PhotoDude.com

Not only that, but it begs the question about who/what they’re not watching that should be watched, given that no matter how much resources are available, the resources are limited! It is exactly this sort of preposterous occurrence that makes me wonder at the efficacy of the program.

Good piece…

You obviously don’t know that alQaeda is against ham. So may be those protestors were supporters of the Islamofascists.

ruminator: “It is exactly this sort of preposterous occurrence that makes me wonder at the efficacy of the program.�

Yes, the program. You’re referring to the federal department, I assume. But the article specifically says an “undercover DeKalb County Homeland Security detective was assigned to conduct surveillance of the protest.�

Check out the web site of DeKalb County Homeland Security. It was last updated two years ago, and the only thing on the home page is the picture and resume of the boss.

From the site: “We are concerned about domestic terrorism as we are international terrorism. ... It will be the responsibility of DeKalb County Homeland Security to ensure that DeKalb County remains as terrorist free as humanly possible.� Even ham terrorists, apparently.

And when you click around this framed site to their goals page, what is there Number One Long Term Goal? “To seek federal funds to have a staff of 25 officers assigned to Homeland Security� ... Job One is getting Jobs 2 through 25 funded.

Number two goal? “To protect the potential targets for terrorism in DeKalb County�

Gee, thanks.

Number three goal? “To see federal funds�

It’s not reassuring. It’s embarassing.

Zack: “You obviously don’t know that alQaeda is against ham.�

You see, this is just my point. You are correct, solely by reasons of religious deduction, one cannot help but conclude that if al Qaeda had a Ham Position, they would be against it.

However, solely by reasons of religious deduction, so would the members of the Zionist Conspiracy.

It is quite clear. Ham is a very poor national security indicator. If there’s an anti-ham movement, you can’t tell if they’re backed by a Zionist or al Qaeda.

So why bother to track them? That drug store parking lot isn’t even a very nice place to hang out.

We joke about this. Because it’s hard not to, given the documented behavior by those who seek to protect us.

Here’s something else we can pretend is funny. That “homeland security� officer told one of the protesters that “that he did not want her or anyone else to have the tag number of his undercover vehicle.� When she refused to turn over the scrap of paper on which she’d written it down … he arrested her.

If he doesn’t want her or anyone to have his tag number, there is only one effective solution, and it isn’t arresting everyone in public who lays eyes upon his tag. It is removing the tag.

Is he afraid of getting a ticket?

“If there’s an anti-ham movement, you can’t tell if they’re backed by a Zionist or al Qaeda.”

One can only assume that the DeKalb Office of Homeland Security has picked up on some Qaeda-centered ham chatter. And for reasons of said security, they are not at liberty to disclose details.

There are times when I actually support what the ACLU does. This seems to be one of those cases.

I didn’t go and read the link. I should have because I erroneously assumed it was a federal affair and not a local affair. I’m not saying the feds are any better, but they might (and again, just might) have slightly more tact.

That the protester was arrested for holding the tag number of the officer’s vehicle is grounds for action. When law enforcement, in particular, and government, in general, takes exception to us watching their activities, then there is a real problem. At this point, I would be seeking counsel for a lawsuit against the department for violation of my right of gathering.

I suppose she could have said, “Here’s the paper. I’ve committed your tag number to memory.”

I was playing before (it’s a laughable situation), but I’m not now.

I think this is indicative of larger porcine issues, Ham Security being just the end-game. The real issue, however, is citizens demonstrating against food. Ham is big business. We simply cannot have an attack—verbal, or otherwise, on the meat industry. I mean, really, they pay the way for much of governments ineptitude. They don’t want the gravy train halted.
Federal or local, these sorts of protests—including the looming one against the NAIS—are going to be watched and viewed as economically disruptive.
The truth of the matter is that America’s food production situation is a shambles and the Feds are more than half the problem. Instead of arresting protesting citizens, which will be largely pointless as there will soon be more and more, they should be assessing the situation and finding solutions to why people are agrieved. Instead of allowing America’s meat to be maltreated before shipping halfway across the country, they should be finding a way to de-centralize food production and re-create local economies and destroy the monopoly Factory-Farming Agri-corps have on our diet.

There are times when I actually support what the ACLU does. This seems to be one of those cases.

Why oppose the ACLU the rest of the time? This is all that the ACLU ever does. They defend the wierdos, klan guys, pornographers and now anti-Ham fanatics so that the 4th amendment remains intact and relatively unquestioned for you and me. Pres. Bush practically coined a slogan for the ACLU when he said “Fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.�

The thing that’s amazing here isn’t that the FBI or Homeland Security or whatever is taking picture and keeping tabs on these terrorists (yes, I said the T-word, I’ll get to that in a minute), it’s the idea that someone is STUPID enough to believe they have a right to privacy when they’re marching around on a street waving a sign that says “Meat is Murder!”

