Stupid Censorship, Stupid Security

The 2003 Jefferson Muzzle "winners" are out. This year's crop starts with John Ashcroft and the U.S. Congress, and works its way down through the school board that voted to put Harry Potter on the restricted shelf. Innovation in censorship deserves recognition, read and enjoy. And in other stupid news, the winners of the Stupid Security Competition have been announced. I like that I'm being protected from tea. It makes me feel safe.

Comments

Actually...

[Timex]

Restriction of the Harry Potter series actually makes sense. Think about it: the "hero" and his pals basically harbor a complete disregard for authority, and when they are caught, the worst that happens is they get warned not to do it again (which means that they WILL).

Anyone that is a parent knows what happens to kids that act like this: they become spoiled brats who don't know that certain actions have certain consequences...

If a kid that already knows about consequences wants to read the series, that's up the kid's parent(s). If the kid DOESN'T know about them, then I'm not so sure it's a good idea, since it sets a bad example.

Hometown

[Sanat]

A friend of mine who is a renowned professor and who originated from India prior to becoming a US citizen about 30 years ago... was interviewed last week by the local newspaper.

The questions were asked about the war in Iraq and its meaning etc. Several other individuals who have immigrated answered that they were pro Bush.

Yet my friend Jayana replied "You have to know about other countries for our survival," she said. "Only when we know what they are going through will we be able to address them in a humanitarian and peaceful way."

America's strengths, its imagination, intelligence and compassion, contends Jayana, are simply left wasted when its leaders succumb to conflict rather than diplomacy.

A few days later a sheriff showed up at Jayana door. Jayana had just arrived home from shopping a few minutes before the sheriff arrived.

The sheriff said that he was responding to a 911 telephone call that was placed from her house and that he had to search the house, even though Jayana stated she was the only one who lived there and that she was not at home when the supposed 911 call was sent.

The sheriff kept stating "what a nice house Jayana had" in a way that was intimidating and veiling some sort of threat or other implications.

My comment is "What are the chances of a errant 911 telephone call being placed from from a house in which no one was at home especially after a comment was published by the home owner in the local papers."

My personal belief is that the 911 call was a coverup to check Jayana out. Or perhaps a local resident who opened her demarc box on her house and sent the call to create an incident.

How can one validate a legitimate 911 call since the 911 people report to the sheriff's department as opposed to the sheriff just simply making it up about the 911 call?

Is 911 information public information or restricted to those that have a need to know?