Still unasked
Our alleged "news" "media" are mentioning this morning that no photos will be available from the buzzing of New York by the substitute Air Force One; and that the admin says it won't replace the original photos anyway.

This adds yet another obvious problem to the obvious problems I listed before.

1. Why in the hell would the gov't want this picture? How in the hell would a 9/11-style picture contribute to your media publicity packet? What would the caption be? "Lookie here! We're still vulnerable! You can get away with another 9/11 easily!"

2. If it was just a photo-op, why was the fighter jet apparently trying to intercept the airliner? From what I've seen, the fighter looked fairly serious. I can't imagine the Air Force risking its aircraft and pilots on a just-for-fun gag shot.

And now 3. Since the original photos were OK, since the admin itself says that photos weren't needed, doesn't that stir your curiosity just a tiny microsmidgen? Doesn't that seem to disagree just the eeeeeentsiest little bit with the whole idea that photographs were the purpose of the event?

A normal sane human would realize by now that the event was not a fucking photo-op in the first fucking place, and would then ask what the whole fucking thing was really about.

Oh, pardon me, I ended a sentence with a preposition, which makes the sentence unreadable by conservatives. Translating it into conservatese for convenience: A normal sane human would realize by now that the event was not a fucking photo-op in the first fucking place, and would then ask really about what the whole fucking thing was.


= = = = =

And another important question remains unasked and unanswered. Exactly what happened in September that supposedly placed the entire world economy in danger? We have a partial and unverified answer by Rep Kanjorski: Someone was withdrawing huge sums from money market funds, essentially a classic "run on the banks" in that sector. This sounds plausible but we still don't know if it's true, or if it was the major cause for the panic; and if true, we still don't know who was making the withdrawals. Speculators? Foreign governments? Terrorists? Teenage hackers?

This is the economic equivalent of fighting WW2 without ever asking "Oh, by the way, who were those pilots who attacked Pearl Harbor?" ... Well no, it's worse than that. It's more like fighting WW2 without even asking how most of our Navy's ships mysteriously disappeared below the surface of the sea while docked in Hawaii. We'd just accept the government's claim that the mysterious disappearance required us to make war against Japan.

Now we are asked to sacrifice the future of the country to protect against a completely unnamed and unspecified alleged threat.
  ¶ 6:18 AM