Slashdot Mirror
TSA Got Everything It Wanted For Christmas
OverTheGeicoE writes "It looks like Congress' recent jabs at TSA were just posturing after all. Last Friday, President Obama signed a spending act passed by both houses of Congress. The act gives TSA a $7.85 billion budget increase for 2012 and includes funding for 12 additional multi-modal Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams and 140 new behavior detection officers. It even includes funding for 250 shiny new body scanners, which was originally cut from the funding bill last May."
damn.
Can we just... start over?
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
...to welcome our new freeway groin-grabbing, tit-feeling overlords.
...same as the old...oh fuck it. I'm starting my own country in Antarctica. This place is burning.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
All of that because one democrat Senator died at the wrong time...
Damn.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
...Not going to education, science, health care, yadda yadda because that would 'cost too much money'
it was Change worth believing in. But your Hope was dashed. Suckas.
$7.85 billion is the budget, not the budget increase.
The TSA didn't receive a $7.85 billion budget increase, according to the article, their total budget is $7.85 billion with an increase of $153 million over the previous year.
Yet more proof that the machine is still churning. Cosm, you taking applications? ;-)
Am I the only one, or does this just sound Orwellian?
I am a horrible flier, I do it when I need to for business but am usually white-knuckled the whole way. Then, when I am there, I seem to not be able to stop thinking about the trip home. I don't need one more thing to deter me from flying...
When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross
I feel safer already
no terrorist has brought an American plane down since 2001
Here we are owing all sorts of money, and now we are giving a whole lot of money that doesn't exist, to a program that has yielded no worth? What's to gain? I've heard all of the bad news about TSA, and all the molesting, and violations that they commit, with no reprocutions. But please, someone explain to me what is it that the Government really benefits from this.
Perhaps a bad comparison, I support owning a firearm. I have family and friends who have use their guns in defense, so I see some benefit, among all the risks. But I do not own a gun, or have one in my home. Why? Because I have never been in a situation that I required a gun.
This is like posting armed guards in my upper middle class neighborhood home!
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
If you actually RTFA the increase is $153 million and the entire budget for the TSA is $7.85 billion.
Of course it still is a huge amount, considering that the TSA is simply a security theater and ALL that money goes to waste. Plus, that money is close to half of the entire NASA budget... Yeah, way to go for ROI!
And all that does not make it right for the summary to be so off, but this is slashdot!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
It also gropes or irradiates.
Personally I'd opt for the groping, embarrassing but safer.
I've got a better idea, how about Congress gives every active user of /. a measly $50,000 or so and we all go buy ourselves a shiny terrorist-repelling rock. It would probably be just as effective.
When did the difference between Democrats and Republicans amount to anything more than a distraction? We have a one-party system, except that the one party happens to be somewhat divide on minor issues like gay marriage and abortion rights. People are easily distracted, which is how these crooks get away with so many abuses of power.
Palm trees and 8
I'm not thrilled with the security checkpoints at airports, but I do understand that an airplane can be turned into a giant guided missile that can take down a skyscraper. It may be that extreme measures are appropriate for security at an airport.
But how does it make sense to send a VIPR team to search people getting on or off a train? How do you justify that? Are they going to drive the train off the tracks and blow up a building?
"Oh maybe someone has a bomb in his luggage." How often do trains get blown up in America? What are the odds here? And even if the security becomes 100% effective on trains, what about bombs set on the train tracks? Searching train luggage seems completely futile to me.
Has a VIPR team ever caught a terrorist or found a bomb, ever?
Remember, we send people to prison for not paying taxes, or maybe take their homes away. Should we really be using tax dollars for VIPR teams?
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
Nice.
If Corzine goes through one, hopefully the TSA can recover MF Globals money.
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
not voting for obama again. so much potential, so little result
That's because of the elephant repellant. Too bad it doesn't work on GOP elephants.
How about take a fraction of that budget and start programs that informs/teaches the public how to spot and handle terrorist/terrorist activities? Seams like the average Joe is doing a pretty good job of this already.
F@ck, I hate our politicians.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
One party fought for public option health care. They fought for increased taxes on those who can afford it, rather than insisting that taxes only ever go down. They fought against the enormous and expensive blunder that was the Iraq war. They fought against allowing unlimited corporate money to influence politics. They fought against torture. They fought against teaching creationism in school. And despite your hand-waving dismissal, they fought for the rights of gays and women, who probably don't view themselves as minor issues. And that's just off the top of my head.
Saying the parties are the same is just the excuse of the lazy, trying to rationalize why they don't bother voting.
It's pretty clear that the primary threat the Think Tanks envision is not shoe wearing, scrotum burning terrorist but rather the US population and what's likely to happen when it becomes obvious to every unemployed dolt that we are in a serious depression, that the chance of a multiple massive riots/race war/civil war starting is high and the sheer volume of military weaponry owned by the average citizen makes it a certainty that it will be bloody, very bloody.
From the nut job militias, (Idaho, Utah and elsewhere) massive illegal immigration, record gun sales and ammunition sales, to the fact that the membership of the 18th street gang in L.A. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_Street_Gang) is more than twice that of the police force, and that's just one gang, it's become clear that we are in serious trouble and it won't take much to set off the powder keg.
