Nope. I belong to the AVS (audio-visual science) forum for awhile, and stated matter-of-factly that digital TV has reception problems and the converter boxes from Dish are junk. I was banned.
You can't have free speech in a system where the Sysop is like a dictator - deciding what can or can not be said. Even a benevolent dictator can be bad. Usenet offers a place that is libertarian in nature - people police themselves - and nobody gets censored even if they are whackjob KKK members.
Usenet has always been anonymous. Back in 1988 when I first got my account I used my real name, but did not have to. I could have just as easily used the handle" I have now. Or spammed up a storm if I felt like it. (In fact some of my early posts about trading Star Trek TNG tapes were labeled "spam" by the members... I learned not to do that anymore.)
First off, I think the guy writing the article is exaggerating. I routinely visit rec.arts.tv on groups.google.com and there's maybe one spam message per two pages (100 messages). Not a big deal.
Second: I honestly don't know why people are so bothered by spam. Back in the day of 2 kbit/s modems, yes it was a pain because it would take a full minute to download a single message, but in today's 1000+ kbit/s world, these messages just ziiiiip right past. I mentally-filter out the spam same way I filter-out commercials on the TV, radio, or web ("Slashdot has advertising? I don't see it."). Maybe the author of the article should learn to apply his own neural network to filter out the crap he doesn't want to see.
How about a job at Walmart? #1 store in America with billions of dollars to spread-around to their staff. And as that guy in American Beauty said, "I want the least amount of responsibility possible." Just enjoy life.
;-) Actually if that's your goal but you still want a good income, go for the technician jobs or the CAD jobs. Technicians/CAD operators have it fairly easy since they just do whatever the higher-level engineers tell them to do, and it's the engineers who get blamed when things go wrong, not the techs. So you're basically just a cog in the machine, who happily earns lots of money.
>>>People here have been ticketed for eating apples or sipping water, while stopped at traffic lights.
So? I rear-ended a truck while stopped at a traffic light*, and eating a McDonald's apple fritter. Just because you're stopped doesn't mean that it's safe to take your attention away from the driving environement.
* * I was eating my fritter. * The light turned green. * I pushed on the gas and put down the fritter at the same time. * Unfortunately the truck in front of me only moved forward 2 car lengths, and then suddenly stopped to make a turn. He did not have his turn signal on, but he stopped anyway. I was caught off guard.
That's true. Real-world driving and efficiency driving are hugely different. My Honda Insight Hybrid has been successfully driven over 1500 miles (twice specification), but in the real world the best I've ever done is 1000, and the national average from Insight drivers is only ~500 miles.
I think EVs need to be more strictly regulated in their mileage claims. Let them go on the same treadmill as they gasoline/diesel cars must ride.
>>>an "arm of the Democratic Party" that devotes three hours a day to a conservative host who used to be a Republican Congressman
At first I didn't know who you meant, and then I saw the name Joe Scarborough. He was a Republican, but he's no conservative. Just as Republican Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats, so too should Joe.
Besides ONE (R) on the staff doesn't erase the fact the MSNBC still leans way left. Or have you forgotten the whole debacle where they voiced-over a video with "gun-toting white racists" but the guy holding the rifle was actually a black man? That kind of bias runs rampant throughout MSNBC reporting - it's just that this time they got caught.
>>>if users issue a counter notice, then the service provider can replace the allegedly infringing materials without incurring monetary liability.
This is where the DMCA idea falls-apart. If MSNBC issues a takedown against my youtube video because I uploaded the snippet where they called a gun-toting black man a "white racist" (i.e. a lie), and then I issue a counter notice to have the video restored, youtube will typically ignore me and side with MSNBC. Why? Because MSNBC has monetary power to influence youtube, and I don't.
About 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government [npr.org]
He said government. He said nothing about federal, so contributions from "government" would also include state and local governments, and raises the percentage to about 10%, not 2
Personally I don't think NPR should be receiving *any* funding. It's not as if we are lacking for sources of information (dozens of radio stations, hundreds of tv channels, and millions of websites).
Or FOX News? I see NBC/MSNBC listed. What about fox? With all the hate I see directed at them from Usenet posters and even our own White House, surely they must be enemy #1 when it comes to censorship.
What?
They don't censor free speech? Hmmm; guess the anti-fox bias has no basis.
Okay thanks for the corrections but you still said, "About 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government," and by your own numbers that's not true. CPB donation == (17% from U.S. + 23% state/local government)* 11% == 4.4% given to NOR. And the article says an additional 5% is donated directly to NP$ by state/local government.
