Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Airport Screeners Are Watching What You Read
boarder8925 writes "Be careful what you read when you fly in the United States. What you read is being monitored by airport screeners and stored in a government database for years. 'Privacy advocates obtained database records showing that the government routinely records the race of people pulled aside for extra screening as they enter the country, along with cursory answers given to U.S. border inspectors about their purpose in traveling. In one case, the records note Electronic Frontier Foundation co-founder John Gilmore's choice of reading material, and worry over the number of small flashlights he'd packed for the trip. The breadth of the information obtained by the Gilmore-funded Identity Project (using a Privacy Act request) shows the government's screening program at the border is actually a survelliance dragnet."
I swear those books on kitten huffing & freedom hating are purely for research on my next acting part in a play!
My work here is dung.
I only read Catcher in the Rye.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
"Chuck, have a look at this one."
"So he's reading something on a laptop, is it a document or the internet?"
"Use the higher magnification, it's a website."
"Ok, I see it now. Something about Patenting a knife and fork... he's typing something."
"Looks harmless enough."
"Oh, my god, he's making some reference to life in Soviet Russia! Security security move on I-424, Victor section!"
"Code yellow! He's obviously some kind of subversive."
"Wait! There's something about a Beowulf Cluster, sounds like a cell!!!"
"Code Orange, Code Orange!"
"Holy sweet mother of Jesus! He's welcoming his new overlords!"
"CODE RED!! CODE RED!! Take that m**********r down!"
[NO CARRIER]
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It might expose some government employees to some good books.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Go Go Gadget editors!
Someone steals the text of the actual article (not unusual, I know), instead of providing an actual summary... but leaves out the hyperlink that's actually IN the stolen text for the Identity Project referenced in the article.
Why bother with editors?
I had to fly commercial on the day they reopened the skies after 9/11/2001 (I think it was the next Monday, can't remember the exact date).
The events of the past week made me decide it was time to re-read "The Satanic Verses." I took it on the plane with me and made sure to hold it prominently in the waiting/boarding areas, etc.
Nobody hassled me. Too bad, I wanted to make a big "Don't Taze Me, Bro" scene.
In other news, be careful what you post on the internet. Whoops, I mean our beloved Government is there to protect you from yourself. Amen.
..Slashdot so I guess I'm on the watch list.
http://www.rense.com/general79/wdx1.htm
Soon this will all be a faded memory as the government will require everyone to board planes like this
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
whoop-de-fucking-do. ..... And You don't care if they look, 'cause you've done nothing wrong......
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes.
You will be baked, and there will be cake.
I travel a LOT, sometimes internationally, and I've always been paranoid enough to print my own book covers. I own a print shop, but I'm sure anyone can crank out their own book covers for under $1.00 at work or at home.
My typical book cover usually says "Word of the Day" with other harmless jargon under it, and on the spine. When those morons/monkeys (not ad hominem attack, the employees really are morons) go through my bags, they only look at the fake cover.
Better than what they do normally - just take books, etc. from your luggage and keep 'em....
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
...an economics student reading both Adam Smith and Karl Marx? divide by zero error?
A copy of The Constitution and The Bill of Rights
I would like to share a very uncomfortable moment I had related to this....
:)
I was returning from a trip abroad to England and Sweden. On the way back I was reading a copy of the Phillip K. Dick story "The Man in the High Castle". For those who aren't familiar with it, it's a story set in an alternate world where the Axis won WWII, and American is evenly divided between the Germans and Japanese, along the center of the country.
The cover art on this particular printing was an American flag where the start had been replaced with Swastikas. As I went through customs I was pulled aside for a little of the ole' extra screenin'. (Damn you again, full beard and being under 30!)
Things were going smoothly until he came across the book, at which point things became extremely hostile and many questions were repeated until I started to explain that the book was sci-fi, and about a postulated alternate universe. I think as soon as I said 'alternate universe' his eyes glazed over, and he began to loose interest in me and I was let go. So based on this article, I guess the government knows I'm a PKD fan. I hope Space Nixon doesn't get word of this, or I'm in real trouble. I'll probably just end up informing on myself to the government anyways.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Georgie says if I stay home, the terrorist win. What am I to do?
It would be nice to know what the feds are looking to find based on what people are reading.
It I'm completely against all of this "to save your freedoms BS". So I would like to know why they even think this is necessary.
This sounds like another solution looking for a problem much like putting RFID chips in passports.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
So how long until the TSA is collecting so much data at airports that other law-enforcement agencies start looking through their database? When TSA screeners rifle through your luggage, is any of that admissible in court? If they're secretly watching what you're reading, even outside of checkpoints, is that admissible too?
Is it worth all this invasion of privacy, for events that happen exceedingly rarely? And if terrorists target a bus in the U.S., will we start having these checkpoints everywhere?
the rest of us about 'freedom' and 'democracy' as your country clearer has neither.
Cheers.
And if you voted for a Republican sometime in the past dozen or so years, but haven't learned to change your ways, stay home.
And the democrats are better how? Both parties are working for the same ends. The only way we'll have any hope of a shift away from the coming police state is if a couple/few third parties rise up and kill off the current bi-factional ruling party.
Thanks for the tip.
Next time I fly, if I want to read The Audacity of Hope I'll be sure to enclose it in a dust jacket from We Will Prevail.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
"...perhaps a selection of DIY PDF pamphlets which you print out yourself and carry through security, with titles like 'These Security Measures Aren't Doing Much For Your Public Relations, You Know' and 'Could You Work Harder At Making This Screening Process More Efficient And Effective Please?'
Sort of like a bug report."
And then:
"Here's a selection of DIY pamphlets:
[Link]
Why not make your own, print out some open source book you've been wanting to read? A flight, and the necessary long wait in a security line, is the perfect opportunity."
They just report on what is notable. If I had a pair of rainbow coloured shoes, no doubt that would be reported as well. It's just a mess of pointless beaurocracy. The morons on the ground are following orders to report what they find. The paper pushers store it because that's what they do with paper once the finish storing it.
It's not that sinister. It's just the government being its usual inefficient self.
The last time I flew I took with me my copy of 1984...
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Right about the time that the Republican Congress was impeaching Clinton, and writing laws like ATS.
--
make install -not war
Obviously, no one reading anything in an airport cares if anyone looks, because they're reading it IN AN AIRPORT. The security guard walking past you probably has a better view than the camera. Unless you use custom book covers to obscure what you're reading - which, if you're paranoid, go ahead, I'll only get worried when they start disallowing that - then you obviously have no problem broadcasting your reading preferences to the world.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
I think that's the real issue here. If you're a Democrat, if you're a Republican.. there's little difference, it's still leading to the same global agenda.
Consider Ron Paul 2008.
But voting does not work anymore.
:( Retire overseas, I suppose.
At the state level (both state and Congressional elections), the districts have been so gerrymandered, you get extremist after extremist. Do you live in California by chance? The extremism is destroying this state.
At the presidential level, any sane people get culled out even before the primaries. It's the media's fault here. Any sane person will occasionally suggest a solution that is diametrically opposed to the status quo, and the media will make that person out to be a lunatic when the exact opposite is true. What were left with is a choice between a small number of sociopathic megalomaniacs.
And I'm no Republican, but you don't *really* think the Dems have any solutions, do you? I go to their web pages, and it's the same old broken crap.
Go look at Edwards statement on energy. The first half of it is "No nuclear power! It's scary! Don't care about technological advancements. No nukes! Naaa naa naaa! I'm not listening!"
Doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. Dems are just as close-minded as Rep, but on different things.
And, no, I don't have any answers, hence the frustration.
...on the day that the Senate just voted against restoring habeas corpus.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
-b.
Actually, I thought the ability to travel freely within one's own country without passports or border check was a very fundamental right of a free people.
At least that's what they taught me during the fifties... when Soviet citizens did not have that right but U. S. citizens still did.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Why would that bother them? Not even the President cares about them any more, they are just a goddamned piece of paper after all.
... of Ann Coulter's latest book and Atlas Shrugged.
Come on. What kind of bullshit is this? Wouldn't it be easier to be "classified" as "safe" just by carrying the right book?
Radical Muslim extremists could just walk through security with a copy of the Torah while wearing a kippah/yarmelke.
Where was Clinton with his veto pen...or was he too busy getting blown?
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Because habeas corpus wasn't suspended under Clinton, and there was never a massacre of American citizens in the 90's, and there certainly wasn't a heavily funded war on drugs resulting in questionable actions in South America, no three strikes policies or zero tolerance rules. Right?
Democrats aren't much better in the grand scheme of things. I'm all but convinced we'll get the same end one way or the other, the means will just shift around a bit.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
"Female IIS edition of Playboy"
But voting does not work anymore.
You know when it stopped working? WHEN PEOPLE STOPPED PARTICIPATING!!!
I know political agenda is a bad word, but damn it all to hell how else is a representative democracy supposed to work if you don't have a political agenda and make an effort to see that agenda through?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
and a veto has what effect vs. a 2/3s majority in congress?
