Good gravy. Has it really been a month since last we spoke? Well…then let’s get to it.Normally I’m one known for always enjoying a good, scathing tale about how loony the right-wingers are in this country. But there is on thing I despise worse than a barrel full of Bill O’Reillys, and that’s bullshit. I have no tolerance for untruths, whether they be conscious or whether the person spreading them is just too lazy or disinclined to healthy skepticism to check whether something is based in reality before spreading it around. The only downside to the internet is that it has made this practice infinitely easier in the form of endlessly forwarded “did you know” emails that are pretty much just full of outright lies. Whether these messages are fanciful creations by the left or right is immaterial; I would never want to influence anyone to my point of view through blatant dishonesty. Personally, I’m far too conceded to tolerate ever being wrong, so I check out my sources and make damn sure I know what I’m talking about before I impart any information. Snopes.com, people; it’s a winner.
There is a story that has been circulating the blogosphere that I suspect, suspect, may be complete and utter malarkey. You can read the whole thing here on the Episcopal Café site, but I’ll summarize:
The posting is a first-person anecdote by Joel L. Merchant* but the website appears to actually be run by some dude named Joel Naughton. In the story Mr. Merchant is riding on an Amtrak train in the picturesque Northeast. There is a Japanese tourist snapping pictures out the window because, you know how it’s a genetically imperative that Asians hold cameras. The conductor sees this and informs the tourist, “Sir, in the interest of national security, we do not allow pictures to be taken of or from this train.” Wait for it, the story gets better.
The tourist of course doesn’t speak English and the conductor character, who may or may not be lifted entirely out of a Spike Lee movie, becomes enraged at not being understood and threatens to confiscate the camera. At the next stop the police enter the car (this time characters lifted from an early “talkie”) and through the use of a translator, inform the man that they are detaining him and will put him on the next train if he turns out not to have sensitive photos of…cows or whatever the shit they grow in New England. The tourist complains that relatives he hasn’t seen in forever are waiting for him in Boston and there’s not way to contact them. Because, I can only guess, the Japanese family, the most tech-savvy people on the planet, have no cell phones. Oh, and land-based phone lines to the Boston train station have yet to be invented. Also, email doesn’t exist, and apparently the rider for the Pony Express is passed out down at Ye Olde Taverne.Naturally there is some grumbling by the other passengers, overheard, we presume, by Mr. Merchant. This one is my favorite: “An older traveler reflected, “I witnessed this personally in police states during the war in Europe.”” Yeah, because people talk that way. And there’s nothing like invoking the Nazis during “the war in Europe” to make a point. Subtle, Mr. Merchant.
At any rate, this did not happen. I don’t know if anything even remotely similar happened, but this story did not. It’s simply too perfectly illustrates the author’s point of view to be real. It seems to be an emotionally-charged cautionary tale about the dangers of overzealous security, but king of comes off as…literally unbelievable. Note the use of a sympathy-inducing protagonist; the only way the sweet, photo-snapping Japanese man could be more lovable is if Mr. Merchant had put him in a bunny suit.An author whose work I enjoy a great deal (Terry Goodkind) once wrote that people believe things either because they want to believe a thing is true, or because they are afraid what they’re told might be true. In this case Mr. Merchant’s audience falls into both camps. I’m not saying this is bald-faced fucking bullshit, but it certainly has a faint whiff of manure.
This reminds me of the countless cautionary tales both from the government and religious institutions. You know, Frankie Everyman bangs Sally Sweetcheeks out of wedlock, gets a “social disease,” and they both die in a murder/suicide. Also duct tape and plastic wrap can protect you from a chemical attack.
The most disturbing part is that people seem far too ready to just take this story on face value, according to the comment section. The ingenious thing about telling a personal anecdote like this is it’s almost impossible to disprove. Even after one commenter went so far as to contact Amtrak and was informed that, yes, of course passengers could take pictures, they only say that the conductor was way out of line and the cops were overzealous. There was even an engineer and conductor trainer who commented that Mr. Merchant should have gotten the conductor’s badge number and that they are not permitted to act like that. C’MON! What’s more likely, that the entire train’s employees are lunatics and the cops at the station have delusions of being in the S.S., or that one man is an exaggerative and creative writer? I was unable to find any outside verification of this besides other blogs re-posting it. I am in the process of contacting Amtrak to see if they have heard of this and will let you in on the results, ladies and gentlemen.
