Well isn't this a twist of events!
Now the US has denied a visa to Boy George. You almost wonder is this someone's idea of payback for not letting Martha Stewart into Britain because of her conviction? Well I don't know, but this saga is playing out into a display of how messed up our security is. People who obviously don't pose any threat what so ever, but because of convictions or pending trials are being denied visas. What about the real threat? How is that going?
I wouldn't compare Boy George to Martha Stewart in any way other than complete opposite's. And if this is the best export that Britain has well, then ok, I can understand that. This whole incident reminds me of a quote in the Bible "choke on a gnat but swallow a camel."
I understand that we need security, and that no one is above the law but, someone has to ask the human intellect. Are these people a threat to National Security? Boy George, whom I feel very weird in defending, in the US is innocent until proven guilty. Obviously in Britain there is a double standard here. As for Martha Stewart, she has satisfied the requirements for her crime, she did the time.
Ok, I'll ask it. Who's the better woman here?
Will either of these people be a future risk? Who knows that about anybody? What is important is that it is quite obvious who is a threat and who isn't. A terrorist is a terrorist, just as the lives of these people communicate who they are, so the life of a terrorist communicates who they are.
Investigate, don't predicate!
R. William Collier
http://mindworthy.mypodcast.com
MSN Video <a href="http://entertainment.msn.com/news/article.aspx?