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
...sometimes I get real pissed off about this stuff. But other times I just say "fuck it!" I mean really, what do I care really about if some government peon wants to jot down in the big brother database that I'm reading Muscle & Fitness on my flight? I mean compared to the C4 bomb hidden in my MacBook, it's really of little consequence. ;)
[Note to all federal eavesdroppers: THE ABOVE IS A JOKE! CHILL OUT! I'VE NEVER EVEN BEEN ON AN AIRPLANE BEFORE!]
Sugapablo
Isn't there something about not impeding the ability to move freely about the country? While yes you're NOT forced to fly a drive from Cleveland to L.A. is quite impractical especially if you must do it every week.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
"Amendment IX:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
So, as far as the government is concerned, it is a right. Just like the Constitution does not specifically enumerate a right to breathe, or think, or take a shit.
Now as for the relationship between you and the airlines, you do pay for the privilege to fly. I think that is pretty clear.
"Dear Bookseller, it begins. Last week, President Bush signed into law an antiterrorism bill that gives the federal government expanded authority to search your business records, including the titles of the books purchased by your customers...There is no opportunity for you or your lawyer to object in court. You cannot object publicly either. The new law includes a gag order that prevents you from disclosing 'to any person' the fact that you have received an order to produce documents...because of the gag order...you should not tell ABFFE that you have received a court order... you can simply tell us that you need to contact ABFFE's legal counsel."
That is a letter from the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) sent to its members shortly after the PATRIOT Act was signed into law. The PATRIOT Act gave the federal government powers to search records of any business selling books and any library. Then they slap a gag order which makes it illegal to tell anyone for up to a year.
It just sickens me to have to be paranoid about the things I read, or having to avoid using a credit card when paying for a book.
Any terrorist who reads on an airplane isn't going to be reading a book on bombs, explosives or how to be a terrorist. If a terrorist were dumb enough to do that, it sure as hell wouldn't be in english. This is just another example of the government amassing data on ordinary citizens all in the name of national security.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
Bullshit. You can trout that nonsense out when it comes to driving because driving actually requires some form of responsibility to keep you from slaughtering everyone else on the road.
Flying, unless you are the PILOT, doesn't.
Along the same lines, it's a privilege to live in the US. After all, you could flip out and kill everyone around you any minute now. Maybe we should just commit you now and skip the whole surveillance.
things with swastika's on them are illegal.
Christ, who cares. All political parties have their own agenda that can be construed as the ultimate evil in some fashion or another. Everyone is a little wrong, no one is ever right. Cue the opinions that the voting system doesn't work, the government is corrupt, the nation is coming to an end, and the terrorists have won.
I say, screw it all. Join the Apathy Party today.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Well he could of vetoed the bill and then all of the fault would have been on the congress. Did Clinton veto the bill? Do you know the exact numbers on who voted for or against the bill? For all you know every democrat voted for this bill and only half of the republicans voted for it. You do not have the numbers. But what I DO KNOW is Clinton COULD have vetoed this bill if he was doing his job.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
Good grief, Government recording what people read on planes? Blatant lie. It looks like they just have a generic comment section the border agents can use to put in whatever the heck they feel like mentioning. And, being human, you end up with some odd random comments mixed in. What's next, some dingbat agent puts in some comments on some attractive woman's posterior and we'll have a Slashdot article proclaiming the government is profiling women on their attractiveness? This is the kind of thing that gives privacy advocates a bad name.
Remember, this isn't about liking her. This is about poisoning their databases. For the best effect, purchase it on your credit card with the highest balance.
When they start cross-referencing those databases, the poison will just confirm itself and become "fact".
Here's the silly thing. Everyone looking all of these nickel and dime privacy issues always forgets that the Dept. of Treasury has everything. I knew a guy whose son worked at the IRS, and he would never fail to pull his Dad's VISA transactions and comment on where he was at in the store. So, the IRS knows everything you've bought, how much you make, how much you are worth, AND, the Dept. of Treasury also knows if you have any dangerous things, due to gun checks, etc.
If that were not bad enough, every major corporation has similar information, if they want it. Those little convenience cards at supermarkets, for example, allow the likes of Joe's Market to sell the knowledge that middle age men who buy a certain kind of beef on fridays also prefer a particular magazine.
The privacy thing is so out of hand, one has to wonder if we would wind up being an overall better society if we just made all this information public. That way, no one could have a monopoly.
This is my sig.
The problem is nobody really knows what is significant. So, they are scooping up whatever information they can find with the hope that someday there will be an important correlation.
Could this be used for other purposes? Probably not, because of the volume of the information and what it is going to take to really get down and start mining it.
The biggest single problem in the US today is there are indeed terrorists and we have had some incidents blocked. But almost no information about what has been blocked has leaked out. So everyone thinks it is all nonsense. As some people have mentioned, it would be the best thing all around if 3 or 4 indicidents were not blocked and successfully killed hundreds of people. Better yet, if a bunch of foreign nationals got blown up at the same time. Perhaps people would realize there is a problem and we're not anywhere near as isolated as we were in 1850.
So when would all this collected information be of value? After something big happens. What if it doesn't? What if everything is successfully (and secretly) blocked in the planning stages as it has been so far? Any program like this would be considered foolish and pointless, and invasion of everyone's privacy for no gain whatsoever.
But let one incident happen and the newsmedia will be all over the government for "not doing something." Today the criticism is for doing seemingly pointless things when still nobody can figure out what would be (a) acceptable and (b) useful. Would El Al style interrogations before boarding a plane produce useful results? Probably not - we're not looking for hijackers now. What we are certainly going to see is some kind of different attack vector. What would be useful to know about the (dead) perpetrators of that event? I don't think anybody knows.
The other approach that doesn't have much favor in the US government right now is to treat terrorism-related attacks like a tornado. It just happens and messes up a lot of stuff but there isn't anything that can be done about it. As far as I know, no government is taking that attitude - certainly not UK, Germany or Israel where attacks have ocurred. Would this work in the US? Sure - until the first attack. It is difficult to play the role of standing up and saying "it just happens" to a crying mother/father/brother/sister on TV. So incredibly difficult that no elected or unelected member of the government is ever going to do it.
and speed the collapse of our society. The quicker we piss off everyone, the quicker we can purge the system. In market terms, we are long overdue for a "correction" in our political system.
Because everyone knows that terrorists read "How to make a bomb explode for dummies" just before entering a plane...
Could someone please explain to me the logic after this ?
Will this mean that they will stop selling Tom Clancy's books in the airports shops?
There's a big difference between sharing your choice of reading material with a couple hundred strangers in an airport you'll probably never see again, and having your choice of reading material noted by authority figures who then log it along with their impressions of you in a permanent database of questionable merit for the Department of Homeland Security.
Additionally, it seems this procedure also applies to books in your luggage, which you may have deliberately chosen not to read in public.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Not entirely true (think: job responsibilities), but we'll let that slide.
What I cannot overlook is the assumption that the other 199 are going to be glad that your civil liberties got violated. After all, next time it may be them, and one thing I've seen a lot of is that people who were once quick to claim these kinds of ridiculous abuses are necessary for the "war on terror" got pretty damn irate when they were the one being singled out for further evaluation.
Now, give me one good reason why tracking the books someone reads is a good thing. So what if its a book on explosives? I can think of many non-terrorist people who have very good reasons to read such titles. Same with chemistry texts, religious histories, country histories, biographies of subversives, etc. The only way to understand a subject is to learn about it. You can't honestly be suggesting that government start dictating acceptable knowledge. Intellectual monitoring = thought police, and that is not something the founders of this country ever wanted to see.
Contrary to what this administration would have us believe, disagreement does not equal terrorist.
P.S. Before the red staters get up in arms - I'd be equally pissed if a democrat did this.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
If you believe half the things in the Anarchist Cookbook then you are probably just a teenager looking for trouble anyway and having the T.S.A. confiscate your book before you try and make "fire fudge" or whatever and end up blowing your thumbs off, is the best possible ending anyway.
If anything, that book would have lessened any scrutiny (as it was banned in many Islamic countries, and the author received death threats from Iran).
You might as well have been flashing around the King James Bible.
Although the both work for Homeland Security, their roles are different. When you enter the country at the airport you don't pass any airport screeners (unless you transfer to another flight). If you take a domestic flight you will never see any border inspectors.
That collection is likely to drive security people nuts, yet those are must-read books for anyone who wants to have an informed opinion on the current wars.
Heck, about a year ago, I was coming back from a trip to San Francisco. My wife and I were waiting in the departure lounge for our plane. She went off to the bathroom and to look in the shops. I got bored just sitting there. I'm a student pilot, so I dug out my big red Gleim "How to Fly a Plane" book, and my ham band handheld radio, with headset. I tuned into the ground control traffic, hoping to get some experience with a big airport's procedures, and commenced reading my book. When my wife came back, she looked shocked, and asked me if I knew what I looked like. She told me to get that radio off and put that book away before the TSA sees you and things you're a terrorist. I hadda laugh...
There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
The breadth of the information obtained by the Gilmore-funded Identity Project (using a Privacy Act request) shows the government's screening program at the border is actually a survelliance dragnet.
