Slashdot Mirror
Rand Paul Has a Quick Fix For TSA: Pull the Plug
suraj.sun quotes from Politico:
"Rand Paul has a reform plan for the Transportation Security Administration: Scrap the whole thing. A personal message from Paul (R-Ky.) came atop emails this week from the Campaign for Liberty Vice President Matt Hawes, asking for readers to sign a petition in support of Paul's 'End the TSA' bill. A Paul spokeswoman said that legislation is being finalized next week. 'Every inch of our person has become fair game for government thugs posing as "security" as we travel around the country. Senator Rand Paul has a plan to do away with the TSA for good, but he needs our help,' reads the petition, which also asks signers to 'chip in a contribution to help C4L mobilize liberty activists across America to turn the heat up on Congress and end the TSA's abuse of our rights.' 'The American people shouldn't be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane. As you may have heard, I have some personal experience with this, and I've vowed to lead the charge to fight back,' Paul wrote at the top of a C4L fundraising pitch, according to blogs that received the email. 'Campaign for Liberty is leading the fight to pressure Congress to act now and restore our liberty. It's time to END the TSA and get the government's hands back to only stealing our wallets instead of groping toddlers and grandmothers.'"
Sign me up. This security theater has got to stop.
...gets it right twice a day.
I would love to.
But if anyone besides a small following was listening to Ron Paul, US might have repealed PATRIOT act and even bombed fewer countries with drones.
Can we get a non-extremist pol who thinks TSA is a bad idea and has the power to do something about it?
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Finally, a Republican I can get behind. Well, for one thing at least.
Since all the submitter could be bothered to do was pump up Politico page views, here's the link to the > petition> .
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I presume his bill will have a rider that ends the rest of the federal government also.
It's a sad day indeed when common sense is considered "extreme".
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The government only has the powers given to it by the People of this land. If I can not touch your breast or crotch, neither can the government.
BTW there's already a law that allows airports to remove TSA from their buildings. So far I've only heard of one airport that considered evicting them. (And the government responded by saying that airport would be removed as a travel destination, if it followed through.)
Government is not eloquence or reason: It is force and intimidation. See the medical marijuana users who, even though they followed California law, were arrested anyway by U.S. police violating the 9th and 10th amendments.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Like a lot journalists and other malcontents
Unfortunately, the political mainstream in America does not give two hoots about civil rights, except when it comes to protecting the rights of corporations and wealthy Americans. We have gotten the point where the bill of rights is "extremist."
Palm trees and 8
So, is he suggesting we go back to the way it was? Private companies that had different policies throughout the country? Or is Xe or some security contractor going to re-hire all of these gate screeners and then charge the government or airlines twice as much?
The TSA isn't the problem with the governments finances. And they have done a great job in the past 11 years.
He should be for pushing the cost onto airline tickets or setting up the TSA like the USPS.
Bear in mind that the Campaign for Liberty is about a lot more than opposing the TSA, some of which some people may not find all that palatable (e.g. free market fundamentalism, scrapping the Federal Reserve, dismantling most of the federal government, withdrawing from most international organizations).
I think you missed the point.
If I set up an organization to grope people in libraries people have the option not to use the library, but that doesn't make my groping legal.
Too bad we don't have any real conservatives in the GOP anymore. Real conservatives keep the liberals honest.
Under the bush administration Homeland security was created, Literally the largest and most expensive Government bureaucracy ever created. Literally the biggest of the big government created by people that scream they're all about small government in the same breath.
Learn to read -- this is not by Ron Paul.
What does that have to do with anything? If something is broke, it's broke. Scrap it.
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/highway/index.shtm
The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car
Yet.
When everything is corrupted, the only solution is the hammer.
^ Didn't read entry.
From TFA: "...Paul is working on “multiple” TSA bills, including one to privatize the service..."
Which does not quite sound like pulling the plug, but switching outlets. This is more in line with my understanding of his general ideology.
The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car, and for that matter they don't have jurisdiction over you when you are using a private airport.
Yet. (Though remember their parent DHS claims jurisdiction and the right to search anyone freely at any point within 100 miles of the US border, which covers 90ish percent of the population, if I recall right.)
So then, what is your response to the TSA "Tiger Teams" setting up roadblocks and checkpoints on the highways then?
that air travel is a privilege, not a right
Oh, that is why we bailed out the airlines a few years back? You know, to ensure that people have the "privilege?"
The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car
You do realize that the reason they cannot just demand that you open your car for an inspection is the same fourth amendment that should make nude scans and pat-downs unconstitutional, right? Your rights are not supposed to disappear just because you are in an airport.
Palm trees and 8
The Pauls have a quick fix for everything, and it's usually some form of "pull the plug".
Ron Paul 2012: because quick fixes haven't screwed up the world enough already.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-invades-roads-highways-with-vipr-checkpoints.html
timeo Danaos, et dona ferentis
Actually.. yes they do have jurisdiction over you on the "public roadways." Google TSA VIPR. Its basically the most Orwellian government agency imaginable.
What about the tsa vipr program?
Some people seem to forget that the federal government does not have the authority to search citizens without probable cause. However, private corporations can refuse to service those who do not consent to a search and be subject to civil and criminal claims for abuse.
How do we "opt-out" of the TSA VIPR teams?
Well... for politicians. The problem they have is that if another terrorist attack gets through they don't want to be held accountable for it. So the TSA was created and the security was made as annoying as possible without actually making it so annoying that the TSA is scrapped. It's a balancing act.
Anyway, if there is another attack they can point at the TSA and say " do you want it to be any more annoying then that?!" And if they've made it annoying enough everyone will agree it is almost unbearably annoying.
So they'll say "well, you chose not to make it any more annoying so that's on the American people and not your entirely blameless elected official."
And thus they can't be held accountable for anything that could go wrong.
If you scrap the TSA and there is another attack, they'll get blamed for it. That's not acceptable.
If they put in a better system that isn't annoying but is much more effective and there is an attack they could still get blamed even if they gave us a really good system. Why? Because unless it's really annoying someone somewhere will blame the system.
So here we are... and in a lot of ways it's all our faults.
I'm personally going through the pat down process every single time I travel. If more people were like me, the TSA would have disbanded about ten seconds after it stopped because logistically they can't pat everyone down.
Many people have messaged me in the past on this very site to tell me that they shouldn't have to go through that process and so they go through the scanner instead. That's fine. You're making it easy for them and it is because of people like you that the TSA gets away with it.
If you don't like the TSA then get a pat down or stfu.
Ron Paul can't do anything about it. The man has no power. He has one isolated seat in congress. Who votes with him in a block? No one. He's all by himself out there. So whatever you think of his politics, he's not really an effective response to anything. He won't be president and he's isn't even a relevant force in the house.
If you care about the TSA's abuse of the common traveler... never walk through the scanner. Always take the pat down alternative. If enough of us do it. We win.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Although ending the TSA is an admirable goal, please do not send money to this group.
This group also has goals / ideas which are not as logical as the removal of the TSA.
Push your own congress critter to move forward on this, and work on legal petitions, not these fake online ones.
There's a saying that everybody has a plan that is simple, easy, and wrong.
Nearly everybody thinks that at least some kind of security measures are necessary for airplanes. Israel's security system is highly regarded, for example, and many people think we should switch to that. Maybe we should, but it's still going to be "The Agency that handles Security for Transportation" implementing it. You can shuffle the deck chairs and rearrange the acronyms, but it's still going to fall to the government to handle security on a national-scale operation like airplanes.
"End the TSA" has a nice populist ring, and Paul gets to glom onto it, knowing that there's absolutely zero danger of actually passing it. You don't get to just end the TSA; you replace it with something else. Pretending it's what you want is either political showmanship, counting on everybody else to find political cover for when they ignore your bill (which is never getting out of committee), or it's complete and utter ignorance of how government works.
For most politicians, I'd say it's the former. In Rand Paul's case, it could be either.
