Press "Enter" to skip to content

Your gummint at work

  • Somebody launched a missile. From the sea off California. Who? Who dunnit? Ain’t nobody sayin’. However, “It could be a test-firing of an intercontinental ballistic missile from a submarine … to demonstrate, mainly to Asia, that we can do that.” Uh huh. And they say us little gun owners are obsessed with making “phallic” statements. “Hey, China baby, take a look at my … er, projectile.” *
  • The IRS re-affirms Radley Balko’s libertarianism.
  • And Politico — not known for its right-wing slant — excoriates Obama in stronger-than-ever terms. Appears that this is a White House insider attempt to wake the boss up. A pretty desperate attempt. If the man didn’t get A Clue after the election of Scott Brown … then still remained Clueless after last week’s national Dem debacle …

* UPDATE: Per DrillSgtK in the comments section, The “missile” might not have been a missile at all.

12 Comments

  1. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal November 9, 2010 10:01 am

    My gummint is me, and I didn’t launch anything. 😉 In fact, some would say I don’t work at all.

  2. Scott
    Scott November 9, 2010 10:27 am

    It’s not a gummint missile-it’s a test of the WalMart Suborbital Strike Force..
    Radley Barko’s IRS problems. Good luck, and lots of patience. They border on the impossible to deal with-they’ve had my middle initial wrong for decades(they have it as two letters)-once ever half-dozen years or so, I’ll call and tell’em. So far, it’s still wrong. It’s like the Three Stooges meet the Vogons.To be honest, I think the Three Stooges(and the Vogons) could do a better job.

  3. Claire
    Claire November 9, 2010 7:17 pm

    Thanks, DrillSgtK! I added your link to the body of the entry. Several sources seem to be leaning toward the “missile” being a jet. Good clarification.

    Kinda ruined by smar-ass remark, though, didn’t it? But it’s good to know. I was surprised (in the original linked article) to learn that during the Cold War, the U.S. apparently did fire missiles “just to show the Soviets that we could.”

  4. naturegirl
    naturegirl November 10, 2010 12:54 am

    ….darn, my theory on it being a nerd who built a missile to see if it would launch, is now crushed…..anything is possible when it’s near L.A….

  5. DrillSgtK
    DrillSgtK November 10, 2010 4:02 pm

    From CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/10/california.contrails/index.html?iref=allsearch

    Best part: “Why the government is so badly organized that they can’t get somebody out there to explain it and make this story go away … I think that’s the real story,” Pike added. “I mean, it’s insane that with all the money we are spending, all these technically competent people, that they can’t get somebody out there to explain what is incredibly obvious.”

  6. Claire
    Claire November 10, 2010 5:41 pm

    “… explain what is incredibly obvious …”

    Yep. Another good point. But I’ve been thinking about this. It could turn into one of those “Don’t believe anything until it’s been officially denied” situations. If a government spokesthing comes right out and says, “It’s a jet contrail,” how many people will take that as sure evidence that it really was a missile, after all?

  7. clark
    clark November 11, 2010 12:24 am

    Did you read the comments on that page?
    There were some pretty convincing well detailed arguments it wasn’t contrails.
    If it’s an aircraft, where are the lights, and the wings?

  8. DrillSgtK
    DrillSgtK November 11, 2010 10:11 am

    Where are the lights? washed out by the sun. It is the most plausible explanation i’ve seen if the military says it was not something they did.

    The expert the missile side pulled out, a former assistant secretary, sounds a lot like an appeal to authority, other than having seen a few missiles fired, how does he know it was a missile? And to claim that it was to show Asian nations that we could launch an ICBM? Does anyone think that any Asian nation did not know we could do that?

    A few of the comments on the CNN site do make plausible rebuttals, but none come close to the theory explained on the Watts up with that dot com.

    If someone comes up with something at that level countering the Watts argument, I could back that too. Either way, the end result is that nothing happened that had any effect on us other than some extra media news. So i’ll go back to work on getting my garden ready for winter.

  9. lornae
    lornae November 12, 2010 9:33 am

    Bit to do about nothing!

  10. lornae
    lornae November 12, 2010 9:34 am

    oops! big to do about nothing

  11. Kent McManigal
    Kent McManigal November 15, 2010 10:19 am

    I thought I had read that the military finally admitted it was doing missile tests there at that time. But now I don’t remember where I read that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *