From: qqqq@7600.net   
      
   Why must supposedly liberal media, celebrities, etc.   
   frequently choose bad example cases, sometimes the   
   very least appropriate cases, to champion as their   
   rallying point?  I guess really this isn't a left/right   
   issue; once you start thinking about it, conservatives   
   have been known to try making their case with less valid   
   examples too.  Of course, the premiere stupidity is   
   Mumia Abu-Jamal.  I mean c'mon.  He may very well be a   
   poster child for some theory about how black men do   
   themselves in by suffering under the weight of a racist   
   system and then dealing with it by lashing out self-   
   destructively rather than finding more positive approaches.   
   But the man said, "I shot the motherfucker and I hope he   
   dies".  And he's a poster child for ... unfair trials?   
   An unfair society, maybe.  But why pick a guy the DA had   
   dead to rights, or at least very nearly so, and try to   
   sell the idea he was wrongly convicted?   
      
   This post was triggered by another one of these I saw on   
   a program a friend had recorded on the effects of 9/11   
   and government initiatives on civil liberties.  One   
   segment detailed the "horrible mistreatment" of four   
   Canadian citizens of arabic descent who decided to try   
   visiting the States shortly after 9/11.  When asked by   
   US Customs where they were going, they said they planned   
   to see a friend in New York, and casually mentioned they   
   might also visit Ground Zero.  This resulted in a very   
   intensive and intrusive 15-hour search and interrogation,   
   which they felt was uncalled-for considering they hadn't   
   broken any laws, and studiously remained polite, cooperative,   
   and obedient throughout.   
      
   The problem, it seems, is that they failed to take any   
   account of the fact that some things are just so likely   
   to be taken the wrong way that you don't want to even   
   say them.  This was one of those times.   
      
   The cops definitely overreacted, and if it had been a   
   street stop it would have been much more problematic.   
   But you know when you ask to cross a border that you   
   may be subject to an intense inquiry into things you   
   don't normally get asked.  I learned this early on   
   driving into Canada, when the customs agent wanted to   
   know that I had the means to support myself during my   
   visit, and demanded I open my wallet and show him my   
   money.  That's not something you usually do for a   
   stranger.  It's not even something I've heard come up   
   during routine street stops, at least prior to an arrest.   
   Afterwards, of course, is a different matter.   
      
   Well, that's my ramble for now.  I guess I'm just frustrated   
   that on issues I'd like to see explored seriously and   
   carefully, the public discussion is so frequently   
   unthoughtful.  That's what I really liked about   
   _Bowling for Columbine_.  Michael Moore worked pretty   
   deeply through the issues, exposed the too-easy answers   
   for what they were, and while he did sort of reach a   
   conclusion by the end (yes on gun control), it was   
   presented with all the evidence, including balancing   
   evidence against, so he wasn't just shoving it down   
   your throat as THE answer, but rather as his personal   
   recommendation after he admitted that there was a   
   counterargument as well.  That's getting rarer and rarer   
   these days.   
      
   More on _Bowling_ later.  I finally saw it last night,   
   and my thought are still jelling.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)