I hope I'm wrong about this and it's really just some large corporate contract raping the wallets of the American people again but things are looking grim.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Which is why I beg people to vote for 3rd party candidates. Independent, Green, Libertarian, Constitution, whichever... From your local alderman to the POTUS. Pick someone whose positions reflect your values and beliefs Odds are infinitesimally slim that any of them will be elected, but if you don't support the actions of the two major parties, what difference does it make? I'd bet that if all 3rd party presidential candidates combined received a plurality of the popular vote; that would have a much bigger impact on whichever Republican or Democratic candidate was ultimately elected than either a vote for them or their chief rival.
Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
I have been advocating amonst my associates for my Presidential candidate of choice for the upcoming election.
Among the people standing for election, which candidate do you believe would most likely vetoed this, had he been President instead of Obama:
Romney, Gingrich, Paul, Santorum, Bachmann, Huntsman, or some other candidate?
I keep hearing that they're all the same, but as I hear about all the bullshit that has happened for the past four or more years, there is only one candidate who seems to constantly stand on the side of common sense. I'll let you draw your own conclusions.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
They fought against torture
While failing to fight against the prison-industrial complex, and while fighting for NDAA.
despite your hand-waving dismissal, they fought for the rights of gays and women, who probably don't view themselves as minor issues
Sorry, but gay marriage is a pretty minor issue by comparison with the other problems facing this country. What do you consider to be more important, allowing people to marry members of the same sex, or not being the world leader in imprisoning people? When we stop having law enforcement officers that carry M-16s on a day-to-day basis, maybe gay marriage will move up a notch.
While you were busy cheering for the democrats pulling our troops out of Iraq (after nearly a decade spent in Iraq, and the approval of the democrats for the invasion in the first place), they were busy establishing more surveillance, more law enforcement power, more curtailments of your rights, more hand-outs for large corporations, more union busting policies, more censorship, and more imprisonment -- just like the republicans. It was not a republican president whose drug czar interfered in popular TV show scripts for the purpose of spreading propaganda.
Yeah, I see what you mean about them being different from the republicans. After all, the republicans try appealing to the religious sentiments of middle America, while the democrats only use racial prejudice and fear. Republicans overtly support big business, while the democrats quietly support big business. As someone with liberal leanings, I guess it is clear that I should stop voting third party and start voting for the democrats, right?
Palm trees and 8
Do you really believe what you just wrote? The party you're referring to did nothing of the sort, they were complicit in everything the other party did.
Oh really? I think that what Obama advocated for will lead to crony capitalism, plain and simple. We will be made to turn our money over to health insurance companies, who will direct us to the doctors who will direct us to the pharmaceutical companies, and all of whom will be shaken down for PAC contributions from time to time, just to remind them who is feeding them.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Seriously, during an economic recession (great depression), the aforementioned Bear Patrol gets an increase in funding? Why?!?
I am John Hurt.
"One party" did absolutely none of those things.
I say the parties are the same, and I DO vote. So you'll need to come up with a new, different lie to tell about me.
n/t
What current candidate thinks the TSA should go away? I want to vote for them.
On the Iraq war: Democrats were opposed 126-82, Republicans in favor 215-6. If Democrats had controlled congress, it would never have happened.
On public option healthcare: It was filibustered to death. It had support of 100% of Senate Democrats, but was opposed by 40 Senate Republicans plus Lieberman, who is an independent. One more Democrat in the Senate, and it would have passed.
On torture and the prison-industrial complex: They fought against torture. The fact that they didn't do some other good thing does not erase the good thing that they did do.
On gays and women (and immigrants and Muslims, for that matter): When a large segment of the population is used as a political punching bag and denied basic rights and control over their lives, that IS a big deal. It's not like the government can only do one thing at a time, and we must solve one problem before moving on to another. We can help millions of people right now, but it seems you'd rather let them suffer because you can't get some other things you want first.
On unions: You accuse them of union busting. That's just shocking. They fought for EFCA, but it was filibustered to death by the Republicans. Also I seem to recall some Democrats fighting like hell in Wisconsin to protect the unions, only for the Republican governor to circumvent the law and pass his union busting bill illegally, and then have a Republican state supreme court judge give it the okay.
The Republicans are out to break your spirits. They want you to give up on the Democrats so that they can take power. That's been their goal for years, and it's perfectly clear to anyone paying attention. Stop falling for it.
at $7.85B, that's $25.87 per person in the US per year.
On the other hand, a family of four might pay $180 per year for HBO, which makes about $45 per year per person.
So, really, Security Theater (tm) really is a better deal than HBO.
Check your premises.
Yeah! All we have to do is vote for someone different next time. Someone promoting Hope and Change. Man, it would totally ROCK if someone like that were elected.
As long as a tsa checkpoint is required to board Air Force One. (even for the Persistent)
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
sieg heil !
On the Iraq war: Democrats were opposed 126-82
That does not sound very united to me. Suppose the democrats had a simple majority in congress; if they are 3-2 against the war, what makes you think the measure would not pass? They would need a pretty significant majority in congress for 3/5 of the democrats to prevent us from going to war in Iraq, although maybe my ability to multiply and add fractions is on the fritz.
