcasts CIA War Propaganda
This certainly isn't the first time that the media has posted blatant propaganda, nor will it be the last, but the Associated Press article "CIA chief Panetta: US has driven back al-Qaida" found on Yahoo news is a clear example of brainless junk-food news, pandering to the weak-minded for political gain in support of the war in Afghanistan. There are so many things wrong with this article it's hard to know where to begin. So let's start with al-Qaeda.
Here is a related segment hosted on YouTube of a BBC special, and links for the full length version on Googlevideo...
The Power of Nightmares: Part 1
The Power of Nightmares: Part 2
The Power of Nightmares: Part 3
The series is also available for download here...
http://www.archive.org/details/ThePowerOfNightmares
So what they are telling us with that headline, and the introduction to the article when they say, "The U.S. has driven al-Qaida into hiding and undermined its leadership," is nothing short of complete fabrication. They are lying to you, blatantly and without reservation. It is no more news than a supermarket tabloid declaring with all certainty that aliens were spotted having lunch with Elvis at the Ritz-Carlton hotel. Yet the fabrication is taken as gospel coming from the esteemed Associated Press, who pretty much dictate all mainstream media news reports in America by the way, and then disseminated by such seemingly reliable sources as Yahoo news or the various other media outlets that have carried this story. Nowhere in the national media, in neither left nor right leaning news outlets, do we see a peep of dissent questioning the validity of this fabrication. Of course President Obama is looking to gain support for his war strategy in Afghanistan, so some news to make it look like things are on track is needed now in the wake of his firing of General McChrystal, the theatre commander. Not to mention the troop surge and announced 2011 departure from Afghanistan of U.S. troops, which has all left the media pundits in a frenzy.
The article then goes on to sell a little fear to the reader once again by reporting CIA Director Panetta has stated that al-Qaeda is increasingly relying on terrorists without previous ties to terrorism, and those already in the United States. Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the recent acts of terrorism in the U.S., as almost laughably unsuccessful as they have been, were in any way tied to this fictitious terror organization. But they aren't about to waste a perfectly good opportunity to have the reader jumping at shadows, in order to chip away at the last vestiges of liberty and to justify this enormously expensive police-state we now live in.
Panetta's own estimation is that there are fewer than a hundred al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. So it takes almost a hundred-thousand U.S. troops to hunt down less then a hundred of the world's most dangerous and wanted terrorists? That would be assuming of course, that al-Qaeda were as real as he would have us all believe. Mention is made of more members of the imaginary terror network holed up just across the border in the mountains of Pakistan. He then sates that U.S. drone strikes and spy operations have helped to take down half of al-Qaeda's top leadership. So we are making great headway finally against this imaginary enemy. Director Panetta then tries to give us with the impression that we are winning the fight of all fights stating, "We are engaged in the most aggressive operations in the history of the CIA in that part of the world, and the result is that we are disrupting their leadership." Yes Mister Panetta, so we've heard, for about a decade now.
Of course he is not so confidant when he is talking about the fight against the Taliban. The very real group of fighters, clan elders, and spiritual leaders who were the legitimate government of Afghanistan until the U.S. came marching in on the flimsiest of fabricated evidence and turned the whole country upside down. Even at the onset of the invasion the only crime that the Taliban were supposedly guilty of was harboring al-Qaeda. But if there is and never was any al-Qaeda, what was their crime at all? Most of the supposed 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan, nor Iraq for that matter. A few weeks ago the New York Times reported that the U.S. had discovered more than a trillion-dollars worth of precious minerals in Afghanistan. A trillion little reasons to go to war? Perhaps. Or just more spin to justify to the American people our continued presence there, by dangling a prize of riches in front us, at a time when our economy is imploding more each day and the middle class is being driven off a cliff.
The article then goes on to discuss the problems inherent in propping up a puppet democracy in a land where the people aren't interested and only making a half-hearted effort to "win" a war in their own land that isn't even their war in the first place. Fewer than an estimated 9,000 Afghan fighters are prepared to to join the U.S. in an assault against the Taliban's spiritual heartland in Kandahar. Sure, there are plenty of Afghans who have no love for the Taliban, but this isn't simply a matter of us backing one side in a civil war. Afghanistan is a patchwork of tribal lands with many powerful factions. Something that obviously the United States does not even comprehend, or pretends not to, when we wind up funding the Taliban ourselves through their protection racket, extorting "security payments" through middlemen to allow our supply convoys to move about the countryside unmolested. So now the U.S. military is guilty of supporting "terrorists" financially, which is more than any support the Taliban ever gave to Osama Bin Laden.
