The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation deputy director Sherwin Smith is warning citizens to think before they start raising concerns about water quality because they could be charged with making terroristic threats. Smith told Maury County resident that unfounded complaints could be considered an “act of terrorism” and turned over the the police and the FBI. The meeting followed complaints about water quality in Mt. Pleasant, Tennessee where children have become ill drinking the water. That left residents with the sense that they were being given a Sophie’s Choice by the TDEC: live with sick children or face a possible charge of being a terrorist.
Smith warned residents “you need to make sure that when you make water quality complaints you have a basis, because federally, if there’s no water quality issues, that can be considered under homeland security an act of terrorism.” One audience member seemed to be in disbelief and asked “Can you say that again, please?” Smtih then repeated the warning.
The residents know something about terror. Joycelene Johns, 68, says that she has had no choice but to drink the cloudy, odd-tasting water for years. She added “I’ll drink it. but I pray before the first sip.”
The comments reflect a fear that the war on terror, like Saturn, inevitably devours its own. Criticism of the government is now viewed as a potentially terrorist act in our new society. The TDEC appears to be paraphrasing Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar: “The fault, dear Joycelene, is not in our water, But in ourselves.”
Of course, the worse thing is if Johns is arrested and water-boarded with the same contaminated water. The least they could do is use some bottled water so not to add insult to injury.
Source: Tennessee
And in case you didn’t gather as much, I don’t care if you like me or not.
It’s immaterial.
AY,
What you think is or is not needed does not inform my judgement.
That’s my province alone.
Mike,
I don’t dislike gene…. I dislike when he’s a bully…. He confuses the two….
“once when I was personally threatened by a commenter who had asserted that he had “hacked” my home computer and had information about where my children lived as if to threaten them. He was banned.”
I had almost completely forgotten about that. I’m not sure how I did considering a computer forensics expert was brought in, but I did.
Mike,
Heard and understood…. But sometimes threatening to ban and placing in moderation are not needed…. And not by someone who has a grind….
With respect about the deleted comment…. Funny thing about it…. Why would someone have stated on the blog they find it offensive….. If it wasn’t posted…. Help me on that one…. I do have it in my delete folder….
“Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.””
Well that sure sounds familiar. I’m a bad person for thinking the rules should be followed! How could I have been so blind!
That was sarcasm in case it wasn’t obvious.
Again, see what was said about the marketplace of ideas.
Also, if reminding people we have rules and that those rules have consequences is chilling? Then so are the reasonable restrictions those rules are based upon. Do you really want argue that the exceptions recognized to free speech in jurisprudence are chilling?
Good luck with that.
Your argument is simply based in your personal dislike for me and that is manifest, AY.
You haven’t even been able to address the previously pointed out contradictions and bad logic. Why? Because you got nothing other than “you’re a bad person and I don’t like you”.
So what.
Well…. I suppose a busy body is also known as a whistleblower …. And I thank you…. As far as false allegations… Nah… I think they are true…. Read the many posting on the blawg….. Yeah…. I know hey are…..
“There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”
The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.””
“Mike s.,
Thank you…. But, I will again say I didn’t think it deserved deletion…. It was not in moderation…. It was posted… Thank you for you honesty….”
AY,
The comment I referred to was not posted it was in moderation so we could be talking apples and oranges. I responded because there was discussion among the “guest bloggers” as to who put it into the trash. I was busy and didn’t see it until late last night and I responded both on and off blog.
Now I must say that I think your attacks upon Gene are unfair and stirring the pot. You know that I’m also quite aware of the history here to which Gene alludes and that we have discussed a good deal of it offline. In the first instance of Patty C’s attacks on you for defending another regular, Gene came to your defense and I remember that you were the one requesting that she be banned. She was. There was later another incident with another regular where you wrote me offline also requesting that something “be done” about that person and at that point I declined explaining to you that there was no way for me to determine who was right or wrong. Were you being a “bully” in trying to get those two people banned?
There are some here, both new and old who simply do not like some of the “Guest Bloggers” including mostly me and Gene. I can speak for Gene when I say that neither of us gives a damn about our popularity here. We serve at JT’s pleasure, or displeasure alone. His blog, his choices. My entire life has been about openly expressing myself despite the personal cost. I’d certainly be a lot wealthier today if I was less honest in my opinions. To reiterate the Guest Bloggers were chosen by Jonathan Turley at his request. As for diversity JT has asked a few others to Guest Blog but they either declined, or are still pondering it.
The fact that the readership of this blog continues to expand gives lie to the idea that people are being chased off by either me or Gene. I find it amusing that this is brought up as an issue specifically by people with a personal axe to grind.