They fought against torture
So the fact that the Chinese do not even come close to imprisoning as many of their citizens as we do means nothing, because we are nice about imprisoning people. Additionally, the Democrats have only expressed opposition to waterboarding, but not to other forms of torture used in our prison system:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solitary_confinement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_therapy
When a large segment of the population is used as a political punching bag and denied basic rights and control over their lives, that IS a big deal
Gays are not denied their rights anymore, and neither are women (??). The last, very minor right that gays were denied was the right to express who they are attracted to while they are serving in the military -- hardly a big deal issue, and hardly one that justifies voting for democrats. What rights are women currently being denied by the government, and what are your beloved democrats doing about it?
We can help millions of people right now, but it seems you'd rather let them suffer because you can't get some other things you want first.
Gay marriage is a nice concept if you are a romantic, but I am not going to vote for people who support gay marriage while simultaneously supporting the war on drugs, the militarization of the police, the military industrial complex, and the prison industrial complex, when I could vote for someone else. Some issues are minor, and some are not minor, and gay marriage falls squarely in the "minor" category. It is not that it is not something worth addressing, but given the choice between living in a country where gays can marry each other an the police drive around in tanks (see link) and a country where people can only marry members of the opposite sex but the police are not a paramilitary force, I choose the country without gay marriage.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41912754/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/t/why-do-americas-police-need-armored-tank/
Also I seem to recall some Democrats fighting like hell in Wisconsin to protect the unions
Meanwhile, in New York State, Andrew Cuomo pushes hard to break the unions:
...just like his democrat predecessor:
http://nyceducator.com/2011/11/governor-one-percent-discreetly-pulls.html
http://nyceducator.com/2005/12/dear-attorney-general-spitzer.html
Stop falling for it.
I am not the one claiming that gay marriage is important enough to outweigh the support among democrats for the various fascist domestic policies that they have been pushing.
Palm trees and 8
One party fought for public option health care.
Not very hard, and what they passed instead is a bloated taxpayer funding of giant lobbyists (insurance and pharma).
They fought for increased taxes on those who can afford it,
Not very hard, they have one house and the Presidency, and they gave in.
rather than insisting that taxes only ever go down.
Not very hard. In fact, they pushed for some of the tax cuts.
They fought against the enormous and expensive blunder that was the Iraq war.
Not very hard. They signed the paper that gave Bush and the Neocons the authority to do whatever they damned well pleased. Obama even started some new policies, like summary execution of United States citizens.
They fought against allowing unlimited corporate money to influence politics.
Not very hard. They said they were fighting for it, but when Citizens United went through the Supremes, they threw up there hands in surrender.
They fought against torture.
Not very hard. We're still doing it.
They fought against teaching creationism in school.
This is one of the theatrical wedge issues. Notice how, for all the stage presence they demonstrate in the fight, no actual policy changes have happened?
they fought for the rights of gays and women
This is also a theatrical wedge issue. The only slight difference is that public opinion fell heavily on the "change the military policy" side, so one tiny corner of gay policy got changed. Until gays have they same rights as non-gay citizens, they are still not showing true support. How many of them are fully invested in truly equal rights for gays? How's Obama's position on gay marriage? They don't even get the half-a-loaf that is civil partnerships. Has there been a single substantive change in non-military policy regarding gay rights?
That is why we call this political theater. Because all the supposed support amounts to sound and fury signifying nothing.
Gridlock, you say? Hardly! We have made enormous changes in our policies, domestic and foreign. We have signed treaties and created sweeping new laws. We have completely revised our interpretation of the Bill of Rights. We have discarded any notion of respect for the War Powers Resolution.
All the truly significant changes in United States policy, happening at a truly blistering pace, are authoritarianism and expansion of monopolies and barriers to entry (copyright, patents, trademarks, insurance, drugs importation). The dramatic changes are all one of two things; the ability to control dissidents (enemy or patriot, foreign or domestic), and government influencing cashflow into the pockets of major corporations that do a lot of lobbying.
Look at the substantive change. If the substantive change does not match the rhetoric, questions must be raised. Show me substantive change, and I will believe that the rhetoric is more than theater.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
the supercommittee bill mandated every automatic cuts across the board? How is this budget increase even legal?
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
"Security" and "defense" are much more lucrative businesses to be in than education.
Did I just imply that the political elite are driven exclusively by self-interest and are primarlily interested in lining their own wallets, rather than justice and progress? You're god damn right I did.
One party fought for public option health care.
In the House, 100% of the Aye votes for the health care bill that passed were Democrats.
..that maybe in two states total some single politician floated a bill that had zero chance of passing? Really?
If you want to blame the Republicans for something, at least have the fucking decency and intellectual honesty of finding one of the many things that they are actually guilty of. All those back room deals over the health care bill that completely castrated it and sold us all out, that wasn't to get enough Republicans on board, that was to get enough Democrats on board. You shouldnt need a citation since I just gave it.
Then you have the balls to call out the Republicans on the Iraq war when more Republicans voted against that than had voted for that pig of a health care bill you just fucking complained about?
This year they were overwhelmingly in favor of pushing 'In God We Trust' on school children. Thats both Democrats and Republicans.. yet you are going on about how the Democrats were against teaching creationism which wasnt even a matter in front of either House or Senate?
Your problem is that you listen to what the Democrats say, but never bother to pay attention to what they actually do. Your priorities are fucked up. You care about what the media is talking about, rather than what the politicians are passing into law. That makes you the problem.
"His name was James Damore."
But what about flag burning and terrorism!? Ignore all the real issues. Quick, vote Republican!
Obama got in by a lot and it was a clear message that was sent; Obama didn't get that message himself but it was quite clear people wanted a big change with their new outsider of a new color with a vague broad message of change.
The biggest obstructionist move EVER in the history of the nation was the response. Ron Paul wouldn't be any different, he couldn't bend over backwards with compromise and get much of anything or become a moderate; both which Obama did and neither of which actually worked. You are not thinking; Ron Paul would get LESS out of them than Obama did. Then as things got worse, incumbents would be punished but its not likely people supporting him would get in; but those with the money to hire marketing to exploit whatever the trends are will -- the most corrupt ones... as we had in 2011.
The problem is getting enough honest ones in office when the process is so controlled to filter those people out.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
On public option healthcare: It was filibustered to death.
Every time that a filibuster was attempted in 2009, the Democrats always (thats 100% of the time) found 60+ to force a cloture vote.
The Democrats knew in 2009 when they got rid of the public option from the health care bill that they couldn't blame what they were doing on filibusters (since there were *zero* successful filibusters in 2009), which is why they blamed it on "threats of filibusters." Perhaps you should check what even the Democrats were saying, because you just fucking rewrote history.
"His name was James Damore."
If we keep spending all of our money on airline risk mitigation rather than science and education, then none of our children are going to be able to afford to fly.
The article doesn't even mention the delicious cupcake they got in their stocking.
Monstar L
You don't seem to understand how the government works. Of course they passed every cloture vote. They wouldn't have brought the bill up for a vote if they weren't going to win. The Democrats tried for quite some time to get Snowe or Collins or Lieberman on board to break the Republican filibuster. They scaled the public option back repeatedly. First there was the Rockefeller option, in which the public option health care company couldn't use the force of the government to negotiate better rates (so as to ensure a level playing field with the private companies). Then there was the opt out option, followed quickly by the nicely named opt in option. The idea there was to let some states try the public option while other states abstained, but that too was rejected. They made a last ditch effort by proposing to let people as young as 55 buy into Medicare as a sort of makeshift option, but no go. They couldn't get the votes together for anything, because all 40 Republicans plus Lieberman simply refused. Then once Massachusetts elected a Republican senator, they had to just go with what they had at the time, with only minor changes, because the Republicans now had the magic 41 number and had made clear that they would not accept any compromise.
This wasn't that long ago. Either your memory is poor, or you weren't paying enough attention at the time.
When did the difference between Democrats and Republicans amount to anything more than a distraction?
Pretty much up until the moment that elements on both sides of the aisle pulled off the biggest power-grab in human history (Dallas, 1964)...
I was watching when 40 Republicans in the Senate voted against the health care bill. It passed anyways. Which part of this is confusing you? The Democrats got what they wanted. They didnt buy Republican votes with thousands of pages of corruption. They were buying Democrat votes with thousands of pages of corruption.
"His name was James Damore."
From the president who absolved the telcos of wrongdoing.
Factoid: Homeland Security (of which TSA is a part) is now the third largest Federal beuracracy. Not bad growth numbers for a scant 11 years of existence.
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
But both parties are the same.
They both represent capital interests, nothing more.
The state is nothing more than a tool for the ruling class to enforce it's will on a minority.
On the Iraq war vote: Yes, the mixed numbers make it so that they'd need a large majority (~80% if my math is right) to stop the war. Honestly, given how bad Republicans have been for the country, the Dems ought to have that many. Or better still, have the Dems have half of Congress with a new party to their left controlling the other half, so that the American left is no longer to the right of most country's conservatives. But that's a pipe dream. The fact is, the statement that the parties are the same is false.
On torture: I've never said that the amount of prison time handed out in this country is okay. But the claim being discussed is: "The parties are the same." One party actively supports torturing people, the other doesn't. That strikes me as a difference.
On gays and women: Gays in many places can't visit loved ones in the hospital, or adopt children, and only thanks to the Democrats can they serve in the military. Women can have abortions, for now, but the Republicans are curtailing that right at every step of the way, and if a liberal Justice has a heart attack while a Republican is in the White House, that can change in a jiffy. Tell a 16 year old girl who just had her entire life screwed up over one mistake, all because the government is kowtowing to a religious group, that her rights aren't being denied by the government, then get back to me.
On unions: I'm aware of what Cuomo is doing... my dad is an affected union member (and, ironically, a Republican). I don't like it, but what he's doing isn't union busting. He is a tough negotiator with PEF, but there's a world of difference between taking a hardline stance in negotiations and taking away your opponent's right to negotiate at all.
On overall approach to politics: You have strong morals and are fighting for what you want. I get that. I don't like the war on drugs (along with its militarization of the police force) any more than you do. But if you want to see this country get better, you can't keep wasting votes on third parties. Vote for Democrats, primary for liberals, and drag the Overton window back to the left. The reason the conservatives have been able to do so much harm is because they understand that sometimes you need to hold your nose and vote in lockstep.
You're never going to hit that home run to fix the country all at once. You have to learn to play small ball. It took decades to create this mess, and it'll take decades to work our way out.