Almost as an afterthought near the end of the article the reporter interjects, "On a separate issue, Panetta said that the CIA had no choice but to hire the company once known as Blackwater for $100 million to provide security in Afghanistan." Wait, what? The CIA had no choice but to hire a company known to openly engage in killing civilians at random and without cause? A company who's officials are under Federal indictment for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and weapons charges? But the CIA "had no choice" since this company of Christian zealot mercenary terrorists had outbid the competition by $26 million. Some folks may also rest easy knowing that a CIA review of the newly renamed Xe Services has concluded that the contractor has "cleaned up it's act." Does that put you at ease? Perhaps we might just convince the Taliban to clean up their act so that we can go home. The whole article then wraps up with a nice little bow reminding us of how seven CIA employees and some contractors were killed in Afghanistan in December when a suicide bomb went off. Well then, that justifies everything then they must figure.
When will people start questioning this sort of reporting? When will those who question it be heard? It seems we all might just as well sit back and get all of our news from The Onion...
Friday, June 25, 2010
Technology and Police Hypocrisy
Quite often in a big city like New York, and elsewhere, technology is touted as being the key to protecting society from criminals and terrorists. The terror threat in particular is flaunted each time some new technology is introduced or expanded. With such marketing by the press and esteemed persons such as NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly, most folks won't or simply don't bother to question the real justification, expense, or possible infringements upon civil liberties. A few convenient cases of inept buffoons charged with terrorism, like the FBI-sponsored "Newburgh 4" are enough to keep the general public thinking there is an omnipresent terror threat and that no sacrifice is too much for security.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." ~Benjamin Franklin
(As the trial of the Newburgh 4 got underway in White Plains, the Poughkeepsie Journal trumpeted, "Unannounced police checkpoints, random street closings and police helicopters overhead will greet people..." as if that were a good thing in this supposed land of the free. Also reported with perfect timing, by the Poughkeepsie Journal, the Homeland Security Newswire, and elsewhere no doubt, was a new training program to teach the N.Y. State Bridge Authority how to spot terrorists, as part of "Operation Safeguard." Of course there was no mention of the funding details for this program, as the state government was about to come to a grinding halt under a budget crisis and funding for basic services are being slashed across the region. After considerable taxpayer cost, the Walkway Over the Hudson, a public park built upon the framework of an old railroad bridge spanning the Hudson, has been threatened with closure almost since it opened due to budget constraints and lack of funding. The Governor has threatened to close all parks on numerous ocassions citing budget concerns.)
While millions are without work and being shut out of their homes, with the national economy puttering along weakly drawing vivid comparisons to the Great Depression, no expense is to be spared in the surveillance of society. Police cars are now mounted with cameras that scan and process the license plate of every single car they pass, as well as the dash-mounted cams to record traffic stops. Hundreds, if not thousands of stationary cameras are slated to be networked and operational in Manhattan by 2013. Upstate, the surveillance hardware is cropping up here and there, as it is across the country. All of these cameras are being linked to the latest in software developments such as facial recognition programs that are so sensitive they can even detect stress patterns, or basically "read" what your mood is. In airports we are now being herded through machines that violate any sense of privacy, by producing a digital nude image of your body in great detail. Surveillance blimps with the latest and greatest in privacy intruding technology, such as seeing through walls and listening in on conversations miles away, are deployed over major cities such as N.Y., Washington, and San Francisco. The surveillance of society is a booming industry, that no doubt even runs off into secret technologies even beyond the sci-fi futuristic sort that we already know about.
So we have a grand arsenal of complex, layered, and interwoven technological networks pointed straight at the population by the police and assorted security agencies, at enormous expense to the taxpayer, but in some places, if you record a police officer with your cell-phone camera, it is a felony punishable by up to fifteen years in prison. No, that wasn't a joke.
Take the case of Maryland Air National Guard Staff Sergeant John Graber. He liked to ride his motorcycle while wearing a helmet equipped with a camera. Sounds like fun, and something that might come in handy in the event of an accident maybe, or, a traffic stop...
In that video, you see a man jump from a car shouting, as he whips out a pistol. Only after he issued commands, pulled his weapon, and grabbed the bike did the man in the unmarked car say that he was a member of the State Police, but still failed to produce proper identification. One can only imagine what might have happened if Mr. Graber had been a legally armed citizen and military service-member with his own pistol. For him, or any other passerby, it would not have been unreasonable at all to conclude that this man in gray was about to kill because of road-rage, or perhaps a bike-jacking. As it turns out, the man in gray was indeed Maryland State Trooper Joseph David Ulhera. Graber had apparently been speeding, 80 in a 65. Hardly a violent offense that would necessitate the Trooper drawing a firearm. Staff Sergeant Graber was issued a ticket for speeding, and finally allowed to be on his way.
