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
Others have noticed by the way, so that wasn’t just solely my opinion.
Now who’s making it personal?
Well. In all fairness, it has apparently been personal all along and by your own admission.
Really. And how is essentially stating your argument is built on a faulty foundation a personal attack? Exactly.
Gene,
Do you think you might be a blog bully? Transparent… I’ve stated it clearly I think….
Gene,
A critique is an personal opinion and in this case you made it personal…. Can’t you see what you’re doing…. There is a difference…
BTW, do you even realize how utterly transparent your tactic is?
Not at all. It’s a critique of your stance. My, but you’ve got an active imagination.
Forward away.
Now Gene,
That’s an unwarranted and uncalled for personal attack…. You should have just left it alone. But you can’t and you make everything personal….yet call others out as violating the terms and rules of the blawg…mild for you, I must say…. That’s one of the reasons I don’t think you should have administrator privileges any longer…. You make it too personal…. Though I think you should still be able to guest blog….
Forwarded:
You mistake realistic assessment of your stance as being concerned on your behalf.
Really now Gene….
This last response did not feel like an attack…. It was informative and to the point. But I still think someone else should be making the decisions in what’s in violation of the rules….
My Sand Castles pretty cool….thank you for you concern….
“I agree with you and if a post is removed it should be labeled why and whom removed the same. ”
And that is, I’m sure, an issue that will be addressed in the currently open dialog on the matter. Had such a policy been in place today, you might realize how utterly and precisely baseless your attack on me was, AY. In case you haven’t noticed, which obviously you haven’t, I tell people why I do things simply as a matter of due course.
LK,
I agree with you and if a post is removed it should be labeled why and whom removed the same.
As I’ve stated I did not think the post was that offensive. I disagreed with the posting but did not comment on it.
LK,
FWIW, I agree with most of that. That’s one of the reasons a policy on how to deal with persistent rule breakers is an open topic between the GBs and the Prof. As his time is limited and as the blog grows, it’s an issue that needs definition.
nick:
Altruism is a myth, everyone has an angle.
You know, I don’t think anyone but the professor should censor or remove postings. For anyone else to do it casts the Professors ownership of the blawg into question and puts whichever guest blawger that pulls the switch on the spot. I have posted often that ‘it’s the Professors house’ and thats how I feel about it. he can make any decision about the blawg that he chooses.
Consequently, I think that there are actions that are of such magnitude that only the Professor should exercise that authority. Considering the underlying theme of the blawg and the professional history and reputation that the Professor maintains, it’s his action in removing postings or moderating users that carries the maximum credibility and is beyond question or challenge. Anything less puts the guest blawgers on the firing line and is, in my opinion, a disservice to them.
I read recently that the White House and the CIA had worked out an agreement whereby the CIA would assume the authority to direct certain kinds of drone strikes. This would serve two purposes one of which would be to allow the President plausible deniability should there be some blowback for particular strikes, the other encompassed that certain short term opportunities might be apparent to people collecting the intelligence that needed fast action. (I’m not sure that isn’t just a CYA position in this context.) The delegation of authority would last one year. Anybody else read that?
That’s no way to run a railroad IMO.
Some jobs only the guy running the railroad should do. It doesn’t matter if others are willing to do it or if it is an inconvenience in an otherwise busy day. That’s the nature of the job.
That’s just the way I see it. I’m not looking to start a debate or have already stated reasons reiterated, I’m just expressing my opinion.
Forward all you like, Slick.
Your castle is made of sand.
Nick,
Some think hypocrisy is an oath…
nick, You don’t know the history here like Gene, Blouise and and I do. It is much more complicated. Good luck in your recovery.
Gene,
You see I’m not fighting to win…. just expose injustices….nor am i revealing any personal information….. You on the other hand are doing and saying everything you say you’re against…. Tsk, tsk… I am Forwarding this as well to the blog administrator as well ….
You made a funny, nick.
If you’d ever put this blog before yourself, one warning about the rules would have been sufficient.
As for schmozing? I hardly see how being nice to two posters I’ve known a long time constitutes schmoozing. However and speaking of schmoozing, feel free to attach your rope to his sinking ship if you like.
And that word, “implode” . . . I do not think it means what you think it means.