Slashdot Mirror
Paul's Call To Abolish the TSA, One Year Later
A year ago today, we noted that Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky called for the abolition of the Transportation Security Administration. It's now nearly 12 years since the hijacked-plane terror attacks of 2001; the TSA was created barely two months later, and has been (with various rules, procedures, and equipment, all of it controversial for reasons of privacy, safety, and efficacy) a major presence ever since at American commercial airports. "The American people shouldn't be subjected to harassment, groping, and other public humiliation simply to board an airplane," wrote Paul last year, and in June of 2012, he followed up by introducing two bills on the topic; the first calling for a "bill of rights" for air travelers, the other for privatizing airport screening practices. Neither bill went far. Should they have? Libertarian-leaning Paul did not succeed in knocking back the TSA, never mind privatizing its functions (currently funded at nearly $8 billion annually), though some of the things called for in his bill of rights are manifest now at least in muted form. (Very young passengers, as well as elderly passengers, face less stringent security requirements, for instance, and TSA has ended its prohibition of certain items aboard planes.) Whether you're from the U.S. or not, what practical changes would you like to see implemented? What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
Every time some disaster hits the US, we're going to see a big growth in the size and reach of government. In fact, I believe there are many politicians who salivate at the thought of catastrophe so they can go cry about the children on camera and create a new 3-letter tumor on our already unconstitutional government.
I mean, come on, this is a government that still administers polygraph examinations for its employees, eight decades after the guy who sold it to the government admitted he made the device up to support his other lifelong work, the Wonder Woman comic book.
The TSA isn't going anywhere folks. Look all the fighting it took to force sequestration, and then take a step back and view it from a different perspective.
Rand Paul is the worst thing to happen to libertarians. Just as Communism became conflated with Stalinism, Libertarianism runs the risk of becoming known through the lens of Paulism, which is a horrible bastardization of their ideals. He opposes same sex marriage, opposes the right to choose and supports foreign intervention by the US military.
Please don't let him claim the libertarian mantle or hold him up as an embodiment of your ideals - he's more destructive to the libertarian movement than all the political opponents there are. His position on the TSA is one of populist convenience, not one of principle.
This is simply wrong. In the face of opposition from airline employees, the TSA backed off allowing any new items onto plans - no hockey sticks, no knives, no change whatsoever. There has been no movement on this front and will be none for the foreseeable future.
He made no call to abolish the TSA. He made a call to privatize it. There is a world of difference. There would be even less oversight of the TSA if it were out of government hands. It's bad enough as it is. Privatizing it would just remove all accountability, not that there is that much now. If it really were a call to abolish the TSA, that is something that many freedom lovers could get behind.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
I would like to keep my shoes on and be able to take a 2L through the checkpoint.
X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
Unless we quit being so sensitive about profiling, and admit certain groups are more prone to terrorism, and monitor them more closely, we are going to be more prone to harassing a lot of innocent people. Since it isn't politically correct to profile, and it's nearly impossible to kill a government agency, my vote is to change the name of the TSA to the Transportation Groping agency. Evidently that's politically correct, since that's what they're doing.
As far as I know, the answer is no. Not the shoe bomber, not the underwear bomber, nobody. People have been prosecuted for forgetting a gun or knife or fake hand grenade, but they weren't intending to hijack or damage the plane. And now TSA wants VIPR teams to patrol highways, trains and buses? I say TSA, and the whole DHS thing is a huge failure.
Getting rid of the TSA sounds like the most practical change.
Get rid of security check points, no reason to give up your 4th.
Put ninja like air marshals on the plane who don't act like thugs
when a passenger gets upset or is loud. They only pull out the
whup-ass when there is an actual threat to the safety of the plane.
Also, have said marshals trained in hostage negotiation.
Why do we even need screening anymore? No one will ever be allowed into the cockpit again, even if they start murdering passengers. Bomb sniffers are still useful, but at this point, an attack on a football stadium during a game would be far more detrimental, both in terms of casualties and psychologically.
This was after the Boston Marathon bombings and police chase that led to the death of one suspect and the capture of the other.
He claims it's no flip flop, it was his position even during the filibuster, it just wasn't accurately reported.
What shouldn't be on the bill of rights for airplane passengers?
- nonsense question.
There shouldn't even be such a legal document as 'bill of rights', because it is completely misunderstood probably by all to mean that those are your rights and nothing else. Not true, the government has no authority to limit any of your rights, by default you have all of your rights intact.
Government can strip you of your rights temporarily or permanently depending on whether the Constitution authorises that power to government for certain situations (like taxing your transactions, it's loss of a right, but at least it's Constitutional).
Saying that there should be an "airplane passenger bill of rights" is like saying that there should be a "bill of rights for blacks" or "bill of rights for gays" or "bill of rights for women" or "bill of rights for employees", none of it makes any sense, you have all of your rights regardless of your group and association, you shouldn't lose your rights for reasons that are outside of the power authorised to the government by the Constitution, yet here we are.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Even my most radically conservative friend who wants to turn all highways and streets into private toll roads, wants government severely reduced in scope and have what's left of the government's budget be balanced no matter what, and believes that Climate Disruption is not caused by man, balked at the notion of privatizing the police.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
The TSA is a very effective Anti-Tourism Agency. As for Anti-Terrorism, possibly not so much.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Ironically how would armed drones have been sane to use in a busy metropolitan city to catch TWO people on foot. Maybe if they had hijacked a passenger less bus or vehicle and were on a stretch of the interstate by themselves, but then your still blowing up civil infrastructure for something a good o'le fashioned barricade would have made much more sense for.
Drones are a military technology for war fighting with limited use in the civil arena. The problems were having as a nation is conflating terrorism with military action.
Whenever I read news about the TSA's "Vipr" team, I just imagine David Hasslehoff with an eye patch..
I mean really - "Viper" - come on!
"Security Theater" is sooooooooooooo accurate in describing those people!!
In a world where people aren't encouraged from a young age to compete, but instead to cooperate, you'll have neither the warmongers who encourage relaliatory action, nor the sort of petty dictators who staff the TSA.
Wow, that just substitutes the past 9000 years of history for pop psychology that wouldn't survive a 101-level course. Since I can't say it better:
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Although effectually the TSA serves little to no purpose in actual deterrence, it may be left just to make people feel comfortable / safe. Tho I disagree with both having the TSA and theatrical aspects.
-Ultimate Stickman Game Developer Infinite World Puzzler
and, had they survived the damage from the pressure tearing apart the plane due to shitty aim making holes in the fuselage (as well as unlucky passengers), they should be tried to the full extent of the law. i don't trust the aim of even the highest trained police officers, and i think the whole gun-toting hero fantasy is just that, a fantasy. anytime something happens, and 10 people whip out their guns and fire on the suspect (or maybe just another wannabe hero, heat of the moment and all), they up the overall death odds tremendously. "well, not me, i practice shooting everyday!" is what some guy would say, but that is not the majority of gun owners. i feel if something like this ever happened, murder charges all around for anyone killing an innocent passerby, but not for the first responders who fire on all the armed lunatics.
Thats a beautiful sentiment, but is it really true? =)
With the total inability of government to do anything that benefits the people, I often wonder if it's possible to crowd-source activism.
Suppose we had a web site where people could register discontent with selected issues. Something like "Fix It Or Else.com".
In the manner of We The People, people could find or create petitions which demand actions from politicians on specific issues, and promise to vote against the incumbent if the issues are not resolved.
For example, you could petition your senators to abolish the TSA, and if that doesn't happen you promise to vote against them at the next election. Similar for other issues - end the war on drugs, legalize gay marriage, increase NASA's budget, and so on.
Many elections are decided by a thin margin - a couple of thousand votes is usually enough to swing the election. Frequently a couple of hundred will do. You wouldn't have to give up the belief that your party is better than the other party; just resolve to punish them for inaction this one time.
Would this have an effect? Could crowd-sourcing bring accountability to the rulers of government?
Some details:
.) Issues would be addressed to specific politicians. Petitions could be addressed to the president, your senators, your governor, and so on - depending on the scope of the issue.
.) If a petition reaches a registration goal, a copy is sent to the addressed people.
.) Six weeks before the election, the system invites petition registrants to vote whether the issue was resolved
.) One week before the election, the system sends the voting results back. You would get an E-mail "95% of respondents feel this issue was not addressed, and will be voting against Senator Jack Johnson at the upcoming election".
.) The system will close petition registrations some months before the election (at the party convention?) to prevent paid shills from swaying the results.
