Slashdot Mirror


TSA 'Secured' Metrodome During Recent Football Game

McGruber writes "Travel writer Christopher Elliott touches down with the news that the U.S. Transportation Security Administration was spotted standing around outside a recent American football game between the Minnesota Vikings and the Green Bay Packers (picture). According to Mr. Elliott, the 'TSA goes to NFL games and political conventions and all kinds of places that have little or nothing to do with ... travel. It even has a special division called VIPR — an unfortunate acronym for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team — that conducts these searches.' He continues, 'As far as I can tell, TSA is just asking questions at this point. "Data and results collected through the Highway BASE program will inform TSA's policy and program initiatives and allow TSA to provide focused resources and tools to enhance the overall security posture within the surface transportation community," it says in the filing. But they wouldn't be wasting our money asking such questions unless they planned to aggressively expand VIPR at some point in the near future. And that means TSA agents at NFL games, in subways and at the port won't be the exception anymore — they will be the rule.'"

364 comments

  1. Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why not just get it over with and change your flag to the swastika, we all know that's where this is heading.

    1. Re:Nazi America by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why not just get it over with and change your flag to the swastika, we all know that's where this is heading.

      Well, I think the first step is to change their uniform shirts to a sort of a chocolate brown color, that has a "calming" effect...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why not just get it over with and change your flag to the swastika, we all know that's where this is heading.

      Well, I think the first step is to change their uniform shirts to a sort of a chocolate brown color, that has a "calming" effect...

      I think they may have all ready deployed their troops - look closely, the next time you THINK you see a UPS man.

    3. Re:Nazi America by Phrogman · · Score: 5, Funny

      One night it will all crystallize, and you can all see where its heading...

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    4. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How was this marked troll? This is making it look like the US is gifting itself with a third, politically inspired police corps. Just like the SS.

    5. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's part of American culture and you should be tolerant. Americans are mostly supportive of these security measures since they overwhelmingly voted for either Republican or Democrat, both of which look to expand domestic security. As you are tolerant of Middle Eastern dictatorships and countries like China, you too should be tolerant of America. Your criticism is a sign of bigotry.

    6. Re:Nazi America by crazycheetah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Americans are mostly supportive of these security measures since they overwhelmingly voted for either Republican or Democrat

      You're forgetting the part where most Americans are brainwashed into thinking that the only point that their vote is going to do any good (or bad for that matter) is if they vote Republican or Democrat. I keep meeting more and more people that hate both parties but vote for them, because "there's no other choice that's not throwing my vote away!" There's a pretty good chunk of people in the US right now that despise our government and are trying all kind of different means outside of starting a revolution to correct it. Unfortunately, that's MUCH easier said than done.

    7. Re:Nazi America by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 1

      "We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." - Barack Obama, July 2, 2008, Colorado Springs, CO

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s

      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    8. Re:Nazi America by paiute · · Score: 5, Funny

      The United States of America lost 75% of its Constitutional rights by following this one weird trick!

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    9. Re:Nazi America by waspleg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
      --C.S. Lewis

    10. Re:Nazi America by Vinegar+Joe · · Score: 5, Informative
      --
      "The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
    11. Re:Nazi America by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Informative

      One night it will all crystallize...

      For those under 30...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    12. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      With all respect, under 30, got the reference.

    13. Re:Nazi America by Golddess · · Score: 2

      I keep meeting more and more people that hate both parties but vote for them, because "there's no other choice that's not throwing my vote away!"

      What states do they live in? If it's a solidly red state, and they vote Democrat, tell them that they are already throwing their vote away. Likewise for solidly blue states and Republican voters.

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    14. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we should respect Americans' decision to accept these domestic agencies. It is their country after all, and non-Americans should not pass judgement until they have fixed the problems in their own countries.

    15. Re:Nazi America by jameshofo · · Score: 1

      Well we also need to add disinformation and propaganda to public schools too.

      --
      Good leaders run toward problems, bad leaders hide from them.
    16. Re:Nazi America by mschaffer · · Score: 2, Funny

      To be more accurate, I thought the TSA uniform's insignia should depict someone stacking trays. After all, doesn't the TSA stand for "Tray Stackers of America"?

    17. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht

      Time to cleanse the world of those GNU loving hippies.

    18. Re:Nazi America by clonehappy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And they will have nicely drawn-out lists of who to round-up.

      Read in PBS-Style voiceover: "This list brought to you by AT&T, Verizon, Facebook, Twitter, and other message board posts like yours!"

    19. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They aren't 'brainwashed into think they are throwing their vote away'. They are actually voting logically and objectively. It is the voting system that is broken.

    20. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America has no desire to see through the sheep's clothing. Read Obama's executive orders if you want to see what he's really after.

    21. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How was this marked troll? This is making it look like the US is gifting itself with a third, politically inspired police corps. Just like the SS.

      Perhaps the "troll" was meant for the idiots who didn't learn that fucking lesson the first time 70+ years ago.

      Unfortunately, We the People are those idiots for allowing this shit to continue.

    22. Re:Nazi America by DigiShaman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bush created this monster, and Obama plans on growing it for his control.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    23. Re:Nazi America by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      uninterruptable power stassi?

      oh, you mean the other UPS.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    24. Re:Nazi America by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      100% that the next president ALSO won't disband it.

      so, no need to blame this or that president. other than bush the bastard, who started it all going, that is.

      it would take a powerful person (will-wise) to undo the security theatre we have. but we have not had a strong willed president since, well, kennedy? its been longer than I can remember, at any rate.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    25. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obey!

    26. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kennedy was not strong willed. He was a philanderer. As not blaming any POTUS other than Bush? Bad example. That's like Bush raping someone up the ass all while the next POTUS walks in on the action and goes "oh shit!...well, your fucked anyways girl. My turn" and thus she continues to be gang-raped one POTUS after the other.

    27. Re:Nazi America by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Funny

      For those who slept through high school and currently have a career as TSA agents...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht [wikipedia.org]

      FTFY.

    28. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Forgetting? Look, most people are imbeciles. Take a look at how many people truly support measures such as the TSA and/or Patriot Act. If not most, a lot of people. The others? They don't care enough to try to stop it, so they're just as bad. What about the people who speak out against it? Most of them are like me, and sit on their fat fucking asses doing nothing and complaining about it, and then occasionally voting against the politicians who bring this shit about.

    29. Re:Nazi America by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Quite possibly. However, that does not detract from the wisdom of it. Just leave off the quotation marks and keep using it. It's a warning worthy of perpetuation.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    30. Re:Nazi America by koan · · Score: 1

      How do we change it?

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    31. Re:Nazi America by koan · · Score: 2

      Neither one of those men are in *control* of what's going on, they are merely facilitators.

      And that above comment will one day be illegal and retroactively punishable so that when I get that jay walking ticket in 2035 they will review my comments history and try me for that as well.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    32. Re:Nazi America by koan · · Score: 2
      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    33. Re:Nazi America by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Wait until you see what these women reveal in front of scanners!

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    34. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just get it over with and change your flag to the swastika, we all know that's where this is heading.

      Yeah dude! because sending security to an event involving tens of thousands of people gathered in one small area is equivalent to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust...

    35. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I moved out of the US 4 years ago because I can see where it's going. I keep hoping the voters would accidentally step in sanity, but until then, I'll take my chances elsewhere.

    36. Re:Nazi America by ranpel · · Score: 2

      Perhaps by allowing it to accelerate - as clearly we are doing just this. Sure, it could get messy with suffering, pain and death and likely will but, really, is it not the quickest remedy? Maybe on the next go we'll get to 300 years. There is not enough pressure apparently to encourage "normal" people to realize the time to choose approaches quickly. If one ignores it long enough they still might die happy with the thought that their life was mostly free.

      It's sort of funny, in a horrid way, that every time I see a TSA headline, any TSA headline, the very first thing that comes to mind are brown shirts. Something tells me that there is a reason for that though voicing it seems brash and somewhat unjustified - for the moment. And yet I think it.

      --
      \r
    37. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would read that as revolution which is fine with me, but with technology thrown into the mix it become easier to maintain a police state for much longer than would have been possible in say... 1930.

    38. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How do we change it?

      Now you begin to understand why common citizens really do *need* AR-15 rifles.

    39. Re:Nazi America by shikaisi · · Score: 2

      Yes, and drop the "T". Just call it the SA, so we know who we are dealing with.

      --
      No left turn unstoned.
    40. Re:Nazi America by clarkn0va · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Learn to love Alaska [romancingalaska.com]

      But still encouraging others to go there?

      --
      I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
    41. Re:Nazi America by murdocj · · Score: 0

      Good lord... parent got modded "insightful"? What's the average age of Slashdot readers now, 13???

      I mean, really, having security at major sporting events, is that really the equivalent of murdering millions and millions of people? Really?

    42. Re:Nazi America by murdocj · · Score: 0

      It's marked troll because it's a troll.

    43. Re:Nazi America by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2

      To make cute little "ping" sounds against the armour of the Abrams bearing down on them?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    44. Re:Nazi America by CptNerd · · Score: 3, Funny

      They're not automated yet (skynet) so whoever's driving has to get out to pee or eat sometime...

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    45. Re:Nazi America by aztracker1 · · Score: 2

      Last November, I didn't vote for a single incumbent in any race, voted no on all ballot initiatives, and voted third party (L), where there was an option...

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    46. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last November, I didn't vote for a single incumbent in any race, voted no on all ballot initiatives, and voted third party (L), where there was an option...

      So, were those actual educated decisions, or are you going to be that hypocrite for calling out others for blindly pulling the red or blue lever, when in reality it appears your voting patterns are just as retarded...

    47. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      It's a friend's blog, who, when I first changed my sig to that, um, what, 10 years ago, had Google ads, and about 30% of his ad revenue came from visitors directed there from my sig. So it was support of a friend, not any particular affinity to Alaska. Though the more people that move there, the better off I am, at least until I finally sell my house there.

      But owning a home free and clear, a nice 4-bed 3-bath in a good neighborhood, makes more sense to hold and rent, than sell. At least until the children are 18+ and decide whether they want to go back to the homeland, or stay in any of the other places they are entitled to live. Unless the tunnel under the Bearing Strait gets built, or he natural gas pipeline to the lower 48. If either happen, I expect a land boom like the one in the 1980s, and I'd get out at the top of the bubble, rather than hold through a bubble grow and pop. Though nothing would prevent me from buying in again at the bottom of the trough that would come after the pop.

    48. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Gestapo actually had all-black uniforms. Skull and crossbones on their hats is a bonus.

    49. Re:Nazi America by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Informative

      I mean, really, having security at major sporting events, is that really the equivalent of murdering millions and millions of people? Really?

      Remember Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. That's what's lurking under the surface.

      --
      No sig today...
    50. Re:Nazi America by Pf0tzenpfritz · · Score: 1

      If they're not only securing transport but anything else, they might also change their name. From TSA to SA.

      --
      Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
    51. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the Hammer and Sickle.

    52. Re:Nazi America by slashrio · · Score: 1

      I moved out of the US 4 years ago because I can see where it's going.

      I'm afraid this time it will be a worldwide co-ordinated fascist attack on all our freedoms.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    53. Re:Nazi America by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Actually, 'TSA' stands for:
      The SA...

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    54. Re:Nazi America by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All hail the new King. Same as the old King.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    55. Re:Nazi America by TheLink · · Score: 1

      That's how democracy works. With democracy the voters are more likely to get a government that they deserve.

      If the voters really hated the R/D, they should stop playing stupid games and vote for something else. Because the politicians are better at playing the "game theory" games than they are.

      Even if some 3rd party doesn't win, if that 3rd party gets 20% of the votes the R and D will take notice and possibly change some things. Otherwise, why should the R/D do things differently? The voters keep telling them "more of the same".

      As it is the people have spoken and they are saying "more of the same". Starting a revolution to "correct" things is ridiculous. Who thinks the same idiots will be better at deciding where their bullets go than their ballots?

      Or does the upcoming Mr Dictator-for-life thinks he knows better than the voters?

      --
    56. Re:Nazi America by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Don't you already have a police force for that? Why expand the scope of the TSA? Have they proven themselves to be better at this sort of thing?

      --
    57. Re:Nazi America by TheLink · · Score: 2

      If you're talking about revolution think about this: Do you really think the voters will do better with their bullets than their ballots? Or are you planning to silence all those voters Mr Dictator?

      Maybe the voters are voting for what they think is the best. If you disagree you can vote differently, but it doesn't mean your voice should be louder than theirs.
      If they are voting against their best interests, it may be stupid but it is still their choice (and responsibility). And it's a lot less messy when done with ballots than with bullets.

      --
    58. Re:Nazi America by EvilIdler · · Score: 3, Funny

      "The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." --Abraham Lincoln

    59. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and makes you hungry!

    60. Re:Nazi America by 0xdeaddead · · Score: 0

      I just left .. I don't even know why I waited this long, but yeah it is pretty clear where this road goes, and I'm not going down that road.

    61. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Brown sugar?

    62. Re:Nazi America by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      Yes, and drop the "T". Just call it the SA, so we know who we are dealing with.

      Nope. TSA is perfect. Todays SA!

    63. Re:Nazi America by Dins · · Score: 1

      Where did you go that's "better"? I honestly want to know. I've thought about where I'd go but couldn't come up with somewhere that satisfies my main requirements: As much true freedom as possible (both personal and economic), air conditioning, reliable power grid, and a minimum 10MB uncensored net connection...

    64. Re:Nazi America by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Do you really think the voters will do better with their bullets than their ballots?

      So what you're saying is that our only hope is getting invaded by Canada, I take it.

      On the other hand, the invasion by Mexico is already happening a few people at a time. Maybe they'll turn things around eventually.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    65. Re:Nazi America by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      What alternative would you propose? Voting is how our political system is supposed to work. Protesting never has any real effect; if it did, we wouldn't still have kiddie porn scanners in all our nation's major airports.

