Green Party coordinator can't fly?
November 3, 2001 3:31 PM Subscribe
Green Party coordinator can't fly? According to this Counterpunch report, Nancy Oden, who is on the Green Party USA Coordinating Committee (which is to say the equivalent of these folks), a former gubernatorial candidate was detained at the Bangor ME airport Thursday evening and prevented from boarding a plane to Chicago for a Friday evening panel on pesticides as weapons (see anti-pesticide & genmod page); and was told the "airport was closed to her" until further notice. Oden claims this is because of the Green Party's opposition to the war; I couldn't find a different source for this that might indicate anything different. Wouldn't someone who opposes aerial spraying be on the right side of recent rhetoric? Has someone lost their mind? Did Oden get to Chicago?
I heard she said in an interview that she was complaining about her being searched by Guardsmen and that ticked 'em off. So basically airline security is entirely arbitrary, not fascist.
posted by rschram at 4:48 PM on November 3, 2001
posted by rschram at 4:48 PM on November 3, 2001
I have to fly on Thursday, has anyone had any bad experiences with taking things like laptops on to planes?
posted by housepox at 5:03 PM on November 3, 2001
posted by housepox at 5:03 PM on November 3, 2001
Here's the story in the Bangor Daily News. Sounds like she was called out for secondary security screening--I've flown four times since the 11th and airlines are pulling people "at random" (probably some random, some based on a profile) for extra checks at the gate.
"Without providing details, interim airport director Rebecca Hupp said that the FAA guidelines “have more to do with the ticket than the person.”"
No suggestion in the article that there was any knowledge of her political affiliation at the time she was scrutinized.
housepox: no problem taking a laptop--you'll just be asked to run it through the XRay machine on its own (not in a bag) . . . just don't try and bring a nail file or hockey stick on board.
posted by donovan at 5:35 PM on November 3, 2001
"Without providing details, interim airport director Rebecca Hupp said that the FAA guidelines “have more to do with the ticket than the person.”"
No suggestion in the article that there was any knowledge of her political affiliation at the time she was scrutinized.
housepox: no problem taking a laptop--you'll just be asked to run it through the XRay machine on its own (not in a bag) . . . just don't try and bring a nail file or hockey stick on board.
posted by donovan at 5:35 PM on November 3, 2001
According to this article from the Bangor News, "...Oden reportedly would not stand still when security staff tried to wave a metal-detecting wand over her." "Authorities" also suggested the problem may have been related to how she obtained her ticket (online).
posted by ferris at 5:42 PM on November 3, 2001
posted by ferris at 5:42 PM on November 3, 2001
Yes. Does anyone know anymore about this?
posted by crasspastor at 5:43 PM on November 3, 2001
posted by crasspastor at 5:43 PM on November 3, 2001
Security Scares Prompt Evacuations at U.S. Airports.
Be co-operative out there, people!
posted by Carol Anne at 6:54 PM on November 3, 2001
Be co-operative out there, people!
posted by Carol Anne at 6:54 PM on November 3, 2001
Oden has also been linked to radical environmentalist actions (burning GM crop plantings, etc.) in that "I didn't do it but it's a good thing somebody did." <- the same thing bin Laden said about the original WTC attack.
posted by faisal at 9:20 PM on November 3, 2001
posted by faisal at 9:20 PM on November 3, 2001
Declan Mcullagh interviews Oden here.
Via instapundit, who seems to doubt the story here.
The story seems a little iffy to me.
posted by owillis at 9:27 PM on November 3, 2001
Via instapundit, who seems to doubt the story here.
The story seems a little iffy to me.
posted by owillis at 9:27 PM on November 3, 2001
My favorite restaurant no longer exists. It was called Sweet Spice, and the menu focused on grains.
posted by thirteen at 9:30 PM on November 3, 2001
posted by thirteen at 9:30 PM on November 3, 2001
I don't believe I just did that, I meant to post that in a different window I have open. Sorry kids.
posted by thirteen at 9:31 PM on November 3, 2001
posted by thirteen at 9:31 PM on November 3, 2001
Details from politech. Includes an interview with Oden.
posted by andrew cooke at 2:07 AM on November 4, 2001
posted by andrew cooke at 2:07 AM on November 4, 2001
> My favorite restaurant no longer exists. It was called
> Sweet Spice, and the menu focused on grains.
