Business class to Guantanamo Bay
This week In a few hours I will be leaving on a business trip for the States, my first trip back in more than three years (my last visit was just prior to September 11th, 2001). It will be interesting to see how much my country has changed in the time since then. Unfortunately, I don’t think much has changed for the better. All things considered, I will regard the trip as a smashing success if:
- Our plane doesn’t crash (I’ve been reading the 9/11 commission’s report recently, which is probably something you shouldn’t do before getting on an airplane).
- I don’t get hauled off to Cuba for stepping outside of a free-speech zone or something (I’m no Kevin Drum or Atrios, but I am rather outspoken in my criticism of the president—a trait that would almost certainly flare up in the face of authoritarian pushiness).
If the business deal also happens to go well, that will be a really nice bonus.
My wife says I’ll be fine as long as I keep my mouth shut about Bush. If that’s the case, I should get fitted for one of those cone-shaped hoods right now.
Update: Oh, crap. My connecting flight out of D.C. will be with Delta, the same airline that recently harassed Bob Harris of This Modern World for no apparent reason. (I might even be in possession of a camera during this trip, perhaps even more than one! God save us all.)
This is not making me look forward to this trip. As I am getting ready to head out, I find myself filled with anxiety and a lingering fear that Bob Harris’ (or Kevin Drum’s) experience is not simply an aberration, but a symptom of the on-going Gitmoization of America being carried out to create the impression that our president has a clue about how to handle terrorism. Bob’s closing remarks are haunting: “I am in the United States. But I am not home.”
I will soon be on my way back to the States. I wonder if it will still be the home I remember.
Nice website. Unfortunately, America hasn’t changed much. It did after 9/11 for almost a year, but the politics are now as partisan as ever and the citizens have the same short term memory issues.
I always smile when I here people talk about how it isn’t permitted to critisize the president in the States any more. I agree that the free-speech zones, etc. are an abominatino (just as the Dems did for their convention?), but all everybody in the US seems to do these days is critisize Bush. It’s practically the national pastime, fer Pete’s sake, so intimations of squelched free speech ring just a little hollow.
Phew, I made it back almost without incident! Better still, the business deal went off without a hitch--so I got the bonus on top of not dying and not being shipped to Cuba. I’m happy about that.
Thanks for the comments, Abe. Things in the States are not at all as bad as I had feared, but still a bit on the paranoia-run-rampant side--at least as far as I could tell in a short trip. (More on these things in another post.)
And where would we be without Zachary Braverman to remind us all that any notion of squelched dissent must be cooked up in the fevered brains of radical lefty peacenik know-nothings?
Perhaps Zachary was unphased by (or simply didn’t click through to) the Guantanamo on the Hudson piece, its sequel, or any of the articles linked to therein, but it seems to me that Bush has been no friend of the First Amendment (to which I have made a link because it seems to me that Zachary may not have remembered that it deals not only with free speech but also the right to peaceably assemble).
Be these things as they may, however, I think Zachary entirely misses the point when he writes that “all everybody in the US seems to do these days is critisize Bush.” Sure, in my blog or your blog or any one of millions of political forums, people are still free to direct criticism at Bush, but no one is allowed to criticize Bush himself--or haven’t you noticed that people get arrested (usually for something stupid like “trespassing,” which subsequently gets thrown out in court) for so much as wearing anti-Bush statements in the president’s presence? It’s hardly a new pattern. This kind of thing seems to happen whenever the man speaks.
And remember that time when the Secret Service told a couple of Oakland High School students that, “we own you, you don’t have any legal rights”? Pretty hollow stuff.
Sako, I’m willing to admit that this administration (of whom I am definitely no fan) has sometimes gone over the line in squelching free speech if you are willing to admit that you, as a random blogger, have 0.0000000% chance of being detained or otherwise persecuted for what you’ve written.
By the way, I doubt the behavior documented in the “Guantanamo on the Hudson” link has much to do with the administration per se. Much more likely bad apples (no pun intended) on the NY police force. Or are you making the explicit accusation that someone in the White House called the NY Police and told them to rough up and detain protesters? If you are not willing to make this claim, then the link has nothing to do with the administration.
If being pulled out of line at the airport counts as “being detained,” you will have to adjust your estimate of my chances up a bit. I can’t say that what happened to me was connected to what I write--indeed, it seemed a lot like random selection--but other anti-Bush bloggers have also noted this treatment (hence this post).
And you are right about the Guantanamo on the Hudson piece not being connected to the Bush administration, but the gist of this post is not about the Bush administration, but rather about how America has changed in the time I’ve been away. One of the ways it has changed, whether the Bush administration is involved or not, is that I am almost certainly more likely to be arrested for even being at the scene of a protest. And let’s hope that I’m not wearing a “Love America, Hate Bush” T-shirt at the time.
I am as dismayed at the New Brutality(TM)displayed at our airports as you, but I say never attribute to politically-motivated malice what can otherwise be attributed to beaurocratic meaness, stupidity, and incompetence.
For example (from one of my favorite blogs):
Teacher arrested for possessing potentially deadly bookmark
(Edited so that the long URL for this entry doesn’t stick out past the border of my comments section. --Sako)
Yes, but the underlying culture of fear is what makes these acts acceptable in the name of “protecting” us. That fear is fostered by a political situation in which one party feels it can maintain power by scaring the crap out of everyone, so it seems that a rational step in any attempt to make the situation better would be to replace the party that fosters the paranoia (thereby justifying these unfortunate acts).
Sako. I’m not sure how much the Bush administration has “fostered fear.” And I mean that literally-I’m not saying they haven’t, nor that they have. I really don’t know.
All I do know is that a certain amount of fear is certainly warranted. Fear gets a bad rap, but it’s a vital survival mechanism. There are a lot of intelligent people out there who would do anything possible to kill as many Americans as possible. If that doesn’t deserve fear then I don’t know what does.