Ironically how would armed drones have been sane to use in a busy metropolitan city to catch TWO people on foot.
Because drones have these things called cameras. Do you know what a camera does? It takes pictures, pictures from above. Police can use those to find where the suspect is hiding and more importantly see what's around him (fortifications, escape routes, accomplishes, hostages, etc...).
They probably would have crashed long before reaching the towers. I realize aircraft are robust objects, and a bullet through the hull is not going to result in explosive decompression, and I'm even all for gun rights (or at least opposed to needless, ineffective laws), but I'll be damned if I'm going to let the average yahoo take a gun onto an airliner. The only reason to carry a gun on your person is because you might have the need to fire it, and I don't want anyone without special training using one. There's a whole lot of lightweight materials up there that a bullet will sail right through, and there is often sensitive, vital equipment installed behind it.
Name one society that band competition in all forms and has flourished. One.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Not even close.
Success in capitalism is directly correlated with a distinct lack of morals, self-centeredness, sociopathic behavior, and of course inherited dynastic wealth. None of those serve anybody. Yes, there are edge case examples of successful people who don't exhibit these traits, but for the most part successful capitalists do exhibit them, and the most successful ones manage to hide that fact from a lot of people.
Now, if you want to tell me you can get relatively wealthy running your own business, employing people, and selling stuff that people want to buy to people who want to buy it, more power to you. That's free enterprise, but it's not modern capitalism. In the modern capitalism version of that story, you start a business, employ a bunch of people, then sell the business quickly to get a bunch of cash while the purchaser either moves the business to China and/or tries to eliminate as many of the employees as possible in order ot pay off the leveraged debt that was used to buy the business in the first place. That's the "captial" part.
Modern capitalism also makes looting, pillaging, and economic slavery legal. It even turns a blind eye to actual slavery, as long as the customers don't find out about it and as long as it takes place in some country with people of a different skin color and all. Actual looting and plundering? You outsource that to purchased government leaders. Financial looting and plundering? That's still a bit of a DIY operation, primarily handled by Wall Street investment banking firms.
Sounds like a great idea. So why don't we do that?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It has always bothered me that our tax dollars are paying for the security and allows first class passengers preferential treatment. It is one thing for airlines to give preferential treatment to those who pay more; that is a business decision. It is quite another for our government to provide it. Should we do the same for drivers licenses, etc? We could allow owners of luxury cars to go to the front of the line. It is one thing for airlines to give preferential treatment to those who pay more; that is a business decision. It is quite another for our government to provide it.
http://thedevilspanties.com/archives/7586
I say load them up on an old plane and fly them into a mountain. It's the only way to be sure....
LOL. Seriously. If your believe that you are quite mad or seriously gullible.
Bush caused two wars and conquered, the Halliburton Corporation, owned by him and Chaney, made 50 billion with this wars.
The Banks are serving no one except themselves and when they royally fucked up, society was needed to save them.
No one can nowadays become really wealthy by "serving your fellow man". Do nurses get rich? Or police officers? Or the sanitation worker? No. never. The only getting rich (I mean rich) are either already rich, criminals or both. Or win the lottery. Ordinary people starting their business and getting rich are a rare exception not the rule. And they don't serve. They just make money. Many people have two or more jobs. Not to get rich, but to survive.
Capitalism ensures that a few have as much as possible to rule above the rest and keep them dependent. Slaves with wages. Nothing else
BTW : WHY should one amass great wealth? Why should one have more than his fellow man?
Since someone else already responded to the second sentence, decisively, I'll do the first sentence:
In a world where people aren't encouraged from a young age to compete, but instead to cooperate, you'll have neither the warmongers who encourage relaliatory action, nor the sort of petty dictators who staff the TSA.
I'm not a libertarian, nor GOP, nor male. I can tell you this, though: It is contrary to human nature not to be competitive. Some competition, starting from a young age, is good! It increases self-esteem, pride in family, school and country. Yes, cooperation is necessary too, e.g. a group of people aligned to achieve a common goal, which (usually) can be accomplished only through competition with those whose goals are different. Regarding "warmongers who encourage relaliatory [retaliatory?] action": Retaliatory action doesn't mean you are a warmonger. There are many ways to retaliate such as tariffs, embargoes, intermarriage. The latter is even a form of cooperation!
The TSA is a pathological bureaucracy. We had security and screening prior to boarding flights at airports for 20 (30?) years before 9/11. Those people didn't behave like the TSA. They searched and screened, but not in the TSA's rude, distasteful manner. They weren't privatized, and they didn't cost $8 billion per year to fund.
tempus fugit
Ignoring the millions given to charities around the world by nearly all wealthy individuals and organizations it sounds.to me like you may have a case of sour grapes. Yes, it would be great if you could come up with a great idea and profit from it, but you can't, so you want to throw the baby out with the bath water and let the state take care of everyone. Like it's never been tried before.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Plenty of indigenous peoples in the Americas, Africa, Polynesia, and Australia had extremely uncompetitive cultures, although the notion of banning all competition is silly and probably impossible outside of Harrison Bergeron. They survived because it allowed them to maximize the utilization of their resources. Flourishing (developing an advanced society), on the other hand, is a result of competition amongst inventors, reformers, and their proxies, although it doesn't need to be nearly as savage as it is in the world today.
We waste a lot of resources because progress is only an indirect goal of modern capitalism, and most people view it as their goal in life to accumulate personal wealth. No one truly benefits from keeping up with the Joneses.
Nice typo, by the way.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Band competitions are a joke. I can like Emmet Otter's Jug Band and the Riverbottom Nightmare Band without having to choose one over the other.
Yes it is true that it is possible. But there is no -ism that can overcome human nature in the long run.
You are going to have a ton and a half of various AC posters commenting that you are insane and delirious for that quote. You also may have a number of moderators come in at any moment in time and mod it down, then somebody may mod it up, then it will go down again, if you want to be able to keep commenting on /. more than 2 times a day, you better don't keep making comments like that, it's not taken well by the mob nowadays in the Socialist-Fascist States of America and the mob and government cohorts are moderating as well :)
MY OTHER COMMENTS
But "How to Serve Man" turned out to be a cookbook!
Just give the whole thing to Bruce Schneier and stand back.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
At least what I know from my father, who was a POW during WWII, the US resembled the requested state to quite some degree back then.
Anecdotal evidence is that the American guards in his prisoner camp (Roswell, 14 miles SE of Roswell, New Mexico) were replaced by German officers due to the fact that things were too loosely handled.
I also was very impressed by the stories that conveyed that people left their keys in their cars without fear of theft.
I suggest that your arrogant statement regarding "pop psychology" on a sub 101 level may be questioned.
CC.
TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
The tsa needs to be abolished. US Citizens should not be treated like prisoners in their own country. And visitors should not be treated this poorly either, it is embarrassing. And more importantly, it does not make anyone safer, distracts from focusing on actual security.
the purpose of TSA is to make people accept tyranny (the groping and the dehumanizing treatment) and the deter travel from place to place (it's easier to watch a populace who is not moving around. Why are these things important? Because of what is coming next: martial law, more loss of freedom, gun grabs, etc. How do you resist against ZOG? There's probably no hope at this point. If you can afford it it might be wise to move to another part of the world, though the coming police state is most likely going to be global.
I want my money's worth. Yes I understand that federalizing airport rent-a-cops in 2001 didn't magically make them security geniuses. I can deal with that. But geesh, these guys can't act at all. For $8 billion per year I don't want TSA kabuki or a tired rework of Arthur Miller's "The Crucible." I don't want "Waiting for Godot" or some lame Andrew Lloyd Weber rehash either. I want a security rock opera that combines every Superbowl halftime show, Olympic opening and closing ceremonies, Circe-du-soile, blue man group, Queen, The best of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Broadway, Oberammergau and much much more. I want something that will make the audience laugh and cry and cheer with joy that we get such exceptional entertainment for a mere eight billion dollar per year subscription.
You missed an important word "armed". Which is the real deep issue. Before police helicopters use to barred from having arms. There's an entire movie done up about it from the 80's (Blue Thunder). I don't have a clue honestly what the legislation is, I wager in some jurisdictions we have armed police aircraft now.
I don't think the majority of people had an issue with the occasional "warrent" required or response to emergency use of survielance. Nor do I really.
Were most people (and me) get bothered is when the idea is to fly 24/7 subservience missions over designated area's just because you are maybe 100 miles inland from a border. The other issue is do we really have to assassinate suspects with drones? No. We can make an effort to capture them alive and bring justices.