That is a stupid and ridiculous statement. This is the 21st century, and air travel is the most common form of transportation for nearly all people is by air, to exercise their constitutional right to petition the government. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that horse and buggy is still an option is simply stupid. The government must change with the times, and these times predominantly use air travel.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
If you don't like the TSA, you can travel a different way
Sure, as long as you also don't want to travel by car or train or subways or ferries
I guess that still leaves by foot (as long as you don't go in a subway tunnel) and maybe horse. I guess we really shouldn't complain.
"Think of the children" being used to restore liberties? What is going on here?
True, it's RAND Paul, but he seems to be following in his father's footsteps - do something dramatic, but totally unfeasible (shut down the TSA).
Now, if he had just suggested that we take all the TSA staff and make them dress up like actors in 'Pirates of the Penzance' or something, then we could have some real Security Theater. I could fly with that....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car.."
"You are welcomed to opt not to travel by air."
Or train, bus, or car.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/20/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220
http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/highway/index.shtm
http://autos.aol.com/article/tsa-screening-drivers-in-tennessee/
The legislators probably "don't care" about risk to human life, but airplanes are very expensive, thus security checks are here to stay.
They would just be recommitting their dedication to stupidity. I'd take Romney over Paul any day and I am about as far left as you can get (with out swinging back around again to libertarianism...).
Can we get a non-extremist pol who thinks TSA is a bad idea and has the power to do something about it?
No. Next question.
Seriously, the TSA is going to have to do something horrendous to get reformed. (I mean like killing babies horrendous, not their usual baseline horrendous) Otherwise any politician who tries to change it will be accused of coddling terrorists. Sad but that's the political reality we live in.
The TSA absolutely has jurisdiction over you in a private car, and are already setting up checkpoints along highways.
You are welcomed to drive your private car on your network of private roads that you will build yourself.
Oh, and freedom of travel is absolutely a right.
Actually, the TSA considers its jurisdiction to include freight rail, highway and motor carrier, port and intermodal, mass transit, pipeline security, air cargo, commercial aviation and general aviation. This comes straight from their website. Indeed, they've already started sweeps at train/subway stations and ferry terminals. When a service becomes ubiquitous and a part of normal, productive life, fair access becomes more than a privilege. This is especially so when the services involved are gradually becoming all-inclusive. Ultimately, we decide what is privilege and what is right based on how we'd like society to run. Laws are passed by officials that we elect and we can even amend the constitution if we agree on powers to be limited or extended beyond the present status.
>>>privilege
Not according to the Supreme Court which has, in more cases than I can list here, asserted time and time again that freedom to travel is ONLY restricted when crossing an international border (and then you can be subject to a warrantless search).
People have always had a Right to travel, whether it is by foot, wheeled vehicle, horse, ship, or plane. Just as you have a right granted by nature to open your mouth and speak. It is YOUR body and you may use that body however you desire (except not to harm others). Including thinking, speaking, eating, working, or traveling.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
They searched my back once they saw it on the radar. Poor dude manning the XRays when my bag went through couldn't figure it out, and the chick who searched my bag was like "Ohhhhh!" once she realized what it was. She still had to wipe it down with something (for what, I don't know) and after they reran my bag, they seemed rather embarrassed about the whole thing.
Occasionally living proof of the Ballmer peak.
I signed the petition (once I FOUND it, thanks Slashdot for not actually linking to the thing). I was then immediately hit with a "GIVE MONEYS PL0X" page. It really didn't feel right.
If I do give moneys, I'll also be supporting the campaign to repeal Obamacare (the petition for which I am intentionally not linking to), so no thanks.
How am I supposed to know which one of the two buckets I fall into when I start agreeing with Republicans?
This two party system is so confusing sometimes.
Every inch of our person has become fair games for government thugs
"thugs" might be a little far, but there is at this point pretty much no point they are not allowed to inspect. Remember these guys are not even real law enforcement.
I would even argue that at this point "thugs" is not that far off the mark; I was made to wait at a security checkpoint as punishment for forgetting a water bottle held in plain sight on the outside of a laptop bag. Instead of them just saying "I have to throw this out" which I've had happen before and am OK with, they held my bag until they found some other winner in the "forgot I had water" sweepstakes, then we had to wait until an officer came over to snarkily ask us if we understood that we were not allowed to carry water through security, where merrily forgetting was not good enough an answer. Basically to him we were three year olds.
It's true that not ALL of them are thugs, I've met a lot of nice TSA people as well. But the structure in which they operate is one build to enable and protect true thuggery and that is why his statement is not as far off the mark as you would think.
It's much less vitriolic than it is accurate.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just don't travel! You seem to forget that travel is a privilege not a right. You can choose just to stay safely ensconced in your home. Have no fear about that little loss of liberty, in exchange we give you some safety.
I would fly more if I were being checked by pirates! And the acting might just make the lines so much more bearable!
A good fake accent would be awesome, too...
Arr, me hearties! Whar be yer pahssport and barding pahss?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Why is it unfeasible? We got on just fine without TSA for quite a few years.
Why exactly is it unfeasible? The TSA didn't even exist 15 years ago. And last I checked, airports and airlines were running just fine in the 90s.
It's kind of like the arguments I hear FOR the Department of Education. They pretend like shutting down the Department of Education is the equivalent of shutting down every school in the country. The reality is that the Department of Education doesn't run any schools, and they don't employ any teachers. All shutting it down would do is put a bunch of bureaucrats on the unemployment line.
High speed rail will get you to your destination faster than by air, curb to curb, up to about 400 miles. (Even bicycles are occasionally faster than flying.) And to date, no terrorist has ever steered a train into a building, so unless you're going through the tunnel under the English Channel, there will always be less groping to board a train than an airliner.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car...
How long do you think we'f have to wait until you have to qualify the statement above by "unless you are driving on a public road" -- after all, driving is "a privilege" as well, and TSA is not just A(viation)SA -- they have been operating on train stations, public transport, etc.
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/tsnm/highway/index.shtm
Also, google for VIPR teams, then come back to us, and, please, tell us how many other things are "just a privilege"...
Paul B.
fuck you you ignorant mother fucker
C4L? light version? no wonder Rand Paul wants the TSA out of his pants... .
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Other methods of transport don't require a two hour line and an anal probe to use. Hijacking: yeah a problem but eventually they'll run out of fuel and have to land. Suicidal idiots: like an idiot couldn't switch to a restaurant or train instead.
Metal/exploisive detectors and no carry-ons might be a solution: you can scan cargo much more thoroughly and since people aren't carrying stuff all they can carry for weapons is what they can hoop. I say terrorists need all the hooping the can get in preparation for Gitmo.
The Paul family has made the American public ponder deeper about certain topics than they normally would. I have to give them some kudos.
Ron's comment about foreign policy versus the golden rule during the GOP debates was a key moment in political history. It put the Neocons' philosophy up to the public X-ray machine.
I applaud them for making America think; something that is hard to do.
Table-ized A.I.
...is still an insult.
It's partisan hate-mongers like you that will forever doom any real reform in this country. Thanks.
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Like.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Travel by Y is a right
Which ones go where? Foot horse private horse drawn carriage company owned horse drawn carriage (stagecoach) train privately owned vessel ship bicycle privately owned automobile company owned automobile (limo/bus) privately owned aircraft company owned aircraft
The constitution is silent on specific modes of travel. I take that to mean that all modes of travel belong in Y.
You seem to be confusing "the right thing to do" with drama and "easily accomplished" with unfeasible. For a hint of what the U.S. can do see: every major war of the 19th and 20th century for which we were ill prepared but still victorious, putting a man on the moon in a decade, creating the abomination that is the TSA, etc., etc. "Unfeasible" is just an excuse for not getting things done that need doing.
And for people who can see things in terms that are not just black and white (or blue and red), Rand and Ron Paul are distinct people and politicians.
The real solution is to have 2 planes. 1 plane that allows anyone on board the way it use to be. The 2nd plane to have people that went though security. After a few months we would know what the really people want.
If there's one thing I've learned from programming, it's that quick fixes are always the best. Why bother trying to understand the details of a problem when you can just band-aid over it?
