Search This Blog

Wednesday, April 17, 2013


Considering there are many reports (including from DHS head Napolitano) that the Boston tragedy is most likely a lone event, I wonder why Washington D.C. is going to the trouble of heightening security so drastically in its aftermath? In my mind there are a few possible reasons the government would say one thing and do another.

Either a) the government wants to soothe any troubled minds out there that they are doing their job to protect American citizens to the best of their ability whether or not they actually are
or b) they just say that to dupe Americans because of a UK report that Obama cut the domestic anti-terrorism budget nearly in half!
or c) the lone Boston act might trigger others terrorists to follow suit, targeting other unwatchful American cities
or d) the government officials in D.C. aren't telling us everything they know
or e) the liberals in Washington D.C, being the decisive majority at present, actually think that this was a right wing job instead of an Islamic anti-America terrorist job despite the similarities in IED between those used in the Boston attack and those used in wars across the Middle East.

Any way you slice it, words and deeds aren't quite matching up and we need more explanation. Either we're safe or we're not. I don't trust politicians who think so much of themselves and their own backsides - political or literal.

Seriously though, if liberals can get away with targeting "right wing extremists" so easily with so little evidence past or present (use the link in quotes), why would they care to point out that this Bostonian terrorist wasn't acting in Washington D.C. on tax day? (Which date might turn out to be merely coincidental, given any terrorist's penchant for attacking large gatherings - such as the Boston marathon.)  I can conjecture right along with those liberals. I conjecture that people saying things without evidence are doing it for political reasons. Why waste a good opportunity to smear the opposing ideology even though politics probably had as much to do with this attack as it does with Swiss cheese?

What is Washington D. C. really hiding from us?

The suspect now being arrested, no name given (why not - would it lend it self to Islamic profiling, thus proving the right wing is innocent as is usually the case?), means we'll be finding out more soon.

Yes, I'm full of conjecture myself. I'm trying to provide some sort of counter-narrative to the partisan one flooding the news.


  1. "Yes, I'm full of conjecture myself. I'm trying to provide some sort of counter-narrative to the partisan one flooding the news."

    Because two wrongs make a right?

    1. As Rush Limbaugh would say, "I'm illustrating absurdity by being absurd." He has a lot of people who take him literally too instead of understanding his point. Of course two wrongs don't make a right!

  2. I have unsubscribed from your blog. "Illustrations of absurdity" are in plentiful supply these days; I don't need yours. I was hoping to see a more reasoned and measured discourse from you regarding current issues the country faces, a discourse not continually partisan-inflected. In this regard, you have failed.

    Your "Gun laws revisited" post had some very good points, but I find it a shame that you continually rely on broad labels and hyperbolic prose, such as: "the liberal ACLU loves to free the criminally insane so that they can terrorize the streets before being slapped back into prison." Does the ACLU really love to free the criminally insane so that they can terrorize the streets? Do they have little black hats and mustaches that they twirl while devising such evil plots?

    Also, the liberal ACLU? Really? Your use of liberal as pejorative is telling. There's nothing new here—simply more rhetoric and hot air. Conservatives bashing liberals bashing conservatives bashing liberals; conclusions pre-drawn. Lines in the sand, territories drawn.

    With your recent comments on the bombing, I've had enough. I'm not asking you to admit you're wrong. I'm asking that you not be a hypocrite. I'm asking that you not be an extremist ("(towards liberals' favor, always)" Really? Always and forever?). I'm asking you to be constructive, not simply another "pundit" endless pointing fingers and setting up some bogeyman "other." In other words, I'm asking for too much.

    Have fun with the pot, kettle. I'm out.

  3. The ACLU really does that (not the hats). I know someone who worked getting such people out of jail. That's not a report I can reference, so you'll have to take my word for it.

    I also get tired of the hyperbole, but as a long time reader I would have thought that you remember that I give credit where credit is due. I in fact defended (in a manner of speaking in a comment section) the man who bugged McConnell's office. I was not defending his crime, but rather the frustration with the lack of transparency from our government officials. I also wholeheartedly supported this man's plea to people with mental illnesses to know they're not alone when they're so often stigmatized in our society and people don't talk about different kinds of mental illnesses so they don't know which ones are harmless versus harmful to the public. The response? That I am mentally ill for saying those things. It seems that you are also veering pretty close to the hyperbolic line yourself in your attacks on me, if you want to talk about pots and kettles. Again, sorry to disappoint. I've not asked for your readership, however.