In my humble opinion were really bad at justice now-a-days... last time I have seen a non-mock trial were the defendant wasn't completely drugged and had even an once to say in their case has been awhile. For example, even OJ's trial was nearly a joke, yet he at least could hire people to argue in his defense.
Before our legal quagmire (yeah I'm rambling off topic here) got so insane, it use to be considered that lawyers were for the infirm or un-fit. The original premise behind our legal system was that a lay man could defend themselves in most cases against the charges levied against him. The world is indeed very different now though.
The general mindset on checked baggage today is you don't check anything that's remotely valuable. I've had a GPS stolen and a nephew had a handheld Nintendo stolen out of checked baggage by the TSA. How do I know it was the TSA? In this case, both were caught months later after stealing thousands of dollars worth of stuff. They were only caught because of the scale at which they were taking items. What if it was only an item or two? Why do I have cameras pointed at me at all times while they get to go through my stuff unchecked?
*surveillance, stupid dictionary thinking I meant subservience.
The wealthy donate to museums and cultural causes that have acquired the same tax exempt status as humanitarian aid causes. They're also the only ones benefiting from their own causes. They also donate less as a percentage of income than the poor. That on top of being able to exploit capital gains tax rates to pay a lower percentage of income on taxes than the middle and working classes.
Millions is peanuts. As middle class wage earners, you'll "contribute" that in mandatory taxes, some of which may actually be used for something you care about (school, roads, social safety nets, wars, ...) A single hospital is billions of dollars. Countries cost trillions to run.
Capitalism is working and generating wealth in society, but it's not something that works faithfully or evenly. It's very easy to have the winners in the "free market" capture your government too, and then where are you?
Just fix it instead. We don't need an aggressive system like the TSA but if it was toned down a little I think it'd be acceptable. Abolishing it completely would be a mistake waiting to happen.
People like you forget that the same man who wrote _The Wealth of Nations_ also wrote _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_.
Actually I was questioning the quote and not dictating a particular political policy or cultural methodology or social dogma. I rather like the idea of Star Trek, but we can't try that out until we can beam people we dislike to far away places and give them whatever tools they need to create their planet of tropes.
I think in many cases capitalism has been benificial, but by a means in itself I question it. Because on one hand you have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes . And then you have Bell... *cough* vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Meucci
Innovation isn't even consistently rewarded by capitalism. No matter how much stock you may want to put into a free market. There are lots of historical events that can point this out.
Why is it we are still so reliant on oil. When there are a myriad different ways to produce energy now? Because we have an oil industry. And its that simple.
Yes, it's true. It is possible to become wealthy in a capitalist society by providing a product or service that is a strong net benefit to society. Unfortunately, it's easier to become more wealthy by exploiting others.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Just some pencils would have been enough to fight back with. The problem with 9/11 wasn't armament, it was hostage mentality. I just watched Delta Force again, and it really stood out how the rules of hijackings were back then. There was even a guy yelling at the top of his lungs "There are only three of them, we can overpower them!" If you'd like guns on the plane though, you could hand out rubber ammunition. No chance for decompression.
i don't trust the aim of even the highest trained police officers
Cops are notoriously bad shots. It's one reason why you're far more likely to be accidentally shot by a cop than by a 'gun-toting hero' civilian.
I still don't think that handing passengers a pistol with their boarding pass as they check in would be a good idea. Though maybe if it only had one bullet...
Passengers now know they have to save themselves from terrorists in the air. It has been shown repeatedly that anyone threatening the safety of a flight is quickly brought under control by the passengers themselves. This keeps planes safer than any amount of screening will ever do.
People think that by abolishing a government agency that they will get rid of the functionality. It's as foolish as thinking that you'll stop having to pay income tax if you get rid of the IRS. Getting rid of the agency that is doing dumb things won't change the dumb things, it will simply change who is doing them. Stop going after the people doing the dumb things and start going after the dumb things themselves...
The biggest improvement I would like to see is the removal of TSA's immunity from prosecution for whatever crimes they commit while "on duty". I think that would probably stop 95% of all the continually frequent abuses you see on the evening news. We have "fines double in school zones" I would like to see a "prison sentences double for TSA agents" caught committing crimes while on duty (or on airport property). I have been told by friends in the airline industry that every major airport has a robbery ring or drug smuggling operation run by TSA. So far only a dozen or so have ever been caught. Of course I would like to see something similar in place for all law enforcement.
Next, I would like to see their equipment actually be tested and certified for use on human beings as well as comply with all medical, safety and privacy laws.
Ultimately TSA needs to go away. They do nothing to improve safety, all they do is suck up 8 billion dollars a year and piss off the traveling public (and make America a laughing stock). They are really good at finding that suspicious bottle of breast milk held in plain sight, but they routinely allow people to board planes with knives (of all kinds), firearm ammunition, and in at least one instance, a soldier returning home with a suitcase full of military explosives. I think a single Sky Marshal is probably 1000% more effective than two dozen TSA agents will ever be.
...make it like the security in Israel's airports.
Best most concise answer =)
Paul doesn't really seem to do that much to advance the libertarian agenda. I get the feeling he's just another Washington insider, talking the talk enough to retain the branding but otherwise just working the system for his own benefit. I imagine him rather like Barbie's Ken -- nice abs, but lacking where it counts.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
And send the employees to GITMO to die with their other inmates.
I don't know if it's just me but I've been travelling a lot recently and the one thing I have noticed so far is that it's not just the US. Every airport in the world, to varying degrees, seems to have similar requirements and I feel similarly violated in all of them. I suspect it's not just a US problem at this point.
(For reference, I've been to Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, LAX, JFK, Buffalo, Newark, Toronto, Montreal, London Heathrow, London Gatwick, London Luton, Berlin Schoenfeld, Paris CDG and Geneva in the last 6 months. I felt violated by far the most the times I have flown out of London Gatwick with Geneva a close second.)
LAX is a cluster of time wasting but that's mostly due to a poor border control:passenger ratio...
Indeed, and before the creation and repeatedly increased power of the Corporation to shield people from the consequences of their actions, when businesses were primarily local affairs, and communities were close-knit enough to be a strong motivator to most people, that theory held reasonably well. In the modern world though we've drifted into a situation where psychopathic behaviour is encouraged and rewarded within large corporations, especially within the financial sector. Andthe massive increase in population and ease of transportation has degraded community to the point where it tends to be restricted to your co-workers and chosen social network rather than being heavily determined by geography. The result being that you get groups of people who are encouraged to ever more psycopathic behaviour and are surrounded primarily by others who are likewise encouraged, resulting in something of a social echo-chamber effect that tends to spiral out of control.
This perception is backed by many psychology experiments that show, among other things, that ethics tend to be heavily dependent on peer pressure - if an aparent member of your social group blatantly cheats and gets away with it, you become far more likely to do the same.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
As a European citizen, I already have the right to not travel to the USA, which I have been fully exercising since the TSA's creation. I refuse to be manhandled and groped by pseudocops with mental deficiencies and itchy trigger fingers. My laptop and my fingerprints are my private property. Anecdotally at least, many feel the seem way as me, and I feel this will inevitably grow as the gratuitously intrusive 'security measures' of the TSA become more publicised. A reduction in casual travel can only hurt the USA in the long run, which would be a tragic consequence for its citizens.
Ironically how would armed drones have been sane to use in a busy metropolitan city to catch TWO people on foot. Maybe if they had hijacked a passenger less bus or vehicle and were on a stretch of the interstate by themselves, but then your still blowing up civil infrastructure for something a good o'le fashioned barricade would have made much more sense for.
Drones are a military technology for war fighting with limited use in the civil arena. The problems were having as a nation is conflating terrorism with military action.
Boston proved the when the chips are down, americans are a bunch of pussies.
Imagine what would happen if you didn't have a second amendment and a population who love their guns
"Please declare marshal law and put heavilly armed soldiers and tanks on the streets, I'm scared of a couple of guys on the run, please come into my house, don't mind the 4th amendment"
Oh wait.
Finally somebody speaking sense!
Privatizing doesn't solve most problems; if anything it creates more problems and at best it changes the nature of how to deal with problems. There are ALWAYS problems; at least with politicians you supposedly vote for based upon their management performance the public has REAL INPUT. If the public can't intelligently handle the problem then they deserve all that they get.
Changing contractors is like a boss firing employees for his own incompetence.
