(no subject)
Oct. 27th, 2004 07:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ambitious_wenchSource: Google Cache:
[Poll #374024]
10/14/04 09:25 am
a prayer for dubya
Dear God:
Wassup? How's it hanging? Yeah, I know it's been a long time since we talked. This probably stems from my belief that you do not exist. Anyway, the reason why I'm calling you is because last night, President Bush said that he could feel it every time we prayed for him, and since he apparently doesn't listen to anyone but you, Lord, I thought you might pass this along to him.
Please kill George Bush. I hate him so much. I think he is a giant dick and I want terrible things to happen to him. I'm not really big on the specifics of how he dies, but if you could at least arrange it so that the authorities find his dead body on top of an underage black male prostitute surrounded by a mountain of cocaine and child pornography, that would really be super-awesome. And maybe you could have some media people there when the police find the body, so they can take pictures and stuff. That'd be fucking GREAT. Am I allowed to say "fuck" in a prayer? Shit, I just said it again. Ah, well.
Anyway, that's my prayer, Lord. Please, please, please kill Dubya. And Dick Cheney. And everyone else in the Bush Administration. Maybe they can all commit mass suicide together or something. I don't know. You're the one with all the ideas. You come up with something. I need more coffee.
Smooches and Huggles,
anniesj
Come on, people. Share your own prayers for Bush. Maybe if we all pray hard enough, Bush will feel it so deeply he'll have an aneurysm! You never know! *squeezes eyes shut and prays harder*
[Poll #374024]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 04:49 pm (UTC)Seriously, a) you're not presenting all the evidence, and b) it's really three separate questions.
Question #1: Do you think the above LJ entry warrants a visit from the Secret Service?
Question #2: Do you think the above LJ entry warrants a record of investigation that will follow the author for the rest of her life?
Question #3: If you were in charge of keeping the President safe and knowing the utter media fallout that would occur if it was shown that you were wrong about this person's intentions and she did actually shoot somebody after she had been reported to you, would you take an hour out of your life to stop by and see if she's completely off her rocker?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 05:45 pm (UTC)a) It's the "evidence" that the SS had to go on--and I don't have access to the letter that was written to them by the snitch. Kindly present any other "evidience" you may have for general consideration.
b) #1 & #2 are not separate because they BOTH happened to the author. You cannot have one without the other. This isn't a pick-and-choose world.
#3 is invalid considering the content of the article in question. It is CLEARLY satirical, and she NEVER said she wanted to DO bad things to the prez.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 05:57 pm (UTC)"1) I hate George W. Bush. A lot. I hate him. I wish bad things would happen to him. If he died, I really would laugh. And dance. And scream. And there might be nudity. You all should know this about me by now, unless you're new, and in that case -- hi. I hate Dubya. A lot. Now you know. :)"
It may not be convincing evidence, but to say that "This is all they had" is not true.
b) Yeah, they are separate. If you jaywalk across the road and a cop gives you a ticket, then beats the living shit out of you, you can say, "She deserved the ticket but not the beating." To add it into an all-or-nothing package is, to say the least, sloppy questioning (and sloppy logic). Shit, that's the same kind of stupid all-inclusive logic that leads people to go, "Well, if you agree the world is better without Saddam in it, then you're a hypocrite for questioning the invasion!"
c) Really? So lemme ask you a question: If this person actually did shoot the President, do you honestly think the media would lean back and say, "Well, it's not their fault for not catching her because this was clearly satirical"?
It's easy to say "It's clearly trivial" when you have nothing at stake. When the life of the President and your career is on the line, you start thinking differently. There are a lot of killers who made a lot of jokes - Timothy McVeigh made a lot of funny jokes about how somebody should kill government employees to teach people a lesson, ha ha. (He actually did. I'm not kidding.)
The lesson is, you don't always know until you check it out.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 06:44 pm (UTC)"I hate George W. Bush. A lot. I hate him"
It's not a crime to hate. It's not even a crime to hate a lot.
I wish bad things would happen to him.
You will note that she does NOT say "I want to do bad things to him". Again, it's not against the law to wish harm on the president. This does NOT warrant an investigation. If she has said "I wish someone would kill him", or if she said "I want to kill him", that would be justification for an investigation.
"If he died, I really would laugh. And dance. And scream. And there might be nudity."
