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!
...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
...Not going to education, science, health care, yadda yadda because that would 'cost too much money'
I thought Barack Obama was a democrat.
dumber people are doing harder things everyday
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
FTA:
up $153 million from 2011
So, they did get an increase.....it was merely obscene instead of absolutely ridiculous.
"Lame" - Galaxar
Well, their budget is larger than that of the National Science Foundation. If that is not obscene, I do not know what is.
I'd get more benefit from, and prefer, to pay them to do nothing.
But is that because of or in spite of the TSA?
When Napolitano said "the system worked" with regards to the underpants bomber... she was right... but not why she thinks.
Just as with the shoe bomber, both attacks were thwarted not by the TSA, not by attentive passengers... but because of limited options on the part of the terrorist.
In the old days, a terrorist would smuggle on to the plane almost anything as there was virtually no security. Whether it be DB Cooper or Pan Am Flight 103 the sky was the limit.
Know what happened? We started looking for such things. All of the sudden getting a traditional bomb, gun or knife onto the plane got a lot harder... so the bad guys would have to find other means. The problem though (as evidenced by both the shoe and underpants bomber) is that some of their alternatives are not as effective as they’d like... leading to an increased chance of failure.
Don’t get me wrong... the majority of what we face at the airport today is security theater... one upshot of which is we have (theoretically) increased the chances of finding a bomb/knife/gun carrier... forcing them to try to find more difficult ways.
Body scanners are not the answer... profiling and behavioral analysis is.
It’s no wonder El Al hasn’t been hijacked in in 40+ years. They take security seriously and don’t dink around with nonsense like forcing people to take off their shoes or (likely unhealthy) body scanners.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
This has not been true since Sept. 11, 2001 when people decided that letting a terrorist hijack a plane was no longer a good idea. Of course, the measures taken do precisely shit for security.
Because everything is justified by the "War on Terror" even if no logic or data exists otherwise.
Nope, and they never will.
But you can bet your ass that some contractors and equipment vendors will make a lot of money off of this. And I suspect, like Chertoff, it wouldn't be hard to trace the contracts that are inevitably issued back to the senators who support this garbage.
Flying is dangerous!!!
... because you have to ride in a car to get to the airport, you probably walked up or down stairs (and/or escalators), and you probably took a shower or a bath before you left. Those all are quite a bit more risky then flying.
Other then that, the real risk is the 100% risk that the government will stomp all over your personal property rights, privacy rights, and any possible right to dignity,
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."
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
You know, there was a candidate who wanted to end the wars. Close Gitmo & the TSA. Who felt the government shouldn't have any role in marriage.
That candidate does happen to be running in this election. And may in fact place 1st or 2nd in our first state election.
Just saying...
(And no, I don't agree with all his policies. But dammit, I so wish him upon Congress. Congress so deserves Ron Paul.)
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.
Yeah, the TSA proved that they stopped the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber - oh wait, that was sheer luck, ineptness of the attackers and quick action by other passengers. Either way your point is completely invalid because these people made it past checkpoints both inside and outside the US.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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
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 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.
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