Skip to main content

Fools abound





Is it me, but do the people in this story exceptionally dim:



Despite a recent "shoot-to-kill" warning from the military, anti-war protesters are planning to infiltrate the coastal property of Vandenberg Air Force Base near Santa Barbara soon.



[...]



"The only time a law-enforcement official should shoot is when his life is in danger," [Elden "Bud"] Boothe said. "We are in the peace movement. We are not going to endanger anyone. . . . I suppose they could shoot you, but they would be doing it illegally. But that doesn't help you if you're dead."



Vandenberg security officials recently warned protesters about its policy of using "deadly force" to take out trespassers who may endanger equipment or personnel. The base, which does not have a fence around it, covers 99,000 acres along the California coast near Santa Barbara.



Lt. Kelly Gabel, a spokeswoman for the base, said the deadly force policy is standard for all U.S. military bases, but the warning for Vandenberg protesters was made after officials heard about possible "backcountry incursions."



Previous Vandenberg trespassers have been corralled and arrested in an almost scripted manner. But in the post-Sept. 11 world, Gabel said, someone walking cross country toward a military base with a backpack "takes on new meaning."



"A backpack could be a bomb or a chemical agent," Gabel said. "We simply do not know what the intentions are when someone breaks into our property. Our security forces will take the minimum force necessary, including up to deadly force, to protect the property and personnel here."



Gabel said the security forces are "not trigger happy" but warned that "there is a potential for danger here."
It's a military base, "Bud"! (And given that he's a WW2 vet, he should know what that means.) It's not "law enforcement," it's "base security," and you're violating it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Wow, it’s been over a year. What a way to get back to this blog because… Are the films of the MCU getting worse? It’s a serious question because the latest that I’ve seen, Thor: Love and Thunder and Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania , are strong arguments that the answer is “yes.” Summary: Ant-Man & Ant-Family get sucked into the quantum realm, where skullduggery is afoot. A load of crap ensues. I’m an Ant-Man fan. I loved the first film despite its flaws. It would have been wonderful to see what Edgar Wright may have wrought. It was clear, though, that replacement director Peyton Reed kept some of Wright’s ideas alive. The result was one of the MCU’s most intimate films, a straight-forward tale of a Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) desperate to remain in his daughter’s life while being “gifted” the life of a superhero. Ant-Man and the Wasp sorta stayed that course, but naturally, because this is the modern MCU, we had to have a female superhero take over, the titular Wasp (Hope van Dyne,
Post a Comment
Read more

John Wick: Chapter 4

No sense in playing coy, this is a great film. I’ve seen it twice and while I don’t quite love it in the way I love the first, original John Wick , it’s my #2. It’s a little overlong, has some wasted space and time, has one absolutely pointless and useless character, and generally ignores the realities of firefights, falling, getting shot, hit, etc. All that notwithstanding, it’s a great action flick, has a genuine emotional core, and is well worth your time if you’re into that sort of thing. Like I am. Summary: John Wick (Keanu Reeves), last seen saying he was fed up with the High Table, goes to war to obtain his freedom. Some of the most incredible action scenes ever filmed ensue, culminating in a very satisfactory finale and a devastating post-credit scene. The first Wick film was a surprise hit. It was a simple, straight-forward tale of vengeance told in a simple, straight-forward manner. Where it stood out was its devotion to human stunt work, on exploiting long camera shots that
Post a Comment
Read more

Rogan

The entire Joe Rogan controversy is an example of the kids being left in charge and the adults refusing to teach them any better. I’m not a regular consumer of podcasts. There are a couple I listen to from time to time, but nothing on a regular basis. While I’ve caught a few minutes of the Joe Rogan Experience on YouTube, I’ve never listened to his podcast. One of the primary reasons for that is that you have to subscribe to Spotify to do so, and I prefer Qobuz, Tidal, or even Amazon Music. Rogan is behind Spotify’s paywall and that’s that. But the nature of the fight is about more than who does or does not listen to Rogan. This fight goes to the very nature of the First Amendment and the fundamental concept of the United States. And yes, I understand that cuts both ways. What’s his name and Joni Mitchell are free to yank their creations from Spotify, no ifs, ands, or buts. I’m not denying their right, I’m questioning their reasons. Rogan talks to people. He does so largely unfiltered.
Post a Comment
Read more