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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Which totally explains why he was against the TSA before that incident even happened!
Wait, no it doesn't...
Then why didn't it solve the problem when it had a chance and before legislation had to be involved?
If the free market can solve all problems why do so many go unsolved for so long?
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
And what a lovely idea, until one sees how things worked in the South until civil rights legislation passed. Since virtually no white restaurant would serve a black person, this whole "competition will kill racism" line suddenly looks pretty fucking retarded, no?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
No, he only has an issue with it because he finally got accosted like the rest of us.
Senator Paul has been complaining and fighting against TSA abuses for years along with his father. He did not just started having an issue with them.
So lets have two lines at the airport: one going to planes where nobody has to pass through security. And one going to planes where there is security screening? I can tell you which line I am going into. Pat me down and ask me to stand on my head. Its not bothering me in the least to feel a little delayed if it keeps an explosive off my plane. I hope all you people complaining wind up in the plane with no security and six bombers on the same plane with you.
I doubt anyone wants 'no' security. More like bring back the old security (metal detectors, dog sniffing, etc).
Even if it was 'no' security, I'd still pick that line. If the plane goes down, at least I can say I died without getting felt up by a bunch of thugs.
And if your competitor does business with that someone, they'd be called "nigger lovers" and run out of business, with everyone from the mayor and the sheriff down to the local Jaycees cheering them on. It's all a private transaction until you call the cops to throw a "trespasser" out of your lunch counter, or the cops refuse to arrest people who assault someone who dares sit at it.
Regulating public accommodations in CRA '63 was a practical solution to the problem of collusion between the local government and private interests. It made frivolous, racial government prosecutions for "loitering" and "trespassing" impossible.
Your theory works until people care more about being racist than making money, as if profits were able to buy off peoples prejudices. They don't.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Clearly this has nothing to do with the fact that 100 years after the end of slavery the "free market" had shown that it was perfectly willing to get together and conspire to keep black folks in abject poverty and deny them access to goods and services. When the Constitution was amended to give blacks equal rights the Southern Court's ruled that the clear and obvious interpretation of those new amendments was wrong -- that blacks didn't have the right to equal treatment, and if they did, they could at least be kept separate.
Fantasies about the mythical market unicorn didn't solve the problem. Years of protests didn't solve the problem. LBJ solved the problem. And it has stayed solved. Show me one self-inflicted market reform that has ever worked as well.
Or, when you stand for principle, and not some abstract premise like "helping the middle class" like most politicians do, even people that are opposed to you will eventually find things to agree with you on.
In your case you want Liberty in certain instances. Where you think liberty should be doled out and that liberty doesn't offend your sensibilities. Rand Paul stands for liberty for all. Even if that liberty hurts. So you'll agree with Rand when the rights gained are your own, but when someone else gains liberty at the your financial, social, or ideological expense, you call him a fool. True Liberty is painful and ugly. But it is the only way. If you let the government impinge on the rights of others, no matter how despicable their beliefs are to you... eventually the government will use that power to restrict your own rights. The truth has been born out in history in nearly every society that's ever existed. Now it's happening here.
Then why didn't it solve the problem when it had a chance and before legislation had to be involved?
If the free market can solve all problems why do so many go unsolved for so long?
Because state governments would not let them. Jim Crow Laws were exactly that: Laws passed by state governments.
Separate facilities for whites and non-whites didn't exist because the business owners wanted them necessarily (though I'm sure there were some who did want them). They existed because the various state governments mandated it.
The free market was not allowed to function because of government coercion.
But the root of the Pauls' objection to the TSA isn't because of nude scans or genital gropes, but because they think the Federal Government should be shrunken to levels that would likely have shocked late 19th century Americans. Yes, I'm sure they're appalled by the nonsense that goes on, but even if the TSA was an effective and reasonable security agency, the Pauls would still want it gone.
Er, what makes you think that the levels they'd like to shrink the Leviathan down to would shock 19th century Americans? I suspect they'd be far far more shocked by the run away fed.gov than they would by any attempt to shrink it.
"You mean there are entire federal agencies devoted to nothing but saying what you can and cannot eat/drink/smoke?!"
"What the hell do you mean you can't build a house on land you own because some bureaucrat in Washington has declared it a wetland?!"
"The Federal government largely dictate what is taught in schools?! Where is that in the Constitution?!"
I suspect the average 19th Century American would be shaking their head at us wondering how we let the boot get so heavy and just where all these powers fed.gov has came from.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
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.
The problem is we as a culture already treat universal healthcare as a universal right. If you walk into almost any hospital in the country without insurance or money with a critical health problem, you will be treated. Media circuses have gone crazy when this occasionally doesn't happen. In the end, most of the cost of your treatment will be paid for by taxpayers at public hospitals, or by writing off the bad debt and rolling it into everyone else's bills at private hospitals. Most of those critcal health problems could have been drastically reduced in severity and cost by half-decent early intervention and care.
I think it is time to explicitly accept this fact, develop a universal health care program with decent basic preventative and interventional care and cost controls, and allow the private insurance market to provide coverage for the cadillac care that wealthy people want and can afford.
Posting anonymously because of previous mods. THIS POST IS RIGHT ON!!! Do you want to know why we have all this security theater in place? Do you want to know why the government continues with it even though the TSA doesn't work? It's because insurance rates for airports and airlines would go through the roof if we didn't have this in place. After 9/11, insurers said that security measures had to be put in place or else they would refuse to insure airplanes and airports. It's the GAWDDAMN insurance companies who insure the flight industry who demand all this security theater. Our lives are governed by actuarial tables.
This is the most absurd white-washing I've ever heard. Who do you think composed the onerous state governments who were so tragically oppressing the free market? It was the very citizens who owned those businesses, frequented them, and otherwise populated those states. Those communities supported, elected and funded the politicians who enacted those ideas into law. Trying to retroactively give the racist attitudes of the Jim Crow era an out by suggesting the state government was forcing them against their will into segregation is not only embarrassing but offensive. You would do yourself and everyone you know a favor to recognize that governments and laws do not exist in a vacuum.