The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Your Government At Work

December 29th, 2009 by Myrhaf · 10 Comments · Uncategorized

1. Janet Napolitano first says “the system worked.” Then  she says the system “did not work.”

2. The TSA issues restrictions that are widely criticized, then rescinds them — maybe.

CHICAGO (AP) – You are now free to move about the cabin. Or not.

After a two-day security clampdown prompted by a thwarted attempt to bomb a jetliner, some airline officials told The Associated Press that the in-flight restrictions had been eased. And it was now up to captains on each flight to decide whether passengers can have blankets and other items on their laps or can move around during the final phase of flight.

Confused? So were scores of passengers who flew Monday on one of the busiest travel days of the year. On some flights, passengers were told to keep their hands visible and not to listen to iPods. Even babies were frisked. But on other planes, security appeared no tighter than usual.

The Transportation Security Administration did little to explain the rules. And that inconsistency might well have been deliberate: What’s confusing to passengers is also confusing to potential terrorists.

“It keeps them guessing,” transportation expert Joseph Schwieterman said.

Hey, there’s a strategy! Let’s be so contradictory and vague that we confuse the terrorists.

3. President Obama calls Abdulmutallab an “isolated extremist.”

The actively engaged (but vacationing) President is apparently ignorant that the isolated extremist was an Al Qaeda operative and that a search is being conducted to find one and possibly two accomplices.

Question: Are you feeling secure yet?

10 Comments so far ↓

  • Ryan O.

    It’s all fucking outrageous and utterly unbelievable. But it’s real. I thought that the extent of the government’s incompetence in allowing it was shocking, but THIS response, as a supposed SOLUTION to the clear negligence that allowed it to take place is completely ridiculous.

  • Michael Labeit

    Oucking futrageous indeed.

  • Joe Z.

    Answer: NO!

  • Roger Theriault

    It reminds me of a VP I used to work for. Whenever something went wrong, he insisted that we do something to prevent it from happening again. It didn’t matter what, and there really was no thought given as to whether the action was effective in the long run or not, or whether the action screwed up something else. He had to be able to say he had “done something to address the problem”. Apparently, that’s all his supervisors cared about. Afterward, he could say he had acted, and he could “move on”, until, of course, the next thing went wrong, which may have been a result of the action taken…

  • Mike

    Roger,

    Your VP must have been in military command. Our military ALWAYS sets itself up to be able to win the LAST war.

  • Roger Theriault

    On a similar note, I notice that most government officials appeal to authority when justifying their actions. They can spout an obvious lie, but then refer to some study or some report, equally as false, to back up their actions. It doesn’t matter if the study or report is true, only that some “authority” produced it. Then they wash their hands of whatever it is and “move on”. It doesn’t seem to make a difference to anyone that the whole thing is a pack of lies – not the MSM, not politicians, not the people I work with. I just don’t get it.

  • Richard

    Spectacular. We’ve got some kind of Mad bloody Hatter writing our domestic policies. Maybe we could institute some kind of national Opposite Day. That would really confuse ’em!

  • Michael Labeit

    “Your VP must have been in military command. Our military ALWAYS sets itself up to be able to win the LAST war.”

    ?

  • Mike

    Mr. Labeit,

    The U.S. military went into the Korean conflict with the tactics, equipment, and logistics necessary to win WW2. We then went into Vietnam with everything we needed for Korea. Desert Storm? Vietnam. One of these days someone in high places will realize we have to start building a flexible force meant to be ready to answer a conflict with unexpected and variable critical attributes.