(Photo snagged from IOwnTheWorld.com)

Dear MacArthur’s Pink Slippers, BFHat…. It’s too damned early for that. Spew warning next time please?!?

Don’t ask me what inspired this; it’s just what I would expect to see at the gateway to the modern Hell.

"Abandon all hope, and your personal defense weapon, all ye who enter."

Moreover, I had to raise BigFurHat for his Sharon Stone ante.

It’s good to know that we’re putting our elected representatives to good use.

UPDATE: Heh. Seems I’m not the only person to think along the lines of our Gov’t officials getting, um, personally involved. Cap’t Ed has Michael Ramirez’ latest editorial cartoon that details how the capping ought to be going on at the Oval Office.

I’m not going to turn this into a major literary work (as if I’d had the option), but there has been a clear departure from standards of decorum both in public behavior and speech of both the President and many of his staff and party members.

Now, before I continue let me be forthright in saying that it’s not occasionally to be found on our side of the aisle. Dick Chaney has been known in exceptional circumstances to lay out a few choice words (ask Pat Leahy)  and Joe Wilson allowed his feelings to overtake his sense of decorum at a State of the Union address. Certainly there are more examples.

In the last fifteen months, there have been numerous examples of intemperate language coming from the White House, and judging from the first days after taking the oath on January 20th of last year, this pattern of behavior is indicative of the low class of the people involved than a product of long aggravating series of battles with a disapproving press office and intractable legislature.

There can, and will, be differences in the attitudes of each administration with regard to how it approaches their duties. The former President George W. Bush is reported to have never entered the Oval Office without first donning a coat and tie out of respect for the office, and never singled out for derision individuals in speeches or addresses. Although I would better appreciate Mr. Obama if he would have a similar dress code when approaching the tradition of the office, I understand that there is no “law” regarding this and he truly can do as he please. But when many in the majority decry the highly partisan nature of debate these days, I cannot but harken back to the 2010 SotU address (where I previously mention Joe Wilson) where Obama  called out the Supreme Court, who were present- and, indeed, front and center to the rostrum- for ridicule due to a recent decision (which similarly turned out to be an inaccurate critique by Obama, by the way). Even beyond the official statements that might, or might not, be considered out of bounds, the actions of various staff of this Administration has even more to be desired.

Never known as the most diplomatic of individuals, Rahm Emanuel has more stories concerning his temper than Nixon had reels of tape. From steak knives to dead fish,  naked congressional shower diatribes and even belittling foreign heads of state to their faces, Rahm serves at the pleasure of the President. Well, apparently Obama is pleased by a man with a mouth so crude and a mind to compose such filth that WH staffers operate in fear.

Even in official policy statements, this administration has no issue with using terminology that is geared to intimidate people. With the recent oil rig fire and spillage in the gulf, pressers have given over several uses of the term “our boot is on the throat of BP.”  This is the height of gall, and one which I don’t think the White House is even capable of identifying of itself. The vitriol toward the loyal opposition and the business targets of class warfare have been on the receiving end of language that would normally only be seen by extreme-fringe candidate supporters before an election, not an elected politico governing in office. Even derogatory sexual terminology that would ordinarily be censored from daytime programming is now being used to refer to tea party protesters by The One himself.

Truly, we’re seeing a freefall in the behavior and methods of those in power, and without the ability to sense their own boundaries they may be similarly at risk of not being able to recognize the dangers of provoking an increasingly frustrated majority of mainstream America.

Some liberals are fearful of tea party protesters that carry Culpeper or Gadsden (“Don’t Tread On Me”) flags. This fear is incorrect on several levels, but most importantly in that it’s as much a plea as a warning. My thinking is that liberal policymakers need to begin fearing when a majority of America begins carrying Gonzales flags- the ones that say “Come And Take It” with a picture of a cannon or firearm. Will the current administration take notice?

Truly, I can’t think of a single reason that it benefits the Unites States to implicitly outline the number and style of nuclear warheads and capabilities in our stockpile. Generally I like to sit and think up something snarky to say in the absence of anything humorous before I make a blog post, but right now I’m simply out-of-my-mind gobsmacked that The One would think this is a good idea.

