PDA

View Full Version : T-shirt Terrorism


Please visit our sponsor:
 

AikiWeb Sponsored Links - Place your Aikido link here for only $10!


Neil Mick
10-23-2006, 02:40 PM
Is your T-shirt harboring terrorists?

I just bought this T-shirt from here, (http://www.shirch.com/tees.php?idnr=222) after hearing the story of the eevel T-shirt (I know, I'm a sucker for dissing the Man).

Maybe, after reading the story of this infernal apparel, you'll be inspired to do the same. But, I'd consider carefully, wearing it on ferries, planes, or public transit (esp in NY). Your choice of clothing that day might just turn into a battle over your right to free speech.

Apparently, Raed Jarrar (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5297822.stm) was

forced to remove a T-shirt that bore the words "We will not be silent" before boarding a flight at New York.
Raed Jarrar said security officials warned him his clothing was offensive after he checked in for a JetBlue flight to California on 12 August.

Mr Jarrar said he was shocked such an action could be taken in the US.

US transport officials are conducting an inquiry after a complaint from the US Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee.

JetBlue said it was also investigating the incident but a spokeswoman said: "We're not clear exactly what happened."

When they told him to remove the eevel T,

He refused, arguing that the slogan was not offensive and citing his constitutional rights to free expression.

Mr Jarrar later told a New York radio station: "I grew up and spent all my life living under authoritarian regimes and I know that these things happen.

"But I'm shocked that they happened to me here, in the US."

After a difficult exchange with airline staff, Mr Jarrar was persuaded to wear another T-shirt bought for him at the airport shop.

Apparently, the shirt o' satan cropped up again, when Stephanie Schwartz (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/23/1425232) dared to wear the demonic apparel on a Staten Island ferry.

AMY GOODMAN: And tell us exactly what happened and when it happened.

STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: Sure. Two weeks ago, I got on the Staten Island Ferry. It was a Monday morning, and I was wearing this t-shirt.

AMY GOODMAN: And for our radio listeners, what does it say?

STEPHANIE SCHWARTZ: It says, “We will not be silent,” both in Arabic and then in English. And as soon as my friends and I sat down on the ferry, four Coast guard -- armed Coast Guard officers came and, you know, positioned themselves around us and -- you know, a lot of times on the ferry, you’ll see Coast Guard people patrolling, but I’ve never seen four people stand in one place that long. And I kind of joked to my friends, like, “Do you think it’s because of my t-shirt?” But I didn’t really believe that they would have made such a big deal about it. And we sat there for the half-hour ferry ride, and they didn’t move.

And as I was getting off the boat, I was stopped by a security guard who said, you know, “Excuse me, Miss, but you better not wear that shirt on the ferry again.” And I was kind of taken aback. “Excuse me? You know, what are you talking about?” And he said, “Well, I don’t think it’s safe. This is a high-security area.” And, you know, I asked him, “Well, what’s unsafe about this shirt? What do you think it means?” And he didn’t actually comment on what the shirt meant. He just asked me, you know, “Isn't it in Arabic?” And I said, well, you know -- I just kind of looked at him incredulously. I couldn’t believe he was actually saying that.

And he said, “Well, you remember what happened on that JetBlue flight?” referencing over the summer, when Raed Jarrar was wearing the same shirt boarding a JetBlue flight at JFK. And I said, “Yeah, I remember that incident. I think it was racial profiling, because they didn’t allow him to wear the shirt on the plane, simply because it was in Arabic, and they said they didn’t have a translator to tell them what it meant.” And he said, you know, “Well, obviously you’re not a threat to us, but someone else wearing that shirt might be.” And, you know, I asked him if he meant by that that, you know, an Arab wearing a shirt with Arabic script on it would be considered a terrorist. And he didn’t answer the question. He just told me again that I better not wear this shirt on the ferry.

OK, so what does "We Will Not Be Silent," mean?

We Will Not Be Silent: Movement Grows to Challenge Racial Profiling at Airports (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/01/1338241)

LAURIE ARBEITER: Well, the original statement was made by a student resistance movement in Nazi Germany called the White Rose. They tried to encourage the German population to resist the Nazis and Hitler by sending leaflets out into the German population. And the fourth leaflet they signed, "We Will Not Be Silent," and that was why we took that statement and translated it into those four languages that we wear today.

The White Rose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose)

White Rose (German: die Weiße Rose) was a World War II non-violent resistance group in Germany famous for a leaflet campaign in which they called for active opposition to the Nazi regime.

The group initially consisted of five students, all in their early twenties at Munich University. Between June 1942 to February 1943 they prepared and distributed six different leaflets, in which they called for an end to Nazi oppression and tyranny through active opposition of the German people. Hans Scholl and his sister Sophie led the rest of the group, including Christoph Probst, Alexander Schmorell and Willi Graf. They were joined by a professor, Kurt Huber, who drafted the final two leaflets. All six members of this group were arrested, tried, convicted and executed by beheading. A seventh leaflet was found in possession of the students at the time of their arrest by the Gestapo.

So...to put this all together: Jet Blue, the Staten Island ferry, and (possibly?) other transit's in and around NY (poss elsewhere?) are trying to force people to remove clothing printed with a message, originally a slogan from a student anti-Nazi group, that now expresses solidarity and anti-war sentiment.

And thy want ppl to remove it, because it is offensive???

To whom....Fascists?

And, Raed Jarrar was told that wearing something in Arabic at an airport is like

RAED JARRAR: "going to a bank and wearing a t-shirt that reads, “I’m a robber.”"

Really, there's only one, reasonable response to that:

We Will Not Be Silent (http://www.parkerstudio.com/AAW/notsilentstories.html)

Hogan
10-23-2006, 04:17 PM
I'm more concerned about a little 90-something woman going on trial for daring to say that muslim headscarves on women dated to sexual rites...

I'm aghast!

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20612940-2703,00.html

roninroshi
10-23-2006, 10:00 PM
We've gone over the edge w/this GWB paranoid foolishness!!! Terrorist's under every leaf and behind every blade of grass...

Gernot Hassenpflug
10-24-2006, 12:01 AM
I'm more concerned about a little 90-something woman going on trial for daring to say that muslim headscarves on women dated to sexual rites...

I'm aghast!

Damn, and there's me thinking that no matter what a woman wears it's part of sexual rites.

Guilty Spark
10-24-2006, 11:00 AM
Remind me not to wear my MAKE LOVE NOT JIHAD T-shirt.

Your choice of clothing that day might just turn into a battle over your right to free speech.

Wear certain colours in specific gang controled areas of the city and you'll get more than a battl eover free speech.

I agree 100% mind you, this whole your with us or your the enemy paranoia is dumba nd probably exactly what OBL was after (and knew the US would do) when he attacked.

James Davis
10-24-2006, 11:05 AM
Is your T-shirt harboring terrorists?
Not to my knowledge.

(I know, I'm a sucker for dissing the Man). No! Really? :p


Maybe, after reading the story of this infernal apparel, you'll be inspired to do the same. But, I'd consider carefully, wearing it on ferries, planes, or public transit (esp in NY). Your choice of clothing that day might just turn into a battle over your right to free speech.
Anybody that attends a public school, goes to a shopping mall, or walks down a certain block in a certain neighborhood has to consider carefully what they wear that day.



OK, so what does "We Will Not Be Silent," mean?
Apparently, it's synonymous with "We Want To Be Noticed".



So...to put this all together: Jet Blue, the Staten Island ferry, and (possibly?) other transit's in and around NY (poss elsewhere?) are trying to force people to remove clothing printed with a message, originally a slogan from a student anti-Nazi group, that now expresses solidarity and anti-war sentiment. Without a disclaimer about its original context, most security personnel are unlikely to know what it's all about.


And thy want ppl to remove it, because it is offensive???
To the uninformed, perhaps it is.

To whom....Fascists?


Well, I guess that fascists might find it offensive. It might also be misconstrued by people who didn't do an internet T-shirt search before they left for work that morning. Let's face facts; If I lived in NY, I might have a different initial reaction to something like that too. Bad Religion is one of my favorite bands. When I chose to wear a T-shirt with the band name on it, I ended up explaining its meaning to many a little nosey old lady. I got sick of the unwanted attention.

They might deny it, but these people want the attention they're getting. They're mission to battle racial profiling probably has good intentions, so what are they complaining about? They're getting their face time; The message is getting out.

Pioneers get the arrows.

The T-shirt is doing exactly what its creators designed it to do.


Where's the problem?

Neil Mick
10-24-2006, 02:24 PM
It might also be misconstrued by people who didn't do an internet T-shirt search before they left for work that morning. Let's face facts; If I lived in NY, I might have a different initial reaction to something like that too. Bad Religion is one of my favorite bands. When I chose to wear a T-shirt with the band name on it, I ended up explaining its meaning to many a little nosey old lady. I got sick of the unwanted attention.

Fine. But you missed one salient detail: the issue that makes this issue different from using fashion to be politically hip.

And, Raed Jarrar was told that wearing something in Arabic at an airport is like "going to a bank and wearing a t-shirt that reads, "I'm a robber.""

This is ALSO about racial profiling (funny how you always seem to miss the elements of racial discrimination, in an issue). Unless "Bad Religion" also applies to someone's ethnicity: it is similar only in ppl's lack of understanding.

The T-shirt is aimed at security-guards and monitors who check JFK and the ferries in NY, and they should not be merely profiling Arabs, merely because of their nationality, or language.


They might deny it, but these people want the attention they're getting. They're mission to battle racial profiling probably has good intentions, so what are they complaining about? They're getting their face time; The message is getting out.

Pioneers get the arrows.

The T-shirt is doing exactly what its creators designed it to do.

Where's the problem?

It's the racism...and you seemed to miss it.

But we ended up just buying another t-shirt with, like, "New York" or something. And I covered my first t-shirt, and I felt really bad about it. I informed them that I'm not doing this as a compromise. I'm doing it, because I don't want to get arrested, I don't want to lose my flight, and I'm going to pursue the issue through legal organizations.

But they did not stop there, in fact. They changed my seat from the beginning of the airplane, and they changed it from like maybe the third seat of the airplane to the last seat or the seat before the last. And they said that -- I asked why. I said, "It's my right to choose my seat. If you have any limitations for Arabs or Muslims to pick their seats, you should inform me on your website." And they said, "No." They just mumbled something about a, you know, baby, like "We need the seat for another person," or something. But I felt really bad, because this reminded me of what used to happen to African Americans in the '40s and '50s, where they used to be sent to the back of buses because there were black, and I felt that I'm being sent to the back of airplane because I'm an Arab and because I'm brown.

They might want the attention, on the issue (which is why ppl WEAR T-shirts with political slogans); but they clearly do not want to be treated like the very thing that they are protesting.

James Davis
10-24-2006, 05:24 PM
This is ALSO about racial profiling
No joke. :rolleyes:
(funny how you always seem to miss the elements of racial discrimination, in an issue).
Funny how you always use the word "always" when passing judgement on me.
Unless "Bad Religion" also applies to someone's ethnicity: it is similar only in ppl's lack of understanding.
So you admit that there's similarity? WOOHOO!!
The T-shirt is aimed at security-guards and monitors who check JFK and the ferries in NY, and they should not be merely profiling Arabs, merely because of their nationality, or language.
Then how about "STOP RACIAL PROFILING", or "FAIR TREATMENT FOR ALL" written in arabic, instead of some phrase that could be misconstrued as a jihad battle cry?

