The Ministry of Shadows

Last Five Entries

Gone, But Not Forgotten?
Friday, Jan. 20, 2012

What The Internet Will Look Like Under SOPA
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2012

Fearsgiving Week
Monday, Nov. 21, 2011

Jesus Approves of Waterboarding
Monday, Nov. 14, 2011

Beware of Asteroids
Wednesday, Nov. 09, 2011


FirstGov Portal

Legislative Database

Recommended Reading


Bruce Schneier

James Hudnall

Glenn Greenwald


You Are Dumb

All links are current as of the date of publication. All content created by the author is copyrighted 2005-2010, except where held by the owners/publishers of parent works and/or subject materials. Any infringement of another's work is wholly unintentional. If you see something here that is yours, a polite request for removal or credit will be honored.

Idiots On Parade

Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2008 3:52 AM

It's bad enough Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn't know banks are closed at 3 AM, or that being sleep deprived causes her to hallucinate repeatedly about having been under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia.

Now she wants to nuke Iran.

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

First of all, that sounds like we will attack, period. But let's grant her the benefit of the doubt and take her comment to be conditional - if Iran attacks Israel, then we'd respond. Except that's not how it works, either - absent a direct attack on American territory, she'd have to go through Congress. (Unless, of course, she's planning to invoke Bush's AUMF.)

And yet, Clinton also has a new ad out asking voters to consider who would be ready to deal with problems including two existing wars.

I can't see that dropping a nuke on Iran is responsible leadership when we don't have the resources to follow through. Neither is making threats that we can't back up.

From the Fear of an Impending Police State Department, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says your fingerprints aren't personal data.

"... a fingerprint is hardly personal data because you leave it on glasses and silverware and articles all over the world, they�re like footprints. They�re not particularly private," Chertoff explained during testimony on a shared fingerprint database.

Chertoff has it wrong. Though we do leave our fingerprints on objects we handle throughout the day, the average citizen possesses neither the knowledge or equipment to lift the print - even then, it is of use only for comparison. It takes slightly more effort to develop a print into a useable duplicate.

Security experts are pointing out that either Chertoff is clueless, or sowing cognitive dissonance to sell yet more security snake oil to the American public. Fingerprints are personal data, but they aren't particularly secure, which is different from being private.

Otherwise, Mr. Chertoff, I imagine you'd have no problem publishing your full prints for us? Uh-huh. Reasons of national security. Right. Sure.

And a Boot to the Head for Condoleezza Rice and her irresponsible statement mocking Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr as a 'coward,' claiming he was 'hiding in Iran' while his followers went off to their deaths.

Al-Sadr has shown he is capable of escalating things. And, despite the spin, neither the Iraqi Army nor Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki are ready for a prolonged confrontation.

Calling your opponent a coward is not diplomacy, it's talk radio antagonism.

The Ministry has received 0 comment(s) on this topic.