They were buying Lieberman, who is an independent. They had 59 votes for the public option. He was the lone holdout.
this makes me sad.
where is sue? sue is idle.
and the London subway (tube) bombings probably convinced some other people.
on the other hand, VIPR has expanded to just about everywhere, including sporting events, ports, etc, and has been criticized by congress and by professional police for being a gigantic clusterf***.
my main interest in VIPR is to record the system of human organization, especially those justified by security. i wrote the wikipedia article on it for the same reason i helped organize the articles on the various obscure bureaucratic structures within the Schutzstaffel.
Welcome to the United States of Fascism, where international visitors are guilty until proven innocent and American citizens are guilty the minute they are born.
People are easily distracted, which is how these cooks get away with so many abuses of power.
Fixed that for you.
It's real easy to say that they didn't fight hard enough. But in the end, they need 60 votes to break the Republican filibuster, and they didn't have those votes. What would you have them do?
But in the end, they need 60 votes to break the Republican filibuster, and they didn't have those votes. What would you have them do?
Ummm, not vote in favor of the things they say they oppose? That would be a nice start.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It turned out America was no different than anywhere else.
Us and them citizens being the them.
If you tkink they are going to ever give that up willingly you are a nut job.
People are easily distracted, which is how these cocks get away with so many abuses of power.
There, fixed that for me.
Dude, I met the man - Nixon *was* a socialist http://www.mastersinhealthcare.net/blog/2010/10-prescription-drugs-pulled-from-the-shelves-and-why/
"On the Iraq war: Democrats were opposed 126-82, Republicans in favor 215-6. If Democrats had controlled congress, it would never have happened."
Funny how vocally and vociferously "opposed" the Democrats were when they were running for re-election. Funny how after they won their elections, you barely heard a peep from the Democrats on how "opposed" to the wars they are.
And in practice, after gaining a majority in both houses in Congress and winning the White House the Democrats decided to end the Iraq war a mere 3 years later, not to mention continuing the pointless war in Afghanistan, the longest war in US history, even after getting Bin Laden over in Pakistan.
The only thing the Democrats are really opposed to, is losing an election.
Again, they pull this kind of BS over Christmas...
I know slashdot is mostly liberal (I'm a moderate libertarian), but can't you analyze what you're saying? It's obvious that you hate the republicans so much that you are absolutely unwilling to compromise with any of their positions. Furthermore, you and your compatriots on the far left and the far right are so polarized that I don't want to vote for either side.
Until attitudes like yours change, and more compromises are implemented as was advocated by the person debating with you, nothing will be accomplished. No more of the fear and the hate talk is acceptable from either side. People have gotten free passes for too long. No if's, and's, or buts. Just get it through your head that you need to compromise.
Rubber gloves.
I'd imagine that the TSAs biggest financial expense is rubber gloves. Those things aren't cheap. Sure, when you're buying 2.5 billion pairs a year, the price decreases per unit. You need to have latex free ones as well, I'd imagine they cost more. And then there's the insurance related to the injuries sustained while trying to make an impressive snapping sound as you put them on. Then there's the issue of disposal... after they enter a persons rectum, they are considered medical waste.
**MORE** compromises? Are you serious? One of the reasons the US is in such bad shape now is because the Democrats have compromised every step of the way for 30 frelling years. People say there's no difference between the parties because every time the rightwingnuts propose some new atrocity they compromise yet again, and we end up taking another giant leap to the right. The Dems aren't as infested with batshit loonies like Bachmann, but even the party's official platform is quite a bit to the right of what surveys show the general public wants out of Congress. And you want them to compromise ever FURTHER to the right?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Frankly... if you're being mocked... you're obviously not being ignored. :)
However, you should seriously look at the real issue with modern protests... pretty much anything "Post hippy". Protests can have legitimate, decent looking and well presented people involved with them. But it doesn't take long for the "Causies" to come running. These are pretty much the tea party of causes. They read the head line and haul ass to be part of the protest... they don't know what the protest is really about, but they come running.
Occupy Wall Street was pathetic. I mean really. A bunch or whiny little cry babies who were protesting what was happening on wall street without having the slightest clue about what it was. They were just pointing at the gamblers in expensive suits and saying "It's your fault". The wall street assholes were responding by saying "I didn't hear people complain when we increased the value of their 401Ks by 300%" which in itself was idiotic since if that money were invested in building companies instead of being day traded or high speed traded, then those people would be adding 100% more money themselves, then maybe the investment would only rise by an equal 100% given a 200% yield at the time, but the artificial inflation of the dollar would be dramatically less during the same period of time and that 200% increase would actually yield substantially greater buying power for the 401K holder. Let's also remember that most of those people who are so dependent on their 401K will need to "borrow from it" during their unemployment since their money is being used to gamble instead of secure the health of the companies they work for. The protesters didn't understand any of this... the most vocal ones were the ones who got the Ph.D. in social anthropology, ran up $200,000 at prestigious schools by using loans to live for 8 years instead of working a job and now are pissed that they aren't qualified for anything other than wearing a paper hat at McDonalds... or working as a professor in social anthropology at a lesser university.