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Then do we just allow anyone and everyone on planes without any control? Because that's what happens here, since Rand Paul has no replacement in mind. That's what happens when your entire philosophy in life is "Let's break it and don't ask me what comes after!"
*shrugs* If bureaucracy follows its normal pattern, the TSA will not be shut down, but superseded by another (larger) boondoggle. Like the "Total Security Bureau" or something equally distasteful, which will cost 3 times as much as the TSA, and employ 1.5 times as many people.
At some point, the net drag effect from all of this internal spying and security will become large enough to cripple the economy. 1 person employed to work a farm, 2 people employed to watch him to ensure his doesn't engage in any 'un-American' activities. That sort of thing. With the rampant inflation, and possible food shortages, being clumsily linked to 'terrorists,' thus requiring more funding to 'thwart' them. Wash, rinse, repeat.
I am John Hurt.
You seem to forget that this is America and we are entitled to the right of free movement as repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court. Flying is NOT a "privilege", it's a right.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
Isopropyl alcohol. We can make everything clean if we can secure a large enough supply of it.
I am John Hurt.
I've probably gone through security checkpoints a couple hundred times since 9/11. I get patted down maybe 5% of the time.
Do I throw a hissy fit when it does happen? No. It lasts all of about 10 seconds and I move on.
Do I care if I go through a scanner? No. My junk looks like most men's junk, and although it is supposedly blurred, I have to imagine that if one is looking at 500 sets of junk on a daily basis, you get desensitized to it quite quickly.
If anybody has a better system to keep bombs, guns, and knives off our airplanes, then write a slashdot artice about it. As for the "annoying" part, waiting for my luggage (if by chance I have to check it) is far more annoying than security. 90% of the times, I sail through security in 5-10 minutes, at worst.
What a bunch of paranoid pu__ies on this website -- always afraid of the "man." The "man" is just any everyguy or everywoman like the rest of us. 99% of the time, they just want to do their job and go home to their spouse, kids and/or video games. The paranoid identify one example of abuse and think the whole world is out to get them.
You're probably thinking of VIPER units.
This occurred to me the other day, and I'm astonished it hasn't occurred to more people. To terrorists, a choke point is an opportunity because there are a lot of potential victims in a small space. Planes are natural targets because the passengers don't have any place to escape to and the vehicle is relatively fragile and easy to destroy. (This is to some extent true for any mass transit.)
But a choke point that contains many more potential victims and is easier to get to than a plane is the TSA security checkpoint during a busy day. It occurs to me that in trying to eliminate one opportunity (the plane) we are creating an even bigger opportunity (the checkpoint).
And so, I get this nagging feeling that besides creating entertainment (security theater) and not especially increasing security on the plane, the TSA, by creating a massive target of opportunity at the checkpoint, is very specifically making airports less safe. And if you're killed in a terrorist attack, there's little difference in whether it happens in a plane or at the airport.
Just parenthetically, the recent case of TSA agents successfully bribed into letting drug dealers through is a conclusive example of why the process doesn't work. When your only guard is a poorly trained former grocery store worker, leverage will always exist to successfully get a package on a plane. (Whether it's money or blackmail or hostages.) We're lucky that so far the payload has been merely drugs.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
And you've got a deal!
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Let me shed some light on this guy. Regardless of what you think of his politics on a national level, he is a terrible senator for KY. He goes on these crazy crusades without spending any time on....oh....I don't know....his electorate? We have been having some financial problems in the state lately, but instead of addressing those and helping his fellow Kentuckians, he is out campaigning for his daddy. Anyway, if you guys love him so much (talking to you, Texas and California), you can have him. We don't need another Tea Bagger who supports Sarah Palin's "ideals".
Also, for you tin foil hatters, he was a member of the same college secret society as George W. Bush and Kenneth Star. Apparently they were all good buddies back in Texas. He's a Texan all the way through, and carpet-bagged here to be a U.S. Senator.
Remove the TSA? Um, thanks Mr. Paul, but what about our state debt???
There is already rulings on stuff like that I believe.
I think it was found that to live and have basic freedom you need to have right of travel as well.
Therefore travel is a right.
I mean if you commit a crime and are confined to your house, this would be seen as a lose of freedom. Would it not also apply if you could not leave with out consenting to a search?
If that was sarcasm my bad. lol
Whereas: Private security should handle airport checkpoints; and Once again, this whole private business over government thing gets thrown in.
My kingdom for a donkey!
It should definitely be abolished. Any benefit they might provide to society (certainly debatable) is far outweighed by the cost and invasion of our civil liberties.
totally i avoid the states when i travel , you guys are bitching with an american travel documents , imagine for foreigners (and we're supposed to be bffe) , it's really too bad for your restaurants hotels and shops where i dont get to spend corporate money.
The TSA employs about 58,000 employees.
The number one thing by far that voters in the US care about is jobs.
This will never happen.
I can only imagine what freedoms you'll be wanting to relinquish once they start detonating bombs in the security line at the terminals.
10: PRINT "Everything old is new again."
20: GOTO 10
People don't realize how ineffective they are. Since the "new and improved" TSA with the draconian measures came into being they haven't found a single would be terrorist. Not one. Every plot that was foiled was by law enforcement before they boarded a plane. The TSA has proven to be a pack of clowns by targeting models, actors and Congressmen, you know the high risk groups for terrorist, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. If they want to grope children become a Catholic priest. It's become a new playground for perverts and pedophiles who get their jollies off harassing the public and get paid for it. Just try saying no to one and find out how quick you become an actual terrorist instead of just a suspected one. I haven't flown in years because of the outrageous and constantly changing baggage fees and TSA. There's a point where it simply isn't worth it and we passed that years ago as far as I'm concerned.
a truly free market -- since discrimination has happened before in the past.
A free market, to be efficient, requires actors making rational decisions. Unfortunately, there are few people out there that make rational decisions all of the time. Hence, you'll get discrimination regardless of the economic incentives. Also, in situations where there is a cultural policy of discrimination, not "bucking the trend" (i.e., maintaining the discrimination) may be economically in the best interest of a particular individual since to do otherwise might have everybody else shun their business.
Paul (both flavors) base their proposed policies on a perfect world that doesn't exist. We are a heavily regulated society because the opportunity to do mischief is too great for many people, and all it takes is one person to make a bad choice to ruin it for everbody (e.g., put melamine in milk). In many respects, China has much less regulations than the US. Almost anything is OK so long as you don't get caught -- as a result, doing busness in China is very difficult because people will screw you at every turn.
Great point! Now excuse me while I go take a train across the Atlantic Ocean.
I can't imagine any situation in which a self-described leftist wouldn't chose Romney over Paul. Are you even aware who these people are? Romney isn't a conservative.
Yes, that's what the people of Kentucky did.
No orifice be safe from our ravaging! Arrrr!
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Rand Paul's solution to everything is to just get rid of it...
When can we get rid of HIM to fix OUR problem?
I can only imagine what freedoms you'll be wanting to relinquish once they start detonating bombs in the security line at the terminals.
Nevermind that. The the AC will want to give up even more freedoms when terrorists start thinking about detonating bombs in a pre-security line anywhere.
air travel is a privilege, not a right.
WTF? I guess in a way it's a privilege... as in, I'm privileged enough to be able to afford air travel. But it's not a privilege in the "you're lucky Uncle Sam allows you to fly at all" way you're suggesting. In that aspect, it's an implicit right. Like the right to use the roads we paid for.
If you don't like the TSA, you can travel a different way.
It's easy to tell people not to fly when you don't travel yourself, but spending 3-4 days each way to drive across the country is wildly impractical if you do it on a semi-regular basis. I don't have enough vacation time to spend an extra 6 days traveling for each trip, and my company would not likely pay me to do so on business trips either.
TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car
Are you sure it will remain that way?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57318666/tsa-expands-from-airports-to-tenn-highways/
and for that matter they don't have jurisdiction over you when you are using a private airport.