Isn't that, you know, sort of the entire point of a screening program?
Ok, that part? Not cool. Teach me to RTFA.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
It is a privilege to fly. However, it is a RIGHT to be free from UNREASONABLE SEARCH... regardless of whether you are flying, walking, driving, or sitting like a lump of bituminous.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
...but the government knowing you read Linux Journal and playboy on your business trips really isn't that big a deal.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
There is help available, brother:
http://www.candlepowerforums.com/vb/
"I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
I was reading a 2600 article about breaking into secure and staff-only areas in an airport while waiting at the gate to board my flight. I was given no trouble with my reading materials whatsoever.
Truth be told, we were given more grief at customs regarding the wax-encased gouda in our suitcase than the bubblewrapped bong in my carry on.
Jesus Christ. It doesn't fucking matter who started it. It's stupid regardless of which side of the aisle!
Stop to think for a minute. Suppose we do have this massive cross referenced database of interesting facts about people who act like they might be a terrorist. What can we do with it?
Absolutely nothing!
Are we going round these folks up and vanish them for fear of what they might do? Not bloody likely.
The cold hard fact of the matter is there is no possible way to prevent crimes ahead of time. If someone wants to become a terrorist, they're going to make the leap and blow something up. No amount of data collection beforehand will prevent that. Ever.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
you can go out, discard your tin foil hat, stop preaching at people as if everyone who does not agree with you is an idiot or duped, get a good dose of proportion into your cup of reality........and then go for whom the heck you think will do the best job, and voice your concerns with perhaps a touch less alarmism and hyperbole...
Geez. People like you are annoying, you know that? Police State? Where do you live? Comparing the current state of America to a Police state is complete and total hyperbole. Last time I checked we did still have free speech, just look at the University of Florida incident (the one that everyone's jumping all over as police brutality, yeah that one). The student was allowed to say what he wanted to say, he was not blocked from speaking up at all. In fact he was allowed to keep saying what he wanted to say long after he had broken the rules of the debate (and a Florida law, but that's less important).
In a true police state he would never have been allowed to speak at all. America is not a police state. America is a country where a small amount of freedom has been removed from the people in order to insure their security. A large number of American's (myself included by the way) believe that that is wrong but calling America a police state just makes you seem like a crazed fanatic, someone completely out of touch with reality. Calm down and think rationally about the freedoms you have right now. Now think about the freedoms allowed to people in a police state. Once you understand the difference between the two then you will stop looking like a fanatic and start looking like a rational individual.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Yep, and it's a privilege to drive a car
and it's a privilege to use buses and subways
and it's a privilege to have electricity
and it's a privilege to have running water...
So at what point does a privilege become a right when we are talking about being a functional member of society. Do all our 'rights' guarantee us is living in a shack outside of town? (ignoring of course the privilige of property ownership.)
I'm not saying it's a right to fly...but where do we draw the line?
* We dance where angels fear to tread *
Our party focused primary system is designed to serve the interests of the parties themselves not the people.
Until we fix this we will have nothing but extremist morons on both sides.
I'd just like to point out not every Republican voted no. The following voted yes:
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Sununu (R-NH)
Not much, but seeing as how the Republicans have never held a 2/3s majority in Congress, passing anything over a Clinton Veto would require a fair number of democrats to cooperate.
Even after the "Republican Revolution" of 1994 the republicans only held 53% of the House, and 54% of the senate. They managed to get upto 55% of the senate in '96 and 98', but lost ground in the House.
Just to try to clarify some things:
http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/highlights/cbp_responds/facts_automated_targeting_sys.xml
While the ATS was started in the 90s, reading between the lines it appears it was originally much smaller in scope and has been expanded a lot since then, especially once DHS was created. I also don't think it ever specifically came up in any bills when it was established. The only references I can find in THOMAS are from 2002 and 2005. Much like Total Information Awareness, I don't think this is something that's usually put in a bill but is rather the prerogative of the administration to create programs in various bureaucracies.
Constitutionally Correct
I vote, but without any hope that the candidate I'm voting for will ever win in my lifetime because they don't belong to the Republicrat Demican party.
When somewhere above 2/3 of the American Populace wants to close the southern border (regardless of whether or not you want to) and yet it STILL doesn't happen, there is a problem. Then there is this article about people LEGALLY coming into this country being tracked while Millions are streaming over the boarders are not.
It is all a matter of perspective I guess. More people have been murdered by illegal aliens than the 20 guys who happen to hijack 4 planes. Part of living in a free society is that sometimes bad stuff happens, by bad people. Stuff happens. We cannot protect everyone all the time.
The best we can do is take reasonable precautions. Keeping track of who is reading what isn't reasonable on any level. It's not going to stop anything or anyone doing a bad thing. It just is annoying noise.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Take a different issue (say, gun rights - you know, the one with which you can theoretically protect your other rights) and it's just the opposite - Dems violating the Constitution at nearly every turn. Fact is, both major parties routinely ignore it whenever convenient. If you're not voting third party, you're wasting your time. The country needs a reboot, and we won't get that by voting status quo.
Constitutionally Correct
And as many (including, recently, Alan Greenspan) have observed, Clinton was the best Republican president that the country has seen in a while.
It was Clinton and his cronies who made the Democrats into GOP-lite, performing the spine-ectomy that leaves them unable to mount significant resistance to the neocons today.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Anyone who carries anything into an airport that they wouldn't want to be spread out on a table in view of passersby either doesn't understand how airport security operates or is rolling the dice and taking their chances.
Of course, in the event a banned book is found, I think it is policy to never imply ownership. Always "the book", never "your book".
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
"...every Democrat voted to restore it, every Republican voted to keep it suspended"
Your link shows that this is false.
Hagel (R-NE)
Lugar (R-IN)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Sununu (R-NH)
voted for restoring habeas corpus.
On the other hand the following senators voted against the constitution despite the example of their fellow senator of (supposedly) the same party and state:
Lieberman (ID-CT) (former Dem., lost primary)
Collins (R-ME)
Gregg (R-NH)
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
The student was allowed to say what he wanted to say, he was not blocked from speaking up at all. In fact he was allowed to keep saying what he wanted to say long after he had broken the rules of the debate
I think that's just because the UFPD doesn't keep ball-gags as part of their standard equipment...
You have no clue how this relates to the Constitution, do you? I'll tell you how: in no way.
The proposed amendment would give Habeas Corpus to those whom the Constitution *does not apply to in the first place* -- US non-residents.
At least be a *little* responsible when you try to push a political agenda. Oh wait, that would be a contradiction.
I like basketball!!1!
I don't care if they know what I read. I'm just relieved to know that they are protecting us from gay foot-tapping Senators in airport restrooms.
I definitely agree in regards to carry-on luggage. I once actually saw the girl in front of me have her luggage searched, and the security guards pull out a flour bag... and pull a pair of handcuffs out of the flour bag. I was really embarrassed for the girl, but seriously? Did you think the guard was just going to say "hey, everyone carries flour on an airplane, right?" Things like that go in checked luggage, where at least if someone goes through it by hand they won't do it in front of you and the world. However, I do think that recording the contents of people's checked luggage (beyond anything illegal) is an invasion of privacy.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
Dam right Blowhole, lots here agree with you, you go chick!
check again - the answer is 42
-10 + 50 + 1 + 1 = XLII
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
Hear, hear!
For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
I once had a screener (really contemptuously) ask me "so, you like science fiction".
Japan has recently announced a policy change regarding entry at border crossings for Non-Japanese citizens which will go into effect November 23, 2007. This policy change will affect ALL non-Japanese citizens arriving in Japan regardless of travel purpose, duration of stay or previous entries (except for those traveling on diplomatic or special government related clearance).
All travelers will be fingerprinted and photographed upon entry through Japanese Immigration. Travelers who refuse to be subject to fingerprinting and photography will be refused entry and immediately deported or possibly detained.
.. i travel a lot. for fun, i brought along some reading material and didn't keep it hidden -- it was a book on the koran. sure enough, i was pulled aside for a 'random search'. bear in mind i'm a white male with a pony tail, and typically dress .. 'down'.
still, made me happy that people were paying attention.
-- build a man a fire and he'll be warm all day. set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Hey look at that idiot, he must be going to buy some expensive junk...
and these schematics for the radar in the jet, well, see, I'm writing an article for Popular Science........
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Damn guess I wont be able to read the lastest version on this during my next flight to the US.
When we get to O'Hare, we all go through security without incident. Except me. I set the metal detectors off. I panic. What could I possible have on me that's metallic. Oh. Fuck. So they bring me over to the side and start wanding me in front of my family. Of course, the wand always goes off when it comes within proximity of my pocket with said prophylactics in it. "Son, please remove any items from your pocket", says the security dude. Reluctantly, I toss the condoms out of the pocket on to the table, in front of my entire family (my brothers, dying from laughter this whole time knowing what was in my pocket).
Who knew condom wrappers contained metal?
(posted anonymously in case I run for office some day)
I'm just going to use electronic books.
and to be sure, I'm going to encode with rot13. twice.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
It's not like our government has ever stooped to recording embarrassing information about prominent people!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
That's the lack of spirit!