Wait for it...

Because they wanted people up in arms! They wanted to do something to alarm security! They wanted to make security guards look like racists.




It's the racism...and you seemed to miss it.
He was wearing a shirt that called attention to himself!

Not everybody wearing those T-shirts is of obvious middle eastern descent. It could be that he was placed toward the back of the plane so less MORONS would see the shirt and decide to take offense. Security personnel have to worry about redneck knuckleheads in addition to the guy wearing the shirt.

They might want the attention, on the issue (which is why ppl WEAR T-shirts with political slogans); but they clearly do not want to be treated like the very thing that they are protesting.
Whites who marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were often treated very badly. They still marched. If the people who were persecuted for wearing these shirts still choose to wear them on vehicles of mass transit in the future, I applaud them for their bravery.

I still say that there are smarter ways to do it. Make your message readily apparent, instead of ambiguous.

Print T-shirts that read "RACISM SUCKS" and "STOP RACIAL PROFILING" in a few languages, and quite a few of those security guards would be asking where they could get one.

mriehle
10-24-2006, 05:38 PM
Remind me not to wear my MAKE LOVE NOT JIHAD T-shirt.

Ah, c'mon. Show a little backbone. :p :D

Wear certain colours in specific gang controled areas of the city and you'll get more than a battl eover free speech.

I taught for a very short while in a program for kids who'd had problems in school. For many of them, the problems were rooted in gang involvement or drug use. It's made be very sensitive to the color thing.

I wear black.

My wife doesn't understand, but I wear black.

I agree 100% mind you, this whole your with us or your the enemy paranoia is dumba nd probably exactly what OBL was after (and knew the US would do) when he attacked.

I'd go further and say that GWB may have realized where it could go with just a little nudge from him and helped it along.

Neil Mick
10-24-2006, 06:34 PM
No joke. :rolleyes:

Funny how you always use the word "always" when passing judgement on me.

Funny, how the conversation about racist discrimination JUST came up, and you professed to missing it then, too. :rolleyes:

So you admit that there's similarity? WOOHOO!!

There are connections btw everything...clearly YOU seem to think there's one here, too.

Bully for you.

Then how about "STOP RACIAL PROFILING", or "FAIR TREATMENT FOR ALL" written in arabic, instead of some phrase that could be misconstrued as a jihad battle cry?

Wait for it...

Because they wanted people up in arms! They wanted to do something to alarm security! They wanted to make security guards look like racists.

Riiight.

James employs the oft-used mindreading skills of the Right. Let's walk thru them, OK?

1. Sone guy wears "we will not be silenced" on board a plane.
2. Freaked-out passengers, hopped up on terror alerts, security checks, and racist stereotypes on TV and movies, get uncomfortable and report their discomfort, to the authorities.
3. The authorities grab the guy and try to make him remove the T shirt, or risk arrest.

What does James get from this? Ooh! The guy was trying to be provocative, even tho he says in interviews and in his blog (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/) that he was not intending to offend someone, that

One of the two men who approached me first, Inspector Harris, asked for my id card and boarding pass. I gave him my boarding pass and driver's license. He said "people are feeling offended because of your t-shirt". I looked at my t-shirt: I was wearing my shirt which states in both Arabic and English "we will not be silent". You can take a look at it in this picture taken during our Jordan meetings with Iraqi MPs. I said "I am very sorry if I offended anyone, I didnt know that this t-shirt will be offensive". He asked me if I had any other T-shirts to put on, and I told him that I had checked in all of my bags and I asked him "why do you want me to take off my t-shirt? Isn't it my constitutional right to express myself in this way?" The second man in a greenish suit interfered and said "people here in the US don't understand these things about constitutional rights". So I answered him "I live in the US, and I understand it is my right to wear this t-shirt".

Then I once again asked the three of them : "How come you are asking me to change my t-shirt? Isn't this my constitutional right to wear it? I am ready to change it if you tell me why I should. Do you have an order against Arabic t-shirts? Is there such a law against Arabic script?" so inspector Harris answered "you can't wear a t-shirt with Arabic script and come to an airport. It is like wearing a t-shirt that reads "I am a robber" and going to a bank". I said "but the message on my t-shirt is not offensive, it just says "we will not be silent". I got this t-shirt from Washington DC. There are more than a 1000 t-shirts printed with the same slogan, you can google them or email them at wewillnotbesilent@gmail.com . It is printed in many other languages: Arabic, Farsi, Spanish, English, etc." Inspector Harris said: "We cant make sure that your t-shirt means we will not be silent, we don't have a translator. Maybe it means something else". I said: "But as you can see, the statement is in both Arabic and English". He said "maybe it is not the same message". So based on the fact that Jet Blue doesn't have a translator, anything in Arabic is suspicious because maybe it'll mean something bad!

No, James: no racism or profiling, here. Just a yahoo who wants to provoke the authorities...move along, nothing to see.


Not everybody wearing those T-shirts is of obvious middle eastern descent. It could be that he was placed toward the back of the plane so less MORONS would see the shirt and decide to take offense. Security personnel have to worry about redneck knuckleheads in addition to the guy wearing the shirt.

Ohhh...I get it. So, when they next institute separate entrances on the plane for the varied races: you'll justify that as keeping the Arab T-shirt-wearing extremists away from the knuckleheaded yahoo's who might take offence, right? :crazy:

Whites who marched alongside Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. were often treated very badly. They still marched. If the people who were persecuted for wearing these shirts still choose to wear them on vehicles of mass transit in the future, I applaud them for their bravery.

Well, that's my plan, at least. Only on certain, specific days. We T-shirt-wearing terrorists LOVE our timetables and anniversaries, after all. :)

I still say that there are smarter ways to do it. Make your message readily apparent, instead of ambiguous.

Print T-shirts that read "RACISM SUCKS" and "STOP RACIAL PROFILING" in a few languages, and quite a few of those security guards would be asking where they could get one.

You have a point. The phrase IS ambiguous, in context. But, if ppl simply asked what the term meant, instead of complaining to the stewardess that :eek: the Asian T-shirt man might be a TERRORIST; :eek: then this whole thing just might have ended a footnote.

Two anecdotes:

---In 2004 I went an Aikido-related trip to Turkey. In both directions, I encountered a man, dressed head to toe in flag-emblazoned Americana. He had a matching baseball cap and print shirt with big-tacky, American eagles; and F-16's. His manner was tense, haughty, arrogant: almost as if he were daring someone to ask about his clothes (who knows? Maybe he was playing at being an anti-terrorist, in reverse).

Whatever his questionable reasons for dressing (that deserve an emergency visit from the fashion police :crazy: ), he sure made ME uncomfortable. Did this guy get a stern warning from security? Did he get any problems passing thru Customs? Please: they were too busy, scoping out for any dangerous and suspicious perp's, who might be Guilty of Travelling While Asian.

---After the illegal invasion of 2003: a common graffiti-tag (esp in NY) was: "We are Everywhere."

Scary? Only if you decide not to include yourself, in the sentence. There are/have been too many voices of authority, and elsewhere, that would rather we be silent. Too many people today in the US are afraid of the wrong things.

Fear your government: not the Asian's.

deepsoup
10-24-2006, 07:38 PM
Then how about "STOP RACIAL PROFILING", or "FAIR TREATMENT FOR ALL" written in arabic, instead of some phrase that could be misconstrued as a jihad battle cry?

So what if it actually was a jihad battle cry? If you no longer have freedom of speech in the US, kindly ask Mr Bush to shut up about "liberty". And if wearing a t-shirt with something (anything) written on it in Arabic is reason enough to arrest someone, its time to start freeing people from oppression a little closer to home.

gdandscompserv
10-24-2006, 10:40 PM
By Rey Barry
"Americans have free speech"

Among our bundle of exaggerations pleasant to believe, none is more alluring or deceptive than "We have Free Speech."

Deceptive? If you say, "That's a Japanese car" in many workplaces, it's ok. But if you say , "That's a Jap car," you will be warned not to. If you do it again you'll probably be fired.

Kids who talk in a chat group or in email about getting back at other kids who torment them in school can be arrested, tried, convicted, and jailed, as happened recently to teens in Virginia and other states. They did nothing but talk. That was a crime but the kids didn't know. They were taught they had free speech.

We all know where the belief in free speech comes from. The First Amendment to the US Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ..." The 14th Amendment makes that applicable to the states as well. Our patriotism focuses on that and sees no further, missing all the glaring contradictions.

Yet it's the contradictions that control our life.

Few seem to understand that the First Amendment does not confer ANY absolute right of free speech. What it does is place a limit on the power of one branch of government to control speech, the legislative branch. And even that limit is more myth than reality.

Our government has three branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The First Amendment only talks about what Congress can do. There's nothing in the Constitution about the Executive or Judicial branch not limiting speech, and those branches do it routinely when it serves their interest.

We see it every day. For example, government employees hired as judges impose gag orders on everyone in the courtroom when they like, and are answerable to no one but other judges.

The entire Grand Jury system, federal and state, operates in secrecy. Free speech? Anyone revealing more than the name and decision can be jailed. And sometimes the agenda and even the decision are secret. There's no free speech whatever there.

The Executive branch routinely requires secrecy of its employees, puts whatever documents it chooses beyond the public eye, can prosecute anyone who violates its often whimsical, self-serving security net.

Departments under the Executive Branch are free to limit our speech if someone feels it serves a public interest. One example: real estate salespeople can be prosecuted for revealing to an inquiring home buyer that someone in a house had AIDS.

This isn't a privacy matter. No one need be named. Merely confirming that someone in a house had AIDS is prosecutable. HUD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, made that rule. HUD is in the Executive Branch where the First Amendment doesn't apply.

The military, an arm of the Executive Branch, has total control over the speech of its members.

In the daily world such as the family dinner table or a baseball game, an Internet chat room or the workplace, we have only the freedom of speech the person in charge allows.

The First Amendment has no control over limits on speech you set where you make the rules. If your chauffeur or your secretary or your shop foreman tells you off you can fire her. She has no Constitutional protection.

If the father of a Little Leaguer uses language the umpire doesn't like he can eject dad from the ballpark. Dad's speech isn't Constitutionally protected because the Little League is not the government.

That important difference means very few of our daily activities have First Amendment protections.

And in its few protected areas the First Amendment means considerably less than it says. Congress, state legislatures, and local governments have passed hundreds of laws abridging freedom of speech.

None of these is secret. We know them.

For example free speech ends at a line beyond which it's called libel and slander.

Free speech ends at a line beyond which it's called invasion of privacy. That line moves with the times. It moved a lot when the NY Times won a case establishing that public figures have far less privacy than ordinary people.

Free speech ends at a line beyond which it's called commercial speech. There are bookshelves of laws passed by Congress and the states, and libraries of rules made by government departments, limiting commercial speech.

Our run-away intellectual property laws limit speech. If you want to sell Uncle Fred's vintage English riding boots on eBay, don't expect to call them "shabby chic." Designer Rachel Ashwell owns the term "shabby chic", and is a subscriber to eBay's Verified Rights Owner (VeRO) program. If eBay's employees or Rachel's spot "Shabby Chic" in your auction headline, eBay must cancel your auction due to trademark violation.

Congress gave Rachel the right to steal the term shabby chic away from the rest of us. In fact thousands of Rachels have been allowed to steal thousands of everyday terms.

Free speech? Copyright and trademark laws limit your right to use your own name if it's Howard Johnson, or Thom Mcann, or Lillian Vernon, or any of the thousands of names corporations copyrighted or trademarked.

Free speech can put you in jail if it's "fighting speech." You can be prosecuted and jailed for provoking someone.

Free speech can end in a jail cell if it can be called "inciting to riot." It can end in a cell if it's called "reckless endangerment."

Free speech ends at any arbitrary line Congress draws "in the public interest," as it defines that. In Florida an 86-year-old grandmother was handcuffed and jailed for mouthing off to an over-zealous airport baggage inspector, "What do you think I have in there, a bomb?" That was not a recent case after 9/11: that happened in 1988. Airport speech censorship has reached the level of totalitarian here.

Children are routinely suspended from government-run schools for writing on walls. Free speech ends at defacement. They are being persecuted if something they write disturbs an administrator. A teenage artist who included an anti-social poem in her painting was required to undergo three months of counseling. We read about five-year-olds suspended from kindergarten for pointing a finger and saying, "Bang."

The Internet and shrinkwrap software licenses are loaded today with bars to free speech. One of these, McAfee's claim you can't publish reviews of their products, didn't stand up in court, but someone had to pay thousands of dollars to win that case.

Microsoft now vows to stop anyone from publishing benchmarks of their products without prior permission.

Over-reaching claims are now the norm as Congress partners ever more with business and against customers. Laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) effectively nullify the First Amendment. They provide the legal underpinnings for threat and coercion.

Local governments and institutions, universities especially, elevated the censorship of political correctness into law or rules. They dictate that speech which might possibly hurt someone's feelings or be taken as insulting is grounds for fining or firing or expulsion. "That's a Jap car" rather than "That's a Japanese car" will bring quick reprisal in academia especially. No one need actually BE insulted. The mere words trigger penalties.

Speech in the US is free only if it's within approved limits. It's only thanks to the American Civil Liberties Union there aren't more limits to speech, because government is forever erecting barriers the ACLU knocks down.

Popular myth notwithstanding, many nations have as much freedom of speech as we have or more. They didn't in 1776 but they do today. Are they going in one direction while we go in the other?

Some are. A French court recently struck down a string of speech restrictions American software publishers tried to impose there. They are the same restrictions our Congress gave publishers the power to impose on Americans. Our Congress and courts side with the publishers.

The First Amendment was written for people with the Pioneer Spirit. We are people with the Pioneer Stereo. Times have changed and the interpretations of the First Amendment changed. Surveys have shown again and again the First Amendment would not be ratified by Congress, state legislatures, or the people today.

Elections prove Americans don't care because we re-elect lawmakers who don't care. I'm glad the founding fathers aren't around to see this. They believed the people would guard their freedoms and gave us the tools to do it. They never dreamed Congress would systematically betray us and we wouldn't care.

In Thomas Jefferson's hometown there's a huge Free Speech chalkboard on the downtown mall where people can write anything they like. It all gets erased every Thursday. The powerful belief we Americans have in our myth of free speech is important because it helps preserve some. If we didn't believe and act like we have more than we do, we'd have a lot less.

We will always have the right to curse the government. They'd be fools to take that away because its a government survival tactic. Letting people blow off steam harmlessly keeps resentment from building up. Right now you might be motivated but tomorrow you'll be cool.

Michael Varin
10-25-2006, 05:02 AM
I'm not familiar with the author of that piece, but he does a good job of showing how far we have let our government overstep its boundaries. Every federal agency that exists today is un-Constitutional. Congress passes laws left and right that they had no authority to pass (not long ago they passed a bill that bans the consumption of horse meat by humans...I missed that part of the Constitution). And as far as government siding with big business, who do you think was behind introducing all those regulations during the progressive era and who's still in favor of it today? We have to be careful what we ask for...especially when we ask it of government. While, I'm optimistic about the future, America is certainly not the beacon of Liberty anymore. It's sad.

If this sort of stuff bothers you, and you would like to do something about it, I recommend checking out Downsize DC (http://www.downsizedc.org).

By the way, in many of Thomas Jefferson's letters he expressed uncertainty about the long term future of the Republic.

Everyone should expect freedom of speech, but no one should expect speech without consequences. A boss has the right to fire you for any reason. JetBlue has the right to require any dress code they choose, if they breeched contract that is another issue. They even have the right to be racist, and you have the right not to give them your money and to tell everyone how racist they are.

It is useful to remember that all of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights spring forth from property rights and the principle of non-aggression.

Michael

Guilty Spark
10-25-2006, 06:13 AM
The T-shirt is doing exactly what its creators designed it to do.

Where's the problem?

James I couldn't agree more (so I won't!)
People wear stuff to be noticed. I wear for example my regiments T-shirt so people will know I belong to it. People wear aikido school T-shirts for the same reason.
Slogans on T-shirts? It's people wanting to say something.

While the security may have really dropped the ball and I won't defend them for that dumbness, someone wearing politically charged T shirts or whatever shouldn't be surprised when someone doesn't agree with whats being said.
If you can't handle someone confronting you over your T-shirt then don't wear it.
I hate to draw the similarity but it's like, to me, women wearing provocitive clothing.
Sure in a perfect world your just expressing your freedom of bla bla bla but DON'T act surprised when people DO judge you or guys act like dicks near you.

It's all common sense.

It's made be very sensitive to the color thing.

I wear black.

My wife doesn't understand, but I wear black.

Hey Michael,
Good points. Again I think it's common sense. To me the whole your wearing the wrong colours thing here is stupid. But for the gang subculture it's a big thing. In a perfect world it wouldn't exist.
People can choose to excersise caution or wear what they want and expose themselves to the positive AND negitive reactions.

When I wear my Infidel Inside T-shirt I'm deffinatly making a statement and ready to accept the positive AND negitive reactions :)

James Davis
10-25-2006, 11:26 AM
1. Sone guy wears "we will not be silenced" on board a plane.
I'm sure he did this after considering the ramifications.
2. Freaked-out passengers, hopped up on terror alerts, security checks, and racist stereotypes on TV and movies, of which the eevil T-shirt wearer was also aware...
get uncomfortable and report their discomfort, to the authorities.
Instead of yelling "Let's roll!" and beating the hell out of the guy?

Good!

If they were uncomfortable, should they have just shut up about it? That's a matter of opinion. They had a right to report their discomfort, whether some parties want to hear about it or not.
3. The authorities grab the guy and try to make him remove the T shirt, or risk arrest.
They grabbed him?... Then he might have a case.

I don't remember seeing that in the story, though.
What does James get from this? Ooh! The guy was trying to be provocative, even tho he says in interviews and in his blog (http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/) that he was not intending to offend someone, that
He wore the T-shirt for the same reason that Neil posted the article. He wanted to talk about something for which he had strong opinions. If he wanted to be left alone, he should have worn something else.


No, James: no racism or profiling, here. Just a yahoo who wants to provoke the authorities...move along, nothing to see.
Not necessarily a yahoo. An activist, perhaps? I don't think that he had mischief in mind; I think he wanted to attract attention to the cause he supported.



Ohhh...I get it. So, when they next institute separate entrances on the plane for the varied races: you'll justify that as keeping the Arab T-shirt-wearing extremists away from the knuckleheaded yahoo's who might take offence, right? :crazy:
Separate entrances?

<sigh>

If they were engaging in racial profiling or just hassling some guy for fun, I WOULD NOT JUSTIFY IT. I do justify security guys keeping the peace by simply requesting that somebody change their T- shirt. They didn't throw him off the flight. They didn't beat him down right there on the tarmac. They made a reasonable request in an attempt to stop trouble before it started.

I'm going to issue a request, Neil. Please stop trying to imply that I justify profiling or separate entrances or racist policies of any kind. I'm not a racist. I think that a racist is one of the worst things that a person can be, and that being called a racist is one of the worst types of insult.
You have a point. The phrase IS ambiguous, in context. But, if ppl simply asked what the term meant, instead of complaining to the stewardess that :eek: the Asian T-shirt man might be a TERRORIST; :eek: then this whole thing just might have ended a footnote.
If everybody who reads this shirt stops him and asks what it means, he had better have some business cards ready with the website on them, otherwise he's gonna talk himself to death! :D

If somebody wants to raise awareness, they can hand out some fliers in the terminal explaining what he's about.

I honestly believe that his intentions were honorable, but that there are better ways to get your message out.



---In 2004 I went an Aikido-related trip to Turkey. In both directions, I encountered a man, dressed head to toe in flag-emblazoned Americana. He had a matching baseball cap and print shirt with big-tacky, American eagles; and F-16's. His manner was tense, haughty, arrogant: almost as if he were daring someone to ask about his clothes (who knows? Maybe he was playing at being an anti-terrorist, in reverse).
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the guy was a clown-shoe. I wasn't there, and I don't know the guy, but I'm gonna go ahead and pass judgement and say that he wasn't normal.

Whatever his questionable reasons for dressing (that deserve an emergency visit from the fashion police :crazy: ), he sure made ME uncomfortable. Did this guy get a stern warning from security? Did he get any problems passing thru Customs? Please: they were too busy, scoping out for any dangerous and suspicious perp's, who might be Guilty of Travelling While Asian.
So security personnel in this case were inept, or perhaps even afraid of the guy. Fire them.

If the guy was so obviously a potential problem, and he made you uncomfortable, why didn't you tell someone?
Too many people today in the US are afraid of the wrong things.
Yup. Fear the spinach.

Neil Mick
10-25-2006, 12:39 PM
someone wearing politically charged T shirts or whatever shouldn't be surprised when someone doesn't agree with whats being said.

Disagreeing with what's being said, is one thing.

Taking some sort of action against it, is another.

If you can't handle someone confronting you over your T-shirt then don't wear it.

Which is the same thing as saying, "If you feel bullied or pressured into not wearing something: then you should just go with the will of the mob. :freaky:

I hate to draw the similarity but it's like, to me, women wearing provocitive clothing.

A perfect metaphor: so, if a woman is wearing something provocative, then I suppose that she deserves what she gets, right?

I mean, look at the way she is dressed! She obviously wanted to be molested, right? :grr:

Sure in a perfect world your just expressing your freedom of bla bla bla but DON'T act surprised when people DO judge you or guys act like dicks near you.

It's all common sense.

Sorry, but expecting others to act like idiots does not = common sense.


But for the gang subculture it's a big thing. In a perfect world it wouldn't exist.

Ah, but it does. Wouldn't that be common sense, to accept what is reality?

can choose to excersise caution or wear what they want and expose themselves to the positive AND negitive reactions.

When I wear my Infidel Inside T-shirt I'm deffinatly making a statement and ready to accept the positive AND negitive reactions :)

Positive/negative reactions are one thing: expecting to be treated like someone wearing a sign that says, "I'm a robber," at a bank, is another.

Worse, the incident was effectively REPEATED, at the ferry.

Neil Mick
10-25-2006, 01:11 PM
I'm sure he did this after considering the ramifications.

