We own the air with supersonic attack aircraft, remotely-piloted vehicles, and satellite-guided munitions. We restrict air support to our troops in combat with the enemy.

We own the night with night vision goggles, GPS navigation, and command and control that can tell where every allied soldier is. We restrict night raids against the enemy.

Among the public, night raids by international troops raise anger because of cultural sensitivities, said Hamid Mohammad, head of the local chapter of a worldwide student leadership organization.

“If a foreign soldier goes into an Afghan house and if they even search boxes of the women’s clothes, the men get very angry,” he told McChrystal. “This is the thing that creates problems for international forces and destroys the perception of (NATO) among the local people.”

Okay, make sure we don’t search boxes containing women’s clothing. And make sure to advertise the fact that we won’t search boxes containing women’s clothing.

Captain America #602 shows a political rally with a sign reading “Tea Bag The Libs Before They Tea Bag You.”

This whole tea bag thing is pretty funny. It’s almost like they are intentionally misunderstanding.

Turbo Tax:
Choose Easy
But look very closely before doing so. They may be trying to trick you.

Murdoc has used Turbo Tax Online for many years now, and he’s always been happy with the service. Until last night.

While going through a few things, I saw that I had been charged for their ‘Ask a Tax Expert’ offer, even though I had not wanted it. After wading through hundreds of complaints on their forum, I just sent a message in directly stating that I had not wanted to sign up and that it looked like users were unable to get out of it without starting completely over with a new account. As I said, I’ve used the service for many years and don’t really want to ditch all that and start a new account.

Here is their reply about the issue:

TurboTax Online – “No Thanks” button is unavailable on the Ask a Tax Expert offer, when starting a new return

The “No Thanks” button is actually gray in color as it was designed, but this is still a fully functioning button that can be clicked.

If you had already selected “Sign Up Now, Pay when you file” the fee will not be able to be removed from your account unless you clear the return and start over.

You can pay this fee when you file, and as long as you don’t use the service, you can request a refund for the $14.95 charge. (This way you wouldn’t need to clear the return and start over.)

You can use the ‘Contact Us’ page to request a refund.

Read that first paragraph again:

The “No Thanks” button is actually gray in color as it was designed, but this is still a fully functioning button that can be clicked.

It is gray in color as it was designed. But if you manage to click on it it will work.

I emailed them back:

It’s refreshing to see a company flat out admit that they are trying to rip you off. Thanks for clearing up that you designed it badly on purpose but that it works just fine even though it’s intentionally hard to understand.

Will the buttons on the refund request page be grayed out on purpose, too? Or will we be able to understand the process without you going out of your way to make it hard to get our money back after you tricked us out of it in the first place?

Now, I’m sure a lot of people have managed to avoid signing up for the service. And I admit that my familiarity with the system probably contributed to the fact that totally missed the fact that I was opting in to something that I would never ever never ever sign up for on purpose.

But they must have known that no one would ever sign up, because they had to try to trick people into doing so. And, though I haven’t paid them any money, they’re playing the whole “get a refund afterwards” game like their system somehow is preventing them from allowing people who have not paid and have not used it from switching it off.

For probably ten years or more I’ve recommended Turbo Tax to friends and family. But this $15 “error” has really shaken my faith. Obviously, I’m a little irritated right now. Jerks.

Two women were arrested and charged with civil disobedience after they used their bodies to try to block Stryker vehicles outside Fort Lewis in August 2008. The vehicles were returning from Iraq through the Port of Tacoma and were on their way to be repaired at Fort Lewis.

The two women, Patricia Imani and Brianna Herrera, admit that they lay in the offramp from Interstate 5 in an effort to block the Strykers.

Both women said they should be found not guilty because they had to protest and although it was illegal, it prevented a greater harm.

“We have an obligation to resist, not just a right to resist. That is what these protests have been about since we started to do the human blockades against the Strykers,” Imani said.

I’ve pointed out this jackassery a number of times over the years, including another time when the idiots were trying to prevent Strykers from returning from Iraq.

“People have been against this war for over eight years and the fact that people came out to resist these wars and take responsibility and stop the crimes of their government, those are the people who should be supported,” Herrera said.

Even if you try to translate that quote into a coherent and complete sentence, you should be left asking: Eight years?

Earth to moron: We invaded Iraq in 2003 and it’s now 2010.

Here’s her buddy:

“I think this is exciting and this enables us to show that this act of civil resistance. Breaking a lesser law is very important to uphold higher laws,” Imani said.

Murdoc wonders what these people have against complete sentences and rational statements.

It’s HOPE – Obama Musical Story:

According to Speigel:

The plot charts Obama’s political career and simultanously follows a group of residents in an apartment-sharing community, showing how they all become infected by Obama’s message of change.

You. Can. Not. Make. This. Up.

Organizers say they’re working on putting together a US tour.

Murdoc says “please, please, please!”

