Mr. President, Fire Somebody. Anybody
In response to the Christmas “underpants bomber,” an outraged President Obama called his security and intelligence people together. The headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times the next day read, “Obama gives his team earful over foiled plot.” Our intelligence and security measures failed and almost led to a disaster, and his response was to give the security people “an earful?” I guess he rejected the more severe punishment of giving them a timeout and making them sit in the corner. Mr. President, make it seem like you’re taking some kind of strong action. Fire somebody.
In response to the Christmas “underpants bomber,” an outraged President Obama called his security and intelligence people together. The headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times the next day read, “Obama gives his team earful over foiled plot.” Our intelligence and security measures failed and almost led to a disaster, and his response was to give the security people “an earful?” I guess he rejected the more severe punishment of giving them a timeout and making them sit in the corner. Mr. President, make it seem like you’re taking some kind of strong action. Fire somebody.
It doesn’t even matter to me which official he fires. I realize that might just be a symbolic act, but maybe we need that kind of symbolism now. Besides, we all know people who’ve gotten fired for doing far less than almost letting somebody blow up an airplane. Maybe we had a new boss who wanted to “clean house.” Maybe there was some kind of misunderstanding. Maybe the job just wasn’t right for us. But I doubt that we know anyone other than a government official who let someone on an airplane who had a bomb in his underwear.
When I was flying home from Chicago with my wife and son after Thanksgiving, we were stopped at the security conveyor belt and the screener confiscated something of ours. What was this dangerous item? It was a container of cream cheese. We had bought bagels and cream cheese to eat on the plane. So why did they take it from us? Was it a case of “possession of cream cheese with intent to schmeer?” Apparently it was in a container that they considered a couple of ounces too large. My point is, we couldn’t take cream cheese on a plane, but this guy could get through wearing a bomb? And the president’s response is just to give his people “an earful?” Fire somebody.
It just feels like a bad case of déjà vu. After 9/11, we were told that security was going to be beefed up, that the safety of the American people was the number one priority of the President, etc. Then we learned that our government had information prior to the 9/11 attacks that could have been used to possibly prevent the attacks. And now, after the almost-tragedy on Christmas, we’ve learned that governmental departments had enough information that could have — and should have — prevented the guy from getting on that plane.
The difference is that this time our president actually admitted that there was a failure in our “intelligence community.” I guess that kind of honesty, that “transparency,” is progress, but that doesn’t make us safer. Maybe firing and replacing some people wouldn’t really make us safer, either. But maybe it would.
Based on the past, what we’ll probably see are changes at the airport security stations. There may be longer lines. Screeners will probably go through our luggage more thoroughly. They might install those machines that reveal vague images of our bodies to a screener. Maybe there will be something dramatic. It happened after the “shoe bomber.” Because of that one guy, everyone had to take off their shoes at the airport, and then the government could point to our shoelessness as proof that they were taking terrorism seriously. I’m sure you can imagine what they might make us take off because of the “underpants bomber.”
Obviously, I’m not against better screening at the airport. However, we need to stop terrorists before they get to the airport, before they fill up their shoes or their underwear with explosives. And it’s possible for us to do that. The president agrees. He said, “The U.S. government had sufficient information to have uncovered the plot and potentially disrupt the Christmas Day attack, but our intelligence community failed to connect those dots.”
They didn’t “connect the dots?” So, fire somebody and get someone who’s better at connecting dots. I know that might not improve things, but it has a better chance of being effective than taking away our cream cheese.
Lloyd Garver has written for many television shows, ranging from “Sesame Street” to “Family Ties” to “Home Improvement” to “Frasier.” He has also read many books, some of them in hardcover. He can be reached at lloydgarver@gmail.com. Check out his website at lloydgarver.com and his podcasts on iTunes.
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
What is the number-one concern for Americans this coming mid-term election year?
It’s not body counts in Iraq.
It’s not nukes in Iran, Pakistan, or North Korea.
It’s not even underwear at the airport.
It’s jobs at home.
And politicians up for re-election in 2010 better pay attention.
That’s according to former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich.
He is exactly correct.
The federal spending package passed last year was just enough to keep Wall Street from collapsing.
Still, Main Street needs relief after the $8 trillion housing bubble burst during the last days of the Bush administration.
And no politician can really count on running for or against health care reform and its individual mandates for coverage since it won’t take effect for four years.
But without solid, good-paying jobs today, how can we afford health care tomorrow?
The future for workers looking for employment looks grim.
To Reich, there are five likelihoods, all of which point to unemployment will rise above 10 percent next fall.
You can almost rule out both a “double-dip recession” and a “strong recovery,” and forget about a “stalled” or a “solid” recovery.
