I don't really know how to say what I'm feeling right now... (#osama)

Share on Twitter: Tweet

But I've been told the right word is simply "conflicted."

RT @EIKNARF: ‎10 years, 2 wars, 919,967 deaths, and $1,188,263,000,000 later, we managed to kill one person. I hope it was worth it...

When I first heard, I said I didn't think it really mattered. It's not going to change the state of the world. It doesn't mean "mission accomplished." And while it might provide closure for some, it doesn't for a lot of us... I don't feel any closure in this whatsoever. There are people willing to take over now that he's gone.. and killing him doesn't erase what happened. This was NOT justice.

I still agree with that.

Half the people I see tonight are cheering that a "mass-murderer is dead." The other half are literally crying themselves into a state of utter panic because this may "lead to a full-scale nuclear war" or "WW3."

On the one hand, I guess I didn't realize that people actually still cared if he was alive or dead. I had basically declared him dead long ago... I didn't think it would matter. So many people have died. I can't see this as closure. Everything that has brought us to this point wasn't magically erased with his death... So many have died, all over the world, and it's still going on... maybe worsening.

And while I'm glad they finally found him, I just can't really see this as being a massive celebratory thing as everyone else... I don't think his death is justice. I don't think this avenges the lives lost. I sure as fuck don't think a war will do that either, but I just... I honestly wish they had found him and brought him in alive. If only because I find life imprisonment to be a far worse punishment than death. I hate to put it this way, but it also just feels like an easy out... He would have died anyway. I'm surprised he didn't die sooner. And considering the fact that he's basically been "dead to us" on and off for the past 10 years -- as in most of the time we didn't even really know if he was alive, or going to live for very long, or what-- all that's changed for me in this moment is his date of death... Killing others doesn't bring back the dead. We keep them in our memories and honor that. ) He's dead... what has that really solved? It just doesn't feel like closure. And I guess that's just me. If that's enough for the families to stop hurting, then ok... But I just... I don't know. It feels like this story isn't over yet... or that the ending wasn't what I was hoping for. It's not as satisfying a victory as I thought it might be. What I wanted to happen, I don't know... I just don't...

A person's death is not a reason to celebrate.

Then there are the people asking if this means we'll have peace now, if it means the troops can come home - I guess this is really where I'm wondering why the hell his death matters. If anything, it will make peace less attainable... A) We've already acknowleged that our involvement in the Middle East has little to do with him now. "Democracy" is the buzzword. It's not going to end so easily like this, as much as we may want it to. B) There are groups already planning to retaliate. Hence the freaking out... C) If our idea of a good defense is a good offence... The way I see it, either nothing will change or things will get worse.

It doesn't feel like a victory. I don't feel like we've won anything... Ultimately, his death doesn't solve the worst of our problems... Maybe it's comforting for some, and again, if that's what they need for closure, then they can certainly have that... but I still don't think it changes much of anything.

I don't want to offend anyone, but I just... I can't. I can't help how I feel about this... I just wish we had things to bring us together other than death and war...

(And all I could think tonight was Emmanuel Goldstein...)

Math Time -- By Storyteller Knight

I keep hearing the words ‘trade-off’ and ‘necessary evil’ coming from TSA high ranking officials when it comes to these new, invasive and intrusive security screenings at the airport.  They keep promising that there are bad, bad people in the world that will start blowing up airplanes willy-nilly the moment TSA relaxes security.  And then the scare tactic to end all scare tactics—whatever happens, it will be on your head for backing down, not mine.

           

But despite all these promises of the world ending if we lax airport security down to something more reasonable and less invasive, I can only think of three terrorist plots to blow up US bound airplanes in past nine years since 9/11.  Two of them made it through airport security and one was caught before ever reaching the airport.  Not one has originated on US soil since 9/11.  I have never heard of a terrorist plot being caught by TSA during the security screening process.  Now, I’m sure the TSA catches a lot of stuff that shouldn’t go on airplanes, but it’s more likely to be that guy who’s using his camping backpack as a carry-on bag and forgot he keeps his pocket knife in there.  Or a contractor who had put some work tools in his briefcase the day before flying while looking at a site and forgot to take them out.  Or a college kid who had put sunscreen in a not often used pouch in her computer bag and forgot she had it in there.  Dumb stuff, by people who aren’t thinking, is what the TSA is more likely to catch than a terrorist plot.

Look at it another way.  Over 800 million people fly within, into and out of the United States each year—falling somehow under the TSA’s jurisdiction.  That’s more than 7.2 billon people since 9/11.  Of that 7.2 billion, two have been terrorists (not counting the liquid bombers because they didn’t make it to the airport).  .00000003% of flyers over the past nine years have been terrorists intending to blow up an airplane.  With those numbers, the likelihood of the TSA screeners catching a terrorist—one guy in 3.6 billion people every 4.5 years—is insanely improbable. 

Here’s what the TSA officers are more likely to encounter.  It is more likely that the person they are using the enhanced pat down procedure on is a victim of rape who will relive their assault as you pat them down than a terrorist (1 out of 4 for women and 1 in 8 for men).  It is more likely that the person being pat down has PTSD and touching them so invasively will trigger a violent reaction (about 3.5% of the population suffers from PTSD).  It is more likely that the passenger has a medical condition that the body scanners and/or the enhanced pat down will aggravate.  On any given day with over 2 million people passing through security, the TSA is more likely to cause harm to multiple plane loads of passengers than protect them from a terrorist.

You cannot fool proof a system that handles over 2 million people a day and 800 million people a year.  There is always going to be the one dumb schmuck who gets through due mainly to sheer luck.  2 guys in 9 years is an insanely good track record, even more so when you consider that none of those plots originated on US soil.  So enough with the screening process that only makes people feel secure without offering any actual security.  There are better ways to spend our money—like ensuring that if a terrorist does get through the screening process, the right people (like a couple of air marshals on every flight) are in place to stop his or her plot from coming to fruition.               

From TSA to T&A - The Right to NOT be Groped!

In light of this bullshit with the TSA, I thought it might be appropriate to re-post my comments from this summer- I went off on a mini rant regarding the Patriot Act and airport security following the September 11th attacks. And, at the risk of sounding like a crazy person, or worse, a "libertarian" TPer, I'm probably going to go off on a mini-rant right now, because I've had a ton of sugar from Poptart World and I should be sleeping. (Factual, well though out rant to follow later at some point when I'm not in an altered state of mind...)

This is where you see my "left libertarian" side come out - if you feel the need to go through excessive "security" measures and have your every move tracked in the name of "fighting terrorism" to feel safe, then go right ahead. That's your business.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin


I can't say that I'm comfortable with losing civil rights and privacy in favor of allowing the government to see what I'm reading today, or watch my IMs or phone calls because I've had a copy of a shorter version of the Anarchist Cookbook "hidden" on one of my laptops [deleting this part, because it's irrelevant right now & takes up space] even if I have no plans whatsoever to ever try anything in it (except picking an old Masterlock, because I totally forgot the combo ^^") and I've said that many times now. (In fact, friends and I used to purposely start throwing in trigger words and make up the most random conversations just to mess with anyone who could be reading our messages. It's even more amusing on the phone, because of random wiretapping... You never know. Yay for instilling paranoia in the people!!!) And some new security rules are just...???. Like having to take off flip-flops at the airport. It's all out there in the open, what the hell else is there to see? A microchip implanted in the bottom of someone's foot??? Trust me, if someone were trying to sneak a bomb onto a plane in their flip-flops, 1. they're about as bright as a burnt out light-bulb, and 2. you'd probably notice, unless you were too. A knife, maybe, but there's really only so much you can do with a knife that small... I wouldn't really consider them to be a threat. Don't get me wrong here, safety is absolutely a priority, right down there at the base of Maslow's hierarchy, between sleep and friendship... It's just that sometimes you really have to wonder how effective these things are, and just how far we have to go to stop feeling so scared about everything. What will it take for us to feel secure as a people? An authoritarian nanny-state (which is NOT true socialism, no matter how much the ignoramuses think it is [rolls eyes] sorry, in a combative mood after dealing with Murphy's Law for an entire day.) where we're told how to feel in the morning? I don't think so. I have a big problem with laws that are meant to target criminal behavior but affect more innocent people than "guilty." I've been searching high and low for evidence that the Patriot Act has actually been effective. I haven't found any, friends haven't found any, because there apparently really isn't any... Why our government officials felt a need to renew this bullshit, well who really knows. Other countries have passed laws to intentionally block the Act from affecting their own citizens' civil rights and privacy - that's how broad this is. There are necessary safety rules, and then there are paranoid delusions-- and sometimes I really wonder if we too often cross that line...