Graber posted the video of the incident on Youtube. As if the asinine actions of the trooper weren't enough, now the story really plummets into the dark depths of what one would expect in a classic fascist police-state. In this land of freedom of speech the Air Guardsman no doubt never imagined that posting the video might be considered a felony punishable by up to fifteen years in prison, but weeks later in the light of the early dawn police raided his house where he lived with his parents, sister, wife, and two young children. He was in bed, immobilized due to a recent surgery, which prevented the police from bringing him in that day, though he was later arrested, held for 26 hours, and had to post a $15,000 bond. That morning police did detain everyone in the house, preventing anyone from leaving for work or school, as they seized computers, disc drives, and Graber's video camera. The warrants for the search were not signed by any judge, though State Attorney Joseph Cassilly says the judge's name is being kept secret for "privacy" concerns. The charge against Graber stems from Maryland's "wiretap" law, which makes it a felony to intercept a private conversation with an electronic device without consent of both parties. Twelve states have similar laws, and in other states, other statutes are twisted to make it a crime to film a police officer as well.
In East Haven, Connecticut, a Roman Catholic priest was arrested filming police engaging in what he thought to be racial profiling, in a city with a history of racial tensions with police. A police report states that Rev. James Manship was arrested for struggling with police over an "unknown shiny silver object." A fifteen-second video clip shows East Haven police Officer David Cari asking, "Is there a reason you have a camera on me?" After the priest replies, the officer says now approaching, ""Well, I'll tell you what, what I'm going to do with that camera," and the footage ends.
In Carlisle, Pennsylvania eighteen year-old was charged with "wiretapping" for recording a routing traffic stop. A crime punishable by seven years in prison there. After his mother put her house up for bail and 26 hours later he was released on bond, but not before confiscated film not related to the incident.
There is the case of Simon Glik, a lawyer from Boston, who was charged with illegal electronic surveillance when he began filming what he thought to be excessive force being used against a handcuffed suspect. Jon Surmacz, a webmaster, was also charged by Boston Police after he was caught filming the breakup of a Christmas party.
There are a number of similar stories that have made it into the media, but as with all stories that would shine a negative light on police, there are many more that never make it to the mainstream media or reach any level of public credibility. It seems that most folks are content not to know, or have an unwavering trust in police, until it is their turn to squirm under the jackboot. Meanwhile, the police and government embrace hypocrisy as a matter of law and standard operating procedure. Police have cameras in their cars, that are conveniently left turned off or "broken" when accusations of misconduct arise. Or even during an interrogation at a police station, where cameras are often required by police when conducting an interview. Officer Wylie Willis was fired after this incident, but later reinstated...
In a free and just nation, police should have no reasonable expectation of privacy where citizens do not, in public places. Moreover, when they are on-duty and acting acting in the capacity of a public servant. Police must be held to a higher standard, not exempt. Stories like this though, and the videos that can be seen beg the question, whom do the police actually work for? Who are they really watching? Who are the real terrorists in this country harming and killing innocent people? Was this country not founded on principals of equality and liberty? Did we not fight a revolution once to throw off the shackles of tyranny and oppression?
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Trial update of BART officer who killed suspect (with verdict)
On New Year's Day 2009, Bay Area Rapid Transit officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed unarmed civilian Oscar Grant, as the victim lay face-down on an Oakland, California train platform. It is not unreasonable to question whether or not charges would have ever been filed, had it not been for the cell-phone video taken by several witnesses and widely circulated on the internet. Prosecutors have gone ahead with a murder charge however, contending that the officer did in fact intend to shoot the suspect out of fear that he and his colleagues were losing control of the situation. Shortly after the shooting the officer resigned, and has since pled not-guilty to the charge of murder, contending that the shooting was an accident, and that he had intended to use his Taser on Mr. Grant.
There are several different clips available on Youtube showing the shooting, but here is a short one...
Because Mr. Grant was black and the accused is white, there have been considerable racial tensions stemming from the incident, which is one reason that the trial was moved to Los Angeles from the Alameda County courthouse. Another reason cited was "intense media coverage." So there we see a deliberate "brown out" of the public's right to know. But thanks to Fox News, we have this article...
Ex-BART officer got minimum amount of stun gun training weeks before he shot unarmed black man
Well kudos to Fox for even bringing us the story, but there's some slant there. First off, he didn't just "shoot" a black man, he killed him. Second, the headline is completely focused on the man's defense. Of course, this probably reflects the testimony of the day to some extent, so it's really not inordinate spin, especially for Fox, except for the fact that I have not seen any headlines from them or any other media outlet with the emphasis on the prosecution's case. Or even their take on the day's testimony. The article goes on to say that Defense attorney Michael Rains "...appeared to try to show jurors that Mehserle got the very minimum amount of training on how to use a stun gun." So right there we see that Fox is stating as a matter of fact, what is really more a matter of opinion for the defense.