I'm reminded of that episode of Prairie Home Companion when Keillor announced that President Reagan died (http://prairiehome.publicradio.org/programs/2004/06/05/) There were sounds from the audience that sounded remarkably like screams or hoots of joy or triumph from at least two people. Dancing nude? Well, that's not worth calling in the SS. That's hyperbole.
b) No, they are NOT separate. The law does not allow a policeman to beat up jaywalkers. It's part and parcel of an investigation to have a report generated. This has been brought to my attention over and over, by your readers and mine. Once again, you CANNOT have one without the other in this society.
c) Yeah, really. It's obvious to me from her post that she has no intention of harming the president, nor inciting anyone else to do so. I'd bet a careful reading of her entire journal would reveal that she's no harm, too.
There's a difference between "someone should kill", and "God, please kill..." and "I wish bad things would happen to him".
As for the snitch, well, in every society there will be those who will abuse the system for malice. It's up to the system to use good judgment and figure out the bullshit from genuine threats. This coupled with other documented cases of paranoia tells me that the system has become obscessed with "security", with finding "enemies of the state" under every rock, and that smacks of fascism, IMO.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 06:49 pm (UTC)If you genuinely would, fine. I have my serious doubts about whether you would if someone placed that much responsibility in your hands, but hey. Maybe you would.
But if you were wrong, God help the world.
(And yes, they are separate. Having a file isn't a horrible thing, except for the current insane no-fly regulations. Thus, I can separate them... And should.)
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 07:01 pm (UTC)And yes, I'd say that this was a case not worth investigating. There is no stated threat to his life. And I'd be willing to throw it in the circular file in the name of individual rights and civil liberty to toss it in the trash.
And if I were wrong, God won't help the world. He hasn't yet, has he?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 07:17 pm (UTC)Having the SS show up at your doorstep is embarrassing, yes, but that's not a reason to not investigate someone. Shall we start deciding what crimes to look into based on how humiliated the person would be if we asked?
Of those all, the only problem I see is the no-fly zone, which is why I support a more compacted and open database.
There's no implicit threat. Whether it's explicit is something worth following up on.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 07:32 pm (UTC)It's mroe than embarassing. It can mean shunning in some communities. The consequences in this case (note that qualifier, if you please) are NOT worth the effort. And yes, I think it should be a consideration in the overall evaluation on whether or not to launch and investigation. Note the qualifier, again: "A consideration..." , as in one of many.
And don't even get me started on the whole no-fly list thing. That's been a tool to suppress dissenters from the start, and I am outraged by it.
There's no explicit threat to the president, nor implicit. There should not have been an investigation, IMO.
Edie
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 07:40 pm (UTC)As for being denied a government job, most of those jobs are in security fields. If you're enough of a blabbermouth that the Secret Service can find your death threats, that's probably an indication that you're not terribly good at keeping your mouth shut about things, and that you're loyal to the man, not the government. Neither is good when you're charged with safeguarding the nation, not an administration. (Not to mention the fact that you obviously suck at keeping things under wraps.)
There's a very clear implicit threat: "You kill him, you make me happy." Ask abortion doctors how they feel about it when right-wing Christians post similar ha-ha messages about them.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 08:00 pm (UTC)Um, no, it's not a 'misnomer' (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=misnomer). I think you may have meant "exageration". And no, it's not an exageration. It's conjecture based on the people I know who work in the government, and have expressed such views to me.
"I doubt large segments of the population really want to see the President dead under any circumstances,"
Whoa, Nellie. I didn't say "of the population." Go read it again, Ferrett, or if you're too busy, drop the discussion.
"...and maybe you wanna pull your head out of your liberal clique"
*THAT* was uncalled-for. You have no clue who my "clique" is, and further, this is actually a conservative stand: To wit, that Americans should be free from molestation, harrassment and intrusion by the US Government for purely political reasons. I'd like an apology.
"... and seriously think about whether your views are shared across America."
I have. And I have come to my conclusion.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 08:08 pm (UTC)Chances are pretty good that the pro-Bush people aren't going to talk to you much, and the people who whisper, "I wish he was dead" are in the minority. Based on my talk, most government folks may want him out of office, but dead is another fucking matter altogether. Most people tend to be a little loathe to wish anyone dead, except for sandy towelheads who don't count.
Of course, we're not going to get an official answer to this, but I get the feeling that you're going to be convinced the world is on your side whether they are or not. Me? I'm no fan of Bush, but I do know that roughly 48% of the population currently plans to vote for him, and thus they probably don't want him dead. The rest, 52%, would have to not only want him out of office but actively wish his demise - a figure I seriously doubt, even among government workers (many of whom, may I add, have jobs only because of Bush's rapid expansion of government).
