Ted Kennedy, the senior U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, is on the “no-fly” terror list.
His staff says it’s not politically motivated.
Not politically motivated, my ass.
How can the most recognizable liberal Democratic senator in the country of Irish descent be mistaken in any way, shape or form for an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist. The man’s very being screams ESTABLISHMENT to the core. We’re talking about a senator here. We’re talking about a bunch of politically-motivated bureaucrats and apparachiks harassing an elected official.
Fuck ’em.
Dismantle the Department of Homeland Security, publically hang whoever was the ranking officer at Abu Graib, and throw Bush and Co. out of the Off-white House. The U.S. has been tarnished long enough, damn it.
They’re examples of similar names and people trying to do their jobs with substandard systems and poorly designed mandates, nandates that did not originate with Bush or his advisors, its worth noting.
Now, let’s talk reality. Do you think anyone in the current government hierarchy is really threatened by the Libertarians or the Greens? If so, you’re sadly deluded in the worst kind of way, the kind of way that leads to tinfoil hats and shaking your fist at passing black vans. There’s no motivation to actively target political figures at any level, because there’s no profit in doing so. Its guaranteed that the act will hit the public sphere of knowledge, and any mistake just makes the actors look silly, malfesiance or not.
So, given there’s no hidden motivation to act in such a way, absent a motive, a logical observer must conclude the answer given for why the act was done is, in fact, the one admitted to: Just doing their job, similar names, and trying to protect the public. They may be trying to protect the public poorly, but at least they’re trying. There aren’t a lot of better options that don’t involve heavily restructuring the expectation of the American people, a task which is sadly about as effective as beating your head bloody against a brick wall to get through it.
As for dismantling the DHS, I’m sure it would probably be a lot easier to move forward with that if you actually suggested what you’d replace it with. And, no, “surely there’s something better” is not an acceptible plan. What would you have us do? For my part, I’d more likely remove a lot of the limits on what people could bring aboard aircraft and, instead, sink that wasted money for searches and limits into arming the pilots and placing an Air Marshal or two on every flight. Aircraft are no longer able targets, anyway, simply because Americans know that their actions can subdue and survive. I’d put more emphasis on the INS, in an effort to keep out illegals, from all sides, and kick out anyone in the country illegally, thus making it harder to bring in the kind of folk that make it possible to enact such crimes. But I’d still need a DHS to coordinate such things.
As for Abu Ghraib and the Bush Administration, I really will have to have you sized for the tinfoil hat. Is the crack really all that good? Abu Ghraib has resulted in a lot of under-the-table military shuffling out on site, as it should be. Military tribunals don’t feel the need for the harsh glare of a clumbsily partisan media chorus. And can you, in full possession of your facilities, really tell me you’d rather put John Kerry, a man who’s used a set of lies about his military experience in Vietnam for 30 years to beat and cow into submission his political opponents, who is running for President of the US not based on his 20 year Senate experience and accomplishments but on that same 30 year old set of lies and experiences, who has publically said he’s more interested in subborning the will of the American people to the will of the UN, who obviously owns more waffle-irons than Waffle House in order to produce his rapidly and unstabily shifting political positions, a man who could end much of the debate about his qualifications and prevarications by simply opening his records to the public and yet doesn’t — you would really choose to put this man in charge of the only planetary hyperpower, in the midst of what is, effectively, WWIV (WWIII being the Cold War, and just as important to the nation as this)? While I find George Bush’s domestic policies at best ill-thought out, I cannot, in good conscience, replace him with a man whose record screams out that he’s a will-o-the-wisp on pretty much every issue and hasn’t an articulatable vision for success, either of the country or in the greater world outside. Bush carries at least the burden of sincerity and vision, and I grant that those qualities, rather than articulate speech, are the ones that carry the day. The domestic US can be neatened up at any time; that’s why we have a rapidly turned-over multi-hierarchy governmental system. Thousands of dead on domestic soil by the actions of outsiders, pointedly, cannot.
Well, as has already been pointed out, Ted Kennedy shares his name with a known Irish terrorist. So apparently it’s not politically motivated.
But you’d think some human being would vett the list, and say, “oh, hey, there’s an Irish terrorist on this list named Ted Kennedy. Isn’t there a senator named that? Maybe we should set up an exception to the list.”
Moreover, this is not the first time this has happened. The assistant party leader for the Greens in Connecticut was prevented from boarding a plane, as was a Libertarian candidate in South Carolina, and from time to time these stories pop up. Are these examples of similar names, or a serious effort to control the movements of political figures?
I would say (and, in fact, have said) not to ascribe to malice what could be adequately explained by incompetence.
I’d sure hate to be the people who have to enforce the list on a Senator, though. Talk about your catch-22s. Do it and you get a Senator mad at you; don’t do it and you break the law/rules/regulations/whatever it is that governs the list.
