May 01, 2013

The Klown Quotient Increases

In one of my posts about the Boston experiment -- that charming exercise by the Terrorist States of America to determine how easily martial law might be imposed and just how much Americans will love brute State violence when it is deployed here at home (and our terrorist leaders now know that most Americans will love it adoringly and without question) -- I spoke briefly about the degree of competence most people wrongly attribute to those in positions of authority and power. In commenting on how profoundly mistaken that typical view is, I wrote: "The Killer Klowns of Death who patrolled Boston and environs last week are exactly as competent as that young, doubtless 'well-intentioned' guy who took your order at lunch -- and got it wrong. Now that should scare the shit out of you."

In my usual fashion, I was far too generous in my assessment of the Killer Klowns in question. (This is because, despite some critics' view that I am too bitter and angry -- an egregious vilification directly targeted at the most tender reaches of my soul -- I am a goddamned Mary Poppins.) That earlier piece devoted several paragraphs to a discussion of the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was outside the perimeter within which the authorities conducted their search, the perimeter they viewed as "solid."

While the authorities initially maintained that Tsarnaev was outside the perimeter, it appears that he was actually inside the perimeter:
Police officials initially said the boat was in the backyard of a house just outside the perimeter of the area where investigators had conducted door-to-door searches all day. But Commissioner Davis, of the Boston police, said this week that the boat had been inside the perimeter.

“It was an area that should have been checked,” he said. “We are not sure how long he was in the boat. There was a pool of blood near where the car was dumped about four or five blocks away from the boat."
Here's more on the same point:
Sue Lund lives about five blocks from where police engaged in a wild shootout April 19 with the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects and about eight doors down from where the one who escaped alive was found 18 hours later

Yet, during the all-day manhunt, she said police never searched her Franklin Street home or garden shed in Watertown, Massachusetts. Ten other neighbors had the same story and said they didn’t know of any homes that had been searched on Franklin, where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was discovered by someone on the street about 30 minutes after an area lockdown was lifted

“A lot of people’s lives were put in danger because someone in charge wasn’t doing his job,” said Lund, 61, as she stood on the wide front porch of her Victorian house. “People could have been killed because after the lockdown ended everyone came streaming out of their houses and suddenly we were in a combat zone."
As should be obvious, this revised version of events reveals even more incompetence than if Tsarnaev had been outside the perimeter. Now we're told that Tsarnaev was within the small area where authorities were convinced Tsarnaev was hiding-- but unaccountably, one entire area of Franklin Street, the area where Tsarnaev actually was, wasn't searched by authorities at all.

What the hell? No one was keeping track of which streets and which houses had been searched and which hadn't? So the authorities conducted a haphazard, hit-and-miss search -- actually, a miss-and-miss search -- and then, when this utterly incompetent search was completed in the view of authorities, "That evening they lifted the order [which wasn't an order but merely a request that people stay indoors], fearing he had escaped."

That is: the authorities believed an armed, exceedingly dangerous suspect was still at large, but that he had escaped from the area where they had searched. In fact, Tsarnaev was still within that area, where he had been all along. But the authorities said: "It's safe for you to go outside now! Enjoy!" Sue Lund is completely correct: "A lot of people's live were put in danger..." We could easily have witnessed "Slaughter on Franklin Street." Oh, thank you, glorious FBI, magnificent police, and superlative everyone else in authority! Thank you for keeping us safe!

As it turned out, Tsarnaev was not armed. So what prompted the police to fire heavily into the boat where he was hiding? Who the hell knows:
Here's another one to add to the list of lingering questions about the manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers: Why did police fire dozens of shots into the boat where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding when he was unarmed and they were trying to take him alive? While police originally said that officers "exchanged gunfire" with Tsarnaev and captured him with several weapons, officials now say that no gun was found in the boat. That explains why no shots were fired at the Watertown man who found the 19-year-old in his backyard, but apparently the gunshot wound to Tsarnaev's throat wasn't self-inflicted — or at least wasn't a last-minute suicide attempt as police closed in on him.
Given the information available to us, I don't particularly fault the authorities for thinking Tsarnaev was probably armed (assuming they did believe that; at this point, I'm not at all confident about any aspect of this); that in itself doesn't seem to be an unsupportable conclusion at the time. But it certainly raises many questions about why the police fired "dozens of shots into the boat," since Tsarnaev obviously couldn't have fired first. Moreover, the police's behavior provides some factual basis for those who argue that the authorities would have preferred that neither of the suspects was taken alive. This sequence of events also provides a stark warning to all of us: if you think the fact you are unarmed might provide you a measure of safety in dealing with the police in some future scenario, think again. And again.

This level of incompetence ought to be profoundly shocking. As far as I'm concerned, anyone in a position of authority during this catastrophe should be fired forthwith; at a minimum, they should never again be in a job where they order people to take any kind of action involving weapons of any sort. (I myself would never let any of these Klowns within 50 feet of a microwave or a DVR ever again.) But, hey, this is the Terrorist States of America in the 21st century: they will all doubtless be promoted.

Two further points should be kept in mind. Although the story of what happened in Boston is now undergoing a series of revisions in a manner typical of the State (remember all the revisions to the bin Laden assassination story, as one example), the story (with revisions) remains the story the State wants to tell. This is what the State wants us to know. The revisions are parceled out, bit by bit, in small increments so as to prevent too many people from noticing what colossal fuckups these people are. And it works! Just imagine what the actual story is -- and the degree of incompetence the full truth would reveal.

Second: this degree of incompetence is typical of the State. The State fucks up everything it touches. We are all familiar with the stories about a SWAT team descending on a house in a drug raid, killing the family dog, and maybe killing a human being or two just for kicks. Then it turns the house they wanted was actually the one next door. You should also recognize that this is the way U.S. military and covert forces conduct operations abroad. Did you think that U.S. armed forces knew precisely what they were doing in Iraq? Or that they demonstrate superlative competence in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Yemen, or Somalia, or many other countries today? (This is an inquiry separate from the question of what the hell they are doing there in the first place -- and of course, they should not be there. My argument is that, even on their own terms, their incompetence is staggering.)

They never demonstrate competence in any measurable degree. They are just as competent overseas as they were in Boston -- which is to say they are not competent at all. But they certainly have many fearsome weapons at their disposal, and they feel no reluctance about using them. (Some will argue that the State does, in fact, get a lot done, both domestically and abroad. To which, my brief answer is: Give the State massive powers, and of course it will get some things done. This kind of defense of the State follows the same pattern as the argument that Obamacare is "good" because it will help some people. As I've discussed, that is an idiotic and utterly invalid argument.)

Equally distressing is the fact that the stupendous incompetence shown in Boston will not cause most people to question their idealization of authority, or to revise their view that those involved in the Boston experiment were "brave heroes." Much remains to be said about why this idealization of authority is so deeply ingrained in almost everyone, and why it is close to impossible to dislodge. I'll get to it soon.