And you know this, because of your vaunted (Republican) ability to read minds, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

of which the eevil T-shirt wearer was also aware...

Of which you (really) have no idea, and are (at best) employing supposition...

Instead of yelling "Let's roll!" and beating the hell out of the guy?

Good!

Hooray! They didn't beat the sh&* out of the guy! Is this a great country, or what, huh? We don't beat our Arab's on board planes when they wear ambiguous signage on their T-shirts!!

:rolleyes: Let's give 'em all a Medal of Freedom,,,whattaya say? :rolleyes:

If they were uncomfortable, should they have just shut up about it? That's a matter of opinion. They had a right to report their discomfort, whether some parties want to hear about it or not.

Of course. They have every right to report their discomfort. Why, whenever I see a W '04 electoral pin, why I call the stewardess IMMEDIATELY, to express my discomfort.

James, I am running out of my allotted 6 rolleye-smiley-faces that I am allowed, per post. You'll just have to assume that every sentence here is punctuated with a rolleyes smiley.

He wore the T-shirt for the same reason that Neil posted the article. He wanted to talk about something for which he had strong opinions. If he wanted to be left alone, he should have worn something else.

And, you KNOW my reasons for posting, because of those mind-reading abilities again, of course.

Not necessarily a yahoo. An activist, perhaps? I don't think that he had mischief in mind; I think he wanted to attract attention to the cause he supported.

OK, NOW you're getting into the realm of rationalism. Good for you: I knew you'd make it.

Sure, I'd go so far as to say that he wanted to attract attention.

Look, I have done similar things...hardly a crime in it. I have a T-shirt that says "Muslim men! You are hereby ordered to report to the Office of Homeland Security, for identification and fingerprinting. YOU provide the ink!" I wore this T-shirt at the dojo, one night (not really thinking about the message. I was late, and I threw it on quickly); and I got something unexpected...instant discussion as I was trying to get out the door.

Sure, I thought that someday, I might spark a discussion with the message on the shirt. But, what I would NOT expect, would be a detainment and questioning by the authorities.

And, the fact that you place more emphasis on the guy's motives, than the incipient overreaction, is, IMO, a sad set of misplaced values, James.

We just signed away our Habeas Corpus, and ppl seem more worried about potential terrorists hiding inside T-shirts, than they are about their civil liberties.

IMO, your misguided concerns are symptomatic of a much deeper problem America faces, than terrorism.

Separate entrances?

<sigh>

If they were engaging in racial profiling or just hassling some guy for fun, I WOULD NOT JUSTIFY IT.

Oh, but if they are harassing some guy for imagined fears, then it's all good, right?

I do justify security guys keeping the peace by simply requesting that somebody change their T- shirt. They didn't throw him off the flight. They didn't beat him down right there on the tarmac. They made a reasonable request in an attempt to stop trouble before it started.

Racism can be quite subtle...even as subtle as asking someone to sit in the back of the bus, a plane, or even as simple as a request, to remove a T-shirt.

And, if there were no racism in this situation, then how come the girl on the ferry wasn't asked to put something on over her T-shirt? Perhaps her skin-color provided enough of a blinder, to assure the other ppl on the ferry that she was not a terrorist...?

I'm going to issue a request, Neil. Please stop trying to imply that I justify profiling or separate entrances or racist policies of any kind. I'm not a racist. I think that a racist is one of the worst things that a person can be, and that being called a racist is one of the worst types of insult.

But, you're basically asking me to discontinue my line of argument.

I agree, racism IS pretty bad. It is also pervasive. But, I never meant to imply that you are a racist. You might have some racist preconceptions (I certainly do), as they are pervasive. Some of them are attitudes we received from our parents.

But, out of respect, I will try another line of argument, as I didn't mean to suggest that you are a racist. Apologies if I gave that impression (e.g., one can have racist preconceptions, and not be a racist).

If everybody who reads this shirt stops him and asks what it means, he had better have some business cards ready with the website on them, otherwise he's gonna talk himself to death! :D

If somebody wants to raise awareness, they can hand out some fliers in the terminal explaining what he's about.

I honestly believe that his intentions were honorable, but that there are better ways to get your message out.

Maybe so, but it is one tool in the toolbox. A smart Progressive has many.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the guy was a clown-shoe. I wasn't there, and I don't know the guy, but I'm gonna go ahead and pass judgement and say that he wasn't normal.


So security personnel in this case were inept, or perhaps even afraid of the guy. Fire them.

If the guy was so obviously a potential problem, and he made you uncomfortable, why didn't you tell someone?

Like what? Issue an immediate order for the book "Dress for Calming People on Airlines," on Amazon, to the guy in 15B? He wasn't being loud or violent: and I would hardly categorize him as a "potential problem."

I just did what every other passenger on board that JetBlue flight should have done...gone back to my reading, rolled my eyes at the questionable tastes of my fellow humans, and forgot the the whole thing, entirely...instead of give into my paranoid fantasies about Arab passengers.

Gernot Hassenpflug
10-25-2006, 05:25 PM
Informer theory in a society that supports such cretins, says that if you don't like someone or their actions, and are afraid of the consequences of expressing your dislike, then an excellent course of action is to tell an authority figure about that person using the great tactic of fear-mongering with the phrase-du-jour. It's fool-proof because it's one-way. The authorities HAVE to investigate, and the informer has NO responsibility. Imagine how cool it would be if the authorities came back to an informer and threw him in jail because in their opinion the person informed against was "clearly not a XYZ". How quickly would people talk to the authorities before doing at least some research themselves, i.e., taking responsibility.

James Davis
10-25-2006, 05:28 PM
And you know this, because of your vaunted (Republican) ability to read minds, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Is that something like your ability to read the minds of the security officers and know their reasons for speaking with the man?



James, I am running out of my allotted 6 rolleye-smiley-faces that I am allowed, per post. You'll just have to assume that every sentence here is punctuated with a rolleyes smiley.
Ok.
And, you KNOW my reasons for posting, because of those mind-reading abilities again, of course.
Oh, then you didn''t want to discuss it? My mistake.


OK, NOW you're getting into the realm of rationalism. Good for you: I knew you'd make it.
I'll wait for the requisite patronizing pat on my head to come in the mail.
Sure, I'd go so far as to say that he wanted to attract attention.
Yay.
Look, I have done similar things...hardly a crime in it. I have a T-shirt that says "Muslim men! You are hereby ordered to report to the Office of Homeland Security, for identification and fingerprinting. YOU provide the ink!" I wore this T-shirt at the dojo, one night (not really thinking about the message. I was late, and I threw it on quickly); and I got something unexpected...instant discussion as I was trying to get out the door.
That T-shirt is pretty clear about what the wearer's beef is. I'd just be afraid to wear it for fear of running into someone who thought that it was really funny.
Sure, I thought that someday, I might spark a discussion with the message on the shirt. But, what I would NOT expect, would be a detainment and questioning by the authorities.
Your T-shirt was not vague.
And, the fact that you place more emphasis on the guy's motives, than the incipient overreaction, is, IMO, a sad set of misplaced values, James.
Misplaced values? I'm giving the guy the benefit of the doubt! I said that I thought his intentions were honorable. I also said that I thought security's intentions were honorable. I tend to try to see the best in people instead of jumping to the conclusion that they're malcontents or racists. If that's a "sad set of misplaced values", then it's a set that I'm comfortable with.
We just signed away our Habeas Corpus, and ppl seem more worried about potential terrorists hiding inside T-shirts, than they are about their civil liberties.
People try to effect the things that are closest to them. I don't think that they're really "more worried" about T-shirts, it's just easier to complain to security than it is to contact one's congressman.
IMO, your misguided concerns are symptomatic of a much deeper problem America faces, than terrorism.
My concerns are that people get their message out without being hassled. If people are too dumb or uninformed to understand the message on a T-shirt, try changing the slogan to something more straightforward or explaining yourself more clearly. Neither of these people explained the movement associated with their shirt to security personnel. The only thing they said was, "It's my right." They weren't trying to educate anyone at the time of the confrontation. Security probably didn't know about the movement until some newspaper was calling them racists.


Oh, but if they are harassing some guy for imagined fears, then it's all good, right?

No.

Did I say that?

But, you're basically asking me to discontinue my line of argument.

I'm asking you to treat me with respect.

There are racists in the U.S., but you are assuming that my thought processes are the same as theirs.

Who's reading minds now?
I agree, racism IS pretty bad. It is also pervasive. But, I never meant to imply that you are a racist. You might have some racist preconceptions (I certainly do), as they are pervasive. Some of them are attitudes we received from our parents.

My father was raised in rural Tennessee in a family with some racist attitudes. In Vietnam, he learned that there is good and bad in everyone, regardless of color. When he was in a foxhole wondering if he would see morning, the black guy watching his back was like family.

My sensei is black, and I love him like a second dad. He and my father, both being former Marines who raise horses, talked like old friends when they met at my wedding. He lives in Georgia now, and left his school in my care. He doesn't give a damn what color I am.

My sempai, from whom I received my very first aikido instruction, is Jamaican. He lives over in Ft. Lauderdale now, but if he called and said he needed me I would probably get a speeding ticket on my way over there.

But, out of respect, I will try another line of argument, as I didn't mean to suggest that you are a racist. Apologies if I gave that impression (e.g., one can have racist preconceptions, and not be a racist).

Nice use of the caveat at the end, there. Should I look for that smiley?

One can have racist preconceptions, and choose to toss them aside when they learn from experience. We can set an example for others and change things for the better...

but we might still be called racists by people who don't know us. :disgust:

Guilty Spark
10-25-2006, 11:26 PM
Disagreeing with what's being said, is one thing.

Taking some sort of action against it, is another.

Agreed. I won't take action against it, maybe you won't. Thats not to say many other people won't.

Which is the same thing as saying, "If you feel bullied or pressured into not wearing something: then you should just go with the will of the mob.

Not at all. It's common sense. Are you going to go to Iraq and walk around down town bagdad trying to find an AIkido dojo, alone, wearing a KILL EVIL DOERS, Infidel inside or I Love Bush T-Shirt?
Probably not. Why? Becase it's common sense. Arguments about freedom of speach and expression aside.

A perfect metaphor: so, if a woman is wearing something provocative, then I suppose that she deserves what she gets, right?

I mean, look at the way she is dressed! She obviously wanted to be molested, right?

Come on Neil, this is ME your talking to! You're better than that my friend. You know full well my intention wasn't to even remotely suggest "she deserves what she gets". Thats like suggesting someone SHOULD be beaten up shot or killed for wearing the "wrong" colours in a neighbourhood. Dumb dumb dumb.
I'm saying there ARE stupid people out there and precaution on someones behalf can and will save them heartache (or a trip to the hospital).
No requirement to try and twist my words around like that mate.

Sorry, but expecting others to act like idiots does not = common sense.
I couldn't disagree more. EXPECTING people to act like idiots, to very big extent IS common sense. Situational awareness. Murpheys law if you will :)
I hope for the best in people. While I don't expect the worst I'm certianly aware that people are quite capable of doing very dumb things.

[quote]Positive/negative reactions are one thing: expecting to be treated like someone wearing a sign that says, "I'm a robber," at a bank, is another.