Have healthy skepticism, dear readers.
* According to the Episcopal Café, Mr. Merchant “is a teacher, business consultant, and essayist. He is currently working on "The Other Side of Time; Letters to My Daughter" at a-reminiscence.”
3 comments:
Additional responses from Joel:
1. My goodness. You spent a lot of time ranting about a single report about an event. I suppose some people are quicker to categorize others than to be, as they say, careful about what they read.
2. You're not the only one who claimed the essay was a fake. I have limited me response to the details: Amtrak #2290, September 15, 2007, Acela express, the quiet car, female conductor, New York City to Boston, stopped at New Haven.
3. Sorry,I've tried, but I'm just not a fiction essayist.I would no sooner spin a yarn about the event on this train than I would construct the story about my daughter's death.
see: http://www.a-reminiscence.com/index_dev.htm
5. One reader’s response: "Hi,Joel. Any Amtrak rider between Buffalo, NY and Albany, NY will recognize this drama. It plays out almost daily on The Lake Shore Limited, and probably other trains as well. The riders get on in Buffalo, no problem. Several will have crossed into the U.S. from Canada that day. At the next stop, brown shirts (literally! I guess they are sheriff's deputies?) are waiting on the platform. They board the train and go through the cars asking everyone if they are U.S. citizens and also ask for identification from anyone who looks to be a foreign national. Many on-board respond indignantly with "I beg your pardon?!" or similar responses such as "Is this still the United States of America?!" etc. Each and every day, a few or several will be escorted from the train. No one really knows what happens to them after that."
My suggestion: pick on him next.
6. Another person’s response: “Thank you for the quick reply. I appreciate your candor and respect your sincerity. I believe you, and other similar actions elsewhere bear their own kind of witness, but you must understand how a person who thinks critically might think that the story could have been designed to manipulate. “
7. A response to a person who thinks the essay is fictional.
(S)he said the giveaway was that the word "terror" is not used in American airports.
My response: Go fly sometime. When you do, overlook the precise word, "terror" so you see the larger picture -- which is the way people respond to fear. The loudspeaker, which in some places does indeed use the word "terror," also uses a variation on the phrase "the threat level is high."
For frequent travelers, this has become such a common announcement, we block it out -- along with lots of other heightened airport and travel stimulus input.
But, in fact, people hear "threat," and they think "terror." "Lurking." "Danger." The basis of that response is very human, and part of our genetically hardwired "fright-flight" preparedness to guard against danger.
However, the "fright-flight" is not the basis for leadership in the world or a model of what Lyndon Johnson called the "Great Society."
The 2001 catastrophic events in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania were fuel for an administration which has, at every opportunity including its 2004 re-election, reminded us that we should be very afraid.
It is not a big leap of imagination from "be very afraid" to an individual's response of terror. It is classic paranoia. Many people express it. A friend of mine, educated, professional, told me about a flight during which he sat next to "a person who looked Middle Eastern, probably Arabic." He said he was ready to use his necktie to strangle his seatmate should he cause any trouble. < sigh > < Great Scott >
We hear about threats, homeland security, wars so often -- the result is we are less capable of differentiating what is a threat, what might reasonably stimulate an appropriate fright-flight response.
This is not the first time our nation has been gripped by fear. One example was the crumbling economy beginning in the late 1920s. That set the stage for Roosevelt's comment, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Our current administration cannot have it both ways. They live in an upside down world. Our country models leadership and exports democracy and goodwill by making war in for a fabricated cause. Really ? This is antithetical.
Historians will recognize the justification for Christian crusades against pagan Muslims. We cannot do both things: i) establish a peace-motivated diplomatic presence in the world, and ii) encourage the fear / threat / terror / (axis of) evil mindset. It's a sad downward spiral, for which the nation does not have the luxury in which to engage.
best wishes for good health in your continued rants,
Joel Merchant
Honolulu, Hawaii
(frequent traveler, teacher, business consultant)
Additional responses from Joel:
1. My goodness. You spent a lot of time ranting about a single report about an event. I suppose some people are quicker to categorize others than to be, as they say, careful about what they read.