The public is NEVER happy - they want everything perfect and for free. Since people freak out after disasters jumping into the arms of the nearest authoritarian and the rest the time complain about the authoritarian's actions - a fair balance would be to realize that MOST the time we don't have disasters so the bias should be for less security. Then people will complain less and only be outraged during disasters (which hopefully are not timed with elections too often.)
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
It is contrary to human nature not to be competitive.
I'd modify that to "It is contrary to human nature not to be playful." Play is simultaneously competitive and cooperative. Importantly, "winning" in play isn't "for keeps" --- "I'm stronger and faster than you" doesn't translate into "you're my slave bitch for life," or accumulation and leveraging of power over others. In fact, when participants in play are badly mismatched in raw ability, the stronger will typically voluntarily and spontaneously hobble themselves --- not by stopping trying, but in some manner that requires them to do more than their opponents to "win." Opposite to "competition-for-keeps" where the winners get more at the expense of the losers, playfulness tilts the field so everyone can stay in the game, uplifting one another and improving themselves (from whatever level of ability).
Indeed, and before the creation and repeatedly increased power of the Corporation to shield people from the consequences of their actions, when businesses were primarily local affairs, and communities were close-knit enough to be a strong motivator to most people, that theory held reasonably well.
Yet who supports small business owners? I often see a false dichotomy that power must go either to big business or big government, not many want to empower the individual. I'd relax taxation and record keeping on non-incorporated individuals. I'd like it to be a lot easier for an employee to make the transition to self-employment.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Why is it we are still so reliant on oil. When there are a myriad different ways to produce energy now? Because we have an oil industry. And its that simple.
It sounds like you think that is bad. Do you know why there is an oil industry? Do you know why it is not yet replaced? Because it employs people, provides CHEAP power and heat, and powers food production on a massive scale to feed BILLIONS. I would suggest that it will be supplanted by alternatives sometime after the development of the teleporter.
So the rich donate to museums and humanitarian aid causes because it benefits them and that makes them evil? Are we supposed to disregard the fact that their donations have made a difference to society as a whole? Altruism is overrated. I'd rather have good results which are attainable than totally pure motives which are a pipe dream.
Capitalism certainly does do that - I'm guessing you're well fed, with a roof over your head, sitting in front of a computer with internet access, wearing decent clothes, perhaps in good health with decent dental care, maybe glasses... all things provided to you by capitalists through a mutual exchange that both parties found satisfactory.
You're also most likey employed (or will be) by a capitalist.
Gordon Gecko said it in Wall Street... yes, fictional, but a good point- "Greed is good." No, I don't particularly care for people I consider "too" greedy, but even going back to all those "robber barons" in the days of yore, they built this country (yes, I'm being US-centric), creating millions of jobs, making goods accessible nationwide in a way that simply wasn't possible before, benefitting nearly everybody along the way... and people can only seem to focus on the part that they got rich doing it.
It's true that sometimes people go to far, Enron being a prime example, but the fact is that cases like that are few and far between in the grand scheme of things - put it in perspective, ask how many capitalist businesses there are out there, all run by people mostly who just want to make money, that are all run honestly, within the bounds of the law, and employing millions and providing goods and services to millions more... where, exactly, is the problem? Has there ever been a system that has done more for the common person than capitalism?
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Bwa hah ha!
If you want a neolithic society, by all means find one. But don't expect the rest of the world to follow you.
I modded you up because of this statement:
That's a weird thing to say. My point is that the competitiveness of a society is tied to its growth rate. Any society, no matter how sophisticated or simple, can survive without capitalism or an equivalent if growth is not a priority.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I think that is a fair quote.
Capitalism is nothing more than the idea that government should not mess around too much in the economy; And I would argue, the aggrandisement of personal wealth and the amassing thereof.
Which means that the government no longer has to protect its citizens financially or look out for their best interest. So you do not need armies and machines of war to take the coin of the common man. His coin is up for grabs to every would be plunderer without a fight.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Sitting here in the Amtrak station, waiting for the Empire Builder to start it's journey from PDX to the my prairie home far east of here, I have to give a wry smile to the article. I finally stopped flying a few years ago, after the body and soul crushing lineups during a change of planes in DC coming in from Europe. I don't think I will take a plane again unless Rand Paul gets his way. 2 days travel to Sacramento, 2 days back again. But I just pretend that things are further away, like they used to be, and make travel decisions accordingly. There are wonderful moments of letting time slow down when traveling by train. Now, I am almost glad for the excuse. For overseas there are boats for that. I still have fond memories of booking a spare berth on a tramp freighter first time I crossed the Atlantic. Bye bye, TSA, rot in H....
and on to Dakar
Socialist-Fascist States of America.
Capitslism is half way between the two. Our capitalism is the worse of both.
Learn to love Alaska
I am a republican that secretly likes to suck cocks and I just pooped my cute little pants.
Because governments meddle too much turning an otherwise mostly self-correcting system into crony capitalism. The moment any regulation is introduced the government has metaphorically jabbed a pole in an otherwise smooth flowing stream. The distortions caused by this affect the surrounding environment creating the need for more regulation and more poles jabbed. Before long the system is so chaotic and distorted that it is unrecognizable as capitalism.
Government policy created the worst offending corporations we see today. Don't confuse this crony capitalism with capitalism.
So don't expect the bombs to stop anytime soon.
Boston is just the start, whether or not who you believe is responsible one thing is for sure, its bigger money and bigger payouts to the banks in the future because they are using each crisis to destroy the constitution and prepare for the economic collapse of the dollar.
By the time that happens, they will be ready to deal with all of you peons reading this that don't like the fact the banks took all your money and you don't like it.
This is just all a ruse. A diversion from the real fact of the matter which is not the fact that we invaded the middle east because they "hate our freedom and liberties"...funny I don't see the Taliban or Al CIAeda passing NDAA legislation.
No, the people who hate our freedom and liberties are the people who you elect to office and above all, that den of vipers called the Federal Reserve.
They, are the ones who hate our freedom and liberties. They are the ones who signed the papers for the NDA acts via proxy of their crony puppets they allow you to pick from and idiots elect.
TSA is a crony federal reserve funded operation, and if they want you to pay more, they have nothing to prove except perhaps setting off another "terrorist act" to get an even bigger budget passed.
Most people have no idea how the money system works in the United States, and in all of its satellite states in Europe.
This entire mischief is all about money, and has nothing to do with keeping you safe.
It is disgusting and it is going to all end very very badly.
-Hack
Aeschylus: only through suffering do we learn
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
... and now crony capitalism is the system by which our political establishment are given a primary constituent, allowing them both to collude in looting and raping you and me. Are you thrilled about this?
Does that mean the Americans were competing against, or co-operating with the Germans who replaced the Americans?
OK so people didn't compete to drive somebody else's car. That's not the same as co-operating.
Okay let's take a resource, say fucking your girlfriend: what are my options.
- I can beat the shit out of you and claim sex as a reward. That would be competing.
- I can go home and have a wank. That would be refusing to compete.
- I can wait until you go to work and then fuck her, or any similar story where we take turns. That would be co-operating.
You agree that co-operating makes you a winner don't you? A lot of women don't believe in 100% monogamy, so it's a win-win-win answer.
Co-operating is bullshit because so much of our lives depends on limited resources. Yes, we still co-operate everyday, or indirectly refuse to compete. But that doesn't mean we can fill the world with unicorns and rainbows.
I agree. The ideal solution is to bring the issues of governance and liability back into the local geographic arena and to stop worrying about how someone is running their business from thousands of miles away from you. The reason we care about it so much though is because you have companies like BP and Exxon which are outstanding examples of how someone thousands of miles away needs some kind of regulation.
But what we have is not working at either of the scales we need it to. And it is very hard for Joe blow coming out of high school on average to create his pizza stand and get on with life. This is especially true in industries such as MUSIC, VIDEO, and T.V....... hmmm....
I disagree. To some degree yes. But I believe oil and coal have a lot of protection while other clean technologies. Thorium salt reactors, solar arrays, desentralized solar, etc... are being stifled by the very same economy that could be using them. And all because of this excuse that without the oil companies modern civilization would collapse.
No you wouldn't be able to run your AC 24/7 and keep your house exactly at 70 degree's cheaply. But there are alternatives and they WILL become just as cheap once we kick off our old dependence on what were using now.
I've seen a myriad of hydrogen fuel cells that work, mostly at universities and parks. Sears developed cheap batteries for stuff like cell phones years ago but didn't market them... the list goes on and on.