Worse, the incident was effectively REPEATED, at the ferry.[/quoe]
What do you expect to happenwhen someone wears a im a bank robber shirt into a bank? 9 times out of 10 they will be joking (or dumb) but SHOULD they be surprised when their treated with suspicion regardles? No way.

Those people wore those T shirts for the same reason you post these messages Neil. To be noticed. To get support from "your side" and to ilict an arguent or debate from people who disagree.
Nothing wrong with that mind you, call a spade a spade though.

Taliesin
10-26-2006, 04:24 AM
I've been following this thread for a while but nobody has seemed to explain why the same individual is apparantly regarded as a threat because he wears a T-Shirt with one message, but no threat when he wears a T-Shirt with another message. I though that the people who were a threat were the ones who were carrying explosives and perhaps guns.

As as 'common sense' behaviour goes - most civil liberties were won by people who protested vocally when the 'common sense' thing to do was keep quiet - Think Ghandi, Think Marin Luther King.

The fact that it may not have been a 'common sense' for of protest does not mean it is not a legitimate or lawful form of protest. On the other hand an official requiring him to remove the T-Shirt simply because they don't like it may very well be an offence under your constitution (I do stand to be corrected on this point)

Neil Mick
10-26-2006, 12:31 PM
Nice use of the caveat at the end, there. Should I look for that smiley?

One can have racist preconceptions, and choose to toss them aside when they learn from experience. We can set an example for others and change things for the better...

but we might still be called racists by people who don't know us. :disgust:

(Hey! There are no rolleye-smiley icons for the whole post!! There should be...)

OK, let's try this one. more. time....typing verrry slowwwwllllyyyy.

1. I never called you a racist. I challenge you to find a statement where I did.
2. No smiley's on that caveat: the apology was honest. I'm annoyed that you don't even have the grace to accept an honest apology; but I'll chalk it up to the misunderstandings of internet posting, and how hard it is, sometimes: to convey emotions, online.
3. The racism I was directly and indirectly referring to was the pervasive racism within our culture. Our culture was founded on an ethic of racism. Slaves built this nation; and slavery is based upon an idea that one's personhood is dependent upon their skin-color.
4. The ideas that built this nation exist within our culture, today. It's very pervasive, and interesting topic...one which I won't delve into too deeply, here. Too off-topic (but I will, on request).
5. The reason for the strong reaction of the people involved is tied to their fear, and their racist preconceptions of the T-shirt wearer (which, you don't bother to consider in your posts for one second. Very telling, IMO. See #6)
6. Some of your reactions to the T-shirt wearer seem, to me, to have some hints of the racist pervasiveness of our culture.
7. Does this make you a racist? Only if I am, as well.
7a. Racists = Actively embracing racist preconceptions
7b. Americans= sometimes express these racist preconceptions, as we are all products of our culture, and society.
7c. There is no 7c (sorry, I've always wanted to type that :) )
8. If you divine from my formulae above that I am calling you a racist: then poor you...as I have just called MYSELF a racist, as well.

Neil Mick
10-26-2006, 12:46 PM
I've been following this thread for a while but nobody has seemed to explain why the same individual is apparantly regarded as a threat because he wears a T-Shirt with one message, but no threat when he wears a T-Shirt with another message. I though that the people who were a threat were the ones who were carrying explosives and perhaps guns.

As as 'common sense' behaviour goes - most civil liberties were won by people who protested vocally when the 'common sense' thing to do was keep quiet - Think Ghandi, Think Marin Luther King.

The fact that it may not have been a 'common sense' for of protest does not mean it is not a legitimate or lawful form of protest. On the other hand an official requiring him to remove the T-Shirt simply because they don't like it may very well be an offence under your constitution (I do stand to be corrected on this point)

No, you are absolutely right: it IS an offence under the Consititution. And, you've hit the nail on the head, David: so far, all we're hearing is posts on the possible motives of Raed Jarrar...what about questioning the motives of the other passengers? Heck, James is even in support of calling the authorities on the T-shirt wearer!

I'm guessing that if the message were written in Hebrew: nothing would have happened. The passengers would have barely registered the T-shirt, in their minds. But look at what we, as a society, are reduced to...pressing the panic-button to summon a stewardess, the first sign of ANYTHING remotely Arabic.

What a shabby state of affairs, we've sunk to...and how deeply symbolic. Torture effectively legalized, Habeas Corpus dead, due process a joke: and American passengers on planes jump through the roof, when a guy wears a T-shirt. How far along the path of fear we've been led, and gone; and how far back we have to go, before our society becomes a democracy, again.

If it weren't so pathetic, it would be downright funny. :yuck:

Neil Mick
10-26-2006, 12:49 PM
Those people wore those T shirts for the same reason you post these messages Neil. To be noticed. To get support from "your side" and to ilict an arguent or debate from people who disagree.
Nothing wrong with that mind you, call a spade a spade though.

"Getting noticed" does not = "Expecting to be detained, and put in the back of the plane"

I have a T-shirt much more controversial than the one I mentioned. It's my "protest" shirt. (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/images/previews/natshp.html) When I put it on, I often expect some response. But, I do NOT expect to be detained, physically restrained, or otherwise bothered, simply for what I am wearing.

My basic expectation of American society is that my first amendment rights will be respected, that no authority-figure will come along and tell me to remove it.

Perhaps, after reading these posts: I should lower my expectations. :disgust:

Neil Mick
10-26-2006, 01:08 PM
Informer theory in a society that supports such cretins, says that if you don't like someone or their actions, and are afraid of the consequences of expressing your dislike, then an excellent course of action is to tell an authority figure about that person using the great tactic of fear-mongering with the phrase-du-jour. It's fool-proof because it's one-way. The authorities HAVE to investigate, and the informer has NO responsibility. Imagine how cool it would be if the authorities came back to an informer and threw him in jail because in their opinion the person informed against was "clearly not a XYZ". How quickly would people talk to the authorities before doing at least some research themselves, i.e., taking responsibility.

And what kind of wuss calls a stewardess over something on a T-shirt, fer pete's sake??? (OK...I could see calling a steward over a T-shirt that says "I love American's: they explode well and make good fuel for the upcoming Jihad"...but even then...)

Good post (even if the idea has some flaws).

Ron Tisdale
10-26-2006, 01:36 PM
Hmmm...I wonder if I could get that put on a t-shirt...hmmm....

B,
R

Michael Varin
10-26-2006, 04:10 PM
And what kind of wuss calls a stewardess over something on a T-shirt, fer pete's sake???

The kind has been led to believe they are the child and government is the parent. The Soviets and the Nazis used this tactic. Having paranoid citizens policing each other which increases paranoia...it's one of the old favorites.

Neil,

You ask, "how far back we have to go, before our society becomes a democracy, again?"

I think this question reflects some dangerous misconceptions. Do you want democracy or freedom? They aren't the same thing.

Politicians and other elites would like you to believe that democracy is freedom, because it serves their purpose. An unbridled democracy is a scary thing. Those people with the W 04 pins might be the majority, then what? 51% of the people could decide which t-shirts are legal for the other 49% to wear. Until the next election when the majority changes and they exact revenge. It creates a society based on controlling the force of government, and it's not stable.

Most of the Founders of America recognized this. Our country was not intended to be a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were supposed to limit the powers of government and protect the rights of minorities regardless of the whims of the majority. Unfortunately, the Constitution has been stepped on almost since the day it was enumerated. Governmental powers have greatly expanded since the 1890's, which brings us to the Military Commission Act of 2006.

I think all too often we focus on day-to-day issues. We cease to make fundamental distinctions or ask the basic questions.

Michael

James Davis
10-26-2006, 05:18 PM
Heck, James is even in support of calling the authorities on the T-shirt wearer!
You and I have had training over the years to learn to defend ourselves. We can just write the guy off as no big deal and take care of business if he later presents a threat. Most people haven't had any training at all, but they have a heightened awareness because of what they see on the nightly news. Some people are just scared, and they choose to worry about silly things.

I don't think that they should call the authorities, but I don't want to deny them the right of doing so.
I'm guessing that if the message were written in Hebrew: nothing would have happened.


So we're allowed to guess what people will do, and behave as if it's fact?

James, I am running out of my allotted 6 rolleye-smiley-faces that I am allowed, per post. You'll just have to assume that every sentence here is punctuated with a rolleyes smiley.
No smiley's on that caveat: the apology was honest. I'm annoyed that you don't even have the grace to accept an honest apology; but I'll chalk it up to the misunderstandings of internet posting, and how hard it is, sometimes: to convey emotions, online.
I do have the grace to accept an honest apology from you, and I have done so repeatedly in the past. Based on your statement about the smileys, I wasn't sure if I should take it seriously. ;)
I never called you a racist. I challenge you to find a statement where I did.


Racism can be quite subtle...even as subtle as asking someone to sit in the back of the bus, a plane, or even as simple as a request, to remove a T-shirt.

Ohhh...I get it. So, when they next institute separate entrances on the plane for the varied races: you'll justify that as keeping the Arab T-shirt-wearing extremists away from the knuckleheaded yahoo's who might take offence, right?

Some of your reactions to the T-shirt wearer seem, to me, to have some hints of the racist pervasiveness of our culture.

When you said that asking someone to remove their shirt (which I had previously said might be prudent to stop trouble before it started) could be a subtle form of racism, I took it totally wrong. When you said that I would justify the use of separate entrances for different races on airplanes, I got a little bit pissed.

When I read your posts about the guy on the plane, I thought of the people complaining about the shirt. When I read about security asking him to remove the shirt, I thought that the shirt was the problem. When I imagined myself in this guy's shoes, I thought that the shirt he wore was a poor choice for airline apparel. I didn't think about the color of the guy's skin.

I apologize for getting as pissed as I did. I equate being racist with being hateful and narrow-minded. I know much better than you what kind of person I am; I should have just ignored you.

Neil Mick
10-26-2006, 08:41 PM
Some people are just scared, and they choose to worry about silly things.

IMHO, this should be the new motto for the United States...ALL we, as a nation, seem to worry about (and we seem to worry an awful LOT) are silly misdirections.

Martial training is only one way out of the silliness: but I do not let ppl off, just because they are "civvie's." Being in a democracy (or, democratic republic) demands that its citizens be informed, vigilant: or the whole system collapses into something more regressive.

I don't think that they should call the authorities, but I don't want to deny them the right of doing so.

Thanks for the clarification.

So we're allowed to guess what people will do, and behave as if it's fact?

Well: that seems to be the technique YOU'RE using, in examining Jarrar's motives. In this thread, you've implied that he intended to cause a ruckus, even tho he has stated repeatedly that he was surprised by the reaction, from the authorities

At least, my guess has its roots in what American's seem to fear, today.

But I might try it: get 2 T-shirts with the same message on them, butone written in Arabic, one in Hebrew, and wear them on different days to the same public transportation venue (a plane would be best, I suppose...perhaps on a round trip). Noting the varied reactions ought to be very interesting.

I do have the grace to accept an honest apology from you, and I have done so repeatedly in the past. Based on your statement about the smileys, I wasn't sure if I should take it seriously. ;)

When you said that asking someone to remove their shirt (which I had previously said might be prudent to stop trouble before it started) could be a subtle form of racism, I took it totally wrong. When you said that I would justify the use of separate entrances for different races on airplanes, I got a little bit pissed.