Ben Nevis is the highest peak in Great Britain. I've seen it but never climbed it.
posted by pracowity at 3:50 AM on November 4, 2001
> Sweet Spice, and the menu focused on grains.
Ben Nevis is the highest peak in Great Britain. I've seen it but never climbed it.
posted by pracowity at 3:50 AM on November 4, 2001
faisal, please post a link to a reputable news organization when you make wild accusations about someone.
posted by fleener at 7:46 AM on November 4, 2001
posted by fleener at 7:46 AM on November 4, 2001
Just and Positive Alternatives: Green Party USA Statement on the Disasters. This appears to be what Nancy Oden refers to in her interview.
posted by Carol Anne at 8:15 AM on November 4, 2001
posted by Carol Anne at 8:15 AM on November 4, 2001
She was detained because she is an eco terrorist. Notice the bin-Ladenesque language and the cowardly way she advocates others to do her dirty work.
posted by prodigal at 8:38 AM on November 4, 2001
posted by prodigal at 8:38 AM on November 4, 2001
it makes sense if you think about it. people opposed to war = terrorists, and the last thing you want is a vicious terrorist on your flight.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:39 AM on November 4, 2001
posted by mcsweetie at 10:39 AM on November 4, 2001
In which case, Lord Melchett should cancel any plans to visit the US. Isn't it good to see that Monsanto gets to influence who gets counted as terrorists these days?
posted by holgate at 10:41 AM on November 4, 2001
posted by holgate at 10:41 AM on November 4, 2001
It's not opposition to the war. It's not Monsanto. That's ridiculous. One more time. THE SIXTIES ARE OVER. It's her actions. She's advocating and abetting the destruction of private property. Refer to my link above if you want to play clueless or naive.
posted by prodigal at 1:24 PM on November 4, 2001
posted by prodigal at 1:24 PM on November 4, 2001
It's not Monsanto. ... She's advocating and abetting the destruction of private property.
Yeah, and if we take US military actions out of context, or FBI/CIA arrests of Semitic looking people out of context, then those are just naked aggression and political abuse. THE SIXTIES ARE OVER, after all.
posted by rschram at 5:12 PM on November 4, 2001
Yeah, and if we take US military actions out of context, or FBI/CIA arrests of Semitic looking people out of context, then those are just naked aggression and political abuse. THE SIXTIES ARE OVER, after all.
posted by rschram at 5:12 PM on November 4, 2001
prodigal: you're relying on her own statement that it was her political positions that led to the ejection, when the news sources cited above indicate it was her behavior during the search that caused the problem. Please explain this contradiction.
posted by dhartung at 12:51 AM on November 5, 2001
posted by dhartung at 12:51 AM on November 5, 2001
faisal and prodigal: Wouldn't you say that burning GM crops and killing thousands of innocent people isn't really in the same league? I mean do you really believe that the Green Party is into crashing planes on skyscrapers?
What's next? Demanding that Nader be exiled to a gulag in Alaska?
posted by talos at 2:40 AM on November 5, 2001
What's next? Demanding that Nader be exiled to a gulag in Alaska?
posted by talos at 2:40 AM on November 5, 2001
*sigh*
Soon it will be "terrorist" to carry a placard protesting about the closure of a local hospital.
I don't want to live in a free world like that.
posted by walrus at 4:31 AM on November 5, 2001
Soon it will be "terrorist" to carry a placard protesting about the closure of a local hospital.