Was this training not sufficient for all other officers? If police in America are so poorly trained that it excuses reckless homicide, perhaps they shouldn't be carrying guns and Tasers in the first place. Would it be a viable defense for a civilian? Let's say someone who had a pistol permit, but had little training on when and how to use their weapon. Better yet, a black civilian who had just shot and killed a cop. What defense attorney would even recommend an "it was just an accident" defense in such a case?
At the end of the day, it doesn't seem very reasonable that the officer confused his pistol with the Taser. The weapons are holstered differently, feel different when grasped, and are carried on opposite sides of the body. Mehserle would have had to reach around his body with his dominant hand to grab the Taser weapon. Instead, he simply dropped down to the pistol at his hip, clutched the firearm with both hands, and fired.
Was it his intention to actually fire the weapon? What was he thinking? Did he perceive some threat erroneously? Was it really a cold-blooded murder? We may never know. But one thing is for certain, the negligence of this now former officer has left a man dead. So at the very least, Johannes Mehserle is just as guilty in the death of Oscar Grant as a reckless or drunken driver who kills someone on the highway.
Special thanks to the Lunaticoutpost forum, and forum member Geogal for regular updates as the story unfolds. Discussion and updates can be found here...
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-BART-shooting-update?page=1
EDIT to add verdict:
After 6 1/2 hours of deliberation, the jury found Johannes Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter, with gun enhancement. He faces 5 to 14 years in prison. He escaped being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and murder in the second degree.
There are several different clips available on Youtube showing the shooting, but here is a short one...
Because Mr. Grant was black and the accused is white, there have been considerable racial tensions stemming from the incident, which is one reason that the trial was moved to Los Angeles from the Alameda County courthouse. Another reason cited was "intense media coverage." So there we see a deliberate "brown out" of the public's right to know. But thanks to Fox News, we have this article...
Ex-BART officer got minimum amount of stun gun training weeks before he shot unarmed black man
Well kudos to Fox for even bringing us the story, but there's some slant there. First off, he didn't just "shoot" a black man, he killed him. Second, the headline is completely focused on the man's defense. Of course, this probably reflects the testimony of the day to some extent, so it's really not inordinate spin, especially for Fox, except for the fact that I have not seen any headlines from them or any other media outlet with the emphasis on the prosecution's case. Or even their take on the day's testimony. The article goes on to say that Defense attorney Michael Rains "...appeared to try to show jurors that Mehserle got the very minimum amount of training on how to use a stun gun." So right there we see that Fox is stating as a matter of fact, what is really more a matter of opinion for the defense.
Was this training not sufficient for all other officers? If police in America are so poorly trained that it excuses reckless homicide, perhaps they shouldn't be carrying guns and Tasers in the first place. Would it be a viable defense for a civilian? Let's say someone who had a pistol permit, but had little training on when and how to use their weapon. Better yet, a black civilian who had just shot and killed a cop. What defense attorney would even recommend an "it was just an accident" defense in such a case?
At the end of the day, it doesn't seem very reasonable that the officer confused his pistol with the Taser. The weapons are holstered differently, feel different when grasped, and are carried on opposite sides of the body. Mehserle would have had to reach around his body with his dominant hand to grab the Taser weapon. Instead, he simply dropped down to the pistol at his hip, clutched the firearm with both hands, and fired.
Was it his intention to actually fire the weapon? What was he thinking? Did he perceive some threat erroneously? Was it really a cold-blooded murder? We may never know. But one thing is for certain, the negligence of this now former officer has left a man dead. So at the very least, Johannes Mehserle is just as guilty in the death of Oscar Grant as a reckless or drunken driver who kills someone on the highway.
Special thanks to the Lunaticoutpost forum, and forum member Geogal for regular updates as the story unfolds. Discussion and updates can be found here...
http://lunaticoutpost.com/Topic-BART-shooting-update?page=1
EDIT to add verdict:
After 6 1/2 hours of deliberation, the jury found Johannes Mehserle guilty of involuntary manslaughter, with gun enhancement. He faces 5 to 14 years in prison. He escaped being found guilty of involuntary manslaughter, and murder in the second degree.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Monsanto GM seed ban is overturned by US Supreme Court
Now here is a story that you won't find reported in the American press. If you have never heard of Monsanto, you have a lot of catching up to do. In a nutshell though, they are a bio-tech company that is genetically modifying our entire food supply. Moreover, they are moving quickly and aggressively to trademark and patent everything that you eat, while eliminating the viability of any alternatives. They really are the epitome of one might term "an evil corporation." Yet most folks have never heard about them, so don't feel bad if you have not either. Do some research though. There is a lot of material available on the internet, and I will provide some links below.