Mere mortals can't typically afford to charter private jets. Flying didn't suck until about 10 years ago when the TSA formed and started making up arbitrary rules. Now they're wasting $8 billion a year for a service of negative value. If a major airliner found a way to offer affordable plane tickets to the masses that completely side-stepped the TSA, they would probably make a killing while the rest of the airlines continued to suffer.
You are welcomed to opt not to travel by air.
And you are welcomed to opt not to travel by car.
Agreed. Lift all these restrictions, and our economy would massively boom overnight.
Hard to imagine people in America of all places do not understand the meaning of the word "right".
Prior to September 11th, 2001, how many bombs were detonated in security lines? Also, who is "they"?
There were certainly problems with some security checkpoints prior to 9/11/2001, but bringing in the TSA didn't really solve that many of the problems.
Its basically the most Orwellian government agency imaginable.
You ARE aware that incessant hyperbole from its spoiled brat users IS the major reason why politicians will never truly take comments from the internet seriously, right?
/cough/ *snark* /cough/
Any place there is a security screening line is an effective site to set off a bomb. Lots of people standing around and no one has been screened yet. Why bother going through all the trouble to get a device on a plane? Wherever there is a chance that you might be discovered, set it off. You might take out a multi-million dollar scanner! I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet (or has it?).
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
If you consider TSA invasive and/or wasteful, please write a thoughtful complaint to your Senator and Representative, and perhaps also the White House.
Handwritten letters show more concern than emails. You can also phone them.
If they get a thousand letters/messages which are obviously independent and written with thought, they may interpret it as a million of their constituents who feel that way.
If one doesn't write Congress from time to time, one has little right to complain.
Like birth control, Democracy is maybe 80 or 90% effective but only when actually used.
I'm starting to like Rand Paul myself - he seems to bring the rational libertarianism of his dad, without the 33% batshit-crazy-racist stuff. "Ron Paul without the crazy" is someone I'd vote for, if we could find such a person ...
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Apparently my snark tag isn't flagging properly. The second line is a paraphrase of a famous quote you may have heard of.
That depends on how their insurance think about the importance of passenger screening.
Actually I disagree that the first item in your list should be classified in Y. The ability to walk should never be considered a "privilege". Otherwise, the next thing we know, there will be people out to confiscate our limbs for not having a walking license registered with the state or federal authorities. Hm...reminds me of a Monty Python sketch....
Ok, certainly there are at least 100 people reading this who can create 2 apps - one for $9 and the other for $50 that go directly to the campaign to stop the TSA.
Money talks folks - except for the groups who produce these apps. This would allow millions of people to easily donate while they are pissed about the TSA - at an airport.
Perhaps these guys can help? http://www.whatgives.com/2012/04/27/whatgives-donation-app-discontinued/ There are links to other donation-apps on that page.
Well, the main reason to go to the trouble of getting a device on a plane is so that you can repurpose the plane into a big missile filled with flammable material, and do a LOT more damage and kill a lot more people than you could with a bomb in a security line. However, the days of that happening are over now, and indeed were over on 9/11 as soon as the passengers on the fourth plane learned what happened on the other three, and now that planes have locked cabin doors, and passengers willing to fight to the death (as has been demonstrated several times, not only on 9/11 but in a couple other incidents when passengers beat the snot out of people with bombs, which of course made it right through the oh-so-effective TSA screening), it's all moot.
However, I think terrorists could do a lot more damage copying the terrorists in Mumbai than bombing security lines. Imagine if terrorists came to shopping malls during the Christmas shopping season with AK47s; this scenario has been discussed many times before. The fact is, there's only so much security precautions will do for you; for all these other things, you just have to take the risk. Besides, it's much riskier driving your car to the mall, than the tiny risk of being shot by terrorists when you're there. Auto accidents kill 50,000 Americans every year (and 250,000 people worldwide). That's far more than have ever been killed by terrorists, but we do absolutely nothing about that.
If a fairly hardcore libertarian had a free hand with the federal government they would for sure get rid of a lot of it, but part of the duty of what remained would be to keep the lower level governments from getting in to things they weren't supposed to. A libertarian doesn't say "We should have a minimal federal government and it shouldn't intrude in to citizen's lives, but the states? They can go nuts, they can be full on totalitarian if they like."
"It should be up to the states," is often politician speak for "I support it but I don't want to come out in direct support for ti because I'll get hammered."
Am I the only one who thinks this is a stupid idea?
Next up: Department of Justice. "Cities have their own police departments, don't they?"
Any literate teenager should know that the "war on terror" has nothing to do with preventing terror. Just like the "war on drugs" has nothing to do with drugs. I love these people who say that these security measures are "ineffective", as if they're put in place with lofty ideals, but just aren't executed well or whatever. That's a load of garbage. They're actually quite effective and are doing exactly what they're designed to do! Who said the government is inefficient? Yeah, it's inefficient for anything YOU desire, but it's actually quite efficient at keeping a hold on power. The "wars" keep the American empire "secure" and keep internal fear at a high and dissent at a low.
This is true anywhere there's a crowd of appreciable size. There are plenty of locations with more people standing around and more lax security than an airport screening line. If you really wanted it to be in an airport but there were no screening lines, the check-in areas in most airports would do just fine. But that's unimaginitive. If you're going the boring route of blowing up some random people on the ground, tourist destinations, subway stations, etc. are all much more populated.
So, first, you're assuming privatizing screeners will somehow mean no government mandates on what must be checked and what's acceptable. Doubtful. I'd bet the 3oz liquid rule stays, for example, and you're still taking your laptop out of the bag.
Second, this is a liability issue, and liability is inherently a herd mentality.
Consider if you do less screening than "everyone else," and the next 9/11 hijackers use your airline. Congratulations, you're negligent. And liable. And bankrupt.
Now consider you do as much screening as everyone else, and the next 9/11 hijackers use your airline. Much hand wringing and heartfelt sorrow that those clever terrorists were able to defeat the best security in the industry! What a shame that perfect security is impossible!
Related: while I do hate the current state of Security Theater, the government at least has some incentive to make screening better and safer. Private companies won't (see the "herd mentality" issue). Let's say someone invents a combination XRay scanner/explosive residue detector that could dramatically improve the effectiveness of screening. Or a complex graphic processing algorithm that would draw screener attention to 99% of possible threats. Where's the incentive to use them in private industry? At least the government has a mandate OTHER THAN "what makes us money." Why would an airline improve? To claim "we have the best security in the industry!" Yeah, you're back to security theater again...
I find the entire thing the very definition of thuggery....
You have an organized group that demands you let them go through all of your personal belongings AND submit to having you privates felt up before you're able to make use of an airline ticket you already purchased (and which would otherwise entitle you to a seat on that plane!). If they happen to deem *anything* you say, do, or carry on your person or in your belongings a "threat", they can pull you out of the line you've patiently waited in, force you to waste the money you spent on your plane ticket, subject you to MORE searching, and even have you arrested by law enforcement -- not to mention putting you on a secret list that prevents you from ever flying in the future, or at the very least, marks you as a suspect worthy or more intense searching in the future.
I fail to see how the fact you "met a lot of nice TSA people" has any bearing on things either. (By a lot of accounts I read, people claimed the bank robber Jesse James was a pretty nice guy too -- even known to give random kids some spare change to buy candy or an ice cream with.)
In fact, I used to consider myself good friends with a woman I initially met in one of those "Meetup" groups the meetup.com website allows organizing. We got along great until over time, I realized our political views were radically different. Next thing I know, she happily accepted a job with the TSA as a screener, and moved on from there to a better paying job with Homeland Security. I tried not to let political differences alone interfere with our friendship, but when she made those job decisions - it kind of crossed the line for me. I try to stay on "speaking terms" with her today, but I have some real issues with anyone who would be ok, even happy, to do this type of work.
Defending individuals working as screeners is, in my estimation, no different than defending con artists working in call centers for a "top level" organization masterminding the scams. The fact you "really need a job" and "really need the money" doesn't matter. That's never been a legitimate excuse for violating the rights of others.
Any place there is a security screening line is an effective site to set off a bomb.
Yet it doesn't really happen. Not even in Israel, let alone the U.S.
There is NO threat from criminals that want to commit mass murder by hijacking planes.
There is A GENUINE THREAT from heart disease, cancer (including that caused by ionising radiation), diabetes, driving a car.
Hell, in america, more people died from hernias in the last 15 years than from plane hijackings.
Sounds like a good idea stop patting down infants and grandmas.
Do it like in Israel if you look like the people who did 9/11 or blowed up buses world wide you get the pat down and if need the finger up the ass.
All other people just walk by.
Too bad for the Muslims but everything passes and in 50\100 when the terror problem is done with other groups will get the groping.
Wow man you are so even more full of shit then usual: ...This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Art. 6
"That is why in my state it is legal to sell natural unpasteurized milk..... the Congress can not arrest these farmers unless they carry the milk across the line. AND why Congress has no authority to arrest marijuana users inside the state of California (or New Hampshire or Vermont or.....)"
Were are you living: The government (supremes) have already ruled that the fed can stop an individual from growing grain, on their own land with for their own use, through the interstate commerce clause. Then is federal laws didn't apply I suppose the CA dispensary busts didn't happen & federal pot laws trump don't trump state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
seriously pull your head out of your own ass please!!
"(I) have this unfortunate condition that causes me not to believe a single thing any politician says when a mic's on.
That is a stupid and ridiculous statement. This is the 21st century, and air travel is the most common form of transportation for nearly all people is by air, to exercise their constitutional right to petition the government. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that horse and buggy is still an option is simply stupid. The government must change with the times, and these times predominantly use air travel.
The answer to times changing is for the government to come to the people, not prop up some decrepit, corrupt industry and the illusion that as long as people have the option to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on travel their right to petition the government is upheld.
Rand Paul has proposed legislation to ban abortions and end birthright citizenship. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/28/rand-paul-wants-to-ban-abortions-and-end-birthright-citizenship.html
You seem to be living under the illusion that the government is here to help and has your best interests at heart. The government only bends to the people's will by direct action of the people. If you want to petition the government to come to the people, more power to you. Until then however, we will have to go sit in their offices and bitch at them to get what we need, and we need to ensure that we can all do that.
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
>>>The TSA has no jurisdiction over you in a private car
I suggest you look-up "VIPR teams" which are a recently-added extension of the TSA and routinely search people & cars along interstates (border states) and at malls, post offices, hotels, or while walking down the street (all states). Congress just recently approved money so they TSA/VIPR teams can be expanded to 5x as many as currently exist. Yay.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
This.
Yes, I think Rand has a valid point here... but realistically, it's "water under the bridge" already, so his opinion on legislation already enacted decades ago is relatively insignificant in the here and now.
Regardless, what this amounted to was government placing a higher level of importance on forcing racial equality than on the rights of a private business owner to conduct his/her business in the manner he/she wished. I'd say both of those goals are good/important ones, but not ones where you want either one trumping the other when they "butt heads".
IMO, the Civil Rights Act accomplished some good, but not by going about it in the best of ways. By that, I mean racial equality is something that has to develop over time, as individuals become enlightened enough about the world around them to realize that the "next guy" isn't really all that different of a person after all. Government opted to trample on some individual rights and freedoms, for the sake of forcing more public interaction between blacks and whites. It's impossible to pass laws that make racism or bigotry vanish ... but they eventually helped reduce some of it by demanding unwilling people allow all races to do business with them or make use of any facilities they designated as anything other than "private".
As others said already, we would have gotten there anyway with a free market (or anything relatively close to one). The passing of time, plus basic legislation that doesn't EXCLUDE any particular race from the same freedoms everyone else is guaranteed, was enough.
Imagine if terrorists came to shopping malls during the Christmas shopping season with AK47s;
This would be less likely to happen in state such as Texas or Arizona where there are very liberal (ie right wing in this case) conceal carry laws. If one in twenty people are carrying a gun, your AK-47 rampage is ending very quickly.
Rand Paul has proposed legislation to ban abortions and end birthright citizenship. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/blogs/the-gaggle/2011/01/28/rand-paul-wants-to-ban-abortions-and-end-birthright-citizenship.html
I'm fine with a senator having either of those positions. I don't really aggree with either one, but they both come from a rational place (just IMO wrong ones). We're in serious need of immigration reform, we need to as a country reach some sort of compromise on when "personhood" begins. I'm cool with politicians starting off with the ideologically pure positions on issues like these - that's where each side should start, so that we compromise to something practical.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Than solution to bad airport security is good airport security, not no airport security.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
... is that he is trying too hard to follow in his father's footsteps by associating himself with these non-mainstream, far-right extremist anti-government organizations. In his early career, it seemed he might actually have ended up to be a more rational version of dear old dad, but I see that didn't quite pan out.
The reason the current TSA agents do not need to do that is that they are technically federal law enforcement, which are exempt from state and local laws in pursuant to their work. As a private company, they would be subject to state and local laws, and if the local DA decides to prosecute them for sexual assault, he/she can do so. In fact, several DAs have already tried to do just that, but were dismissed...
We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
You're obviously not a lawyer, or even a law student. The Supreme Court has always upheld the right to travel for a very long time in American history.
You seem to forget the clause that says, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Meaning that just because a right isn't explicitly stated in the Constitution, does not mean it isn't a right.
Besides, it's much riskier driving your car to the mall, than the tiny risk of being shot by terrorists when you're there. Auto accidents kill 50,000 Americans every year (and 250,000 people worldwide). That's far more than have ever been killed by terrorists, but we do absolutely nothing about that.
Of course we do a lot about car safety. Are you kidding me? Traffic laws, speed limits, mandatory seatbelts laws, airbags, crumple zones, government mandated safety ratings, harsh DWI penalties, etc. But there's only so much you can reasonably do to protect people while still leaving that mode of transportation viable and cost-effective.
Besides, everyone understands that accidents happen, and can't realistically be 100% avoided or prevented. They're part of life, and while sad and horrible, it's so much more awful when someone deliberately takes away someone else's life. So, I understand what you're saying, but don't think you can really compare auto accidents and terrorism (or disease and terrorism). It's the vicious and deliberate act of terrorism that makes the deaths so much more shocking than an accident or death by illness.
And also, you're perhaps neglecting the "terror" part of terrorism. It's not really about the number of deaths... it's about the psychological impact they have. That's why bringing down a plane is probably more effective (terror-wise) than randomly shooting people in a mall - because people are already afraid of flying to some degree, and the fear of someone deliberately bringing down the plane only heightens that. Granted, the effect would be heightened at a shooting during the Christmas season as you mentioned. Ugh... I can't even bring myself to understand what sort of mindset it would take to do things like that.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
I'd rather grope a toddler in a sad but well meaning attempt at keeping the public safe than listen to that raving asshole Rand Paul.
What are you going to do when the fucking ragheads stuff an IED into their baby's diaper?
They don't need to. They can put the C5 up their ass and walk right through security. There's nothing the TSA can do to detect it.
it's no secret. Drug smugglers do it every day. People do it every day to get cellphones into prisons. etc., etc.
The fact that they *aren't* doing this should tell you something, ie. there's no real terrorist threat. It's all scaremongering and theater to make a few people very rich and the rest of us a whole lot poorer (in spirit).
No sig today...
Of course we do a lot about car safety. Are you kidding me? Traffic laws, speed limits, mandatory seatbelts laws, airbags, crumple zones, government mandated safety ratings, harsh DWI penalties, etc. But there's only so much you can reasonably do to protect people while still leaving that mode of transportation viable and cost-effective.
Please tell me what we've done to improve driver training in this country.
The TSA is security theater, and Rand Paul's proposal is liberty theater.
Sure the TSA sucks but this won't get rid of the FBI's national security letters, the PATRIOT Act, the indefinite detention provisions of the recent NDAA, torture, robo-bombing of other nations at will, extraordinary rendition, NSA snooping every email, NSA snooping in everything else, the looming legal lockdown on the internet, the elimination of the public domain culture in favor of permanent copyright, FBI infiltration and disruption of dissident organizations, or any of the other dozens of despicable BS our government has done recently.
