Home | Away

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Mister Answer Man:  Special Cycling Edition

Dear Mister Answer Man: What do you make of today’s New York Times report of New York City police officers infiltrating and conducting secret surveillance of public protests, antiwar rallies, and even cyclists’ funerals? Check this out:

Undercover New York City police officers have conducted covert surveillance in the last 16 months of people protesting the Iraq war, bicycle riders taking part in mass rallies and even mourners at a street vigil for a cyclist killed in an accident, a series of videotapes show.

In glimpses and in glaring detail, the videotape images reveal the robust presence of disguised officers or others working with them at seven public gatherings since August 2004.

The officers hoist protest signs. They hold flowers with mourners. They ride in bicycle events. At the vigil for the cyclist, an officer in biking gear wore a button that said, “I am a shameless agitator.” She also carried a camera and videotaped the roughly 15 people present.

Beyond collecting information, some of the undercover officers or their associates are seen on the tape having influence on events. At a demonstration last year during the Republican National Convention, the sham arrest of a man secretly working with the police led to a bruising confrontation between officers in riot gear and bystanders.

Your local and long-suffering readers need to know: exactly how long are you going to wait before you finally call these the actions of a police state? —N. Pelosi, San Francisco, CA

Mister Answer Man replies: That is precisely the kind of shrill, irresponsible question for which Dhimmicrats are deservedly despised, Mr. Pelosi, and I would not be surprised if this country witnesses a vicious backlash directed at people like you.

Listen up, Mr. Pelosi.  The idea that fifteen people—no, make that fifteen cyclists—can attend a vigil for a dead friend without an undercover police officer videotaping them is a perfect example of the pre-9/11 mindset.  What don’t you understand about “9/11 changed everything?” Or did you think that vigils for dead cyclists were somehow exempt from “everything”?

Dear Mister Answer Man: Um, exactly what’s up with your attitude toward cyclists?  I happen to know a cyclist, and he seems pretty nice.  Cyclists never struck me as being very substantial threats to national security.  What gives? —S. Crow, Kennett, MO

Mister Answer Man replies: Your question should be: what gives with the decadent music industry elite these days?  You people are as bad as the cyclists. 

And you’re going to try to tell me that cyclists are not a threat to national security? Cyclists are Public Enemy Number Six, right after Dhimmicrats, the MSM, secularists, gays and lesbians, and college professors.  By turning their backs on the internal combustion engine and selfishly spurning the oil industry, cyclists not only threaten our nation’s economy; they reject our blessed way of life.  As Vice President and former Halliburton official Dick Cheney recently said, when asked for his opinion of bicycles and the useful idiots who ride them, “grrrrrr!  Arrgggh!  Kzzzff, mmgghhrrggg.”

I would also like to point out that there are many cyclists in San Francisco, a city many prominent media figures believe we would be better off without.

Dear Mister Answer Man: You are teh r0xx0r for pwning those stupid questions!  But don’t you think the New York Times should be prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Act for revealing this information, which ultimately helps al-Qaeda learn about our cycling and cyclist-vigiling secrets? —D. Brooks, Bobo-on-Hudson, New York

Mister Answer Man replies: Thank you for breathing some sanity into this discussion, Mr. Bobo-on.  But no, I do not think the New York Times should be charged with treason or alien sedition.  Though the newspaper has behaved shamefully of late, jeopardizing all our lives in order to promote a radical Bush-hating agenda, the Times has been enormously useful to us in recent years.  Don’t forget, the paper ran nearly every one of the Chalabi-Miller press releases we sent them in 2002 and 2003, and even printed them as “news.” And its editors had the discretion to wait until after the election to publish the story on Bush’s secret domestic surveillance, just as they had the good sense to kill the story on Bush’s own secret debate wire on the grounds that such a story would potentially affect the outcome of the campaign.  So even though much of the paper remains Moonbat Central Headquarters, we can say with some assurance that it was critical to Bush’s re-election, and for this, we will spare it from the terrible fury of our righteous wrath.

For now.

Posted by Michael on 12/22 at 03:12 PM
(38) Comments • (2) TrackbacksPermalink
Page 1 of 1 pages