Month: December 2009

Stanley Baldwin, a leading British conservative of the early 20th Century and three-term Prime Minister, understood far earlier and better than his contemporaries how industrialization was changing the nature of war and conflict. The new development of the inter-War era, of course, was the airplane. Aviation moved the battlefield away from trenches and into cities. It de-compartmentalized nations, blurring the distinction between civilian and military and allowing for the first time the prospect of total war and the potential for total defeat. With the power to level cities and turn entire nations into rubble, aviation ensured that nations, not armies, would be defeated in future wars.

Baldwin understood this, and World War II was a graphic example of the ability of air power to turn defeat into total destruction. Accordingly, nations preoccupied themselves during the inter-War era with devising ways to defend against aerial bombing. France, Britain, Russia, Germany, and the other European nations with a millennium-long history of starting wars with one another every decade or so concocted intricate and expensive schemes to defend their skies. It was all folly, Baldwin warned. People should not develop a false sense of security based on military might and seemingly impregnable defenses. "I think it is well also for the man in the street to realize that there is no power on earth that can protect him from being bombed. Whatever people may tell him, the bomber will always get through." No matter how extensive the preparations or how fearsome one's military might be, enough of an attacking force will survive to inflict significant damage.

The PM's saying was relevant throughout the Cold War – didn't someone make perhaps the greatest film of all time about this very problem? – and it is even more so today despite the rapid obsolescence of nation-state conflicts. I thought about the Rt. Hon. Mr. Baldwin's words extensively on Christmas Day, the day on which, despite the dramatic increase in airport security since 2001, yet another person managed to carry an explosive on an airplane and come perilously close to using it for its intended purpose.

The reaction to the attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 has been predictably stupid – public shaming of the TSA (despite the fact that the flight originated far outside TSA jurisdiction), idiotic partisan fingerpointing (apparently this would never have happened if Bush was President, or Obama deserves blame for the failure of security policies instituted by his predecessor), and pointless speculation. Useless, all of it. The facts about airport security, like border security or air defenses, are deceptively simple. Someone will always get through.

I certainly think that airport security could be improved, and ironically I posted on the TSA's laziness on the morning of the incident.

But let's not kid ourselves. All the metal detectors and X-ray machines and explosives detection equipment on the world won't stop people who want to blow up airplanes from blowing up airplanes. This is not to say that security is futile; certainly it can reduce the number of incidents. What it does very well is catch the complete knuckleheads – people with guns in their carry-ons or laughably bad fake identification. You know as well as I do, however, that someone with reasonable intelligence who commits him- or herself to the goal of blowing up an airplane can find a way to do it. No matter how good the security, people will find a way to defeat it.

Maybe not a lot of people, but enough to spread the lingering fear that it can happen anytime. That's the goal of terrorism. That's why it's called "terrorism."

The gaps in our security are apparent to anyone who spends appreciable time in airports and cares to be observant while standing listlessly in a security checkpoint queue. But not even another dramatic improvement in security – "Total Body Imaging" scanners, for example – can eliminate the specter of terrorism. For the past eight years much of America has operated under the delusion that terrorism can be Defeated, that there will be a moment at which it stands on the deck of the USS Missouri and signs an instrument of surrender in deference to our military might. It is a pipe dream. There are six billion people on this planet and there is no way to prevent a small handful of them from deciding that it will be a good or useful idea to blow up a 747.
https://westsomervilledental.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/jpg/orlistat.html

And as long as the intent exists, that intent will occasionally intersect with means.
https://westsomervilledental.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/jpg/diflucan.html

I'm going to keep flying, as the odds of being on a plane when a terrorist blows it up are infinitely smaller than my chances of drowning in my bathtub (which are a comparatively terrifying 1 in 700,000). But while I'm at it I'll refrain from expecting airport security from stopping everyone or elected officials from magically "ending" terrorism. The bomber will always get through and punish someone – someone else, we all silently hope whenever we step on an airplane.

You're not working right now. Perhaps you're bodily at your place of business or otherwise on the clock, but you're probably not doing anything that could reasonably be interpreted as work. I suppose that's always true if you're reading this site (which, to the best of my knowledge, is neither required nor condoned by your boss) but today it applies more broadly. If you're like most Americans your end-of-year break consists of a day off for Christmas and that's pretty much it, forcing us all to go through the motions of pretending to work on the 24th.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing that creating a buffer zone around Christian religious holidays is desirable. Here's the thing – like all sane people, I don't like working. We work too goddamn much in this country, and whether it's for Christmas or Zoroastrian New Year it would be nice if our ruling class would grant us a few days to see our families or, you know, enjoy our lives.