We’re in a “jobless recovery” with pundits and politicos fudging numbers with the aim at covering up the fact that the workweek hours have shrunk with workers just putting in more off hours for free.
Thus, no new jobs would have been created.
This perception of job creation will be key, he explained in “What’s Ahead for the Economy and Politics in 2010.”
“If it looks like jobs are coming back, they may forgive a high absolute level of unemployment — even one as high as 10 percent,” he wrote. “But if it looks like jobs aren’t coming back, that we may be stuck with a high level of joblessness for years, voters will take out even more of their anxieties on Democrats next November.”
But with Republicans promising to cut spending and the deficit, we’re pretty much stuck.
That said, can Republicans mount a comeback?
GOP chairman Michael Steele thinks not.
Judging by its lack of cash flow, the Republican National Committee is also stuck with the weak economy and poor political capital.
This — the largest Republican support group in the nation — has only $8.7 million in the bank.
And it faces 37 governor races, 12 huge Senate contests, not to mention runs in the House and, of course, the coming redistricting fight!
The Democratic National Committee (DNC), in contrast, has $13 million debt-free now.
And it’ll need every penny in its defense of the Wall Street bailouts.
They took our jobs!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls)
— Nathan Diebenow
Today’s Cackle Berry
A Kindergarten teacher was observing her classroom of children while they were drawing. She would occasionally walk around to see each child’s work.
As she got to one little girl who was working diligently, she asked what the drawing was.
The girl replied, ‘I’m drawing God.’
The teacher paused and said, ‘But no one knows what God looks like.’
Without missing a beat, or looking up from her drawing, the girl replied, ‘They will in a minute.’
Newest Cell Phone Feature Is So Hot You May Need A Fire Extinguisher — Really.
Technology is great. Except, of course, when it explodes in your pants. I’ve never really liked cell phones to begin with, and now that they’ve started self detonating, I like them even less. Technology is great.
Technology is great.
Except, of course, when it explodes in your pants. I’ve never really liked cell phones to begin with, and now that they’ve started self detonating, I like them even less.
According to a news article sent in by Susan Grigsby of Alpharetta, Ga., Nokia has launched an investigation into why two of its cell phones recently burst into flames — a feature Nokia officials say wasn’t supposed to become available until next year. As you might expect, cell phone sales have dropped slightly as a result of these incidents. That’s because luxuries like instant text messaging, computer games and video imaging don’t mean much if your cell phone suddenly ignites into flames, turning your morning commute into a flaming lap dance and an appearance on The World’s Wildest Police Chases.
It would be different if exploding cell phones were an optional feature, i.e., for an extra charge, you, as a cell phone customer, had the option of detonating someone else’s cell phone with the press of a button.
“Hello? That’s okay—the movie just started. What? Really? No way. And what did SHE say?”
“WARNING! Detonation sequence has been initiated! Beginning countdown! Five..! Four..!”
“Hey—you mind if call you back? My phone’s about to explode.”
While Nokia officials are blaming defective batteries as the root cause of Exploding Cell Phone Syndrome, I have to disagree. The fact is, cell phones are simply being asked to do too much and, because of it, are having a total melt down. I’ve had my cell phone for five years, which by today’s standards means it should be part of a traveling history exhibit for school children. However, I’ve kept it because 1) unlike newer phones, it’s larger than a Saltine cracker and doesn’t have buttons the size of Braille, and 2) it provides me with all the functions I need in a cell phone:
I can call people.
People can call me.
I can hang up on people.
That’s all I’m really looking for in a cell phone. If I wanted to play video games and exchange text messages with friends, I’d just stay at work.
Comparatively, the life expectancy of today’s cell phones is about one year. That’s assuming everything goes well and you don’t go blind trying to use it, and out of sheer frustration while trying to place a call to your ophthalmologist, end up crushing it in your fist like a grape.
In most cases, this isn’t covered under warranty. The same thing goes for any damage your phone might incur after accidentally triggering a gas-station explosion. That’s right. According to a recent warning from AAA, static discharge from cell phones “has the potential to ignite gas vapors, although it’s still safer than if your cell phone actually explodes.”
Because of this danger the National Fire Protection Association has offered a couple of tips to motorists.
The first is to avoid using cell phones, laptop computers or portable radios while refueling. And if you happen to be using them all at once, you’re just asking for trouble. Be safe; at least wait until you’re back on the highway.
And most importantly, if a fire starts, don’t try to stop it. Leave the area and call someone.
Unless of course that’s the reason the fire started in the first place.
(You can write to Ned Hickson at nhickson@thesiuslawnews.com, or at the Siuslaw News at P.O. Box 10, Florence, OR. 97439)
