|
October 21, 2010
If you don't like it, vote!
A post by Clayton Cramer confirms my longterm suspicion that we are being ruled by near-total idiots. (I said "near total" only because they are intelligent enough to implement this zero-tolerance-based nonsense.) A friend works for TSA, and tells me that under certain conditions, TSA screeners will be taking actions that ordinarily involve dinner and a movie first--including patdowns to the genital area for explosive devices hidden there. He is not thrilled at this prospect--actually, he is absolutely horrified.All good questions, and I have been speculating about this stuff for some time. When Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried to blow himself up here in the air over the Detroit area, I asked a similar question: If we're going to talk about giving up some rights for the safety of everybody, doesn't it seem logical that the fewer people who have to give up rights, the better?I might as well ask this again too: What am I missing here?Whose country is this, anyway? A country that kowtows to the sensitivities of people who are sympathetic to suicide bombers? The worst aspect of this, is that if you are in any position of responsibility, you're not allowed to say what I just said. As a perfect example, Juan Williams was fired by NPR today simply for speaking his mind. A tyrannical but vocal minority of people who are sympathetic to suicide bombers demanded and got his head. It's an outrage, and NPR's web traffic is overwhelmed by angry commenters. We are being tyrannized. It is an outrage. Fortunately, there is still time to express that outrage at the polls. UPDATE: Thank you, Glenn Reynolds for linking this post and a warm welcome to all. As Sarah's comments below caused me to write a new post about free speech, I thought I should mention it here. Also, I see that Glenn has purchased Fangs for the Mammaries, which includes Sarah's writing. (I'm very proud to be able to call Sarah a co-blogger.) I just ordered a copy, and with Halloween approaching, it's a good time for anyone to buy Fangs! posted by Eric on 10.21.10 at 07:48 PM
Comments
Unfortunately that kind of bully -- NPR, Wiscon -- can't be voted out. They can, however, be starved for money. Sarah · October 21, 2010 10:11 PM I wonder sometimes if people who aren't committed leftists will wake up and realize that there is another side to the debate. Take the 04 election. After the election, when Bush won and no draft was instituted, what did they think to themselves? Were they embarassed? Angry at being misled? When so much of your self-worth is tied up in your political views, can you admit even (especially?) to yourself that you were wrong? And that's why I think this is really an end of civilization. When a society is rich enough, many people can survive even as they ignore reality. It's a recipe for disaster and it's been brewing hard for nearly 40 years. Rome didn't fall in a day. Veeshir · October 22, 2010 10:43 AM And Elizabeth Moon was beating the anti-Bush drum back prior to the 2004 election, posting screeds on her website claiming Bush's military service -- flying one one the most dangerous supersonic jets ever fielded by the USAF (or USANG) was "not legitimate." Never apologized for it, either. So somehow I find it difficult to really feel much pity for what happened to her at Wiscon. Once an eagle and all that. Mark L · October 22, 2010 10:57 AM Actually NPR uses Muslims as a shield to fire Juan Williams, the scapegoat. His real offense was "disrepectful of Mrs. Dear Leader". "NPR's chief executive, Vivian Schiller, said "... He famously said last year something about Michelle Obama and Stokely Carmichael. [The quote on Fox News early last year: 'Michelle Obama, you know, she's got this Stokely Carmichael in a designer dress thing going' and that she'll be an 'albatross' for President Obama.]." Seems someone is very touchy when things hit too close to home, no? Bush remains BusHitler, Californians are likely to elect the husband of a "whoremonger", but a black man is flogged (metaphorically, of course) for criticizing the wife of his thin skinned mass'ar. ic · October 22, 2010 11:11 AM M. Simon · October 22, 2010 11:24 AM As for voting: done! Brett · October 22, 2010 12:53 PM Well, Wiscon is basically, as far as I can tell, a lesbian-oriented SF/F con, and it's getting more attention than it deserves. I was considering buying more of here books until I read a bit more, then I decided, "meh. it's a dustup in the Lefty Corral. Who cares." Here is a report from the Wiscon a couple of years ago. I don't know if it's terribly funny or horribly sad or what, but it's certainly different. It's also not for the squeamish. Be forewarned. http://shii.org/knows/WisCon%2C_the_Feminist_Sci-Fi_Convention:_A_journey_of_self-hate jorgxmckie · October 22, 2010 01:01 PM Quote: In 20 years, and with the help of a whole lot of historical legwork and the successor of Alan Gura, it'll be discovered that the 4th amendment actually means that you need a warrant, and that one won't be issued unless its reasonable to do so. Then, finally, we'll be able to tell these jackasses to either get a warrant, or get out of our way. gwa.45 · October 22, 2010 01:43 PM I can attest to the full pat down of the genital area. Not only is it done, it is done in public. I was returning from Heathrow after a cruise to England. When we got to Newark, we had to clear customs and leave the secure area. Because I have a pacemaker, I was treated to this full genital search. It makes me exceedingly angry that if I kicked the guy when he was playing with me, I would go to jail. That type of pat down did not occur in England or on the cruise ship. Napolitano needs to be forced to fly commercial and undergo a pat down each time. I suspect things would change, then. Now an infrequent flyer · October 22, 2010 02:56 PM Veeshir Circa 2006, crossing the nearby college campus, I passed a huddle of the obligatory superannuated anti-war protestors. Their signs, ranging from "No blood for oil" to "US out of North America" made me realize exactly that "We are in a society wealthy and tolerant enough that some people are COMPLETELY estranged from reality and I doubt even catastrophe will bring them back. Sarah · October 22, 2010 03:18 PM Mark L I get in knock out drag out fights with E. Moon everytime we are on the