That's still almost 10% coming from the government (our pockets). If Obama can order around Bank of America and demand that the top 100 managers get 50% paycuts, just because they received a few billon taxpayer dollars, then surely he can do the same with NPR and demand that their creations be available under an ope license.
Of course I also think it's ridiculous that Oregon copyrights its legal pamphets, and issues takedown notices against website owners if they dare publish them. Government "of, by, and for the people" is rapidly becoming "of, by, and for politicians and copyright-holders".
>>>Delay in distribution means more people pushed to torrents.
No because they are cracking-down on that avenue. I just received my 3rd copyright notice this past week (1 and 2 date back to Christmas 2008), and I've been told #4 will result in termination of my Verizon account. So bottom line: People will soon be faced with having to wait for the delayed DVD rental, or purchase it now.
Also:
This isn't the first time movie studios have pulled stunts like this. Back in the early 90s when VHS was king, my local video store told me I could buy Disney's Aladdin but it would cost $90. I asked why the outrageous price, and they explained the price is kept high for one month to encourage rentals..... and then dropped to a more-reasonable $25.
Movie studios are always trying to control the free market. Record companies too. They forced Walmart, Kmart, and other retailers to stop selling CDs at budget prices of $8 or $9, raise the minimum price to $13, or else the record companies would stop shipments. This continued from circa 1990 to 2000 when the U.S. DOJ stepped-in and sued the record companies for forming an illegal Cartel. (My family, collectively, received five checks of $19 each as settlements.)
You can't trust corporations. They are filled with avarice, love of money, and will do what is necessary to increase it.
I don't know where you got "2%" but I see this in the link provided:
- 11% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which is federally funded - 9% from licensee support [National Science Foundation and Endowment for the Arts] - 5% from local and state governments
So we taxpayers own about one-quarter of the products produced. If NPR wants to maintain control, that's fine with me, but their programs should be open-licensed to any non-commercial citizen who desires to use their programs.
>>>you'd think they'd choose something other than NPR trying to mute gay bashes as an example
The Maine citizens who produced the "marriage is for heterosexuals" advertisement doesn't have a right to free speech? They deserved to have their ad taken-down from youtube??? This is the anti-free speech position you are adopting?!?!? Not very progressive of you.
Yeah well I guess I'm just sick of it. I'm now listening to White House people who are collecting salaries from MY taxdollars claiming fox is a "wing of the Republican party". Don't these persons have anything better to do than sling mud at the free press??? Besides we all know MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party. Which is fine - one channel's left - the other is right - the truth lies in between. I like BOTH channels because it's democracy in action.
Anyway this tidbit is interesting:
.....Fox News had sent three notices of copyright infringement demanding the takedown of Progress Illinois' videos. In the videos, Progress Illinois, a union-sponsored blog, apparently used short clips of Fox News coverage of local and national political events to set up political commentary about those events.....
It's also disappointing that YouTube hasn't already restored the videos. When similar shenanigans took down campaign videos by Senators McCain [CBS] and Obama [NBC] during the presidential election season, we called on YouTube to take steps to protect online speech, among them human review of videos that have been subject to a counternotice, and immediate restoration of videos that are clearly noninfringing fair uses.
Since we the taxpayers are paying for National Public Radio, shouldn't all their productions be considered public domain, or at least open-licensed, under U.S. Congressional law?
Stand for Marriage Maine (SMM) created an ad criticizing same-sex marriage that excerpted a brief portion of an All Things Considered interview. Although the ad's use of the content was clearly necessary to its critical political message, NPR sent a takedown demand to YouTube resulting in the removal of the video. NPR failed to recognize that SMM's excerpting is simply another clear-cut example of a fair use in political speech -- the 21st century equivalent of an issue pamphlet.
Forget NBC. What about FOX News? With all the hate I see directed at them from Usenet posters and even our own White House, surely they must be enemy #1 when it comes to censorship.
What?
They don't censor free speech? Well su'prise su'prise su'prise.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
I propose that since the Constitution is a contract between the US and the 50 States, same the as the Treaty of Lisbon is a contract between the EU and the 30 Member States, the persons who decide what powers can or cannot exercised should not be a branch of the US/EU. That's like asking Microsoft to police itself. Instead it should be an independent Constitutional Council, whose members are the original States that formed the respective U.S. and EU contracts.
It's only a matter of time (2018 when the SS account runs dry, or shortly thereafter), when it will transition to a Welfare-like program that is strictly for the poor. If your bank account is empty, you get SS checks. If not, then you get nothing. The Congress won't have any choice.