As most of us are painfully aware, employers are not required to provide paid vacation in this country.

buy elavil online buy elavil no prescription

And contrary to popular belief, they are not required to give you time off, either paid or unpaid, for Federal holidays. There are only 10 such days, and only about half of them regularly result in days off for most of us – Christmas, MLK, Independence Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, and Thanksgiving. Unless one works for the government, Washington's Birthday is unlikely to result in an opportunity to sleep in.

buy neurontin online buy neurontin no prescription

This situation is, to the amazement of some Americans, uncommon in comparison to other Western democracies.

It truly is depressing to see how we stack up to our cousins across the Atlantic or to the south. We're a nation of people working harder and harder for less and less, and the merest suggestion that we should do anything other than work 9 hour days without pause until we drop dead is met with cries of socialism and accusations of malingering.

So that's why you're sitting bored at your desk thinking frantically of ways to kill time on this most pointless of "work" days. Rather than simply giving people a few days off around this time of year we respond to deep-seated protestant guilt and conditioning by making everyone show up and go through the motions. A waste of everybody's f-ing time, that's what it is. This charade makes some Americans feel more industrious and more productive; the reality of a workforce standing around water coolers, taking two-hour lunches, and dicking around on the internet for eight hours calls into question the basis of our disdain for the "lazy" nations around the world who don't follow our shining example and live joyless, pointless lives.

Men and women in the military are like adorable little puppies to the media and corporate America. They are the imagery of last resort for deflecting criticism or of first resort for shameless pandering. "I know our corporate practices border on sociopathy, but just look at this picture of our brave soldiers!" is the unspoken message in a lot of advertising. Especially Wal-Mart advertising.

That commercial has nothing to do with Wal-Mart. It tells you nothing about its products, services, prices, or policies. It's just sentimental pap, a cheap effort to bypass logic and score points on an emotional level. After all, you Support the Troops^tm, right? So does Wal-Mart!

At an NHL game with my dad on Tuesday evening (Blackhawks-Sharks; holy crap is Joe Thornton impressive in person) the action was interrupted with a Jumbo-tron shot of Sergeant So-and-So of the United States Army, today's "Salute to the Armed Forces Featured Guest, brought to you by Boeing" (seriously). Responding like dogs to meat, the crowd applauded. Then they cheered a little as the camera zoomed in. By the time his face filled the screen the crowd of 21,000 was on its feet cheering wildly. The enthusiastic standing ovation lasted a full 30 seconds. I sat, chin in hand, slightly disgusted by the spectacle. Yes, I understand the concepts of jingoism, Pavlovian response, and Supporting the Troops^tm. But I couldn't help but wonder what exactly these people were cheering.

Were they thanking him for making us all safer, for a job well done? Given the dubious success of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and our continued vulnerability to terrorist attacks I'm skeptical. Do people think he is deserving of a round of applause for joining the military? Perhaps, although many people make that decision – or have it made for them – with less than noble intentions. No, I think I witnessed a lot of guilt and a very predictable social desirability effect.

Isn't that what over-the-top Supporting the Troops^tm is really all about – guilt? The guiltier one feels for swallowing the pre-Iraq bullshit without an iota of critical thinking, the more likely one is to plaster the SUV with yellow ribbons and talk loudly and frequently about one's undying respect for Our Brave Men and Women Overseas (patent pending). Once one person stands up in a crowd and lets loose an enthusiastic show of Support^tm, others are bound to follow. Who will risk remaining in his or her seat and being easily identified as someone who fails to Support the Troops^tm with sufficient vigor?

Like people who make a very public show of praying, donating to charity, or helping friends and neighbors, people who go overboard with their troops-supporting are a toxic cocktail of guilt, shame, vanity, and attention-seeking. What offers more Support^tm, jumping to one's feet and madly applauding an image on a Jumbo-tron or doing something tangible to help a member of the armed forces? I bet the 21,000 people in that stadium are more generous with their applause than they are with care packages, USO donations, letters to lonely enlisted people, and engagement with political issues like the treatment afforded to veterans when active duty comes to an end. Which is more Supportive^tm, having an "America, Fuck Yeah!" moment in an effort to one-up the Patriot seated next to you at a hockey game or working toward a political means of bringing the armed forces home and out of harm's way?

I did not participate, which is sad because I honestly believe that Sgt. So-and-So deserves a thank you and a pat on the back. I just get nauseous at the idea of playing along with a crowd of people whose knee-jerk psychological response to images of the military is to explode into cheers or tears to fulfill social expectations or assuage guilt – the intense, persistent guilt of knowing that one is responsible for putting soldiers in danger and is in fact doing nothing to actually support them.