Money May Talk But We Don't Want To Listen

I'm reading that we've put a bounty on 7  Somali terrorists.  I didn't realize we even had a State Department 'Rewards for Justice' program.  I suppose it makes sense though considering we buy allegiance and everything else in our war on terror.  Goes to show the dollar doesn't go very far doesn't it?

This program is offering $7 million for information on the location of one man.  Five million for information on four others.  Another $3 million for additional leaders.  Some awards go as high as $25 million.  Wow. You'd think there would be a lot of squeal in that pig!  To date more than $100 million has been paid out to some 70 informants. I wonder who decides the $ value of a terrorist or if they merely shuffle a deck of cards.  A seven comes up.  Okay, $7 mil.

I can't help but wonder if the Pakistani doctor who helped us pin down bin Laden before we killed him and is now rotting in a Pakistani prison for his efforts had his eye on retiring in luxury.  Oops.

I also can't help but wonder if we'd need a system such as this if we hadn't gutted our intelligence community.  $100 million would pay a heck of a lot of salaries.

I also wonder why, when we get this information, we go after the terrorists with drones rather than making the effort to capture them. Oh, I know, it's easier.   Somehow it makes sense to me that capturing one might lead to the capture of others and an accumulation of vital intelligence along with it.

It seems at odds to say enhanced interrogation is un-American while killing people in cold blood isn't.  Somehow I see our entire war strategy as skewed. We pay who for this information?  What do we know about them?  Are they allies to our ends or traitors to their own?  Both or neither or either/or?

On the flip side of the coin we turn a deaf ear to pleas from the Syrians to help level their field in the war against their resident monster because their identity isn't clear.  That's really lame.  Think how far  $100 million would go there too.  Especially since we already know where the enemy is!

More Than A Card Game

I'm beginning to wonder just exactly who is the real Barack Obama.  The empty suit on which we imagined all sorts of wondrous things,  the protocol impaired apologist who traveled the world, the aloof naive loner or a cold blooded politician lusting after the means to hold onto power.

None of the choices thrill me but most bothersome are the means being taken to achieve the latter.

An area in which Obama has always been weak is foreign policy.  You've no doubt read about how he's trying to enhance his credentials.  His taking credit for the SEAL attack on bin Laden, the security leaks happening now that have even his own party in an uproar and the drone attacks.  He is accused of doing these things for political advantage.

Let's look at the leak about the cyber attacks in Iran where he has also linked the Israelis and one of our own national labs.  It happens to be here in Idaho.  You know Idaho, often confused with Iowa or Indiana.  We've had our share of notoriety thanks to the once plentiful neo-Nazi movement that took up residence in a town neighboring mine.  They're gone now, at least underground, yet it is the one thing most people remember when you say you live in Idaho.  I wonder if the extremists have taken note and wonder if they can recruit some kindred spirits here.  I really do wonder.  I much preferred being Iowa.  Anyway, there is the prospect of unintended consequences.

Now, too, allies are thinking we can no longer be trusted in joint covert activity.  Good thought if they're going to be outed whenever a politician needs some creds!

He also seems quite high on drone attacks.  Forget our cattle.  This is really serious business. Obama has 'evolved' from thinking the terrorists should be tried in our courts with all our rights to picking a victim from a deck of cards and taking him  out along with all who may be in the path.

There is a certain detachment that comes with using drones.  Those who operate them are thousands of miles away as is the face in a deck of cards.  But the power.  The invincibility must be like an opiate.   Why else would he order deaths rather than capture for information?  We know where they are either way.

It's chilling.  There are no stories reaching me telling of how he agonizes over the decision of who and when.  Just do it. That's cold.  Detached.  Void of emotion and I wonder, reason?

This man who hadn't even warmed up to the White House before he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.  What were they thinking?  What are we thinking?  Does he even think?

Carrying Security Efficiency Too Far

I rarely carry a topic over to a second post but after writing yesterday's about the lack of privacy due to over zealous camera surveillance, I had to chuckle about the TSA firing five and suspending scores more for not properly screening passengers in a Florida airport.

Supplemental screenings were not performed on 300 to 400 passengers during a time in 2011.  It makes me wonder if those passengers got through and nothing happened on any of their flights if we're not being told something no matter how subtle.  All the screening isn't necessary!  Just multiply it out to all the airports and how many more passengers may have been spared the hassle if other agents, too, had been lax.
 
On the other hand, maybe the wrong people are being screened!  Forget sending the drones to focus on the sanitary habits of cattle, just focus the cameras on the TSA workers!  Okay, the diatribe on the cattle was meant to be tongue in cheek playing on the mental image of cows being spied upon.

The TSA worker issue is another matter.  Quite often there are tidbits in the news about people having items stolen from their checked luggage, but when your carry on luggage completely disappears while you are being scanned it's quite another.

A writer for The Financial Times lost her luggage between the time she put it on the belt at JFK and the time she exited the body scanner. A search of the area turned up nothing except the irritation level of security personnel.  Certainly the cameras would show what happened to it.  But no.  Cameras are only placed where they can see you place your luggage on the belt.  There are none on the other side of the x-ray machine so if you're off being scanned it can disappear without a second glance. The article didn't say, but I'd like to know if this is the case because it's less expensive and more efficient to have only one camera?

