|
2003-03-01 - 4:47 p.m. News Item: Maybe the FBI has actually caught an evil-doer for a change ABC News and others are reporting that alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has been captured in Pakistan and charged in at least one other terrorism case but not yet in the 9-11 murders. We are still awaiting the capture of Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden, but it's the first serious attempt that Pakistan has made to do something about the higher-level Taliban and Al Queda operatives hiding in their country. Maybe the evil-doers are running low on bribe money or something. I'm hoping for extradition to the United States and a full public trial of this individual. The United States generally can't get prisoners extradited if they will face the death penalty, because so many countries have banned it. Hence, the ridiculous sentence of 15 years -- for conspiring to commit 3000-plus murders -- recently received by a September 11 money-launderer in Germany. However, Pakistan, being a backward and savage nation filled with fundamentalist extremists much like ourselves, doesn't have a problem with the death penalty, so at least one bone of jurisdictional contention can be avoided. Some people on the net are already muttering that it could be a set-up, with Mohammed cutting a deal to gain freedom by saying that Saddam Hussein gave the orders for 9-11. Such a deal would presumably mean that Osama and Omar would walk as well, since suddenly they would not be the source of the money that funded the attack. I'm hoping they're wrong and that even this current crop of so-called leaders wouldn't stoop so low, but who knows. At the moment, the public doesn't seem too impressed by the "bait and switch" war on terror, also known as, "I promised my business buddies in the bin Laden family not to hunt down their son, so, um, axis of evil, won't get fooled again, Saddam did it and he tried to do my daddy too!" I'm saddened that we should even have to entertain these suspicions. We should be able to celebrate the capture of a bad guy without having to wonder, "What the hell is really going on here?" Ah well. Time will tell. News item 2: Why would you want to censor someone else's diary? While cruising around diaryland today, I discovered something that really made me sad. I won't link to the page, because I don't care to give it any more publicity. But there is a site here which is explicitly set up to gather signatures for a petition to ask Andrew to ban "pro-ana" diaries. Presumably, the petitioners -- who don't hesitate to name names and claim claims -- would want to decide who is "pro-ana" and whose diary crosses the line between an honest description of the diarist's life and a "promotion" of the lifestyle. I visited one of the diaries they want banned. It struck me as a very sad account of the girl's struggle with her issues of cutting and starving. Nowhere did I see "promotion" of the lifestyle. I saw sadness. The petitioners justify their campaign to shut down "pro-ana" diaries because someone might pick up tips about how to lose weight from these diaries. Yeah, and they might pick up tips on how to lose weight from the supermarket magazine rack, too. Get real. Many a diary follows the real-life stories of active alcoholics, describing what they consume, where, and the wacky things they do when under the influence. Maybe these "pro-alcohol" sites should be shut down next? After all, they make being an alcoholic sound far more fun and glamorous than being an anorexic, since there is usually a fair amount of clubbing and screwing around that takes place, while the biggest event in the typical "pro-ana" diary is fighting with Mom. And think of the harm caused by disagreements over politics and religion. Uncountedly more people are killed by these conflicts than have ever been killed by anorexia. Should all diaries with political or religious content be banned? Oh, don't be silly, Peachfront. The alcoholics, the actively religious, the politically concerned...those people might have power enough to fight back. The "pro-ana" sites and diaries are mostly created by teen-age girls. It's cheap and easy to attack their right to self-expression. Sometimes I hate people. It's OK for Fred "God hates fags" Phelps to have a website. It's OK for David Duke to have a website. It's OK for North-American Man-Boy Love Association to have a website. But if it's a teen-age girl who is creating a website, and it is not on an approved topic, it's open season. Whatever happened to Voltaire?* Hummingbird Report: One female Ruby-Throated Hummingbird. Notes
*"I disagree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it."
All Rights Reserved, Copyright 2002-2017 by Elaine Radford
|