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
Nal,
Thanks…
About sugar man…. He didn’t realize he was famous…. He was introduced by Motown but kinda abandoned … So he bummed around went to work in the car plant… Until he found out he was still in demand… He didn’t really do anything with his music…. I heard from Eric Nadel the announcer for the Rangers… That the man donates all of the proceeds from his concerts to charities ….. Stardom has not affected his ego… He knew who he was and still does… A musician….. A class act… I would contribute towards you being able to stream on this blog if the professors saw fit…. That’s the only way ill get exposed to some great tunes….
Darren, I think there is a difficulty with terms at work here also. The proper term utilized universally on blawgs for persons that have the authority to police a blawg are called “moderators”. I think this needs to be cleared up as a matter of form. People know what to expect regarding moderators. The standard concept of “guest bloggers” and “moderators” are not the same. If the guest bloggers (or some guest bloggers) have been ‘promoted’ to moderators that’s cool, it’s the Professor’s call but the Professor needs to make that changed status clear. If it’s not clear, well, see above. There’s no need for that, it’s unfair, and it’s easy to remedy.
Darren, I’m one of those people that think that only the blog owner should police it for the purpose of censoring postings (other than spam) and ban, or ‘time out’ posters- IN THE ABSENCE OF DESIGNATED MODERATORS. Otherwise people get paranoid about who is in charge and the possibility of variable standards starts to become an issue. It’s just group dynamics. I have seen it before and it don’t want to see it again here. I don’t care what the Professor does with his blog, it’s not my business because it’s not my blog, I’m a guest here. But it’s helpful for his guests to know what he’s doing with his blog.
BTW guys, being up all night I see the comment queue fill up with spam, fill ALL THE WAY UP, and in one of the threads (during the day) I ran across some spam that if you clicked the link it took you to a very graphic NSFW splash page on a porn site. I do appreciate all of the work being done to keep the site spam free and from what I see in the middle of the night I’m sure that it’s a constant job. Thanks a bunch for making sure I don’t have to wade through all that dreck.
The blog doesn’t let me upload MP3s anymore, that requires additional features that cost more. It’s just as well, the RIAA goons are everywhere. In the meantime, I’ve obtained some really nice additions to my stereo collection.
I may have seen a TV program about Sugar Man. What a terrific story.
Nal,
I have no problem with GBs that don’t have an agenda and follow the rules…. I do have issues with GBs that then call others out for the same conduct that they themselves are guilty of…. And place folks in moderation….. Nal, You have always been fair and equal….
Too bad, you can’t stream anymore…. I do miss that….and per chance did you see searching for sugar man….
The GBs are at war with the Spambots. We delete spam comments all day long. We also check the spam folder to see if anyone got put there inadvertently and move them out. I like to keep the spam folder empty, by deleting those comments, so I can more easily distinguish when someone’s comment is there incorrectly. If the GBs couldn’t delete comments, the spam that does get through would ruin the blog for everyone. As long as a regular doesn’t use one of the four words, their comments shouldn’t be deleted.
Bingo Darren,
Such as arbitrary and capricious enforcement….. You are absolutely correct…. However, I’ve been around here long enough as well as communicated with JT through the years….. He would not…. And I repeat would NOT sanction removal of that post based upon the things that were in it….
You have seen Gene in action with Nick…. What did Nick say that was against blog policy? It was purely gene making a unilateral decision to place him in moderation….Unil and When Gene starts acting according to the rules he says he supports… And then violates each and everyone of them he should not be allowed the enforcement powers or administrator privileges….
JT can allow people to act in his stead…. Agreed…this is his blawg….. You were or are a cop….you know rogue when you see it…. And this has become a rogue issue….
Now place yourself on the receiving end of someone in powers nastiness…. Would you stay around? I expect you to defend gene…. From what I have seen… You will….that’s your position…and you should be commended for it… Loyalty is a lost moral code today…
That’s my peace…. And I live with it…. I have been the target before…. And I took up for Nick when he was being the target this last week….so now, I’m the target again…. Because of my complaining of the deletion of the post…..
To not raise the issue of suppression is to join in the camps of congress…. We did it for your own good….I’m not a follower…. I don’t need validation…..I am ok with myself…. Thank you for your input….
I believe there is something that is not being addressed here. Some are asserting that only the blog’s owner, JT, has the authority to sanction a user and that the guest bloggers do not have the authority to do so. Here is the fault in that line of thinking. The assertion that guest bloggers should not have the authority is contradictory to the position.
AY by you saying that Gene (or some other guest blogger who, if they were, the ones who removed the post) cannot have the authority because he is not the owner of this blog, you are contradicting your position because you, who are also not the owner of this blog, are dictating that Gene shouldn’t be allowed to delete posts, an authority that is delegated by the blog’s owner. In fact, your position is one where you expect an owner’s right to choose what is and what is not deleted, but you don’t have such right and you are making a criticism of a person who has expressly granted that right by the owner.
You might find it difficult to successfully convince JT that it is not proper to delegate editing rights to those other than himself. That would be the equivalent of me allowing a customer to dictate what my managers buy from vendors. If I delegate my manager to approve widgets on the store that is my right and choice. I don’t let the customers decide what I buy or what I discontinue. I could but I choose not to. The admin rigths that JT delegates are the same as this.
The same is true of this blog with JT. Any one of us here are guests who post here are At Will with JT. I don’t think it is too much to ask of us to play by his house rules and not make up ones that we think he should adopt.
Very professional Gene…. Very…. And it does not really matter who deleted the post…. The fact is… It’s a suppression of speech to have removed it….you complain about Obama…. But, someone decided to delete it…. Its pure hypocrisy….. Quit trying to make this personal…. Its not about me unless you wanna continue it….