When I read your posts about the guy on the plane, I thought of the people complaining about the shirt. When I read about security asking him to remove the shirt, I thought that the shirt was the problem. When I imagined myself in this guy's shoes, I thought that the shirt he wore was a poor choice for airline apparel. I didn't think about the color of the guy's skin.

I apologize for getting as pissed as I did. I equate being racist with being hateful and narrow-minded. I know much better than you what kind of person I am; I should have just ignored you.

Accepted. Racism is hateful and narrow-minded, but I never had the intention of calling you a racist. Bygones? ;)

Neil Mick
10-26-2006, 08:46 PM
You ask, "how far back we have to go, before our society becomes a democracy, again?"

I think this question reflects some dangerous misconceptions. Do you want democracy or freedom? They aren't the same thing.

Fair enough. Perhaps I should re-phrase the question, "How far back to we have to regress, before our society becomes something approaching a constitutional republic, again?" ;)

:cool: P.S. And then, I'll need to put it on a T-shirt and send it to Ron, parcel-post. :cool:

Taliesin
10-27-2006, 06:47 AM
Actually Democracy is not the same thing as a dictatorship of the majority.

Looking from the outside.

I'm sure the US Bill of Right's with the first half of the second amendment and the other lesser rights was incorporated into the Consitiution.

Guilty Spark
10-27-2006, 08:58 AM
"Getting noticed" does not = "Expecting to be detained, and put in the back of the plane"

Right of course it doesn't. But I have a feeling deep down inside some people almost get off on it. Being confronted over the T-shirt gives them a feeling of being right or validating their arguments. Put them in jail, bring in the news cameras and internet forum discussions over it? They love it.

What would you do if the same thing happened to you Neil? I'm willing to bet you wouldn't waste a second in posting it on this forum or any others your on. Maybe I'm wrong.

In any case I'm not disagreeing that it was overkill. I'm the first to laugh at the news when I hear all these amber and orange and ruby red alerts. I figure the gov't raises the alert status up every now and then so it looks like they are working and doing their job- but thats just me.

People do get scared. Have you ever been in a hijacked plane? Has one of your relitives died or someone you've known died because of one of the plane hijackings? (I honestly hope not). Some people are more prone to reacting to this kinda thing. Maybe the security guards we're trying to avoid a situation, maybe they were following orders and maybe they crapped the bed and over reacted about something that wasn't a big deal, giving said persons "we wont be silenced" crusade a whole lot of ammunition.

Perhaps, after reading these posts: I should lower my expectations.
I don't want to put words in your mouth Neil (since I pointed out you doing just that) but I'm trying to understand what you mean by this. If someone doesn't agree with your arguments or perspective then their dumb or their opinion is somehow less than yours? Thats the feeling I get reading that sentence :(

Overkill. The 'bad guys' are using americans fear against them in a big and successful way.

All this democracy and republic talk is reminding me of my Rome: total war game. Time to go crush some evil doers and freedom haters :)

James Davis
10-27-2006, 10:59 AM
Martial training is only one way out of the silliness: but I do not let ppl off, just because they are "civvie's." Being in a democracy (or, democratic republic) demands that its citizens be informed, vigilant: or the whole system collapses into something more regressive.

There are a whole bunch of uninformed people out there. A bunch more are misinformed. Too many people are worried about what Britney and J-Lo are doing. :rolleyes:

Well: that seems to be the technique YOU'RE using, in examining Jarrar's motives. In this thread, you've implied that he intended to cause a ruckus, even tho he has stated repeatedly that he was surprised by the reaction, from the authorities

It's called benefit of the doubt. I never stated that he intended to scare the hell out of his fellow passengers. I still stand by my opinion that he wanted something to happen. Attention, yes; Ruckus, no.

But I might try it: get 2 T-shirts with the same message on them, butone written in Arabic, one in Hebrew, and wear them on different days to the same public transportation venue (a plane would be best, I suppose...perhaps on a round trip). Noting the varied reactions ought to be very interesting.

It will probably depend on the clarity of the message. Will your T-shirt say "We (whoever 'we' are) will not be silent.", or will it say something like, "I don't approve of racial profiling.", or "I like doughnuts."? Reactions change when our statements are clear.

Accepted. Racism is hateful and narrow-minded, but I never had the intention of calling you a racist. Bygones? ;)

Sure, until my "sad set of misplaced values" presents a problem again. ;)

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot...

The devil's in the details! ;)

Neil Mick
10-27-2006, 02:14 PM
"Getting noticed" does not = "Expecting to be detained, and put in the back of the plane"

Right of course it doesn't. But I have a feeling deep down inside some people almost get off on it. Being confronted over the T-shirt
gives them a feeling of being right or validating their arguments. Put them in jail, bring in the news cameras and internet forum discussions over it? They love it.

What would you do if the same thing happened to you Neil? I'm willing to bet you wouldn't waste a second in posting it on this forum or any others your on. Maybe I'm wrong.

Maybe...maybe not. I'm not the sort to just run and tell the world, whenever something weird happens to me. But, I can certainly say without a shadow of a doubt, that I wouldn't put on a provocative T-shirt as a way to get detained, or arrested.

For THAT: I'd go stand in front of a recruiter's office, or something. :freaky:

In any case I'm not disagreeing that it was overkill. I'm the first to laugh at the news when I hear all these amber and orange and ruby red alerts.

Yes, we are the only gov't in the WORLD that announces our alerts in advance, so the terrorists can appropriately plan for days with a low security-alert. Aren't we an accommodating people? :hypno:

People do get scared. Have you ever been in a hijacked plane?

Is THIS a trick question?? :hypno:

Has one of your relitives died or someone you've known died because of one of the plane hijackings? (I honestly hope not). Some people are more prone to reacting to this kinda thing. Maybe the security guards we're trying to avoid a situation, maybe they were following orders and maybe they crapped the bed and over reacted about something that wasn't a big deal, giving said persons "we wont be silenced" crusade a whole lot of ammunition.

But, that's the whole point. An Arab man walks onto a plane with a T-shirt, ppl wig out, and the authorities overreact.

That's the issue. We are supposedly at war with terrorists.
Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes (some of them are even Presidents of superpowers).
If airport security is spending ALL their time worried about the ambiguities of Arabic dress on planes, then they are spending FAR LESS time, worrying about the things they SHOULD be looking after, like suspicious persons of ANY nationality. And so, we as American's are less safe from terrorism attacks, partly because the security personnel in this country are so geared to looking out for eevel Arabs and Asians.

And, to which you might say, oh well: this is only one incident. And to that, I say, sure: it's only one incident. But, it's one incident indicative of a much, much greater problem in this country.

As far as the passengers go: people overreact. It's human nature.

But, I'm not about to stand around and give them medals for acting like scared animals.

No, I'd be much more likely to give a medal to the steward who says to the skittish passengers: "Thanks for the tip, but It's OK: a T-shirt won't hurt you."

Why no comments about the nature of their fear, and how unfounded it is? My country has hundreds of innocent people in jail, with no access to a fair trial, possibly subject to torture, or worse; and my President has just signed a bill shutting off their recourse to a trial.

No, I give out the medals to people who try to break the silence, who speak out against this direction we're heading...it's the wrong direction.


I don't want to put words in your mouth Neil (since I pointed out you doing just that)

OK, let's clear something up, right now.

When I said:

A perfect metaphor: so, if a woman is wearing something provocative, then I suppose that she deserves what she gets, right?

I mean, look at the way she is dressed! She obviously wanted to be molested, right?

I meant just that: "what a perfect metaphor."

NOT

to even remotely suggest "she deserves what she gets".

I meant just what I said: to suggest that the a man putting on a T-shirt with an ambiguous political statement is really looking to cause a ruckus is like suggesting that a woman wearing something provocative is asking for trouble, and deserves what she gets.

I was NOT suggesting that you think this, of provocatively-dressed women. Capiche?

but I'm trying to understand what you mean by this. If someone doesn't agree with your arguments or perspective then their dumb or their opinion is somehow less than yours? Thats the feeling I get reading that sentence :(

No, not at all. Sorry to give that impression. I'm just another guy with an opinion (a well-researched opinion, perhaps: but my beliefs bear no more weight than the next fella).

Overkill. The 'bad guys' are using americans fear against them in a big and successful way.

Oh, hey! When the MCA was signed into law: the bad guys won. They wanted to destroy us: and they succeeded. They convinced us to sign away our legal framework.

All this democracy and republic talk is reminding me of my Rome: total war game. Time to go crush some evil doers and freedom haters :)

Go for it. I loved that game! Go conquer a few provinces for me. ;)

Neil Mick
10-27-2006, 02:16 PM
It's called benefit of the doubt. I never stated that he intended to scare the hell out of his fellow passengers. I still stand by my opinion that he wanted something to happen. Attention, yes; Ruckus, no.

Well, then, at this point: we are basically in agreement.

It will probably depend on the clarity of the message. Will your T-shirt say "We (whoever 'we' are) will not be silent.", or will it say something like, "I don't approve of racial profiling.", or "I like doughnuts."? Reactions change when our statements are clear.

No...it would say, "We will not be Silent," on BOTH T-shirts.

Sure, until my "sad set of misplaced values" presents a problem again. ;)

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot...

The devil's in the details! ;)

:uch: ;)

James Davis
10-27-2006, 05:38 PM
But I might try it: get 2 T-shirts with the same message on them, butone written in Arabic, one in Hebrew, and wear them on different days to the same public transportation venue (a plane would be best, I suppose...perhaps on a round trip). Noting the varied reactions ought to be very interesting.




I don't suppose, at this point that you could honestly claim to be "surprised at the reaction" if security did say anything to you.

Has it occured to you that you're thinking about doing exactly what I thought the subject of the thread did? :)

Perhaps he also thought that noting varied reactions would be interesting. ;)

Neil Mick
10-27-2006, 09:46 PM
I don't suppose, at this point that you could honestly claim to be "surprised at the reaction" if security did say anything to you.

Has it occured to you that you're thinking about doing exactly what I thought the subject of the thread did? :)

Perhaps he also thought that noting varied reactions would be interesting. ;)

Perhaps, but the difference btw us is that I would have hindsight of what security already has done.

You know, this overreaction of security is not new. I remember a person wearing an anti-Iraqi war T-shirt in '03, and was escorted out of a mall :blush: ; and several people attending Bush speeches wearing Leftist T-shirts were forced to leave, even tho they did nothing provocative.

Guilty Spark
10-27-2006, 10:42 PM
But, I can certainly say without a shadow of a doubt, that I wouldn't put on a provocative T-shirt as a way to get detained, or arrested.
Sam here. Unless I was going through the airport in Germany. 6'2" blond haired female security guards with submachineguns. I'd go out of my way to get interogated :)


For THAT: I'd go stand in front of a recruiter's office, or something
Ha! I can't argue that logic. Though....I've brought about 24 people to the recruiting office who have joined up. If you're ever looking for a change of pace and wardrobe I can make some great suggestions my friend.

But, that's the whole point. An Arab man walks onto a plane with a T-shirt, ppl wig out, and the authorities overreact.

That's the issue. We are supposedly at war with terrorists.
Terrorists come in all shapes and sizes (some of them are even Presidents of superpowers).
If airport security is spending ALL their time worried about the ambiguities of Arabic dress on planes, then they are spending FAR LESS time, worrying about the things they SHOULD be looking after, like suspicious persons of ANY nationality. And so, we as American's are less safe from terrorism attacks, partly because the security personnel in this country are so geared to looking out for eevel Arabs and Asians.