Let's be straight about this... if you go to the university and you study something. Before you decide to run up $200,000 in debt in a Ph.D., you should identify whether you can pay back the loan using one of the jobs that are realistically attainable in your chosen field. No one forces a person to run up $200,000 in debt. If you're studying computer science, make sure that what you're studying is applicable to a real job... not some imaginary job that Oracle, Microsoft or IBM are claiming will be hot in 5 years. What's worse is, if you're an engineer, then your job description is always going to be "Find a way to solve a problem using the tools available to you. Then make it happen". So, if you're an engineer who couldn't plan that there would be problems like "I will need to find a job that will pay down my loans" followed by "I have graduated, now I need to find a way to pay my loans". etc... Then you are in fact the shittiest engineer on the planet. You can't even handle the simplest requirement of being an engineer which is "People come to you to find ways to solve problems.".
So, when you see an engineer on wall street talking about how they couldn't figure out a way to solve their own problem... umm... really? Get off your ass and figure it out. You want to know why you don't have a job? It's because you suck at what it is you're supposed to do.
Modern protesters are a joke. What's worse is that protesters don't generally understand the first thing about politics. The fact is, if everyone who participated in occupy wall street would have each chipped in $10 and then collectively used that money to hire a few lobbyists to go straight to the politicians... far more would have been accomplished.
Protests have their place. But the fact is... raising $10 from each person opposed to the TSA and running a real campaign with lobbying and campaign contributions to politicians willing to make the change desired would be so much more effective than any form of protesting. It is impossible in modern times to run a protest without the freaks showing up and ruining all your credibility and making you look like a laughing stock.
Fool
Are they supposed to be watching US or the TSA thugs?
they fought for the rights of gays and women
This is also a theatrical wedge issue. The only slight difference is that public opinion fell heavily on the "change the military policy" side, so one tiny corner of gay policy got changed. Until gays have they same rights as non-gay citizens, they are still not showing true support. How many of them are fully invested in truly equal rights for gays? How's Obama's position on gay marriage? They don't even get the half-a-loaf that is civil partnerships. Has there been a single substantive change in non-military policy regarding gay rights?
Yes:
- Presidential Memorandum extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees. Source
- Presidential Memorandum protecting gay and lesbian partners’ visitation/healthcare decision-making rights. Source
- Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act to include gender, sexual orientation and disability. Source
There's your substantive change.
Saying the parties are the same is just the excuse of the lazy, trying to rationalize why they don't bother voting.
No. That's the actual truth and reality. Both parties are controlled by the same masters. Believing anything else is self-delusion and ignorance, thanks to your apparently unquestioning belief in government propaganda. It's hardly your fault--you've been immersed in it since the day you were born. The "system" we live in has been a work in progress for over a hundred years. It's not a design so much as an emergent phenomena, but regardless of the cause of perpetrators, it's here....but it's not here to stay for much longer.
On the Iraq war: Democrats were opposed 126-82, Republicans in favor 215-6. If Democrats had controlled congress, it would never have happened.
Which is exactly why they voted against it--because it was a REPUBLICAN thing. And yet, just a few years later and BOTH parties are agitating for a war in Iran. Which will be our undoing, because we're about to start World War mother fucking Three.
On public option healthcare: It was filibustered to death. It had support of 100% of Senate Democrats, but was opposed by 40 Senate Republicans plus Lieberman, who is an independent. One more Democrat in the Senate, and it would have passed.
Great! Then it would have been just as big of a boondoggle as the current clusterfuck, except even worse because the government would have a monopoly on healthcare. NOT exactly utopia you're dreaming of here.
On torture and the prison-industrial complex: They fought against torture. The fact that they didn't do some other good thing does not erase the good thing that they did do.
Oh, well how about Obama ordering the summary execution of an American citizen, with no trial or jury, who wasn't even accused of any crime, for no reason other than we don't like him? Would that cound as a "bad thing" the "Democrats did" in your worldview?
On gays and women (and immigrants and Muslims, for that matter): When a large segment of the population is used as a political punching bag and denied basic rights and control over their lives, that IS a big deal.
You're right--it IS a big deal. Unfortunately, there's SO many other really, really BIG deals going on right now, like the potential entry of our country into World War 3, the failed economy (which, NO, isn't "showing life" despite media propaganda to the contrary), the rapid and growing encroachment upon and outright usurpation of our rights--the list goes on, and on, and on. As much as I sympathize for gay/lesbian folks and agree they should have equal rights, that's NOT the top item on our agenda right now.
It's not like the government can only do one thing at a time, and we must solve one problem before moving on to another. We can help millions of people right now, but it seems you'd rather let them suffer because you can't get some other things you want first.
You think if we just elect the Democrats in a landslide they will solve all our problems? How naive are you?
On unions: You accuse them of union busting. That's just shocking. They fought for EFCA, but it was filibustered to death by the Republicans. Also I seem to recall some Democrats fighting like hell in Wisconsin to protect the unions, only for the Republican governor to circumvent the law and pass his union busting bill illegally, and then have a Republican state supreme court judge give it the okay.
Yes, his statement DOES seem a bit wrong, and you rightly pointed it out. Did you ever stop to consider that the REASON his statement is wrong is because the whole Republican/Democrat divide isn't really a divide at all? These labels and mud slinging tactics are designed specifically to keep the masses occupied with fighting each other over bullshit while the real people in power pass law after law taking our rights away one by one, and removing any and all obstacles to their domination of this country. NDAA is just the latest and most visible (and by far, the worst) part of this.