Directly to the point now though, the US Supreme Court has handed Monsanto a great victory. A lower court ruling banning the sale of genetically modified alfalfa seed, until an environmental impact study could be carried out, has been overturned by the nation's highest court. The potential dangers pointed out by environmentalists have already proven true with other Monsanto GM seeds, yet Monsanto still maintains that worries about their products are "bad science fiction with no support on the record."
The risk of cross-pollination is a near certainty. Not only will the invasive crop infect farms growing natural, non-modified seed, but the farmers themselves will be held liable for growing a patented product without a license to do so. A clever, if unscrupulous way of eliminating competition from those who refuse to buy Monsanto products. Think it wont's happen? But it already has with other crops such as corn and canola in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. It has also led to mass crop-failures in India and South Africa, in turn leading to mass starvation and suicides there.
The genetic modifications being done to Monsanto patented seed are done partly to make the plant resistant to the company's Roundup weed killer. The weed killer itself is also a cause for environmental concern. Chemical pollution of groundwater is a concern, as well as new strains of resistant "super-weeds." Other modifications are being carried out as well.
The U.S. is the world's leading producer of alfalfa, and it is the nation's fourth most valuable crop.
So here we have the U.S. Supreme Court clearly acting in favor of a multi-national corporation, against the interests of the people, without a peep of dissent coming from Federal regulatory agencies charged with maintaining the safety of our food and our environemt. And not a peep about it in the American press. Just this short little brief that popped up on the BBC.
Here is the link to the BBC article...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10371831.stm
For further study, I highly recommend the movie "The Future of Food." The full version is available to view on Hulu.com. Another movie I have not seen myself but that has been recommended to me is Food Inc. These are the trailers to sample...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh8c9OUti4c
Directly to the point now though, the US Supreme Court has handed Monsanto a great victory. A lower court ruling banning the sale of genetically modified alfalfa seed, until an environmental impact study could be carried out, has been overturned by the nation's highest court. The potential dangers pointed out by environmentalists have already proven true with other Monsanto GM seeds, yet Monsanto still maintains that worries about their products are "bad science fiction with no support on the record."
The risk of cross-pollination is a near certainty. Not only will the invasive crop infect farms growing natural, non-modified seed, but the farmers themselves will be held liable for growing a patented product without a license to do so. A clever, if unscrupulous way of eliminating competition from those who refuse to buy Monsanto products. Think it wont's happen? But it already has with other crops such as corn and canola in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. It has also led to mass crop-failures in India and South Africa, in turn leading to mass starvation and suicides there.
The genetic modifications being done to Monsanto patented seed are done partly to make the plant resistant to the company's Roundup weed killer. The weed killer itself is also a cause for environmental concern. Chemical pollution of groundwater is a concern, as well as new strains of resistant "super-weeds." Other modifications are being carried out as well.
The U.S. is the world's leading producer of alfalfa, and it is the nation's fourth most valuable crop.
So here we have the U.S. Supreme Court clearly acting in favor of a multi-national corporation, against the interests of the people, without a peep of dissent coming from Federal regulatory agencies charged with maintaining the safety of our food and our environemt. And not a peep about it in the American press. Just this short little brief that popped up on the BBC.
Here is the link to the BBC article...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/us_and_canada/10371831.stm
For further study, I highly recommend the movie "The Future of Food." The full version is available to view on Hulu.com. Another movie I have not seen myself but that has been recommended to me is Food Inc. These are the trailers to sample...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9Y_QH_c70s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh8c9OUti4c
Calif. license plates might go digital, show ads
When I read the article on Yahoo (linked at bottom) that there was actually a legislation bill being presented for this I couldn't help but think, "Wow, that's a really bad idea."
It really is a struggle to think how this might benefit the individual. The chief executive of the company talks about how it could be used for personalized messages and to show allegiance to a team or alma mater. Well I don't know about California, but here in NY we already have personalized plates without the the need to go digital. So what would the real advantage be for spending, what I will assume to be quite a bit more money, for license plates that have been digitized?
Well according to sponsors of the bill, it's about generating revenue for the state. The bill's author, Democratic Sen. Curren Price of Los Angeles said, "We're just trying to find creative ways of generating additional revenues. It's an exciting marriage of technology with need, and an opportunity to keep California in the forefront." The forefront of what, Big Brother technology and corporate interference in our lives? And who's "need" are you talking about Senator? To generate any serious revenue, either the ads will be mandatory, or it will be the drivers who have to fork over a lot more money for these digital plates that weren't needed n the first place, or both. Can you imagine being a single Mom struggling to put food on the table and having to shell out a few hundred bucks extra to register your car, just so that you can comply with the regulation to be a mandatory billboard?
