Funny Stuff: Dogs' Knowledge and Flying Saucers
There's a couple new posts about abortion mill protests versus nuclear plant protests over at CAEI:
Post 1 -- combox 1
Post 2 -- combox 2
I link to them not because they represent anything very interesting, but because there is some classic comedy in the comboxes.
For example:
Folks:
This type of things happens every day at at least one facility in the Western World. Most incidents do not get reported. Back in the Dark Ages the USAF Security guys in the UK had to deal with a community of middle aged Lesbians who camped year round in RV's on facility (RAF Base) property.
By handling things patiently the facility gets a lot of good press and sympathy from the public. Maybe I missed something here but I am surprised that the protesters got arrested.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
...and...
Thank you for your kind reply wherein you posted in part:
"Some group of nitwits asks permission to protest on the grounds of a freaking TOP SECRET NUCLEAR RESEARCH FACILITY."
I reply: Well, it is not top secret. That is the problem. Every man and his dog knows what is going on in there. These facilities attract protesters, the mentally ill and alien flying saucers like flies. It is the price of doing business. In the Dark Ages we had all sorts of drills to deal with different types of intruders.
Quite frankly the worst thing we the security force could do would be to create "martyrs". We used to have designated trespass zones in which a protester could be seen from the outside (and have his picture taken) trespassing but the protester was not in the way. Everyone was happy.
I was just a grunt doing external security but my bosses would have handled this differently. IMO the protesters won this round.
God bless
Richard W. Comerford
I think the "man and his dog" was as funny as the flying saucer remark. Then I think a Comerford-imposter posted a comment about the sci-fi channel, but it was funny albeit fake. (That wasn't you, Mark A, was it?)
This blog post was brought to you today by the letter W, the letter T and the letter F.
Thanks for reading my blog. For current commentary and what-not, visit the Est Quod Est homepage
Comerford is not mentally stable. He has posted greater nonsense then this over the years. At one point Shea lauded the man as a beacon of reason and insight on the torture issue. Then Comerfored had a major meltdown and Shea had to delete at least twenty posts to cover Comerford's instability.
ReplyDeleteWhe Comerford reappeared I made no comments for weeks until people began to naively praise him for his knowledge and "service." When I pointed out the deception to Mark, he feigned no knowledge of the problems Comerford has and banned me.
At a minimum, Shea demonstrates a disregard for the real service of veterans that Comerford's claims belittle.
WTF pretty much covers my reaction to reading his comments. Maybe I'm just mean or cynical, but people who end every single blog comment they make with "Peace" or "God Bless" always set my BS-detector off.
ReplyDeleteThis from a commentator on Catholic teaching and nuclear deterrence. Perhaps someone can share it with Shea as I am banned.
ReplyDelete"Definitive Catholic teaching on nuclear deterrence is found in Vatican II and subsequent statements by Pope John Paul II. Vatican II taught:
Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population is
a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation. (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, No. 80).
Though they elaborated their concern that a universal public authority be put in place to outlaw war, the Fathers of Vatican II rather grudgingly accepted the strategy of nuclear deterrence. The accumulation of arms, they said, serves “as a deterrent to possible enemy attack.” Thus “peace of a sort” is maintained, though the balance resulting from the arms race threatens to lead to war, not eliminate it. The Catholic position on nuclear deterrence in a message to the U.N. Second Special Session on Disarmament in 1982:
In current conditions, “deterrence” based on balance, certainly not as an end in itself but as a step on the way towards a progressive disarmament, may still be judged morally acceptable. Nonetheless, in order to ensure peace, it is indispensable not to be satisfied with the minimum, which is always susceptible to the real danger of explosion.
In this statement, it is readily seen that deterrence, in order to be acceptable, must lead to disarmament measures. Consequently, nuclear deterrence as a permanent policy is not acceptable."
I know Shea doesn't put much emphasis on prudential judgement, but some may say that disarmament to some degree has taken place and the conditions for complete disarmament are not yet possible.
Thanks for the citations, Phillip. It is much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteI know Shea doesn't put much emphasis on prudential judgement....
And prudence is what this entire discussion is about and what the global situation requires. Phillip, it's good you got banned over thee because frankly it's a waste of anyone's time to argue with the man. He thinks he's got the moral high ground; let him have his fantasy.