Hydro-electric power is underdeveloped because of the fear of "geoengineering" and while I agree that it can be disastrous and greatly change the environment. I think more Hoover damns would be better then supporting the strip mining of the Appalachians. Yeah they toss some soil back into a hill shape and replant tree's but in the meantime it wrecks the environment there just as bad.
Were colonizing Alberta Canada and by we I mean INTERNATIONAL oil companies that we all support, every one of us to go about our lives, and destroying the homeland of many native Americans who are waging a guerrilla war this very moment. Yet there are alternatives that we could bring down in cost if we did the GOVERNMENT group thing and subsized the technology and rolled it out like we did the railroads. I'll tell ya what, you want to keep the same monopolies in place so the "social fucking order" doesn't get disturbed fine. But lets do this we don't have any damn excuses to keep using OBSOLETE tech here.... we are not fighting cylons.
I think that competitiveness is one of those things that you have to take on an individual basis. The conflict comes when you have a very competitive few exploiting a mostly uncompetitive majority. When everyone is being competitive this works out fine and the equation balances itself. The loosers loose, but loose less badly because they made an effort to compete, and usually in a cooperative enough way to not get completely stomped.
The rules are U.S. society are increasingly becoming anticompetitive though. And I think thats what many are railing against, and perhaps, rightly so.
To be more specific there will always be plenty of technological solutions to power generation. We'll see them come into play once oil is no longer a cheap and easy alternative. The oil industry inhibits the actual development of these solutions because, your hospital doesn't need to run a hydrogen fuel cell for its MRI machine yet.
As a species were far from becoming powerless for a long long time yet. A vast majority might have to go without in the next century though if we don't start making a transition. Not to mention the rest of the environmental damage were causing and that impact. I hope this second post is more concise and less inflammatory.
Well, that is a fine description of events, except you've left out any conception of religion, morality, and the golden rule.
Believe it or not, religion and related ethics are the major counterbalance to the "naked greed" that would seem to be the driving force of capitalism. We shall see what ethos derives from the current era, if any.. :P
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
It's true, but incomplete. In practice ANY centralized power operates so as to make itself immune to punishment for misdeeds, whether accidental or intentional. And MOST centralized powers become occupied by decision makers intent on increasing their power.
Capitalism makes it possible to increase your power and wealth by benefiting your fellow man, but it doesn't make that the only way to increase your power and wealth. Not that what we have is capitalism, any more than what the Russians or Chinese had was communism. Or any more than the Democrats want to do as the voters decide. The name is not the thing.
Note that the corporation was a feudal invention, intended to increase the power of a kind of low level nobility that didn't own much land, but did control a city. I believe the first was called "The Lord Mayor and Corporation of London", though I'd have to check that to be sure.
Also the "Limited Liability Corporation" is not the only possible kind of corporation, and, indeed, was not the original kind of corporation. Corporations have existed under Feudalism, Monarchy, "Democracy", "Communism", dictatorships, and even, I believe, under theocracies. They don't all serve the same purposes, and they don't all have the same constraints. IIRC, originally in the US corporate charters were only good for a restricted amount of time.
So don't badmouth all corporations because the currently powerful ones are abusive, and don't praise them because some are socially useful. It's a cross product of the regulatory environment and the ethics of the managers. I don't really like Red Hat, but they have done much good work, and being a publicly traded corporation hasn't stopped that. I'm not sure that being the dominant Linux corporation, however, isn't causing them to become intolerably arrogant, however. But that's not being a corporation, that's being an entrenched power.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Of course, MA is a State with strong limits on gun ownership (unless your name is Kennedy, of course). So it's not like the 2nd Amendment means much there.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Boston proved the when the chips are down, americans are a bunch of pussies.
No....Boston proved that Bostonians are a bunch of fucking pussies. Anyone who has ever met anyone from Boston, already knew this. The town is full of egotistical, arrogant dumbasses. Of course they cowered in fear, like the pants shitting cowards they are. If this had been Alabama the story would have different.
I thought everybody acquitted themselves rather well. The shelter-in-place was totally voluntary, and most people cooperated. Those that didn't.... drove around the city doing their normal errands or whatever. Hardly martial law. And I didn't see any tanks, unless you were watching something I wasn't. What the hell good would they be? You gonna shoot a guy with a tank cannon?
No, the pussies were the nimrods in Congress calling for the guy to be classified as an "enemy combatant" because they have so little faith in our most basic institutions. Everybody else was being reasonable, far more reasonable than after 9/11. Everybody was pretty much like "yeah those guys are dicks" and then just went on with their lives like they do after any other horrific crime. Just the way it SHOULD have been 12 years ago.
But I've heard this kind of talk before, usually from guys a thousand miles away who spent that whole day listening to cable news and didn't bother to actually figure out what was going on on the ground. They spent a few days talking about "imagine how much better we'd handle that here" and guffawing about East Coast types.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Capitalism ensures that a few have as much as possible to rule above the rest and keep them dependent. Slaves with wages. Nothing else
What makes you think that "capitalism" is the system practiced in America? Because that's what the glowing box in the corner tells you? This market is no more free than the Soviet's Unions was. It's a planned economy. Why are you surprised that it doesn't work right?
Do nurses get rich? Or police officers? Or the sanitation worker? No. never.
That depends on how you define "rich." Do you mean "keeping up with the Jones", flaunting gold and jewelry and driving the most expensive cars? Then you're right. Of course not. But that's not what truly wealthy people do anyway.
Income != wealth. Conspicuous consumption != wealth.
Why would you expect a typical sanitation worker, or a nurse, or a police officer, or any other wage slave to be rich? Wage slavery does not generate wealth.... so of course they aren't rich. Do you think all secretaries and fast food workers should be wealthy too?
The typical doctor for that matter isn't wealthy either. That Porsche of his is actually owned by the bank, and those $250k worth of medical school bills will be hanging around his neck for a long time. There are many doctors who die poor. And yet there are nurses and even sanitation workers who have scrimped and saved over decades and who amass millions by the time they retire, which allows them to live out their days in comfort. How do you explain that?
No one can nowadays become really wealthy by "serving your fellow man".
Bullshit. That's the only way anyone can ever become "really wealthy."
Think about it.
The only getting rich (I mean rich) are either already rich, criminals or both. Or win the lottery.
Wrong.
90% of American millionaires are first generation wealth. Do some research.
Delusions such as yours are why you will never get ahead. You don't even bother to try, or to even learn what it would take. You don't even have enough willpower to educate yourself and realize why everything you believe is totally wrong. It's way easier to sit here on Slashdot and commisserate with all the other losers who likewise will never be anything.
The power is in your hands to change your fate....but unfortunately, you're too stupid to use it.
Enjoy your life.
I would say this is most likely due to cops being selected for their other job performance attributes then for their marksmanship abilities. If it is indeed actually the case.
Which surprises me to some degree. But then again we don't teach cops that the use of tasers is about the same as the use of other forms of deadly force either. Which in my opinion might as well be with how many taser related deaths we have.
So we need to really increase the training and selection of people who's purpose is to apply deadly force when necessary as a deterrent to the most extreme violent crime. Yet people do not see police this way. Their seen much more as mediators for every crime imaginable under the sun by an over paranoid society.
I agree, I think Bostonians handled the situation pretty well all things being considered. I don't condone the level of police and military involvement in the entire cities affairs, but I can't really say that the military was all that involved. It sounds like it from what I hear parroted around the interwebs and cafe were I eat lunch. But the people of Boston behaved in a rather intelligent and sane manner given the situation that was presented to them.
It always amuses me when traveling to the US on business to see the difference between what they display on the nice "welcome" videos in the immigration processing queue, and what the attitude of the uniformed officers are actually like. It's like on the one hand, the marketing people would very much like people to visit the US and spend money, but on the other hand the people that you first meet resent your presence.
-- Cisk for the Cisk God
Capitalism, communism, feudalism, fundamentalism, militarism ... no matter what -ism you use, they all have the same fatal flaw: self-important, power-wielding, psychotic fucks who backstab their way to the top and keep the majority of the resources for themselves.
The reason charity is tax exempt is because the idea is to tax income, and by its very nature charity is income you don't have. However I do not condone Bill Gates charity in testing drugs in 3rd world countries rather then running proper regulated research stateside.
Morals, compassion, sympathy, and all those things are merely another product or piece of capital that is subject to supply and demand. We see less of those and more psychopathic behavior simply because the market has spoken that it doesn't want or need as much of those any more.
