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?
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.
Oh, it does mean you'll have to use your skills to help others rather than beat them, though. So, if you're a cunt then this might not be an option.
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.
If there was a reasonable amount of people on the planes that were armed.
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"
Best. Indivi3uals
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!!
I hope the voters abolish Ron and Rand() Paul at their next opportunity.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
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
First by AC
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...).
Huh? I take it he means "9/11"...
You know, the 'terrorist' attacks which were only able to occur because of a military stand down. The 'terrorist' attacks where the security at the airports the planes took off from was all Jew owned... The 'terrorist' attacks where eyewitnesses clearly stated, on video, at the location they witnessed it, that the plane which allegedly hit the Pentagon was travelling in the wrong direction to be able to cause the damage path that occurred in the Pentagon - and the Pentagon explosion which just happened to occur in the section which contained all the accounting information on the lost billions of dollars which that piece of shit Rumsfeld 'couldn't explain' THE DAY BEFORE 9/11. How convenient.
And then the filthy Jews who run your Congress proceeded to take away YOUR rights in order to allegedly 'protect' you from muslims, without saying it was muslims. The same JEWS who have flooded your country with hate-filled, parasitic third worlders, who don't want to live around their own kind - hence you have a 'terrorist' problem to worry about.
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....
Just give the whole thing to Bruce Schneier and stand back.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
Paul could actually give a shit about other air travelers, he just cares about his own ass.
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
I am a republican that secretly likes to suck cocks and I just pooped my cute little pants.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
As Security Theatre goes, TSA is more like "The Producers", a light-hearted musical about fascists designed to lose a great deal of money.
The official 911 story is bogus.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!