“Frankly it just came down to the fact there was not a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed administrator in place until I was confirmed at the end of June to make a really significant decision like that, that would have impact on a number of people,” Pistole said. “That was a big part of it.”

TSA Director Pistole is basically telling us that the White House was so inept in responding to the threat of underwear bombers, that it took the actual confirmation of a TSA director over 7 months later to then begin the process of implementing the pat downs, which wouldn’t take effect until another 3 months later.

So this Christmas, if you’re flying, as we celebrate the 1 year anniversary foiling of the “Underwear Bomber,” we can also join hands in celebrating the 2 month anniversary of nationwide pat downs.

One of the articles that caught my eye was one about military spending & size when taking wealth and population into account.

It doesn’t seem fair to not factor in the wealth of a country when assessing its military budget.

So, if you take military budgets as a proportion of each country’s GDP, a very different picture emerges.

The US is knocked down into 8th place by such nations as Jordan, Burundi and Georgia. The UK plunges to 29th.

Then check out TED’s website about the session she opened where her name links to this group’s website.

I think my thoughts are pretty much in line with Bill Kristol’s back after Obama’s speech in Prague.

From Bill Kristol’s “A World Without Nukes — Just Like 1939″ April 7, 2009 Article  —-

Of course, we had a world without nuclear weapons not so long ago — say, in 1939. The war that began in that nuclear-free world led to a crash project to develop nuclear weapons. It ended with America’s use of them…

Yet to justify a world without nuclear weapons, what Obama would really have to envision is a world without war, or without threats of war.

As soon as we get rid of nuclear weapons though, we ought to get rid of unicorns.  They have a pointy horn.

Their “Rhetoric vs. Reality” video is excellent.

Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.

Can you imagine a report during Bush’s administration that said to “be on the lookout for left wing extremists that advocate an anti-war opinion and favor impeachment of the President?” And on top of that, states for all to see that there is no evidence of anything bad being planned.

Overall, the report lacks a solid foundation when it comes to details and facts.  Jonah Goldberg seems to capture my feelings in his article at the National Review.

The problem with it is that it makes little effort to document or demonstrate its contention that “extremist” groups are resurgent, that they are right-wing, or that they may be formed from the ranks of “disgruntled military veterans.” Worse, it’s very sloppy about what qualifies someone as “extremist” in the first place. Basically, it’s fancy bureaucratese for: We’re guessing bad people will do bad things because the economy is bad and the president is black. But we have no real evidence.

Instead of spending however much money to patrol with however many warships, use those resources to simply blunt any sort of attack right there on the ship.  If a few determined merchant sailors can disrupt a pirate attack, imagine what a dozen urban trained soldiers with firepower can do.

In the scheme of things, it seems like this pirate thing is like gnats and we’re a human.  Instead of trying to swat at them with our giant hands when they bother us, lets just put some insect repellent on and see how they like it.

Again, Hat tip: Greg Hengler at Townhall.com’s blog