Bron, as for you we all know that you delight in stirring the pot. So much so that through the years you’ve adopted other identities to stir the pot with, as has AY incidentally. I would wonder if your jumping on Gene and me at times, is the result of the fact that we have taken issue with your “Aynish” views, as has Tony C., but he is not a Guest Blogger, while Gene and I are. We are therefore seen as part of the “in crowd” oppressing those who comment here when they disagree with us. Really? If one can express their views over and again through a period of time who is being “oppressed” and “bullied”? My arguments with Nick devolved around his constant ad hominem attacks on me, but through all that time I defended his right to make them and I have the “E” mails to prove it. Indeed I save all the “E” mails that connect to this blog.
I’ve never “whined” or played “victim” on this blog, except for once when I was personally threatened by a commenter who had asserted that he had “hacked” my home computer and had information about where my children lived as if to threaten them. He was banned. Other than that there has been no-one on this site, save for JT, who has been more about free speech and open expression. Nick has admitted he doesn’t like me. I believe he is angry because he made an attack on the entire website in his first comment here and I strongly disagreed, but no doubt he sees it differently. He can attack my views all he wants, but I return fire, which he sees as victimization. Where I feel he is out of line is when he makes personal attacks on me, sometimes in a sneaky manner, then again he sees it differently. There is a difference though between even ad hominem attacks and purposeful disruption of a thread and there are a few instances where he has skirted the line and been called on it. Curiously though, Nick is still here. That he and others might think that is because Gene made empty threats, is merely false wish fulfillment and as they say we have the evidence to prove it. He is here because this particular blog is the least intrusive on the Internet in terms of allowing those who comment a free rein of views.
Free speech, like many other rights is a funny thing though. There are always those who need to test the limits. I liken it to childhood, where all children test the limits of those they see as parental figures. I did it at home and I did it in School. Once I learned the boundaries I knew how to give myself the ultimate in free expression, without it coming back to harm me.
I even openly attacked my high school administration to the point where a school assembly was called to chastise me, so I know a bit about testing limits and that is but one incident in a lifetime of testing limits. But just as the famous limiting of the right to shout fire in a theater explores those limits, we have seen here certain extremely broad limits imposed to the point that only two people have ever been banned in the blogs history. Personally, I’d like to keep it that way. Again though, you attack me personally I will respond
in kind. You attack my ideas and I will respond in civil debate, without ad hominem. It’s not my problem if you lack the forensic ability to keep up with me.
AY, AY, AY,
All this started because you lay false allegations and are a busybody.
My mind can be changed, but it requires logic and evidence that can pass critical scrutiny and be persuasive. That’s just called having standards of judgement.
Or Bron…. Narrow minded ….. And can’t see the light of truth by other folks….
Gene, gene, gene….
This all stated because you threaten to ban or place folks in moderation…. And then say…. How’s that working out for you….. Such simplicity is illusive to you…. It what you do, how you treat other posters that I’m defending…. It’s your right to be here or not…. But… Don’t you think your threats to people are a little over the edge…. Don’t you think you try an chill free speech of other people by keeping others in line…. It’s so simple you miss the connection…. And then if someone challenges you..again….you threaten to ban them or place them in moderation….. Which is wrong….
Thanks, Bron.
I think.
But in the end, all one has is one’s own judgement. And to be precise, the principle is “If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.” It’s Stoicism, not Objectivism.
Bron.
Booze and Booze Accessories. Wine, beer, and spirits.
nick:
I am neutral in this fight. I like you, AY and Gene. I see Gene’s flaws but then he has some very good qualities as well. As we all do.
He is tough and thinks he is right, I admire that. Just like you think you are right. Gene isnt going to roll over and put 4 limbs in the air and expose his neck even if he is wrong. Not in his nature. Oh he may if the evidence is overwhelming but not because 1, 2 or even a dozen tell him he is wrong. He trusts his own judgment above all others, you have to admire that.
The only other people who do that are Objectivists.
Take note, I don’t require assistance.
As for Bron’s Byron quote, who is the one portraying themselves as “a heroic life [fighting] for his values even though he is doomed to defeat by a malevolent fate over which he has no control.”?
Well it’s interesting that you acknowledge your projection and yet don’t do anything about it. What kind of person knows they have a problem and won’t/can’t fix it but instead caters to the repetitive pattern? Someone hopeful the outcome will change? Someone who wants to see their problems in other people? To what end? Feel less bad about their own failings? To have someone to look down upon for that which they look down upon most in themselves? That’s an interesting form of magical thinking.
Bron,
Absolutely perfect….