It also made me laugh because this is a government entity that is proving to be extremely expensive considering the return on our money.  More passengers have been robbed by TSA employees than terrorists caught.

I'd suggest sticking with the drones and the cattle but what if some errant drone operator decided to take out a poor cow because it was defecating too close to a water source?  Of course they are highly trained and professional at what they do, but cattle aren't like people.  They can be herded, but they are not sheep!

Privacy No Longer Exists

A headline caught my eye today.  It would seem the EPA is now using drones to spy on farmers in Iowa and Nebraska.  Though they don't have the authority they are doing so anyway as a cost efficient way of keeping their eye on water quality in regions where cattle are raised.

The poor cattle!  They've been getting a bad rap for years because what exits their bodies is deemed bad for us.  So bad the government has to use drones to keep an eye on their wanderings?  Do drones also test the ground water?  If not there goes your efficiency.

I started wondering about what else they keep an eye on while coming from where ever they come from and returning.  The farmers themselves?  I wonder how many one finger salutes they pick up.

Actually, none of us seem to be free from surveillance.  Cities have cameras mounted on buildings, businesses do too. Stop signs are watched.  Our phones have them. Just ask a politician who has been caught in a compromising situation by a cell phone camera. Our pads and computers have them. My computer has one looking at me though I never use it.  Can it be triggered remotely?  I hope not. I don't photograph well.  We can't go through airports without having our nakedness scanned.  There are high altitude spy planes and satellites that can detect a quarter in your hip pocket.

Police have them on their dashboards and on their uniforms.  You can get pens that have them and place it in a shirt pocket and no one knows the difference.   They're everywhere.  Facebook has come under fire for it's privacy practices.  At least they have some if you're inclined to dig deep enough.  Of course they're betting you won't and you probably don't.

Maybe it's just me, but as long as it's my computer or a friend's cell phone I consider it an annoyance at times, but when the government has free reign with spy in the sky technology I get uneasy.  Not that I have anything to be afraid of other than embarrassing myself, but still.  The thought that I can go out in my yard and have every move recorded without my even knowing it seems an appalling invasion of privacy.  At least it would be if there were such a thing. Privacy.

Creeping Big Brotherism

Maybe I should say 'creepy' big brotherism!  It seems to be everywhere in every guise one can imagine.

Let's first look at 'The Big Apple' where the only thing you'll soon be able to eat is just that.  An apple. Probably not a big one at that.  Mayor Bloomberg has taken it upon himself to be a one man food police force.  First, while not a foodstuff, still significant - tobacco.  Then he banned trans fats, salt and now sugary drinks.  Not that some of these items can do harm if consumed in huge quantities on a regular basis, but does one person or committee or whatever have the right to dictate what we can and cannot do?

Consider the politically correct movement to regulate what schools can name their sports teams.  Even the Indians cannot, in many cases, name their own teams after themselves.  It's offensive to someone, but who?  And who says?

Just recently here in Idaho a State Liquor Division administrator is refusing to stock a vodka named Five Wives?  Why?  Because it's offensive to Mormons and there are a lot of Mormons in southern Idaho.  Heck, Mormons don't even drink!  At least they're not supposed to.  Maybe the Idaho Liquor Dispensary (don't you love the name?) shouldn't operate in southern Idaho at all.

The irony of it is the vodka is distilled by Ogden's Own  in Ogden, Utah.  You can't get more into Mormon country than that!   Even more amazing is that they can't keep it on the shelves in  northern Utah!  Somewhat amazed and amused the distillery tells us it is another step in their effort to "create a portfolio of products to pay homage to the heritage of the American west".

Well, polygamy is certainly part of that heritage and most certainly in Utah!  I can't disagree there are times when segments of the population need looking after by others, but self-appointed morality police offend me.  Did the Idaho administrator poll the local Mormons to see it they indeed were offended?  I rather doubt it.

Even when the Indians said they liked the idea of a non-Indian team using an Indian term for a name, the team was still denied.  Then there are the no tolerance policies of many schools where a youngster brings a GI Joe to school and ends up suspended for having a gun.  Please!

Granted,  many people are more obese then they should be, many drink too much, kids take inappropriate toys to school but what ever happened to common sense much less self determination?

We have a problem here in America.  It starts at the top.  We think we know best and try to force others to accept our way of thinking.  We get angry when they don't.  It filters down to a New York where the people are up in arms over the actions of their mayor.  It filters down to one man's opinion about what a whole religious community thinks.  It filters down to a committee who knows better than what a whole nation (Indian) of people think.  It filters down to what a school board thinks a rational description of a gun should be.

There used to be a time when we could think for ourselves.  We'd look in a mirror when adding a few pounds and go on a diet - or not.  But it was our decision.  Not someone thinking for us.

As for me?  It's getting close to cocktail hour.  I may join Hub and have a vodka.  Heck, if he has enough he may even think he has five wives!  If I, on the other hand,  have enough he's likely not to have even one.