      I mean, really. Other than speaking up and out and hoping that others will listen, what remains? I suppose running for office might work, and at some point, I suppose a few of us will eventually stoop to that, but it seems like there must be a way to convince people who actually want to run for office that they should do what is best for the country instead of mindlessly bloc voting by party. Because if that is not possible, then democracy has failed, and will probably always eventually fail, given enough time, for the same reason that major utilities eventually degrade to a monopoly.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    66. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know? Google's self driving cars work pretty well, is it not possible the army has a secret project to make self-driving tanks?

    67. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most. probable. analogy.

    68. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For those who slept through high school and currently have a career as TSA agents...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kristallnacht [wikipedia.org]

      FTFY.

      I know a lot of people like to trash talk the TSA agents capabilities just for the sake of doing so. But in my case I'm not kidding. I recently flew to Vegas, and when I went to my local airport in a city of around 100K, I recognized both the TSA agents at the gate. I know them by name, they both used to work for a local security company who pays people to drive around the parking lots in the downtown area at night, and do "secured" armor car transports of checks, etc. to the airport from the banks. I worked at a bank and one of them had been fired because he wouldn't quit hitting on the female workers, and went so far as to follow one home from work... IN his security company car. The other guy was a nice enough person, but frankly speaking the only thing he can secure is a box of doughnuts and a cold beer during the football game.

    69. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To make cute little "ping" sounds against the armour of the Abrams bearing down on them?

      I would have thought Vietnam was a good enough example of what a determined population can do against a massive military.
      And you don't use the AR for the Abrams you fucking moron, you use it on the people who are trying to get out after it's been disabled and set on fire by a $50 IED.

      The first rule of that kind of warfare is you don't directly engage them. The people who run those vehicles have families, homes, and lives outside of their armor where they are extremely vulnerable.
      The guy who lives next door to me is a nice person, I highly doubt he would obey any orders against the population. I know a good number of Marines who are quick to point out they swore an oath to protect the Constitution, not the politicians. If you think a massive amount of the military would not simply turn to the side of the People, you are sorely mistaken.

    70. Re:Nazi America by ranpel · · Score: 1

      What? No. Well not directly anyway. I was referring to my perception of a free society collapsing from within and, the distressing part, those directly responsible for ensuring it endures seem to be saying our safety and security is about two notches more important than our liberty. Combine that with politically influential corporate engines and you're not exactly brewing tea.

      Since you seem a little bent on spanking me because you read revolution and firmly seem to believe that the power of the vote can .. secure our free people their freedoms forever than so be it. Bullet or ballot - I don't really give a fuck as long as mine are not made to succumb to another or bend to an ill formed authority.

      What I was talking about was an accelerated path moving faster by doing little or, worse, nothing. A path that I believe the initial founders both foresaw and tried to prevent. We can either vote our way out of it, somehow, continue to vote our way onto it or not vote and watch. To the point of what you're saying, sure, I don't disagree, necessarily. "The voters" however can only vote until they cannot vote or the effect has been compromised or, en masse, they rebel and attempt change via different means, a different vote. Just because there is a certain path that you would prefer, voting, as would many, it does not mean that that path is secure or effective or will remain to be so indefinitely.

      And to this: "If you disagree you can vote differently, but it doesn't mean your voice should be louder than theirs." - nor does it mean I should be silent. One vote is a whisper. A government seemingly bent on working around many votes and working for and with financially backed whisperers, all seemingly in a direction that is diametrically opposed to some founding principals, then you might be on a path towards trouble. Do not hide behind the concept of a false peace when the security of your person, freedoms and liberties reach a point that demands that its defense be made by blood and life.

      Vote!! By all means. And encourage others to do so because, yes, for now, it is the best and most reasonable means of preventing an armed and direct defense. Run, hide or stand but know that standing on a vote is precarious at best. There are always options. Ensuring that you continue to have them is a good direction. We'll all know when and if the time for voting has run its course in this country. That would be dreadful, indeed. Nonetheless, it can happen and under certain circumstance probably should. Let's try and ensure those circumstances are not realized because if they are then you'll likely be voting with the screams of a collective people that can no longer protect freedom with a pen - results be damned.

      --
      \r
    71. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just get it over with and change your flag to the swastika, we all know that's where this is heading.

      What happens when fear takes over. Fear of a terrorist has been increasingly promoted, and therefore increases the number of people working in TSA, and Homeland Security and FBI and CIA and Military and Police.

      Gee. with all those in security, who is left to be protected?

      And then a young man with a gun does horrific damage in a school. Homeland, TSA are shams. Dump the cost. They really do not protect the American citizen traveller.

      Suppose there was a terrorist group. Why would they use airplanes, when they could rent a car or truck, and do their dirty deeds that way, never leaving the ground and being able to use a cellphone as the detonation device. Stop pissing away money. With the USA leaving Arabic countries, the terrorism retaliation attack desires will or have shrunk to zero.

    72. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they have skull and crossbones flags like Steve Jobs used?

    73. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or change your flag to the hammer and sickle.

    74. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As much true freedom as possible (both personal and economic), air conditioning, reliable power grid, and a minimum 10MB uncensored net connection...

      Since you didn't specify language, there are lots of places. Unless, by "economic freedom" you mean "no taxes". In which case, the moon is the only option (bring your own power). I find it funny you include air conditioning. So you'd refuse to move to Alaska because most residential buildings do not have A/C? Not saying it's a good place, but A/C as a requirement seems strange. Most of Europe is more free than the US, has A/C, reliable power, and faster and cheaper Internet. And someplace like Australia meets all your requirements (universal heath care, though, so that may curtail your right to sub-standard health care you are used to), and the national filter is optional, but most Americans I talk to with a list like yours focus on the fact there is one.

      You aren't going to find utopia. The joke is "utopia" means "no-place" It doesn't exist. You don't have to look hard to find "better than the US on average" even including your requirements. But so many indicate it must be *better* in every way for them to consider moving. Have fun being suck in the US. Let me know how it goes when the government debt defaults start. No more freedom, AC or power for you. And your Internet isn't filtered, but is monitored (unlike a most of the rest of the world where it is possibly filtered but not monitored, unless it passes through the US).

    75. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I've seen such statements before, but nobody ever specifies "by whom" because that's where it always falls down. I could see a WWIII, but there is no group that is unified enough that could, with all its global resources, take a single US city, even if the US military was disbanded before the attack. The groups can't co-ordinate, so many the US sees as enemies hate each other too much to work together, even to defeat an evil like the US.

    76. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you realize Alaska is freaking part of the U.S.A. correct - it is, in fact, a state! Next, the majority of Europe is not more free than the U.S., and Australia certainly is not (it has pretty restrictive "free-speech" laws). Along with the fact that internet is crazy expensive in Australia, generally capped at the per GB level, and highly censored... yeah, any other bright ideas?

    77. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

    78. Re:Nazi America by Dins · · Score: 1

      The AC comment was more or less a joke. I've often joked with my wife that I could be happy anywhere with reliable power, air conditioning, and a good net connection. If I did live in Alaska (also in the US, however), I would trade AC for central heating.

      The US was founded on freedom and freedom was important to most of us until, it seems, the last 10-20 years. Now, too many are willing to live with considerably less freedom if it means more security and more government cheese.

    79. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      Alaska was a counter-point to A/C. Depending on his requirements, the USA doesn't meet his standards, which makes his list a little absurd. And you are apparently focusing solely on speech (And probably guns) as "freedom" and not things like the "freedom to not be killed walking home from work" or "the freedom to save, inexpensive, and useful transport" which the US doesn't have.

      When you define the rules as "better than the USA in every way" then yes, there is no place that is better in every manner you can think of, but that doesn't mean that most of the world is better than the USA.

      Along with the fact that internet is crazy expensive in Australia, generally capped at the per GB level, and highly censored... yeah, any other bright ideas?

      When have you ever gone to a web site in Australia and had it blocked? Never? Thought so. Same with China. They heavily censor for chinese-language sites, but when I was there I never found a single site that didn't work.

      Apparently, the "America is the best" crowd doesn't mind the government watching 100% and sending out the troopers if something they don't like is found. But if their child-porn sites are blocked, they have no freedom.

    80. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Overall, Australia or Singapore is a better place than the USA now, but if you say that in front of a "patriot" (racist nationalist), he'll find some reason to assert that the 10 rights he doesn't have in the US are trumped by the lack of freedom you have in Singapore where chewing gum is illegal (despite the fact that chewing gum is not illegal in Singapore, but they never let facts get in the way of their insanity). Which is another reason I left. Those unwilling or unable to leave will be left behind, and I don't want to be stuck with them.

    81. Re:Nazi America by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2

      For crying out loud. My post was only four short sentences, one of them being about NOT attributing the quote to anyone specific. Please try to read to the end next time before you get in such a hurry to post some contrarian nonsense.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    82. Re:Nazi America by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      The TSA Thugs in the Cargo Pants and Black Fleece my not be of the same caliber as the drones at the Airport.

      I know that I saw TSA guys like these being trained at the Air Expeditionary Center at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst along side Air Force Ravens

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Raven.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    83. Re:Nazi America by slashrio · · Score: 1

      "by whom"?
      By our governments. It seems like they all are heading in the same direction: More internet control, more observation and registration, more traffic tracking, more financial control, more privacy invasions, etc. etc.
      The big corporations are everywhere busy to lure our governments in colluding with them in order to control the population and to force us to buy their products. Through patenting (Monsanto et. al.) or through legislation (compulsory vaccinations, health insurance) or through harassment and out-legislation of the small producers, and especially the organic ones (fresh milk anyone?).
      In short: fascist tyranny.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    84. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Ah, the New World Order. You are sure it's the governments, and not the Illuminati?

    85. Re:Nazi America by Askmum · · Score: 1

      Or well, act like it's 1984 all over again.

    86. Re:Nazi America by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Why not just get it over with and change your flag to the swastika, we all know that's where this is heading.

      Says someone who has never lived in a totalitarian police state or anything close to it.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    87. Re:Nazi America by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I moved out of the US 4 years ago because I can see where it's going.

      I'm afraid this time it will be a worldwide co-ordinated fascist attack on all our freedoms.

      Well done for not using the phrase "ZOG", it must have taken a lot of self restraint.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    88. Re:Nazi America by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Chewing gum may not be illegal in Singapore, but you can still find yourself in serious trouble (flogging) for trivial anti-social behaviour.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    89. Re:Nazi America by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      You do realise that C.S. Lewis and Sinclair Lewis are, in fact, two different writers?

      So the fact that wikiquote can't find the quotation in the works of Sinclair Lewis says nothing about whether C.S. Lewis wrote it, although admittedly it seems unlikely.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    90. Re:Nazi America by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      If they're not only securing transport but anything else, they might also change their name. From TSA to SA.

      Congratulations! You're the one millionth poster on this thread to make this joke!

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    91. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think the US will default on it's debt? That would really wake voters up. GOP are the ones pushing default and they traditionally do well when there is lower voter turnout. If voters woke up and had real participation the GOP would be out in a heartbeat.
      So, there is no way that the US will default on it's debt.

      Most of the rest of the world has hate speech laws that have curtailed free speech and resulted in prosecution. You can also be sued more easily for things like defamation.

    92. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because the locked up Moot last night. (nobody is watching you except the guys trying to sell you stuff).

      Notice this discussion is on a US based site.

    93. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Please list those 10 missing rights.

    94. Re:Nazi America by gsslay · · Score: 1

      For those under 30...

      Kristallnacht was in 1938, so I don't follow what being born before 1983 makes to knowing about it.

      Or is this some weird numerology thing about the digits being the same, just different order?

    95. Re:Nazi America by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Well, I think the first step is to change their uniform shirts to a sort of a chocolate brown color, that has a "calming" effect.

      No, the deep black SS Imperial Storm Trooper look they have here in Springfield works well, perfect for a police state.

    96. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, Bush is at fault - but you guys seem to not care that the only dissenting votes on the TSA were republican ones voting against their president. The democrats were (almost?) unanimously in favor of it.

    97. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
      --C.S. Lewis

      This quote has been attributed, most say incorrectly, to SINCLAIR Lewis the Nobel Prize-winning political writer, not C. S. Lewis the Christian-themed writer. If you are going to fuck up, at least do it correctly! ;-)

    98. Re:Nazi America by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      No, actually it's an acronym like GNU. TSA stands for "TSA Sucks Ass".

    99. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Do you honestly think the US will default on it's debt?

      The US must borrow to pay its debt interest. That's not sustainable indefinitely. What will happen the first time the US tries to borrow to pay interest and nobody is buying? There are only two choices, uncontrolled inflation and default. Both are bad, and both would have the same effect. The difference is that default can be controlled by the 1%, and inflation can't (the moment inflation hits hard, the dollar will be dumped as oil currency, multiplying the inflation). Inflation is best for the majority of people, but default will be picked because it's more controllable.

      Most of the rest of the world has hate speech laws that have curtailed free speech and resulted in prosecution.

      The difference is that in the US, mental issues can't be seen, and thus, don't exist. We leave the mentally ill untreated, after all, it's not a real disease, it's just thought. The rest of the world considers mental issues to be closer to (if not) equal to physical issues. The mentally ill are treated, not ignored. Hurting someone's feelings is considered similar to hurting someone's arm.

      In the us, using "speech" to deliberately inflict harm is considered "protected speech" so long as you are aren't lying and aren't insulting oranges in FL or cattle in TX. It's not a thought crime when you are going after hurtful speech. That's not a thought, that's an act. But in the US, you have a right to harm others.

      I'm not sure why you think that's such a good thing. It might be if people were civil, but it ends up where someone can commit felony murder and they charge her with hacking because that's all they can get a conviction under (the case of a woman who set out to harm a minor, broke the law to do so, and in the commission of that crime, killed the minor - but she should be given a medal for killing a mentally ill child because she only used speech).

    100. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Murder is anti-social behavior. Oh, no, they might enforce the law against Americans. We have the right to be asses, and nobody should infringe on our right to insult and offend others, or cause damage so small we don't consider it damage (spitting gum on a sidewalk).

