Shouldn't the FBI End This On Easter?

 

From analyzing one of the codes (thanks!), I got, wouldn't the best day to do this be Easter?  That way, if some of the people who get arrested begged their friends to please go out and kill someone or otherwise retaliate for them being arrested, the person wouldn't really feel like doing it.  "You're asking me to go murder someone or leak classified information...on *Easter*??!!"  That would be a better day than even July 4.  There are plenty of "fireworks" on July 4, and Independence Day is a holiday that plenty of people would consider to be a violent, patriotic holiday in some respects.  So someone could appeal to someone else's patriotism to do it on that day.


It sounds like there was a dispute within the FBI.  Someone proposed Easter, at least, and the fact that the day is closer to July 30--probably anyway--suggests that a cynic won the debate (I've seen it happen in government contractors, trust me) and the cheesy line, "Well, you asked me to go kill someone...but I wasn't *Bourne yesterday*!", doesn't have the same effect.  A lot of people don't even know when the 5th Jason Bourne movie came out.  Maybe it's intending to send a paternalistic signal from the government about playing around at "being Jason Bourne," because a lot of people think they're in Treadstone now or something, I don't know.


I think my conclusion is correct...even if a "special day" that happens really late is needed, it should be Easter--April 5--because the majority of Americans are Christian, and would be opposed to killing or greatly hurting other people on Easter Sunday in greater numbers.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more