 So. All of that being said-- I came across a great article in the Trentonian Times, about how these new body scanners are a complete invasion of our privacy and our rights, and serve no real purpose except to humiliate us, etc. (Ok, so maybe I'm paraphrasing a bit...) It was nice, until I saw the comments- what a nightmare! Apparently there are in fact people who praise these scanners as the greatest thing to happen to airport security, because it makes them feel safe. I'm sorry, but no. I drew the line at taking off my fucking flip-flops that were supposedly carrying knives, or so I was told, and giving up a completely full, UNOPENED bottle of apple juice I had just purchased and forgotten about (because I do that). I was pissed off about the waste of perfectly good juice, and the money I had spent on it, and the fact that I was pretty freakin' thirsty and already running late and wouldn't have time to down the bottle right there, but whatever, I could deal with that. I am NOT giving anyone permission to molest me just so that you feel safe on a giant metal object careening through the sky. And my refusal does NOT give you permission to sue me or any other person who does not want to be sexually assaulted on their way to Disney World, if something should actually go wrong. A choice to fly? You know there are a lot of big open spaces between those things we call countries, right? And they're full of dihydrogen monoxide? Which kills people who can't swim 3,000 miles at a time? How the fuck, then, do you expect us to get overseas? Boat? Good luck finding one nowadays. Takes 3 days and 3 times the money of a plane ticket to get anywhere-- and despite what they tell you, those days in between are rarely "fun" once you realize that guy at the bar has been stalking you and plans to kill you in your bed-closet. My father travels often for work, all over the country, all over the world. What do you propose he do? All of the people from school who were planning to study abroad - tough luck? To the rape victims, to those of us who were abused and don't like to be touched by strangers- get over it, you're going to be groped whether you like it or not?? Yea, great, thanks. So glad you're concerned about our well-being. Never mind the fact that it's a trigger, and will probably cause us to collapse in a panic or fit of self-loathing depression, leading us to yet another suicide attempt. No, go right ahead. Grope away.

And Mr. President-- I'm especially pissed off that you're supporting this nonsense. If you're going to NOT be Bush, then dude, you have to actually NOT be Bush-like. We said we hated these things before. Why should now be any different? I understand that some people (oh yea, I'm using that phrase) feel that this is necessary, but let's be frank- it's not, and you know it. You wanted bipartisanship-- well, on this, you're certainly going to get it. But you're not going to like the results. This is a massive violation of our rights not to be publicly groped by government officials. Where is that in the Constitution? 4th Amendment- Unreasonable Search. Yes, I'm saying that patting down a 5 year old because you think she has a bomb hidden in her Dora the Explorer panties is pretty damn unreasonable. And I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that yes, taking pictures of her nude body is pretty damn illegal, too. You're no Sally Mann. TSA, if I'm not horribly mistaken, I'm pretty sure you're required to have probable cause. So how about the guy with a violent criminal record? Not that I'm judging him, because he's repaid his "debt to society"and is probably now trying to be a very nice person and I don't want to take that away from him, but seriously? Between little Sally, or Tom (warning - I kind of think this borders on child pr0n, honestly. TSA strip search of a CHILD-- way to scar him for life, man!), and Jack the Ripper, don't you think that perhaps you're targeting the wrong person? Statistics, people!

You, TSA, fucked up with the racial profiling thing, and the religious profiling thing. That wasn't cool. So now you think it's fair if you just sexually abuse everyone? I don't think so. "The terrorists have won." Exactly. Whether they exist or not is irrelevant, because they have you in a corner shitting your pants every time some hack job with a couple of wires shows up claiming to be a terrorist mastermind hell bent on destroying the planet or whatever it is they're trying to do (and failing so horribly). So now we, the public, must choose - be subjected to potentially harmful xray photographs of ourselves naked, for anyone to see, or be publicly molested? (Unless you set off the scanners, because then you get molested anyway. Oh, but you get another choice! Aren't we lucky? Groped in public, or we can go find somewhere private and secluded...) Or, if we're brave enough, refuse completely and get slapped with a $10,000 fine and possible prison sentence. Hmm, decisions, decisions...

