Perspectival View

--Albertus Pictor, Taby Church (Sweden)
Game of chess, anyone?

I hope we shall... crush in its birth
the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations
which dare already to challenge our government
in a trial of strength, and bid defiance
to the laws of our country
--Thomas Jefferson

[She] has brought shame upon us all ...
Is there not law for it?
--The Scarlett letter, Nathaniel Hawthorne

When our leaders learn to cry
Oh lord I want to be in that number
When the saints go marching in
--When the Saints Go Marching In,
Louis Armstrong
___________________

Yesterday we discussed Faisal Shahzad, Times Square bomber-manque who failed to inflict even the damage of a hangnail upon anyone, and who was sentenced to life imprisonment this week.

Contrast that with recent data that 100,000 Americans die annually due to doctor's incompetence, error or malpractice. The number seems small, since most of us know someone launched into the great beyond on a booster rocket provided by an inadequate (or inadequately concerned) doctor. The NYT just reported that sepsis alone kills 200,000 U.S. citizens annually due to general unawareness of the affliction, which can be treated by speedy hospital admission and administration of an antibiotic IV. Lisa almost became one of that number this summer.

But going with the 100,000 figure, please compare that to the threat level of terrorist groups. The significance of terror capabilities pales in comparison, and this ultimately affects their intent. Capability never matches intent (thankfully so), but not so for members of the American Medical association who cut us down in cooperation with the grim reaper and general collusion of an incompetent medical behemoth -- The System.

So, doctors kill us and rarely enter prison for manslaughter or negligent homicide, but a hapless wannabe gets life for his incompetence. Conclusion: Doctors, 100,000: Terrorists, zed. Doctors and lawyers are Big Kahunas over here; they make lots of dough over our corpses.

And as an old NCO once said to a young LT, "That's all there are to it." We fear men with rags on their heads, but embrace men with gold Rolexes killing us with abandon.

--Jim

Running Down a Dream

If I listened long enough to you
I’d find a way to believe that it’s all true
--Reason to Believe, Tim Harden
__________________

Faisal Shahzad, the New York Times Square bombing ace (not) was sentenced to life in prison Tuesday for being a total failure as a Jihadist bomber (Times Square bomber sentenced, warns of more Attacks.)

His scare comments are not worthy of comment ("Brace yourselves, because the war with Muslims has just begun. Consider me the first droplet of the blood that will follow"), for if he is the first impotent droplet of blood, we haven't much to fear. His training and operation skills were in the minus figures, and he is a joke, were anyone in the laughing mood.

However, it is U.S. District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum's comments that deserve censure.

Cederbaum gave a Judge Judy performance, saying "I do hope you will spend some of the time in prison thinking carefully about whether the Quran wants you to kill lots of people." Her directive was totally inappropriate in a legal setting.

Cederbaum's moral directive plays right into the Jihadist propagandists. Shahzad was not on trial for a faulty interpretation of the Koran, but rather for attempting to set off a bomb in Times Square -- a criminal act. The judge's comment is straight from the Hollywood playbook, and confirms to the world that the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) and the US Judicial system is engaged in religious warfare and persecution of Islamist beliefs.

Cederbaum's statement shoved Judeo-Christian values down the defendant's throat and it will come back to haunt us somewhere down the line. It was unnecessary inflammatory rhetoric. The US judicial system works quite well sans the intrusion of religious edicts. We fail when we forget our most basic tenets.

The real war is over nothing less than the survival of our precious democratic values. When we lose those, THEY have won.


. . . to be continued

Hook, Line and Sinker

New York, New York, a helluva town
The Bronx is up, but the Battery's down
The people ride in a hole in the ground
New York, New York, it's a helluva town!
--New York, New York (On the Town)

The scientist says the plane is going to crash,
the captain says it's not.
Your vote doesn't count
because you have to side with the captain
which means it's a tie
--No Highway in the Sky (1951)
_________________

When Faisel Shahzad pleaded guilty Monday to plotting to blow up Times Square, he was engaging in a bit of hyperbole ("Times Square Plotter: 'It's a War'".)

His device could not blow up Times Square; it would take a 500-pound bomb or greater to achieve that outcome. Shahzad's incendiary device would have caused limited destruction, which is of course terrorism. But it is a long shot from "blowing up Times Square".

"Shahzad, 30, a U.S. citizen born in Pakistan, called himself "a Muslim solder" and said he wanted to "plead guilty and 100 times more" to all of the charges.

"A federal grand jury last week indicted Shahzad on 10 terrorism charges. U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said prosecutors had not reached a plea agreement with Shahzad, who faces life in prison. A sentencing hearing will be held Oct. 5."

This case proves that U.S. federal courts can handle the legal problem of terrorism. From start to finish, this case was handled in an appropriate manner since Shahzad was apprehended, questioned, arrested and charged. The case was properly adjudicated.