Now I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I don't like the idea of being forced to advertise for anyone. I wear shirts without logos because I resent the idea of paying for a shirt that turns me into a walking billboard for the company I just handed my money over to. Maybe they should be paying me instead if they want to recruit for the Airpost Navy. Moreover, what if my plate starts blipping an ad for some company that I really despise? I want no part of promoting a company like the downright evil Monsanto and their weed killer, for example. Or what if I happen to be a dairy farmer and my plates start running ads for soymilk? That would really get my goat. Or can you imagine a McDonald's truck stopped at a light blinking an ad for a Whopper?
Okay, let's go ahead and assume that they wouldn't force ads down our throat like that, that the registrant would have control over the ad space, and that there would be no additional cost to the vehicle owner. I don't believe that for a second, but for the sake of argument here, let's just talk safety for a moment. Aren't there already more than enough distractions for a driver? The leading cause of accidents, yet the state is willing to nudge the risk level higher to generate some revenue. What about all these laws they have passed over the years, forcing us to be safer? Put your seatbelt on, can't smoke in your car because it's a distraction, can't have an air-freshener dangling from your rear-view mirror, on and on. Ohhh, but for a few bucks the state is willing to up the ante on the leading cause of car wrecks. Distractions are more dangerous than speeders, more dangerous than drunk drivers, but the state is willing to risk your life for a few bucks. I'm beginning to think that maybe all these laws were never really about our safety to begin with.
But let's just stick with that topic for another moment. According to the article, the ads will only run once the car is stopped for a few seconds. But even so, doesn't that sort of invalidate the whole idea of a license plate in the first place? Not entirely I suppose, because they promise that the number will say visible in "some section" of the screen. Great, it will be so small you can't read it when you finally catch up to a hit-and-run driver stopped at a busy intersection, but at least you will know about the sale this week at 31 Flavors.
The primary "safety feature" of the plate will be that it can run Amber alerts or other emergency traffic messages. Okay, that sounds fine I suppose. Of course I wont be able to read the plate number of the kidnapper's car through the amber alert message, but okay I guess. What are the chances of me actually seeing a suspect vehicle anyway? So maybe the amber alert on plates is pretty useless, but it might save a life or two. Probably kill a few thousand distracted drivers in the process, but hey, you know what they say about making an omlette. And I suppose getting traffic advisories might be kind of nice. Too bad I won't be able to read it until after I have passed the last exit and I am caught in the parking lot that backed up behind the freeway wreck caused by some distracted driver, but okay.
So what really is the point of all this? Just doesn't really seem to make much sense, even for the state really. It feels like they are pulling a Dr. Evil strategy here like, "Why make billions, when you can make...millions?!" A lot of cost and aggravation for a negative net gain. What's really going on here? What are they really trying to slip past us here? Still thinking? What do you think the odds are that these new plates will be equipped to transmit as well as receive? Of course, the news articles aren't saying anything about the real details of the technology, and neither is the good senator. But there you have a serial coded digital device receiving individualized data. I think it would be safe bet to say that the new plate will be a mandatory tracking device for every single motor vehicle. And if you really think that is a good thing, just keep on reading the MSMReview. You'll have your "ah-ha!" moment yet.
Yahoo News
It really is a struggle to think how this might benefit the individual. The chief executive of the company talks about how it could be used for personalized messages and to show allegiance to a team or alma mater. Well I don't know about California, but here in NY we already have personalized plates without the the need to go digital. So what would the real advantage be for spending, what I will assume to be quite a bit more money, for license plates that have been digitized?
Well according to sponsors of the bill, it's about generating revenue for the state. The bill's author, Democratic Sen. Curren Price of Los Angeles said, "We're just trying to find creative ways of generating additional revenues. It's an exciting marriage of technology with need, and an opportunity to keep California in the forefront." The forefront of what, Big Brother technology and corporate interference in our lives? And who's "need" are you talking about Senator? To generate any serious revenue, either the ads will be mandatory, or it will be the drivers who have to fork over a lot more money for these digital plates that weren't needed n the first place, or both. Can you imagine being a single Mom struggling to put food on the table and having to shell out a few hundred bucks extra to register your car, just so that you can comply with the regulation to be a mandatory billboard?
Now I don't know about the rest of you folks, but I don't like the idea of being forced to advertise for anyone. I wear shirts without logos because I resent the idea of paying for a shirt that turns me into a walking billboard for the company I just handed my money over to. Maybe they should be paying me instead if they want to recruit for the Airpost Navy. Moreover, what if my plate starts blipping an ad for some company that I really despise? I want no part of promoting a company like the downright evil Monsanto and their weed killer, for example. Or what if I happen to be a dairy farmer and my plates start running ads for soymilk? That would really get my goat. Or can you imagine a McDonald's truck stopped at a light blinking an ad for a Whopper?