It’s about you abusing your Guest Blogging status and admin privileges…. Yes gene, you placed a number of my posts in moderation…. I saved the pages…. Where it states that its being held in moderation…. You did it to nick until something was said to you….. You did it to three others that I’m aware of this year alone….so that’s five…..
I have registered my complaints as you suggested…. I have no issue with you guest blogging…… But…. To act as the owner…. Yep…. Unless you have something new to say…. Don’t bother responding….thank you for respecting this request…. Enjoy the movie….
Blah blah blah and almost entirely irrelevant blah. I see a lot of opinion there and no evidence whatsoever. You don’t like me. Boo hoo. So what? 20% of all people aren’t going to like you no matter what. I know why you don’t like me. I just don’t care. Why? It’s irrelevant.
Can’t answer the above questions, can you? So you respond with more ad hominem. Awww. It’d be adorable if it wasn’t so sad.
Well, I attack arguments and assertions. If you’ve got a problem with that, it’s entirely your problem. If someone accosts me verbally? Sure, I’ll defend myself, but I’m as nice to people as they let me be. However, if some can’t handle when their arguments and assertions are challenged? Say . . . when you bring up that their evidence is immaterial or their logic is faulty? Well that’s not my problem either. People stand or fall in the marketplace of ideas by their own proclivity and the merits of their arguments. If they want an echo chamber, there are plenty of places to find that sort of thing on the Web.
Bad ideas and weak evidence get challenged.
It’s part of the marketplace of ideas.
Put on your big boy pants.
Free speech isn’t for the weak of heart.
Everyone’s entitled to their opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts and logic.
And again, your assumption about who deleted the post on this thread is really going to return to bite you.
It’s a wrong assumption that you’re still making.
I never stand in the way of an opponent making a mistake, especially when it’s in pursuit of a mindless personal vendetta.
Hope you enjoy the movie… What’s playing… Cool Hand Luke or Dirty Harry?
Gene,
Proof is not something you’ve ever really needed…. a hunch will do you…right…. but its in an in camera review… You know what what I mean, right?
Gene,
You have made everything that you disagree with personal and in an attacking manner. No one can disagree with you or call you on your BS without risk of being personally attacked.
As soon as you get over your anger issues and deal with your duplicity in handling matter for the Jonathan Turkey Blawg, you might see why some think you are unreasonable.
Now, if you like someone and they are breaking the rules you do not confront them…. On the other hand, if you disapprove of someone or someone is new you make it your mission to drive them off… And say it in what you say that you don’t really care if they stay around or not…. You can be extremely rude and crass with people…
Do you need to be reminded that you do not own this blawg…. It is not yours to do with as you please… What is funny, you talk about these important decisions that are being made off the blawg, in camera… Is this the FISA court? Are you authorizing wiretaps for the NSA…. Do you understand how really ridiculous that sounds…. Isn’t an in camera review some a judge does?
Think about that….
Now think about this… Since you have indicated that you cannot be unbiased and you tend to rip people to shreds that you disagree with and/or place them in moderation and/or delete posts just because you can is not an example that this thread needs. If the principles of free speech are to exist….. It’s not my call but the professors…. But based upon past actions you are unfit to continue this position…..
FYI, I won’t be waiting forever though. I’m going out for dinner and a movie so you’ll have some free time to make all the faulty arguments you wish and I’ll just have to be amused by them later.
No, you attacked me and expected I’d be an easy target and you’re not finding that to be the case, but thanks for making the 8:18 comment personal again and thus proving my point about this being a personal attack by you based on purely personal motives.
And I didn’t say you were mocking me. You answered questions in a mocking manner which indicates your argument is weak.
Also, learn the difference between “imply” and “infer”.
I said “Your assumption is that it wasn’t the Prof who deleted that comment.” The statement I made was direct and about your assumption.
And that is still your assumption to make based on your statement that you “know for a fact that the prof didn’t remove it gene”.
I made a direct statement about your assumption that “somebody” removed the comment. Your previous statement implied that it wasn’t the Prof who removed the comment (OS or “someone”).
At which point I said what I said about your assumption. A statement which you then proceeded to follow with a direct assertion of “I know for a fact that the prof didn’t remove it gene”.
A statement for which you provided no proof.
Really.
And how do you know this as a factual matter? Or did you in fact assume the he didn’t remove the comment as indicated by your OS or “someone” language?
Also, I’m still waiting for your explanation of how is essentially stating your argument is built on a faulty foundation a personal attack? Exactly.
Gene,
No one is mocking you… A posting was deleted and you inferred the professor did it… How’s that…
Well Gene,
I suppose you need a new target and I’m it….. And yes, you know what I’m saying…. Now, if you can just get your anger issues under control and duplicity in balance you might be ok….. But until then, I do not think you should have administrator privileges….
SWM, Thanks, But it’s small potatoes. I do much better w/ physical pain than w/ emotional pain.
And I’m still waiting for your explanation of how is essentially stating your argument is built on a faulty foundation a personal attack? Exactly.
I’ll take your mockery as a sign of weakness.
You also keep missing the salient point – I had nothing to do with slccobra’s comment other than explaining the seeming reason for its removal.
Everyone with administrative access and emails about that post knows this as a factual matter.
So who exactly are you claiming is “implementing the rules as [they] see fit” if it wasn’t me?
That’s really a question you should be asking yourself.
Sure Gene…. I’m in agreement with you…. Whatever you say has to be right….you are implementing the rules as you see fit… And someone calls you on it… You take it personal…. Sorry, I’ll try and be a little less obvious next time….. Ok doh ka..