The interesting part is that Shahzad himself has called his thwarted effort an act of war, which it exactly is NOT. Shahzad is not a "warrior", despite his protests that he is. But who can blame Shahzad for his warrior self-image when we as a nation have adopted the same stance?

Since 9-11-01, our leaders and the media have been preaching that terrorism = warfare, and the American people have accepted this falsehood. Ergo, their entrance into two phony wars to fight terrorism. Terrorism is NOT warfare, and the Shahzad case shows the correct response to such crimes is a legal one.

The problem now is that a large portion of the U.S. public accepts as gospel that terrorism = warfare. As infectious disease specialist Robert Field said in Lancet when discussing the problem of getting parents to trust vaccinations again after the autism link was discredited earlier this year, "It is very easy to scare people; it's very hard to unscare them."

Warriorhood will not save us, nor will it help our adversaries. Anyway, what makes our warriors holy and their mission sacrosanct, while theirs are vile? With Shahzad we see the equation balancing out, as the terrorists are successfully co-opting our rhetoric to keep the war project in motion.

For about $15 K a terror group recruited, trained and deployed an operative to NYC. This operative was bumbling, inefficient and totally ineffective, BUT his message is now broadcast around the world -- free advertising via the media express. His clarion call to arms is paid for by U.S. tax dollars -- his trial cost millions of dollars, and our invasive wars have cost us trillions. Pit that against a $15 K investment.

The teaching point is that terrorists need not be successful, yet they can still create their product: terror. In so doing they assist their cause with increased funding and recruitment, and they do it on our dime.

What is interesting is that we prosecute totally inept operators and act like we are striking a serious blow against terrorism. In fact, guys like Shahzad are disposable dupes, and we fall for it, hook, line and sinker.

"John Timony, a former Miami and New York City police official, said that although Shahzad failed, police should not underestimate the risk of homegrown terrorism." The point missed is that guys like Shahzad become radicalized because the basis of our Phony War on Terror [PWOT ©] is radical. Our actions are inconsistent, lacking legal or moral cohesion.

We preemptively and electively invade countries, capture riflemen on the battlefield, and call them terrorists. This incorrect label implies terrorists can be captured on a battlefield. In fact, terrorists do not squander their assets in military operations. This is exactly why they elect to be terrorists. The two occupations are not one and the same, though there may be ideological overlap.

Sending our Armies to fight the various factions in Iraq and Afghanistan has provided these groups with a legitimacy they do not deserve. Keeping low-level shooters in open-ended incarceration in Bagram prisons and Guantanamo conversely denies legitimacy to our efforts.

Terrorism is not a legitimate tool for either groups or nations to employ. Neither group has this right, which is a consideration that we seldom entertain.

Employing Armies to fight terrorism is like asking a prostitute to sign a pledge of abstinence. It won't happen.

Quid Pro Quo

But here, cleverly disguised
as a bomb, is a bomb
--The Bullwinkle Show (1961)

I like to watch
--Chance the Gardener,
Being There (1979)
____________

Eric Holder's announcement of the foiled Times Square would-be bomber's ties to Pakistan was hailed as an intelligence victory, despite the rather large hint that Mr. Faisal Shahzad boarded a plane to that country after his would-be firework show fizzled.

Forgetting the suspicious fact for the moment that the car was left parked illegally at one of the busiest intersections in the country, as one source close to the investigation told AOL news today, why are we seeing a small cottage industry among these Bombers Manque, Inc.? The source noted:

"The Nissan Pathfinder carrying fireworks, nonexplosive fertilizer, gasoline tanks, propane and alarm clocks was left Saturday in a turn-only lane -- lights and flashers on and motor running -- in one of the busiest intersections in the world, this person noted to AOL News (Times Square Bomb: "It Doesn't Make any Sense.)"

On the same page as the original 5/5 story (Catching Bomb Suspect was rare Moment for Holder to Celebrate) was an article stating that a U.S. missile strike killed six (last Sunday, 10 more were killed, and today, 14 --"U.S. Drone Strikes Kill 14.") And the would-be Times Square bomber has ties to Pakistan ... imagine that? As Gomer Pyle U.S.M.C. would say, GOL-LY!

This isn't rocket science. The U.S. is killing Pakis and Talibs, and of course, they will respond. Stimulus - Response, a physical reaction. Does the U.S. imagine they will sit on their thumbs forever in the face of such provocation?

Why does the U.S. not consider ceasing aggressive killings in Pakistan, thereby defusing their need to reactively target the U.S. homeland?

If killing Pakistanis in Pakistan is o.k., then why isn't it o.k. for Pakis to kill Americans in America? Why is one o.k. and the other is not?