Yeah, they’re terrorists. The Animal Rights nuts have burned buildings, destroyed property, and even worse, set back important medical research that could have saved lives. It’s arguable they’ve cost many people their lives by destroying the research at several universities. In one case, this research was a SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) study. These people would put a rat higher in importance to babies. Not just would, they do.

The day will come when some innocent person will be killed (unintentionally I’m sure it’ll be claimed) in one of these ‘humanitarian attacks’. When that happens, people will surely say “why didn’t anyone stop these people before? where was the FBI / Homeland Security??” The answer will be “oh, we had to stop taking their picture, because they whined about it.”

Basically, if you’re associated with people who engage in arson to make their point, and you’re hanging about on a street corner waving signs espousing their philosophy, I have little pity that someone took your picture. Why are you there if not to get attention? Don’t bitch when you get some.

“Basically, if you’re associated with people who engage in arson to make their point, and you’re hanging about on a street corner waving signs espousing their philosophy, I have little pity that someone took your picture.”

There should be no pity because they had their picture taken, that wasn’t my point. If you’re out in public, waving a sign or picking your nose, you are fair game for photography of any non-commercial nature.

I also don’t doubt that some “animal rights activists” have done what you’ve said. But you could use the above logic to say that those who legally picket abortion clinics are espousing the philosphy of folks like Eric Rudolph or James Kopp. Does that automatically associate every one of them with the extreme acts of those two men?

Every movement, philosophical, political, or religious, has its extremists. See Jim Jones and David Koresh. That doesn’t mean all Christian fundamentalists are madmen.

My point in writing this article wasn’t to righteously defend anyone, or I woudn’t have called them “Ham Protesters.” It was to point out that Homeland Security resources that might be better devoted in Dekalb County to worrying about things like, oh, I don’t know, the CDC Headquarters, instead are deployed in front of a Honey Baked Ham to take pictures of people who don’t like to eat meat.

Oh, and also to point out that if you write down certain numbers that are, by law, required to be in plain display on public streets for anyone to lay eyeballs on … you can be arrested for that in DeKalb County.

I would assume that applies to meat eaters as well.

Come on, Mr. Todd,

Arguments such as this one are all too common, and seem to rely on a simple hope that the listener/reader is incapable of, or at least indisposed toward, critical thought. Now that we can broadcast our writings to people we don’t know, this temptation even befalls normal people who don’t work for political press offices.

But tell me, do you know any actual flesh-and-blood people who would really buy this argument?

I mean, I love meat; but I’m not prepared to take responsibility for everybody who ever got shot by a rancher.

Little respect for the folks, please?

Buy what argument? That animal rights people are extremists, and that extremists tend to be very unreasonable, up to the point of burning buildings? Yeah, lots of people buy that, because it’s true. Look at the extremists today, burning down embassies because they got offended by a cartoon, of all things. I see on the news they’ve now killed a person. KILLED. Over a cartoon.

Back to the Animal Rights folks, just look at what they themselves put up as their heros:

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/

Somehow, having a picture of a guy in black clothing with his face hidden by a black ski mask isn’t the most effective way to put out the message that you’re friendly and mean no harm.

I’m sure it’s not politically correct, but who cares. The facts are plain- there are some activies that increase the chances of certain things happening.

If you’re an animal rights actvist, you’re much more likely to have burned a building or intend to than the average citizen.

If you’re a rap musician or work for one, you’re much more likely to be involved in a gun battle at a concert or video taping (see: today’s news).

If you’re Islamic, you’re much more likely to blow yourself up in a bus full of innocent men, women, and children than most other people in the world.

If you’re running around with a confederate flag on your busted-up pickup truck and sport a tattoo saying “Never Fergit!”, you’re more likely to burn a cross on somone’s yard or paint racial epiteths on someone’s garage door than most other people.

Call it profiling if you will, I’ll call it statistics, and encourage law enforcement to use statistics to keep us safe. If that means taking pictures of people with signs no matter where they are, so be it.

Buy what argument? That animal rights people are extremists, and that extremists tend to be very unreasonable, up to the point of burning buildings?

You point to a website for the Animal Liberation Front. Is there anything in Ried’s article or in the other news that leads you to believe that the Honeybaked Ham store was being protested by the Animal Liberation Front? If there was, I missed it.

Clearly, there are extreme animal rights people. (I don’t even particularly care for the moderate ones.) But the point is that you don’t know these people and you cannot logically assign to them the sins of another group of people who you also don’t know, just because they might have a similar agenda or objective. The point is this – you have no evidence to support any connection between the two.

