Today’s developments in the post-12/25 terror attack are nothing short of chilling. Obviously they are chilling in their police-state tactics. But they also lead to a “chilling effect” — the possibility that these ‘visits from the FBI’ will stop the dissemination of important information to the public.
TSA Targets Bloggers, Not Terrorists – AP
As the government reviews how an alleged terrorist was able to bring a bomb onto a U.S.-bound plane and try to blow it up on Christmas Day, the Transportation Security Administration is going after bloggers who wrote about a directive to increase security after the incident.
TSA special agents served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott, demanding that they reveal who leaked the security directive to them. The government says the directive was not supposed to be disclosed to the public.
Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents Tuesday night at his Connecticut home for about three hours and again on Wednesday morning when he was forced to hand over his lap top computer. Frischling said the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn’t cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo.
That type of threat to a private citizen from the US Government is completely abhorrent and those TSA agents should be immediately terminated.
Dan Riehl has the same thought about this outrage that I did:
The most troubling part of this TSA going after bloggers deal is that it wouldn’t be happening had it been the New York Times that broke the story. They can write an entire series, bring down a classified, covert prison system with implications around the world and win a Pulitzer.
But if a blogger did that, Uncle Sam would be kicking down their door. This is going after the little guy because they can get away with it, or think they can.
But the bloggers aren’t the troubling side effect of the “systematic failure” of the Obama Administration. Passengers on Flight 253 fear an FBI cover-up of a 2nd accomplice in the attempted attack. This is information the Mainstream Media is NOT reporting..
“For the last five days I have been reporting my story of the so called “sharp dressed man.” For those of you who haven’t read my account, it involves a sharp dressed “Indian man” attempting to talk a ticket agent into letting a supposed “Sudanese refugee” (The terrorist) onto flight 253 without a passport.
What is important is that the terrorist avoided using normal passport checking procedures (apparently successfully) in order to avoid a closer look into his red flags. Who cares if he had a passport. The important thing is that he didn’t want to show it and somehow avoided a closer inspection and “normal passport checking procedures.”
The American public deserves its own chance to attempt to identify the “sharp dressed man”. I have no doubt that if the video indicated that my account was wrong, that the video would have already swept over the entire world wide web. Instead of the video, we get a statment that the video has been viewed and that the terrorist had a passport. Each of these statements made by the FBI is a self serving play on semantics and each misses the importance of my prior “sharp dressed man” account.
Mr. President — what the hell is going on with your Government? Is THIS how “your system works”?
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
ur right, I’m fearful that the interference will get worse.
NOBODY talks about who let the pasportless man get on the plane- someone on the airline staff had to approve it.Maybe if we each email the talk shows we listen to and give a clear account-with sources- of what was in the papers, these questions will come out of their own closet!
some of then gotta listen, but we all gotta email
happy new year hope it’s better than 2009
Technically, I think the Obama administration is Brave New World and not 1984. Brave New World is the liberal dystopia.
No, I dont think so.
The difference is not who perpetrated the leak, the difference is a mostly conservative Republican administration (at least foreign policy wise) vs a fascist Democrat administration.
Would the Bush administration have come after bloggers where it would not go after the NYT? I dont see any evidence to support that.
It is who is in power and their attitude towards that power vs the people that makes all the difference here.
Your link to the concerns of Michigan attorney Kurt Haskell ( Passengers on Flight 253 fear an FBI cover-up of a 2nd accomplice in the attempted attack.) is particularly troublesome to me.
Let us imagine that Kurt Haskell is going to be accused of grandstanding for his Andy Warhol sliver of fame. But, he is an attorney and he is laying his career on the line.
Naturally, the TSA/FBI/CIA have a lot of rear end to cover, but there is a huge difference between protecting an on-going investigation and covering up for sheer incompetence.
I expect to see Axlerod on the news shows blowing this off. Obambi has voted “present” one time too many.
And if you want the best argument against so-called “shield laws” for so-called journalists, here it is. The proposals coming out of the Democrats exclude bloggers from coverage, despite teh fact that we now often do the very same sort of stuff that the so-called journalists do.
As you point out, there would be no action of this sort against the NY Times if it had made the report in question — and indeed, even more damaging disclosures by the NY Times (or other traditional media) do not get this sort of treatment. This points to the clear violation of equal protection that such laws constitute — and the fundamental nonsense that such laws would constitute.