same panel or in the same email list or, heck, the same room. She got in a knock out drag out fight on a panel with my -- then -- sixteen year old son and lost (though it might not have been obvious to her.) THAT was part of the reason I found this newsworthy. a) That she would say this at all. Most -- a friend of mine calls them "interchangeable feminists" of SF/F -- women of the left in my field (and that's almost all of them) never THINK anything outside the group, much less say it. (That's actually what I find most trying about their work. I'll take offensive over boring any day) b) the fury in going after her when they KNOW she's one of them, and a fairly active, vocal, prominent one of them. I've always been aware of the dangers of voicing my opinions (90% of which are garanteed to offend all sides and dogma. But they're hard-fought-for and I like them) in situations where it can affect my career, but this fury shocked even me. I expected them at worst, to pretend she never said it, or bring in whichever behind the scenes group discipline they try to enforce. (How would I know. They never tried it on me. Partly because I'm considered beyond the pale, I think. Something for which, trust me, I've paid.) And that brings me to why I'm speaking at all now... I could be wrong but my perception is that careerwise I've been "punished" for not echoing the chamber, as it were, and if that's the case, then I'm going to speak. In for a sheep, in for a lamb. I was halfway there when Eric (I still think he didn't know what he was doing, but I'm grateful) offered me the keys to CV and that sort of pushed me over the edge. Sarah · October 22, 2010 03:26 PM jorgxmckie MOST of the interchangeable feminists in my field are at least SUPPORTIVE of political lesbianism (And that's a form of lesbianism that annoys me. I mean, do it if you enjoy it but not because you're ruled out half of humanity as oppressors.) I think part of the reason I give them allergic reactions is that I insist that to be victimized you HAVE to allow it. Also that I don't consider having been born female a handicap that makes me vulnerable. I rather enjoy being female and I think by and large we have you guys by the... er... never mind. Mind you, I ENVY the fact that you guys can get better looking as you age while we just look hagged, but that's not your fault. As I said above what shocked me was that she even said anything outside of left-context AND that she got so violently punished (though perhaps there's nothing worse than an heretic who is otherwise orthodox?) THAT's what makes this whole episode astonishing. I've been in the field for ten years and while I've seen a few "discipline" incidents of this type, never against such a well known/prominent figure. Sarah · October 22, 2010 03:33 PM And that was in for a lamb, in for a sheep. Sorry, not enough caffeine in the world. As for weirdness, sexual and otherwise in my field, there are all sorts. I THINK I explained the mechanics of it in "Gipsies, Tramps and .... socialists?" http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2010/10/gipsies_tramps.html It's two part: we attract those who aren't at home anywhere else and also we feel weird and separated and that increases weirdness. Not sure if this is good or bad, but as far as sf/is concerned I'm practically the "mom from tv sitcom in the fifties" from central casting. This despite the fact that when I find myself in truly normal settings (my people call these settings -- neighborhood barbecues; school visits; local volunteer group of some sort etc -- "mundane" and the people in them "mundanes" terms I never liked though I understand their origin is as "non magical" or "outsider" in this case.) and speak unguardedly people often look at me as though I'd grown a second, evil head. Sarah · October 22, 2010 03:42 PM This is an edited excerpt from an essay by security analyst Bruce Schneier And once we're scared, we need to "do something" -- even if that something doesn't make sense and is ineffective. We need to do something directly related to the story that's making us scared. We implement full body scanners at airports. We pass the Patriot Act. We don't let our children go to playgrounds unsupervised. Instead of implementing effective, but more general, security measures to reduce the overall risk, we concentrate on making the fearful story go away. Yes, it's security theater, but it makes us feel safer. We should focus on the general risk of terrorism, and not the specific threat of airplane bombings using PETN-filled underwear. Focus on the general risk of troubled teens, and not the specific threat of a lone gunman wandering around a school. Ignore the movie-plot threats, and concentrate on the real risks. Andrew_M_Garland · October 22, 2010 05:25 PM Do as I do for pat-downs--wear no underwear (I'm a middle-aged female)and be unashamed--it embarrasses the bejesus out of them! Elmo Roundhead · October 22, 2010 09:43 PM Please explain why such an intimate search is preferable to ethnic profiling. Because profiling people based on their appearance can be countered by recruiting terrorists that are white, which is happening in Germany as we speak. Anonymous · October 23, 2010 08:17 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
October 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
October 2010
September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
The Devil Made Me Do It
I am not a crocophobe -- and that's no croc! If killing my dog is progressive, then I vote for "backwards thinking." the suppuration of free speech Flash Mob Politics Taller and Older Dave Making The Pledge If you don't like it, vote! the invisible immorality exception Shovel Ready Project
Links
Site Credits
|
|
And SF Writer Elizabeth Moon got disinvited as guest of honor from Wiscon for saying that while of course the muslims have a constitutional right to have a mosque at ground zero, perhaps it is not the best thing for them to do. (I think she said something about being sensitive to us.) She's now called a racist and islamophobic, which is funny since until she expressed that opinion I always considered her fairly conventional left. Heck, I still do. This is not incompatible with being fairly conventional left.
Interesting times. It's like several groups and companies (seems to be a group thing) are having nervous breakdowns.