At the bottom level of politics, all these people taking up the mantra of Democrat or Republican, liberal, conservative, whatever, and fighting against other groups, all they're doing is wasting their energy and effort while their masters laugh all the way to the Federal Reserve, then straight to a private jet to retire in Dubai.
The Republicans are out to break your spirits. They want you to give up on the Democrats so that they can take power. That's been their goal for years, and it's perfectly clear to anyone paying attention. Stop falling for it.
You are in bad need of a reality check and wake up call.
The TSA has gone far enough. We need about 1,000-10,000 protestors to "show up" at a major US airport and block access to the TSA security lines. It will get broken up by police of course, but it needs to happen again and again at different airports. When they switch things up to prevent non-tickets passengers from getting in, then barricade the airport roads. It is time to rise up and put an end to this nonsense.
And yes, this will disrupt travel plans for many. Maybe if they stood up for themselves in the first place we wouldn't have to be so drastic now. Our political system is broken, there is no other way.
You're oversimplifying the matter by assuming that one vote made the difference. One senator can influence more than just his or her own vote - that is what the debate process is for. However, when no liberal senators are left who are given any credibility in senate debate, that opportunity is lost.
A true liberal - or even a true non-conservative - senator may have been able to influence others to voting against the patriot extension. Instead that voice was not heard.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Ron Paul is already in Congress. They ignore him; as they most certainly would ignore President Ron Paul.
Sieg Heil!
I've always been very puzzled by the hysteria over gay marriage. Gay marriage is a practically meaningless issue. The reason is that marriage is practically meaningless. That's just the reality of modern family law.
Sure, there may be a lot of symbolism still attached to marriage, but that only concerns private citizens, not the government.
They can now build these enormous, high tech bomb shelters. It was a great episode. But the company that built them says that they cannot tell you who is buying them. They are built in secrecy. With hidden entrances.
They did say business has never been better.
I dont think people who are building bomb shelters today (or corporate officers mis-directing corporate monies) are worried about the Ruskies dropping the big one. They are worried about the zombie Apocalypse (ie, whats going to happen when all the zombies in America go nuts)
I have taken a vow to never fly on a commercial airline again in my life. If a dedicated terrorist wants to defeat the present security system it can be done. In the meantime, the ordinary citizen is treated to long lines and the traditional scan of the shoes (thank goodness that bomber didn't stick the explosives up his ass!). And guess what? We aren't actually any more safe than we were before. Eight billion dollars? Really?
One party fought for public option health care. They fought for increased taxes on those who can afford it, rather than insisting that taxes only ever go down. They fought against the enormous and expensive blunder that was the Iraq war. They fought against allowing unlimited corporate money to influence politics. They fought against torture. They fought against teaching creationism in school. And despite your hand-waving dismissal, they fought for the rights of gays and women, who probably don't view themselves as minor issues. And that's just off the top of my head.
Saying the parties are the same is just the excuse of the lazy, trying to rationalize why they don't bother voting.
And which party was that? I remember hearing about those issues in the news, but I don't remember the Democrats actually fighting for them. Was a Public Option ever really considered? I seem to remember Obama making promises in private that the Public Option was a no go. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html
On the Iraq war, yeah a few Dems made some noises about it, but most turned around and voted for it anyway. http://articles.cnn.com/2002-10-11/politics/iraq.us_1_biological-weapons-weapons-inspectors-iraq?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS But we still torture, and still have black sites. It's just not reported on because it is done secretly by the intelligence agencies. I can't prove it because it is all classified, but it stands to reason. Besides, Obama now claims the right to declare anyone a Terrorist and have them killed. I mean really....
I will agree that they fight for the rights of gays and women, and for that I applaud them. Though having the right to serve in the armed forces is a dubious reward in my opinion. Enabling them to marry is good though.
The issue is that so much of this is smoke and mirrors. The Dems make much nicer noises than the Rebups. But at the end of the day, if you go look at how they vote, they often don't live up to the rhetoric. And I must point out, they make a lot more noise when the Republicans are in power than when they're not. On the issues important to me (a more peaceful foreign policy, civil rights, the income gap and shrinking middle class, government and corporate corruption) I don't see a huge difference between the parties. They both chase the same money after all. And BTW, I vote. Just not for R or D.
Ah, yes, Lieberman.
Fuck that guy.
Upon further research, I see that most Dems did not turn around and vote for the Iraq War resolution. I stand corrected, and I applaud their resistance.
I would have them make the Republicans actually filibuster. As I understand it, nowadays when one want to filibuster, they just say, "I intend to filibuster." and it's on. No one (apart from Bernie Sanders) actually stands up, refuses to yield his time and reads the phone book into the Congressional record. That's why I have a cynical laugh every time I hear about 60 votes being required to pass anything. It's bullshit. That's only the case because of filibusters, and those only happen so often because they are so easy to do.
Lieberman just didnt get his parties nomination in 2006. It isnt that Lieberman isnt a liberal, or isn't a Democrat, its just that he wasn't enough of a puppet for the Connecticut Democrat officials.
I live in Connecticut. You have no idea. He caucuses with the Senate Democrats, and is officially an "Independent Democrat" per congressional enrollment records.