Capitalism doesn't "directly correlate" to amoral or psychopathic behavior as the other AC further above said. Rather than correlate, capitalism can go in either direction. There are companies out there who pride themselves - and gain a good reputation doing so - in being "ethical", like funding/doing charity work, volunteering, or using sustainable & eco-friendly business practices
I still agree, even though the moderator clearly doesn't.
As to naming one society in which competition isn't the most important thing, yet does just fine: The Amish.
Absolutely true. However the key word is possible. Looting and plundering are still quite profitable but the majority of wealth now comes from increasing productivity. Many billionaires like Gates, Jobs, and Buffet become very wealthy working within the capitalist system.
Another way to look at it is to look at the global average income over last few hundred years. It has been increased significantly despite a growing population, showing the total amount of wealth in the world has increased. When you look at individual countries, growth was and is fastest in capitalist systems. The most obvious cases being China, Eastern Europe, and East Asia.
Among most people, yes. But the point is that we have gradually developed a system that caters best to those individuals least bound by such high-minded considerations, and if we don't reform it somehow the long-term prospects for our culture are rather grim. At least from the perspective of someone who believes that democracy should have at least a major voice in government.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
And I didn't see any tanks, unless you were watching something I wasn't. What the hell good would they be? You gonna shoot a guy with a tank cannon?
Well, maybe 'tanks' is a bit strong of a word for some, but just because they didn't have cannons doesn't mean there wasn't a lot of armor on hand.
That's just a BearCat, and maybe there was a HMMWV there too. Fairly standard SWAT stuff nowadays (unfortunately). The armor seems appropriate, given the large amount of automatic gunfire sent in their direction and literal bombs being thrown at them. One of your pictures has a "poke it with a broom" type attachment, which I hadn't seen before, but I'm fairly sure that's not too much more to worry about from a "heavily armed" standpoint.
I'm first in line to complain about the "militarization" of police agencies, but now that they've got it I can hardly think of a better time to use it. And, unfortunately, even fairly small cities can now make a compelling case that it would be prudent to have some sort of armored vehicle. Had they not been able to approach in a timely fashion and see that this guy was not about to kill them, he probably would have bled out - the alternative being choosing to risk your officers in being the first one to see if he's still trying to gun people down, or has a dead-man detonator on him or something. But since he survived, we get to try him like the criminal he is (accused of being), with courts/lawyer/judge/etc, as opposed to him being "an enemy" gunned down in "battle".
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
if an aparent member of your social group blatantly cheats and gets away with it, you become far more likely to do the same.
I like to consider myself a moral man. I try very hard to do the right things. Very often, when I follow my heart, I find myself beaten down by both society and family and friends. Examples? I try to steer people away from the two party mentality and get (figuratively) beaten over the head for it. I offer to talk about computer security to newbies and I'm frequently not invited over to their house except to work on their computer when it is broken. (People place no effort into the tips I offer them. They make no effort to educate themselves about computers.) I speak to my professor about a problem in class and he doesn't have time for me. I explain issues to my boss about work who then doesn't have time to see me so it will cost the company lots of dollars in the long run -- and I have to pick up the pieces afterward.
I am sick and tired of being beaten down by society and then standing back up after my beating so that I can quietly, peacefully, and logically explain the problems to these very same people. I look around and I see how far cheating, lying, and outshouting someone (instead of having a civil discussion) can get you. How often does society beat moral people into immoral ones? Too often I'm afraid. Most of the time, I feel isolated and lonely because I find it difficult to "just follow the group". For being a social creature, this is a very difficult thing for me to bear.
Yeah, I get that statement of yours. It hits home for me. It probably does for a lot of slashdotters. It's probably why I still lurk here -- so I don't feel so lonely. So that I can find the courage to stand up and keep trying to change the world one person at a time.
What will truly change things is cheap - essentially no cost after infrastructure excepting maintenance - combined with robots with - or guided by - real AI. Right now, a bit less than a pipe dream, but a long way, barring breakthroughs, from happening.
That's what so many people seemed to have missed from Star Trek as but one example, a society brimming over with energy and intelligent systems. If those two things come to pass, capitalism, amongst others, will undergo drastic change. There will be entrepreneurs, businesses small and large, but greed will not impoverish anyone, what with access to all the energy they need and a replicator to hand.
I've no way to know if or when it will happen. Interesting times, that curse.
Boston proved the when the chips are down, americans are a bunch of pussies.
No....Boston proved that Bostonians are a bunch of fucking pussies. Anyone who has ever met anyone from Boston, already knew this. The town is full of egotistical, arrogant dumbasses. Of course they cowered in fear, like the pants shitting cowards they are. If this had been Alabama the story would have different.
It's ironic. I grew up under constant attack by Boston-funded thugs, so perhaps I think a bloody nose is barely worth reporting, but when you get to a stage that a heavily armed force is on the streets, pointing guns in my kids bedroom, I do wonder where Paul Revere went to. One of by land, two if by sea, three is welcomed in with splayed legs.
Plenty of people in Boston are NRA members, they were cowering with the rest. If you can't defend yourself against one or two unorganised desperate fugitives, what change do you have against the local PD, let alone the army.
Perhaps a decline in competitiveness could be linked to a decrease in scarcity. Our nation underwent an unprecedented surge in quality of life and productivity. T.V.'s (yes multiple!) in every home, a Car in every driveway, internet in every house, a phone for everyone. I'm not saying it was perfect (or is now) everywhere but things certainly did advance quite a bit over the last 7 decades technologically. Could humanity become complacent when they are not fighting some in-equality... but the cost of living had been going down for a while in general for the average person. This very big median majority is what drives our democracy. We've definately transitioned from a large percentage of people going, how am I going to eat tomorrow (dustbowl, 1930's anyone?). To what youtube video's should I press like on tomorrow...
Then you have people like me who don't do much to 'survive' yet are politically active in their social circles. This defies the idea that abundance makes for a poor democracy.
We are heading the same way .5 % income tax increase to fund the NDIS?
Heard about the recent emotional blackmail for the
Circling the drain. stay in America. At least you have your guns. At least for now.
I'll be frank:
1) Are you in fact right? Could there be a reason why the world at large rejects your views?
2) Are you presenting your ideas in an attractive way? Maybe ask some of these people to provide you with some feedback?
3) Is this more about you than the world? Maybe get some counselling before this "world versus me" mentality becomes intractable.
4) Learn to be less bothered by the mundane and the things out of your control.
You really want to be careful to avoid this "Mr. Nice Guy" thing. The mention of good people being turned bad smells of psychosis or at least only in the last line of a long post did you in any way acknowledge possible faults on your side. Realistically with so many push backs it's probably you, not the world that has a problem. Really, talk to a counsellor or a good friend. Viewing the world as you do is ruinous and ultimately leads to misanthropic fuelled self-isolation.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
As Security Theatre goes, TSA is more like "The Producers", a light-hearted musical about fascists designed to lose a great deal of money.
Would love to see you produce fertiliser from a wind farm or a solar plant.
Fertiliser comes from natural gas primarily. Stop demonising oil/gas producers, stop eating, driving your car, using heat and using plastics and any corn derived product, then come complain about oil being bad.
The official 911 story is bogus.
Fertilizer comes from cow shit. Humans can produce fertilizer in outhouses.
Oh you mean your chemical company brand cheap as shit fuck up the environment fertilizers...
We've been making and using plenty of fertilizer since before the collapse of the Mayan civilization at least.
You are are fucking troll and a toll. Thanks for your input at least AC.
*tool =)
I have to you an A+ or 100% for that reply.
P.S. P.S. (since you obviously goaded me with your successful troll) For some extra facts:
I go to LOWES to buy my cow shit, its a viable option.
The oil company doesn't need my help for demonising http://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/page/2/
So many blogs and independant journalists already doing that for them.
I didn't say a damn thing about natural gas or industrial methods. Which are it's own rant.
I said the solution was to subsidize better technology. I didn't even call for throwing anyone in jail or burning them at the stake, no matter how much I would love to see that happen in the case of Big Oil Barons.
We should get rid of Homeland (I hate that word!) Security in one fell swoop. The one part that impacts the public directly is at airports. We need to realize that the entire agency treats all laws, all people the same way and if we get rid of TSA, all we have done is reduce our own pain but the disease is still present. Congress was able to get the air traffic controllers back on the job because that part of the sequester hurt them. The rest of the pains are still in play, however.
Instead of being terminated, the are buying hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition to the total of around two Billion rounds. 2 to 3 times per person than what the military uses. Now that's some substantial food for the conspiracy theorists to chew on. Is Obama just creating an ammunition shortage to prevent the citizens from getting their hands on it...Of course this id creating shortages for border patrol and police agencies too. Or is it something much darker? Then there is that huge information monitoring and data storage unit out in Utah or Idaho?