    101. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What, you saw me post something you didn't like, so you looked me up and posted replies to a number of my recent posts, without any attention paid to the thread?

    102. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I think the US ignores mental issues because of our health care system. All the people I have heard in the news talking about the problems they or their loved one have had getting care, are really asking for a single payer system.

    103. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      No, I am catching up on my slashdot and replying to things I find interesting. Looking for a stimulating debate.

    104. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      and I disagree on the debt default, we print our own money over here and people are still buying.

    105. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      What do you mean by "over here"? You seem to be implying that you know something I don't based on your location, but you didn't specify your location, and are assuming something about my location. Every country prints their own money, so I don't even see how that is relevant. Even a gold-backed currency wouldn't help. It's been shown all you need to do to end that is to pass a law, then start printing money. Gold-backed currency is still backed by nothing other than the goodwill of the government. Consistent low inflation is still inflation caused by increased money supply, and that's not a worry because it's predictable and controllable. But inflation of that, the US dollar would hit 1000% (even if only for a short time) if the world dropped the dollar as the default for all oil transactions. Once it does the dumping of the dollar will have a cascade effect, like Zimbabwe.

    106. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I am in the US, you previously indicated you are not. The only currency that looked like it could possible challenge the Dollar, was the Euro, and they need to do some house cleaning before that happens.

    107. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The Euro, for all its problems, is still better off than the dollar. The US "member states" are near bankruptcy, but then so is the union itself. Even if Greece and Spain were to pull out now, the Euro wouldn't be hurt that bad. And the moment it's the default for oil, it'll become more stable and solid.

    108. Re:Nazi America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to call BULLSHIT!. Abraham Lincoln did not say that...Thomas Paine said it!

    109. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Default for oil is not what makes the Dollar strong. Ability to manage your fiscal policy is what makes the dollar strong, the euro doesn't have that and won't for the foreseeable future.

      The dissolution of the euro is more likely then the default of US debt.

    110. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The dissolution of the euro is more likely then the default of US debt.

      Dissolution of the Euro isn't being discussed by anyone other than American reports hating on the EU. The worst case being discussed is letting Portugal, Spain, and Greece drop out of the Euro Zone so they can inflate their way out of debt.

      The US will default on the debt. That is a 100% certainty. What's hilarious is that the "fiat sucks - inflation is theft" crowd doesn't consider inflation bad when it's used to default on the debt by printing worthless coins and using them to pay off debt. The US will default or inflate. Default can be controlled (they could theoretically default on only debt held by China), inflation can't.

      Default for oil is not what makes the Dollar strong.

      We've invaded everyone that stopped using the dollar for oil, so I think people smarter and more connected than you disagree.

    111. Re:Nazi America by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      I didn't say dissolution of the euro was likely, just more likely then a US debt default. Short of a revolution, a US debt default is almost impossible.

    112. Re:Nazi America by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      "almost impossible"? All it takes is a simple law, not even an Amendment, and poof, the debt is gone and all defaulted. What do you think the chances are of 1000% inflation? We are about 5 years or so from a choice between the two, how likely do you think it would be if there were two and only two choices and it was default or hyper-inflation?

    113. Re:Nazi America by slashrio · · Score: 1

      And what might be the meaning of the abbreviation (?) 'ZOG'?

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    114. Re:Nazi America by slashrio · · Score: 1

      We don't know yet. Probably both, but we'll find out as soon as 'they' have established their ruling... soon.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  2. LOL! American Freedom! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    LOL! American Freedom!

  3. TSA at Every Home by EmagGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It won't be long before there is a TSA agent posted at every home, to interview its occupants before they are allowed to leave.

    1. Re:TSA at Every Home by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Oh, you're going to the movie theatre? Didn't you say you were a student? How is a student able to afford gasoline and movie tickets?

      (I have actually been asked by a TSA agent how I was able to afford airline tickets.)

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:TSA at Every Home by newcastlejon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (I have actually been asked by a TSA agent how I was able to afford airline tickets.)

      What was your answer? Did it include the words "none", "damn", "business", "yours"?

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    3. Re:TSA at Every Home by 0111+1110 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      To which the TSA brute would reply, "Do you want to fly today?"

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re:TSA at Every Home by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 5, Interesting

      ...actually, being a Canadian, I started giving my life story until she told me to shut up. I think the only thing people can really do to defend themselves against the TSA is to waste the agency's time.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    5. Re:TSA at Every Home by paiute · · Score: 4, Funny

      ...actually, being a Canadian, I started giving my life story until she told me to shut up.

      Something along the lines of this:

      "I don’t reckon them times will ever come again. There never was a more bullier old ram than what he was. Grandfather fetched him from Illinois–got him of a man by the name of Yates–Bill Yates–maybe you might have heard of him; his father was a deacon–Baptist–and he was a rustler, too; a man had to get up ruther early to get the start of old Thankful Yates; it was him that put the Greens up to jining teams with my grandfather when he moved west. Seth Green was prob’ly the pick of the flock; he married a Wilkerson–Sarah Wilkerson–good cretur, she was–one of the likeliest heifers that was ever raised in old Stoddard, everybody said that knowed her. She could heft a bar’l of flour as easy as I can flirt a flapjack. And spin? Don’t mention it! Independent? Humph! When Sile Hawkins come a browsing around her, she let him know that for all his tin he couldn’t trot in harness alongside of her. You see, Sile Hawkins was–no, it warn’t Sile Hawkins, after all–it was a galoot by the name of Filkins–I disremember his first name; but he was a stump–come into pra’r meeting drunk, one night, hooraying for Nixon, becuz he thought it was a primary; and old deacon Ferguson up and scooted him through the window and he lit on old Miss Jefferson’s head, poor old filly. She was a good soul–had a glass eye and used to lend it to old Miss Wagner, that hadn’t any, to receive company in; it warn’t big enough, and when Miss Wagner warn’t noticing, it would get twisted around in the socket, and look up, maybe, or out to one side, and every which way, while t’ other one was looking as straight ahead as a spy-glass. Grown people didn’t mind it, but it most always made the children cry, it was so sort of scary. She tried packing it in raw cotton, but it wouldn’t work, somehow–the cotton would get loose and stick out and look so kind of awful that the children couldn’t stand it no way. She was always dropping it out, and turning up her old dead-light on the company empty, and making them oncomfortable, becuz she never could tell when it hopped out, being blind on that side, you see. So...."

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    6. Re:TSA at Every Home by blackraven14250 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Isn't that the usual reason why people buy airline tickets?"

    7. Re:TSA at Every Home by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      add an 'onion hanging from your belt' and your story is complete.

      (well, it WAS the style at the time.)

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:TSA at Every Home by frosty_tsm · · Score: 2

      ...actually, being a Canadian, I started giving my life story until she told me to shut up. I think the only thing people can really do to defend themselves against the TSA is to waste the agency's time.

      How can you waste the time of an agency setup to waste time AND money?

    9. Re:TSA at Every Home by koan · · Score: 1

      That solves unemployment.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    10. Re:TSA at Every Home by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Drive all their employees to quit, maybe?

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    11. Re:TSA at Every Home by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      That's the spirit!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    12. Re:TSA at Every Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or shoot them

    13. Re:TSA at Every Home by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Not sure you thought that one through.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    14. Re:TSA at Every Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have replied, "I bang your mum while you're at work, and the pay is awesome!".

    15. Re:TSA at Every Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      compare OUR time wasted to THEIR time wasted.

    16. Re:TSA at Every Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahahaha I skimmed that entire wall of text expecting to find that and was almost disappointed until I read your post. Good work sir.

    17. Re:TSA at Every Home by betterprimate · · Score: 1

      (I have actually been asked by a TSA agent how I was able to afford airline tickets.)

      Same here *and* I am a US citizen. This also occurred *after* my flight and having already been granted re-entrance from a customs official. The TSA agent then delayed me for another forty minutes and was forced to undergo two secondary layers of security simply because she had a bug up her ass.

    18. Re:TSA at Every Home by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention, when debating the ratification of the new United States Constitution, Patrick Henry stated, "One of our first complaints, under the former government, was the quartering of troops among us. This was one of the principal reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain. Here we may have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner — to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us." - Source wikipedia.

      From the Third Amendment to the Constitution:
      "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

      But hey.....our politicians have had a field-day ignoring the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments, why should the Third be left out.

    19. Re:TSA at Every Home by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      (I have actually been asked by a TSA agent how I was able to afford airline tickets.)

      I was asked by an Israeli border guard/passport control person (amongst many other questions) why I had my slightly unusual middle name, and what my favourite book/author was (amongst many other questions). The point is how you react, they are trained to recognise any signs of excess nervousness or prevarication.

      If answering security questions becomes optional, there is no point in having security. I felt very safe on El Al, and they objectively have long had the best anti-terrorist record of any airline.

      It is a standard customs question to ask students where they got their expensive tickets from, and who paid for them. They trap a lot of (stupid) drug mules that way.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    20. Re:TSA at Every Home by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      (I have actually been asked by a TSA agent how I was able to afford airline tickets.)

      What was your answer? Did it include the words "none", "damn", "business", "yours"?

      I suppose you'd have just reached for your AR15 and shot them?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Your papers, please... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not far off.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:Your papers, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't this how every mad regime starts? with expansions to seemingly erroneous security apparatus? one day they're just around, doing little (Like the NSA), the next they're every where, asking you for your travel papers when such papers give you no real security.

      I tell you guys, the minute this stuff starts happening in Canada I am out of here and taking my expertise with me.

    2. Re:Your papers, please... by mrquagmire · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think the US Border Patrol already beat them to it (no pun intended).

      --
      giggity
    3. Re:Your papers, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And where are you going to go? Your only options are "at the devil's right hand" and "in his path."

    4. Re:Your papers, please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not far off.

      If you live in Vancouver, Canada, and you use the skytrain, you have high chance of being asked for your "papers" (ticket) at least once a day if not more by either transit police (with guns and full police powers) or a translink employee. I missed a train once as I was coming up the escalator because I had to dig out my monthly pass out of my wallet. The smartcard and gates cannot come soon enough.

    5. Re:Your papers, please... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      The smartcard and gates cannot come soon enough.

      The smartcard tickets in Melbourne are difficult to get without a credit card. Police have an interface to track movement of individuals through the public transport system using identity information from the credit card purchases. Personally I paid for my ticket with cash but most people won't.

    6. Re:Your papers, please... by westlake · · Score: 1

      I think the US Border Patrol already beat them to it.

      I live in a northern border town.

      The intrusiveness of border security has waxed and waned over the last 200 years. But it never, ever, goes away.

    7. Re:Your papers, please... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Not far off.

      If you live in Vancouver, Canada, and you use the skytrain, you have high chance of being asked for your "papers" (ticket) at least once a day if not more by either transit police (with guns and full police powers) or a translink employee. I missed a train once as I was coming up the escalator because I had to dig out my monthly pass out of my wallet. The smartcard and gates cannot come soon enough.

      Having to show a fucking train ticket is hardly akin to rounding people up and sending them off to concentration camps. That is a really, really long slippery slope you're talking about.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  5. Gestapo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gestapo. Nuff said

  6. Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is very scary. I do not live in the US but I do live in a country that tends to follow the same paths after a few years. My next vote will be for the Pirate party.

    1. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the same as not voting at all.

    2. Re:Scary by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's fine because voting is the same as not voting at all too.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    3. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's the same as saying "Don't vote different than the rest of the sheep herd and, hell forbid, give an alternative a CHANCE".

    4. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and as long as everyone keeps thinking that then it will remain so. WTF?

    5. Re:Scary by TheLink · · Score: 1

      You really believe that idiocy? If enough people believe that they truly deserve whatever government they get.

      Just too bad for the other voters who actually vote for what they want.

      As far as I see it's even stupider to keep playing those stupid games, vote for what you don't want, and then grumble that you are not getting what you want.

      --
    6. Re:Scary by ffflala · · Score: 1

      That's fine because voting is the same as not voting at all too.

      How anyone can maintain this perspective, given that Bush -v- Gore hinged on a vote margin of 0.009%, of the state electorate, AND that the results of that election directly resulted in the TSA... it just baffles me. Yes, your vote might technically matter a mere fraction of a percentage. AAAND there is one excellent, obvious example where a 0.01% difference would have resulted in a dramatically different outcome.

      Please try this mental exercise: reconsider your position on the importance of voting as you imagine how the country and the world would have been different had President Bush Jr., VP Cheney, Secretary of State Rice, Supreme Court Justices Roberts and Alito, AG Gonzales, et al never been a reality.

    7. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you know that Gore would have behaved any differently than Bush? Obama was the gleaming example of Hope and Change, and here he's almost indistinguishable in policy from Bush. It appears that in order to even appear on the ballot, a candidate must swear allegiance to some outside cause, despite the party he chooses to ride to the position.

    8. Re:Scary by ffflala · · Score: 1

      One can't know of course, one can only speculate. But it seems reasonable to look to Gore's legislative and executive track records as both Congressman and VP, as well as to what lobbys proved to be most influential with him, for a fair guess.

      Had Gore turned out to have the same foreign and domestic policy as Bush, it would have been extremely inconsistent with his past actions.

    9. Re:Scary by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      How do you know that Gore would have behaved any differently than Bush? Obama was the gleaming example of Hope and Change, and here he's almost indistinguishable in policy from Bush. It appears that in order to even appear on the ballot, a candidate must swear allegiance to some outside cause, despite the party he chooses to ride to the position.

      One can't know of course, one can only speculate. But it seems reasonable to look to Gore's legislative and executive track records as both Congressman and VP, as well as to what lobbys proved to be most influential with him, for a fair guess.

      Had Gore turned out to have the same foreign and domestic policy as Bush, it would have been extremely inconsistent with his past actions.

      Why would it be different with Gore than with Obama? Remember, Obama accused Bush of being irresponsible for wanting to raise the US debt ceiling.

      âoe"he fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies...Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here'. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.â

      Plus, there's a litany of other promises Obama made to abolish or radically change Bush/Reagan-era policies and laws that Obama, once in office, reversed course on.