I think it's about time somebody challenge the TSA authority. I suspect it's only a matter of time until somebody refuses to consent to search, ends-up arrested, the court case rises to the level of the Supreme Court, and they declare random searches on *domestic* flights to be unconstitutional..... just the same as they declared random searches of cars by the DHS to be unconstitutional.
International flights which cross the U.S. border will likely still allow searches.
>>>>>When it was a private security firm hired by the airlines, it was a perfectly reasonable term of sale. >> >>And it still is. If you don't want to agree to it, don't buy a ticket
By that logic there is no end to government power. The government could make the argument, "If you don't agree to a random road block/search of your trunk, don't buy a car." Or "if you don't agree to a random police patdown on the sidewalk, don't walk on the public thoughfare." Your logic is flawed and the SCOTUS agrees (random searches are unconstitutional).
You mean like this? The guy in this audio recording was harassed, first with the TSA and then some cops, when they spotted his cash box and demanded "Where'd you get all this money?". They had no constitutional warrant, but still they said they can stop him from entering the airplane. Laws don't matter when the government can detain you at will.
I think it's funny when one of the guards says, "You act like a child." No. He's acting like a Man standing-up for his inalienable rights not to answer questions or otherwise be searched w/o warrant.
The problem is the people who were denying entrance were not a private company, but the Missouri State Police and U.S. TSA officers. And these government officials are bound by sworn oath to obey this law: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." No warrant; no search. No probable cause; no search.
Plus the simple fact that carrying a cash box to fly from St. Louis to Washington D.C. is not a crime. Even if he opened it up and said, "I've got 4,000 dollars," it's not illegal to carry that amount of money. If you believe it should be illegal to carry cash, then I hope the next person TSA stops is you, and throws you in jail for a night.
Maybe then you'll better understand the injustice.
Consolidation of all those agencies seems logical to me. Might be the only good think Dubya did. However I hate that name "Homeland"..... sounds like something out of the Bundeswehr Handbook (copyright 1933). The War Department was renamed Defense Department. How about DHS became just the Department of Domestic Security, to echo the words of the constitution ("from enemies foreign and domestic").
For that matter we should have some kind of Constitutional Council, to be made-up of the 50 state legislatures (and 2-3 delegates of their chusing), whose task is to nullify any Congressional acts they consider unconstitutional. The U.S. Court can have its opinion, but ultimately it was the 50 States that formed the original contract and they should have the right to ignore non-contractual grabs for power.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. I belong to the AVS (audio-visual science) forum for awhile, and stated matter-of-factly that digital TV has reception problems and the converter boxes from Dish are junk. I was banned.
You can't have free speech in a system where the Sysop is like a dictator - deciding what can or can not be said. Even a benevolent dictator can be bad. Usenet offers a place that is libertarian in nature - people police themselves - and nobody gets censored even if they are whackjob KKK members.
Usenet has always been anonymous. Back in 1988 when I first got my account I used my real name, but did not have to. I could have just as easily used the handle" I have now. Or spammed up a storm if I felt like it. (In fact some of my early posts about trading Star Trek TNG tapes were labeled "spam" by the members... I learned not to do that anymore.)
So?
First off, I think the guy writing the article is exaggerating. I routinely visit rec.arts.tv on groups.google.com and there's maybe one spam message per two pages (100 messages). Not a big deal.
Second: I honestly don't know why people are so bothered by spam. Back in the day of 2 kbit/s modems, yes it was a pain because it would take a full minute to download a single message, but in today's 1000+ kbit/s world, these messages just ziiiiip right past. I mentally-filter out the spam same way I filter-out commercials on the TV, radio, or web ("Slashdot has advertising? I don't see it."). Maybe the author of the article should learn to apply his own neural network to filter out the crap he doesn't want to see.
How about a job at Walmart? #1 store in America with billions of dollars to spread-around to their staff.
And as that guy in American Beauty said, "I want the least amount of responsibility possible." Just enjoy life.
>>>People here have been ticketed for eating apples or sipping water, while stopped at traffic lights.
So? I rear-ended a truck while stopped at a traffic light*, and eating a McDonald's apple fritter. Just because you're stopped doesn't mean that it's safe to take your attention away from the driving environement.
*
* I was eating my fritter.
* The light turned green.
* I pushed on the gas and put down the fritter at the same time.
* Unfortunately the truck in front of me only moved forward 2 car lengths, and then suddenly stopped to make a turn. He did not have his turn signal on, but he stopped anyway. I was caught off guard.