They move us more and more into the entitlement mentality and thus into dependency on the government. They took many thousands from me for SS and spent it. If I had been able to invest that with the same return I've had on what I did invest I'd be a multi millionair, so I figure they should owe me that much. Instead they want to take my IRAs and give me a guaranteed income if they can get it through and I believe both parties have been working on that for a decade or so. I'm a firm believer in the free market system with just enough regulation to make sure competition remains to give them incentives to make better products at lower prices. Don't regulate the system to the point where small businesses can't exist and have to employee people part time to save money. I don't care how much some one else makes as long as I'm treated fairly. If they didn't steal it from me they don't owe me anything. I'm far more concerned with government's meddling while picking winners and losers than the giant industrial complex, although this bunch seems pretty good at backing losers with our money. They may "print" more money to pay the bills, but that just makes our money worth less. A lot less. Meanwhile they leave out the two biggest contributors to inflation (food and fuel) when they calculate it. They may not see those as inflation, but every one of us earning a wage and raising a family sure does. Yet they are recruiting people for food stamps and the only minority not supported is now the white, American, Male.
Also last bit of spam on this issue. I can see the reason to keep around and use developed diesal and other gasoline or oil engines for certain applications. (Civilian Shipping). But there is no reason not to get toghether as a nation and devote some of our war fiting CAPITAL in a CAPITALISTIC way and promote more companies implementing more technologies. It is short sided to say that Oil took us to 2000. It did, and Standard Oil ruled all.
Yet it is really time to move on and break up some of the entrenched corporations. This is about capitalism. This thread, and one of the best ways to do that without making more regulation is to buy patents and use them. To create industry by building power lines and putting in batteries. Having the U.S. people invest in printable solar panels that have been around at least two decades to diversify energy in this country would do much more good then the imaginary harm you think.
This is what makes me and other people snub our noses at Chevron, Shell, Exxon, BP, etc... Anyway those are just shells of an already broken up monopoly. The history dating back to the 1890's is a VERY INTERESTING and ENLIGHTENING topic.
I wish more people active in politics cared. (pipe dream).
Indeed, and before the creation and repeatedly increased power of the Corporation to shield people from the consequences of their actions, when businesses were primarily local affairs, and communities were close-knit enough to be a strong motivator to most people, that theory held reasonably well. In the modern world though we've drifted into a situation where psychopathic behaviour is encouraged and rewarded within large corporations, especially within the financial sector.
That could partially be caused by the fact that corporations are not people (despite what the Supreme Court thinks) and therefore have no inherent morals tugging at their conscious. They have a mission to make as much money as possible and protect their members from liability of its actions.
Corporation: An association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
Let the airplane companies be responsible for their own plane's security. The TSA has been a cancer on our very foundational freedoms for too long. Perpetuating a wartime security provision when air travel still proves over and over again to be the safest form of transportation is absurd.
Local government can be even more corrupt and ineffective than national government. Just look at all those localschool boards trying to promote young-Earth creationism (err... sorry, I mean "intelligent design"). That is a direct result of the curriculum and textbook approval being in the hands of local politicians rather than people with recognised expertise in education.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Ism's, in my opinion, are not good. A person should not believe in an 'ism,' he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: 'I don't believe in Beatles. I just believe in me.' A good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off of people.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Socialist-Fascist States of America.
Capitslism is half way between the two. Our capitalism is the worse of both.
Breaking the financial backs of the citizens and yet the trains don't run on time?
Yeah, I can see that...
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
The real (Elephant in the room) lesson from 911 is that in terrorist airliner hijacks passengers desperately need to have some kind of a weapon. Presumably the TSA rationale is to disarm all passengers in order to disarm the terrorists. So then it is terrorists versus the passengers with fists. I would still put my $20 on the terrorists because they are tough ruthless fanatical bastards who train for it.. They should simply put pepper sprays and stun guns in some seat backs where the passengers can get at them. It would be impossible to take over a plane with weapons like that, but relatively easy for an untrained person to overcome a terrorist. If there was a real possibility that some passengers might be armed in that way, the terrorists would have to reassess their risk management strategy, and would probably choose a softer target.
Heavy is the head that wears the tinfoil hat.
I'll be frank:
1) Are you in fact right? Could there be a reason why the world at large rejects your views?
I ask myself this multiple times a day every day. Occam's razor, right? Still, if you are right, then many people on Slashdot are wrong because I agree with a number of regular posters on here.
2) Are you presenting your ideas in an attractive way? Maybe ask some of these people to provide you with some feedback?
This is probably one of the two most relevant things you've mentioned. I probably do have some sort of problem. What's very interesting is that I've taught classes in the past and they love the way I teach. Why can I teach a class but not always help someone see something that I do? I suspect the answer is because I see things in a way others do not and therefore it requires a lengthy explanation. (I've been accused multiple times of taking too long to explain something.) People don't like lengthy. They want short. Is that my problem or theirs? Is this reply lengthy? Or is it thorough? Will anyone read it?
3) Is this more about you than the world? Maybe get some counselling before this "world versus me" mentality becomes intractable.
It's probably because of where I was raised. If I didn't have that attitude growing up, I'd be dead. My neighborhood was not a nice place to be. Remember all those horrible things that happened in New Orleans during Katrina? Looting? Rioting? Murder? None of it surprised me. It was happening before Katrina. It still happens today. One of my many friends who still lives in New Orleans was beaten a couple of weeks ago by a neighbor. She will have months of facial reconstructive surgery. She lost part of her ear in the attack.
What's interesting is that despite the "world versus me" attitude, I also have a huge inner drive to make the world better. A lot of times, though, the world doesn't want to get better. That is frustrating. Very frustrating. Ironically, it feeds the "world versus me" attitude... which then fuels the drive to make the world better. It's a vicious cycle I have a hard time keeping in check. Living in New Orleans was killing me. Literally. It was eating me from the inside out because I could not change a city that bad. It was a good thing I left. It saved my life. I admire those that still live there and are able to do so without it hurting them too badly... although I always wonder how true that is.
4) Learn to be less bothered by the mundane and the things out of your control.
This is the other relevant thing. I've been told this multiple times by multiple people and it makes sense. I also know the day I allow myself to be less bothered by the mundane and things (supposedly) out of my control, that is the day I give up on people and on myself. That is the day I die. I cannot let that happen, my friend. I love life and I love people too much for that happen. It hurts me when I see people make mistakes that I know they could have avoided. I was once told I have a high empathy for others. I think that is true.
You really want to be careful to avoid this "Mr. Nice Guy" thing. The mention of good people being turned bad smells of psychosis or at least only in the last line of a long post did you in any way acknowledge possible faults on your side.
I was merely tying in what I talked about into the quote I had copied and pasted. Is cheating ok? Is it morally acceptable? Sometimes it is. Most of the time, people use excuses so they can cheat. I had a guy copy my homework the other day. It was not for a grade. He didn't have time to do the weekend before. Was that ok or was it cheating? Was it morally acceptable? I let it slide. That's his life. There is truth to my statement
As is the case with many a "tea-partier", the tremendous lack of common sense or care for anything they don't agree on is very disturbing.
Folks like Paul don't work to come to a common ground or agreement, but rather have focused on stopping anything that "costs" us anything.
Our country wasn't founded on not using tax monies to pay for things we need - and items like the TSA is something we need - no differently than the USA needing a reinvestment in schools and public education, new roads and high speed rail systems, and better electricity grids that finally move us out of the 1940's in regards to reliability.
They pay lip service to helping small businesses, but it's a straw man argument. The predatory businesses hide themselves behind the new business that are constantly starting and failing. There are constantly suckers entering the market, being drained of savings, and closing up shop.
Cheap storage VM.
Yeah, and look at all those state mandated tests that suck up the majority of curriculum time.
We need to spend less time fighting with entrenched interests and work on a blitzkrieg approach. Change all the minds you can and wait for the entrenched positions to die out or be overrun. Don't waste time banging your head on a wall.
Cheap storage VM.
Help everyone you can and avoid the rest. Either their isolation will eventually drive them to do the right thing, or they will die out.
Cheap storage VM.