Okay, let's go ahead and assume that they wouldn't force ads down our throat like that, that the registrant would have control over the ad space, and that there would be no additional cost to the vehicle owner. I don't believe that for a second, but for the sake of argument here, let's just talk safety for a moment. Aren't there already more than enough distractions for a driver? The leading cause of accidents, yet the state is willing to nudge the risk level higher to generate some revenue. What about all these laws they have passed over the years, forcing us to be safer? Put your seatbelt on, can't smoke in your car because it's a distraction, can't have an air-freshener dangling from your rear-view mirror, on and on. Ohhh, but for a few bucks the state is willing to up the ante on the leading cause of car wrecks. Distractions are more dangerous than speeders, more dangerous than drunk drivers, but the state is willing to risk your life for a few bucks. I'm beginning to think that maybe all these laws were never really about our safety to begin with.
But let's just stick with that topic for another moment. According to the article, the ads will only run once the car is stopped for a few seconds. But even so, doesn't that sort of invalidate the whole idea of a license plate in the first place? Not entirely I suppose, because they promise that the number will say visible in "some section" of the screen. Great, it will be so small you can't read it when you finally catch up to a hit-and-run driver stopped at a busy intersection, but at least you will know about the sale this week at 31 Flavors.
The primary "safety feature" of the plate will be that it can run Amber alerts or other emergency traffic messages. Okay, that sounds fine I suppose. Of course I wont be able to read the plate number of the kidnapper's car through the amber alert message, but okay I guess. What are the chances of me actually seeing a suspect vehicle anyway? So maybe the amber alert on plates is pretty useless, but it might save a life or two. Probably kill a few thousand distracted drivers in the process, but hey, you know what they say about making an omlette. And I suppose getting traffic advisories might be kind of nice. Too bad I won't be able to read it until after I have passed the last exit and I am caught in the parking lot that backed up behind the freeway wreck caused by some distracted driver, but okay.
So what really is the point of all this? Just doesn't really seem to make much sense, even for the state really. It feels like they are pulling a Dr. Evil strategy here like, "Why make billions, when you can make...millions?!" A lot of cost and aggravation for a negative net gain. What's really going on here? What are they really trying to slip past us here? Still thinking? What do you think the odds are that these new plates will be equipped to transmit as well as receive? Of course, the news articles aren't saying anything about the real details of the technology, and neither is the good senator. But there you have a serial coded digital device receiving individualized data. I think it would be safe bet to say that the new plate will be a mandatory tracking device for every single motor vehicle. And if you really think that is a good thing, just keep on reading the MSMReview. You'll have your "ah-ha!" moment yet.
Yahoo News
Monday, June 21, 2010
Carrying a registered firearm onto a Federal Facility
After mulling over the story of the Lakehurst lock-down, I decided to write this little blurb regarding another concern that caught my attention. I admit, I am not completely well-versed in the myriad of details surrounding gun laws, but it seems to me that if you have a permit to carry a firearm, then you should be allowed to carry it anywhere, especially on Federal property. After all, it is a Constitutionally protected right. Where better to exercise a national right than on Federal property, free from infringements by state and local government? Do police have to surrender their weapons at the gate? What about a Senator, or even military personnel carrying personal weapons not issued by the government? Why was the truck driver cited at all? If he declares his weapon, can he leave it at the gate for pickup upon exit without being charged with a violation of law?
Something stinks, once again.
Something stinks, once again.
Lakehurst station lockdown prompted by driver with gun, report of gunshots
At about ten a.m.(6/21/10) two separate incidents sparked a lock-down of a U.S. military base. Initial response is said to have occurred at about 9:15 a.m. according to Senior Airman David Carbajal, but the lock-down did not go into affect for another 45 minutes or so.
"At 9:30 a.m., the 87th Security Forces Squadron responded to simultaneous incidents on Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst," the Air Force said in a statement. "Due to security forces quick and timely response, base security ensured the incident was contained. No personnel were in danger at any time and no injuries have been reported."
The Airforce also issued a statement saying the gates were closed from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
N.J. State Police were called in to assist. Barricades were set up on routes 547 and 571. Manchester school district's Regional Day School, a special needs school, was also put on lock-down but food and medicine were brought in.
The lock-down was sparked by two separate incidents occurring at roughly the same time. Near one gate, there was a report of possible gunfire, which later proved to be unfounded. At another gate, a man making a routine delivery was cited for carrying a registered handgun.
That information was reported here, among other sources...
http://www.app.com/article/20100621/NEWS/100621019/Lakehurst-military-base-on-lockdown
Now let's ask some more questions. Why did it take 45 minutes to lock down a military base under possible threat of attack? It seems to me that if an attack were occurring simultaneously at separate gates, the military would have seconds, maybe minutes to respond. Yet it took the better part of an hour to stop people from entering or leaving the base? Of course, when you are maintaining order and security in an area with a lot of people and activity, all sorts of fairly mundane things can trigger an alert or be an erroneous cause for concern. Things like, a car backfire perhaps. Maybe someone playing with firecrackers at a house near the base. Any number of things. Sure, it pays to investigate, and be vigilant. But the response here seemed to be either sluggish, or serious overkill, or both.