OK, off-topic:
Sherlock Holmes is the best gay movie of the year. Rather than deal with sex, it deals with the emotions of two men in love. Instead of portraying Victorian society as a time of oppression, it shows that two men could “share rooms” without anyone batting an eye. The problem for the two men is not some made-up homophobia, but they’re own inability to express themselves or come to terms with what they see as their social roles. It is clear that their relationship is central and the women are mere satellites. It is also clear that their relationship goes beyond friendship–that they are true partners who are working out the terms of that partnership. This is what gay cinema should strive for.
Now, back to the original topic.
Oh, wait, wait, wait–Jude Law is s-o-o-o-o cute!
OK, now back to the original topic.
more of the liberal “KILL THE MESSENGER” approach to all issues.
Libtards don’t want to kill the messenger.
LIBTARDS WANT TO SILENCE THE MESSENGE AND MESSNGER.
OK, I am mostly against publishing stuff that is meant to protect us. Until the net came along, the common person who found a sensitive document in his hand had no real way to get it out there. That is no longer the case.
I have only seen the AP summary of the directive which is not all that exciting, but there may have been some stuff that is best not made public. I suppose the TSA has a good reason to police their own to make sure that they don’t have someone sympathetic to the terrorists on the inside.
The pantie bomber’s father spoke to the CIA on November 19. It turns out that the whole international organization for screening these people is very shaky. Our State Department is way behind the eight ball and I am not sure just where DHS fits in with airlines flying into the US.
What I do know is that Obambi has been just what Cheney has accused him of being: all milquetoast about confronting terrorism. The CIA has had the rug pulled out from under them and the Gorelick wall has been partially reconstructed. Now we have all sorts of misdirected people running around pointing fingers at each other.
Eventually the tap dancing will stop.. unfortunately it looks like US citizens will be lost before that time.. dance Barry dance for now.. your chickens are coming home to roost…. you simpleton…
The problem is that men, during that time, showed their friendships in more physical manifestations. People of this time want to read that as “they’re all fags!!!“. “Gay cinema” should NOT strive for changing reality to fit our hyper-sexualized world just so some pussies, who can’t get any, whack off in their theater seats.
1) The TSA is shooting itself in the foot with this behavior. They have now put themselves under a microscope of a much higher magnification. I would say, “how stupid can you be,” but we’re talking about the TSA here, so I don’t think it’s possible to overestimate their stupidity.
2) Holmes and Watson are so not gay. It does a disservice to men to assume they cannot care deeply for one another without a sexual component.
3) However, Jude Law is indeed hot.
LOL. Amy — what a great way to summarize all 11 comments before yours! 🙂
If they’re not gay, then neither was Oscar Wilde, who was also married. Not to mention the Brokeback Mountain buddies.
The point is, the Victorian era was less oppressive because men were allowed to “share rooms” and show deep public affection for one another and no one cared (think of Lincoln and Joshua Speed). Maybe they did it up the pooper and maybe they didn’t–they loved each other and built a true partnership. This movie depicts what I, Ashpenaz, mean by homosexual and shows the kind of partnership I want to have. Do I have to give back my toaster?
I recommend that everyone watch the movie 1984 or read the book again. I did last week & it just re-instilled all that is going on now in America. What? trust our govt. to tell us the truth? Almost no one believes this any more.
Also, there is a new, underground book just out about a small town that does stand up to our 1984 corrupt govt. & ends up starting the 2nd American Revolution. It’s great cause it could be ur hometown or mine. I mention this book cause our govt. is only going to get worse & the lies will continue & people want a change now. A must read for what’s coming in 2010 & 2012 for us.
http://www.booksbyoliver.com
Not only is the TSA illegally bullying bloggers, the administration has now allowed Interpol extra-territorial status and immunity INSIDE the United States without any constitutional safeguards or oversight. All under the cover of “tightening-up” holes in the system that’s ineffective to start-with. No doubt part of the Internationalists’ plan to allow the Intl. Criminal Court prosecute foreign-inspired political and spurious war-crimes complaints against US citizens, politicians and US service members. Bad enough that Federal agents can come knocking at your door at midnight on a whim, but now foreigners?….
Some the only defense available to a US citizen against the Hague Courts will be a US Marine recon force’s rifle butts clearing the hallways.
Much Needed: Paula Deen PSA needed for New Year. Proper Preparation For “Pigs In A Blanket” GRIN.
Recipe For Disaster:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab aka Panty Bomber .
So You Want To Set The World On Fire Or How I Spent My Christmas Vacation In United States Federal Prison.
