Letters to the Editor
JackSparx
Published Letters: 433 Editor's Choice: 16
-
Coverup
[Read the article: Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling tale]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Not just this case, but the whole use of the FISA law and misuse of the state secrets privilege.
Why doesn't the media start framing the story this way?
And why are the Democrats helping the administration hide their law-breaking?
What do they know, and when did they know it?
-
America has the most insipid parades in the whole wide world
[Read the article: Parade shames Gloucester Girls]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Every politically correct self-righteous critique of the parade offered here is absolutely, well, correct and right.
I can't help but feel, though, if Americans of all classes and backgrounds actually felt free to express social and political satire, however crudely, the country would be in a much better place.
Clark-Flory's invocation of "family-friendly" and, omg, don't scare the women and children, is a page from the fascists own playbook. Hasn't anyone noticed that all public spaces, and more and more of the internet, is coming under the dictates of "family-friendly"? Family-friendly is not about being friendly to families, it's just another excuse to censor speech.
What's lost in these critiques is the message that is pounded down by 99% of parades in America--militarism and blind patriotism. Lock step marching.
Not to mention glorification of some very scary clowns.
-
A reaction to media hype?
[Read the article: Parade shames Gloucester Girls]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Everyone seems to buy into the shame and misogyny angles. But is that all there was to this demonstration? And I don't buy the idea that these folks were trying to teach anyone a lesson. Seems like more of a reaction to heavy-handed "lesson" being preached by the media.
Has everyone forgotten the storyline? A lot of girls got pregnant at one school, the principal made up a story about a pregnancy pact, and the media went crazy, the girls were hounded for quotes, and of course the media made everyone look as stupid and slutty as possible.
How exactly does this one parade add one dot to how these pregnant girls were portrayed by their principal and the press? Isn't this broad burlesque kind of a commentary and antidote to that whole slime fest?
-
Crossing the T
[Read the article: Suing George W. Bush: A bizarre and troubling tale]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The FISA court would have handed over a warrant for a felafel sandwich after 911. The administration, not the defense here, upped the ante.
Wasn't there another crime here? Someone in the US government leaked the document. That is a crime, right? Shouldn't the document itself be evidence of that leak? Go after the leaker, and discovery can reveal the mere existence of the document.
-
Let's retire for lunch and then return to destroy the Fourth Amendment, shall we?
[Read the article: Today's coverup of surveillance crimes and Barack Obama]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Fascism really makes a Senator work up an appetite.
-
Actually, there was float mocking the boys
[Read the article: Sex ed expert of the day]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Or did you folks think that squirting penis signified female in some way? I think it won second place, actually.
What's unfair about the lampoon to me is that it's easy to visually mock pregnancy, particularly because we hold it sacred.
The person who most deserves ridicule is the principal, who at the very least betrayed the girls by going to Time, if not lied. The mayor says his "pact" story is not true.
Maybe this parade will give the girls a chance to sue the principal for defamation.
I notice that the media is having another field day at the girls expense (no complaints from Broadsheet, though). I think everyone in Gloucester should flip off the reporters and say nothing.
-
Write-in campaign: FEINGOLD-DODD
[Read the article: Congress votes to immunize lawbreaking telecoms, legalize warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think a Feingold-Dodd write-in ticket makes more sense than Nader or Barr or any other current alternative.
-
It's not about finding weapons. It's about seeing which passengers get angry.
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can assume that security personnel are profiling your behavior at any moment in the airport, including by hidden cameras. The arbitrary search rules are designed to provoke you to see your reaction.
What if we ask this guy a question? What if we search his bag? What if we search his baby's bag? What if we single him out and put him in a room alone? What if we mock his smile? What if we accuse him of joking? Or of traveling with a stranger in line that he's never even met?
The next question following any of these questions is "How will he react. What will his face show. Will he gesture with his hands. Will he sweat. Will he raise his voice. Will he frown. Will he smile." Basically any response at may lead to an escalated response.
Folks, this isn't about finding contraband anymore. It's about prolonging encounters, and making those encounters unpleasant, to place the passenger (or crew member) in what amounts to a stress position. It's basically Gitmo-light.
The problem isn't really for people like you, who can sense the game, have read Kafka, and also know that somewhere in this system you have some rights. The problem is with the less sophisticated, including non-English speakers, or perhaps those with physical or mental ailments, who can only sense that they are being singled out. Freaking out, can, AND HAS, led to death by airport security.
And not only are they checking bags, they are taking information off laptops without warrant. See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/opinion/10thu3.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=laptops&st=nyt&oref=slogin
Why would the do that, if all they wanted to do was prevent weapons on the plane?
The butter knife probably cost Smith no demerits. Arguing about it, and writing about it here, has probably added a note to his file.
-
The front line staff versus the security apparatus
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There a lot of comments here on the behavior of lower level staff. They really aren't the problem.
Security hands lower level staff a set of constantly changing, often contradictory rules, often unreasonable rules. They have no power to question these rules. Then the security system trains these staff to confront passengers on the basis of these rules, and also to flag anyone who they think might be a problem based on behaviorial indicators.
Watch carefully the next time you go through the line--there is a definite hierarchy (and you don't see all of it). The frontline folks are pawns. They will be first and last to be fired if the security system steps over the line. The system will continue.