h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/32301.php

Why? I thought about it and all I could come up with was did they assume that a journalist with a slightly unusual name was going to have a bomb hidden in the zoom lens? Considering how popular Bush and Cheney are, they would have to watch out for that from every race, even (shock, horror) a WASP.

Arrogant, stupid, offensive people.

is for sure abbi! The photographer's race shouldn't be of any consequence whatsoever - a photo/photos are being taken, That should be the bottom line. The "security" alibi is just plain lame!!

Although I do kind of see Kaz's point too. Still stinks though!

But its the arrogance to assume that maybe a non anglo name would be a threat when everyone hates hem!

not 'hem', them

Yes, I caught that implication Kaz...I think they've underestimated their "offensiveness"!

I think paper should be glad, Cheney is not pin up!

You have to realize that there are stupid people in the government bureacracy regardless of the administration.
The culture of the suits and badges doesn't change with the commander in chief. It pretty much does what it does.
And it is not inconceivable that a Pakistani named Popat popped up on the terrorist watch list when they ran the names through.
Considering the recent 9/11 commission noises about incompetency, can you blame them for dotting the "t"s and crossing the "i"s?

Also, this article is deeply offensive to me when it suggests that race is the same thing as nationality.

Touche on the race and Nationality comment.

I believe that was from a Native of the Americas in which her language on this could be from a tribal perspective. That is how I took it ,BUT I will read it again keeping your point in mind.

It is interesting to compare the various stories on the event. Most of the media went into free speech zones and other topics, then this to a lesser degree. It was noted as a bit odd by all , not just this *
particualr slanted one. Unfortunately the other links need you to register. If I see another perpective discussing it along with the other issues noted at the same event- I will post another link.

Yes they should "check names and info!"
No. I do not blame them for checking.
I believe it's more likely an excuse in this case just to exclude them.

So Why did they not check out ok to enter? There was no info on the check to be leary of according to other news outlets.
Are they a danger to the general public then?
*cynical*

Votes are up for grabs and they are missing some undecided voters
They do not want registered Democrats there either, even if undecided.

I think this is about not letting any possible hecklers in. It is weilding personal power of position to direct the news video more than a legitmate security decision.

We all need to be safe so is that individual a danger to the general public then? I did not get that impression.
Of course ,I could be just plain wrong ,slanted and cynical.
That happens more frequently to me in election years too!

"it is not inconceivable that a Pakistani named Popat popped up on the terrorist watch list when they ran the names through."

Point taken.
Also not inconcievable that a powerful persons wishes spill over into .....*fill in blank with cynical statement*
***************

Did anybody recieve the Republicans survey last month?
Hubby is registered as Republican!
See Told you all he is not perfect!
It was both fascinating and disturbing.
Wish I could scan a copy and post it.

This is a drift...

I kept hearing how the overseas votes were not counted last election. Recently I have been hearing that was due to the Democrats.
I had assumed wrongly
I was also reminded of how the Democrats have actually had more of a reputation for messing with election results.

I suppose by the time the elections is over I will dislike both intensely and the whole business of politics.
Again.

At least I can still get behind one side.
There have been elections where it was painful to commit a vote but slightly better than not voting at all. I hope I do not feel that badly this time.

I can hope.

It's hard to be reactionary with media "stories" because they have a bias of their own.
They all want to be "60 minutes" or Micheal Moore when they grow up, or columnists like William Safire.
All the while, fewer people are writing more stuff.
It is irritating to watch an active news story, like that thing with that guy with the bulldozer a month or so back, develop throughout the day, and then the next day the local coverage is buried under the AP or the Reuter's version.

Be careful what you read and even more careful what you believe.
The "story" may hit the front page or the search engines, but the retraction may be buried on page sixteen and never hit the search engines unless you specifically search for it.

It is indeed an outrage, and a particularly ignorant one at that! How paranoid are they?

It is outrageous, although security (crossing the ""i"s and dotting the "t"s!!!!) is understandable. It was just a silly question, and should have been asked of everyone.


Anyway, if I was going to throw a bomb at anyone, I'd call myself John or Jane Smith, or something equally bland.

And as Pheloxi points out, surely it's more important that she is a good photographer, and will make Cheney (etc) look good in the paper the next day.

a visit lady Liberty
....before you have make resevation by phone, you will be checked ferry and going in....and all security

remind me who won?

I got that article link from the C.S Monitor.
I rarely look for news by way of search engines.

I use links from media sources I am comfy with but I do tend to keep linking to follow stories and I sometimes end up in places I do not recognize!
**********************
Good advice TR
I have noticed through the years that retractions are small and unoticeable most of the timeIt is especially bad when somebody is proven innocent later

Speaking of that what has happened to court TV?
I had not watched it in years. It seems to have changed to opinions more than facts. The one lady that is on the Laci case has had him convicted since day one and acts as though it is personal

The K Bryant case has been going on for 2 years and they still do not know if there will be a trial!Information has been "accidentally" released 3 times.

I do not see how any media flooded case can be a fair trail.
Have the media rules changed?

Rant warning:
Has anybody else noticed?
What is happening to search engines?
Why do they want to help me so much?

I do like the spell check on some engines

Why do they expect me to want to go where I have already been?
Why is it more limiting than helpful when acting searching for something new?

I do not want to be "helped" that much = limited to what I may have read before. If you did not find what you wanted and go back they give you your past history of searches and think that is a good thing

I love NEW searches, New ideas , new outlets.
I like to drift when reading!

<>

Exactly! It's a very important issue.

a new Bushism
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13181457,00.html

I hope he will be never hurt you, Abbi!