And while we're on the subject of invasive procedures, let's go with another little detail they forgot to mention - who's up for a prostate exam/anal weapons check? Anyone? C'mon, we'll kill two birds with one finger! (Or two, if you'd like... No judgment here!) By the way, who the hell are they hiring to do these "checks?" Because, I'm thinking here, if someone were you know, a sexual predator, they would probably want this job, where they are legally required to fondle people.Why are we not concerned about this??

Can I just say something? Of course I can, it's my blog. We have been dehumanized, humiliated, abused, deluded, lied to, and ignored far enough in this country, by too many. I'm all for National Opt-Out Day. Sounds like fun. (Well, not exactly. Don't touch me. I will hurt you if you touch me, and I don't like to hurt people.) I feel bad for the people who might be held up because of it, but hey, no lines on the scanners, right? Have fun being a (forced) exhibitionist for a day. I'll pass, thanks. Can I trade in my frequent flier miles for skipping this whole ordeal? I'll even get your stupid credit card, Continental!

And on another note, I REALLY want to talk about the Harry Potter movie & how it totally plays into this, because it soo does...

On How Terrorists Make Shit Look Smart and WTF TSA? -- By Storyteller Knight

Guest post by Storyteller Knight

I was checking out Jim Hines’ (http://jimhines.livejournal.com/) blog today (as I do every morning because he is awesome).  Today’s entry consisted of a list of links on the new airport security rules and regulations and ruminations how it was basically tantamount to government sanctioned sexual assault.  I had been hearing buzzing about this for a while but after reading these links and other news stories, I’m seriously disturbed (my heart absolutely broke during the story of the rape victim to whom the choice of full body scanner or the invasive pat down was no choice at all—either option was a trigger).  And I’m really pissed that TSA officials admit to making these new pat downs as humiliating as possible in order to make people think twice about opting out of the full body scanner.  Jeez, people.  This is not okay.

Here’s a fact that I don’t think many people either consider or realize.  Terrorists are dumb.  No, seriously.  These guys make shit look intelligent.  Not to diminish the tragedy that was 9/11, but that wasn’t exactly the most innovative of attacks.  There were a lot of loop holes in FAA regulations- such as allowing blades less than 4 inches into airplane cabins.  Personally, I think were lucky that it took so long for a terrorist organization of any kind to realize that a- 4 inch blades could be carried onto an airplane or b- 4 inch blades can cause a lot of damage.  We went through what?  At least thirty years of air plane travel without anyone capitalizing on that rule?  Either we got really lucky or, as I firmly believe, terrorists are really dumb.

The shoe bomber (who still owes me five hours of my life back, thanks), the liquid bombers and the underwear bomber have done nothing to make me thing otherwise.  And that’s because they’re still so obsessed with blowing up airplanes.  WHY?  I don’t understand.  No, really, what is the point of continuing to try and blow up airplanes?  First off, with the new TSA regulations that grow tighter and more absurd with every terror plot (more on that later), it must be an absolute bitch to try and blow up an airplane.  Second, blowing up an airplane only knocks off about 400 people if it’s a really big plane.  That’s kinda... lame. 

And once again, not to dismiss the pain caused to anyone who hypothetically lost a family member in the hypothetical blown up airplane, but I’m simply not impressed by that plot anymore.  The point of terrorism, as far as I understand it, is to incite terror and create chaos within the infrastructure of whatever you’re attacking.  Blowing up airplanes doesn’t do that anymore.  The people who were terrorized by 9/11 aren’t flying anymore, and shoe, liquid and underwear bombs aren’t going to stop the people who are still flying.  And the infrastructure of flying isn’t going to fall apart if any airplane blows up midflight.  TSA will tighten down security, a new airplane will get built and we move on. 