In fact Rand Paul would just privatize the TSA, because government tyranny sucks, but corporate tyranny is the Amuuurican way!
-- QED
Well, the main reason to go to the trouble of getting a device on a plane is so that you can repurpose the plane into a big missile filled with flammable material, and do a LOT more damage and kill a lot more people than you could with a bomb in a security line.
You're living in a dream world. The objective of terrorism isn't material damage, it's psychological/economic damage.
No sig today...
Its a government department. It would be easier to eliminate Al Qaeda that to get rid of the TSA.
May the Maths Be with you!
checkpoints are pretty much the most targeted places in afghanistan, iraq or any other cesspit of rebellion.. hell, probably were in nazi-occupied france.
for fairly simple reasons. the terrorists know the enemy is at the checkpoint and people who are dealing with the enemy are at the checkpoint too, if it's a slow checkpoint then there's lots of them there...
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
"C4", duh!
No sig today...
Actually, it's not a "privilege". The US Constitution is explicitly grants the people a right to peaceably assemble. That doesn't ensure folks a ticket, but it does make government prohibition on travel unconstitutional.
If airlines have security incidents, their insurance rates will increase. Eventually they will arrive at a balance between insurance costs, security costs, and revenues.
Conceivably you could have an airline that advertised low security requirements, providing the benefits of reduced groping and security wait times but slightly increased risks. They would then bet on higher market share offsetting the increased insurance costs.
There is No threat from criminals who want to hijack planes, but plenty from people who want to blow themselves up and everyone on board.
Richard Reid is a REAL PERSON who is serving life in Colorado for attempting to do just that.
There really are people out there who would take advantage of lax security measures to get a bomb on board a plane. Really. For real.
and what are his batshit-crazy-racist stuff?
or are you referring to newsletters that weren't written by him?
This country is worthless without immigrants. your an immigrant, I am one. Something like 75% of the country came here in the last 100 years. Most people can trace their families back to other countries before that.
Very few can trace their family lines back even to the birth of the nation.
Besides without immigration most things wouldn't get done. America is the land of middle managers.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
They can check out any time they want, though.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Technically the objective of terrorism is usually some unpopular/unfeasible political action that the terrorists are trying to push.
Think along the lines of "everyone convert to religion X", or "get out of my country" or "kill off the ___ industry". These are people without any normal hope of achieving their goal. You know that saying; "soap box, ballot box, ammo box"? Terrorists are on the last step. They're breaking the social contract and resorting to violence. If you're not going to do as I say, well, I'll take you down with me. Of course, not only are they on the losing end politically, but also militarily. So, asymmetrical warfare it is. Which is bombing, poisoning, and whittling down your opponent.
Terror, it turns out, is pretty damn effective against 1st world nations. So while the psychological aspect of terrorism is probably the most important, don't forget that they want to bend us to their will, and since that obviously isn't going to happen, they really do want to kill us all.
I think he wants tracking/logging devices in the shape of a dildo implanted permanently in everyone's anus. He has personally requested two.
Disband the entire DHS.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Yes. If you're stupid enough to refuse to do business with someone, your competitors will get the business you refused.
A truly free market would stop that kind of discrimination faster than all the civil rights legislation ever proposed.
Bullshit. The Free Market is the true tyranny of the majority. Left to its own devices, the free market will do whatever an income-weighted majority of its customers wants, and fuck-all for the remainder. Nobody is equal in the eyes of business; you vote with your dollars and you have as many votes as you do dollars.
If you're a restaurant, store, hotel, whatever in the '50s, and 75% of the local population are rich, racist whites, and the remaining 25% of the population are poor blacks, guess who's going to get stopped at the door? Can't have them tying up tables/salespeople/rooms/etc when there are whites that might otherwise occupy them.
Sure, some enterprising black person would probably start up a restaurant to address the unserved market, but that is hardly a fair arrangement. Separate is never equal.
The alternative to TSA is not more reasonable security procedures, the alternative to TSA is privatization and even less consistency and reason. If you remember why the TSA was created, its because the private security at every airport had different standards in training, policy, and actual implementations of security procedures. The rent-a-guards at some airports were basically not much more than the ones doing night watch at your office. TSA was supposed to bring consistent training and professionalism by vetted and reasonably well-paid and sworn government personnel
If you're for abolishing the TSA, then you are for privatization and even LESS public control over the security inspectors at the airports, LESS professionalism, and LESS training and vetting of guards/inspectors. Be careful what you wish for.
I'd be interested in who is receiving campagin contributions from private security guard companies like Wackenhut (who were displaced by TSA).
This is actually a very excellent point. What freedoms would anyone be willing to give up to feel safer? Have you considered alternatives? Does the TSA need to be shut down or drastically reformed?
My current best guess for who "they" may be is the U.S. government themselves. Our government has gone rogue. I wouldn't put it past them to run a false-flag operation to gain even more power over us and take away the rest of our freedoms.
I don't trust either party. No matter who you vote for this November, the government wins.
The so-called war on terror is an excuse. Any damned fool could tell you that if somebody is threatening us with "terror", the only way to win is to NOT be afraid. Ignore them. Take the hit. Then strike back harder AFTER you find out EXACTLY who did it.
But I'm angry and want to rant! ;) That privilege argument, when made earnestly, drives me up the wall.
Fair enough, my bad.
Me? I video tape the assholes who run the stop signs and send them to the police. I did my job... does the system do it's?
not the airlines, so when you fly out out of JFK Gropeco Inc will be screening you no matter which airline you choose. Feel free to complain to airport management, I'm sure they'll be very responsive.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Seriously.
...being against the airlines best interests. I'm in, shut TSA down.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
This would be less likely to happen in state such as Texas or Arizona where there are very liberal (ie right wing in this case) conceal carry laws. If one in twenty people are carrying a gun, your AK-47 rampage is ending very quickly.
Have you ever seen an assault rifle in action? They are built to put a lot of people in the ground, and fast. They have been refined to do this well for the past 60 years. If I had a 9mm Tupperware gun, and some guy opened up with an assault rifle, I would not be trying to take him out. I would be grabbing cover and running.
The fact that Tx and Az have liberal gun laws isn't a solution to the problem, it feeds it by making it easier for dangerous people to get guns.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/end-tsa/DT1ys3ND
more cowbell
Yeah! Just ask Gabby Giffords, you know, the congress woman who was shot in the head in Arizona by a gun-wielding lunatic using a pistol with an extended clip that was illegal under the Clinton era gun laws. . . after all he was stopped when the his fellow Arizona citizens "where there are very liberal conceal carry laws" shot him . . . oh wait . . . actually he was stopped when he ran out of bullets and someone tackled him.
Geese . . . its like only the crazies carry their guns everywhere they go.
I've said nothing which contradicts anything you just said. That's one reason we're in serious need of immigraiton reform. It should be much easier to come and get a job and get on the path to citizenship legally. Having a kid while here shouldn't matter to that path (and if it were done right, there's be little to gain from that).
We have deep problems with crime that accompanies illegal immigration. The best fix is to remove the mafia payoff every time someone crosses the border to work, by giving a practical legal way to do the same thing.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
You mean the newsletters that had no other author's name other than his in giant lettering above them?
>If anybody has a better system to keep bombs, guns, and knives off our airplanes, then write a slashdot artice about it.
Anything would be better. Look at the list of terror plots stopped by the TSA and decide for yourself if it's worthwhile.
Also check out the comments by Israeli aviation security expert Rafi Sela and by the makers of the scanners about their effectiveness.
Concretely: close the gaps that allow access to airplanes by non-passengers.
In response to the inevitable rhetorical question: yes, I WOULD rather be blown up by a terrorist than be treated like a convict. Even if there were a tradeoff between freedom and security (and what are we trying to protect, again?), there's only one answer for an American.
I've taken Amtrak for every trip since the system went insane.
>You are welcomed to opt not to travel by air.
There's a long answer to this, but I prefer to boil it down to one word.