Thus, when I say, pull your head out of your clique, I do mean it. A lot of people may want him dead, but I doubt it's majority or even a significant portion. When you talk to liberals, you get a liberal slant. I know I'm surrounded by 'em, but I try to compensate.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 04:45 am (UTC)Again, you're misconstruing what I said, on top of getting personal. "Pull your head out of your liberal clicque" Is an insult because it's clearly a euphemism for "Pull your head out of your ass".
Further, you don't know the political leanings of the folks I've talked to about this. You tend to assume that if they would like to see Bush dead, then they *must* be liberal. I'm throwing the bullshit flag on this one, Ferrett.
I didn't and won't my breath for an apology. It's become clear to me that this is no longer a civil discussion, and it's more important for you to win by insult than discuss the issue.
This discussion is now closed.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 08:10 pm (UTC)There were no death threats.
"...that's probably an indication that you're not terribly good at keeping your mouth shut about things, and that you're loyal to the man, not the government."
*puzzled look*
"Loyal to the man"? Um, she demonstrated that she is NOT loyal to "the man".
Neither is good when you're charged with safeguarding the nation, not an administration. (Not to mention the fact that you obviously suck at keeping things under wraps.)
Why should she keep her dislike of Bush under wraps? She's not working for the government now. When she's working for the government, that's when it becomes an issue.
"There's a very clear implicit threat: "You kill him, you make me happy." "
Um, she was speaking satirically to a god she doesn't believe in. There was no implicit threat.
Ask abortion doctors how they feel about it when right-wing Christians post similar ha-ha messages about them.
Those nutjobs are NOT posting "ha-ha" messages. Ye gods, am I the only one who can see the difference between satire and a genuine threat?
no subject
Date: 2004-10-28 04:46 am (UTC)Some jobs require a defined neutral nature. Those are the jobs you don't get when you make statements like this.
"There's a very clear implicit threat: "You kill him, you make me happy." "
Um, she was speaking satirically to a god she doesn't believe in. There was no implicit threat.
"If he died, I really would laugh. And dance. And scream. And there might be nudity. You all should know this about me by now, unless you're new, and in that case -- hi."
In other words, "If you killed him, you'd make me happy." Hmm. Kind of what I said, isn't it?
And it's not that I can't see a satire; it's that when so much is at stake, the difference between satire and genuine need can be pretty thin. If someone posted this on an anti-abortion bulletin board with your name and address:
"If
And then wrote funny letters to God saying how she wanted you to die, and kept posting 'em in public places where people who really hated you tended to congregate, you're telling me that you'd feel entirely comfortable with it? Jodie Foster might have a word for you.
The argument here is not whether that it was clearly satire - yeah, it was, and the Secret Service apparently knew that. Mostly. They didn't drop the big hammer - in fact, as I said before, it was the littlest hammer they had. The question is, was it clear enough that you'd risk a life on it?
Maybe you would. They wouldn't. That's not harassment, it's double-checking. Considering how much shit the FBI got for not following up every lead before 9/11, the Secret Service (which has a much more defined job) is doing what they're supposed to be.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 04:50 pm (UTC)If that's the case, then the Secret Service probably *were* acting reasonably in investigating, particularly since by the author's account they were polite and confirmed within about ten minutes that she was no threat. (The record on permanent file, and possible consequences of that, are another matter, but that's the FBI's responsibility rather than the SS's.)
The snitch, OTOH, needs to be taught a severe lesson in why making spurious reports to police is a Bad Thing.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 05:48 pm (UTC)However, I'll go out on a limb and say this: I'm of the ignorant opinion that the snitch wasn't motivated by genuine concern for the safety of the president, but by malice or politics, or a combination of the two.
And that makes my blood boil.
Edie
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 05:56 pm (UTC)And, yes, it seems very unlikely that they genuinely believed there was a threat to the president. But it certainly makes for an easy way to cause trouble.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 07:51 pm (UTC)It'd be nice if we could have a little perspective on this. They checked up with the absolute minimum of investigation possible, short of not investigating at all. And they are required to follow up on these things by law.
And thinking that somehow, bashing the snitch will get you in trouble (when he is NOT the President of the United States and thus is not under any federal protection) shows a misunderstanding of why they came knocking. Feel free to yell at the snitch; you can bitch at him all you like.
no subject
Date: 2004-10-27 08:03 pm (UTC)"On the internet, no one can hear you be sarcastic"
/*humor alert*