I would say (and, in fact, have said) not to ascribe to malice what could be adequately explained by incompetence.
I’d sure hate to be the people who have to enforce the list on a Senator, though. Talk about your catch-22s. Do it and you get a Senator mad at you; don’t do it and you break the law/rules/regulations/whatever it is that governs the list.
Well, as has already been pointed out, Ted Kennedy shares his name with a known Irish terrorist. So apparently it’s not politically motivated.
But you’d think some human being would vett the list, and say, “oh, hey, there’s an Irish terrorist on this list named Ted Kennedy. Isn’t there a senator named that? Maybe we should set up an exception to the list.”
Moreover, this is not the first time this has happened. The assistant party leader for the Greens in Connecticut was prevented from boarding a plane, as was a Libertarian candidate in South Carolina, and from time to time these stories pop up. Are these examples of similar names, or a serious effort to control the movements of political figures?
They’re examples of similar names and people trying to do their jobs with substandard systems and poorly designed mandates, nandates that did not originate with Bush or his advisors, its worth noting.
Now, let’s talk reality. Do you think anyone in the current government hierarchy is really threatened by the Libertarians or the Greens? If so, you’re sadly deluded in the worst kind of way, the kind of way that leads to tinfoil hats and shaking your fist at passing black vans. There’s no motivation to actively target political figures at any level, because there’s no profit in doing so. Its guaranteed that the act will hit the public sphere of knowledge, and any mistake just makes the actors look silly, malfesiance or not.
So, given there’s no hidden motivation to act in such a way, absent a motive, a logical observer must conclude the answer given for why the act was done is, in fact, the one admitted to: Just doing their job, similar names, and trying to protect the public. They may be trying to protect the public poorly, but at least they’re trying. There aren’t a lot of better options that don’t involve heavily restructuring the expectation of the American people, a task which is sadly about as effective as beating your head bloody against a brick wall to get through it.
As for dismantling the DHS, I’m sure it would probably be a lot easier to move forward with that if you actually suggested what you’d replace it with. And, no, “surely there’s something better” is not an acceptible plan. What would you have us do? For my part, I’d more likely remove a lot of the limits on what people could bring aboard aircraft and, instead, sink that wasted money for searches and limits into arming the pilots and placing an Air Marshal or two on every flight. Aircraft are no longer able targets, anyway, simply because Americans know that their actions can subdue and survive. I’d put more emphasis on the INS, in an effort to keep out illegals, from all sides, and kick out anyone in the country illegally, thus making it harder to bring in the kind of folk that make it possible to enact such crimes. But I’d still need a DHS to coordinate such things.
As for Abu Ghraib and the Bush Administration, I really will have to have you sized for the tinfoil hat. Is the crack really all that good? Abu Ghraib has resulted in a lot of under-the-table military shuffling out on site, as it should be. Military tribunals don’t feel the need for the harsh glare of a clumbsily partisan media chorus. And can you, in full possession of your facilities, really tell me you’d rather put John Kerry, a man who’s used a set of lies about his military experience in Vietnam for 30 years to beat and cow into submission his political opponents, who is running for President of the US not based on his 20 year Senate experience and accomplishments but on that same 30 year old set of lies and experiences, who has publically said he’s more interested in subborning the will of the American people to the will of the UN, who obviously owns more waffle-irons than Waffle House in order to produce his rapidly and unstabily shifting political positions, a man who could end much of the debate about his qualifications and prevarications by simply opening his records to the public and yet doesn’t — you would really choose to put this man in charge of the only planetary hyperpower, in the midst of what is, effectively, WWIV (WWIII being the Cold War, and just as important to the nation as this)? While I find George Bush’s domestic policies at best ill-thought out, I cannot, in good conscience, replace him with a man whose record screams out that he’s a will-o-the-wisp on pretty much every issue and hasn’t an articulatable vision for success, either of the country or in the greater world outside. Bush carries at least the burden of sincerity and vision, and I grant that those qualities, rather than articulate speech, are the ones that carry the day. The domestic US can be neatened up at any time; that’s why we have a rapidly turned-over multi-hierarchy governmental system. Thousands of dead on domestic soil by the actions of outsiders, pointedly, cannot.
In fairness…
…be mistaken in any way, shape or form for an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist.
He wasn’t mistaken for an Islamic terrorists. He shares a name with an alleged Irish terrorist.
But it’s still stupid, I agree.
In fairness…
…be mistaken in any way, shape or form for an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist.
He wasn’t mistaken for an Islamic terrorists. He shares a name with an alleged Irish terrorist.
But it’s still stupid, I agree.
That sounds so bizarre… ;/
PS. apparatchiks
That sounds so bizarre… ;/
PS. apparatchiks