An Illinois state panel voted today in favor of letting Gov. Pat Quinn close a little-used prison in northwestern Illinois so the Obama administration can use it to hold terrorism suspects now held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Meanwhile, three federal prisoners escaped a downstate federal facility in Illinois today.

More at Founding Bloggers.

If Murdoc were in charge, he’d suggest some sort of island prison for terrorists. If only one were available.

On Friday, December 25, following the incident in which a Nigerian man attempted to blow up a US-bound flight, the TSA issued an urgent, non-classified security directive to thousands of contacts around the world—airlines, airports, and so on. On Saturday, December 26, airlines and airports around the world further circulated that emailed document and began implementing the procedures described. On Sunday December 27, two bloggers published the content of the TSA directive online (some portions had already been showing up on airline websites). And on Tuesday, December 29, Special Agents from the TSA’s Office of Inspection showed up at the homes of bloggers Steven Frischling and Christopher Elliott, and interrogated each on where they obtained the document. Both bloggers received civil subpoenas.

As far as I can tell, these guys didn’t do anything wrong, either legally wrong or ethically wrong. Nothing at all. Maybe I’m missing something, so point it out for me if I am.

Meanwhile, the day before the first bomb attack I posted on GunPundit that I didn’t think a press release about new Federal Air Marshal guns was a big deal, but that other “improperly redacted” information posted by the TSA itself, including information about security scanner weaknesses and the size of wire that was undetectable, WAS a big deal.

Why no heavy-handed response to their own leaks but they jump all over a couple of bloggers who posted already-public information?

Could it be because they’re basically idiots? Just a thought.

Also, they declared that they’ve had a “very good year.”

Finally, White House takes four days to respond to terror attack, but responds to Cheney criticism in matter of hours?

Actually, it’s hard to tell whether these are cases of going after “easy targets” instead of hard ones, or if they’ve just got a different set of enemies than they should. Probably a combination of the two.

One would think that responding to a terror attack with less moral clarity and forcefulness than that displayed after the Fort Hood attack would have taken some doing. But the Obami have managed to pull it off. Between Janet Napolitano and the president, they’ve managed to convey confusion, denial, and willful indifference to the nature of our enemies.

and

I would think that Democrats must be awfully nervous. They’ve spent years and years trying to live down the reputation as being ”weak on defense” and then along comes a president who seems at best a reluctant commander in chief and at worst devoted to returning to a pre-9/11 mentality – which, after all, left us vulnerable on 9/11 in the first place.

Actually, they seem intent on a pre-9/11 mentality regarding our enemies but a post-9/11 mentality when it comes to your average American citizen.

This is from the AP, not The Onion:

Big first year leaves Obama tired
After a sleepless, overnight flight to Oslo to accept the Nobel Peace Prize earlier this month, President Barack Obama made a not altogether surprising admission. He was tired.

Who could blame him?

It goes on to talk about how hard the decisions about the recession and the auto workers union bailout and the health care bill.

Amid golf, tennis, gym workouts and dinner, Obama has been called on to monitor the airliner attack in Detroit last Friday and what appeared to be another attack on Sunday — that incident turned out to be a false alarm. On Monday, Obama worked out in the morning and played tennis before making his first public remarks on airline security, then hit the golf course.

So much for putting aside the stress of work.

Poor guy. They also seem to laud Obama for getting by on six hours of sleep or less when Bush made getting eight hours a priority. (Note that they don’t say Bush stopped working to make sure he got eight hours, they just hope you think it.)

The article reads like satire.

Poor guy got pulled away from a golf game because a terrorist attack failed. And then again, a couple of days later.

Bush only had to deal with terrorist attacks one day. No wonder he could make eight hours of sleep a priority.

Oh, yeah. Fire Janet Napolitano. The White House could at least try to look like they care. But an administration that seems to put appearance over substance can’t even be bothered to keep up appearances on the war.

I’ll start worrying more about Americans without jobs or health care when I’m confident I can worry less about Americans getting killed in the war. The White House apparently sees it the other way around.

Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle…

The Vales, specialists in sustainable living at Victoria University of Wellington, analysed popular brands of pet food and calculated that a medium-sized dog eats around 164 kilos (360 pounds) of meat and 95 kilos of cereal a year.

Combine the land required to generate its food and a “medium” sized dog has an annual footprint of 0.84 hectares (2.07 acres) — around twice the 0.41 hectares required by a 4×4 driving 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) a year, including energy to build the car.

Now, Murdoc isn’t necessarily questioning the data. Murdoc is questioning the conclusion.

If family a pet has a larger carbon footprints than a gas-guzzling SUV, doesn’t it mean that gas-guzzling SUVs aren’t nearly as bad as they’re made out to be?

Next time you hear about all the bad things SUVs do, think about a medium-sized dog and remember that Fido is worse. Which means the SUV ain’t quite as bad as advertised.