I’m a lawyer. Everybody knows that some lawyers are cocaine addicts. Therefore, the DEA can follow me around and arrest me if I ask why they’re following me around? Utter nonsense.

Statistics? Great. Grab a sample set. Show us your regression trees. Make a disprovable prediction.

They won’t help you with the due process arguments. But if you don’t have the data (and you don’t) there’s not even a reason to argue about due process.

Clearly, there are extreme animal rights people. (I don’t even particularly care for the moderate ones.)

You don’t seem to understand the concept of ‘animal rights’. By it’s own definition, ‘animal rights’ is the extreme of a long progression of folks involved in being sure that animals are not abused. Animal rights activists are at the far end of that line.

I’m sure it wasn’t the ALF that was picketing that store- they aren’t much for picketing, they go more for the direct ‘glue the locks’, ‘paint the sidewalk red’, ‘bust the windows out’, or ‘burn it’ routine rather than the picket signs. You sidestepped the point though- these people associate with and often become the more extreme and dangerous.

Too often I hear whines about how our government doesn’t do enough early enough to stop problem people before they do real harm. Had they been taking pictures of abortion protesters way back when, and had they been more vigilant, perhaps Eric Rudolph could have been stopped earlier, before he killed people. Same deal here- take a few pictures now while it’s easy and inexpensive.

Everybody knows that some lawyers are cocaine addicts. Therefore, the DEA can follow me around and arrest me if I ask why they’re following me around? Utter nonsense.

You accuse me of specious arguments because I’m talking about taking pictures of people who are in a public place trying to draw attention to themselves, and equate that to the DEA arresting you? Come on now. Arrest and photography for a file aren’t quite the same.

I think your argument is only for show now.

“You sidestepped the point though – these people associate with and often become the more extreme and dangerous.”

You’ve sidestepped some points, too, on sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people.

You said “That animal rights people are extremists”

I get it, you’ve got a burr under your saddle for the “animal rights people,” or “animal rights activists.” But let’s transfer that concept.

Anti-abortion people and anti-abortion activists are extremists who are more prone to violence? Because a few of the millions of them who believe the same thing committed extreme acts?

Christian fundamentalists and activists are extremists who are more prone to violence? Because a few of the millions of them who believe the same thing committed extreme acts?

I’m opposed to old growth logging in national forests. But I would never dream of spiking a tree to injure someone cutting it down. That’s more wrong than cutting the tree. Yet you seem to think that just because I might protest such tree cutting, I am more likely to take that extra step to violence.

“Had they been taking pictures of abortion protesters way back when, and had they been more vigilant, perhaps Eric Rudolph could have been stopped earlier, before he killed people.”

Eric Rudolph was a loner who lived in a trailer in the NC mountains. He did not participate in any anti-abortion protests, other than the violent ones by the reclusive “Army of God.” He has absolutely nothing to do with the people who you see peacefully picketing outside an abortion clinic. Did he denigrate their entire cause with his violent acts? Most certainly. But not the individuals within that cause who found his acts as repugnant as you and I.

You cannot equate a belief with the extreme acts of a few who hold that belief. Well, you can, but it is grossly unfair to vast majority of such large groups who do not hold with extreme acts in pursuit of their beliefs. There are indeed human beings who simply cannot accept not getting their way on an issue, and who will therefore resort to illegal and even violent acts to try and get their way. You can find them among animal rights activists, anti-abortion activists, Christian activists, Muslim activists, Republican activists, Democratic activists, and even folks fighting for father’s rights in England who every now and then dress up as Batman and chain themselves to Buckingham Palace.

If you let the nuts determine that their subgroup is also all nuts, well … then we are all nuts. Because you belong to some group or hold some belief where someone with similar views has gone too far. That is, if you’re a human with strong opinions.

And, I’ll say again since in case you didn’t hear it … I don’t care that these people had their picture taken because some saw it as a violation of their rights. It clearly is not. I do care about what appears to me a wasteful usage of scarce and mismanaged resources meant to protect us from serious threats to our national security.

And unless you can point me to a history of extreme acts in DeKalb County by “animal rights people,” I’ll continue to believe it was a sorry use of those DeKalb County Homeland Security resources.

And I’ll also argue that arresting someone for writing down a license plate number that is in public view on a public street smells of a police state.

Those were the two primary points I hoped would be taken from this.

Your actual argument and my strawman are exactly the same. (that’s the whole point.) Break out the elements:

I am a lawyer———————————————I am an animal rights protester
Some lawyers = Cokeheads ——————Some animal rights protesters = terrorists
DEA follows me around———————— Dekalb homeland security follows me around
I get arrested for asking why—————I get arrested for asking why.

Specious.