Again I agree. People over react. Fear is a great breding ground for stupidity. People in the US dying because their so hyped up on fear of a terrorist gas attack that they SEAL themselves intheir homes with plastic sheets and tape, they suffocate.

Problem is, how often has the US been attacked by terrorists on their own soil? Countries whos citizens are acustomed to terrorist attacks have built up a sort of immunity I think.
Ya another attack. Americans who've had a fairly big sense of security their whole life had it taken away and are completly shook up over it.
I think you'll agree that this knee-jerk kinda stuff does nothing but make matters worse. Peoples fears cause them to accept stuff such as having their phones tapped or all that other stuff bush is trying to do.
Speaking of me kicking ass in rome:total war, wasn't it caesar who said that a slong as you keep your people afraid of an enemy, and in constant fear of attack, they will be willing to do anything you ask? Including give up some of their freedoms?
Keep people in constant fear, almost time for an amber alert wouldn't you say?

I was NOT suggesting that you think this, of provocatively-dressed women. Capiche?
Roger that.

I've heard a lot of law enforcement and security people say the biggest problem with racal profiling is that it works. It's vey non-politically correct. So what do you do about something that, according to the experts, works but is a political hand grenade?

deepsoup
10-28-2006, 01:12 AM
You know, this overreaction of security is not new. I remember a person wearing an anti-Iraqi war T-shirt in '03, and was escorted out of a mall :blush: ; and several people attending Bush speeches wearing Leftist T-shirts were forced to leave, even tho they did nothing provocative.

There was a similar incident this side of the pond last year. 82 year old Walter Wolfgang was hussled out of the Labour Party Conference and then held by police under anti-terrorism legislation to prevent him from going back in. The whole thing was pretty stinky, but on this occasion it backfired badly, turning a routine heckle into a major embarrassment.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm

Jim ashby
10-28-2006, 02:53 AM
The purpose of terrorism is to terrorise. If the terrorists have your people so terrified that a T shirt can stop a plane from taking off on time, they've won.

Neil Mick
10-28-2006, 11:53 AM
If you're ever looking for a change of pace and wardrobe I can make some great suggestions my friend.

Thanks, but I prefer to keep what little autonomy I have left, rather than become a pawn for corporate globalization. :hypno:

wasn't it caesar who said that a slong as you keep your people afraid of an enemy, and in constant fear of attack, they will be willing to do anything you ask? Including give up some of their freedoms?

I think that that was Goering: (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm)

"voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

I've heard a lot of law enforcement and security people say the biggest problem with racal profiling is that it works. It's vey non-politically correct.

Sorry, but if racial profiling works: then how come we have thousands of Arabs in jails around the world, with almost NO convictions? Sorry, but I have yet to see one piece of evidence to show that racial profiling "works."

Considering that terrorists come in all sizes and nationalities: to suggest that racial profiling somehow "works," is counterlogical.

So what do you do about something that, according to the experts, works but is a political hand grenade?

Define "expert." :hypno:

Guilty Spark
10-28-2006, 12:58 PM
Thanks, but I prefer to keep what little autonomy I have left, rather than become a pawn for corporate globalization.
You think you can resist us? This isn't an afterschool special on TV or Erin Brokavitch movie, resistance is futile neil!

I think that that was Goering
He obviously took it from Caesar :)

Sorry, but if racial profiling works: then how come we have thousands of Arabs in jails around the world, with almost NO convictions?

Define "expert."
The interviewer was asking police cheifs and high ranking/ veteran police officers and they were saying that in their experience (and I consider them subject matter experts) they found racial profiling did infact work, however their hands were tied in that going down that road was a PR nightmare.

It's not in my lanes and don't have stats on hand so I can't answer your questions.
If a chief of police is going to say it on a broadcasted interview I'm going to be inclined to believe it.

deepsoup
10-28-2006, 02:05 PM
Considering that terrorists come in all sizes and nationalities: to suggest that racial profiling somehow "works," is counterlogical.

Imprisonment without trial was tried in Northern Ireland for some time. When it was introduced in 1971, as a weapon to fight terrorism it backfired badly. During one of the UK parliamentary debates on our current dodgy detention policy, Tom King (who was the minister for Northern Ireland at the time) described it as a terrible mistake, and the best 'recruiting sergeant' the IRA ever had.

He was not arguing from a "bleeding heart liberal" point of view, but from the coldly strategic position that obviously unjust treatment of suspects is counterproductive in trying to combat terrorism.

The same applies to racial profiling, and even more so to secret prisons (including but not limited to Guantanamo), where obvious injustices are being done. Even if the inmates were all terrorists, which seems pretty unlikely, it would still be counterproductive.

If it was possible to fight terrorism with injustice, would Israel still be subject to terrorist outrages after all these years?

Neil Mick
10-29-2006, 02:22 AM
You think you can resist us? This isn't an afterschool special on TV or Erin Brokavitch movie, resistance is futile neil!

Nah. I've got you cold, in the waiting game.

All empires fall; and we are everywhere. It's just a matter of time, for you guys. Entropy always wins in the end. :cool:


The interviewer was asking police cheifs and high ranking/ veteran police officers and they were saying that in their experience (and I consider them subject matter experts)

Sorry, but while YOU might find high-ranking and veteran police officers to be terrorism experts: I certainly don't.

Exactly, what part of their training do you think makes them experts in terrorists?

If a chief of police is going to say it on a broadcasted interview I'm going to be inclined to believe it.

Now THAT frightens me. Police chiefs are not unlike politician's: they have the same job description. And, I trust pol's about as far as I can koshi 'em while being pinned. :uch: ;)

Neil Mick
10-29-2006, 02:30 AM
If it was possible to fight terrorism with injustice, would Israel still be subject to terrorist outrages after all these years?

Oh, pshaw, Sean! I'm SURE that the myriad tools of racism and racial profiling that Israel regularly employs against its Arab population can only make the average citizen LOADS safer! Bunches, even!

Forcing Palestinian women to have their babies at checkpoints can only demoralize any potential suicide bomber, and make him re-think his priorities.

Uh huh.

Guilty Spark
10-29-2006, 08:36 AM
Nah. I've got you cold, in the waiting game.

All empires fall; and we are everywhere. It's just a matter of time, for you guys. Entropy always wins in the end.
Apathy is death ;)

Just think, with all that discipline and power you could bring peace and order to the world. A golden age of peace. Yes empires rise and fall but your empire would be remembered through out the ages.
Go on buddy, strap on some body armor, ceramic plates, helmet, give you a nice assault rifle with a holosight. Girls won't be able to resist your hero pics :)

Sorry, but while YOU might find high-ranking and veteran police officers to be terrorism experts: I certainly don't.

Exactly, what part of their training do you think makes them experts in terrorists?

Not experts on terrorism, you used at word. We're talking about people in jail. I'm saying they do have the distinct benefit of being the ones making the arrests. Their on the front lines. They argued that in their experience (maybe terrorism, white collar crime, gang related crime whatever) they believed racial profiling DID work.
Personally I have no clue if it works or not, but I consider police the experts at policing.

Neil Mick
10-29-2006, 09:25 PM
Apathy is death ;)

Who's apathetic? :) Not me...watching the oiligarchy fall is quite entertaining. :cool:

Just think, with all that discipline and power you could bring peace and order to the world. A golden age of peace. Yes empires rise and fall but your empire would be remembered through out the ages.

hmmm...


Ozymandias
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

-Percy Bysshe Shelley
1792-1822

Go on buddy, strap on some

frantically-bought, with credit cards from my mom

body armor,

sandbags stuffed in vehicles, substituted for

ceramic plates, helmet, give you a nice assault rifle with a holosight,

more tools in the quest for world domination (by (mostly white,) rich, spoiled snobs who don't think twice, of my sacrifice).

Gee, um...sounds like a lot of fun. :crazy:

...that reminds me of a song...

Universal Soldier (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxbvJyYb2eI)


He's five foot-two, and he's six feet-four,
He fights with missiles and with spears.
He's all of thirty-one, and he's only seventeen,
Been a soldier for a thousand years.

He'a a Catholic, a Hindu, an Atheist, a Jain,
A Buddhist and a Baptist and a Jew.
And he knows he shouldn't kill,
And he knows he always will,
Kill you for me my friend and me for you.

And he's fighting for Canada,
He's fighting for France,
He's fighting for the USA,
And he's fighting for the Russians,
And he's fighting for Japan,
And he thinks we'll put an end to war this way.

And he's fighting for Democracy,
He's fighting for the Reds,
He says it's for the peace of all.
He's the one who must decide,
Who's to live and who's to die,
And he never sees the writing on the wall.

But without him,
How would Hitler have condemned him at Dachau?
Without him Caesar would have stood alone,
He's the one who gives his body
As a weapon of the war,
And without him all this killing can't go on.

He's the Universal Soldier and he really is to blame,
His orders come from far away no more,
They come from here and there and you and me,
And brothers can't you see,
This is not the way we put the end to war.


Girls won't be able to resist your hero pics :)

OK...you got me there. Can't top the allure of a man in uniform, to some women. :cool:

Not experts on terrorism, you used at word. We're talking about people in jail.

Last I checked, the topic was about security-measures, to spot terrorists. How does one become an "expert" on terrorism, or even terrorist-security, since the clear results of these "experts" seem to be even LESS effective security, as Sean pointed out?

Personally I have no clue if it works or not, but I consider police the experts at policing.

Experts at locking ppl of different ethnicities, maybe.

Experts at apprehending terrorists? So far, the empirical evidence points to no.

Guilty Spark
10-30-2006, 12:07 PM
Catchy song! I was looking for some system of a down stuff you'd probably appriciate but my connection sucks. You'll have to wait. I'm sure you'd like their work.

Why stuff a sandbag in a vehicle though?

Last I checked, the topic was about security-measures, to spot terrorists.
Right. And police have said they've found racial profling works. Catching criminals and terrorists alike.

hmmm...
Percy Shelley wrote:
Ozymandias

Never heard of this Ozy fellow, until now of course. The mighty empire turn dust seems to have found a spark of new life, atleast over the world wide web or even just in this thread. So if you're using him as an example how many thousand years later, that must account for something.

Go tell the Spartans, stranger passing by,
that here, obedient to their laws, we lie

Soldiering isn't that bad Neil, I can think of a great example of a soldier who knew aikido ;)

Neil Mick
10-30-2006, 12:57 PM
Catchy song! I was looking for some system of a down stuff you'd probably appriciate but my connection sucks. You'll have to wait. I'm sure you'd like their work.

I've heard one of their songs ("Boom"). I like it.

Why stuff a sandbag in a vehicle though?

It's what National Guardsmen do, to reinforce their vehicles...they aren't given enough armor, and so they use sandbags.

Right. And police have said they've found racial profling works. Catching criminals and terrorists alike.

Since almost none of the people accused of terrorism (and now, in jail) in the US (and, I imagine: Canada) actually get a conviction: well, I'd hardly take the testimony of the police, as experts.

They do a good job of arresting people. And in that, they're experts.

