Slashdot Mirror
TSA Subpoenas Bloggers Over New Security Directive
Hugh Pickens writes "The NY Times reports that TSA special agents have served subpoenas to travel bloggers Steve Frischling and Chris Elliott demanding that they reveal who leaked a TSA directive outlining new screening measures that went into effect the same day as the Detroit airliner incident. Frischling said he met with two TSA special agents for about three hours and was forced to hand over his laptop computer after the agents threatened to interfere with his contract to write a blog for KLM Royal Dutch Airlines if he didn't cooperate and provide the name of the person who leaked the memo outlining new security measures that would be apparent to the traveling public. 'It literally showed up in my box,' Frischling told The Associated Press. 'I do not know who it came from.' Frischling says he provided the agents a signed statement to that effect. The leaked directive included measures such as screening at boarding gates, patting down the upper legs and torso, physically inspecting all travelers' belongings, looking carefully at syringes with powders and liquids, requiring that passengers remain in their seats one hour before landing, and disabling all onboard communications systems, including what is provided by the airline. In a December 29 posting on his blog, Elliott said he had told the TSA agents at his house that he would call his lawyer and get back to them."
Except people who choose the 'right' to not pay for health care insurance still show up to doctors offices and hospital emergency wards demanding to be fixed without the ability to actually pay.
Why is it so hard to understand:
1) everybody gets a basic 'level' of insurance
2) people who wish to, and can afford to, can still continue to purchase additional insurance
3) at age 65, everybody has to see a gov't employee, who decides how well that person has lived, and determines how much more health care (in $) that person can receive for the rest of their lives. If that number is zero, the person is summarily executed.
One of these statements is ridiculous. Somehow, Republican's have managed to convince their "followers" that the ridiculos statement is 1.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Here here! Although 1 is not quite right anymore: now everybody must buy a basic level of insurance. With the Strong Public Option, then you'd be right about 1, but as it stands it's not quite what was said.
It's sad that 3 was actually believed; I think it shows how a fear of government can be easily manipulated, especially if Government can be conflated with Liberal, and people end up trusting individuals more than their representatives (which actually sounds rather monarchical, paradoxically, but I digress). I'm really not sure what it's going to take to get the country to realize that governing doesn't have to be an enemy of liberty.
What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
No, what the 'liberals' want is a single-payer system, which is the cheapest and most effective option, and the only real solution to getting rid of the insurance racket.
Unfortunately, because of all the foot dragging by the Republican party (seriously, they contributed *nothing* to the debate -- it was like watching a toddler scream at his parents "I don't wanna!"), demonization of government-run health care, and the corrupting influence of insurance lobbyists, we're going to get a bill that's, in all honesty, the worst of all options.
You seem to acknowledge that the insurance industry isn't the way to go. What's your solution? Everyone pay out of pocket?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Capitulation to the terrorists is the end of human civilization. They want nothing less than a global Islamic caliphate, the conversion or extermination of all non believers, an end to science / knowledge and total submission to the authority of the state lead by clerics.
Because there's a bunch of republicans that call themselves democrats. They came up with the term "blue dog", which literally means "I'm getting a lot of money from insurance companies and have to justify this legislation without mentioning the fuckload of bribes I've received"
-1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
Actually, that's what you've done, which is why I've called you on it. If you had attempted to make any sort of rational argument supporting your view point, and no waving your hand and stating your opinions as if they were fact isn't an attempt, I'd have simply assumed you were someone who hadn't thought completely through their viewpoint. But rather you are the rare individual who attempts to claim anything that spews forth from their mouth is gospel truth and anyone who disagrees is ignorant vermin.
You make several assumptions and provide nothing to back them up with. Using this argument it would be just as easy to argue that slavery is just, for the owner betters the life of the slave. And you, once again, fail to show any work (as the school teacher might say) and simply claim the rest of your proof follows naturally.
Again you wave your hands and claim it is all there but fail to provide any proof. In fact you seem forced to assume things not present in my actual argument simply to make the weak point you've failed to support.
What right do you have to 'protect' anyone from physical harm? From whence does this right flow and how is it defined?
How do you decide what is physical harm?
If wish to pierce my ears, should this be prevented? How about my nipples? My genitals? If I choose to split my tongue? What if I choose to insert titanium knobs under my skin?
What if I choose to drink? Smoke tobacco? Smoke pot? Shoot heroin?
What if I cut myself? Refuse to eat? What if I have a curable but deadly if untreated disease and refuse treatments?
What if I touch myself in inappropriate places? If I engage in risky sexual behavior? What if I have sexual relations with someone with a known STD?
What if I hang out with a 'bad boy'? What if I hang out with a gang? What if I hang out with a group of people known to commit violent felonies? What if I hang out with people who think strapping a bomb on themselves and walking into a mall of crowded people and exploding is an ethical, moral, and reasonable way to make a social statement?
Come now, according to you this all follows rationally and logically, there should be one answer that is true for everyone to the above questions. What are they?
Have you even thought about the arguments you are making or are you simply a troll?
I'm not even going to go into the rest of your 'response' to my comment, your failure to even know what cognitive dissonance is or realize that everyone suffers from it pretty much tells me you are ignorant, misinformed, and weakminded, or a well trained troll, I refuse to waste more effort attempting to discern the difference.
You are an idiot. How can you not afford to have a public option if it is coming out of your taxes by say an extra 3% of income? If you are worried about the forced to buy clause, it is because of idiots like you. Fucking conservatives. I am a GOP member and you neo-nazi's are far from true conservatives. You remind me of the nazi's so much. You make shady deals to gain power at the expense of the citizens, and then continue to pollute the air with your propaganda and war machines. You make me sick. A third of our country is seriously obese and 40+ million of us uninsured, and you are whining about the government making sure you have health insurance? Give me a break. Stupidity knows no bounds. Wow...
A fine explanation of a representative democracy. But the break down is with political parties and party line votes. This can defeat the promise of fairness or the differences of minority verses majority.
I think the founding fathers in the US understood these hazards which is why they insisted on the constitution proscribing what the federal government could do instead of only what it couldn't do. If the federal government was limited to it's constitutional role, what would be left is states who could be corrupted into party line majorities which would still leave a minority rule when weighed against the other states.
I'm not for removing political parties, but I am for limiting government to it's constitutional roles whether it's the state or federal constitutions. If a current federal law or program is so important, then all states would implement it on their own without the federal support. They would probably run them better too. This is because the needs of someone on the east coast isn't always the same as on the west coast and having the flexibility to cater to the citizens of a state based on their own needs or desires would better serve those citizens then a blanket coverage for all states imposed by the federal government.