"The well-coordinated series of terror attacks on Paris left more than 129 people dead..."

That's from a CBS News article, "ISIS claims 'blessed invasion' of Paris." Obviously, "blessed invasion" is inflated propaganda from ISIS, but I want to question the characterizations we're seeing from our own politicians and journalists. I keep seeing expressions of respect for the sophistication of the Paris attacks, and I want to question it, because there is a temptation to say, when attacked, that the enemy must be very smart and strong and determined.

But was it really so difficult to send a bunch of men out all on the same day to hit soft targets — 4 restaurants, a concert hall, and a stadium? There are so many restaurants, completely unguarded and accessible, predictably full of people. Men with guns/explosives hit 4 restaurants in one city, not 100, not 1000.

The concert venue was another soft target, and the scene was chaotic. Many escaped. If the building were sealed up before anyone knew they were under attack, it would have been sophisticated, or if the entire building were demolished, killing everyone. But it was only men with guns rushing in, causing what damage they could, with (apparently) absolutely no plan for their own escape.

The stadium was the big target. The president, François Hollande, was in attendance. The attackers got nowhere near him. In fact, the attackers apparently scuttled whatever big plan they might have had, blowing themselves up at the gates. The huge crowd didn't even know there was an attack. Hollande slipped out and the crowd watched the game to the end.

What's scary isn't that the attacks are sophisticated, but how easy it is to hit a bunch of soft targets in one city, and how big a deal it is even when it's sloppily done and mostly unsuccessful. That's how it looks to me.

"Pedestrian Fast Lanes. Why the Heck Not?"

Because it wouldn't work, but still...

... a New Yorker’s heart leaps at the possibilities. Imagine using these to give locals a way around and through Times Square. You could bypass the tourist sidewalk hoggers, the smartphone starers, the matinee meanderers, the leafletters and hawkers, the desnudas with their oglers, the Elmos and Minions and all the other human and humanoid boulders that make the crossings choppy and all but impassable at the Crossroads of the World.

Hey, "New Yorker." The New York fast lane is stay the fuck out of Times Square. And what's up with "heart leaps"?! If you have a heart that leaps, don't try to palm yourself off as a New Yorker.

And I'm speaking as someone who lived in NYC for more than 10 years and who has been literally punched for stopping to look at a map on Park Avenue.

Donald Trump activates the anti-Seventh-Day-Adventist prejudice against Ben Carson.

Here's how he slipped in the dagger:

I love Iowa. And, look, I don't have to say it, I'm Presbyterian. Can you believe it? Nobody believes I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. Boy, that's down the middle of the road folks, in all fairness. I mean, Seventh-day Adventist, I don't know about. I just don't know about.

Religious prejudice is wrong... we all, most of us, know that, don't we? Or do we? We know it some or most of the time, except when we need to set it aside, such as when we choose a President, and it's got to be somebody we can trust with the nuclear button and everything else. It can't be a weirdo. We'll leave you alone as you pursue you metaphysical whimsy and even treat you with care and kindness. But for a President? Trump knows what the "folks" need: right down the middle of the road.

"I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian. I'm Presbyterian." 4 times he had to say it. Because "Nobody believes I'm Presbyterian."

Nobody believes.

The federal government just stopped serving pig products in federal prison — no more pork, ham, or bacon for 206,000 inmates.

You might instinctively cry: Must all go without because some have a religious scruple against eating pork?!

But the government says it's because a survey shows the prisoners don't like pork.

“Why keep pushing food that people don’t want to eat?” asked Edmond Ross, a spokesman for the prison bureau. “Pork has been the lowest-rated food by inmates for several years"...

“I find it hard to believe that a survey would have found a majority of any population saying, ‘No thanks, I don’t want any bacon,'” said Dave Warner, a spokesman for the Washington-based trade association, which represents the nation’s hog farmers.... 

Warner said pork is healthy and economical.... "Not to throw beef under the bus, but we cost a lot less than beef.”

Why don't they just admit they're doing it to accommodate religion and it's easier to have one rule that works for everyone than to bother with the complexity of alternative meals for the minority who must avoid pig products?
Click for more »