We, as a nation dodged a bullet over the weekend. As everyone knows, somebody almost blew up a car in Times Square.
Luckily the device malfunctioned and the thousands of theater goers and tourists were unharmed. Apparently the thing had at least 3 propane tanks fused together. That’s some Iraq shit right there (I know). Kind of worrisome to say the least.
I’m sure everyone wants to go off and blame the crazy Muslims extremists for this one. Hell, I can’t be totally convinced that they aren’t responsible. I say TOTALLY convinced.
That’s where my new tinfoil hat comes in. I figure the tinfoil hat is what gives the crazy teabaggers and other conspiracy theorists their power, so I figured I would try it out and see what theories this creates in my brain. Hold on, let me put it on.
There we go.
As much as I think the crazy Muslim extremists were responsible for this, I could very easily see the crazy wacko teabagger militia types being responsible for this. Ok, now I’m going to take off the tinfoil hat.
Now that I’ve taken it off, I still think the same damn thing. Seriously, I trust a “militiaman” about as much as I trust a Muslim who is completely shaven and all dressed in white (Not a whole lot).
Some good this tinfoil hat is...
Both groups of people are religious and political extremists who apparently will not shy away from violence to further their goals. Think I’m wrong? Think about those crazy Jesus freaks in Michigan who were going kill a police officer, then attack the funeral procession with IED’s. These nut jobs were all residents of crazy town! What makes the story even scarier is that their tactic comes right out of the Al-Qaeda in Iraq handbook. You attack an enemy force, then you attack their response force. In this case, you kill a police officer, you know their will be a funeral procession, so you attack that to create further casualties.
Don’t tell me these right wing wackos are any less crazy or any more righteous than the Muslim wackos who also want to do us harm. Both are capable of extreme violence to further their goals, and until I hear confirmation otherwise, I would not be surprised if it was in fact a right wing, white, religious militia responsible for this unsuccessful attack and NOT Muslim extremists.
Showing posts with label tinfoil hats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tinfoil hats. Show all posts
Monday, May 3, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
Pittsburgh 1984....Or is it? Part II: Out for Justice
Right after I posted my last little Pulitzer piece on more cameras in the city, another article came out: Check it out here.
Long story short, the city wants to put cameras on street cleaners to capture no-good illegal parkers on the streets. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before people start bitching about 1984, invasion of privacy, bla bla bla.
The Radical Middle has picked up on it, and while I understand his sentiment, that for a mayor who doesn't want to be followed around by the media (as if that wasn't part of the job or something) he sure does want to know what the residents of Pittsburgh are doing via camera.
Like I said, I understand the sentiment, but disagree at the same time.
First, to understand this argument you will have to remove your tinfoil hats once again.
Done? Ok, good.
Now, Before people start bitching about their rights being infringed upon, think for just a quick second what this is trying to accomplish. It is true that it's illegal to park on streets during cleaning day. This technology would be placed on street sweepers to enforce this ordnance. I could see someone's complaint, say, if the city said, "we want to more effectively enforce illegal parking laws and we will therefore be putting cameras in your car." That is what I would call an invasion of privacy. To install city owned cameras on city owned street cleaners to enforce an established city ordnance is what I call clever thinking, NOT an invasion of privacy.
Second. Everyone hates government employees. Most of them are Union, overpaid, and often lazy. Now we have a plan, to help make enforcement of a city ordnance more cost effective and efficient by reducing the labor and logistics costs of enforcing this ordnance, and people will want to bitch. People, as a general rule want to jump all over the government at any level when there is perceived money wasting going on (myself included). This time the city wants to increase efficiency and decrease costs, but yet I would be willing to bet that there will be a lot of pissed off tinfoil hat wearers who, once again, wrongly feel that their rights are being infringed upon.
You may now replace your tinfoil hat on your head.
Long story short, the city wants to put cameras on street cleaners to capture no-good illegal parkers on the streets. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before people start bitching about 1984, invasion of privacy, bla bla bla.
The Radical Middle has picked up on it, and while I understand his sentiment, that for a mayor who doesn't want to be followed around by the media (as if that wasn't part of the job or something) he sure does want to know what the residents of Pittsburgh are doing via camera.
Like I said, I understand the sentiment, but disagree at the same time.
First, to understand this argument you will have to remove your tinfoil hats once again.
Done? Ok, good.
Now, Before people start bitching about their rights being infringed upon, think for just a quick second what this is trying to accomplish. It is true that it's illegal to park on streets during cleaning day. This technology would be placed on street sweepers to enforce this ordnance. I could see someone's complaint, say, if the city said, "we want to more effectively enforce illegal parking laws and we will therefore be putting cameras in your car." That is what I would call an invasion of privacy. To install city owned cameras on city owned street cleaners to enforce an established city ordnance is what I call clever thinking, NOT an invasion of privacy.