Aloha.
you mean the newsletters that weren't written by him, he's admitted as a mistake, and denounces?
yeah he's racist lol.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Doctors are not being drafted in countries with universal health care.
Doctors make contracts with insurance companies to sell services at a willing buyer/willing seller price. Patients make contracts with insurance companies such that their bills get paid by other premium payers, until it's the turn of the other premium payers to get sick.
You don't understand Insurance.. They will look at the actual numbers, death by terrorism less likely then lightning strike and not have a problem in underwriting the airlines.
Security is a government problem.
Bullshit.
Every individual's security is their own responsibility. Nowhere in any founding government document is the government given the charge of physically securing individuals or any other private institution of this country. The only security the government is responsible for is national security...as in security of the nation as a whole from foreign invasion and the like.
A few terrorist attacks and threats (with some of those threats even made up by the government) over the course of decades does NOT constitute a foreign invasion. The government can kindly FUCK OFF with their individual security mandate, and people like you who support it can do the same.
Don't overestimate the hostility of passengers. When the shit hits the fan most people still respond like frightened little girls. It's just the way people are in this country. If it weren't true then the TSA wouldn't have survived, and their methods sure as hell wouldn't be approved by upwards of 80% of the general population.
Just remember that the next time you're on an airplane. 80% of the people around you are perfectly fine with being groped, fondled, and stripped of all privacy and civil rights for NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL.
Do you really think passengers will be hostile to the real bad guys when they are complete pussies in the face of TSA rent-a-cops?
One death would be enough to deal billions in damage to the high-street spending that year. And if they could do a shooting, attempted shooting, white powder release, detonation of a bomb with a detectable amount (not necessarily dangerous or significant) of radiation, anywhere in a commercial area of a random city once per day, continuing even if one is foiled, you'd stop all but the most essential sales (food, duct tape and plastic sheeting) for weeks.
Correct. The port authority does and they say (under duress) that you must submit to the TSA. If those authorities banded together and booted the TSA out of their business en-masse, the federal government might reduce its fear-mongering.
The objective of terrorism isn't material damage, it's psychological/economic damage
That's why the 1970's version of terrorism; Poisoning the water supply: never happened. Wiping a city off the map would simply cause too much damage to have a identifiable psychological effect! This is why a building full of people is left exposed while a $400 million airplane is kept under a security cordon.
Rabid Rand fans went crazy modding down my comment. In case you thought I meant killing them by pulling his plug, I meant pulling the plug on their microphone and stop echoing all their crazy nonsense. Geez.
Before I submit my personal details... I can't seem to find a privacy policy at campaignforliberty. Can anyone point me to one?
> Richard Reid is a REAL PERSON
Statistically, none. Being pedantic, doesn't change the reality.
I can cherry pick too... Like the deacon in Colorado that did stop a gunman with a legally carried gun. An armed populace does not guarantee that a passer-by will be able to stop a crime, but an unarmed populace guarantees that they will not.
I'm surprised this hasn't happened yet.
it hasn't happened because the threat of terrorism is ridiculously miniscule. if they, the "bad guys", were really wanting to cause trouble, there'd be little one-off events happening at least weekly: shooting up a mall here, car bomb downtown there. that randomness, especially in and around a specific region (la county, nyc), would certainly cause a lot of terror, but it hasn't happened because it's not that big of a threat. all this wasteful security spending is just another corporate-welfare program.
...
There is NO threat from criminals that want to commit mass murder by hijacking planes.
Hm. Stop breathing through your mouth. Of course there is a threat. Just as there is a threat of AK47s in malls. Some people are just that pissed off.
I agree to an extent though. The threat is blown WAAAAAAAYYYYY out of proportion. Really? The threat is so bad that I can't have a bottle of water with me? I have to take off my shoes? WTF? Meh. Once the concept of safety is invoked, people seem to lose their minds... as if they will live forever unchanged through time so that NOTHING must ever happen.
OMG! I just thought of something: What happens when humans achieve victory over old age? The rules will be so crazy that a majority will end up killing themselves because it is intolerable. The rest won't be able to feed themselves because it is too dangerous to actually DO anything. UV causes cancer. Who would risk shortening their life by exposing themselves to the sun? Full body suits. Will they be air conditioned? Well, growing season is in the summer. Move all farming indoors? ROFL. Do you know how much energy that would require?! Possible? Expensive? I am sure some sci-fi author has already written a good story about this but I can not think of one right now.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
I thought the objective of Al Qaeda was to get us to withdraw from the Middle East. By making a high profile attack it would suck us into a never ending war in the middle east costing us Trillions of dollars and sending our economy into a recession that bankrupts us and forces us to withdraw all troops from the middle east. Basically the same tactic they used on the Soviets.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
We have improved auto safety a lot in the U.S. over the last 20 or 30 years. However we could do much, much more. If we took all the money from tsa and put that into safer roads how many lives would it save? For example, not to far from where I live there is an interchange that once was without guard rails. Around 1999 a new driver lost control, went of the road, hit a tree and died. Based on road conditions and volumn of traffic the stretch did not qualify for funding to get guard rails. 5 years later another new driver also went off the road in the exact same place. Hit a tree and died. Now, based on higher volumn, the road qualifies for and does have guard rails. With more money the thresh hold for funding for that safety feature could have been reached earlier and lives saved.
Exactly!
Unlike the rent-a-cops the TSA can be a real election issue where the public can have some impact on how the TSA performs its security theater. The TSA needs to change.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
You damn Paulites, and your outdated nonsense about freedom!
I'm sure there's plenty of psychochristian black shirted Nazi Paulbots you could give the job to.
I would go farther and arrest DHS Napolitano and TSA Pistel on charges of Terriorism and crimes against humanity.
In general, neither should have been born, neither should have lived and neither deserves to live further.
We need to forcefully restore sanity to the US Federal Government. Some bodies will by nessessity fall.
Yes, because the Federal Government cannot make people stop being racist, the biggest example being Black people's embrace of Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, or the various hate-crime beatings of Whites and other non-Blacks in Black areas.
The Federal Government could not stop people from drinking either.
Now we get all sorts of permanent privileges, based upon dubious claims of ethnicity, permanent punishment (for your non-connected White guy), to make up for stuff done 50 years ago or more.
There is a limit to what government can do. Trying to be everywhere and do everything always results in failure. Better to allow unlawful discrimination lawsuits. Its fine by me (and good social policy) for owners to discriminate against Black people -- when they dress like thugs, act like thugs, and act threatening. That passes the cost of thuggery right back onto thugs instead of me (higher prices for security, etc. because Black thugs and gangsta wanna-bes cannot be refused service).
This is an area for private lawsuits. Discrimination based on race alone, actionable, a suit likely to win. Discrimination based on things beside that, yes fine, no suit. Common sense: nerdy White guys are not a threat, Ahntwahn from the Ghetto likely is. Passing that cost directly back to Ahntwahn is a good thing.
You've got your races confused. Also, newsflash, its not 1928. Louis Farrakhan is the one decrying miscegenation, calling for Black people to only have kids with Black people. Meanwhile in reality, the Kardashians are reality superstars based on marrying/dating Black athletes and rappers.
The people most likely to hate, and express that violently, are Black. Social taboos among Whites makes anti-Black sentiments impossible to be expressed, or even thought. Heck, adopting a Black African baby is what ultra-White celebrities like Madonna and Charlize Theron do, to popular acclaim.
David Duke lives in a trailer. Louis Farrakhan in a mansion.
Wow. Where do you keep you tin-foil hat?
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
Rand Paul is my hero.
state such as Texas or Arizona where there are very liberal (ie right wing in this case) conceal carry laws
Funny thing about concealed carry is that it ain't just for conservatives - per capita, Texas has fewer concealed carry permit holders than Washington.
And what exactly would help in such a scenario? Remote-activated poison capsules implanted in the cockpit crew? Remote-detonation bombs installed in every plane? I don't see either going over well.