Carter at least didn’t outline specifically where cuts in intelligence services would take place, to my recollection. I’ll have more on this later when I get my thoughts together.

(Updated X2, scroll down)

OK, I’ll be the first to utter the heresy of the terror suspect video: removing your sweater in public could make you a terror suspect.

Certainly this is not something that you’d expect to hear from a kill-em-all, let-God-sort-em-out National defense policy hawk conservative, but there must be more to the video than the edited few seconds of security cam footage pointed out a window. (Best quality embeddable  version I could find was from ABC, below):

But taken completely at face value, without seeing this man exit the vehicle or do anything else other than walk by it does nothing to incriminate him. I’ve heard various sources describe his actions as “suspicious,” “furtive,” “nervous” and other adjectives to describe his demeanor in this video, but these same commentators easily admit to the fact that the quality is not enough to discern facial features, details of his bag and clothes other than the red color of his undershirt, type of shoes or ought else. Yet the video is good enough to show subtle intonations of facial expression and diversion of eyes that indicate these adjectives?

It’s not the pundit in me that asks these questions; it’s the empiricist. Now if there is a longer version that more directly associates this individual to the vehicle, then so be it, and issue resolved. But until then…

UPDATE: So much for that “white guy Bubba” thing that the MSM has been going on about. Although they’re not releasing the identity, they’re saying the person of interest is a “naturalized” (read: foreign-born) US citizen who has recently spent several months in Pakistan. I wondered if all of the assumptions made on this video would be shown to be a rush…

UPDATE: AP at Hot Air points out that new information leads to a second suspect was taped running away from the vehicle. So far, this tape/video/photo hasn’t been released, but it ought to be interesting to take a gander at it. HA also throws a name into the mix that has been bandied about since last night: a one  Younus Abdullah Muhammed, a guy that lives close by and is known to be involved in the South Park / Mohammed threats. Interestingly, Viacom (which owns South Park) has a building very close by. Probably not related, in my mind, in that there are perhaps half a million people who hate America within a ten mile radius of the site of the attempted bombing (this is NYC, not Branson, MO here). But interesting nonetheless; also call it a little bit of hometown pride: I’d like to think our American, domestic terrorists are more capable than these clowns.

Quickie screenie from the WashPo as they don’t have a perm. link to the pageheader alert:

I saw the released surveillance video of the guy changing his shirt on the sidewalk, and I was unimpressed with the quality of the video and how “racial” traits of “white man” was even possible. I see the figure of a guy (most likely), but beyond that, it’s still up in the air.

What gets me is the ineptitude of the bomb maker. M-88s are pretty, but not terribly destructive (I still wouldn’t hold one in my hand and let it go off, but you get the idea). The two full gasoline containers indicate that the assembler isn’t aware of what any auto repair guy will tell you, and that is gasoline (as a liquid) is not explosive; merely flammable. It’s the gas/air mixture, regulated by a carburetor or fuel injection system that goes “boom” in an engine. Three full barbecue grill-style LP or propane gas tanks  could create a good fireball, destroying the car and generally causing havoc, but would in no way endanger the structural integrity of a proximate building. More, as they were still sealed (valves were shut) it would take as long as several minutes for the car to be aflame (e.g., from the gasoline tanks) before the tanks would blow, allowing bystanders the time to leave the area.

Lastly there is there is the multiple bags of powder which turned out to be low or denatured-content ammonium nitrate, which is incapable of detonation. Someone “heard” that fertilizer is explosive and so took a jaunt down to the local DIY store to stock up.

All that it was missing to make this an Andy Warhol-esque terror attempt is a Snoopy Sno-Cone maker in the timing mechanism.

Everything about this attack is one huge, ruddy FAIL- except the intent of the bomber. Someone (or some people) planted this, thinking that they’d be the next McVeigh or Atta. “Honor the threat” is a term I’ve heard before, and it bears repeating. Who knows? Thank God that this time, it was carried out by a technical idiot. Next time, I’m thinking, we will not be as lucky.