In a state where both Republicans-turned-independents and Democrats-turned-independents have historically done very well on state matters, this turned out to not be a surprise. Connecticut liberals elected him as the real ("unofficial") Democrat candidate, throwing a big middle finger to the establishment that wanted a new toy instead.
As far as Lieberman being against the public option, that couldnt possibly have anything to do with Hartford being the home of most of the largest insurance companies in the world... right? It has to do with him being Independent.. right? You make me laugh.
Connecticut folk are liberal, but not loyal to the string pulling that goes on from Massachusetts Democrats trying to control out state with puppets.
"His name was James Damore."
I followed Ron Paul before he was popular. I know Paul-tards and they say the same thing. Funny but that is not far from what the Obama fans were telling me back in 2008...
The rigged primary races against Paul in 2008 and they will pull the same dirty tricks again and MAYBE it'll get some attention this time. There also wasn't a big fuss made about the debates Paul was barred from in the 2008 primary race when his numbers were higher than Rudy Giuliani. I occasionally that new reality-TV show called "The GOP primary debates" and have noticed how little airtime Paul gets (but its better than nothing.)
You can't be a leader by veto. That is, assuming he would get in against the whole system's onslaught. Obama would clobber Ron Paul anyhow; the big money and their media won't back Paul.
The break from reality the fans have is always the same... Its not a dictatorship UNLESS they go with the power elites; like Bush did, but as soon as they step out of line or go against the flow all that power that seemed to be there is gone. One could see this as Obama was being put into his place the 1st couple years.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
First... you're bitching like a whiner baby when you phrase it that way.
Oddly, you have it right that I bitched about your generation and my generation was the same for the most part. What you failed to miss is that you were obviously not someone who was being targeted.
You're an engineer... you solved the problem by getting off your ass, moving and finding a solution to a problem using the tools you had available to you. You recognized you had another skill that was marketable in another field while you improved your living situation and went looking for a job knowing you could always fall back on what you have. As a result, you sold yourself into a company that will make it so you will no longer be entry level when you next look for a job. I don't know about you... but until you got all defensive, you were not the asshole I was complaining about.
As to being debt free in 5 years after graduating... let me just say this... if you spent one extra year in school to lighten your course load and worked help desk at Dell or some other company where you could do your homework when the phone wasn't ringing, you'd half less than half the student debt you have now. That's what responsible people who plan do. Responsible people don't willingly accept loans like the one you did... am I calling the majority of people going to the university irresponsible? Absolutely... just because everyone does it, it doesn't make ti right. Just like I think that many of the people being foreclosed on did it to themselves. If you make $20,000 a year and you buy a house that costs $200,000, you're an idiot. If you take out $100,000 in student loans, you're an idiot. If you started school in 2004 and ran up $100,000 in debt right after the market collapsed in 2000 thinking that the market was going to be SOOOO good when you came out of school and that the wall street assholes who caused the Dot Bomb all of a sudden would grow up and be smart... you are a moron!!! Planning to pay off a student loan in 5 years is idiotic. Grave yard shift at companies like Xerox where you spend most of your time playing with paper airplanes pays like $18 an hour to "Be the tech support department". You could have worked 4 days a week and paid for your entire university education and left with no debt and a hell of a nice resume.
And I personally moved to Norway as well. So, I know all about relocating. I have now settled down here too... but as an American I still bitch like one. As a New Yorker, I bitch louder than most. I won't be worrying about social security as I sure as hell hope you won't either. Because if you're as good at solving problems when you're older as you are now without even knowing it, then you'll plan ahead like I have. I don't consider social security to be something I depend on. It's gravy. I fill my pillow cases with money and I do things like pay down a nearly 7 digit mortgage and most importantly, I teach my children how to plan ahead and not depend on governments. If all goes to shit and my pillow cases burn, I'll live in their basement and even if I'm 70, I'll break out a computer and start hacking and make something to sell. I personally only work so that someone else will pay me to do something I'd be doing otherwise for free.
What kind of a moron wait until they graduate to find a job? You'd think you'd have that lined up nearly a year before hand.
:) Just so you know... most of my generation is still paying off their student loans 20 years later. It must be nice to have lived in a such a perfect dream world for so long
Also.... even lamer... you were willing to move to Japan to teach English as opposed to for example looking at the endless list of jobs of civil engineers making $80k or better in countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France or even $60k a year doing the same in China... where'd you'd actually take home more.
I guess it's hard to find these jobs... after all with this new Internet thingy, typing monster.no, monster.se, monster.fr, monster.dk, monster.de could be tricky.
So... while in my earlier message I credited you for solving a problem, I'm really believing at the moment that your lack of ability to find a job might be more about you than anything else.
Pay off a huge student loan in 5 years during a period famously known as a recession bordering on a depression. I'm loving this
1. Replace all backscatter X-ray machines with millimeter wave scanners; the kind that aren't linked to cancer.
2. Make sure all scanner machines use the updated software which only shows a generic human form rather than your pseudo-naked body.
3. Only used pat-downs on people that set off scanner alarms first.
4. Let people keep their shoes on.
Wouldn't this take care of about 98% of complaints people have with the TSA? Could we at that point accept that the TSA really is just an attempt to provide security, and not to psychologically mindfuck the populace?
I just found the box to change my sig. Um.... [timeless witticism].