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'
$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.
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
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
No, But only because the other passengers beat them down, while they tried to light their shoe or underwear.
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
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
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.
It doesn't really matter what the President thinks. One of the nice things about the USA is the separation of powers and its natural checks and balances against any one part of government having too much power.
This is what bothers me so much about the ONE candidate who would opposed such expansion of the TSA: Ron Paul. He seems to think he can just abolish agencies and not spend money that the Law says he must spend. He doesn't have the vaguest understanding about how our government works, and, though I am sure he can recite the Constitution verbatim from memory, he is oblivious to the 200 years of case law that is, regardless of how anyone may feel about it, the law of the land.
The fact is that many of the agencies Ron Paul says he would abolish, he CAN'T abolish, because the Law says they must exist, are funded, and that the executive branch must spend so much money on them. The President can't just change the law with the stroke of a pen, and for Paul to abolish an agency established by an Act of Congress and signed into Law, would be a violation of separation of powers, and of the Law.
no terrorist has brought an American plane down since 2001
That has nothing to do with the TSA and everything to do with the paradigm changing. Cockpit doors are now locked and if you did get up to something the passengers would beat you to death with the drinks cart.
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.)
What current candidate thinks the TSA should go away? I want to vote for them.
You are most definitely correct that the President cannot reduce funding by fiat. It does say here that the President gave his assent to a spending bill that appropriated this money to the TSA.
The President does wield considerable power over the legislatiave process by virtue of his possession of the power of veto. I believe that even though a new President wouldn't be able to change everything right away, he could put considerable pressure on Congress to move in a certain direction by using the veto and the bully pulpit. Consider that if it became apparent that Americans have chosen a new direction by electing, say, Ron Paul, Congress-critters would receive a clear message that if they did not co-operate with the new President, they might be replaced with someone who will.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
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.
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
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
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."
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
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."
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.
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.
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
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.