As to whether or not what the Bush administration has done includes fear mongering not for justifiable reasons but for political profit, which is what you are saying...That’s a tough call. There has certainly been some of that, although I’m not sure if I think that they are as responsible as you for some people’s excesses.
I’m not sure how much the Bush administration has “fostered fear.”
Uh huh.
As to whether or not what the Bush administration has done includes fear mongering not for justifiable reasons but for political profit, which is what you are saying...That’s a tough call.
Only for someone who hasn’t been paying attention.
I read some of the info regarding the Moscow on the Hudson bunk. I want to know why the Democrats felt they needed to protest at the Republican National Convention. I didn’t see anything like that being covered during the Democratic Convention. There were some protestors but they didn’t advertise they were going there to cause a civil disturbance. The Republican supporters left the Democrats alone, basically, but when it comes time to return the favor, or to be mature, the Democrats turn to lawlessness and attacking police to gain attention. I really don’t like John Kerry. However I would never deface any advertisements for him. His supporters have the right to support him. Why don’t Kerry’s supporters feel like the Bush supporters have the same rights. I have seen many Bush-Cheney billboards defaced where I live and it makes me sick to my stomach to think that I could ever agree to support someone that is being backed by criminals.
Brian,
One reason you didn’t hear anything about protestors at the D convention was that (if I remember what I read correctly) they were all confined to fenced off areas ("cages"). If the R’s had done this, most democrats would have hollered about Supression of Free Speech and Facism, but well you know.....
Bryan,
it makes me sick to my stomach to think that I could ever agree to support someone that is being backed by criminals.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously with that kind of viewpoint? Criminals? Please. As if Bush’s biggest lifetime political supporter hasn’t been a whole gang of criminals. I guess it doesn’t make you sick to your stomach if the criminals don’t deface signs, huh?
And Zachary, for someone who professes to have a world view of not villifying people who have contrary views, you sure do spend a hell of a lot of time bashing anyone who doesn’t support Bush--whatever their reasons. I agree that the fenced-off areas raised very serious First Amendment issues, but you cannot seriously suggest that this puts Kerry anywhere near the same league as Bush. Bush has based his entire campaign on not allowing people with opposing views anywhere near him. But whatever, Bush lies and Kerry lies, so they’re both equally liars, right?
The lovely thing about our modern sense of objectivity is that it obviates the need to draw such tiresome distinctions.
It isn’t just the defacing of the signs that is wrong. Why should I join up with people who publicly state that they are going to a protest to cause a civil disturbance. They beat up a police officer. I for one just can’t find any way to agree with them. I don’t agree with their tactics, and I already said I don’t agree with their candidate. However, I am not a republican, I just can’t be pursuaded by those type of tactics. If I have to make a choice on voting day, I would choose to get in line with those that didn’t feel it necessary to try and stop other peoples right to have a convention, or to put a policeman in the hospital for doing his job, or to go out and destroy or deface anything that they don’t agree with. Oh, and by the way, it wasn’t a viewpoint I stated, it was a fact. It does make me sick to see people destroy campaign signs. No matter who they’re for. It’s wrong. Sorry you don’t agree.
Byran, I don’t agree with defacing signs (or the protesters’ behavior in general) any more than you do, but you’ve already impaled yourself on the stupidity of the criminals remark to the extent that I don’t think there’s really anything for us to talk about.
Besides, you’re not providing any actual substance to discuss, just your feelings about your view of what happened, which makes me want to steal a line from the President himself: ”Who cares what you think?”
Well, I didn’t mean to upset you, I think calling my opinion stupid does show that we probably would have difficulty corresponding without it deteriorating into name calling and labelling. I hope that isn’t the case though. I didn’t mean to imply that everyone supporting Kerry is a criminal, I just have seen too much of it for my taste. Obviously everyone supporting him isn’t a criminal nor prone to violence. I see that you are out of the country I believe in Japan? I will be moving there next month. How much news info do you receive there? Is it mostly on-line?
As a matter of substance,(no sarcasm), how do you feel about Kerry talking about the Bush administration’s secret plan to bring back the draft? That seems to be a blatant attempt to foster fear for political purposes. CBS did a report on 60 Minutes about it with Dan Rather. He featured a very distraught mother who was worried for her two grown sons. Ironically the only bill in the House or Senate that has anything to do with reinsituting the draft is sponsored by 2 Democrats. You have stated that a rational step in any attempt to make the situation better would be to replace the party that fosters the paranoia (thereby justifying these unfortunate acts).
What do you use to decide who to vote for when both cadidates are lying and both parties are supporting fear as a tool for gaining votes?
I didn’t mean to imply that everyone supporting Kerry is a criminal,…
Ah, well, that’s a rather important distinction that was not at all clear from your first two comments.
[H]ow do you feel about Kerry talking about the Bush administration’s secret plan to bring back the draft? That seems to be a blatant attempt to foster fear for political purposes.
I don’t know what Bush has in store for the next phase of this war, but it’s pretty obvious that he’s waiting until the election is over before he does anything else. Personally, I don’t think a draft is likely (in fact, now that Bush vowed not reinstate it, it seems to me like a non-issue), but making political hay out of the uncertainty surrounding what is next for Iraq is a far cry from implying that a vote for Kerry is tantamount to inviting a terrorist attack, as Cheney has done. Or holding emergency press conferences on phantom threats whenever Democrats are getting favorable news coverage, as Ashcroft has done. Or, well, the examples could go on and on…
What do you use to decide who to vote for when both cadidates are lying and both parties are supporting fear as a tool for gaining votes?
You find out who is lying more. It’s not hard, if you set your mind to it.
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.