Sounds like you're in a somewhat similar place to where I was several years ago, a few thoughts:
Have you ever tried practicing one of the Eastern philosophies? Buddhism, Taoism, etc? They're all focussed on pretty much the same core tenant, only the metaphorical constructs used to discuss it change. Regardless of your faith, or lack thereof, they are well worth studying, especially if you have a philosophical bent, and in fact they have little to say about morality, gods, an afterlife, or the lack thereof. While the teachings can sound like new-age gibberish at first they are the result of thousands of years of applied knowledge about how to help people directly experience a truth that any rational person can agree on, but has probably never truly felt: That we are all, people, animals, plants, planet, etc. inextricably intertwined with each other, and the boundaries between us are matters of perception and volition rather than inherent in the universe itself. It's an extremely liberating and empowering perspective when your sense of self expands to encompass the cosmos. And once you get some skill at slipping into that perspective it makes waiting in the checkout line far more satisfying ;-). As a starting point I would suggest finding Alan Watts podcasts (AlanWatts.com I think) - he was an entertaining speaker, a self-titled spiritual entertainer, and makes for a fun way to sit down with a glass of wine and try to wrap your head around concepts fairly alien to Western thought.
On a more prosaic level, teaching groups versus one-on-one is a very different situation and calls upon several apparently non-overlapping skills, even when it's just teaching a class versus tutoring (I excel one-on-one, but am merely adequate at teaching groups). Furthemore when you're speaking to bosses and management types you need to remember that they generally have dozens of different balls in the air at any given moment - their job is after all to take care of all the random shit that their more focussed employees lack the skill/overview/discipline, etc to do effectively and make their team work as well as possible. You took the time to come up with a good idea, that's great - now take a little more time to hone your presentation into a couple minute "advertisement" so they can immediately judge whether it's worth their time and attention to look at it more closely. And remember, their primary concern is results - they don't care about the implementation details until it comes time to judge feasibility. This actually holds true for most people - our attention is the most precious commodity we have. We'll spend it freely to learn things we already want to know, but if you're interrupting my flow to ask me to listen to your proposal then you're trying to lay claim to a slice of my life that's utterly irreplacable - so make it fast. Details come later, *if* I decicde it's worth my time.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So let me get this straight...
The banks are taking all our money.
They are doing this to prepare for the collapse of the dollar.
So that when the dollar becomes worthless, they have all the dollars.
I'm not sure I see the logic in their plan...
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
The loosers loose, but loose less badly
Noooooooooooo!
Posting anon because... nooooooooooooooooooooo!
Hey Joe,
I ask myself this multiple times a day every day. Occam's razor, right? Still, if you are right, then many people on Slashdot are wrong because I agree with a number of regular posters on here.
Yeah, and also separating the important from stuff that annoys you but ultimately isn't a big deal. I'm annoyed when people use cell phones in restaurants. That's more my issue though, not something that really needs to change.
This is probably one of the two most relevant things you've mentioned. I probably do have some sort of problem. What's very interesting is that I've taught classes in the past and they love the way I teach. Why can I teach a class but not always help someone see something that I do? I suspect the answer is because I see things in a way others do not and therefore it requires a lengthy explanation. (I've been accused multiple times of taking too long to explain something.) People don't like lengthy. They want short. Is that my problem or theirs? Is this reply lengthy? Or is it thorough? Will anyone read it?
think we have a fair bit in common. I'm also prone to overly lengthy explanations. It's been a serious issue both at work, where senior managers lose interest in my otherwise useful ideas, and in relationships where sometimes simple is more emotionally satisfying to hear. It doesn't mean dumbed down - it's more about context and ensuring the message isn't lost in the details. I love rambling on about my designs and theories. Luckily I have a boss and colleagues who've helped me reign this in a bit.
It's probably because of where I was raised. If I didn't have that attitude growing up, I'd be dead. My neighborhood was not a nice place to be. Remember all those horrible things that happened in New Orleans during Katrina? Looting? Rioting? Murder? None of it surprised me. It was happening before Katrina. It still happens today. One of my many friends who still lives in New Orleans was beaten a couple of weeks ago by a neighbor. She will have months of facial reconstructive surgery. She lost part of her ear in the attack.
What's interesting is that despite the "world versus me" attitude, I also have a huge inner drive to make the world better. A lot of times, though, the world doesn't want to get better. That is frustrating. Very frustrating. Ironically, it feeds the "world versus me" attitude... which then fuels the drive to make the world better. It's a vicious cycle I have a hard time keeping in check. Living in New Orleans was killing me. Literally. It was eating me from the inside out because I could not change a city that bad. It was a good thing I left. It saved my life. I admire those that still live there and are able to do so without it hurting them too badly... although I always wonder how true that is?
Ouch, sorry to hear about your friend. Definitely a stand needs to be taken in some situations. I'm ashamed by the times I've out if cowardice sat by while disgusting things have happened. In some cases the right thing is to against the world - it's how change happens. I suppose it's about choosing battles. By bring mindful of perspective you can do the right thing without going mad tilting at windmills.
Something I think is important is to have that understanding of shades of grey, as you indeed do. None of us are saints. At a minimum, we're not going too badly if we try to avoid shitting on our fellow man. There will however be times when you have to put go atomic on someone, and if you have a good conscious, you'll always regret it even if it was necessary. I used to have a lot of anger issues when I was younger, and then became a recluse because it was scary to lose control that way. With a great deal of reflection and good friends I think I've a better balance than I've ever enjoyed in the past.
You seem a thoughtful decent person. I hate seeing good people ground down by this world.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
think we have a fair bit in common
There will however be times when you have to put go atomic on someone, and if you have a good conscious, you'll always regret it even if it was necessary. I used to have a lot of anger issues when I was younger, and then became a recluse because it was scary to lose control that way. With a great deal of reflection and good friends I think I've a better balance than I've ever enjoyed in the past.
You're right. I think we do have a fair bit in common but with enough differences to be interesting.
You seem a thoughtful decent person. I hate seeing good people ground down by this world.
When I feel ground down, I step back without stepping out of the world and becoming reclusive. (Been there. Done that. Not pleasant. Not going to do it again.) Immerman responded to this post (with two separate comments) and suggested studying Buddism and / or some of the related philosophies. I've wondered if that would help me cope. I may try that in the coming years... not so much for the religion but for the philosophy. I think I've found a better balance in my current years than when I was younger, but I know I still have a lot to learn.
There are no first-world governments that are not deeply in debt with unbalanced population structures and failing financial sectors and economies that guarantee that they will never be able to pay off their national debt, therefore will default on the near future.
There are no examples of governments that have managed their economies to better performance than other countries over a couple of generations.
The model of 'progressive' government has failed everywhere it has been tried.
Exceptions are Finland (oil revenue), maybe Sweden, too small to count, only an argument for city-states as the largest-possible effective gov., and maybe Singapore, which is also a city-state, too small to count.
I did actually have Scandinavia in mind when I made that comment, but I think your analysis is too focused on financial concerns. Many countries have recovered from financial disasters through economic intervention and incentivisation. High economic "performance" relative to other countries is usually an indicator that a country is a bad place to live.
More important indicators are harder to quantify without some subjectivity factored in: average quality of life, degree to which elected politicians and government bureaucrats care about serving the good/will of the people, poverty rates, corruption, willingness to admit wrongdoing by government officials. Finance factors in when considering the sustainability of current living conditions, but that also has to consider the availability of resources.
I think the real challenge with getting a progressive government to work comes down to the culture of the people trying to implement it. There's nothing inherent in the Norwegian legal system that makes this more viable than elsewhere. There's no geopolitical phenomenon that explains why any part in Sweden with more than 5% of the total vote gets representation in parliament.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Nitrogen fertilizer is produce using the hydrogen from natural gas to suck nitrogen from the air to form ammonia. Before natural gas became plentiful and cheap they electrolyzed water for the hydrogen. A wind farm or solar plant is certainly capable of providing the electricity for that.
The rules are U.S. society are increasingly becoming anticompetitive though. And I think thats what many are railing against, and perhaps, rightly so.
I'm sorry for replying so after-the-fact. Yes, I nod my head vigorously regarding your last comment!
The opposite of competition is monopoly. It is ironic, because "big business" reviles socialism and communism because of the repressiveness of central planning, one entity (the government) controlling everything. Yet capitalism "run amok" has resulted in the same concentration of power, i.e. concentration of assets, control by one entity. The entity is a corporation rather than government in a monopoly situation, but it is as bad (or worse) than all control held by government.
I don't think this is the inevitable consequence of capitalism though. While it does seem to have happened that way in the USA, sorry, it HAS happened that way, there are other countries that have capitalist economic and governments that aren't as inequitable as we are now.
tempus fugit