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
...lecturing the rest of us about 'spelling' and 'grammar' as you clearly have neither. ;)
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
It is always good to have a fan.
I smoked pot once. But I DID NOT inhale. Will you hire me?
But isn't that always how these things begin? First you take away this small bit in the name of security, but it never gets returned when the threat has passed and then the next threat comes along and you lose another bit. Before you know it, all those little bits add up to something significant, but you haven't noticed because each time it was just a "small amount".
I'm pretty sure most police states don't become that way overnight. It took Mussolini two years to transform Italy into a fascist state with himself as dictator. Sure, we may not be a complete police state at the moment, but how many more times can we give up a "small amount of freedom" before we've sleepwalked our way there?
I had an acquaintance (buddy from school) that worked for the TSA.
His jobs before that in order were
1. Fry cook (fired)
2. Fry cook (fired)
3. Mobil Lube Tech (fired)
4. Convenience store clerk (fired)
5. Fry cook (fired)
6. Drywall hanging (way too hard for him hence, fired)
And finally, a TSA screener.
Take that for what it's worth.
After my last experience with airport "security", I have come to the conclusion that it is in fact all just a smokescreen. My experience is based on that fact the many people how handle luggage are able to steal from it (I got a mobile phone stolen from me, a charger and a data cable), that fact tells me that security isn't good at all. If they terrorist wants to make a strike, he would do so with a luggage of some innocent passenger. If they can steal from your luggage, they sure as hell can place some stuff into it too.
If anyone has seen a Sony Ericsson W300i phone in Netherlands with this IMEI number, send me a message.
Stolen Sony Ericsson W300i IMEI number: 359988006567039
Checking what people is reading is nothing more then sign of fascist government, that is on top of that paranoid and stupid (hence, Bush & Dick Chaney and co).
Just look at few items from my 2004 reading list when I was flying to and from New York on business:
I, Robot
Animal Farm
1984
The Gun Seller
Nope, nothing possibly free-thinking, radical, or possibly suspicious in that collection, no sir-ee.
I read them on the MARTA train, I even read them on the plane. I'd even read them at my gate, where I sometimes wait and wait.
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
The little flashlights had cannabis leaves on them, and the book was a pro-legalization book. Now, this was a border guard, not a TSA drone, and part of their job is to keep an eye out for potential drug smugglers.
YRO? Where's the online angle in this?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I don't see where the Constitution says that Habeas Corpus does not apply to U.S non-residents (whatever they are).
The Constitution actually says:
Section 8 - Powers of Congress -- The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
Next time go RTFM before you spout off about what is in TFM.
FreeSpeech.org
It's crap like this that made me chuckle last week. A buddy at IRC said his fellow was taking an "extreme holiday", visiting north korea, syria, libya, venezuela, kuba, mexico, USA in that order. USA is the only scary part of that trip and that tells a lot about the land of the free.
'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
Arabic 101
Koran
Quack, quack.
I wouldn't want to bring a book on an airplane that is too radical. Then again, if I try to please them by reading a book titled "How to be a patriotic submissive U.S. citizen" they might be even more suspicious of me...
It's a constitution regulating the access of and given certain powers to the US government, powers which determine which actions it may legally engage in. There is no exception with regards to whether the recipient of those actions is or is not a US citizen: the government still can't deprive them of their basic rights. Executing Canadians for the fun of it(as opposed to Canadians who have been convicted of murder or maybe espionage or treason in a fair trial) violates the due process clause of the fifth amendment, torturing brits violates the eighth.
Nope, that's why we have a thing called the "Bill of Rights" in the USA. Reasonable search and seizure is looking for explosives and weapons. Unreasonable search and seizure is a fishing expedition and keeping of records about everything. Once the current hysteria about terrorism dies down, the courts are sure to see it that way. And "conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights" is a serious Federal felony (18 USC 241) -- punishable by up to 10 yrs in jail or death if someone dies or is seriously injured. Haven't heard of a death due to airport screening, but it only takes one cop messing up...
-b.
That's why I said go for whom you THINK will do the best job.....consider it a toss up?...well then, why not roll a die...excepting I am betting most that even you would still have preference toward one of the sea of buffoons that loom large.
The other 199 people didn't have the balls to complain.
Fixed that for you.
rj
You need to consider context. The Constitution does not apply to, say, Burmese living in Burma (an example of someone who does not reside in the US; I can't believe you didn't comprehend at least that bit). "Powers of Congress" has no bearing there in the first place. It's the Constution of the United States, after all.
I like basketball!!1!
It does scare me: it is not the single-payer efficient system that every citizen of a free nation has a right to expect.
For a sec, I thought I saw "Ru Paul"....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
It does when the United States Government is the ones locking them up to begin with! How dense can you be to ignore this?
> but it never gets returned when the threat has passed
Since we've declare a war that can basically never be "won", these folks have no concern that the threat will EVER pass.
>I'm pretty sure most police states don't become that way overnight.
Agreed. One does not boil a frog by dropping him in boiling water (he will jump out). Rather one places him in cool water and brings up the temperature every slowly.
....Both parties are working for the same ends......
And those ends are what? Furthering the goals of those who pay for the re-election of the incumbents? If not that what?
True reform would be to give all bona-fide candidates a fixed amount to spend and not allow anyone more. Then, perhaps, some people could get into office that are not on the payroll of the wealthy sponsors. Fat chance that would ever happen!
All theory is gray
"The Constitution actually says:"
No, that's not what "the Constitution" says, it's what a small part of "the Constitution" says.
At several other places, like I dunno, in the beginning, it says "We the People of the United States"
Now, I don't interpret that to mean ONLY the people of the United States, but claiming it can't be interpreted that way is ridiculous.
More importantly, I understand the system well enough to know that the Constitution is not the be-all end-all of law and order int he US, and that certain institutions have power to judge "all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution".
So stop pretending that repeatedly insisting you are right makes it so. The courts have ruled on this (using their... CONSTITUTIONALLY GIVEN AUTHORITY TO DO SO!!!) and say you're wrong.
It's fairly obviously in the sense of "We the people of the united states establish this as our form of government." Read the whole sentence.
With an 8 GB memory stick.
Agent : "What are you reading, there?"Me : "Well, I have more than 20,000 titles here. I'd be happy to list them all for you. There's 'Het Geheimzinnige Eiland', by Jules Verne (#22580), 'Bread Overhead', by Fritz Reuter Leiber (#22579), ...
(hours and hours later...)
Agent : "Is that all?"
Me : "Yup! Oh, and 'The Catcher in the Rye'."
Agent : "One of those, are you? Take him in, boys!"
Or you could use a Sony Reader, too...
Where did you come up with that statistic? Seriously, do you have a reference for that, because damn near every person I know thinks that's the stupidest idea to come across the hill in a long time. Granted, I only know a few hundred people, but they certainly can't be representative of less than 1/3 of the population.
I won't even bother to ask about the "murdered by illegal aliens" comment.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
I had a friend who worked for baggage search (check-in bags) once. I asked her the question we all want to ask, "Anything, ummm, interesting in those bags? Purple silicone maybe?". She said that they referred to those items as "items of a personal nature".
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
"Passenger boarded with copy of 'How to Attack American Cities with Hijacked Planes'. Since it's his right to read whatever he wants, I'm not allowed to be suspicious so I didn't question him."
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Actually, it stopped working when a large portion of the country voted themselves right out of it. That was the straw that broke THIS camel's back. Since then things have been done to prevent such tom-foolery.
Why avoid using a credit card? Why be paranoid? Why not be proud of what you are reading? Really, the only thing worth being ashamed over are the people that sign crap like this into law and support it.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Just remember it is a PRIVILEGE to fly not a RIGHT.
No see I paid for that flight, give me my damned seat. I have am entitled to it. The declaration of human rights guarantees that I should be allowed to cross international borders without hindrance. Whether I do it by plane, car, ship or on foot, it's a right. My documents are up to date, and I have complied with all national laws. I've paid my departure taxes. I am not a criminal. Why do you say flying is not a right?
I might as well say that your breathing is a privilege, not a right. Nowhere in your country's laws does it explicitly state that you are allowed to breathe.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Yeah. They say "Bong hits 4 Jesus" isn't protected speech, as well, and that twenty-year sentences for marijuana home-growing for personal use are justified under the interstate commerce clause. It takes some *very* creative reading to get "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to mean "the government can do whatever the fuck it wants to non-Americans, who have no human rights whatsoever." (Also, it only allows us to "provide for the common defense", making the Iraq war wholly unconstitutional. :) )
Agh bro if they are being detained *outside of the US* then they are bound NOT by the Constitution of the United States but by various conventions: the Geneva Convention in some cases, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) in others, etc. That's just how it works. The law as outlined in the Constitution does not protect nor bind you if you are not in the US.
I like basketball!!1!
If you think the Anarchist Cookbook is a danger to the public then I have a real danger for you!
I have PC support techs that travel everywhere in the country and one thing they carry is an IDE HD with the standard images of all of the different models of computers we support. This is an amazingly scary source of danger for the American public! (apparently...)