Catching terrorists? Sorry, but unless the court system is fatally flawed and we're letting criminals go: I'd hardly call in the police as "terrorist experts." They keep putting the wrong people in jail.


Never heard of this Ozy fellow, until now of course. The mighty empire turn dust seems to have found a spark of new life, atleast over the world wide web or even just in this thread. So if you're using him as an example how many thousand years later, that must account for something.

I'm using the poem as an example of how ALL empires fall. Why go through the motions? Let's just cut the out middleman and let anarchy rule for a few thousand years! :freaky:

Soldiering isn't that bad Neil, I can think of a great example of a soldier who knew aikido ;)

If you're referring to O Sensei: he turned his back on soldiering, very early in his life. In his middle age, he actively worked against the war.

But, regarding the profession of soldiering, I can only respond with a quote you've already seen, I think:

Gen. Smedley D. Butler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler)

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

The main job of a soldier is to fight wars. And, as Gen. Butler points out:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.
I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

And, from the way I see it: the truth of his statement hasn't dimmed, in the years since.

Sure: there are great soldiers. But that doesn't make soldiers any less pawns for globalization.

Guilty Spark
10-31-2006, 08:28 AM
Good rebuttle Neil, you caught me ont he O'Sensi reference.
you posted too fast too! I was going to evoke Godwins law and get the last word but I couldnt connect back to the internet :)
Will reply when I have more time.

Your posts really are a lot more effective when theres no jabs or underlying sarcasim, cheers dude

Ron Tisdale
10-31-2006, 08:36 AM
In his middle age, he actively worked against the war.

Uh...Source? Or do you consider retiring to Iwama "actively work[ing] against the war"?

Best,
Ron

Guilty Spark
10-31-2006, 09:03 AM
I'd be very interested in reading up on that too. How'd he work against the war?

Neil Mick
10-31-2006, 11:00 AM
Uh...Source? Or do you consider retiring to Iwama "actively work[ing] against the war"?

Best,
Ron

Source: John Stevens. I don't remember exactly which book (but, I'll try to find it).

But, no: I wasn't referring to "returning to Iwama," as "actively fighting the war." This was before that. I believe John Stevens said that he went on some sort of "secret mission," early on in the War, to try to stop it.

No idea what he tried, but if true: I'd say that that qualifies as "actively working" to stop it.

(P.S. And no: I DON'T take all of Stevens' writings of O Sensei as gospel. Esp the part where he writes about making friends with bears, during his farming community years) :freaky:

Neil Mick
10-31-2006, 11:06 AM
Good rebuttle Neil

Thanks.

Your posts really are a lot more effective when theres no jabs or underlying sarcasim, cheers dude

It's an ongoing struggle I have, against my evil inner twin, Skippy. HE'S the sarcastic one! :crazy:

Ron Tisdale
10-31-2006, 11:19 AM
Uh, definately need a source then. Ueshiba Sensei's trip to Mongolia had nothing to do with stopping the war, that I know of. Some would even say that that trip was in support of a greater Pan Asia...which is one of the asperations that got Japan into trouble in the first place.

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
10-31-2006, 11:38 AM
Uh, definately need a source then. Ueshiba Sensei's trip to Mongolia had nothing to do with stopping the war, that I know of.

Best,
Ron

No, Ron: I wasn't talking about the Mongolian Adventure.

OK, you made me go upstairs and dig out my copy of John Stevens (*grumble grumble* ;) ).

From "Abundant Peace," p. 47 (softbound)

Morihei's prestige was so great that certain government officials secretly commissioned him to try to negotiate a peace settlement with the Chinese leaders; following Pearl Harbor, Japan was incapable of waging war on two fronts for very long. Nothing came of Morihei's efforts, however, and he suddenly retired from public life in 1942.

Guilty Spark
10-31-2006, 12:08 PM
Neil I think you would be surprised at how many soldiers want peace. I don't see O'Sensi's attempt to negotiate a peace settlement as working against the war. Actually, technically it WOULD be stopping the war I think you may have used the example in a different context? Most soldiers I know are "against war"- their not often conductive of long healthy lives :)
Different views on how to achieve peace. I've always liked the quote a country will always have an army- their own or someone elses.

Ron Tisdale
10-31-2006, 12:08 PM
Now this is one of the problems with that book, as much as I admire and like Stevens Sensei. There is no source for that statement...so we have no way to evaluate it...and inspite of my personal feelings for Stevens Sensei, I'm not willing to just take it on faith.

Another source?

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
10-31-2006, 12:33 PM
Now this is one of the problems with that book, as much as I admire and like Stevens Sensei. There is no source for that statement...so we have no way to evaluate it...and inspite of my personal feelings for Stevens Sensei, I'm not willing to just take it on faith.

Another source?

Best,
Ron

Aw, come on, Ron! I'm not a library! :freaky:

It's hard enough to find sources online about this particular topic. Finding two sources (and just forget about primary sources!) about this obscure reference is beyond my meager resources. Perhaps a letter to Stan Pranin...?

The only source I could find on this factoid is John Stevens. Sure, he likes to mix fact and folklore: but I've never caught him in an outright fabrication.

If he says that O Sensei was sent on some sort of vague negotiation mission with China: I'm willing to take that as a valid source that some sort of effort was made (exactly what the "mission" entailed, is anyone's guess. I found Stevens mentions it twice in separate publications, but he never elaborates).

Beyond that: I suggest looking for it, on your own...sorry.

Neil Mick
10-31-2006, 12:35 PM
Neil I think you would be surprised at how many soldiers want peace.

I imagine that they do. Not many get to try to negotiate a peace settlement, however. And, "soldiers" negotiating a peace are no longer "soldiers:" they're called "diplomats." (no sarcasm intended)

I don't see O'Sensi's attempt to negotiate a peace settlement as working against the war.

Well, we can agree, to disagree.

Ron Tisdale
10-31-2006, 01:08 PM
Don't worry...I'm doing a little looking myself...but YOU brought it up...so shouldn't you provide a checkable and reliable source?

Best,
Ron

Ron Tisdale
10-31-2006, 02:33 PM
Not that I agree that the article I'm quoting from is as controversial as it was made out to be...but hey...

http://www.aikidojournal.com/article.php?articleID=147&highlight=negotiate+a+peace+settlement

P47: "... Morihei's prestige was so great that certain government officials secretly commissioned him to try to negotiate a peace settlement with the Chinese leaders; following Pearl Harbor, Japan was incapable of waging war on two fronts for very long. Nothing came of Morihei's efforts, however, and he suddenly retired from public life in 1942."
DOSHU: My father never negotiated a peace settlement. Some generals and others who used to come to the dojo did ask my father to propose a settlement to the commander if he was to go over there [China]. My father and Mr. Hata (Shunroku Hata, commander-in-chief of the expeditionary force to China) were old friends, you see. So it was true that my father met Mr. Hata because he was asked to do so. However, my father told me later that when he met him, he was told that although Mr. Hata appreciated his taking the trouble to go over there, he would like my father to leave everything to him and so he came back. I think that this is what actually happened. Since it expressed in sentences like this in print, the story sounds a little funny. Trifling things like this are blown way out of proportion.


Since my refutation is from 2nd Doshu (or is that 1st Doshu...this aikikai stuff...I don't quite get it:)), I think you need another source...
Best,
Ron

James Davis
10-31-2006, 05:16 PM
It's an ongoing struggle I have, against my evil inner twin, Skippy. HE'S the sarcastic one! :crazy:
Whoa. :eek: I used to have a roommate that we called Skippy. He wasn't evil, just dumb as a box o' rocks. :drool: :D

Neil Mick
11-01-2006, 02:46 PM
YOU brought it up...so shouldn't you provide a checkable and reliable source?

I would, if it were central to the topic. Instead, I'll simply restate:

"If you're referring to O Sensei: he turned his back on soldiering, very early in his life."

And, he certainly spoke out against the practice of war, and various points in his life.

There. Saved myself a long and pointless search. Whew. :cool:

Whoa. :eek: I used to have a roommate that we called Skippy. He wasn't evil, just dumb as a box o' rocks. :drool: :D

DEFINITELY no relation, then. MY evil twin is cunning, and too smart by half. evileyes :cool: ;)

Ron Tisdale
11-01-2006, 03:25 PM
uh, Neil, did you see my last post??? Your quote was completely ruined by it...

Best,
Ron

Neil Mick
11-02-2006, 12:00 AM
uh, Neil, did you see my last post??? Your quote was completely ruined by it...

Best,
Ron

Um, yeah: I saw your last post. In fact, I was responding to

Since my refutation is from 2nd Doshu (or is that 1st Doshu...this aikikai stuff...I don't quite get it), I think you need another source...
Best,
Ron

with

Instead, I'll simply restate

thus avoiding this looking-up of sources to points not central to the topic. :confused:

Ron Tisdale
11-02-2006, 10:15 AM
Beats giving out false information...

Never mind...back to your regularly scheduled diatribes...

B,
R (gee, I must be feeling snarky these days...sorry...)

MM
11-02-2006, 11:32 AM
Beats giving out false information...

Never mind...back to your regularly scheduled diatribes...

B,
R (gee, I must be feeling snarky these days...sorry...)

Snarky? LOL, haven't heard that word in years. :)

But, I went through a neck injury once and you've got every valid reason in the world to feel snarky all you want. Plus, missing training doesn't help. So snark away, as long as you're getting better! Which I hope you are.

Mark

James Davis
11-02-2006, 12:20 PM
Beats giving out false information...

Never mind...back to your regularly scheduled diatribes...

B,
R (gee, I must be feeling snarky these days...sorry...)
In through the nose, out through the mouth. ;) Sometimes I feel pretty snarky, too. Maybe, to stay on topic, we could talk about making some T-shirts for impromptu debates that read:

"Uhh...Source?"

:D

Ron Tisdale
11-02-2006, 12:51 PM
LOL...

Thanks guys, much appreciated. Missing training is a bear...but not as much a bear as when my Fiance catches me sneaking on the mat! ;) Shhhh...

Snarky didn't quite do if for my mood this morning...Stupid neurosurgeon's office sent me to the wrong darn place for my appointment. Man, they got the snark, all right. :(

Let's see, for a T-shirt...

"I'm feeling snarky today...BEWARE"

B,
R

Neil Mick
11-02-2006, 01:06 PM
Maybe, to stay on topic, we could talk about making some T-shirts for impromptu debates that read:

"Uhh...Source?"

:D

Hmm...wonder how that would look on a T-shirt, in Arabic script. ;) :cool:

James Davis
11-03-2006, 11:37 AM
Hmm...wonder how that would look on a T-shirt, in Arabic script. ;) :cool:


Something I can't read-

Three dots-

Something I can't read. :)

Neil Mick
11-03-2006, 07:39 PM
Something I can't read-

Three dots-

Something I can't read. :)

I thought you knew? Ellipses (3 dots), in Arabic script, means "Don't forget to kill the security guards, before meeting up with the 72 virgins in paradise. And, pick up some hummus as you pass by the market!" :p :D

James Davis
11-06-2006, 11:59 AM
I thought you knew? Ellipses (3 dots), in Arabic script, means "Don't forget to kill the security guards, before meeting up with the 72 virgins in paradise. And, pick up some hummus as you pass by the market!" :p :D


My God! These guys really are everywhere! :eek: