Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Schneier vs. the TSA
An anonymous reader writes "Bruce Schneier has posted a huge recap of the controversy over TSA body scanners, including more information about the lawsuit he joined to ban them. There's too much news to summarize, but it covers everything from Penn Jillette's and Dave Barry's grope stories, to Israeli experts who say this isn't needed and hasn't ever stopped a bomb, to the three-year-old girl who was traumatized by being groped and much, much more."
Another reader passed along a related article, which says, "Congressman Ron Paul lashed out at the TSA yesterday and introduced a bill aimed at stopping federal abuse of passengers. Paul’s proposed legislation would pave the way for TSA employees to be sued for feeling up Americans and putting them through unsafe naked body scanners."
how is scanning teenagers not considered manufacturing CP?
we all know the images will be saved, they have to be. After all, what kind of security outfit would not want the capability to go back and look at the images after a future terror attempt happens? Of course they'll want to go back and review surveillance footage and these images, to see if they need to change thresholds or procedures, to see if/what they missed.
So given that it's a given they are saving them for forensics purposes (and perhaps for evidenciary purposes if a terrorist was brough to trial), isn't this the outright manufacture of child porn?
Why is that a country founded on the ideological rejection of tyranny is creeping ever closer to the text book example of abuses of power?
It's been a while since the 9/11 attacks, and maybe later updated information was hidden back in the classified ads of my newspaper - but I thought that the consensus was the 9/11 hijackers did not bring their boxcutters onto the plane with them. So these increasingly intrusive TSA make-work tactics would have had zero effect on the worst terrorist attack in US history.
Not to mention that, post 9/11, passengers and crew realize now that modern-day hijackers are mainly interested in killing everyone on the plane. So in the attempts that have followed, passengers and/or the crew have successfully thwarted those attempts. That's the real solution - an aware public.
These silly "solutions" the TSA keeps rolling out don't seem to be accomplishing anything other than annoying air travelers. If any of these measures had actually demonstrably stopped even one attempted attack, don't you think the TSA would be crowing it from the rooftops?
#DeleteChrome
It all started on 9/11, when instead of reacting to the attacks as a matter for coordinated worldwide policing, we elevated those fuckers to the same status as a nation-state and decided to declare war on anyone and everyone who didn't instantly get in line behind us. We stoked our own fear to an insane degree, and it's already boomeranged back on us in so many ways. This is just one more self-inflicted wound in a long line of idiotic mistakes we've made over the last nine years.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Of course you have just presented yourself as a person who cares more about someone's party affiliation than the actual content of whatever they are saying. Did you even bother to read - never mind, I know the answer. Just keep voting for your party and hope that things will get better. They won't. What the hell is the point of giving someone a vote when they don't even understand or care what they're voting for? /rant
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I would feel safer if we got rid of the TSA and just had one or two fully decked out marines on board each flight. Would be cheaper too...
... aaand the fact that he is, amongst other things, also a religious loon who wants to remove the separation of state and religion and that he wants the US government to establish an Official Religion (it would be one of those few very critical remaining functions his much-much-smaller government would perform) has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it ... its just all us lazy slouches here trying to avoid "responsibility!" Its a conspiracy of the hippies, I tell you!
Did you just miss the story about the Oregon senator blocking COICA? I had to consult Wikipedia to find out that the guy was a democrat. Every time I've ever seen a story regarding specific politicians I don't recall seeing party affiliation. And Ron Paul is high profile enough that if you don't know his affiliation then you're not paying attention and not interested in these kinds of stories anyway.
I tend to find that Slashdot's readership is left-leaning, but you're really grasping at straws here and it's embarrassing.
A few weeks ago, I flew out of Lihue, Kauai. They have one 'scanner'. I guess thats what it is. A fancier version of booth then the usual metal detector that they optionally put people through. As I waited in line, the only person they subjected to the extra scan was one hot looking blonde lady wearing a flimsy blouse, cutoff shorts and flip-flops.
Where do I sign up for one of these TSA jobs?
Have gnu, will travel.
In the wake of Transport Security Administration staff forcing a "full pat-down" on a three-year-old child, Catholic priests have been clamouring to work for the government department.
The TSA, which has apprehended only slightly less than one terrorist in its nine years of operation, welcomed the new recruits to the fold. "We need people with experience in dealing with young people," said TSA head John Pistole, "in telling people what to do and in making the innocent feel guilty. And the enthusiasm! They're not your typical bored minimum-wager, no way! Also, they have better uniforms."
Mr Pistole reiterated the patriotic duty that drives the TSA in their work. "Fondling little girls' genitals is vital to protecting America from TERRORISTS. Remember: if TSA staff can't finger your daughter, the TERRORISTS have won!" He then strangled a kitten for our photographer.
Cardinal Bernard Law returned to America from the Vatican especially for the opportunity to create government-funded child pornography with the new "naked" scanners. "It's top quality stuff, too. The tears, the pain — the things that make this sort of thing really worthwhile."
"They were nasty men," said three-year-old TSA molestee Mandy Simon. "But it clearly demonstrates the iron necessity of the holy Jihadic destruction of the West. Allahu akbar! Daddy? I done a boo-boo."
http://rocknerd.co.uk
bet they didn't even think to talk to Teller about this.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't say anything.
My employer has a lab in Haifa, and I know a number of folks who have traveled to Israel on business. They have also traveled to the US, post 9/11. They all state that the Israeli security folks are really detectives, who are very intelligent, ask misleading questions and evaluate the responses. All very "human / personal based." They all felt safe when entering the plane.
The US security seems to be base on technology. You have security folks, who are only capable of identifying a terrorist if the machine beeps.
This reminds me of how despite all the high tech satellite surveillance of Iraq, the wrong conclusions came out of the US intelligence agencies. Allen Dulles ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles ) was much better at recognizing the higher value of "human intellegence" (HUMINT).
So what am I ranting about? I would rather be grilled a Inspector Columbo at a security check, than scanned by a machine operated by some doofus.
That would make me feel much safer.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
link
As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
Commissioner Pravin Lal
"U.N. Declaration of Rights"
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Oh please! Ron Paul is a rat. He just wants to privatize the system to get people to look away from the government. And his "show" bill to put congress people through the same process is just that, a show, something that would never pass, and he knows it.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
"The COICA copyright bill may have sailed through committee, but that doesn't mean it's a done deal. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, calling it the 'wrong medicine' to block copyright violations, is threatening to put a hold on the bill, which would block its adoption through at least the end of the year."
Senator Ron Wyden is a Democrat.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
look him up. He has abused and manipulated his relationships with Homeland Security to try and make billions for him and his friends with the naked scanners. Part of the groping is to try and force people to use the scanners so they can sell more of them. Chertoff and Rapiscan Systems need to be indicted.
Your linked article is satire. But I didn't really know if it was satire until I read it through.
The terrorists have won.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
The TSA searches are causing greater loss of useable lifetime than terrorists ever could. Each year, about 800 million people have to arrive one hour earlier at the airport to wait in lines and now suffer increased humiliation. Human beings only live for 700,000 hours. The TSA is wasting over 1000 lifetimes each year.
If I don't like how a government conducts its business, I can always vote for a different one... Funny how everything is alike
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
but I don't let my dislike for him cloud my judgement of his individual ideas.
This is a good one; even though his wording in trollish and flamebait worthy.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If an employer requires you to travel as part of your job, and it can be argued that the TSA is taking nude photos and utilizing inappropriate touching during pat downs, what liability is an employer exposed to for making regular 'sexual assault' part of your job description?
Knowingly putting yourself in a situation where your "normal" liberties must be compromised is your choice. You're welcome to take a bus, train, car or boat to your destination instead.
And the TSA is welcome to go fuck off. They don't get to decide which liberties people must voluntarily compromise in order to fly, or at least that's not how it's supposed to work.
The idea that anything that's not a fundamental human right can be taken away on the whim of any random government bureaucracy is, bizarre, to say the least.
The TSA doesn't "own" flying. They are proposing measures that are invasive and fundamentally ineffective, and we're supposed to have a say in whether or not we want that.
sic transit gloria mundi
You seem quite misinformed regarding Libertarians. Most libertarians do believe in government, regulations, police, fire departments etc. Their complaint regarding government is often that the wrong level is addressing an issue, that state or local levels should be handling a particular issue rather than the federal (national) level; that the causes of various problems vary from region to region and are better addressed at a more local level. They often believe in regulation to the extent that it creates a level playing field and ensures safe products and services. Their complaint regarding regulations is often targeted against overregulation where the goal is societal engineering (for example: more people should own houses rather than rent) or political grandstanding (violent video games for example). They believe law enforcement should prevent one person from harming another (smoking pot while driving ?), but if a person is engaging in some activity that harms no one else they should be left alone (smoking pot at home ?). They also believe that some things are best handled at the national level. For example national defense and interstate regulation and infrastructure. The typical libertarian doesn't seem very deluded.
Keep in mind that the folks you see on TV are not there because they represent the typical. They are usually there because they represent the most entertaining, or if you prefer the cynical then because they represent the stereotype the producer wishes to portray.
Upon what do you base claiming that the Austrian School of Economics is "scientifically" discredited?
Personally, I find using the term "scientific" with regard to any economic theory suspect.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Bullshit.
Train people to conduct good security, and have them stationed at the airports. Make it a well-paying career and people might actually consider it as a career who might otherwise have avoided it. We may have more airports, but we also have more people who can be trained for the job, or are already trained.
I just had this discussion with a friend earlier today. The millimeter wave scanners don't even USE x-ray radiation, and the backscatter uses about 1/100ththe radiation of a dental x-ray. I asked my friend if she was going to stop getting dental x-rays, she said no because they only do that once a year. can't really argue with that level of logic.
How's this?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Ron Paul may have some decent ideas about smaller government, but he's a religious loon, creationist who doesn't believe in evolution.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Really? Then why didn't he introduce a bill forbidding the molestation of passengers and exposure to harmful and ineffective scans? Or better yet, if he really believes in smaller governement he would introduce a bill eliminating the TSA all together since they are a wasteful ineffective agency that has done nothing to make anyone safer.
Instead he proposes a bill which says, in effect, "if you don't like how you are treated by the TSA you can spend a few hundred thousand dollars trying to sue the Federal Government. This is nothing more than political grandstanding and pretending to be "against big government".
So what if a corporation dumps waste in the river, exposes workers to a toxic environment, over harvests the ocean or destroys entire species, abuses monopoly powers to destroy competition, or any number of negative externalities?
Cutting corners and not getting caught (or getting caught but the penalty being less than the gain) can be very profitable. Sometimes the damage being done is hidden long enough that a corporation flourishes. It's not hard for permanent damage to be be done on either a personal or a very large scale. Suing the corporation doesn't really fix the problem.
Also, corporations have no conscience, no remorse, and basically act like a sociopath.
Corporations don't have the rights of an individual, they have the privilege of acting as in individual in very specific ways.
"Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
"Honestly, I'm not sure why this is such a big deal - it's as if we (African-Americans) think we have a God-given right to ride at the front of the bus. Yet in everyday life, we must give up certain liberties; when I'm driving on public roads, I don't have the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure by over-zealous law enforcement. But that's OK, because I voluntarily put myself on a bus, or on a public road."
The government doesn't give us rights. We have the rights inherently. Just because the government says driving on roads that I payed for isn't a right, doesn't mean their position is legally sound. Their unreasonable search and seizure of persons and property at airports is outright illegal under the Constitution. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The reason it continues is that nobody in power will prosecute them, and courts won't hear criminal cases brought by the general public.
Yes, but only on cheap beer.
Exactly right. The excuse that Israel is smaller and has less to protect is bogus, considering that the US has 1/3 of a billion people, which means a larger pool of trainable people than Israel has.
The people who are so paranoid that they demand everyone on the plane they ride in be scoped and groped before they fly, those people need to stay home, because no one else around them is assaulted by the government looking for weapons.
The types of people who want to run your life, want you to be so terrified of your fellow citizen that you won't look to one another for help, you'll run to the nearest government agent first. That gives them the power they crave.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
And this: http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/08/06/authoritarian-or-libertarian-ron-paul-on-churchstate-separation-secularism.htm
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
So how long do you think before, TSA would require a body scan before boarding a bus or a train or a ship? You would still be fine with it, if you were informed in advance, right? One can still take the car or walk or swim, right?
I have a solution! Old-school chastity belts!
They're made of nice thick iron, so they're going to block those nasty high-frequency rays that would otherwise scramble your chromosones in your junk. No worries of vacation nookie leading to mutant flipper babies!
Additionally, with the use of a nice thick lock, your junk remains safe from the molestation of nasty TSA agents.
For the ladies, a Leia-style bra may be in order. Hot grits optional.
In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
A stately pleasure dome decree
They don't know what they want.
They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.
Make up your mind already.
The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.
Uh .. .what? The "grown-ups" (who I assume you do not number yourself among) have decided that more government intervention is better? Are you nuts? The question is not whether or not we need to reduce the size of Federal Government ... but what parts to cut.
Don't presume to speak for your betters.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Because the airline screens are Government and nolonger private, I thin there is a First Amendment argument here.
The pat downs obviously would violate the fourth Amendment there is no probably cause to suspect you of a crime just because you are in an airport and wish to board a plane. The procedure also takes in excess of 10min in some cases so even if there was cause it may exceed the bounds of a Terry stop; finally people have attempted to turn around and leave the airport rather than submit and been denied which makes everyone feel that we are not free to leave; which than becomes false imprisonment.
Now the knee jerk response is going to be "but you don't have to go to the airport and get on a plane" its not a right; and therefore you cannot evoke the fourth. What if I live in New York and want to assemble with others in California later that afternoon? I could do so but for the fact the government is not letting my on a privately owned aircraft, that I purchased a ticket to get onto from a private carrier. By demanding I submit to my fourth amendment rights being violated they are infringing on my first amendment rights.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Have you every been through Ben Gurion?
It's very effective but it's a pain in the ass compared to US Security.
Last time it took me a full 3 hours from entering the airport to arriving at the gate to depart. They x-rayed my bags, then hand-searched them, and asked me grilling and misleading questions before I even got to the ticket counter to check-in! Then it was a long wait to get through immigration. Then I got singled out for another x-ray line that _crawled_ along. There was probably a dozen of us in that line and it took 30 mins to get us all through. I think they make you wait on purpose to see if you get nervous etc.
Effective yes, but I'd hate to have to go through that everytime I want to fly.
What you linked to was a common-sense statement about how some people feel about being pushed so hard to be "tolerant" that they can no longer exercise their own religion because those who have none might be offended by it. He doesn't come close to calling for an "Official Religion", only a tolerance from those who are the loudest in calling for tolerance for their own beliefs. As in "OMG, someone has put a copy of the Ten Commandments somewhere they can be seen from 'public land'. "
So what you're saying is that under current law scanning ceases to be legal as soon as teens start posing suggestively?
Scale doesn't matter. There's no shortage of proven interrogation techniques that work, and they're very easy to learn. I learned the Reid Technique in the span of about a month. Saying it's impossible to train people is a plain copout, and excuse making.
Om, nomnomnom...
They often believe in regulation to the extent that it creates a level playing field and ensures safe products and services. Their complaint regarding regulations is often targeted against overregulation where the goal is societal engineering (for example: more people should own houses rather than rent) or political grandstanding (violent video games for example).
They say they're against regulation, but then they say they want some government interference.
No, they are against overregulation. From a libertarian perspective desired regulation would be something like transparency in banking and finance. Undesired regulation and interference might be regulations engineering a greater level of home ownership rather than renting.
The grown-ups have already decided that more government intervention is better than less government intervention.
Really, how did that intervention to increase home ownership and decrease renting work out?
The primary value of catching the "perpetrators" is deterrence for others.
The primary value is stopping further activity by the perpetrators. The secondary value is deterring others. By treating this as a war, we have not only failed to take out the perpetrators (remember that guy, what's his name.. oh yes, I remember now: Osama bin Laden), we have recruited many thousands of fighters for al-Qaeda and related groups. When you engage in police activity, you target the perpetrator. When you invade two countries and engage in military operations in several others, you turn people who would otherwise be bystanders into combatants.
Putting terrorists in jail will not deter those in the future - they are already willing to die for their cause, no threat of punishment will prevent them from going ahead.
What cause? Initially they had a small cause. Now we have made it a much larger one. As for threat of punishment as a deterrent, you are assuming that all terrorists are suicide bombers, which is definitely not the case. Suicide bombers make up a third of the people who engage in terrorist acts across the globe.
So the idea that you are going to identify the "criminals" and put them in jail/execute them presumes that you will just take the hit, no matter the cost, and deal with the aftermath. That's why the "policing" concept has utterly failed.
You seem to be basing your entire argument on the belief that police activity does not deter criminal activity. That is simply untrue. It also presumes that the alternative the US has used, engaging the enemy with primarily military means, somehow is a more effective deterrent, when study after study has shown that it has turned many otherwise politically ambivalent people into combatants.
Further, you state that policing has failed. The United States hasn't even tried that approach.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2003-04-17/news/1-hour-arrest/ ... oh wait, that last couple wasn't arrested, just had their kids taken away for a month while they decided whether or not to arrest them.
http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=14089
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32904451/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
(Doofi? How would you pluralize that word?)
Centurion: What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
Brian: It says, "Romans go home. "
Centurion: No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
Brian: Er, "Romanus" !
Centurion: Vocative plural of "Romanus" is?
Brian: Er, er, "Romani" !
Centurion: [Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti] "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !
Brian: Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
Centurion: So, "eunt" is...?
Brian: Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
Centurion: But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use...? [He twists Brian's ear]
Brian: Aaagh ! The imperative !
Centurion: Which is...?
Brian: Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !
Centurion: How many Romans? Centurion: [Writes "ite"] "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it? Brian: Dative ! [the Centurion holds a sword to his throat]
Brian: Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "Domum" !
Centurion: But "Domus" takes the locative, which is...?
Brian: Er, "Domum" !
Centurion: [Writes "Domum"] Understand? Now, write it out a hundred time
Brian: Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Centurion: Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.
If you learned Latin in high school, this is very funny . . . otherwise, most folks would say, "what the Hell is a dative!", despite the fact that it is used in the English language. Whatever . . .
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
It worked out great as another example of government overregulation.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Hey, better the Paulites blow their mod points on an intentionally provocative post than on a sensible, insightful one.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You're welcome to take a bus, train, car or boat to your destination instead.
I've heard this argument over and over again, and it misses a very real factor of modern life: it is assumed by society that you will travel in such a way as to be expedient. I cannot say to my supervisor, "sure, I'll be glad to attend that important conference in Bejing, but it will take me six weeks to get there and another six to get back because I won't fly," and expect to still have a job. Electing to not fly by commercial airline to any destination that is outside of normal driving range, as evaluated not by you, but by everyone else, effectively eliminates most means of employment over unskilled labor. It means attending not your choice of college, but the local ones. It means interviewing only for positions that have, essentially, no required travel whatsoever. And remember that even when travel is not a requirement of employment, it is often a prerequisite to advancement. Modern life assumes travel by air. Your opportunities are severely stunted if you do not fly.
A more realistic view would be that you do not have a choice: flying is part of life.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
Sure, if anybody at all in this thread were talking about having no government. Libertarians are not anarchists.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Companies have the conscience, remorse and morals of those people who control them.
Companies are not autonomous entities. To perpetuate such a preposterous idea is to absolve those who run companies of any responsibility for their decisions and actions.
First is because it is not sexual in nature. I realize this may be hard to believe for some people but nudity and sex are separate issues. A nude picture of a child is not illegal. Most people would avoid such things because of the hysteria, fueled by posts like yours, over child porn but there is nothing wrong. You take a nude picture of your kid in the bath, 100% legal. Same reason why nudist colonies/beaches are legal. Yes, children do go there and get nude. Get over it. Part of nudism is the idea of disassociating sex from nudity. Our body uncovered is natural, and does not at all have to be sexual.
Another reason would be the nature of the images. They are not at all clear representations with easy to identify anatomy. They are strange ghostly pictures that are recognizable as a human form but little else. I know, I know you saw the article of the attractive girl who was easily visible naked when the colours were inverted... That's because that isn't a real scanner image, it is a stock model who'd picture was doctored (http://www.fotosearch.com/PHT246/paa246000018/ NSFW). The real images are far less distinct.
Now please note, that does not mean I think this is a good idea. It is a waste of time and money, and could possibly be a health risk to some high risk individuals. I'm not saying we should be doing it but the child porn thing is STUPID. It is just another attempt to create hysteria and to use a boogie man to shut down something you don't like. This is the same shit as when the various media industries or government agencies try to claim they need to crack down on a free web because of "child porn." They are actually talking about REAL child porn, but just like you are attempting to use it as an excuse to shut down something else they don't like.
How did Separate But Equal work out?
FYI, that was government policy...
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The full body scans are silly because Al Qaeda has ALREADY used suicide bombers with explosives in their BODY CAVITIES. These are not exposed by full-body scanners that stop at the skin surface.
From the linked article "Asieri had a pound of high explosives, plus a detonator inserted in his rectum." That was 2009.
He is a Republican who actually BELIEVES in smaller government,
The way I usually put it is, he's the conscience of the Republican party; the only one who votes consistently in accord with their own platform, and who by his example continuously reminds the Lindsey Grahams and John McCains of the world what appalling hypocrites they are.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
You bet I want services in exchange for my taxes and I want enough of them to build and maintain an entire civilization! I want a military service to defend the nation not one that extends the nation, I want transport services to build bridges to somewhere rather than nowhere, I want sewers and levees maintained not left to fall apart, I want pot holes filled in, I want someone to collect my garbage, I want a heath care system where I don't have to worry about bankruptcy.
It's not how big the government is, it's how effective they are at providing the infrastructure and services that underpin modern life. Truth be told I already have most of the things in the above list because I don't live in a superpower that spends half it's tax revenue on military dick swinging and the other half on narcarsistic corporate welfare.
As for freedom; it's is a state of mind and what I really don't need or want is a government service to provide my state of mind.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I can see that you haven't read the bill.
Here's the text of H.R. 6416:
Since this bill explicitly forbids any kind of immunity for the TSA goons, if one of them grabs your crotch, you call a real cop, and file a criminal charge just like you would against anyone else who committed a sexual assault.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Perhaps you missed the whole "Socially Liberal" part, since you keep trying HARD to force libertarians into the tired grooves of either "neocon republican" or "limp wristed spend thrift liberal". Libertarians are not either.
The libertarian would be FOR government regulation for such things as equal rights. What they are against is regulations saying which kinds of house you can own, or what kind of shirt you can wear on the subway (or what kinds of games you can buy for your kids.)
It's simple-- Libertarian comes from "Liberty"-- for the most part, anything that increases the liberty of citizens is considered good; Biggotry is not a liberty that is good for the general citizen, because it de-facto implies obstructionism and lack of liberty to a portion of those citizens. Same with Gay marriage (concerning obstructionism being bad).
If anything, the Libertarian is more likely to suffer the bias AGAINST big business, BECAUSE big business tries to keep people down in general (to prevent competition). Your assertion that Libertarians would support racial biggotry is horribly unfounded, and serves only to highlight your own ignorance of that ideology.
Nothing in that article says that he wants a state religion or that he does not believe in evolution.
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
And if the one you voted for doesn't get in, you still have to deal with it. I've never had a corporation poll my neighbors and decide that I had to work with them...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
No, they're doing harm to your property. You're perfectly free to sue them for damages; I don't know a single big-or-little L Libertarian who would disagree...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I haven't seen this story posted yet, and it's far too good to pass up.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/18/another-tsa-outrage/
To summarize: 330 soldiers coming back from Afghanistan were flying back to the US. They were carrying (all unloaded) M4 assault rifles, some carrying M9 pistols, and some carrying M-240B machine guns. After flying part of the way back and dropping off 100 soldiers, the TSA decide the rest need to deplane and all need to go through screening again. They find a pair of nail clippers on a soldier, and confiscate them, saying they are a potential weapon.
The soldiers continue on with their unloaded guns and fly on to their destination.
Now really, are the TSA so moronic, that they don't understand the ASSAULT RIFLES could be used as a bludgeon weapon far more effectively then a pair of toenail clippers? I mean, come on, these guys just got back from fighting in the terrorist's safe haven. About the last thing they're going to do is to help the psycho idiots, and yet they confiscate their toenail clippers, and let them continue on with the rifles?
Really?
No, REALLY?
One of these days i'm going to find this 'peer' guy and reset HIS connection!
First off, economics isn't science, so saying that any school of economics can be discredited scientifically is absurd.
Second, the central tenant of the Austrian School is "central banks bad, money based on commodities good"; I can't see how that's been proven incorrect, given the drubbing the central banks have given to the world economy over the last century. Or are you one of those people who thinks we've actually grown wealthier as our currency is consistently debased? Here's a factoid: my wife and I make a combined income of over $200,000 per year, and yet have a harder time providing for our family than my dad did when he was my age, making $20,000 per year (with a full-time housewife, I might add). So explain to me how a given amount of money today is somehow worth less than 10x that amount was 30 years ago is a good thing?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Everyone is against overregulation. They just disagree about what the right amount is.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This article is a joke. The writer twists Ron Paul's words around. Ron Paul has never supported government imposed religion. He recognizes that the First Amendment is an injunction against the government. Show me a quote where Ron Paul says, "I want the government to impose religion on people." You can't because it does not exist.