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2010/01/we-need-paula-deen-psa-for-new-year.html
Ash, really. Shame on you. This is exactly why some people have such hate for gays — because zealots like you see homosexuality everywhere and have made it virtually impossible for men to have close relationships without some activist queen declaring that its sexual.
What you are discovering is that before the sexual revolution and gay rights movement, it used to be possible, and indeed it was common for entirely heterosexual men to be close and show affection without there being anything sexual or romantic about it.
People like you who try to turn everything gay have ruined that, and a lot of heterosexuals resent it very much.
Adding to Grey Wolf’s list, everyone should read Ayn Rand’s Anthem and We The Living. These books show the logical consequences of these Stasi like tatics. I think the bloggers should have stood their ground and not let them in. This is how tyranny is started, scaring people to accepting this. This is not good at all!!
So, it’s not gay unless they’re doing it up the pooper. I think that the gay community has a very limited definition of being gay. If I want to “share rooms” with a man and share my life, raise a family, and be at his hospital bedside, I think it’s gay. If this Holmes and Watson relationship, which for me is the ultimate of masculine intimacy, turns out not to be gay, I will happily un-out myself and return my toaster.
Perhaps that would be best.
And by the way, no, its not gay.
And by the way Ash, you might note that many gay men have close, intimate relationships with women, where they hug, and touch, cuddle, and even “share rooms” and sleep in the same bed with women. You may even have a female friend like that. That doesn’t mean there is anything sexual OR romantic about it. It doesn’t make them or you straight.
Yet YOU would label that as making them “straight” just as you label any two men having a close relationship as gay.
And lastly, there is a reason the words homosexuality and heterosexuality have the word “sexuality” within them — because its having to do with sexuality. If you want to have close intimate relationships, but dont want the sex or romance, you aren’t homosexual or heterosexual, you are ASEXUAL.
You might also check out a book, which I believe is called, “At Ease” which is a collection of photographs of WWII soldiers during their downtime, that shows the close, intimate, physical relationships that men used to have, with nothing sexual or romantic about them, before gays came-out, and before such relations were made suspect by activists seeking to further their own agenda.
Then compare those close relationships to the kind of interaction men are relegated to today, lest someone accuse their innocent relationships of being something they are not, and you can see why so many people are so angry at the gay agenda, particularly the attempts to let gays in the military.
Id be very angry too if someone took something that important to me, a fatherly relationship, a brotherly relationship, that was completely platonic, innocent, and sexualized it and made it suspect and thus robbed me of it.
Homosexuality, in my definition, is about the person you want to build your deepest, most intimate partnership with. What I see in Holmes and Watson is something beyond good friendship–they’re life partners trying to figure out what that means. Like many gay men, they struggle with their emotional needs and their social roles as men, which typically includes marriage, as it did for Oscar Wilde and Abraham Lincoln (and the Brokeback Mountain pair).
I’m not sure why, in a relationship between consenting adults, the possibility of sex diminishes it. If I looked through the photos of the men in At Ease or your looked through photos of the Victorian cowboys and sailors, and you were to assume that each of those couples had sex with each other, why, exactly, would that be bad? As long as they loved each other? Or why would it be bad if none of those couples had sex with each other?
Homosexuality is about orientation, not the act of sex. The “sex” part is about the drive for physical intimacy with the one you love, but even heterosexuals don’t always have sex with the ones they love. Physical intimacy, to me, means setting yourself apart for one other person in a life partnership. I am a homosexual because that life partner will likely be a man.
I can’t say what Holmes and Watson did in their shared rooms. For me, if my Watson looked like Jude Law, there’d be some up the pooper stuff going on–but no one but us would ever know about it. And that’s true freedom.
You can have my toaster.
Robert Downey agrees with me about the Holmes/Watson relationship. Here’s a link:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/6874415/Robert-Downey-Jr-hints-Sherlock-Holmes-was-gay.html
Homosexuality, in my definition, is about the person you want to build your deepest, most intimate partnership with.
Idiosyncratic definitions make having a discussion difficult.
If I looked through the photos of the men in At Ease or your looked through photos of the Victorian cowboys and sailors, and you were to assume that each of those couples had sex with each other, why, exactly, would that be bad?
Because it would be a lie. Truth is always better than a lie. Ideology uncoupled from facts is wishful thinking.
Robert Downey agrees with me about the Holmes/Watson relationship.
If you listen to the commentary on the DVDs, the actors who played the hobbits in Lord of the Rings think they made an anti-war film.