      I have no reason to believe that Gore would be any better, and some reason to believe he might have been much worse.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    10. Re:Scary by ffflala · · Score: 1

      Why would it be different with Gore than with Obama? Remember, Obama accused Bush of being irresponsible for wanting to raise the US debt ceiling.

      I will point something out *again*. In the 2000 election, Gore had 8 years of experience in the executive office, as VP under Bill Clinton. During his time in executive office, the US created a budget *surplus*. With a budget surplus, a budget debt ceiling is unnecessary. Before his 8 years as VP, Gore was a US House Representative for 8 years, and a US Senator for 8 years. He has a long, and many would say a distinguished Congressional career.

      It is certainly a consistent one. His 24 years of experience in federal office before the 2000 election gave him quite a record at the time of that election.

      You seem to feel that it would be more reasonable to compare Al Gore circa 2000 to someone else entirely, with only four years of Congressional experience, than it is to compare 2000 circa Gore to the 1976-1999 Gore, with 8 years as a Rep, 8 years as a Senator, and 8 years as Veep.

      But yes, since Obama promised something he actually didn't but you still see as a sort of betrayal, Gore similarly would have stepped directly into what history has labeled "the Bush doctrine", he would have invaded Iraq in response to 9-11 attacks by Saudi nationals based in Afghanistan, he would have pursued financial deregulation (the same regulation he helped put into place while in Congress), he would have JESUS FUCKING CHRIST DO I HAVE TO ACTUALLY CONTINUE WITH THIS IN A REASONABLE MANNER.

      VOTE, YOU FUCKING ELIGIBLE-TO-VOTE ASSHOLES. IT MATTERS, IT REALLY DOES. IF YOU HAD VOTED IN 2000, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A TSA TO BITCH ABOUT NOW. YOU DIDN'T THEN, AND THANKS TO YOU WE HAVE THE TSA. FUCK YOU FOR THAT.

    11. Re:Scary by ffflala · · Score: 1

      My apologies, BlueStrat. I lost my temper, and declined into a useless form of discussion. I find the thought that Gore would have given us the same world as Bush (or a worse one) so ludicrous that it is difficult for me to treat it as a seriously, sincerely, and considered point of view.

      As a result, my frustration got the better of me, and my apologies to you for that. Perhaps you really do believe what you've said. If so, you clearly have an idea of how strongly I disagree with you. I regret that the expression of my disagreement probably came off more as polarizing and judgmental than it did convincing.

    12. Re:Scary by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      My apologies, BlueStrat. I lost my temper, and declined into a useless form of discussion. I find the thought that Gore would have given us the same world as Bush (or a worse one) so ludicrous that it is difficult for me to treat it as a seriously, sincerely, and considered point of view.

      My views are serious and sincerely-held. I find it equally frustrating, as I see arguments such as yours that, though well-reasoned to a point, don't go far enough in the analysis-chain. You stop short of pursuing a thread to it's origin.

      Like this:

      I will point something out *again*. In the 2000 election, Gore had 8 years of experience in the executive office, as VP under Bill Clinton. During his time in executive office, the US created a budget *surplus*

      That surplus was the result of the winding-down of the Cold War combined with the lagging increases in wealth and job creation from the Reagan economic/tax/regulatory policies (Clinton's economy benefited from Reagan as Obama's suffered from Bush), and from a (R)-controlled Congress both restraining Clinton's spending, and forcing Clinton to stay generally moderate, economically.

      The budget surplus really had very little to do with Clinton administration policies or actions. It was much more a matter of right place, right time for Clinton's economy, rather than anything Clinton did or didn't do. Well, he was smart enough not to screw things up when he saw things were working out to his benefit without his taking any risky stands on the Left's pet economic issues.

      I get frustrated because I feel like I'm trying to argue with somebody about what a Pointillist painting portrays from ten steps back, when that person refuses to take more than two steps back and gets mad and tells me I'm an idiot and I need to shut up, when I argue it's more than just dots.

      One has to be willing to look deeper and farther back than most people are willing to in pursuing the real reasons and motives behind things and people, especially in politics. Trouble is, most people stop pursuing the records and history once they get to an answer that satisfies their personal views, even though it doesn't stop there.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    13. Re:Scary by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Obama was the gleaming example of Hope and Change, and here he's almost indistinguishable in policy from Bush.

      If you take over in the middle of two stupid wars, it's hard to do much about it, simply cutting and running is not really an option.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    14. Re:Scary by dehole · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind the Electorial College, whose vote actually matters. That is why you can end up with Presidents who do not win with the "Popular vote", but win with the Electorial vote. The people who represent us in the Electorial college can vote based on popular vote, but that is not a requirement.

    15. Re:Scary by ffflala · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your patience. That is quite a gracious reply to someone who devolved into caps-yelling, and a humbling one.

      And I will readily grant you that the Clinton administration's surplus was very much a benefit of context. And after all, those were also the days of the Newt-led House.

      Disgreeing about speculations of alternate futures are probably only useful in what they tell us about how we think. There is no way either of us can ever prove what would have happened, had things gone differently. I believe that some of the more disastrous aspects of W's administration would not have been part of a Gore presidency: specifically, disregarding the reports of Hans Blix and invading Iraq, as well as combining a military increase with a tax cut. Those are not particularly complicated issues, and the political benefits are/would have been clear to Gore. At least those points seem to me much more reasonable than the thought that Gore would have led us into Iraq and cut taxes the way W did. I do believe the housing and banking crushes wouldn't have differed much, if at all.

      What I suppose might be the most frustrating is how the argument against voting compares to the 2000 Florida results. Basically the idea is either that your vote counts for so little that it will not affect the outcome -- and usually this is true, for any given individual. OR the idea is that elections are so corrupted that your vote will never count at all. What I see is that: there was one time when a presidential election hinged upon nine thousandths of a percent of a single state's voter outcome, and while antidemocratic electoral manipulation is a reality (as we continue to see in Florida, still), it is not in complete control of the outcome, but rather more like a thumb on a scale that can still be overcome.

    16. Re:Scary by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your patience. That is quite a gracious reply to someone who devolved into caps-yelling, and a humbling one.

      I look at it this way; We are all Americans (yes, I know, but /. *is* a US-centric blog), and nobody wants to starve children or enslave anyone despite rhetoric on both sides, at least among we citizens. Hatreds and divisions of all stripes are fanned by those in power precisely to prevent rational discourse, be it partisan/political, racial, religious, or economic class.

      It's when the emotions and hatreds are so high that "winning" becomes more important than being right.

      I can tell that you care deeply and feel strongly about these issues and others. That's fine and as it should be if one believes strongly in something outside of and larger than themselves. However, one should always be wary of letting emotion overrule logic and rationality and blind those who think & act from emotion to propaganda and lies.

      That's what dictators and tyrannical regimes of every stripe have always used to divide a people and take their freedom. I strongly suggest that everyone could do with learning some detailed history, both of the world, and the US. That's one of the pillars forming my opinions. I look to history for examples, as there is vanishingly-little in politics that hasn't occurred or been tried before, usually many times in many different regions, and by many different peoples and cultures.

      We may disagree about the best methods, but our motivations are basically the same; To make a better US and world for everyone. Even for those with whom we strongly disagree.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  7. Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by ericloewe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's time for the US to get rid of the TSA, which has caught no terrorists, foiled no plots, cost millions, irradiated thousands with backscatter x-ray scanners, has stolen quite a few personal items and is actively trying to expand its sphere of influence.

    Replace it with common sense and profile people. That's how airprort security works, not by wasting millions of dollars.

    1. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It was time to get rid of it when it was created. The first thing Obama should have done when sworn in was dismantle the Department of "Homeland Security" and fold everything back to how it was before the World Trade Center attacks. With the exceptions of Customs, let the airports handle their own security, and get rid of the "Constitution Free Zone."

    2. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good luck finding a politician willing to commit career suicide by dissolving the TSA.

      Even in the extremely unlikely event that it's seen as a popular move with the electorate as a whole, do you really think all the campaign contributors with financial interests in the TSA supply chain would let them get re-elected?

    3. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spot on, man. Instead we got the NDAA and drone strikes for everyone! Huzzah!

    4. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

      I'' do it. Vote me in as President and I'll do it

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    5. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 2

      Freedom is inherently risky. My fellow Americans need to realize that. To be absolutely safe necessitates living in an absolutely oppressed society.

      What do you want, freedom or oppression?

      The way it looks now, too many Americans are leaning towards oppression, because being free is just too scary.

    6. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by jcr · · Score: 2

      cost millions,

      Billions, actually.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well they can't get rid of it now, can they? There would be a deluge of people who were undereducated, disgruntled and unemployed. Furthermore, these people are conditioned to see terrorism opportunities everywhere, they have insider knowledge of airport security, and they would have a motive to 'prove' that firing them had worsened security.

      "Going TSA" will be the new "going postal".

    8. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      To be fair, some of that would've been used for real security, but they've certainly outright wasted millions...

    9. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's time for the US to get rid of the TSA, which has caught no terrorists, foiled no plots, cost millions, irradiated thousands with backscatter x-ray scanners, has stolen quite a few personal items and is actively trying to expand its sphere of influence.

      Replace it with common sense and profile people. That's how airprort security works, not by wasting millions of dollars.

      You mean Billions. With a B.

    10. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I hold out no remaining hope that politicians will ever do anything remotely useful.

    11. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congress can't get rid of the TSA - they have naked pictures.....

    12. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      It's time for the US to get rid of the TSA, which has caught no terrorists, foiled no plots, cost millions, irradiated thousands with backscatter x-ray scanners, has stolen quite a few personal items and is actively trying to expand its sphere of influence.

      But terrorism is proving to be such a convenient way to funnel money to friendly contractors... Who'd want to give that up?

      I just learned that NJ had instituted a $5 (per day!) car-rental charge under the "domestic terrorism" category. I am sure other states will soon take notice -- I look forward to random tax-related charges on all of my bills... My lunch purchase may be at risk from terrorists otherwise.

    13. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      The first thing Obama should have done when sworn in was dismantle the Department of "Homeland Security" and fold everything back to how it was before the World Trade Center attacks.

      That would have been the "advertised" Obama which only existed in voter's imagination.

      Instead of the "platform" on which politicians run, they should sign a contract listing their promised policy. Violating any of the major promises should make them subject to impeachment (I hear the line of presidential succession is very long). Otherwise, Obama was under no obligation to follow up on any of his promises. And even if Republicans put forward a serious candidate, he'd still have 4 years before losing office.

    14. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay but can you do it before the CIA bullet connects with your skull?

    15. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      me too!

      I'd commit career suicide and not care. I'd be a patriot and history would kindly remember me.

      but I have no power, no influence, no money, no cronies in big places. I'll never have any power to do such things.

      see, that's the rub. anyone with power is too protective of keeping it.

      and those who would do the Right Thing(tm) will never GET into power.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    16. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      see: pussification of america.

      carlin (was it carlin? I think so) was right. we are pussies, by and large. soccer moms (oh, puke!) care more about perceived safety than the real things that we were founded on.

      they can't see past the end of their snowflake's report card.

      that's the core of the problem, in a nutshell. mommies and daddies who don't see the big picture and only see their own little lives.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    17. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      It's time for the US to get rid of the TSA, which has... cost millions, irradiated thousands with backscatter x-ray scanners... and is actively trying to expand its sphere of influence.

      It seems to me it's doing a perfectly fine job serving the purposes it was really created for (except for the stealing part but I suppose a little bad PR is to be expected when you're trying to return society to feudalism...).

    18. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good luck finding a politician willing to commit career suicide by dissolving the TSA.

      Would that be the same "career suicide" that Kennedy commited when he became a threat to those who control our nation's intelligence services? :)

    19. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Had he tried, it would have led to more whining about how the limp Demonrats are ebil terrist simpathizers. The right-wing echo chamber, while it whines about the TSA, would have instantly gone back to the soft on terror meme they bludgeoned Democratic candidates with for years.

      Who can forget all the books, interviews, talk show hours, paper, and web pages devoted to that meme. Literally years of it. I actually had fun with my friend after Obama was elected and he did something the right-wing didn't like. "You're disagreeing with a war president? HOW DARE YOU! You're just going to embolden our enemies! You sound like a terrorist-loving traitor!" Basically every right-wing meme shot back in one statement, and it was a lot longer than what I just typed.

      He didn't find it so funny when I did that. He really didn't like it when I started pulling up video, audio, transcripts, and so on, showing it was true. That being said, I wish the TSA (and expanded FISA, among other things) would go away. I don't expect it though, because the only guy I could have seen sponsoring it (Feingold, who voted AGAINST the so-called Patriot Act multiple times) was beaten by a "Real American".

    20. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by koan · · Score: 1

      That's the most unrealistic assessment I've seen yet, Obama isn't our friend he is just another in a long line of front men.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    21. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by petsounds · · Score: 1

      The only president of the United States I can think of who didn't want to accumulate power was George Washington, and that's because he didn't want to be president. He only accepted because he felt honor-bound to do so, since basically the entire country wanted him in office. And while in office, he actually signed away powers from the executive branch.

    22. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by X.25 · · Score: 1

      It was time to get rid of it when it was created. The first thing Obama should have done when sworn in was dismantle the Department of "Homeland Security" and fold everything back to how it was before the World Trade Center attacks. With the exceptions of Customs, let the airports handle their own security, and get rid of the "Constitution Free Zone."

      You could bet that 'terrorist attack' would happen as soon as TSA is dismantled.

      Do you realize how much money is in play here?

    23. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by murdocj · · Score: 1

      Don't be an idiot. If "they" wanted a front man you'd be talking about President Romney. You may not like how quickly Obama moves, but at least he's headed in the right direction.

    24. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMO, The TSA in some respects was needed. After all you get what you pay for with low paid rent-a-cops. Now, what became of that has expanded too far beyond its origonal scope, and is starting to resemble the Gestapo. In terms of avaition security, they seem obsessed with "Finding the needle in the haystack at the barn doors" instead of preventing it in the first place (which is another subject). I generally think we are becoming an ever more policed and watched society, with little oversight of those watching us. With the expansion of various expensive para-military police forces, to do the work of a normal policeman, would not those funds be better spent on dedicating local police to our transit and sporting facilites? I doubt you're going to catch many terrorists at a football game, however over-served individuals and others causing problems are far more commonplace, and would be a far better use of our taxpayer funds than a VIPR team standing around chewing the fat...

    25. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by slashrio · · Score: 1

      'The right direction'...
      That would be
      1. Keep Guantanamo open
      2. More debt
      3. Introduce and expand extrajudicial killings by drones
      4. More war
      5. More TSA
      6. More DHS
      7. More evil
      and on, and on, and on...

      Is this your 'right direction'?

      Anyway, thanks for trying to bring the discussion back to the totally useless Dem-Rep-debate.
      Speaking of idiots...

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    26. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want freedom to oppress!

      (Quoted from the New Employee Guide of the TSA

    27. Re:Bureaucracy tending towards opression... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck finding a politician willing to commit career suicide by dissolving the TSA.

      Would that be the same "career suicide" that Kennedy commited when he became a threat to those who control our nation's intelligence services? :)

      Castro killed JFK, not CIA. Get it right people!

  8. At least it will create jobs. by khasim · · Score: 5, Informative

    My biggest problem is that the TSA has not caught a single terrorist yet.

    Everything they do and all the money they spend has accomplished NOTHING except to harass regular people.

    1. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      It has also greatly increased the government's awareness of the locations and activities of regular people. In-and-of itself that isn't valuable, but the moment any of these regular people become problematic (by engaging in perfectly-legal protests, for example), the knowledge will be invaluable in shutting them down.

      Catching terrorists is only the ostensible purpose of the TSA. The real purpose is to keep YOU and your ilk in line.

      And since Americans seem to love trading freedom for security, you may as well get used to it.

    2. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're seeing an erosion of our freedom and privacy and your problem is that they just haven't caught a terrorist yet? Does that imply that there actions will be justified if they do? Would it therefore make more sense to give them even MORE power and take away even more personal liberty if that helps and leads to catching terrorists?

    3. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      "Ahh, not a bear in sight. The bear patrol must be working like a charm."

    4. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because it's working.

      I feel safe. Would you rather that something did happen? That would indicate that they failed.

      You need to get out of your parents' basement and read the news once in a while.

      All the time, people are forgetting they have their hand guns with them and TSA only catches some of them.

      There are also agencies that are also putting inert bombs in checked luggage and TSA rarely finds them.

      But you feel safe. So everything must be a success.

    5. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because it's working.

      An indication that it's working would be one or more terrorists in custody before they could carry out an attack or a device detected at an airport and made safe before it detonated. The TSA can't claim either of those. There haven't been any lion attacks at US airports recently but that doesn't mean the TSA is doing a good job of preventing those.

    6. Re:At least it will create jobs. by 0111+1110 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it would merely indicate that a non-lazy terrorist finally got his shit together and blew something up. Damn lazy terrorists. They are so soft and lazy they may as well not even exist. Oh wait...

      If we had lots and lots of attacks on non-aviation or non-transportation targets or in the airport security lines themselves then you would have some evidence of a deterrence effect. So far you've got nothing more effective than a magic anti-tiger rock. Except that an anti-tiger rock won't cost you 7.85 billion USD per year. Of course if you wan't to pay that much I could sell you one. After all, you get what you pay for so my 8 billion dollar anti-tiger rock will be way more effective than one you found on the side of the road or whatever. Personally, I would feel just as safe if the US purchased an 8 billion dollar anti-terrorist rock and then dissolved the TSA. It would save taxpayers and travelers a whole lot of money in the long run as well since the rock is just a one time purchase.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    7. Re:At least it will create jobs. by poity · · Score: 2

      I don't think the TSA is used to catch terrorists (doesn't the FBI do that anyway?) as much as it is used to displace potential acts of terrorism to lower profile targets/less critical infrastructure, in order to mitigate 1. public hysteria and 2. economic fallout. The latter probably being the more important consideration. A terrorist could bomb an office building or super market right now and still kill a lot of people, but the economic impact wouldn't be as great as that experienced by the airline industry in first few months following 9/11.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    8. Re:At least it will create jobs. by memnock · · Score: 2

      You make an interesting point with "... less critical infrastructure ...". I'm not saying you're wrong, but by applying what you're saying, the TSA (thus the Feds?) considers a sports arena a critical infrastructure? Sounds like the perfect way for the security theater apparatus to claim just about anything critical infrastructure in order to apply their mission creep and extend their tentacles into everything else around.

      Geez, when is the security bullshit gonna stop piling up?

    9. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Mitreya · · Score: 2

      We're seeing an erosion of our freedom and privacy and your problem is that they just haven't caught a terrorist yet? Does that imply that there actions will be justified if they do?

      No, I just think it would be a no-brainer to dismantle an organization that serves no purpose. Even if they had caught a terrorist I'd suggest dismantling them, but in that case there would be two sides to the argument (one for TSA, one against TSA)

      As it stands, there seems to be only one side to this debate -- a long list of reasons why TSA should be eliminated. You'd think it would be easier to get rid of a completely useless organization (rather the one that is simply less useful than the associated expense)

    10. Re:At least it will create jobs. by berashith · · Score: 1

      i am not saying that I am superman's secret identity, but I have never been seen in the room with superman.

    11. Re:At least it will create jobs. by poity · · Score: 1

      It's just another way of thinking about it. I'm not preaching gospel here -- just guessing. If the hypothesis holds, then I think this would probably fall into the "preventing mass hysteria" category since the building facility itself isn't as important as the fact that it was a popular event broadcast live through national television.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    12. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yet you are still waiting for them to catch a terrorist. If you haven't figured out yet that it isn't about terrorism, then I am not sure what to say to you.

    13. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ya know, the airlines have a vested interest in preventing attacks on their jets and service. Why don't we just let the airlines provide security? They would look to a third party and that would create jobs.

      Wait a sec, that would mean there is a free market and that the feds have to relinquish control. That will never work...

    14. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...As it stands, there seems to be only one side to this debate -- a long list of reasons why TSA should be eliminated. You'd think it would be easier to get rid of a completely useless organization (rather the one that is simply less useful than the associated expense)

      Completely useless? Hardly.

      You seem to forget that regardless of cost, it has created the single most valuable thing identified in the relentless political debates of late.

      Jobs.

      Therefore (and I reiterate), regardless of cost, it is considered a win and a good thing.

      Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know...that cost thing...yeah. we'll get to that when we raise the debt ceiling and taxes...again.

    15. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Firethorn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If they stopped a bomb/terrorist attack every day, I might be willing to put up with the erosion. As the actual rate is, at this point, somewhere below a thousandth of that, we could suffer a 9/11 attack something like once every 3 years and STILL be better off without the TSA.

      Some practical changes like the reinforced doors make sense. Combined with the attitude changes of the passangers and that threat has already been pretty well remediated.

      Making us take off our shoes and go though the x-ray scanners as opposed to a simple metal detector is overkill.

      The TSA is practicing risk avoidance, not risk management. The military learned that lesson over 30 years ago. It simply costs too much to avoid ALL risk; you end up not being able to do anything. Thus, you manage the risk - don't take stupid chances, but don't fret over extremely unlikely events, out of proportion of the damage it could cause. The underwear and shoe bombs were too small to have any realistic chances of taking the plane down. Ergo, they could have done as much or more damage in the waiting line at the TSA. More, if they turned it into a proper suicide vest with fragmentation additives. Or at a mall or some such.

      Risk management is simple in theory. You look at the risk - the chance that it will happen as a percentage, and the average damage it would cost. If mitigating the risk would cost more than the damage multiplied by the chance it'll happen, then you don't perform that mitigation.

      That's the simple type, of course. Some mitigations fix multiple risks, for example. Armored windows that will stop a gunshot also tend to be rather overkill for hurricane/tornado, after all. Vehicle barriers not only stop vehicle bombs, they stop drunk drivers. Etc...

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    16. Re:At least it will create jobs. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a large rock in my backyard. it keeps tigers away.

      and its about as effective as the TSA is in their 'goals'. but my rock is a lot cheaper.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    17. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If they stopped a bomb/terrorist attack every day, I might be willing to put up with the erosion.

      That's a problematic mentality. Freedom is far more important than safety.

    18. Re:At least it will create jobs. by koan · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure they are there for the harassing, psychological acclimation to oppression, I don't think there are any terrorist other than the corporations.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    19. Re:At least it will create jobs. by koan · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, the problem is that agency like that don't stay the same size they either grow or die off, and the TSA is growing and expanding "VIPR".
      So there you go.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    20. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      They may be getting classified intelligence of planning outlines of attacks on stadiums. Forcing people to go through search screening is far more to deter attack attempts than it is to actually catch people.

      If you can easily walk in, people are more likely to go for it than if they know it will be a struggle.

      Thank god the people in charge of stuff like this are far brighter than the common yokel kibitzing on places like Slashdot.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    21. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Before the TSA there were security checkpoints in Airports, and it used to take a third the time to get through them. Now that we have the TSA we're subjected to more invasive procedures with no positive effect on our security. Every attempt on an airport has been foiled after the attacker has passed the security checkpoint. We need to return to private security and abolish the TSA because they're totally ineffective and they're blowing tons of our money and making it a huge pain in the ass to go anywhere by plane.

    22. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, the school shootings continue unabated.

      --
      No sig today...
    23. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Except there comes a point where you might have to choose between the freedom of walking directly onto an airplane and the freedom to stay alive. In the grandparent's post he suggests a stopped attack every DAY. Let's assume these are bombs in departure halls etc., and the daily casualties could easily be counted in the hundreds.

      I am not defending the TSA in any way. I sit here in Europe and wonder if there will ever be a day when I would again dare to consider visiting friends in the US, but the way things are going over there I don't really want to take any chances.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    24. Re:At least it will create jobs. by slashrio · · Score: 1

      They may be getting classified intelligence of planning outlines of attacks on stadiums.

      I see. So that's the reason why they only ask some questions.
      As in: "We've got credible information about pending terrorist attacks, but let's not upset the people too much with scanners.
      Let's keep that for later, when they are more used to our appearance in the public.
      In the mean time, let's just wait for 'the terrorists' to succeed.

      Yeah right, as if that is adding to security.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    25. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me sell you this rock. It keeps away the tigers...

    26. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      Catching terrorists is only the ostensible purpose of the TSA. The real purpose is to keep YOU and your ilk in line.

      And now that we've got everyone carrying around personal tracker/informant electronics, it's trivial for leaders of opposition groups to have unfortunate accidents (traffic or otherwise). You really only need to neutralize a very small number if you nip it in the bud. Think what Hoover could do with modern tech! (Read about him lest you think it can't happen here)

      FYI: Since the phone GPS initiative, phones can have location, voice and camera data remotely pulled silently. Log and data-mine that for Today's-SA goodness!

    27. Re:At least it will create jobs. by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      I have a large rock in my backyard. it keeps tigers away.

      So YOU'RE the rotten insensitive clod who's responsible for all those tigers moving into MY backyard!

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    28. Re:At least it will create jobs. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      I would like to purchase your rock

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    29. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lisa I want to buy your rock !

    30. Re:At least it will create jobs. by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Why is everyone concentrating on just the TSA?

      If you dissolved it tomorrow, the FBI, CIA, NSA and the rest would still be there. At least you can identify an TSA employee.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    31. Re:At least it will create jobs. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You make an interesting point with "... less critical infrastructure ...". I'm not saying you're wrong, but by applying what you're saying, the TSA (thus the Feds?) considers a sports arena a critical infrastructure? Sounds like the perfect way for the security theater apparatus to claim just about anything critical infrastructure in order to apply their mission creep and extend their tentacles into everything else around.

      Geez, when is the security bullshit gonna stop piling up?

      A terrorist attack on a sports event would let you target an awful lot of people in a relatively small space, and it would guarantee a large amount of publicity. Whatever slashdotters may think about sport, it is very popular.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    32. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Obviously, the problem is that we need MORE TSA in MORE areas of our life. We need to keep increasing the number of TSA agents until they inevitably catch a terrorist. (By sheer probability, the more TSA agents, the more likely one of them is to catch a terrorist.) Of course, once a terrorist is caught by the TSA, it will be proof positive that we need to add even more agents in more areas of our life since it was so effective.

      In unrelated news, this Kool Aid tastes weird.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    33. Re:At least it will create jobs. by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      To be fair those sports arena's are usually taxpayer owned. In the sense we paid for them, not in the sense we receive any of the financial benefit.

    34. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You say that as if the "terrorists" impacted the airline industry. There was no reason to bring the entire industry to a halt because of what happened on 9/11/2001. That was just a panic reaction.

      Don't you all feel duped by now?

    35. Re:At least it will create jobs. by n7ytd · · Score: 1

      If they stopped a bomb/terrorist attack every day, I might be willing to put up with the erosion.

      They're working on it. It's hard to trump up a bomb threat every day, but they're doing their best.

    36. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My biggest problem with he TSA is that they are the largest department in the US Government besides the military, yet they are poorly untrained at best. They have tremendous power for being so bad at their job.

    37. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Indeed, at this point passengers and crew have found more bombs than the TSA - the terrorists(rather pathetic ones, but still attempted terror attacks) have been successful at bypassing the TSA.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    38. Re:At least it will create jobs. by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      As Calydor mentioned, at some point you have to chose between freedom and life. My 'off the cuff' standard was a stopped attack every day, which would translate to us being effectively under wartime conditions where even the constitution has provisions to restrict freedoms.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
  9. Hey Republican Congress! by Rougement · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're looking for spending cuts to balance tax increases? I think I just found one!

    1. Re:Hey Republican Congress! by Nimey · · Score: 2

      Bah. Republicans only want to cut spending on programs that help people who aren't stinking rich.

      Besides, I think almost everyone in Washington is terrified that if they dismantle this monster and any terrorist attack anywhere in the States succeeds, they'll be blamed. The whole situation is reminiscent of the FBI under Hoover, and I suspect the very best we can hope for is more oversight of TSA and Fatherland Security.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    2. Re:Hey Republican Congress! by Delarth799 · · Score: 0

      The only thing republicans ever want to cut is education and programs for those who might need some help staying afloat.

    3. Re:Hey Republican Congress! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      That really is the stupidest lie that keeps getting pushed out there.

      the bill that just passed increases all of our taxes, when the president promised us all that only the top 1% would see increases in their taxes. trillions in new spending and no "real" cuts

      The republicans are not doing this country any favors, but the lie that they only care about the rich, and somehow the democrats care for "us little people" is laughable. Why did hollywood get a new 1/2 a billion tax break while normal working americans got a tax hike? Because those democrats whom claim to be all about the normal working man, are just as full of shit as the republicans are.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Hey Republican Congress! by Nimey · · Score: 2

      I never said the Dems care about the little people. In fact, if you'll carefully read my post you won't see a single thing about the Democrats.

      It's kind of pathetic that you have to answer criticism of Your Team by blowing smoke and complaining about the Other Team instead.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    5. Re:Hey Republican Congress! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      my team? I am a libertarian not a republican. And I apologize if that was not the intent of your comment. I have just seen it so often lately and it simply is not the truth

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    6. Re:Hey Republican Congress! by heefeneet · · Score: 1

      The only thing republicans ever want to cut is education and programs for those who might need some help staying afloat.

      Make people dumb, poor and desperate while also guaranteeing their right to guns. Genuis, utter genuis.

    7. Re:Hey Republican Congress! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      TSA to Congressmen considering a hypothetical TSA Oversight bill: Oversight? Oversight is just a fancy word for "getting in the TSA's way of catching terrorists." We need LESS oversight and MORE power to the TSA or terrorists will sneak into your houses and eat up your children... or worse, you won't get re-elected!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  10. Hey TSA: Fuck off by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You provide little actual security within your primary area of focus. Confinscating water bottles, nail clippers, groping little boys and girls, strip-searching people and putting unsolicited fingers on and in their privates, and using technology that your own people are now developing cancer from being near. You talk about terrorist threats, but how many terrorists have gotten away with irradiating our citizens? How many terrorists have stolen millions in camcorders, cell phones, and other electronics? How many terrorists have smuggled drugs onto commercial airlines? And the real kicker: Compared to those numbers, how many TSA agents have been caught doing the same?

    You bring a level of institutional incompetence to the show that makes the current fiscal cliff negotiations look like someone forgetting to give the change back after buying a candy bar... you're overpriced, underwhelming, and frankly... the "cure" you provide is worse than the disease. And the only reason the TSA hasn't been drop-kicked out the door is because the media keeps people in perpetual ignorance of just how incompetent you guys truly are.

    So when you come into my town and say "this will be the norm", I can't help but wonder how long until nobody flies, goes to public events, or even leaves their fucking house-- not because of terrorists, but because of the inconvenience of having to deal with your bullshit. Your organization is incompetent and useless. Go away.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by dgatwood · · Score: 5, Funny

      You provide little actual security within your primary area of focus. Confiscating water bottles...

      That's pretty much it right there. The NFL probably saw what a great job they did at preventing outside beverages inside airport security, and how much better the overpriced food vendors inside security are doing as a result, and they're probably hoping that the TSA can repeat that success at their establishment.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    2. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 1

      I can't help but wonder how long until nobody flies, goes to public events, or even leaves their fucking house.

      Way to go. Stay home! Shut up! Do not attract attention! When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will.

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    3. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 1

      Confiscating water bottles,

      The Constitution of the United States of America, guarantees your Right to Bear Arms, not to Bear Water.

      But an organization such as the TSA would have been as welcome as a loud fart in church during the silent prayer to the Founder Fathers.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    4. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't help but wonder how long until nobody flies, goes to public events, or even leaves their fucking house-- not because of terrorists, but because of the inconvenience of having to deal with your bullshit.

      I, for one have the uncomfortable, creepy feeling that's the entire purpose. Everyone will be "safe" from any threat while traveling, since no one will be doing that, and the population will be 100% under police control. Win-win for the "New Nazis" seizing power all over the western world these days under slogans like "security for everyone", "jobs for everyone", and "we will be tough on crime". Heard those before?

      Meanwhile, in Sweden, our current rulers even tried to go to the elections a few years ago in some parts of the country under the slogan "work gives freedom", (hint: means the same as "arbeit macht frei".) until someone happened to look in a history book.

      Your organization is incompetent and useless.

      Au contraire , I'm afraid.

    5. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 3, Funny

      My theory is that they wanted to watch the game and they didn't want to buy tickets. Thus, they have to be there "for security reasons." Which is why they have to be in the luxury boxes later on...

    6. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by waspleg · · Score: 1

      You got modded funny but it's probably true.

    7. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by fulldecent · · Score: 1

      >> So when you come into my town and say "this will be the norm", I can't help but wonder how long until nobody flies, goes to public events, or even leaves their fucking house-- not because of terrorists, but because of the inconvenience of having to deal with your bullshit.

      Well... look at Cuba, North Korea, etc. do they still have sports, public event, fun there? Is the US going to get worse than Cuba, North Korea, etc?

      --

      -- I was raised on the command line, bitch

    8. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      Parent should be modded Insightful, not Funny.

    9. Re:Hey TSA: Fuck off by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile, in Sweden, our current rulers even tried to go to the elections a few years ago in some parts of the country under the slogan "work gives freedom", (hint: means the same as "arbeit macht frei".) until someone happened to look in a history book.

      Your comment makes as much sense as the rightwingers on here who say all Socialists are really Nazis, because, duh, it's the National Socialist Party. As a rule, you do have more freedom if you work, it's no fun being unemployed in a capitalist society. What words the real Nazis used over their concentration camps is irrelevant, they were just the sickest of sick jokes anyway.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  11. Catch 22 by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Loyalty oaths should be required throughout the day. You should have to sign one to go to the shops or eat at a restaurant.

    1. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Loyalty oaths should be required...

      I work for a California public college.

      I had to sign that I would be willing to take a loyalty oath as condition of employment (didn't have to actually take an oath, though).

      This shit has been around (at least) since the last time right-wing crazies shit all over our civil liberties-- the "red scare."

      Each time the right manages to get a bit more of this shit entrenched. Maybe this time will be the one or maybe 3 more of these right-wing police state takeovers, but eventually we will not be able to come back-- we will be in a permanent police state. "Your papers please!"

    2. Re:Catch 22 by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      My cousin refused a job offer at a CA college because of the loyalty oath thing.

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re:Catch 22 by swillden · · Score: 2

      I work for a California public college.

      I had to sign that I would be willing to take a loyalty oath as condition of employment (didn't have to actually take an oath, though).

      This shit has been around (at least) since the last time right-wing crazies shit all over our civil liberties-- the "red scare."

      Each time the right manages to get a bit more of this shit entrenched. Maybe this time will be the one or maybe 3 more of these right-wing police state takeovers

      Yeah, those California universities are bastions of right-wing radicalism.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:Catch 22 by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      I had to sign that I would be willing to take a loyalty oath as condition of employment (didn't have to actually take an oath, though).

      Loyalty to what? (Not trying to be snarky, genuinely curious).

      If it is to the USA.... what about professors from other countries? Aren't they the kind of lecturers who are in demand - but they couldn't logically swear loyalty to a country they aren't a citizen of?

    5. Re:Catch 22 by fustakrakich · · Score: 1
      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    6. Re:Catch 22 by Maow · · Score: 2

      Loyalty oaths should be required throughout the day. You should have to sign one to go to the shops or eat at a restaurant.

      Best to start that kind of thing in school. Oh, wait:

      "I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

      ...

      the fact that the people who are most likely to recite the Pledge every day, small children in schools

      Gotta wonder if it's time to bring back the good ol' fashioned method:

      Swearing of the Pledge is accompanied by a salute. An early version of the salute, adopted in 1892, was known as the Bellamy salute. It started with the hand outstretched toward the flag, palm down, and ended with the palm up. Because of the similarity between the Bellamy salute and the Nazi salute, developed later, United States Congress instituted the hand-over-the-heart gesture as the salute to be rendered by civilians during the Pledge of Allegiance and the national anthem in the United States, instead of the Bellamy salute.

      Thanks Wikipedia.

    7. Re:Catch 22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No big deal. To work at a California state university or college, one of the requirements is to take and/or sign the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the State of California.

      So take and/or sign the oath, and get on with the work that the paperwork is intended to be for.

      I'd actually welcome a "your papers please" policy because then the local law enforcement could get on with the work ICE and customs is supposed to be doing, but has been told "only serious crimes and felonies" by the illegal immigrant enabler in chief

    8. Re:Catch 22 by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I work for a California public college.

      I had to sign that I would be willing to take a loyalty oath as condition of employment (didn't have to actually take an oath, though).

      This shit has been around (at least) since the last time right-wing crazies shit all over our civil liberties-- the "red scare."

      Each time the right manages to get a bit more of this shit entrenched. Maybe this time will be the one or maybe 3 more of these right-wing police state takeovers

      Yeah, those California universities are bastions of right-wing radicalism.

      Like many Americans you seem to be unaware of what right and left wing really mean, and of the reality of the power structures in your country.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    9. Re:Catch 22 by swillden · · Score: 1

      I work for a California public college.

      I had to sign that I would be willing to take a loyalty oath as condition of employment (didn't have to actually take an oath, though).

      This shit has been around (at least) since the last time right-wing crazies shit all over our civil liberties-- the "red scare."

      Each time the right manages to get a bit more of this shit entrenched. Maybe this time will be the one or maybe 3 more of these right-wing police state takeovers

      Yeah, those California universities are bastions of right-wing radicalism.

      Like many Americans you seem to be unaware of what right and left wing really mean, and of the reality of the power structures in your country.

      I understand exactly what they mean. The AC I responded to, not so much.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  12. America land of the Controlled by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TSA is out of control so much for America being the land of the free also the terrorist won making you give up your freedoms for secuity

  13. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah jest needs tah cheek yer asshole, sir!

  14. Sieg Heil, Sturmabteilung! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    Just what the US citizenry needs -- a Red White and Blue equivalent of the good ol' Nazi Brown Shirts.
    I'm feeling safer already.

    1. Re:Sieg Heil, Sturmabteilung! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm reporting this one as a saboteur.

  15. TSA - Are you the baddies? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hn1VxaMEjRU

  16. In the USofA, too.... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    I thought the security craze in all its blazing public visibility was limited to the UK and a few other European countries ( especially the Netherlands ). The Control State, AAMOF, looks more and more like a "soft" version of a police state. See the Nanny State in GB and NL. But upon reading this, I begin to think that the USA, too, will succomb to this ligth-chocolate-brown dictatorial regime.

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:In the USofA, too.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it seems like a lot of politicians want to ban guns this month...

    2. Re:In the USofA, too.... by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      It'a being overstated in the most hyperbolic way possible, so it will have this effect.

            However, remove the hyperbole and this does appear to be a very significant expansion of scope. The leftist need to exert control and disdain of the constitutional protects is evident all over. This sort of expansion of role appears to clearly violate the Frouth Amendment, We are in a mad rush to further impinge the second amendment to "save the children" even though the venue for the most recent mass shooting was a "gun-free zone" already. We have, as recently as yesterday, had elected officials suggest that certain political groups (i.e. conservatives) should have their First amendment rights restricted. The abuse of the Tenth Amendment is rampant and effectively being used to infer that Federal government action is effectively unlimited. All of these "Expansions" are in diametric disagreement with the Ninth Amendment, as the right provisions of the Constitution are being interpreted (as is suits the arguers) as the sole rights granted, which is certainly not the intent.

      Best of all, the alleged "Paper of Record" for the US, in reality a parochial leftist mouthpiece/propaganda organ, the holy New York Times, has published a screed that suggests we dispense with the Constitution entirely, as "inconvenient". This was the intent, to make it "inconvenient" on those politicians who wish to impose tyranny (like the TSA represents).

            Unless and until legal action puts a stop to this nonsense, we are headed right down the road suggests.

    3. Re:In the USofA, too.... by tehcyder · · Score: 2
      There is no connection between what rightwingers call the Nanny State and an actual police state (left or right wing).

      A so-called Nanny State merely protects the most vulnerable from harm, e.g. by providing unemployment benefits, medical care and education by the state. This results in a reduction in freedom only to the extent that rightwingers believe all taxation is theft.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  17. Parallel by mill3d · · Score: 1

    This kind of reminds me Half-life 2 where the L.E. to civilian population ratio is something like 50%.
    If that's the direction we're heading , I wonder who'll be left to grow food, build houses, make furniture... Who'll take care of the monster once the monster has gotten rid of it's "foes".

    --
    Nothing is enough for whom enough is too little - Confucius
    1. Re:Parallel by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      make furniture in the prisons as well the food. people on work release / community service can build houses.

    2. Re:Parallel by mill3d · · Score: 2

      That sounds like the Randian utopia, but with the bad stuff swept under the carpet. Progress indeed.

      --
      Nothing is enough for whom enough is too little - Confucius
    3. Re:Parallel by Meyaht · · Score: 2

      The giant communist robots will provide

      --
      I believe in karma, which is why, when I do something bad to people, I assume they deserve it.
    4. Re:Parallel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of what I was thinking. This is the new uniform for the TSA: http://half-life.wikia.com/wiki/Civil_Protection

    5. Re:Parallel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Randian utopia is when everyone acknowledges the rule of law and deals with each other respectfully, reasonably, and as equals.

  18. Autoimmune disease? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Judging by the symptoms, the USA seems to be suffering from an autoimmune disease.

    I sincerely wish (for you and for the sake of the ret of us) you manage to regain your health. It's a sad sight :-(

  19. skytrain has the free airport zone that makes gate by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    skytrain has the free airport zone that makes gates harder to do (you have to pay to get out of the airport area but in it it's free)

    With gates people can just get on and have no paper to show other then a card that will need to be swiped by the cops.

  20. just wait for a full body cavity searchs be for fl by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/officials-fear-terrorists-body-bombs-us-bound-planes/story?id=16245827#.UOiuQHduKSo

    just wait for a full body cavity searchs be for flying now this can be be bound that. But a bomb / dugs up someones butt can happen.

  21. TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All is normal. Fascist Germany had SS, fascist US has TSA.

  22. It was written over 100 years ago... by 101percent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To be governed is to be watched over, inspected, spied on, directed, legislated at, regulated, docketed, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, assessed, weighed, censored, ordered about, by men who have neither the right, nor the knowledge, nor the virtue. ... To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction, noted, registered, enrolled, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, trained, ransomed, exploited, monopolized, extorted, squeezed, mystified, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, despised, harassed, tracked, abused, clubbed, disarmed, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and, to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. - Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

    1. Re:It was written over 100 years ago... by bytesex · · Score: 1

      The alternative of which is: total anarchy.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    2. Re:It was written over 100 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hurr durr

    3. Re:It was written over 100 years ago... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't use words you don't understand.

  23. And in Denver or Seattle? by bdwoolman · · Score: 2

    The question is obvious. During a routine search at a sports event one of the TSA agents finds cannabis on your person? Of course at an airport they would contact law enforcement (happens all the time). Would they turn you over to the local authorities, who would give you back your legal weed. Or would you be turned over to the FBI?

    Hyperbole aside, an expansion of the activities of this unpopular and relatively incompetent agency is unsettling to say the least. Most Americans would like them to disappear,. Not multiply. Feh!

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:And in Denver or Seattle? by Dr_Marvin_Monroe · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't think they "de-criminalized" it. They didn't actually take any laws "off the books" here in Washington.
      What they did do was make it "the lowest priority" offense. For cops, this means that doughnuts are a higher priority. It's still illegal though, and they can make it a "priority" whenever they want to.

      Imagine that you flip off to one of the TSA people, now they've got something to add to your charges. Just one more offense they can list at your trial, kinda like a murder suspect also get charged for "reckless discharge of a firearm" or some such. Just add more stuff to the charges wherever possible.

      This is also a pretty scary concept too, because EVERYTHING is headed towards illegal, it's just up to the state to determine WHEN and/or IF they want to prosecute you.

    2. Re:And in Denver or Seattle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article is crap. TSA didn't secure the stadium. They had a special detail on site. TSA wasn't there searching people. The VIPR teams supplement the transportation to get to/from the event.

      VIPR doesn't have flight screeners standing at the gates. You had the normal event security and local police.

    3. Re:And in Denver or Seattle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about Washington's implementation, but here in Colorado a constitutional amendment legalized, not just decriminalized, personal possession. There's no need to take any laws off of the books, because a constitutional amendment automatically supersedes any lower statutes.

  24. Slipery Slope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the next time someone posts how the "slipper slope" argument is a logical fallacy or discounts in some other way, I'm gonna flame his ass so bad that it'll win a barbecue contest in Texas.

  25. On Becoming Deviant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In shocked discovery, the subject now concretely understands that there are serious people who really go around building their lives around his activities--stopping him, correcting him, devoted to him. They keep records on the course of his life, even develop theories on how he got that way.

    David Matza

    1. Re:On Becoming Deviant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 :)

    2. Re:On Becoming Deviant by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      When you have such thick law book, you have equally thick people applying them.
      Charles Rovira - the mirror

  26. Mission Creep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Given any significant and expanding budget, government agencies will suffer mission creep, with various agencies overlapping services and getting in each others way, while taxpayers pay three, four or more times for the redundancy.

  27. As foretold by the prophet Osama Bin Laden by 0111+1110 · · Score: 4, Informative

    We will work to continue this battle, God permitting, until victory or until we meet God. I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in -- and the West in general -- into an unbearable hell and a choking life.

    Osama Bin Laden. 2002.

    http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/01/31/gen.binladen.interview/index.html

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  28. VIPR by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

    an unfortunate acronym for Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response team

    It's not an 'unfortunate acronym,' they chose it exactly BECAUSE it spells VIPR. Someone in the system likes that name.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:VIPR by m0nit0rman · · Score: 1

      This. I also am amused by the dark glasses and black caps "uniform" the agents are pictured wearing. The look like doormen who aren't going to let you into a nightclub.

    2. Re:VIPR by m0nit0rman · · Score: 1

      *They*

    3. Re:VIPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. I would rather a snake be called a snake. At least they are not on the bandwagon of other government agencies calling it something like the "patriot act". There was absolutely nothing patriotic about that at all. They knew if they gave it a name like that, then most citizens would not block it, and would loose many rights with open arms.

    4. Re:VIPR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. So tired of Slashdot submitters trying to be clever when they're not.

    5. Re:VIPR by messymerry · · Score: 1

      Dammit Janet!

      --
      Dear Microlimp: I give you 2 valid product keys for win7 and you reject both of them. Piss off you wankers!!!
  29. domestic security? by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 2

    Ok, I get that, and I also get that none of this is about security, but merely about control and power. What I don't get is why the security theater / homeland security smoke screen is so effective, but that's probably just me and owed to the fact that I've been taught history. History tells us where all of this will lead. As we now by now: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

    --
    I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    1. Re:domestic security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, we should be tolerant of different peoples. You see, Americans have their own culture of security, just as Chinese, Russians, and Iranians do. In threads where we read news about these and other governments cracking down domestically, we hear the voices of tolerance and self-criticism quite clearly. I think such intelligent and self-reflective thinking should continue. Let's not focus on America, let's focus on ourselves.

    2. Re:domestic security? by canesfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ok, I get that, and I also get that none of this is about security, but merely about control and power. What I don't get is why the security theater / homeland security smoke screen is so effective, but that's probably just me and owed to the fact that I've been taught history. History tells us where all of this will lead. As we now by now: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

      As for why the "security theater / homeland security smoke screen is so effective"? Stop and think and honestly try and take stock of how many people you currently know personally who could be objectively called independent thinkers who are not afraid to live what they proclaim they believe. I am in my 40's and I can say this is not the America I grew up in. Very few people have the courage to live by the set of principles which made America a great Country to begin with.

    3. Re:domestic security? by jahudabudy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Very few people have the courage to live by the set of principles which made America a great Country to begin with.
      Uh, like self-centered obsession with getting ahead personally regardless of the expense to others? Not that there haven't been some few stellar individuals that stood out, but the overall history of America is voracious greed thinly disguised as "individualism" or "manifest destiny". There are no longer free resources that are easily taken from the natives, or an endless supply of desperate newcomers to step on; we can't even overtly loot Central and South America now, thanks to global international relations. So now, we have turned inward and are eating ourselves. Very few stood on principle when it was every one else being digested, especially since the American middle class got the scraps. Don't pretend that now that it is the middle class that is the entree that somehow the principle of the matter has changed.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    4. Re:domestic security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The TSA agents should all be telling their bosses to piss off and getting another job.

      Do you honestly think that TSA agents can get another job?

    5. Re:domestic security? by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      We are learning. There was alot of talk after the recent school shooting, but no knee jerk reaction yet.

  30. nothing to see here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    move along

  31. As a non-American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I work for a software shop that has people in the US, Canada and Europe. When the subject of travel comes up, in subtle ways there has been a change. There is always an availability or scheduling problem that appears anytime a US meeting is suggested. This began happening about three years ago. Meeting in Canada or Europe never seems to have any problems but...travelling to America, umm, yeah, hang on...Oh no can do.

    1. Re:As a non-American... by sunderland56 · · Score: 1

      If your company still has a budget for face-to-face meetings, it is in the minority. Most avoid the entire issue by only allowing teleconferencing.

      For customer visits, of course, you have zero choice of the destination country, and you can't exactly decline.

    2. Re:As a non-American... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      Pizza restaurants decline to deliver to certain apartment complexes all the time (usually where their delivery men keep getting mugged).

  32. Government Corruption by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    What I find most interesting about all of this is even soon after 9/11 airline security was never soo bad I stopped flying.

    It happened many years later seemingly in step with Jherkove group backscatter manovourings under cover of underwear bomber the chapter of egregous nonsense of groping and irradiation started.

    It sort of reminds me of locutus/piccard taking datas arm and saying "sleep data" who had been working dilligently to find a command to stop the borg.

    I think one of few such command that stands any chance of working to effect systematic change is coordinated insistance on campaign finance reform.

    Trying to correct the results of structures which breed corrupt behavior is like lobbing a photon torpedo at a borg cube and expecting it to have any effect.

  33. But TSA has covered the Tom Clancy book plots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obama now calls himself the Black "Jack Ryan"

  34. If you don't like the TSA, then don't fly! by clonehappy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is what I've been being told for years now. When I point out that it's been the plan ALL ALONG to expand them out into a Stasi-style force on the highways, in the subways, at the shopping malls, at sporting events, I was branded a tinfoil-hat nutter.

    Now what, bootlickers?

  35. Counterstrike announcer: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Terrorist win.

    1. Re:Counterstrike announcer: by frosty_tsm · · Score: 1

      Terrorist win.

      I don't know who modded this down. They changed our lives forever between TSA, NDAA and other intrusions into our constitutional rights.

      If you want to start a campaign to bring down TSA, go out and make the case how it's the cornerstone of the terrorists winning.

  36. Domestic Security.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sounds so loving and caring. Wake up America, the terrorists won. This is clear in the airports, and now on the streets.

    Heil TSA!

  37. so this would be step 6? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  38. US Intelligence is in chaos now, so parasites grow by dbIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

    US Intelligence is in such chaos now that it was possible for the FBI to remove the head of the CIA on "moral" grounds and thus assert their dominance. In such a mess a parasite such as the TSA cannot be controlled and will grow whatever way it likes.

  39. Got America by the balls by dbIII · · Score: 1

    There's too much money flowing into too many of the right pockets for the Republicans to dismantle them, and they are such a huge employer that Democrats are not likely to do it either. It's turned into a very inefficient way of getting welfare money to a lot of people that would be far better employed doing something useful.

  40. Not bloody likely by The+Shootist · · Score: 0

    TSA couldn't secure it's ass with both hands.

    The organization is the very definition of kabuki theater.

    Give them no respect.

    1. Re:Not bloody likely by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That's because both there hands are being used to look up someone else's ass.

  41. Former TSA worker's blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This blog by a seven year TSA worker describes first hand what it's like to work an airport checkpoint.

    Taking Sense Away

    Hint: if you year a TSA employee saying "Yellow Alert" or "Code Red", look around for a hottie passenger wearing that color.

    1. Re:Former TSA worker's blog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI - not the same people. VIPR isn't the minimum wage airport screeners. These are real law enforcement.

  42. tsa are communism by Dan667 · · Score: 1

    remember all the kgb fear mongering that people would have to endure if the communists won? Oh, yea, the US is transforming into that paranoia. How long before they start putting cameras in people's homes?

    1. Re:tsa are communism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with communism. It is a totalitarian state regardless which ideologie got perverted.

  43. Make up your own mind. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://thenewalexandrialibrary.com/nazi.html

  44. Had we not flown... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Had people simply refused to fly as long as the TSA continued to exist, the expansion would have ended. People kept flying, even when they could have taken a train or bus, and so the TSA never felt the heat, and eventually grew larger. People will not boycott sports events either, nor will they refuse to drive when the TSA starts creating highway checkpoints, nor will they refuse to go to malls when the checkpoints come there.

    Boil the frog slowly is how the major parties operate; the major parties consist of politicians either too corrupt to stop or too inept to even realize what they are doing.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:Had we not flown... by Saxerman · · Score: 2

      My wife and I did take the train for our holiday travel rather than flying, explicitly because I hate being manhandled like a criminal. Total transit time, one way, would have been about 4 hours by air or about 13 hours if we drove straight there. By train, one way, transit time was 28 hours. Certainly, the train was a lot less cramped than either a car or plane, plus we have outlets and no restrictions on using our electronic toys, and a dining, cafe, and observation car. (Kudos to the team who played more than 12 hours of Settlers of Catan in the observation car!) And our layover at one train station did include complimentary propaganda TSA video playing continuously.

      Which is to say, yes, we do have a few options to try and boycott the growing police state in this country. However, they are not without some serious compromises, and even those of us who do value freedom have to balance that value against the many other priorities in our lives. My wife and I had the privilege to spend an extra two of our vacation days on travel, but not everyone is so fortunate. And I have no idea how we're going to manage a trip to Alaska.

      --

      A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.

  45. Just when .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... we get Jerry Sandusky out of the football biz, the TSA steps in. One way or another, we're in for a good fondling.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  46. Hmmm by koan · · Score: 1

    Something very bad and very big is going to happen soon, I can feel it in my bone.

    "allow TSA to provide focused resources and tools to enhance the overall security posture within the surface transportation community"

    Just wow...we spent a trillion dollars on this shit.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  47. just asking questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like "Papers please?"

  48. I was wondering of the new JFK heist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the TSA allowed the warehouse to be hit again. A million worth of Ipads were stolen. What if it were terrorist who did it and put who knows what kind of data collection software on them before selling them to upscale Americans, where they can then hit all kinds of American targets with the data collected.
    hmm. Thats all folks.

  49. freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I feel bad for the yanks. In a pathetic attempt to maintain the individual freedoms their nation was founded on, they continue to sacrifice those same freedoms on the altar of "national security". Perhaps if they took a little time out from creating a police state to ponder the question ":Why do all those folks in the middle east hate us so much?", they could direct their efforts in directions which would make life safer for Americans AND for the rest of us.

  50. Go back one picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude also caught a drone over the Dome.

  51. Article is FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this comment isn't going to be popular with the anti-TSA opinion on Slashdot, but this is totally overblown.

    TSA did not secure the Metrodome. This isn't the TSA you typically deal with, the flight screeners that make just above minimum wage. There were not flight screeners at any gates. The VIPR teams are actually composed of full time, trained, law enforcement officers. Their job isn't to secure the stadium, local police/security still do the event security. VIPR is a special detail that comes into town and monitors the associated transportation with a large scale special event. So their mission actually would be watching local airports, railroad hubs, bus stations etc. They add extra monitoring to the transportation to get to the event, that's really it.

    I work for a major university, and VIPR teams have worked our events. Mostly what they do is staff the small airports, ride on trains and buses. They don't even enter the stadium, they don't have any business inside.

  52. You Half Wits! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Americans would like them to disappear,. Not multiply.

    You half wits are so utterly ignorant and blind, it amazes me. The FACT is that most - the very vast majority - of Americans feel that the TSA is absolutely essential, that the TSA is highly successful at protecting the public and that the inconveniences thrown up by TSA inspections and interrogations are minor and completely worth it for the "protection" that they provide.

    The anti-TSA crowd here on Slashdot and elsewhere are VASTLY outnumbered by the sheep that lineup in airports, to be barked at by the TSA every single day. Literally millions of people every single day line up to be inspected by the TSA and when asked for their opinion on the matter, as they step out of the frisking area, they unanimously say; "it's a little inconvenient, but it's worth it to know that I am safe from terrorists."

  53. It's coming by mr_resident · · Score: 1

    Dictatorships have always feared large groups of citizens massing in public. The TS(S)A will continue to discourage people from leaving their homes for any reason other than going to work.

  54. Airships during games by Numtek · · Score: 1

    Aren't they stationed there because of things like this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodyear_Blimp

  55. SHUT UP! BE HAPPY. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We interrupt this program with a special bulletin:
    America is now under marshal law
    All constitutional rights have been suspended.
    Stay in your homes.
    Do not attempt to contact loved ones, insurance agents or attorneys.
    SHUT UP.
    Do not attempt to think
    or depression may occur.
    Stay in your homes.
    Curfew is at 7 PM sharp after work.
    Anyone caught outside the gates of their subdivision sectors after curfew,
    Will Be Shot.
    Remain calm,
    Do not panic.
    Your neighborhood watch officer will be by to collect urine samples In the morning.
    Anyone caught interfering with the collection of urine samples Will be shot.
    Stay in your homes, remain calm.
    The number one enemy of progress is questions.
    National security is more important than individual will.
    All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.
    No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission.
    Use only the drugs prescribed by your boss or supervisor.
    SHUT UP.
    Be Happy.
    Obey all orders without question.
    The comfort you requested is now mandatory!
    Be happy, at last everything is done for you.

    Lyrics from the album Freedom of Speech (Just Watch What You Say) by Ice T, released 1989.

    1. Re:SHUT UP! BE HAPPY. by excatholica · · Score: 1

      Actually these lyrics are from No More Cocoons: The Jello Biafra Spoken Word Album, released in 1987. Ice T sampled them. Track is called 'Message from Our Sponsor'.

  56. You Can't Spell Stasi Without TSA - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough said.

    I take only mild comfort in knowing that our country will be getting exactly what it deserves when unvarnished tyranny finally, shortly arrives. We created this monster. We nurtured it, protected it, and allowed it to grow. We will reap what we've sown.

    Bear in mind that recently declassified FBI documents show protest organizations which have never once mobilized resources with the intent of committing large scale violence of any kind being described with language ordinarily reserved for mass murderers. Any activities discomforting to the regime and its reactionaries are considered grounds to accuse the offending party of participating in terrorist activity. Given the endlessly broad definition of terrorism according to our government and the awesome powers which the Executive Branch has seized in regard to tracking, intercepting, and disposing of suspected terrorists, this news should chill you to the bone. One day, the drones will be coming after you. You will wake up one day to find some of your friends or family vanished. You could be calling a cold cell in some lonely corner of the world home for the rest of your drastically shortened life one day, and you won't even know why. That's assuming you don't have an 'accident' first, courtesy of the secret police.

    First, however, the intelligence men will invade our towns. They'll infiltrate our offices, schools, apartment buildings; they'll integrate directly into our police departments and municipal governments at the personnel level. They're already deep in our infrastructure. They already have the capability of intercepting any and all electronic communications transmitted within the country and a sizable fraction of those outside of the country. Through the power of mass surveillance and unprecedented technological capabilities to gather and store information, every citizen will be monitored at all times for unlawful behavior. What constitutes unlawfulness and whether those laws will include provisions for retroactive punishment depends entirely on the whims of the elite. With a vast workforce and practically unlimited resources, the intelligence men will have the ability to enact 'corrosion' tactics on a massive scale and detain or eliminate, eventually, a substantial fraction of the country's population. You don't have to believe in unproven nonsense like FEMA camps to acknowledge that building detention facilities does not require years of time and billions of dollars like the prisons we're used to, but just a plot of appropriate size and some other inexpensive materials, most crucially barbed wire.

    Speaking of the prisons we're used to, gulags are already normal in the United States. They're just hidden from sight, inside the ordinary corrections system, which is itself a hellish abyss of inefficiency, arbitrary punishment, incompetence, and deliberate torture. It strains credulity that a nation which permits a prison system where routine assault, multiple rape, and prolonged to indefinite solitary confinement (widely and credibly considered to be a form of psychological torture causing documented, potentially permanent mental harm) are implied to be part of the standard prison package could call itself a chief promoter of human rights. We have, through various and often indirect means, been torturing our own citizens for decades and a huge portion of these people were never guilty of a violent crime before they were incarcerated. We have also, first under the guise of the War on Drugs and then under the guise of the War on Terror, widely militarized our police forces and tightly integrated them with Federal law enforcement, which includes the intelligence men. They now have the ability to harass, intimidate, search, arrest, and even incriminate (through the planting of evidence, itself an extremely common practice) practically anyone for any reason, including the so called crime of recording law enforcement activities. Considering how many of our own people actually approve of our government's conduct and how many others

  57. Homeland by Loki_666 · · Score: 1

    Yeah, for me the warning bells signalled back in tum-te-tum-oh-one when they named it HOMELAND security. I mean, that was totally blatant, but the US public seemed to fail to notice it. I mean. Fatherland (Nazis), Motherland (Commies).... how could they fail to notice the similarity?

    1. Re:Homeland by slashrio · · Score: 1

      Yeah, for me the warning bells signalled back in tum-te-tum-oh-one when they ... invaded Irak based on a non-sense presentation in the UN.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
  58. TSA and guns shows by minstrelmike · · Score: 1

    Just wait until TSA is spotted providing 'security' at a gun show.

  59. Re: Tanks by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    The Abrams can't go far without fuel. The fuel trucks are the vulnerable point in the system. Logistics wins wars, not bullets by themselves.

    Oh, and improvised paint bombs. Once all the windows and optical sensors a covered in paint, the tank is not as useful.

  60. Re:Altnerate system by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    Proportional representation. Your candidate gets 40 percent of the vote? They get 40% of the voting power. They get 1% of the vote, they get 1% of the voting power. It's the 21st century, we can deal with fractional votes, or simply multiply congressional votes by 100 (43,500 votes in the House of Representatives instead of 435). Set a minimum of 1% to keep number of reps reasonable. The extra representatives can also spread out the work. It's obvious from the continual lateness of the budgets, and representatives who claim lack of time to read bills that there are not enough of them. We need more bodies to spread the workload.

  61. Re:just wait for a full body cavity searchs be for by Issarlk · · Score: 1

    Nothing a good patriotic dose of X-Rays can't detect. Just turn the dial to 11!

  62. You havent enjoyed classic bullying unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...you experienced it in its original german...

    Papiere, Bitte

  63. "So this is how liberty dies... by RealGene · · Score: 1

    With thunderous applause."
    --Princess/Senator Amidala

    "..and a halftime show!"
    --Me

    --
    Mission: To provide products that consume time and energy as entertainingly as permitted by the laws of thermodynamics.
  64. Visiting Team Security Check by FantasyHam · · Score: 1

    I can't speak to exactly what the people in the pic are doing, but it's normal to have TSA agents at NFL games. Visiting teams generally leave the stadiums and head directly to the airport for the trip back home after the game. In order to avoid going through the normal TSA checkpoints at the airport, the screening is done at the stadium. Once the screening is done the team then boards the buses and heads straight to the airport where they immediately board the plane for the flight home.

    1. Re:Visiting Team Security Check by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Get out of here with your common sense and so-called facts! I bet you don't even own a tinfoil hat.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  65. Better? Plenty of places. Here's one - Uruguay by xenoc_1 · · Score: 1

    Not who you were asking, but a lot of places in Latin America are in fact more free than the USA.

    I'm living in Uruguay. Starting legal residency is very simple and cheap, unless you are one of those types that "needs to hire professional experts" for everything. In which case WTF are you doing on /.?

    Overall cost of living is cheaper than the USA, which along with the whole freedom-vs-march-to-facism thing is why my wife and I moved. Electric is expensive but other utilities, including internet, are cheaper by more than enough to offset it. Climate (and latitude) similar to North Carolina but with a lot fewer cyclones (I would have said "we don't get hurricanes" but we got a couple of extratropical cyclones a few months ago). I'm in an old beachside resort town that is also within commuting distance, barely, of the capital, Montevideo. Some of the area is dirt roads, along which Antel the state telecom semi-monopoly is pulling fiber optic to home. Even on copper, the Antel DSL installer told me that my home could get 12Mbps. For now I am on a cheapo combo plan of 996 pesos (about $50USD/mo más-o-menos depending on the exchange rate) that includes 3072 down/512 up ADSL, a landline without any minutes, and 10GB/mo of 3G/quasi-4G (called 3.7G here) HSDPA/HSPA+ on a datastick.

    Power is as reliable as any other small town where sometimes a substation gets a lightning hit or a tree downs a wire. More reliable than my experience in the Colorado Rockies. AC if you want it, just keep in mind electric is kinda pricy. I paid about $120 last month (no AC) for about 650kWh. In Colorado that would have been about $50, in Tacoma where I was for a year, with nonprofit city-owned power, about $30. But everybody cooks with bottled Supergas, around $20 for a tank that will last you 3-4 months of cooking 3 meals daily.

    Health care is a state right if you have no money. If you have "activity", a local job or you are set up as a unipersonal (think a formalized one-person LLC or S-corp) paying in to BPS (social security), you can join any of the many "mutualistas" (HMO-like groups that run their own hospitals and clinics, somewhat like the KaiserPermanante model) for free. Without working (or freelance digital nomad working paid via Elance, Google Wallet, Paypal) it costs about 1650 pesos a month, about $85 US. With a $4 copay to see a doctor. All prescriptions about $8. An MRI is only about 1000 pesos, or 50 dollars, while even with insurance it would be about 1000 of dollars in the States.

    Fascinating mix of socialist in some areas and libertarian in others. Nobody wears bicycle helmets because a bike is a mode of going places, not an "activity" that you do that requires special equipment. Moto (scooter and low-end motorcycle) riders rarely wear helmets, but some do. Nobody gives a crap if you put up clotheslines or an antenna or have a dog. No frakking HOAs.

    A military used almost exclusively for UN Peacekeeping missions. No "enemies" to speak of. Ok terms with the USA but not an "ally". Legalized gay marriage, legalized abortion (forward thinking for latin america), legalizing marijuana.

    Not nearly as much USA-style or Global North consumerism, though it's here if you want to be a spendy jerk and attempt to recreate a Boca Raton, Florida lifestyle. In which case please go to Punta del Este and spend stupid money, leaving the rest of us alone to enjoy a great quality of life. Yes, electronics cost 70-100% more due to our 22% IVA (Value Added Tax) baked into the price, and the high import duty. But we get value for it, overall, and there are deals to be had. Law recently changed to allow residents and citizens to get up to 5 packages per year of up to $200USD each shipment at zero duty. "Content" as defined by the *AAs (books, disks, software, etc.) is duty-free so order from Amazon Global if you want. We have big supermarkets and good local groceries, But you won't get canned prepared food, no Chef-Boy-R-Di or Dinty Moore. But lots of freshly-made in-store stuff.

    I h

    1. Re:Better? Plenty of places. Here's one - Uruguay by Dins · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the detailed post. I'm not ready to move yet (though maybe I should be) but I will keep this in mind and look it up. Sounds pretty good on the surface of things.

  66. Is this really legal? by ContactClean · · Score: 1

    Does the TSA actually have any real authority to patrol a football game?
    The football stadium is privately owned and unlike an airport does not fall under any government security oversight.
    Were the owners of the stadium notified that the TSA would have a presence at the game?

    Now I know that there are those that will say the TSA can and will do what it wants wherever it wants. That is how they operate, without having to explain their actions, thinking that will keep the bad guys in check. But the TSA/Homeland security is a government organization and are to be held accountable to the public.
    But unlike the massive airport presence there is no precedent for them to be at a football game.
    Were they reacting to a specific threat?
    Someone in the TSA decided for whatever reason they should be present at this game. The question is why.
    Write your local representative asking about this disturbing new trend. Voice your concerns over the police like state and abuse of power all in the name of safety.

    Or don't do anything but complain amongst ourselves and go along with everything they ask us to do. Which is what they really want.

  67. Heil Obama! by jasper160 · · Score: 1

    Or is it Commrade? Oh they are both the same.

    --
    No good deed goes unpunished.
  68. Re:Altnerate system by pnutjam · · Score: 1

    Which needs to be voted in.

  69. AC is sadly right by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

    I resemble very much being called a half wit, AC. And I have half a mind to tell you where to go. But I confess that when it comes to the American sheeple, you are sadly too right.

    TSA gets a pass by most Americans.

    Ben Franklin said it so nicely. His exact quote is as follows:

    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    This was used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania. (1759); the book was published by Franklin; its author was Richard Jackson, but Franklin did claim responsibility for some small excerpts that were used in it.

    An earlier variant by Franklin in Poor Richard's Almanack (1738): "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

    Many paraphrased derivatives of this have often become attributed to Franklin: They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither. He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security. He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both. Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither. Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  70. Equilibrium by wiedzmin · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of those omnipresent motorcycle-helmet guys from the Equilibrium.

    --
    Bow before me, for I am root.