I don't want to live in a free world like that.
posted by walrus at 4:31 AM on November 5, 2001
I would agree that burning GM crops and killing thousands of innocent people isn't in the same league at all. That's part of the problem with the "anti-terrorist" law which just went into effect: it lumps all sorts of things together under "terrorist". The reaction to the attacks of 9/11 has been to lose all sense of scale in an effort to attack the idea rather than just the perpetrators.
posted by faisal at 3:57 PM on November 5, 2001
posted by faisal at 3:57 PM on November 5, 2001
Can we also agree burning crops is pretty damn bad? I have no love at all for GM food, but I think anyone setting fires should pay a terrible price.
posted by thirteen at 3:04 PM on November 7, 2001
posted by thirteen at 3:04 PM on November 7, 2001
No I don't think we can. How about, those people were taking measures to protect their ecosystem, with popular support as evidenced by the British public's almost immediate boycott of GM foods?
It's definitely not terrorism, but it might be a bit naughty.
posted by walrus at 3:40 PM on November 7, 2001
It's definitely not terrorism, but it might be a bit naughty.
posted by walrus at 3:40 PM on November 7, 2001
Gotcha, arson good.
I do not like Monsanto, and I have no desire to eat modified food. I imagine that is a position you share with me, but we do not stand together. I think it might be fun to catch someone starting fires, as I can be naughty too.
posted by thirteen at 4:08 PM on November 7, 2001
I do not like Monsanto, and I have no desire to eat modified food. I imagine that is a position you share with me, but we do not stand together. I think it might be fun to catch someone starting fires, as I can be naughty too.
posted by thirteen at 4:08 PM on November 7, 2001
heh.
your strawman's on fire, look ;)
arson stinks, but fields aren't the same as buildings. anyway, a lot of the time they were using scythes or rolling on the plants, on the TV footage I saw ...
They weren't your fields by any chance, were they?
posted by walrus at 4:25 PM on November 7, 2001
your strawman's on fire, look ;)
arson stinks, but fields aren't the same as buildings. anyway, a lot of the time they were using scythes or rolling on the plants, on the TV footage I saw ...
They weren't your fields by any chance, were they?
posted by walrus at 4:25 PM on November 7, 2001
oops ... or am I getting confused between the mild (comedic) protests in the UK, and something I'm unaware of in the US? it's possible ...
posted by walrus at 4:27 PM on November 7, 2001
posted by walrus at 4:27 PM on November 7, 2001
Arson is arson, and burning a field or a silo meets the definition. I don't see a straw man entering into my argument, as my only real point is that setting fires is wrong. A stupid and dangerous thing to do. Destroying other people's things, by burning or trampling does not seem the least bit funny, and hardly seems peaceful. I can recognize an invitation of violence, and am not shy.
I am unsure why you would think they were my fields. Subtle humor?
posted by thirteen at 4:45 PM on November 7, 2001
I am unsure why you would think they were my fields. Subtle humor?
posted by thirteen at 4:45 PM on November 7, 2001
Subtle humor?
Ok you got me ... I have been playing a little here. I'll try to make one serious post, and then we can agree to disagree or something.
The straw man was your attempt to make it look like I think arson (per se) is ok, just because I don't necessarily disagree in this case.
I've been doing some research by the way. I found two articles (US house of representatives and environmental news network) which stated that GM cotton crops had been burned in India, and one (interesting but orthogonal to the point) where a UK government spokesman stated that the government would continue burning trial crops so they don't enter the food chain. I couldn't find any incidents of people illegally burning GM crops outside India. Was that the incident you were talking about?
Arson is the willful or malicious burning of property (as a building) especially with criminal or fraudulent intent, as defined in mirriam websters dictionary. I'm prepared to accept that definition.
First off the bat, I don't believe there is criminal or fraudulent intent in the burning of GM cotton to protect one's environment, in an area where the local regulator had not issued permission for the crops to be grown at the time they were planted. Growing them there might have been criminal, although the Indian government has now belatedly issued permission, against stiff opposition from the public.
The definition of arson does mention buildings. I realise it can be stretched, but this has always been my understanding of the word. I don't approve of arson by that definition, under any circumstances.
I'll just say that in general I believe in certain forms of direct action when a government is clearly serving a self interest over and above the will of the population, and there is no clear political opposition to their position because all the parties have the same self interest.