To me, looking at this from a purely academic standpoint, the attacks on the London buses in 2005 and the Mumbai attacks in 2008 were more useful to the terrorist goals—the incited terror and the caused chaos within those infrastructures.  If I didn’t know that terrorists were dumb, I’d be seriously surprised that no attacks have occurred on American infrastructures yet.  And it’s not like they would even have to come up with the plans themselves.  Thrillers— books, movies, and TV shows run like terrorist tutorials.  The 24 hour news media loves to point out which of our institutions are totally vulnerable to terrorist attacks- ground transportation (cars, buses, subways) food (especially processing), water, schools, hospitals (as the pro-lifers prove time and time again), buildings of worship (and mailing bombs on airplanes are as totally unimpressive as blowing up airplanes—that’s like asking to be caught) and shopping centers.  Hell, if you want to stick with the air theme, blow up an airport.  You could kill thousands of people without ever having to pass through airport security (by the way, how funny is the warning to watch out for unattended baggage?  That totally does not take into account the suicide aspect of suicide bombings).

Which brings me to airport security.  You guys are making the terrorists look smart.  You’re so predictable it’s almost funny.  Someone tries to blow an airplane with a shoe, shoes have to come off.  Someone plots to blow up an airplane using liquids, liquids in containers larger than 4oz are no longer allowed through security (but empty containers larger than 4oz are, so we’ll see how long it takes to the terrorist to figure that one out).  Someone tries to blow up an airplane with his underwear, these virtual strip searches are mandated (which would not have detected the explosives in the underwear, but whatever).  And look, I get that it’s scary.  I was flying during two of those incidences (to Hawaii on the day of the attempted shoe bombing and home from Greece/Amsterdam the day the liquid bombing was supposed to occur).  But none of these restrictions are going to stop a smart terrorist from blowing up an airplane.  It’s barely stopping the dumb ones.  Because these full body scanners only show the surface of the body and not what’s in it, I fully expect in four years to being hearing breaking news on the Tampon Bomber, or the Butt Plug Bomber, or the I ate the Bomb Bomber.  So what happens then?  Will we require actual strip searches and endoscopic probes into the mouth, nose, ears, vagina and anus?  Don’t answer that.

The question is often asked about which plane would people get on if two were offered- one with the highest security possible and one with no security.  Um... I would actually get on the plane without any security.  No contest.  Because terrorists aren’t going to give a flying fuck about the plane without any security measures.  Because those of us on that airplane are showing them that despite all the terrorist attacks on airplanes, we’re still not afraid of them.  And if our airplane gets blown up, everyone will agree that we deserved it because we thought we’d be safe without security.  But if the plane with the highest level of security possible gets blown up, it sends the message that no matter how secure you think you are, we can still get to you.  That will make the news, that will send people into a panic and that’s why the dumb terrorist will go after the secure plane instead of the unsecure one. 

But I’m not advocate that we go back to no airport security.  I’m advocating for airport security that is actually secure instead of one that gives the façade of being secure without any actual security (as I pointed out, these invasive strip searches would not have stopped the underwear bomber).  Go back to metal detectors and x-ray machines.  Let me keep my shoes on.  Let me keep my liquids.  Stop spending so much god damn money on the screening process and spend more money on making sure a handful of air marshals are on every flight.  We’ve gotten to the point where we can no longer predict for/stop every possible threat from passing through check point security.  Now it’s time to make sure that if something bad does get through, people are in place to make sure that weapon or chemical or explosive can’t be used.    

9 Years Later... Remembering September 11th, 2001

So... I wasn't going to post anything, but I thought perhaps I should. No politics. Not today.

For those of you who may not be aware of it, today is the anniversary of the attacks on the WTC & the Pentagon. It's probably the only day that I can remember exactly where I was...

It was the beginning of 8th grade, first class of the day, and I was sitting in reading class, in a clean, black desk right by our teacher... We were going over a story, and a quiz... and suddenly, every 5-10 minutes, small groups of children were being called down to the principal's office. No one knew why. Naturally, we began to panic. Did something happen? Why won't they tell us what's going on?  Someone came to the classroom to talk to our teacher. She came back, suddenly very concerned, and told us to stay calm, that they didn't want the younger kids to hear us and worry. They would make an announcement, but something very terrible had happened. The children who were being called down... their parents were involved. Soon after, another announcement came over the PA system-- the principal, in a very somber tone, told us that a plane had crashed into the WTC building... that they didn't know many details... And then, moments later, the second plane hit.