Well you have schooled me, Ash! I’m sorry! If the actor portraying Holmes says he was trying to portray him as a homo, then you were right and I was wrong and I apologize PROFUSELY. I should have known much better than to trust Hollywood not to insert their agenda into even the most established, cherished characters.
I suppose I should have expected as much, it being Hollywood. But regardless of how Hollywood misrepresents the characters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson were not gay (and while we’re at it, neither was Lincoln), they were never written that way, never intended that way (as your article also confirms), and I should have kept my point to that.
Again, I am sorry I doubted you, you were entirely right and I was entirely wrong and you may berate me however you see fit.
That said, the characters are not gay, and while you may see nothing wrong with “the possibility of sex” being inserted into a relationship, there is most definitely something wrong when it is not truthful.
Whether it is a real person like Lincoln, the WWII soldiers in the book I mentioned, or another person’s creative work, like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s, it is a lie to impose your agenda on them. Thou shalt not bear false witness…I seem to recall reading that somewhere.
Lincoln was gay because his primary emotional attachments were with men, whether or not they did it up the pooper. Homosexuality is about intimacy, not sex. I know “sex” is part of the word, but sex has many dimensions, only one small part of which is the physical act.
1.) Holmes and Watson were NOT gay. Rick and Louie though…
2.) I never want to hear the term “up the pooper” again. It makes homosexual intimacy sound as vile as possible.
3.) Nigel Bruce was HOT!!
I’m sorry Ash, your definition of sexuality is ridiculous.
By your definition, feminine gay men who spend all their time with girls, doing girly bonding things are heterosexuals.
You are confusing friendship with sex and romance and wrongly assuming that because some people are closer to their friends than they are to their mates, that their friendships are then somehow romantic and/or sexual.
A deep misunderstanding of both friendship and sexuality. Some people have low interest in sex and romance to begin with, some people have issues with love and trust, there are many reasons that some people are closer to their friends than to mates, none of which have anything to do with romantic or sexual love.
Not everyone has to have the same definition of sexuality, or what the ideal “sexual” relationship is, or what a homosexual orientation is. My definition works for me. It is my way of understanding my sexuality and my relationships. We have to live in a world where people have different understandings of sexuality.
In that case, Murtaugh and Riggs were gay as well.
You are correct, not everyone has the same definiton of sexuality. And sure, when you redefine sexuality to include friendships that have nothing to do with sexual or romantic love, then Holmes and Watson most certainly are gay.
and so are Starsky and Hutch, Captian Kirk and Spock, Simon and Garfunkel, Han Solo and Chewbacca, Bill and Ted, Beavis and Butthead, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello, Ren and Stimpy, Lewis and Clarke and virtually anyone else you want to be gay.
The problem is that you are not trying to define YOUR sexuality, you are trying to redefine OTHER people’s sexuality, and are contradicting what they themselves say it is in order to satisfy your own agenda.
its called bearing false witness.
You are bearing false witness. I can tell the difference between a friendship and a lifelong covenant. What is happening between Holmes and Watson is on a different level than what happens between Beavis and Butthead, say. Holmes and Watson have set up a household together. Holmes obviously sees marriage as a threat to that partnership (marriage wouldn’t be a threat to a friendship). Watson does not show the same concern for Mary as he does for Holmes, and in fact chooses to follow after Holmes when he plans to meet Mary. Watson puts his life in danger for Holmes. They also wrestle each other a lot in private.
I do, however, think homosexuality is a matter of degree rather than kind. I think that my feelings for men are different from straight friendships only in degree. I don’t think gays are intrinsically different from other men–just capable of experiencing intimacy on a deeper level and also with a sexual aspect. I don’t agree with theories of homosexuality which see gay men as a separate category. I think it would be easier to build bridges to conquer homophobia if we all admitted we were feeling basically the same thing, just to different degrees. Straight friends who see themselves in Holmes and Watson can understand the homosexual relationship I see there if they understand it’s not all that different.
Wow, Ask is really reaching. Though someone better tell Watson’s wives. Not to mention he was quite the ladies man.
Anyway, I eagerly wait for Tano’s comments back in, now that the next check from the administration has cleared.
I’m not sure exactly why anyone who has ever met actual gay people would think that having a wife, or even many women, means you’re not gay. Ask around at your local gay bar how many of the men there have been, or are married. Ask them how many women they’ve had sex with. You’d be suprised at how being gay has nothing to do with your ability, or even desire, to have sex with women. It has to do with the person you feel the deepest intimacy with.
I did not know Ashpenaz sat on the banks of Denial.