Sorry, if you are making north of 200k and "have a harder time providing for our family", you ain't doing it right. Cell phones, every cable channel, the new lex in the 3 car garage. If you adjust for inflation that 20k is nice. I make less than half of what you make, and I am living high on the hog. I honestly don't know what you are doing wrong, but you are doing it.
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
On the ABC Evening News they ran a story about how now, women that wear skirts will be taken aside and physically STRIPPED.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4GP_qlJAIA&hd=1 (pay attention starting at about the 2min mark)
Women with large chests get "special attention" too. I know this as fact from friends.
I have to fly next year. I have metal implants in my body, broken bones in an accident.
I set off metal detectors from half a mile away. I also happen to have a large chest.
I prefer to wear skirts. Though I think I would rather not when I do fly next year.
I have been warned that because of the metal in my body I will be made to go through enhanced screening which will likely include a PORNO SCAN and a GROPE UP by a thug with a gun and a badge. When they grope you now, they squeeze and manipulate your breasts and they take time to feel your female parts. Each and every little detail of your girly bits, you know, just in case they are like, a bomb?
With the metal setting off the metal detectors and my chest setting off the, um chest detectors, I know they are going to more or less do the same thing to me a rapist would do, short of penetration.
This has gotten way out of control.
You've proved my point exactly: that's the right level of regulation - to them, but it's too much for you. Others might even consider deleting the bit about safe products and levelling the playing field. From their POV you're nothing but a dog-down dawty comyahnast!
Ask people whether they like their bathwater too hot (or too cold). Of course they don't. That doesn't mean everyone agrees on the ideal temperature, or even agrees that there is one.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You said the same things I wanted to say, but better. For once, the "Think of the children" mantra is actually reasonable here, and it might actually help to snap people out of their complacency and make them realize how degrading this latest security theatre is. It's one thing to meekly give up all of our privacy and liberty just because the government asks us to, but even BEYOND that, they are now trying to take away our basic dignity. People need to draw the line somewhere and make the TSA realize, enough is enough.
Imagine you have a teenage daughter. Would you rather: (1) have her be irradiated by a medically-unproven scanning device which will show images of her naked body to the sleazy TSA guys behind the counter, any one of whom might capture that image with his cell phone to wank off to later, or: (2) have her be physically molested by a same-sex TSA employee who will touch her breasts and crotch, in public view in front of other passengers, or (3) have her be physically molested by a same-sex TSA employee who will touch her breasts and crotch, in a private room out of sight?
All three of these are grossly invasive and unacceptable options. Of course they're grossly invasive and unacceptable for adults too, but it might be easier to make people realize this if they happen to be a parent and you can explain it to them in terms of what is going to happen to their child. After thinking this through, I think any decent parent would be quite angry at the TSA.
Elicit any false confessions with it yet? Funny example to use to make a point about "proven" interrogation techniques, as Reid as proven to in fact not work (assuming you goal is to learn the truth, and not just to "break" a suspect).
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
It's a bit more complex than that, and a lot of it has to do with the belief that people will construct institutions using the frameworks available to them.
In the US, we do not have universal healthcare (despite the passage of the "Universal Healthcare" bill, we still do not). There are certain areas, despite that, which do have universal healthcare available. I live in one of the only urban areas in the United States that can be considered nominally conservative, and we have an association of private organizations (charities, doctors, hospitals) that provide healthcare for anyone who is unable to afford it, and do so quite successfully. The largest threat to this association is the government. It is a sustainable model, but once healthcare is nationalized it will no longer be supported. As with other things, people will eventually forget that it is possible, frequently preferable, to control important processes through the local community. If anything happens to the national system, or if there are major disasters in other places which impact it adversely, local communities that could otherwise take care of themselves are adversely affected when they would not otherwise be.
By centralizing things, you create a monoculture which has all the weaknesses of any other monoculture. If there's anything geeks should understand, it is that such monocultures breed nasty weaknesses which can be easily, effectively, and ruthlessly exploited. It's amazing how much the open source movement parallels some of the concepts of libertarianism, and how blind many people are to that fact. It's fine if you want all these government services, but you should be able to pick other platforms for most functions if you so choose. Do you really want complete vendor lock-in for every service you access, or would you like people to be able to innovate and create novel solutions from the ground up?