I remember sitting there, in shock, hoping not to get a call and trying to sort out in my mind what was going on... & I remember someone turning on the radio, trying to find some more details. I remember watching it on TV, and how just a few years ago my sisters and I had taken a picture with the towers in the background. I found it recently... I still have it. From some parts of my town, by South Amboy and up towards the Hudson, you could see the smoke. It seems so far away, but we could see the smoke... To me, to us-- NYC, & the entire country, the entire world, was changed forever. I remember this the most, that in spite of all of our differences, at that point, we were all the same. We all felt the same things, we worked together instead of against each other, we cried together... united.

And I remember how bad I felt that my 13th birthday party was that weekend... when we were all in mourning, & there I was asking people to celebrate something that suddenly seemed so trivial. After families were destroyed, and friends were killed.  My father worked near there, and I can't even begin to describe how I felt when I heard there was an attack in Manhattan. He was supposed to be in that building later. He was lucky... he was just home a few hours late. Other fathers weren't. And afterwards, tens-of-thousands were tortured and killed abroad because of the actions of 19 extremists. So many have died and suffered. It's 9 years later, and the pain doesn't stop. Reliving this now, reliving the fear, and the collective anguish... It's hard not to cry. That day, it was like the world stopped. Everything was silent...

And even now, it's not over. It's something I think about every single time I see the NYC skyline. It looks so empty. 9 years later, I haven't been there yet... I can't. I remember the statues standing in Port Authority for years, and the plans for the memorial... The memorial still isn't built, but it could never replace who was there. Something's missing. We won't get it back.

I won't be one of those people who says "never forget," because to some extent, I want to. As my mother told me that weekend, eventually life has to go on. It's the way they would have wanted it. It hurts, and it's scary, but we can't lose hope, or let pain and fear control us forever. We can't continue to live in the past. And we certainly can't blame everyone for the actions of a few. I don't want "never forget" to be "never forgive."


R.I.P.
We miss you.

"Hypocrisy: If they’re a Terrorist, you’re a Racist "-- By Storyteller Knight

All Catholic priests are rapists.
All members of the Tea Party are violent racists.
All Southern Conservative Christians are too dumb to tie their own shoes.

I can hear you all yelling at me right now. Yes, I know that it is wrong and unfair to blame an entire group of people for the abhorrent actions of a few. I find the above words to be disgusting and anyone who utters them to be ignorant and foolish. And yet, if we know that you shouldn’t associate and blame the actions of a few on a whole group, why does this statement, this mindset continue to be okay?

All Muslims are terrorists.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? If it isn’t okay to blame the entire Tea Party for the few members who’ve attacked members of Congress or yelled racial slurs at them, then it isn’t okay to blame the entire Islam religion for 9/11. That was a violent extremist group, no different from the members of the Tea Party who severed the gas line at Bo Perriello’s house. And if you, non-violent Tea Party member, do not wish to be associated with the psychopath who did that, you don’t get to call all Muslims terrorists or blame the entire religion for 9/11. Because if you do that, I feel that is perfectly within my rights to blame you for the attempted murder of an innocent man and his family and call you a racist. You can’t have it both ways. YOU CAN’T!

I’m sick and tired of this mentality that if a white man does something wrong, it’s an isolated incident of one psychopathic screwball and we shouldn’t blame all white men for what that one dude did. But if someone not-white does something wrong, it’s on that entire race or religion or sex/gender/orientation. It’s never just an isolated incident when the offender is not-white. It’s an epidemic. A problem we need harsher laws or new programs to try and correct or prevent.

So, with that in mind, I have to ask. Because one of the arguments that I’ve heard thrown out during the debate over the “Ground Zero Mosque” (which is actually more of a community center and two blocks away from Ground Zero, but whatever), is that the land around Ground Zero is Holy Ground. If a white guy wanted to build a strip club within a two block radius of Ground Zero, do you honestly believe it would have created the giant conflict this Mosque/Community center has caused? This is hallowed ground, after all. An area that is owed the utmost respect and highest honor from each person in America. Do you think Mama Grizzly Sarah Palin or Professor Glenn Beck would have rushed to rally the masses against such an establishment going on such hallowed ground?

