Disneyland locked down for suspicious scroll of paper

Posted Sunday, March 4, 2012 11:56 AM | Contributed by Jeff

The suspicious object that forced Disneyland officials to lock down the theme park Saturday morning was a rolled-up piece of paper with a "spiritual message" discovered in a tree near the entrance, authorities said. The park was closed to visitors for several hours Saturday but reopened by 11 a.m.

Read more from The LA Times.

Related parks

Monday, March 5, 2012 5:08 PM

No doubt Ben Franklin would not recognize the country and government he was so pivotable in creating.


  • The weight, therefore, of an independent empire, which you seem certain of our inability to bear, will not be so great as you imagine; the expense of our civil government we have always borne, and can easily bear, because it is small. A virtuous and laborious people may be cheaply governed, determining, as we do, to have no offices of profit, nor any sinecures, or useless appointments, so common in ancient or corrupted states. We can govern ourselves a year for the sum you pay in a single department, for what one jobbing contractor, by the favour of a minister, can cheat you out of in a single article.

As a champion of small government, there is no way the TSA would fit into Ben's idea of "our most important traditions and values as a nation."

That said...Disney is a private entity. They can do what they want to protect their customers. Even if I believe their overreaction is every bit as silly as our government's over-reaction to almost EVERYTHING.

I think a good dose of education on Ben Franklin and so many more of our founding father's would turn heads as to how far we have drifted from our founding principals. The Crown of England was arguably much less oppressive than our current government. One has to wonder if Ben Franklin et al would have sat idly by...?

Last edited by Aamilj, Monday, March 5, 2012 5:11 PM
+0
Monday, March 5, 2012 6:36 PM

It is worth noting that Ben Franklin *did* sit, or rather, lie, "idly by" as our government was developed into what has become its current form. Franklin's death happened even as the shortcomings of the Articles of Confederation were becoming ever more obvious as the country grew larger and more complex. The United States Constitution was not written until 1787.

A mere technicality, I realize...

--Dave Althoff, Jr.


    /X\        _      *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ /XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX

+0
Monday, March 5, 2012 8:30 PM

Good stuff Rideman. In fairness to Ben...he was dying.

  • Monday, September 17, 1787, was the last day of the ConstitutionalConvention. Pennsylvania delegate Benjamin Franklin, one of the few Americansof the time with international repute, wanted to give a short speech to theConvention prior to the signing of the final draft of the Constitution. Tooweak to actually give the speech himself, he had fellow Pennsylvanian JamesWilson deliver the speech. It is considered a masterpiece.

And while the speech was indeed humble and patriotic, his prediction(s) were scary.

  • I agree to this Constitution with all its faults,if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, andthere is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if welladministered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administeredfor a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have donebefore it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despoticGovernment, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any otherConvention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution.

Which brings us to Jefferson...author of the Constitution. More related to this thread than Franklin...

  • “I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

+0
Monday, March 5, 2012 8:35 PM
Raven-Phile's avatar

My favorite was when Abraham Lincoln said "not everything you read on the Internet is true. "


R.I.P LeRoi Moore 9/7/61 - 8/19/2008
+0
Monday, March 5, 2012 8:48 PM
Tekwardo's avatar

Like Button.


Website | Flickr | Instagram | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook

Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.

+0
Monday, March 5, 2012 9:45 PM

Ironically, Ben Franklin's favorite B&M was Patriot...


My author website: mgrantroberts.com

+0
Monday, March 5, 2012 10:11 PM

Jeff said:
Actually, "the media" has been anything but kind to the TSA.

Eh, half and half. I recall there were many who made painstaking efforts to rebut the people who reported being detained or treated roughly at airline security checkpoints. And even if they have issues with how TSA is carrying out their mission, many are quick to remind us how much we need them as they mention each new remote threat that might occur.

+0
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 12:53 AM
LostKause's avatar

The real reason we haven't had another major terrorist attack since 2001 is because we have been scared enough for them to get what they want from us. When we start resisting the invasive policies that are threatening our freedoms, there will simply be another attack from whatever enemy they make up to remind us that we need to obey.


+0
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 1:42 AM

Ugh. Guess who was never very good at math. Note to self: 1787 < 1790, not the other way around. :) Not to mention that bit of trivia about who signed both the Declaration of Inependence AND the US Constitution.

"Security" is insidious. If something bad happens, then you didn't do enough. But if something bad doesn't happen, that still doesn't mean you did (spent) enough, because it could just mean you got lucky. When you are protecting against an unknown threat, how do you know you have succeeded?

--Dave Althoff, Jr.


    /X\        _      *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ /XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX

+0
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 3:02 AM

Not to mention, acts of terrorism aren't exactly things that happen every day in this country. It's even more rare if you don't count domestic terrorism. I don't accept a non-occurrence of a rare event as evidence that we've done anything to stop these events from occurring. Hell, 9/11 could have been prevented if they simply had the foresight to not allow box cutters on planes. But hindsight is always 20/20.


And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun

+0
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 9:10 AM

Forget the box cutters. "9/11" wouldn't have happened if someone had realized that the Rules for Hijacking a Commercial Aircraft had changed. On September 10, 2001, if your aircraft was hijacked, you did exactly what the hijacker wanted, on the assumption that his goals involved living through the incident. The following day, the Bad Guys changed the rules and didn't bother to tell anybody. You know what? The next time there is a successful terrorist attack, it won't be because security was inadequate. It will be because security was protecting against the wrong threat, because the Bad Guy decides that instead of playing by the old rules and being thwarted, he'll just make up new rules and do something *nobody* ever considered.

--Dave Althoff, Jr.


    /X\        _      *** Respect rides. They do not respect you. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ /XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX

+0
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 11:29 AM

I don't accept a non-occurrence of a rare event as evidence that we've done anything to stop these events from occurring.

I tend to agree with this. There is no way to know if we have prevented ANYTHING. Particularly on our own soil...since it is such a rare occurrence anyhow. I do think there is a chance we have prevented some attacks on our posts around the world...since those seemed to be happening much more frequently prior to our "war on terror." But there is a good debate about what we have done, and continue to do...and whether any of this is worth the cost and the hassle.

As a person who values freedom over security...I'm on the side that thinks all this is overkill. I feel no more safe (or scared) on a plane now than before, etc. I believe big government intervention into our security is no more beneficial than big government intervention into the economy, health care, etc. I strive to be consistent in my worldview. Which is pretty much the Jefferson quote above...

+0
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 3:38 PM
rollergator's avatar

For a "liberal", this is going to sound awfully conservative, LOL. Taking off on somewhat of a tangent from Dave's earlier argument...I am willing to give the TSA considerable latitude (within reason, of course) simply because those who would do us harm are on the lookout for holes in our security. If TSA consistently inspected and questioned according to one set of firmly set guidelines, it would give evildoers a leg up on figuring out how to get around those measures. Keeping *some* mystery about their methods makes it harder to PLAN to do wrong...

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2021, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...