The TSA in LaGuardia confiscated one of my tech's drives because it looked suspicious: He had affixed an orange DHL "10:30 AM Urgent" sticker on the drive so he could make sure it wasn't overwritten by mistake. Apparently those orange stickers are either a powerful explosive or an extremely efficient oxidizer. (In that case we should all cringe when we see a DHL cargo plane go overhead.)
. . . or maybe the TSA's airport security is one of the stupidest things to ever be seen on this planet.
As a rule: Security is a logical exercise. If it doesn't make sense then it can't be an adequate security model!
(so there!)
Most likely, the security personnel had never heard of the book...and most likely many many fewer people would have heard about it and I wouldn't have read it if it weren't for the fatwa issued against Rushdie...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Isn't there something about not impeding the ability to move freely about the country?
Yes, and there's something about not impeding the ability to move freely from country to country, too. Article 13 of the universal declaration of human rights states:
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
The idea behind dismantling the government is that the current government became useless for the people of the country and now stands on the way of any progress at all. I support this idea in principle, of-course implementation is not very clear. Formerly all revolutions ended up creating even worse situation than that prior to them. So how do you dismantle the government?
Another issue is this, what principles would you build the new system upon? I'd think most people would agree that the federals should be given much less power than they have now and that the local governing system should be the most important system. The local system should be responsible for its own infrastructure, but how do you decide what is 'local' in the first place?
Of-course a more fun idea than others is to have a shoot out and divide everything from scratch. On the other hand this will not go well with property owners. Well then, maybe the most important local government should start from everyone's own place of residence. Wouldn't that be fun? If everyone lived by their own laws in their own house and those laws would trump any externally imposed laws. The problem is that there is no way to stop one household from cooperating with other households. Once two households cooperate, they are more powerful than any one single household. That's the problem with people - they like to cooperate while they really should be trying to survive on their own. How do we turn off the cooperation gene once again?
Ok, so given that people will cooperate and form alliances and thus will create the job of a politician, who will become more powerful and will always have more voice than a non-politician, how do we ensure that the politicians don't create the same problem that is observed at this time right now?
How about a meta-democratic system, requiring the voters to display good understanding of the issues they are supposedely voting on and displaying good logical sense and understanding the difference between a faith based and a scientific process of dealing with the world? So these people become an elite really, but anyone can then enter this elite by becoming more informed.
Of-course some masses that are not and are incapable of becoming the elite, will stop trusting this elite, but then who cares about those people right? But the truth is that those people also should be able to make decisions in their own lives, no matter how uninformed and mentally incapable they are.
Maybe different states should have different voting processes, while limiting the feds from real power over the states. Some states should only allow the abovementioned elite to vote, some states should allow everyone to vote, some states should not allow voting at all, etc.
Then, every 3 years or so, the states should get together and look at the results of this experiment and adjust it accordingly to the results.
So this is it, the system should constantly change and adopt, we should only create laws and systems to direct these changes onto the path of progress, efficiency, happiness and such. Maybe it is something like the original intent, but better, because the political systems in each state would have a choice rather than be dictated to the same political system.
You can't handle the truth.
The real point is do they need to spy on what people are reading to figure that one out. They have dogs that can sniff out drugs and bombs why do they need to know if people are reading about drugs.
When it is dangerous to read something controversial in public you are entering an era of thought crime.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
You must be new here.
...just makes you seem like a crazed fanatic, someone completely out of touch with reality. Oops, maybe not.For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
Oh sure, if you like that sort of thing, then go for it. :) If you would be just as embarrassed, or are, say, traveling with your mother, it might not be advisable.
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/just_26_favor_senate_immigration_plan
..) doesn't make the facts any less factual. Funny thing about statistics is one can make any case one wants with them, if they have the right data.
A quick search on Google provided me with the following links, most support or tend to support the claims I made.
http://www.illegalaliens.us/polls.htm
http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44154
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155413,00.html
Latest polls show it is closer to 3/4 than 2/3. In the meantime, I suggest that you broaden your circle of friends.
Now, as for Illegal Immigrants, do you know how much of the prison population are "undocumented aliens"? How many of them are murderer's, and how many victims? Just because you don't like the terminology I use, doesn't mean it isn't factual. The problem is that when one ignores time (3200 in 3 hours vs more over years
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The constitution is the founding charter of the US government. If it says that it can't do something, it does not have the lawful power to do it. And I struggle to see where the numerous statements that the government does not have the power to violate certain human rights or suspend habeas corpus give it the power to do exactly that when acting beyond its borders. And regardless of that, Guantanamo Bay has been under effective US rule for at least a century and remains that way over the protests of the Cuban government; it is, for all intents and purposes, part of the US. And if we insist it's part of Cuba anyway, then they're probably subject to some Cuban human rights law(which is seldom if ever enforced, but believe me, Castro left it on the books for anti-US grandstanding if nothing else.) and should be released accordingly. I'll say this until it gets through your head: while the constitution may not bind *me* outside the US, it most certainly binds the US government, which was expressely forbidden from violating Habeas Corpus in these circumstances by the highest law of the land.
I think reality is, things are broken from the top down... Unfortunately, most of us are so concerned about the "big elections", we make the "feel good" attempts to go vote for our new president every 4 years, and possibly go a time or two in-between, specifically to vote for or against some tax measure or issue that's of great personal importance to us for whatever reason.
... but at least you can make an effort to weed out known corrupt ones. (If I don't know better, I just vote out all of them whenever I get the chance. I figure, worst case, I have better odds bringing in fresh, new people for the job vs. letting the existing people stick around, potentially getting more crooked over time.)
Meanwhile, we don't bother with much of the "smaller stuff", when in reality, THAT is precisely where one's vote really counts!
You may have noticed, it's not too often someone comes out of nowhere to take on a high-profile political career as president, vice-president, or Supreme Court justice.
These people "grow into" their jobs, after getting elected first at a local level and working their way up the ranks over the years. By the time they've made all the political connections and accepted all the bribes in a higher-ranking position, your "say so" in keeping them around (or even expecting them to do what they initially promised you) is pretty much zilch.
Where you STILL have control is at the bottom of the pyramid, instead of up near the peak. I know not everyone has time to research all the candidates for judges in their district and so on
Just by going to the occasional city/county council meeting, you're able to have say-so in issues that directly affect things right near your own home and workplace - and you may be one voice out of only 10 or 20 taken into consideration at that meeting.... Not 1 vote out of hundreds of thousands or millions!
If the flashlights were marked with rabbits and the book was called "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" I bet they would have noted that as well.
NO, it's *not* the Constitution that binds the U.S. government in that case, it's international Conventions!! By your logic every country's international activities are simply regulated by their own constitutions. That is not the case. Anyway you can repeat yourself all you want, reality won't change.
I like basketball!!1!
They might think someone would brew something up stronger than a stink bomb. They thought so last year, anyhow: you can't bring water bottles or full-sized toiletries on airplanes anymore because of the slim possibility someone might mix liquid bombs back there.
Annoying, that; it means you can't pack more than a single-serve of mouthwash or shampoo.
There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
I enjoyed my last trip to the States in 2001, pity is that I will now never go back since I will not submit myself to this bullshit.
The United States is a mostly benign police state.
While they will usually leave you alone (if you're a white middle class member of a mainstrem political party and a mainstream church), the government can, if it wants, disappear you.
All they have to do is call you an "enemy combatant", and boom! Non-person.
Not that Bush started it, of course; the slide into police state begins with Nixon and the "War on Drugs", which slowy eroded the protections of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Civil forfeiture, "no-knock" warrants, mandatory minimums, censorship of messages that don't toe the party line: police state tactics have been business-as-usual for a long while now.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Well said. Deserves to be modded informative at least.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Everyone knows nobody reads that book of their own free will.
photosMy Photostream
IIRC, SCOTUS agrees with you. The upshot is that you can submit to an unreasonable search when you fly, or you can find some other means of getting from point A to point B. The problem is where do you draw the line? Is it a privilege to drive on a federal highway? To take a bus?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
..the story is used to demonstrate the perils of remaining complacent.
Like a fable, the "boiled frog" anecdote serves its purpose whether or not it's based upon something that is literally true.
Another one reason to prefer travel by ship, train, or car.
And the point where people get fed up and stop letting the people holding government office make vague handwaving gestures in the direction of Scary Bad People and use that as an excuse to curtail freedom.
At Seattle-Tacoma Airport in 2002, I got pulled aside for extra screening and an explosives swab of my carry-on because I had a TI-92 calculator and a copy of Weinberg's The Quantum Theory of Fields in my back-pack.
And I can't believe I'm the only traveller making this decision.
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Duh, if he's up to Vol 42, then obviously he's already read Vol 17!
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
I think you will find that this amendment is specifically directed at redressing the situation where non US residents are being detained indefinantely in US military bases outside of the United States, without trial or appeal. Namely, the "enemy combatants" that the US has rounded up in their "war on terror". One may think that there is a good case for such an amendment so as to demonstrate to the rest of the world that their mantra of justice, freedom and liberty is not just talk.
Don't tailgate - the end is near!
As I actually said in my post (right after the part you quoted) no. However that's irrelevant, whether or not you feel safer because of giving up some rights is irrelivant to the discussion of whether you've given up enough rights to qualify as living in a police state.
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
Please pardon the pedantry:
There is what one may call "American Christianity". It may bow to G-d alone but it gives excessive deference to the current political adminstration. Obedience to government is overpreached and the second coming is eschewed as something that takes toys away from people, people away from their toys, and challenges the legitimacy of government. Since Constantine stopped the persecutions in CE 312, Christianity became tainted with state power and has remained so to our day (with the exception of some denominations).
To a lesser extent the same exists in Judaism under the Talmudic dictum for the Disapora communties of 'dina d'malkuta dina' - Aramaic for 'the law of the (host) realm is the (Jewish) law'. This came about so that the community would not be viewed as subversive by commanding obedience to the laws of the host nation while preserving Jewish life and practice. Even this has limits. If the host nation compels a Jew(ess) to commit fornication, idolatry or murder, (s)he must disobey the laws of the host country and suffer the consequences thereof. Assimilation does not always work. This doctrine once existed in pre-Constantinian Christianity, but was subsequently lost due to its becoming a state cult with the exceptions listed above.
Now to the point:
How about being seen reading one of the "Left Behind" series of books? Even better, just any Bible with passages that can be interpreted as subversive marked with highlighter. If one is Jewish, Bring a Tanakh w/ both Hebrew and English or a siddur with texts considered 'offensive to modernity' like the destruction of idolatry and the nations abandoning warfare under messianic rule marked with highlighter. If anyone so much makes a peep about it, Bnai Brith will come down on him/her like a ton of lead. No one wants to be branded as a judeopath (antisemite).
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
That's another problem I have, though. I really try not to be ideological. And by that I mean I look at any issue with an open mind. I can evertually decide on any type of solution: something free market, or something involving a government program, or some mix, or maybe even something else altogether.
To many of the third parties are even MORE extremist. Try to defend captialism, even as an abstract concept, to a Green Party wonk (especially one from the progressive wing). Try to defend free public education to a hard core Libertarian (or, worse, an Objectivist). They don't want to hear aout it. It's the one size fits all crowd.
Matt Groenig in his Life In Hell comic had the "9 types of college professors". One of them was the "Single theory" professor or something like that. The picture was a prof proclaiming something silly like "The country that controls magnesium controls the world!"
That's how I picture most Party members, be they primary or secondary parties. It's groupthink. I wish we could get RID of political parties.
So Edwards' policy against nukes, which has a lot of strong arguments in favor of it (with which I agree) is equal to the Republican plans for ruination? Even though Edwards is rejecting nukes in favor of alternatives that Republicans don't just "not realize", but actively oppose because they're bribed by the status quo?
Democrats and Republicans are indeed different. Republicans are unacceptably bad, and immune to change (except a downward, linear slide). Democrats are sustainably mediocre, and subject to lots of change, as they scramble for more public support after a generation (except Clinton himself) without power).
Not voting doesn't work at all. In fact, it fits into plans both by Rove and his Republican legions, and the Democrats who'd rather deal with a smaller group themselves. Voting is the least you can do, and it doesn't cost hardly anything. But voting alone isn't enough: even a little activism, like just talking about real politics (like actual problems with political solutions, like healthcare, market protections, the war, etc) even a little bit with people you know, has its effect. Even if you don't change anyone's minds, just showing people that people they know can care about politics (not just the "rah rah" football/war kind of partisan electoral politics) is inspiring.
It's a lot like the open source social effects that most Slashdotters can understand. Just looking at the source, trying it for yourself, thinking about changes, and talking about it in public all makes it possible for waves of collective action to form. Unlike programming, politics doesn't even require specific collaborations on committed work, like patches. Just the design discussions can have effects, once they're buzzing among a large group of people.
You seem not to know your own power, small (though real) though it is. Try it. The alternative is to be a knowing, therefore willing, pawn in the apathy game that's killing us.
--
make install -not war
So Edwards' policy against nukes, which has a lot of strong arguments in favor of it (with which I agree) is equal to the Republican plans for ruination?
Nnnnnno... I was just tossing out one example so as to avoid a 70 page post. It's the close mindedness (ON BOTH SIDES!) that drives me nuts. And many of his arguments can be answered, but that's a whole other can of worms.
I think you misread me a bit, so me spell it out: I think the GOP needs to be catastrophically punished, and I hope there's hardly a single Republican in office after the 2008 elections. With hope, they can get rid of that fucking religious element like the mind cancer that it is, and get back to a more centrist conservatism.
Hey, I still vote. I try to educate people when I can. I just don't harbor any illusions of hope for this mess because I think, as a productive and independent citizen, the Democrats want to fuck me over just as much as anyone.
I work hard, invest as well as I can, and I hope to retire somewhere really far away. Abandoning a sinking ship? Maybe. Don't really care anymore or what anyone thinks of that. I'm too tired. But, good luck with whatever efforts you make.
I still care.
None of their business.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yes, you are completely correct. We have no 'right' to use any specific means of travel other than our own two feet.
In fact, by boarding an aircraft, a naval vessel or even driving your own car (all privileged modes of transport), you automatically waive several rights. Airport security in every country that I know of is allowed to search any and all baggage with or without probable cause and with or without a warrant. Airport security also has full discretion to prevent you from bringing any item they deem unsafe onto the aircraft. As an aside, I was once told that not only was I prohibited from bringing a telescoping monopod (like one leg of a tripod, and used in a similar manner) onto a plane as a carry-on, but also prohibited from putting it even in checked baggage. The same is true for naval vessels.
By driving a car, you waive your right to refuse an Intoxalyzer test in most states, and some even require you to give up other search and seizure rights as well when you accept a driver license.
Generally speaking, I agree with searching baggage going onboard a plane or ship not because I worry about a bomb intentionally being put into baggage, but more because some people are really dumb, and some household objects can be very volatile under pressure and after being jostled around. One time I saw some moron going on a hunting trip trying to explain to the security folks that he thought bringing a few camping-size propane cylinders on the plane was no big deal.
Although I'm generally against mandatory Intoxalyzers due to the fact that they really do nothing to prove intoxication, at least police are supposed to have probable cause before subjecting you to one; therefore complying with due process.
I would feel better about these types of searches if no record was kept of non-prohibited items.
We have to find a happy medium between a reasonable guarantee of safety and outright datamining. It would seem that the government has crossed that line.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
Sadly, I was not subjected to extra-scrutiny security screening on any of those occasions.
I did see a couple of people giving prolonged sideways glances as they walked by.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
... the Japanese translator, Hitoshi Igarashi, a mild-mannered academic with no known enemies, was found stabbed to death in his office smack-dab in the middle of a university campus in one of the world's safest large cities. The crime remains unsolved.
Sorry, not strictly on topic for the thread but I thought I would mention it. People often refer to the threats against Rushdie, and while they are of course serious I think it is equally important to remember that they did not remain as "threats". (The Italian editor, I believe, survived his stabbing. His name escapes me at the moment, you can probably Google it.)
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
the link was supposed to be on this word in parent: shirt
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Hmmm. Useful link (not):
"Access denied".
Unless you're carrying something like the Anarchist Cookbook, it seems unlikely that additional suspicion should be warranted. Given this time of year, it seems ironic that security would be judging others by the cover (and content) of their books rather than their actual threat, if any existed at all.
This was never about national security, it's all about watching people especially those who have the opposite political views as the watchers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Better watch that, if they catch you reading Ayn Rand you'll definitely be labeled a subversive. She frowned on and hated big government
FalconShould there be a Law?
I bought this 2600 in the news stand at the airport HONEST!!
And what about that "Blacklisted 411!?
FalconShould there be a Law?
But the one thing I have learned is that any book that is even remotely controversial to the right-wings in this country is best read with a fake book sleeve covering it. Otherwise you will suffer an endless barrage of ignorance, prejudice and hate.
The same thing's true from the left-wingers.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Seems that they dont like external referrers there, a link copy should do.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Nah, neither of these titles would faze this admin, they don't know what either one is.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I thought Laura Bush was a teacher... Ah, she was both. After getting her BS in Education she taught, but then went back to college and got her MS in Library Science. Thanks, I didn't know that.
FalconShould there be a Law?
My question, to the Slashdotters of the US, when does it "become necessary"??? THAT is the real question.
It only becomes necessary to overthrow the government after using the first 3 boxes fail; the soapbox, ballot box, and the jury box. Once those have failed then the ammo box can be used.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"Last time I checked we did still have free speech,"
Oh, what is the DMCA? The truth is people are BUYING laws, to limit 'free speech' under the false pretense of "copyright". The whole idea of copyrighting and propertizing information is one of the FEATURES of a modern police state. By turning information into property someone owns you thereby limit freedom of speech. Youtube regularly pulls videos of anti-consumerist writers that are overly critical of consumer culture and money culture in general.
The only one with a serious MOUTH (power) in America is MONEY, where are the networks that cater to actual news and real people? I forgot... they are mostly UNprofitable.
Time to go read some Oswald Spengler.
Some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West
http://www.duke.edu/~aparks/Spengler.html
... are they watching us reading this article?
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
So if a fable is based off a completely false analogy, it's still useful? I would think that what actually happens with a frog and a pan of slowly heated water would be much more instructive. It would indicate that people are going to sit in the pan until it becomes too hot, and then jump out. You could use it to either illustrate the 'out of the frying pan, into the fire' nature of popular revolt, or to scare the government with the thought that we WON'T just sit in the pan until we die. But basing your parable off a misrepresentation of reality doesn't seem like the best idea to me. It's like the ol' inspirational "Bees can't physically fly, yet they do, mind over matter, etc" parable. Sounds great, but it isn't true.
http://xkcd.com/386/
I say, screw it all. Join the Apathy Party today.
I would, but I'm planning to join the Procrastinator's Party tomorrow.
http://xkcd.com/386/
"You are only young once, but you can be immature forever." -www.animemusicvideos.org
The shirt says "I will not submit" in Arabic (I guess) and in English.
The amusing thing is, pro-Iraq war groups promote this shirt, along with a similar one with "Infidel", presumably in this case the message is intended for Arabs.
Ironic really that it can apply equally well worn by anyone objecting to the oppressive violence from either side.
My mind is bombarded by the vision of officials wading through data rich with Krishna literature and "Atlas Shrugged".
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
...airline food and shoelaces"
/laughter/)"
With a big picture of an exploding airplane on the cover.
The book would have a lengthy introduction by Bruce Schneier on Security Theatre. Then, right after page CLXVII, the book proper would start:
"You can't. What are you, some kind of _moron_?"
Seriously. I got peeled off for the big customs rolldown after coming back from Europe one year. During the check, the guy pointed to my UK copy of Cryptonomicon, which features (what I assume) is a japanese Zero flying over a fireball in a shipyard. Customs guy says "Well you should expect it with a book like that".
And I wanted to say "It's about WWII. That's fucking _Perl Harbor_. If ever there was an example of why, exactly, you Do. Not. _Fuck._ with us, it's fucking Perl Harbor. We'll fucking _nuke_ your asses."
Security theater makes people who don't want to blow up planes (and aren't smart enough to do it anyway) believe that the people who do want to blow up planes (and are smart enough) will get caught. Even though no smart terrorist would walk on to a plane carrying "Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering volume IIV: Complex Organic Esthers, Polymers, and their Interactions" along with a 6v battery and a collection of very smelly "play-doh".
We should all wear shirts that say "I'm going to make this plane explode (with
In a true police state, he would have been turned away before he had entered if his true intentions were known, or carried away at the doors if he didn't comply with the "go away" request. Oh, wait - this has already been going on around here. Isolated examples - the President has already declared that he doesn't want to see or hear dissent.
The difference between "free country" and "police state" is a continuum, not a line, and such a state can be enforced by simple threat, if not overt action.
I for one welcome our current overlords in the whitehouse. I am 100% backing the doctorines and policies of our current leaders in office, of whatever country I happen to be in at the moment. I despise all for which their political opponents stand for. My ideaoligies only change when crossing borders, or after elections/coup. :D
Thanks for the links.
Like I said, a few hundred people from all walks of life and political persuasions can't be that far out of touch with 3/4 of the general population, and I'm not sure how I could "broaden my circle of friends" more than I already have. You said "When somewhere above 2/3 of the American Populace wants to close the southern border". The article you linked says "Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration." Better enforcement isn't the same thing as "closing the southern border". I can believe the majority of the population wants better enforcement, without hesitation. The other links simply said that approximately the same percentage of people (roughly) view the issue as serious and think something needs to be done about it. That's a big leap to "closing the border" though.
I didn't say anything about the terminology you use regarding illegal aliens. I have no problem at all with the terminology. What I have a problem with is exactly what you indicated in your last statement. "Funny thing about statistics is one can make any case one wants with them, if they have the right data." There is certainly a large number of illegals who are less than desirable and who are not here to work hard. They probably have even committed as many murders as you have suggested over the years. I don't know, and random quotes from a couple of politicians doesn't really prove anything.
I do, however, agree with your whole point, that it's all just noise. We can't protect everyone, and I personally don't think the government should try to. People need to [re]learn to take care of themselves and their own communities. Reasonable precautions don't include cameras on every street corner, and certainly don't include databases of my (or anyone else's) reading habits.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
As much as I love to bash Clinton, I can't pin that on him. The Dems were useless wastes of flesh long before he became Prez.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Nice example. He WAS allowed to speak, and then got zapped when he said something the host didn't like.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
He got tased, for chrissakes. Yeah. Great freedom. Stay at a podium too long, get arrested. What world are YOU living in? Try talking to a Russian expatriate sometime about what you can get away with there vs. here. Or just go to my abuse of authority link collection and check out the state of things yourself.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
This is why we need strict term limits and the elimination of ALL campaign contributions. If they can't accept dirty money, they're not indebted to corporate and private interests. I personally believe that it would solve 90% of the existing problems.
It's pretty damn clear to everyone other than you that the constitution applies to the US Government, where-ever it goes. There's no exception saying that the constitution applies only on US soil, or only to an American citizen.
No matter what, the government of the USA must not exceed the specific limits set down by its people.
The constitution says no torture, etc. Thus the government must not torture. Understand?
The law against this is one *you* must enforce. Get off of your lazy ass and protest this. Your leaders are torturing and murdering in your name, performing actions so vile the country was founded on avoiding those principles, and you're picking nits to allow this?
Your government is using your tax money to do things your laws expressly forbid. If you did those things with as little sanction from your peers as they, you'd have been killed or locked up long ago.
One side in this issue are traitors. I suggest you examine your position.
Do you think the Condorcet method offer enough benefits over simple Approval voting to justify the difficulty?
Approval voting is so simple you can do it casually when picking a movie or dinner, without needing to keep track of ranks, etc.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Approval is easier to "game" by dishonest voters. It's very simple to just non-approve a guy you like in order to lower his standing relative to the most favored candidate. For example, if you like A and B in a field of A-E, you can vote for just A to make him look the best relative to the others. If everyone realizes this, we're back to exactly what we have now!
I don't think that Condorcet is actually that much more complex. The fact that you have to make your relative preferences explicit is its advantage over Approval. (It is possible to "game" Condorcet, but you have to have a very good knowledge of everyone else's preferences...and not just who the favorites are, but how the entire slate of results may come out.) Vote casting is very simple, and vote counting isn't that complex either...just laborious if you are going to do a hand count. Hopefully the need for hand counts would be limited to "spot checks" to verify accuracy of the machines.
Constitutionally Correct
That was Geo. Washington's hope, too. But the reality is that pooling resources makes too much sense, in almost every endeavor. One hopes that individuals don't disengage their brain cells upon joining a party, but human nature being what it is, that's almost too much to expect.
Members of any organization have to keep their minds open enough to criticize their own organization when needed. I have a healthy respect for whistleblowers.
Constitutionally Correct
What you see in a true police state is not all the citizens bravely speaking out and getting beaten to death. What you see is almost no dissent at all, because most people decide they don't want to take the risk of getting tasered (and/or beaten to death).
You are assuming that the security guards know that. I don't think they do. Do you really think they know what the book is about (or care enough to find out, maybe reading the back cover or inside flap, etc)? They will see the word SATANIC and assume something is wrong with you.
Go hug some trees.
And by people who don't like HTML forms.
Rich
There is Supreme Court case law that does say the Constitution restricts the government when it acts extraterritorially, but I'm not sure how far-reaching it is nor how exactly that interacts with other treaties/conventions. The best way to view the Constitution is as a contract between the government and its people. When dealing with the government's actions outside of the US (that is, not with regards to "its people" in this same sense), how binding this contract is, is open to interpretation (it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution itself). Hence why there is case law on the issue in the first place. Anyway, case law is rarely so far-reaching that it covers all situations and all bases, and once again there is the matter of international treaties to consider -- these are what regulate how we treat POWs, etc. -- so I think with regards to the current topic we are dealing with politics and personal "morals" more than any definite law. Considering the practical reason for restoring habeas corpus -- accountability and the protection of innocents -- makes far more sense to me than simply shouting "illegal!" when I don't really see the government being tried in court over the issue...
The "traitor" label you chose to throw out there shows very little class, by the way. It also doesn't make sense; treason is something the government would be concerned with more so than those who oppose the government.
I like basketball!!1!
funny, but whats the rationale to have u = 2+1?
Free as in mason.
You mean, like all those students in the audience sitting on their hands while he got tased? Yeah, thank god we haven't reached that point yet... why is my captcha "censored?" Are the irony police on patrol tonight?
It *is* relevant to the post replied to, however, which lays all blame at the feet of the Republicans. The fact that it happened under Clinton's watch puts lie to that, and drives home the point that *neither* party actually *acts* as though they care about our rights.
The flaw of what we have isn't as much that it allows or encourages a two-party split-down-the-middle system, but that it punishes anything else. I'd like to support alternate parties, but we suffer from the wasted vote syndrome.
A degenerate form of approval is plurality, you're right. But everyone already is just voting for their one fave, anything we do seems to be better.
And as for vote counting, being Canadian, I'd like to keep the paper voting and hand counting.
That's what I mean. Condorcet is a bit better, but is it enough so to make it worth explaining ranked pairs to people, to be reliant on a computer-counted voted, etc?
But the reality is that pooling resources makes too much sense,
I'm missing the sense result. It seems like pooling resources to catapult sociopaths into positions of power who then proceed to rape me in one orifice or another, depending on the Party.
One hopes that individuals don't disengage their brain cells upon joining a party, but human nature being what it is, that's almost too much to expect.
Yeah... that was my point. actually.
The constitution is a document that the people wrote to limit the powers of their creation, the USA federal government.
... except to people we suspect of terrorism (or anything else)".
If the constitution says the government shall not X, the intent is for it not to do X. If the point was "Not do X to Y" it would have been spelled out.
The part that says "the government may not" is very clear. There is no part that says "
I was just giving you a bit of 'with us or against us', but with a point. There is a group tearing at the USA, trying to destroy it. That group is the one violating the constitution and telling people that it doesn't matter because of technicalities.
This behavior would be illegal if I hired one person to do it to another. There's no justification or self defense. The constitution clearly does not give the president the right to order blatantly illegal actions. Show me where it says that, notwithstanding anything in this document, these rules are for convenience only.
There was a country that would invade other countries and hang their leaders for this kind of secret-police and torture nonsense. They freed the people and were instituting democracy last I heard. They had invaded Afghanistan, then Iraq, for great justice. Maybe we could ask them to come here next? Which country was that again? They were deeply against human rights violations, that's all I remember.
Well... I am perhaps a bit more cynical than you ^_^ You see, I immigrated from the USSR many years ago, and I must say that the USSR's "Constitution" (yes there was one) was every big as good as the US's. Bloody lot of good that did anyone, though.
Upon further thought, however, I do think that approaching this from the "legal" standpoint and trying to nail the administration/whoever using the Constitution and other legal documents is the surest method of being successful, regardless of whether it's an open-and-shut case or not.
On a side note, I would generally not have a problem letting an efficient, decisive, and effective administration go about their business even if they have to wrongfully detain some people along the way (maybe I'm just not idealistic enough). I also am not sure whether trying to keep any administration "on a leash," so to speak, would prevent future ones from running amok. But there is much to be said for setting precedent, and with that in mind the current administration (seemingly running amok, at least in the eyes of so many) could stand to be reigned in some.
Your views?
I like basketball!!1!
Bullshit.
It is only relevant for the perpetuation for this constant "us vs. them" bitching that is splitting this country apart. Remember what mom used to say about your friend's jumping off a cliff?
Just because someone is stupid enough to try and blame a single individual for the mess this entire world is getting itself into does not mean you have to feed the delusion by chiming in with a matching, and equally delusional counterpoint.
It does not matter who did the deeds, it's that we allowed them happen. It is our responsibility to decide whether we want to continue to keep at each other's throats over stupid red v. blue bullshit, or do we want to start acting like a country again?
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Perhaps the greatest value of the US Constitution (in original form) is to remind us of what were once reasonable expectations of government.
As for the abuses of power, the problem is that we do everything in secret. If Guantanamo was regularly monitored and nobody was abused... false arrests happen in civilian life as well. The problem is that as soon as people get arrested for emergency reasons it always becomes a secret. No lawyers, no contact, no laws.
It's the revisionism and censorship that bother me the most. We revise the constitution so that we can say we're following it. We hide the prisoners that we're saving the world by capturing. Censoring any records of their great evil, inventing it ourselves as justification.
Isn't that the same thing, just stated differently?
This is a result of the above. When everyone sees that there are two dominant parties, because the system itself discourages anything else, they will "naturally" come to see other alternatives as a "waste". Change the voting method, and you change the dynamics. Change the dynamics, and you change the perception.
I see a lot of effort being expended on a switch to Approval, only to have it be ineffective because of the degeneracy factor. You'll likely only get one shot at major voting reform...you have to push for the very best option and make the jump.
Paper voting, aye. But I have nothing against machine tabulation as long as it is verifiable by hand. Granted, Condorcet could be tedious and time-consuming to hand count...but for a matter as important as who is leading our government, I think it is worth the effort. If the effort can be efficiently and accurately done by machine, great—as long as it can still be independently verified without machines.
And for the most part, I don't think one needs to go into a whole lot of detail about how counting works. Most people won't care. You only have to explain casting...and "put them in order, starting with 1 for first choice, tied ranks are OK" is very simple. So much so that most people will "get" that this can be used to determine a winner, even if they don't fully understand the process themselves. If you do try to explain Condorcet vote counting and use the term "pairwise matrix" or any of that, you'd taking the wrong tack. What you need to say is something as simple as, "We use the rankings to see if any given candidate could beat all the others head-to-head. Obviously that's the winner." Again, everyone can "get" this.
Constitutionally Correct
It still seems like Approval should devolve into homogeneous parties, not to vastly different parties. Vote stealing/masking issues aren't as prevalent so similar candidates should often all be acceptable. Usually people can be political enough to understand "anyone but the wrong party", which provides them a backup if their ideal first choice doesn't win.
I feel the same about IRV as you about Approval. In BC Canada we had a referendum on switching to IRV. I was for it, but wished that it was an open question as to which one to use. The vote didn't pass, but narrowly, so we're trying again in a few years.
That makes a difference. We're picking MPs/MLAs, perhaps with proportional representation, not a single president which seems inherently first-past-the-post.
Thanks for the ideas as to how to make Condorcet sound better, the "complex" counting put me off because of how easy Approval is, but I guess most people won't see it.
Where have you seen Approval not working?
My point was that your point was the same point made in the post you so vociferously admonished. Did you even read the parent to it? It was insisting that it is all the fault of the Republicans - certainly, a good portion of it is, but as the post you ripped into points out they hold nothing like a monopoly on this. ... and if you're sick of us being at each other's throats, you might want to take a deep breath or two yourself...
IRV is about the only voting system I have found worse than simple plurality.
I haven't actually seen that many places where any alternative voting system is in use, so my objections to Approval (and Range voting in general) are mostly theoretical. If everyone is honest, it's not a bad system. But you can find many articles about "strategic voting" under an Approval/Range system. From my research, Condorcet is the least susceptible to strategic voting in practical use, and that is a major criterion, IMO. If you can't be honest with yourself at the ballot box, what's the point of democratic elections?
Constitutionally Correct
First, term limits are not a restriction on politicians, they are a restriction on people's freedom. If someone is doing a good job in office (difficult concept, I know!), why should we arbitrarily throw them out?
What we really need is a more expressive voting system, instead of common plurality voting. There are more than two points of view in any political system, yet we are stuck with a mere two parties because of it. Give people more freedom and implement Condorcet! The ballot box is the term limiter.
Second, politicians have to campaign, and if they don't get money from private interests, they'll have to get it from themselves (so we become a plutocracy) or they'll get it from government (and I don't think it's wise for government to be effectively choosing who its own successors will be if we want to maintain a democratic system).
Constitutionally Correct
Reduce the power of government, and you'll immediately reduce the number of people trying to "buy" it and the amount of money flowing around for that purpose.
Constitutionally Correct
It's not so much the primary system. The parties have the right to determine who their standard-bearer will be.
The problem is the use of plurality voting in the general elections. This assures the fact that only two parties will be seen as relevant. A single vote can only unambiguously choose between two things. The media shapes your opinion beforehand which two are the "real" choices, and you go pick between them - TweedleDum or TweedleDee.
We desperately need voting reform. I'm in favor of Condorcet methods, myself.
Constitutionally Correct
Personally it's the anti-religious (not just areligious) types in the Democratic party that bother me. People that don't believe in a supernatural for whatever reason, OK, whatever, it's your life. People that have zero respect/tolerance for those that do, that want to stomp out expressions of faith just because they don't agree (such as yourself, it appears), are more worrisome.
Constitutionally Correct
If you're trying to move a huge boulder, it makes sense for several people to work together on it. Pool resources. That's all. As long as this is true, we will have political parties.
What you actually do with that combined power, that's another issue.
Constitutionally Correct
Why do they need to campaign? Have every major network (ABC, CBS, FOX) carry a series of debates leading up to the elections. Newspapers and other news sources will pull their sound bites from the debates and people can make an informed decision. Campaign funding adds NOTHING to the process other than a back to scratch in future.
You'd trust the media to be completely faithful and honest gatekeepers between the citizenry and the politicos? Pretty soon you'd see legislation limiting press access to only those outlets favorable to incumbents, etc.
Make the candidates get out and work for votes, I say: travelling, shaking hands, kissing babies. Yeah, that's gonna take money. As flawed as that might be, I'd take the method that gives me "direct" interaction with a candidate than one that only allows media-filtered access.
Constitutionally Correct