Please.

As morally gray many Christians, especially conservatives Christians, find strip clubs, I haven’t heard mention from those who oppose the Park 51 project the ones that already exist within that two block radius. I’m sorry, but can you really refer to that two block radius as hallowed ground if no effort has really been made in the past decade to turn it into a more respectful, reverent community? But let’s just admit that it’s not really about the hallowed ground. Let’s just admit that the conflict over Park 51 has nothing to do with honoring Ground Zero and everything to do with what the white man thinks is okay. And strip clubs are in and a Mosque/Community Center is not. And this is not okay.


-- Storyteller Knight

Terror Babies? This Sounds like a Bad Hollywood Movie...

Warning: the following may be offensive to people of the Islamic faith, or people of Middle Eastern descent, or, really, anyone with a brain and common sense. I don't mean to be disrespectful, I'm just trying to prove a point. This is an example (rather accurate, unfortunately) of what I've heard from some very insane people, stemming from what they've dubbed the "Ground Zero Mosque." (Which, for the rest of you, is NOT a mosque but a community center, and is NOT at Ground Zero but 2 blocks away, in the old Burlington Coat Factory building near a church and an adult book store. There is no reason whatsoever for all this fuss; it's just discrimination against followers of Islam.)

Plot - Pregnant mothers sneak into America under the cover of nightfall, pretending to be lost "tourists" trying to find their hotel. Come morning, they have popped out 1 or 2 kids, & have assimilated into the communities by building Mosques all over the country, which they tell everyone are like "churches"-- however they are actually secret training camps for terrorists!!! When the children are born, they appear to be like all other little American children (except for their dark skin tone, of course.) However, when they are a bit older, they return to their "home country" to be raised and trained in the way of the jihadist terrorist. They will return when they are older... but for what purpose? Their mothers wear burkas to hide their faces and claim their religion makes them do it. But underneath all of that cloth is a Secret-Ops ninja costume for Operation Allah-- the day when Muslim Terror Babies take over America!!! [Mwhahahahaha!!!!]

Alright, I had decided against writing a review for Salt (because that movie was just... ridiculous), but again, reality has somehow become even more ridiculous. So in all seriousness- GOP "terrorist baby" conspirators-- take a chill pill and stop watching Angelina Jolie movies in your sleep. For those of you who haven't seen the movie but have heard of this ridiculous argument that proponents of the "Repeal the 14th Amendment!" camp constantly spout, well, now you know the whole plot of Salt (more or less). And if you've seen the movie, here's a quick summary- instead of Russians, these kids are the Middle Eastern equivalent of what conservatives call "anchor babies" (rude term for children of undocumented immigrants, usually only applied to Mexican-American children since apparently no Republican ever considers that people from other countries -- say Germany or Canada-- would immigrate here. Since they're born here in the USA, they are automatically citizens, under the 14th Amendment).

I shouldn't need to go on about how this is offensive on so many levels. I'm not even going to mention how wrong it is to assume that all mothers who come here for a visit, or to immigrate here to give their children a chance at a better life must have some ulterior motive bent on destroying America from the inside out. (Though I do have to wonder about the ancestors of Pat Robertson, Beck, Palin, Bachmann, & Limbaugh...)


Maybe one crazy woman somewhere in the world got it into her head that this would be a good idea. Maybe. But I'm pretty sure that crazy woman is Texas state legislator Rep. Debbie Riddle. She seems to believe this insane plot is real-- methinks she's been talking with Fox. Though should I be surprised she's from Texas?

Ms. Riddle - Salt was just a movie. It's going to be ok.


UPDATE: Ex-FBI Official Debunks "Terror Babies" Conspiracy Theory --"There was never a credible report -- or any report, for that matter -- coming across through all the various mechanisms of communication to indicate that there was such a plan for these terror babies to be born..." (just more proof that proponents of this theory are all crazies-- or that the FBI's been compromised. RUN & HIDE!! ~~ D.A.K.)