White House Pulls Down TSA Petition

Jeremiah Cornelius writes with a note that on Thursday of this week "The Electronic Privacy Information Center posted a brief and detailed notice about the removal of a petition regarding security screenings by the TSA at US airports and other locations. 'At approximately 11:30 am EDT, the White House removed a petition about the TSA airport screening procedures from the White House 'We the People' website. About 22,500 of the 25,000 signatures necessary for a response from the Administration were obtained when the White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition. The site also went down for 'maintenance' following an article in Wired that sought support for the campaign."

Comments

Two can play at this game

[ColdWetDog]

We need a petition for the petition!

Re:Two can play at this game

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a petition for the petition!

That petition will get pulled early too. Look it's doesn't matter how many petitions you stand up. Basically the folks that have the authority and power to control the people, will. Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes. Nothing else matters. You're either part of the good-old-boy network, or you're nobody. It's always been this way; for every country; for every regime; for every global power, since time began.

Re:Two can play at this game

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a petition for the petition!

That petition will get pulled early too. Look it's doesn't matter how many petitions you stand up. Basically the folks that have the authority and power to control the people, will. Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes. Nothing else matters. You're either part of the good-old-boy network, or you're nobody. It's always been this way; for every country; for every regime; for every global power, since time began.

Yes and every once in a while a revolution comes along that burns the old ways and chops heads or worse.

Re:Two can play at this game

[Animats]

Look it's doesn't matter how many petitions you stand up. Basically the folks that have the authority and power to control the people, will. Common folk are only here to support the rich and powerful by way of their taxes. Nothing else matters. You're either part of the good-old-boy network, or you're nobody. It's always been this way; for every country; for every regime; for every global power, since time began.

That wasn't true of the US from WWII to about 1960. Truman and Eisenhower were modest people. Truman ran a hat store. Eisenhower was a night supervisor at a creamery before he got into West Point. That period was probably the most successful in American history.

Re:Two can play at this game

[Dunbal]

Yes and every once in a while a revolution comes along that burns the old ways and chops heads or worse.

But somehow fails to effect any change at all.

Re:Two can play at this game

[artor3]

Incidentally, the top tax bracket in that period was 80-90%. The rich could still live like kings, but they didn't have billions (or the contemporary equivalent) to buy politicians.

Income disparity is a self-reinforcing problem. If you let the rich have too much of the pie, that gives them the power to take even more.

Re:Two can play at this game

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

The politician steals no wealth from the rich. He is the lickspittle and lackey of the socioeconomic elite - and lives or dies at their bidding. What passes for his riches? These are but crumbs, from the feasting tables of his masters.

The main job of the politician is to distract the mass of people into believing their plight can be resolved through matters of governance and ideology. He's like a WWF entertainer - should he lose or prevail, the winner is always the man in the back office.

Re:Two can play at this game

[Dunbal]

It would certainly effect change for Obama. For the country as a whole? Not so much. In fact, none at all. The track that the US - and much of the Western world - is currently on, will continue. There is so much momentum because of a mind-set. The mind-set of the corporate world. The mind set of the children brought up in a land of plenty, who have never experienced real war, or real hardship, or real famine. The mind set of corruption and lobbying. The mind-set of being fascinated with destruction and war machines and technology. You can vote out every single politician and nothing will change at all, because the politicans are merely a reflection of the society as a whole. They are the symptom, not the disease.

Re:Two can play at this game

[shentino]

People are inherently evil, and behind their altruistic motives is the instinct to backstab if they can get away with it.

Put someone in a position of trust where they have a chance to fuck everyone over and get away with it, they will do so.

The few who wouldn't, never seek such a position to begin with.

It's human nature, and will never change.

The best we can do is put in checks and balances so that we turn this nature against itself and keep it deadlocked in a stalemate.

Re:Two can play at this game

[smpoole7]

> Yes and every once in a while a revolution comes along that burns the old ways and chops heads or worse.

And within a generation or two (if that long), the revolutionaries are just as corrupt as the original regime.

Also, it's a rare revolutionary who just wants things to be FAIR. Most of them want to get EVEN. (A very fine distinction.) History is also filled with examples of revolutionaries who, once having taken power, simply use that power to oppress those who originally oppressed them.

Re:Two can play at this game

[berashith]

So I have a choice of allowing someone to fuck me over and try their best to enslave me while pretending to let me have a say in the matter, or creating an environment where they leave, take their money and jobs, but leave behind the capital and resources that the remaining citizens can attempt to use to actually achieve success? I say let them go. There are piles of people with skill and drive that can still succeed and bring up many with them that currently have to wade through a stacked deck.

I dont think that the jobs are only here because the rich that are skimming the economy into ruin are just being polite as long as we let them get away with anything they feel like doing.

Re:Two can play at this game

[number11]

If the Obidiot were to be thrown out of office come the November election, it would effect some change.

True, but if he was replaced by Rmoney, it would be change for the worse.

If all 435 sitting idiots in the House of representatives were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change. If all 33 idiot senators in the Senate up for reelection were thrown out come the November election, it would effect some change.

True, but if they were replaced by others from the usual crowd of suspects, it would not be significant change. And part of the problem is that while a lot of people (including me) think that Congress is idiots, those same people (including me) often think their own particular Rep is an exception.

Repeat until the elected idiots finally realize that their employ is to serve the interests of the people (those who vote them into office) rather than the corporate elites.

This will only work if we can keep the corporate elites' money out of politics. Limiting who can put money in (e.g. only persons qualified to vote) would help, as would limiting the amount they can put in (e.g. a max of $5000 per person per election for all aggregated electoral/issues advertising contributions), but there are those "corporations have rights" and "money is speech" things to overcome.

Re:Two can play at this game

[Lumpy]

"If you take too much from the rich, they will leave, and they'll take their jobs with them."

Then good riddance. They can frisking leave. Hope they enjoy paying for a private army in south america or where ever they move to. Because if what you say is true they wont be going to Europe where the rich are taxed heavily.

and honestly we don't need their jobs. Eliminate the rich and their "jobs" and the economy will recover faster. because small business men will jump in to fill the void. treating the employees better, creating a far superior product, and overall doing a far better job at it.

Re:Two can play at this game

[Anonymous Coward]

... and what did that produce?

500 years of democracy and peace.

Re:Two can play at this game

[Anonymous Coward]

I see that some people agree with your unsupported assertions - why else would your comment be modded up?

First: nobody paid those taxes. People paid less taxes than they are paying today.

You seem to be confused about the concept of marginal tax rates. Nobody is claiming that people paid 90% of their total income in taxes. There were more deductions at that time, however, people certainly didn't pay less taxes then than they do today. In 1960, the top marginal rate was 91%, and the rich did indeed pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes
Income inequality was also much less at that time.

Second: what kind of logic is that, marginal tax rates were high and so this is why the economy was better or whatever the point is? That's a huge logical fail, none of that follows.

You appear to have a reading comprehension fail. The claim was that the lower incomes of the rich led to their having less influence over politics because they had less to spend on it.

Thirdly: the real time when USA was actually a real economic power, when people truly had individual liberties was not any time past WWII, it was the time from the 1870 to 1913.

Ah, yes, the Gilded Age. A time of robber barons, union busting, company stores, and political corruption. There was certainly high growth during this period due to industrialization, but a period of personal liberty? What are you smoking? Assuming you weren't black, a woman, or a native American, and assuming you approved of child labor and sweat shops, you basically had the "liberty" to exploit your fellow man during this period - if you had the money, resources, or political power to do so. It was certainly closer to the libertarian paradise in that the government did little to protect the common man from exploitation, but these liberties tend to be quite one sided, and to the benefit of those with power.

Re:Two can play at this game

[DesScorp]

You've got it all wrong. People are actually inherently good, and their altruistic motives are mostly hardwired.

And just what proof of this do you present? Because I present, for my case of man being inherently flawed and evil unless taught not to be and enforced with laws and social codes, the entire history of the human race. You're essentially using Rousseau's "noble savage" argument, that man, until corrupted by civilization, is inherently good. But it fell out of favor because common sense triumphed, and we re-discovered that, shockingly, savages tend to be... savage.

Re:Two can play at this game

[AK Marc]

The worst of what he did was try to gracefully end Bush's policies, rather than doing so more abruptly. That, and sellout to the insurance lobby by abandoning single payer insurance the moment he won the election. The only reason he seems bad now is that you are too close to it. 50 years from now, he may be a forgettable president, but won't even make it on a list of "bad" presidents any more than Carter does, who was bad, and quite hated at the time, but now largely just ignored.

Re:Two can play at this game

[shentino]

I kinda like the scheme set up by israel's knesset.

Direct election of representatives, who elect a prime minister. They can waive their own immunity.

Add to this the ability to recall a representative at will and you'd almost have a perfect system.

The biggest problem we have with the electoral college is that we can't fire our reps if they screw up or screw us in the arse.

Which means they have no incentive to be truthful during campaign season, just avoid pissing off the congress critters feeding from the same corporate trough they are.

More finishing touches would be to make election fraud (vote tampering, disenfranchisement, etc) a class A felony of sorts punishable by 20 years in prison.

Re:Two can play at this game

[shentino]

What we need most is a way to fire our delegates.

Local politicians subject to recall tend to behave better while in office.

If we're really their bosses, why shouldn't we be able to hand them a pink slip?

Re:Two can play at this game

[AK Marc]

We gave the rich billions, and they didn't create a single new job for it. When Exxon or Mobile take in 10 billion in profit in a quarter, do they add new jobs? No. They still try to keep costs as low as possible to repeat the performance next quarter.

Re:Two can play at this game

[cayenne8]

I'm not sure which world you live in, but you can either have non-govt provided healthcare (so you pay $$$ or pay insurance $$$) or you can have govt provided healthcare (in which case, you pay with taxes).

What other choices are there, other than fairy dust and unicorn horns?

I think an integration of both sides.

We already have medicare for the elderly, and medicaid for the poor....

For the rest of us, do a few things I think:

1. Allow insurance to be sold across state lines, like auto insuracne....open it up to more competition and that should help lower prices a good bit.

2. Especially for the young...and I'm not young and I'd prefer this...rather than tighten down things like HSA (not FSA which is use it or lose it) allow people to sock away a good bit of money pre-tax into Health Savings Accounts....for their routine care. Why should people not save for routine care just like they save for groceries, utilities...etc. If you combine this with a higher deductible insurance policy, ONLY to be used for catastrophic needs (this used to be called Major Medical)....and that way your covered for something catastrophic....but routine care is paid for by you...allowing you to shop around for doctors, etc....opening up competition there a bit too.

Way back before HMO's and all came about....prices weren't running away...its when you put bean counters in as middle men along with insurance, where things got out of hand.

3. Take employers out of the chain.....why should medical insurance be tied to employment...that ties people down to jobs....

I think something along those lines would help. It keeps the govt out of the decision making...but allows for people to save on their own, and encourages it through tax breaks...I supposed if the govt were to be involved more...maybe a minimum HSA deduction would be mandated by employment...but the person would be in charge of it, and it would stay with them no matter who they work for.

Re:Two can play at this game

[TapeCutter]

The US health system is fucked because there is a maze of overlapping schemes and policy fine print, each one with its own army of accounts who are paid to work out how NOT to pay your claim. The US spends as much tax on health as Australia does (on a per capita basis). The difference is that in Australia you are fully covered with that tax money no questions asked, whereas in the US the same level of funding doesn't even buy basic cover for everyone. A good system will only come about when affordable universal health care is a bipartisan issue, which is unlikely to happen any day soon in the US.

Re:Two can play at this game

[StormyWeather]

Taxes are the price you pay to live in a civilized society.

Nobody argues this, what people do argue about is the amount of taxes, and what those taxes are used for. The problem is that we start with spening, then create a budget, then go after revenues.

We should determine what a fair amount of revenues or life to eat up of the populace, then determine a budget, then allocate the revenue to the budget.

Can you imagine at your house if you went on a spending spree for every little thing your heart wanted, then you came up with your budget, then went to your boss to demand to be paid what your budget was? It's just fucking stupid!

Tyranny

[pubwvj]

So much for open government and responsiveness. Yes, but only if we ask for what they want to give us.

somewhat surprising

[Trepidity]

Given that online petitions are notoriously ineffective, I wonder why they'd bother. Let the thing get to 25,000, and issue a generic, mostly content-free response about balancing safety and the War on Terror with civil liberties and whatever. I doubt it'd be particularly politically damaging either way, since this is one issue where the Obama administration is more or less in line with the GOP opposition, which created the TSA in the first place, and whose law-and-order branch still strongly supports it.

Well...

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

They were going to give a non-answer answer anyway. This is just an attempt to avoid any coverage of the issue.

Re:Well...

[C0R1D4N]

They should meet Barbara Streisand. I am betting taking it down and killing what little credibility the petition system had will only increase coverage.

How much time?

[AliasMarlowe]

TFS and TFA state that the "White House unexpectedly cut short the time period for the petition", and indeed, the petition's page now says "The petition you are trying to access has expired, because it failed to meet the signature threshold."
It would be nice if EPIC provided information on (i) how long a petition normally gets before it expires, and (ii) how old this petition was when it was abruptly terminated. We know that it had garnered 22500 out of the 25000 signatures required, but how much time was taken away by the early termination of the petition?

Re:no big conspiracy...just normal maintenance

[CastrTroy]

Convenient time to schedule maintenance. Right at the end of the petition deadline. Also, who's running this server. This isn't 1970. There's no need to bring a server down for maintenance. At least not for a prolonged period of time. At most it should be down for the amount of time it takes to reboot the server. A proper web site should have 2 or 3 load balanced machines anyway, so the site never has to be completely down.

The real question..

[SuperCharlie]

Has the "We The People" website had one iota of influence on ANY issue?

I suspect the whole purpose was to get some good touchy-feely-see-I-care press for launching the site, not to actually do anything substantive but pat people on the head and continue to do whatever the hell they want anyway.

RTFA

[lexsird]

If anyone bothers to read this, (and this is an old story already, been done at Reddit) they will discover that it was due to be taken down in a half an hour. It was a half an hour early, BIG FUCKING DEAL. It's highly doubtful that they would have got the 2500 signatures in that time anyway. Besides these petitions are only for letting them know what people are on about, to get a public opinion. They don't set policy.

This is a none issue, only made an issue by hysterical paranoid loons.

Re:Par for the course...

[LourensV]

...for the least transparent administration in American history.

I seriously doubt that. With modern media and the Internet all the parts of the government are more visible than they've ever been. Yes, there are things that governments today won't tell their citizens about, but those have always been there. It's just that the citizens now know about the existence of these things at all, whereas in earlier times the citizens did what they did in their homes and the politicians did what they did in their capitols and there was much less communication. And so, modern governments seem less transparent, while the citizens now actually know more about what their government does than ever before.

Not the fault of the EPA...

[Ellis D. Tripp]

The EPA can only enforce environmental laws within the US. They have no ability to enforce US environmental standards overseas, and no ability to prevent the importation of foreign-manufactured goods unless the goods THEMSELVES pose an environmental threat (such as banned pesticides).

While I completely agree with you in regards to outsourcing in order to skirt environmental regulations, the laws needed to prevent this would need to come from agencies other than the EPA. Starting with the commerce dept.