So we have these two events occurring, which may have at first taken on a "probably no big deal, but we should check it out," sort of approach. Some folks might not think that is a very vigilant approach, but when you are dealing with all sorts of little things each day that turn out to be mundane, it is to be expected. It takes a professional to discern the level and credibility of any possible threat. But then why the full crackdown 45 minutes later? Even if it was not a terrorist attack, let's just say maybe that someone took a shot at someone else on the base for personal reasons, a police matter rather than a terror threat. That person would likely be long gone by the time they got around to closing the gates. Remember what the statement said, "Due to security forces quick and timely response, base security ensured the incident was contained." Hardly. So really, after 45 minutes, why bother to close the gates at all? What was the credible threat level that warranted the lockdown?
Moreover, what was such a threat that the military could not manage it without calling in civilian authority, and shutting down civilian roadways, after base security already had the threat "contained?" What was such a threat that the police had to break out assault rifles for traffic duty?
From the information provided, there are two conclusions that can be reached. First, that there was a credible threat, which did in fact turn out to be erroneous, but that the response for was shamefully slow and desperately lacking in the "three C's." (Command, control, and communication.)
Second, that a mundane, routine affair was blown entirely out of proportion and exploited as a show of force, a low-level psy-op to be splashed on the national media to keep everyone on their toes and jittery. To keep the threat of terrorism fresh in everyone's minds, so that people are more malleable to the idea of trading in their liberty for security. To keep the chatter of dissent in hushed tones, to sell fear.
This is not a one time event, this is a pattern, of botched response to less than credible threats.
"At 9:30 a.m., the 87th Security Forces Squadron responded to simultaneous incidents on Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst," the Air Force said in a statement. "Due to security forces quick and timely response, base security ensured the incident was contained. No personnel were in danger at any time and no injuries have been reported."
The Airforce also issued a statement saying the gates were closed from 10 a.m. to 11 a.m.
N.J. State Police were called in to assist. Barricades were set up on routes 547 and 571. Manchester school district's Regional Day School, a special needs school, was also put on lock-down but food and medicine were brought in.
The lock-down was sparked by two separate incidents occurring at roughly the same time. Near one gate, there was a report of possible gunfire, which later proved to be unfounded. At another gate, a man making a routine delivery was cited for carrying a registered handgun.
That information was reported here, among other sources...
http://www.app.com/article/20100621/NEWS/100621019/Lakehurst-military-base-on-lockdown
Now let's ask some more questions. Why did it take 45 minutes to lock down a military base under possible threat of attack? It seems to me that if an attack were occurring simultaneously at separate gates, the military would have seconds, maybe minutes to respond. Yet it took the better part of an hour to stop people from entering or leaving the base? Of course, when you are maintaining order and security in an area with a lot of people and activity, all sorts of fairly mundane things can trigger an alert or be an erroneous cause for concern. Things like, a car backfire perhaps. Maybe someone playing with firecrackers at a house near the base. Any number of things. Sure, it pays to investigate, and be vigilant. But the response here seemed to be either sluggish, or serious overkill, or both.
So we have these two events occurring, which may have at first taken on a "probably no big deal, but we should check it out," sort of approach. Some folks might not think that is a very vigilant approach, but when you are dealing with all sorts of little things each day that turn out to be mundane, it is to be expected. It takes a professional to discern the level and credibility of any possible threat. But then why the full crackdown 45 minutes later? Even if it was not a terrorist attack, let's just say maybe that someone took a shot at someone else on the base for personal reasons, a police matter rather than a terror threat. That person would likely be long gone by the time they got around to closing the gates. Remember what the statement said, "Due to security forces quick and timely response, base security ensured the incident was contained." Hardly. So really, after 45 minutes, why bother to close the gates at all? What was the credible threat level that warranted the lockdown?
Moreover, what was such a threat that the military could not manage it without calling in civilian authority, and shutting down civilian roadways, after base security already had the threat "contained?" What was such a threat that the police had to break out assault rifles for traffic duty?
From the information provided, there are two conclusions that can be reached. First, that there was a credible threat, which did in fact turn out to be erroneous, but that the response for was shamefully slow and desperately lacking in the "three C's." (Command, control, and communication.)
Second, that a mundane, routine affair was blown entirely out of proportion and exploited as a show of force, a low-level psy-op to be splashed on the national media to keep everyone on their toes and jittery. To keep the threat of terrorism fresh in everyone's minds, so that people are more malleable to the idea of trading in their liberty for security. To keep the chatter of dissent in hushed tones, to sell fear.
This is not a one time event, this is a pattern, of botched response to less than credible threats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)