I don't believe in violence, or harm to private property. However, I don't mind someone taking out crops planted as a trial by the government, in order to protect our ecosystem, when there is a clear conflict of interests in the govts position. I don't think the crops in India were necessarily government planted, and if they were private property, I would have some concern over the livelihood of the farmers who planted them. In short, I'd think that was wrong, but I'm also vehemently opposed to planting them in the first place.
I won't go over my arguments against GM crops here, because I believe we feel similarly. If anyone reading this wants to know, they can email me from my profile page.
posted by walrus at 3:42 AM on November 8, 2001
Ok you got me ... I have been playing a little here. I'll try to make one serious post, and then we can agree to disagree or something.
The straw man was your attempt to make it look like I think arson (per se) is ok, just because I don't necessarily disagree in this case.
I've been doing some research by the way. I found two articles (US house of representatives and environmental news network) which stated that GM cotton crops had been burned in India, and one (interesting but orthogonal to the point) where a UK government spokesman stated that the government would continue burning trial crops so they don't enter the food chain. I couldn't find any incidents of people illegally burning GM crops outside India. Was that the incident you were talking about?
Arson is the willful or malicious burning of property (as a building) especially with criminal or fraudulent intent, as defined in mirriam websters dictionary. I'm prepared to accept that definition.
First off the bat, I don't believe there is criminal or fraudulent intent in the burning of GM cotton to protect one's environment, in an area where the local regulator had not issued permission for the crops to be grown at the time they were planted. Growing them there might have been criminal, although the Indian government has now belatedly issued permission, against stiff opposition from the public.
The definition of arson does mention buildings. I realise it can be stretched, but this has always been my understanding of the word. I don't approve of arson by that definition, under any circumstances.
I'll just say that in general I believe in certain forms of direct action when a government is clearly serving a self interest over and above the will of the population, and there is no clear political opposition to their position because all the parties have the same self interest.
I don't believe in violence, or harm to private property. However, I don't mind someone taking out crops planted as a trial by the government, in order to protect our ecosystem, when there is a clear conflict of interests in the govts position. I don't think the crops in India were necessarily government planted, and if they were private property, I would have some concern over the livelihood of the farmers who planted them. In short, I'd think that was wrong, but I'm also vehemently opposed to planting them in the first place.
I won't go over my arguments against GM crops here, because I believe we feel similarly. If anyone reading this wants to know, they can email me from my profile page.
posted by walrus at 3:42 AM on November 8, 2001
I won't go over my arguments against GM crops here, because I believe we feel similarly.
That is good enough for me.
Oden has also been linked to radical environmentalist actions (burning GM crop plantings, etc.) in that "I didn't do it but it's a good thing somebody did."
I have not researched this at all. Based on the quote above I cannot justify preventing this woman from doing anything. GM crop burning can be intrepreted several different ways. I assumed vandalism, and responded the way I do. If this turned out to be a ritual burning in a bowl that I too am sorry. I can be opposed to the planting of a crop, without believing I have any right to prevent the farmers from doing so. I am less concerned by cross contamination of genetic material than I once was. I still think BT corn blows, but I do not fear sterile crops will spread and destroy all plant life on earth. Again, like you said, we are not all that far apart on the issue, and I appreciate your comments.
posted by thirteen at 1:44 PM on November 8, 2001
That is good enough for me.
Oden has also been linked to radical environmentalist actions (burning GM crop plantings, etc.) in that "I didn't do it but it's a good thing somebody did."
I have not researched this at all. Based on the quote above I cannot justify preventing this woman from doing anything. GM crop burning can be intrepreted several different ways. I assumed vandalism, and responded the way I do. If this turned out to be a ritual burning in a bowl that I too am sorry. I can be opposed to the planting of a crop, without believing I have any right to prevent the farmers from doing so. I am less concerned by cross contamination of genetic material than I once was. I still think BT corn blows, but I do not fear sterile crops will spread and destroy all plant life on earth. Again, like you said, we are not all that far apart on the issue, and I appreciate your comments.
posted by thirteen at 1:44 PM on November 8, 2001
« Older So, what does "High Alert" mean, anyway..? | Anyone starting to play NokiaGame? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by fleener at 4:13 PM on November 3, 2001