2. You're not the only one who claimed the essay was a fake. I have limited my response to the details: Amtrak #2290, September 15, 2007, Acela express, the quiet car, female conductor, New York City to Boston, stopped at New Haven.
3. Sorry,I've tried, but I'm just not a fiction essayist.I would no sooner spin a yarn about the event on this train than I would construct the story about my daughter's death.
see: http://www.a-reminiscence.com/index_dev.htm
5. One reader’s response: "Hi,Joel. Any Amtrak rider between Buffalo, NY and Albany, NY will recognize this drama. It plays out almost daily on The Lake Shore Limited, and probably other trains as well. The riders get on in Buffalo, no problem. Several will have crossed into the U.S. from Canada that day. At the next stop, brown shirts (literally! I guess they are sheriff's deputies?) are waiting on the platform. They board the train and go through the cars asking everyone if they are U.S. citizens and also ask for identification from anyone who looks to be a foreign national. Many on-board respond indignantly with "I beg your pardon?!" or similar responses such as "Is this still the United States of America?!" etc. Each and every day, a few or several will be escorted from the train. No one really knows what happens to them after that."
My suggestion: pick on him next.
6. Another person’s response: “Thank you for the quick reply. I appreciate your candor and respect your sincerity. I believe you, and other similar actions elsewhere bear their own kind of witness, but you must understand how a person who thinks critically might think that the story could have been designed to manipulate. “
7. A response to a person who thinks the essay is fictional.
(S)he said the giveaway was that the word "terror" is not used in American airports.
My response: Go fly sometime. When you do, overlook the precise word, "terror" so you see the larger picture -- which is the way people respond to fear. The loudspeaker, which in some places does indeed use the word "terror," also uses a variation on the phrase "the threat level is high."
For frequent travelers, this has become such a common announcement, we block it out -- along with lots of other heightened airport and travel stimulus input.
But, in fact, people hear "threat," and they think "terror." "Lurking." "Danger." The basis of that response is very human, and part of our genetically hardwired "fright-flight" preparedness to guard against danger.
However, the "fright-flight" is not the basis for leadership in the world or a model of what Lyndon Johnson called the "Great Society."
The 2001 catastrophic events in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania were fuel for an administration which has, at every opportunity including its 2004 re-election, reminded us that we should be very afraid.
It is not a big leap of imagination from "be very afraid" to an individual's response of terror. It is classic paranoia. Many people express it. A friend of mine, educated, professional, told me about a flight during which he sat next to "a person who looked Middle Eastern, probably Arabic." He said he was ready to use his necktie to strangle his seatmate should he cause any trouble. < sigh > < Great Scott >
We hear about threats, homeland security, wars so often -- the result is we are less capable of differentiating what is a threat, what might reasonably stimulate an appropriate fright-flight response.
This is not the first time our nation has been gripped by fear. One example was the crumbling economy beginning in the late 1920s. That set the stage for Roosevelt's comment, "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Our current administration cannot have it both ways. They live in an upside down world. Our country models leadership and exports democracy and goodwill by making war in for a fabricated cause. Really ? This is antithetical.
Historians will recognize the justification for Christian crusades against pagan Muslims. We cannot do both things: i) establish a peace-motivated diplomatic presence in the world, and ii) encourage the fear / threat / terror / (axis of) evil mindset. It's a sad downward spiral, for which the nation does not have the luxury in which to engage.
best wishes for good health in your continued rants,
Joel Merchant
Honolulu, Hawaii
(frequent traveler, teacher, business consultant)
Uhm...okay. I never actually claimed you made it up, specifically. I said it SOUNDED made up. If it did happen, that's nuts, but the post was more about people re-posting things without questioning them. Also, thanks for all the info about how terror-crazy America is, but I already knew that and happen to agree with you. I never said this administration wasn't bat-shit insane, I said in THIS specific instance, the story told seemed either made up or exaggerated, in the same way right-wingers make up shit to horrify us into compliance. I'm a Democrat, for Christssake. But hey, I could be wrong. There's always a first time.
Post a Comment