it was too stupid a joke—until fox called it news

I swear upon a stack of hyperlinks. . . . Last weekend, when it became known that five of the seven suspects in the failed car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow were employed by British hospitals, I was all set to write a sarcastic post about how national healthcare causes terrorism. . .

. . . but I decided it was just too stupid to waste your time.

Of course, I don’t have to fill a 24-hour news cycle with rightist propaganda, so I had the luxury of making that judgment call. It seems the folks at Fox News aren’t as fortunate.

Today [Thursday] on Fox News’s Your World With Neil Cavuto, National Review Online columnist Jerry Bowyer attacked Michael Moore’s movie SiCKO and its positive portrayal of the health care in countries such as Britain and France. He argued that national health care systems are breeding grounds for terrorists because they are “bureaucratic.” “I think the terrorists have shown over and over again…they’re very good at gaming the system with bureaucracies,” said Bowyer.

Perhaps the most hysterical point of all is that there is actually a coordinated PR blitz to denigrate SiCKO. . . which is a popular Hollywood movie! So much money; so few brains.

My other thought upon reading Bowyer’s comments: If bureaucracies are breeding grounds for terrorists, perhaps we should turn a wary eye toward the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. . . or maybe we should put private health insurers on the terrorist watch list:

Only 4% of Medicare and Medicaid budgets go to administration compared to 20% and more for private insurance. According to the World Health Organization, private insurers higher costs are "mainly due to the extensive bureaucracy required to assess risk, rate premiums, design benefit packages and review, pay or refuse claims."

[emphasis so added]

on lameness

Unlike with other papers in the region, the so-called JFK “terrorist plot” did not make the front page of the New York Times. In fact, it didn’t even make the first section—the Times decided to run it on the front of its Metro section (hey, that’s the front of something, ain’t it?). New York Times national editor Suzanne Daley, answering questions this week over at nytimes.com, took some heat from a hopped up public, no doubt jonesing during their commuter time for a little more “all hysteria, all fear, all the time” tabloid or tabloid television coverage.

In artfully defending the editorial decision made by the Times, Daley as convincingly denigrates the prosecutorial (and you can’t spell “prosecutorial” without “PR”) decision made by the government:

Here's the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since 9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.

In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about.

And yes, I have mixed feelings about the introduction of “lameness” as used above into the officially sanctioned lingua franca of the Gray Lady, but when it is used to describe this “plot”—and so, by association, this episode in the Bush Administration’s “war on terror”—how can I do anything but heartily approve?

look ma—I’m a terrorist!

This is apparently pretty much all it takes.

According to Justice, all you need is Google and a dream. . . and an idiot or two to dream it.

as suspected. . .

The case against the suspects is suspect:

[T]he criminal complaint that details the plot describes an effort that was alternately ambitious and clumsy, with the men at turns declaring themselves eager to sacrifice their lives in the name of Allah and worrying about getting arrested or deported for buying weapons or possessing a map of a military base.

And lookie here: The US Attorney that is bringing this case against the Fort Dix Six (it does have such a nice ring) is none other than Chris Christie, the former Bush “pioneer” who issued a string of squirrelly subpoenas last year against Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ). In what is now an all too familiar story, Christie used his position to attempt to exert influence on an election. Christie’s investigation seemed at the time to dovetail very conveniently with the themes raised by the campaign of Republican challenger Tom Kean, Jr. With Kean’s loss last November, the always-silly investigation of Menendez seems to have taken a backseat to the GWOT ™.

I would also like to point out something else: Assuming there is something to this “terror plot” (a big assumption, I know), let us all take note of how this “plot” was uncovered.

The authorities first caught up with the men in January 2006, when personnel at a video store alerted the authorities after the suspects requested that he transfer onto a DVD a videotape of the group shouting about jihad as they fired assault weapons at a range in the Pocono Mountains.

Got that? A video store employee dropped a dime on these guys. That was followed up with good, old-fashioned human surveillance and the recruiting of an informant. There were no high-tech, extralegal, NSA electronic intercepts, no FISA warrants, no National Security Letters—there were absolutely none of the newfangled constitution trampling tools or Patriot Act hooey that the Bush Administration claims it absolutely must have to win this new “war.” None of that was needed here. . . it has yet to be shown how any of it is needed anywhere.

Of course, all of that secret surveillance could come in handy when doing opposition research for the next election cycle. . . and we’ve got about seven-dozen United States Attorneys in position to run with the “evidence.”

breaking: more security theater?

Remains to be seen, but I bet this becomes more a story for laughs or ridicule than a cause for concern (concern about a domestic terror plot, that is—concern about abridged civil liberties? That’s always a concern):

MOUNT LAUREL, N.J. (AP) -- Six men from the former Yugoslavia were arrested on charges they plotted to attack the Fort Dix Army base and ''kill as many soldiers as possible,'' federal authorities said Tuesday.

The suspects were described as ''Islamic radicals,'' said U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Greg Reinert.

. . . .

Authorities believe the men trained in the Poconos for the attack and also conducted surveillance at other area military institutions, including Fort Monmouth, the official said. The official said that the men had lived in the United States for some time.

The six were arrested trying to buy automatic weapons in a sale set-up by law enforcement authorities, the official said.

State Police Capt. Al Della Fave said Tuesday that the investigation had been in the works for about a year. The arrests were first reported by WNBC-TV in New York.

Investigations for “about a year”? “Planning stages”? Wonder what this “breaking news” is supposed to distract us from. . . .

Perhaps the degradation of real homeland security:

Kansas is currently missing approximately 60 percent of its National Guard equipment because of the war in Iraq, hampering its ability to respond to the recent tornadoes. Gov. Kathleen Sebelius (D) said that she has “written the Pentagon twice and spoke about the issue at great length with Bush in January 2006.” “He assured me that he had additional equipment in his budget a year ago. … Meanwhile, it doesn’t get any better. I’m at a loss,”

And, speaking of phony homeland security, today (at 5pm) is the deadline for comments on the “real ID” law, an incredible infringement on our rights, masquerading as a security provision. You can use this link to send an e-mail asking for the law’s repeal. Please take a moment to let Skeletor know how you feel.