Second. Everyone hates government employees. Most of them are Union, overpaid, and often lazy. Now we have a plan, to help make enforcement of a city ordnance more cost effective and efficient by reducing the labor and logistics costs of enforcing this ordnance, and people will want to bitch. People, as a general rule want to jump all over the government at any level when there is perceived money wasting going on (myself included). This time the city wants to increase efficiency and decrease costs, but yet I would be willing to bet that there will be a lot of pissed off tinfoil hat wearers who, once again, wrongly feel that their rights are being infringed upon.
You may now replace your tinfoil hat on your head.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Pittsburgh 1984...Or is it?
Put on your tinfoil hats everyone, Pittsburgh wants to put more cameras on the streets.
The “government is watching me” faction has made themselves known. (Apparently their spokesperson doesn’t live in the city that wants to emplace the cameras but was still so offended by the notion he had to write to the PG) Check it out here.
Here’s a few of thoughts on it:
First one isn’t mine, it’s from the comments section of the The Radical Middle, and takes a jab not only at the letter itself, but at the mocking sarcastic tone of the letter.
“David Noble's well-honed sarcasm doesn't go nearly far enough. It isn't just our "privacy" at stake with these intrusive cameras, it's something far more important. After all, the cameras would only be in places where police might also be able to personally witness criminality.
Let me help Mr. Noble better articulate his concern: the reason the cameras are such an awful idea is that they interfere with the time-honored tradition of getting away with things when cops aren't around.
That might sound counter-intuitive, so let me explain. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a criminally reckless driver zip past me and almost kill someone, and I invariably say to myself, "I hope there's no cop around to see that! Good thing there are no cameras taping this!" I remember uttering that very thing when I was victimized by a hit-and-run driver.
Another example: a girl claims a brute quarterback raped her. Damn if I want to see a video of her demeanor immediately after-the-fact. I prefer to let the truth emerge via the incisive clucking tongues on populist radio. Or better yet, the blogosphere, where reasoned analysis always prevails.
You see, you and I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when there happens to be no cop around. The damn cameras would destroy all that.
I hope I helped you make your very excellent point, Mr. Noble.”
Second, why don’t you save your opinions for when the borough of Swissvale tries to put cameras on their streets? Why the hell do you care unless you are planning on regularly venturing into the city to commit crime? As a resident of the city of Pittsburgh who lives in an area where crime has happened and is on the rise, I would feel a hell of a lot safer knowing there are cameras watching the streets. Oh yea, I also don’t plan on committing any crimes.
Lastly (and take off your tinfoil hat for a second to think about this one), does anyone really, honestly, truly think that the city of Pittsburgh will be spying on you when you tuck your penis between your legs and do that creepy dance like Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs in your basement/living room? Really?
The cameras are probably fixed and do not give any sort of views into any homes. Second, if the city or any city employee were foolish enough to even attempt to film inside someone's house, the ACLU and several other agencies would be all over the city faster than you can say “Bill of Rights”.
The “government is watching me” faction has made themselves known. (Apparently their spokesperson doesn’t live in the city that wants to emplace the cameras but was still so offended by the notion he had to write to the PG) Check it out here.
Here’s a few of thoughts on it:
First one isn’t mine, it’s from the comments section of the The Radical Middle, and takes a jab not only at the letter itself, but at the mocking sarcastic tone of the letter.
“David Noble's well-honed sarcasm doesn't go nearly far enough. It isn't just our "privacy" at stake with these intrusive cameras, it's something far more important. After all, the cameras would only be in places where police might also be able to personally witness criminality.
Let me help Mr. Noble better articulate his concern: the reason the cameras are such an awful idea is that they interfere with the time-honored tradition of getting away with things when cops aren't around.
That might sound counter-intuitive, so let me explain. I can't tell you how many times I have seen a criminally reckless driver zip past me and almost kill someone, and I invariably say to myself, "I hope there's no cop around to see that! Good thing there are no cameras taping this!" I remember uttering that very thing when I was victimized by a hit-and-run driver.
Another example: a girl claims a brute quarterback raped her. Damn if I want to see a video of her demeanor immediately after-the-fact. I prefer to let the truth emerge via the incisive clucking tongues on populist radio. Or better yet, the blogosphere, where reasoned analysis always prevails.
You see, you and I have a reasonable expectation of privacy when there happens to be no cop around. The damn cameras would destroy all that.
I hope I helped you make your very excellent point, Mr. Noble.”
Second, why don’t you save your opinions for when the borough of Swissvale tries to put cameras on their streets? Why the hell do you care unless you are planning on regularly venturing into the city to commit crime? As a resident of the city of Pittsburgh who lives in an area where crime has happened and is on the rise, I would feel a hell of a lot safer knowing there are cameras watching the streets. Oh yea, I also don’t plan on committing any crimes.
Lastly (and take off your tinfoil hat for a second to think about this one), does anyone really, honestly, truly think that the city of Pittsburgh will be spying on you when you tuck your penis between your legs and do that creepy dance like Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs in your basement/living room? Really?
The cameras are probably fixed and do not give any sort of views into any homes. Second, if the city or any city employee were foolish enough to even attempt to film inside someone's house, the ACLU and several other agencies would be all over the city faster than you can say “Bill of Rights”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)