At some point you just have to accept that risk can't be eliminated, only mitigated. Once you accept that then you have to start weighing the costs and benefits. By that measure passengers willing to sacrifice their lives to regain control or force down the plane have been the only method actually proven to be effective in preventing a hijacking, and they cost nothing. Reinforced doors were relatively cheap and probably reduce the risks further, as well as reducing the need for heroics.
After that the worst that can be done is destroy the plane, in which case I'd suggest that far more airline passengers have died due to accidents than terrorist attacks, and the billions being spent on security would be better spent on improved maintenance and repair.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I would rather take the miniscule risk of free-falling 10 km in a fireball than have men of dubious character inventory my family jewels. America seems to sacrificed freedom not for safety, but for the illusion of safety. No thanks.
Wouldn't a mass boycott of air travel force the free market to remove the TSA?
Sacrifice convenience, dignity, and freedom for security or not.
rm -rf ms/*
air travel is a privilege, not a right
SAYS WHO? And with what force of anything other than repeating an often told lie to back it up? Just because some control freak law enforcement thugs keep repeating big lies all over the place doesn't make any of them true.
Get this through your thick statist head: there is no such thing as privileges in a free society. Anybody who says otherwise wants to control something.
Oh, and just in case you're one of those people who has to believe that we have no rights unless there's some law that grants them, consider this one:
"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace" (49 USC sec 40103) An unnecessary statement, really, but it's there.
Remeber that the value we assign to gold, and other precious metals, is just as make-believe as the value we assign to paper money and to pieces of clay.
The value of gold fluctuates up and down with the desire and demand for it, even when the supply is rather steady. One of the big reasons for ending the gold standard was due to the fact that the majority of new gold being mined in the world was, at the time, supplied by the Soviet Union and South Africa. This meant that nations who were not alligned with America's interests could exert control over the value of a gold-backed dollar by hoarding or dumping gold on the market. The inability to exert control over the fluctuating price of gold would have ceded control of the value of our currency to foreign powers (kind of like borrowing massively from foreign powers to finance our spending does now).
Whenever you hear the term 'gold standard', substitute the term 'gold variable'. It is a more accurate way of comprehending the real situation. Think about how wildly the price of gold has inflated in the last decade.
There's nothing 'standard' about the price of gold.
Rand Paul is the best thing that has happened for this country since Ron Paul
Take a risk? Yes, but only because we have a country that keeps sticking our nose where it isn't wanted. The risk would go way down if we stopped barging into international situations where we aren't wanted or needed.
So he leads a political charge against the intentionially demonizable body searches. (why do you think those were added?) But what about all the kickback dollars to random "security equipment" like the backscatter scanners. Will that continue, increase, decrease, or be shut down and indicted as it should be?
-josh
This bureaucracy is built on being self sustaining. Pretty soon they will move from airports to toll booths to whatever else the fear mongers think will sustain their existance.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
If a terrorist wanted to really do harm, the proof of success is the plethora of high-rise buidlings in every city. I just think that fear mongering has caused exaggerated risks.
The surveillance done by the FBI or other agencies specializing in terrorism detection are better placed than the search for matches that are stuffed up a persons rectum.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
LMFAO The C5 is a huge military transport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-5_Galaxy
While you might "walk" through security, your altered gait might give it away.
Since the TSA's inception, terrorists have been thwarted by passengers (eg. the "underwear bomber" of Christmas '09)
um...aren't you forgetting which security organization hassled and irritated the passengers, making them angry and violent enough to violate the bomber's civil rights? The system works.
I can cherry pick too... Like the deacon in Colorado that did stop a gunman with a legally carried gun. An armed populace does not guarantee that a passer-by will be able to stop a crime, but an unarmed populace guarantees that they will not.
You know how clerks in convience stores that get robbed are getting shot even though they are trying to comply (but never get the chance). Sometimes in the back of the head, execution style even after they comply.
Well, in one attempted Las Vegas robbery, a clerk didn't let that happen.
He shot the robber dead.
Saved his own life quite likely, removed a scumbag from society and saved us thousands of dollars!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Wouldn't necessarily work.
Switching the US to a command economy (*) and drafting millions would allow US to do whatever we needed to do in the Middle East.
If the choice was give up capitalism and switch to a command economy until we can stop the threat, or we have another 9/11, I'd vote for the command economy.
(*) Or at the least, telling people if you don't supply the government with what it needs voluntarily, the government will take it by force.
Reality is reality. Statistics aren't.
And Boba Fett != Jango Fett
With the first link, the chain is forged.
It's a sad day indeed when common sense is considered "extreme".
99% of the crap that comes out of Rand Paul's mouth is indeed "extreme" and is most certainly not "common sense" (which is frequently wrong anyway). This is a rare exception.
Even a broken clock is right twice per day.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Well, that may just be because they open-carry instead...
~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
What are you going to do when the fucking ragheads stuff an IED into their baby's diaper?
You water the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots, that's what. And if the boom-lottery chooses you to be on that flight... that's the risk you take as the price of freedom. A very tiny percentage of us will die at the hands of terrorists. We suck it up and preserve our Constitution.
Yeah, I know, fantasyland. Americans with spines, willing to accept a risk that is smaller than that of being hit by lightning in return for preventing huge abuses by political police? Never happen.
Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
The real solution is to have 2 planes. 1 plane that allows anyone on board the way it use to be. The 2nd plane to have people that went though security. After a few months we would know what the really people want.
Holy Green Jesus just how many years has this idiotic false dilemma, worded nearly exactly every time, been on idiotic non-thinker comments on article pages from Fox News, NY Daily News, NY Post, MSNBC, Chicago Trib, LA Times, HuffPo, Drudge, every outlet from every part of the so-called political spectrum.
Is there some Official Ministry of Stupid that hands this out as a talking points memo? And how did one of its subscribers get onto /.?
no, the TSA is fine. defund homeland security, and then TSA could crate actually effective security measures.
Few days late checking the moronicity on this thread. Bless your heart, do you even know what the TSA is? And what Cabinet Level department it is housed within? And which was created (initially as an Executive Branch Department until getting Cabinet-level Status), at essentially the same time?
We didn't have a TSA or a Department of Homeland Security until both were created in the weeks post-9/11- there was no TSA without the Heimatsicherheitministerium (as the /. or Flyertalk poster whom I forget but crib this from says, "DHS sounds better in the original German")
Yeah, somebody is gonna cite a difference of days or weeks in the enabling laws. It still was all of one, post-9/11, overreaction. In essence created together in one action.
"Private-run airport security is fine. defund homeland security, and then the TSA could crate(sic) actually effective security measures."
FTFY
I'm sorry, but your petition is invalid. A Mr. Anonymous Coward signed it over 1000 times.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Congrats everyoneyou hate government so much you're willing to screw yourself. Libertardian idiots.
Let's just fire Ron Paul and all the rest of the Tea Party idiots. We'd save a lot of money, and maybe Congress could get something done for a change.
yea, we should either:
1) have no security at airports. Leave protecting passengers to the passengers. look how well that Libertarian approach worked for flight 93.
2) go back to private corporations providing security with minimum-wage, un-screened, untrained personnel, without standardized methods or routines.
Personally, I've found the perasonnel to be generally friendly and professional, and a HUGE step up from the bozos we had until 9-11. What, you never had a bad day at work, dealing with lines of a**holes who think the sun shines out their sphincters, while your job is to invade their personal privacy for the sake of the general public's safety?
Can you say 'thankless job'?
So call Unka Ron, and ask him which he prefers, #1 or #2.
Yea, I thought so.
The TSA serves several purposes unrelated to real security, but to me, more than anything else, it is a jobs program. And a unionized public employee jobs program at that. Good luck on shutting it down or reforming it when they can use their union dues to buy off most of the politicians that would pass legislation against them. Every time they screw up, it just gets spun as justification that they need a bigger budget and more unrestricted powers to ensure that it won't happen again. Bigger budget means more unionized staff paying dues into the machine which means more funds to bribe politicians. It is a positive feedback loop, and a textbook example of why public employees must not be allowed to unionize, ever. Private employees at a company that can fail if they overreach themselves is a different matter, they can unionize all they want - the market will decide.