That's true. Real-world driving and efficiency driving are hugely different. My Honda Insight Hybrid has been successfully driven over 1500 miles (twice specification), but in the real world the best I've ever done is 1000, and the national average from Insight drivers is only ~500 miles.
I think EVs need to be more strictly regulated in their mileage claims. Let them go on the same treadmill as they gasoline/diesel cars must ride.
>>>an "arm of the Democratic Party" that devotes three hours a day to a conservative host who used to be a Republican Congressman
At first I didn't know who you meant, and then I saw the name Joe Scarborough. He was a Republican, but he's no conservative. Just as Republican Arlen Specter jumped ship to the Democrats, so too should Joe.
Besides ONE (R) on the staff doesn't erase the fact the MSNBC still leans way left. Or have you forgotten the whole debacle where they voiced-over a video with "gun-toting white racists" but the guy holding the rifle was actually a black man? That kind of bias runs rampant throughout MSNBC reporting - it's just that this time they got caught.
>>>if users issue a counter notice, then the service provider can replace the allegedly infringing materials without incurring monetary liability.
This is where the DMCA idea falls-apart. If MSNBC issues a takedown against my youtube video because I uploaded the snippet where they called a gun-toting black man a "white racist" (i.e. a lie), and then I issue a counter notice to have the video restored, youtube will typically ignore me and side with MSNBC. Why? Because MSNBC has monetary power to influence youtube, and I don't.
Not you. This guy:
by ral (93840)
About 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government [npr.org]
He said government. He said nothing about federal, so contributions from "government" would also include state and local governments, and raises the percentage to about 10%, not 2
Personally I don't think NPR should be receiving *any* funding. It's not as if we are lacking for sources of information (dozens of radio stations, hundreds of tv channels, and millions of websites).
Or FOX News? I see NBC/MSNBC listed. What about fox? With all the hate I see directed at them from Usenet posters and even our own White House, surely they must be enemy #1 when it comes to censorship.
What?
They don't censor free speech? Hmmm; guess the anti-fox bias has no basis.
Okay thanks for the corrections but you still said, "About 2% of NPR's funding comes from the government," and by your own numbers that's not true. CPB donation == (17% from U.S. + 23% state/local government)* 11% == 4.4% given to NOR. And the article says an additional 5% is donated directly to NP$ by state/local government.
That's still almost 10% coming from the government (our pockets). If Obama can order around Bank of America and demand that the top 100 managers get 50% paycuts, just because they received a few billon taxpayer dollars, then surely he can do the same with NPR and demand that their creations be available under an ope license.
Of course I also think it's ridiculous that Oregon copyrights its legal pamphets, and issues takedown notices against website owners if they dare publish them. Government "of, by, and for the people" is rapidly becoming "of, by, and for politicians and copyright-holders".
>>>Delay in distribution means more people pushed to torrents.
No because they are cracking-down on that avenue. I just received my 3rd copyright notice this past week (1 and 2 date back to Christmas 2008), and I've been told #4 will result in termination of my Verizon account. So bottom line: People will soon be faced with having to wait for the delayed DVD rental, or purchase it now.
Also:
This isn't the first time movie studios have pulled stunts like this. Back in the early 90s when VHS was king, my local video store told me I could buy Disney's Aladdin but it would cost $90. I asked why the outrageous price, and they explained the price is kept high for one month to encourage rentals..... and then dropped to a more-reasonable $25.
Movie studios are always trying to control the free market. Record companies too. They forced Walmart, Kmart, and other retailers to stop selling CDs at budget prices of $8 or $9, raise the minimum price to $13, or else the record companies would stop shipments. This continued from circa 1990 to 2000 when the U.S. DOJ stepped-in and sued the record companies for forming an illegal Cartel. (My family, collectively, received five checks of $19 each as settlements.)
You can't trust corporations. They are filled with avarice, love of money, and will do what is necessary to increase it.
I don't know where you got "2%" but I see this in the link provided:
- 11% from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which is federally funded
- 9% from licensee support [National Science Foundation and Endowment for the Arts]
- 5% from local and state governments
So we taxpayers own about one-quarter of the products produced. If NPR wants to maintain control, that's fine with me, but their programs should be open-licensed to any non-commercial citizen who desires to use their programs.
If you "mod" me troll, I will just repost the same message tomorrow. Modding me down to -1 in an attempt to censor me doesn't work.
>>>you'd think they'd choose something other than NPR trying to mute gay bashes as an example
The Maine citizens who produced the "marriage is for heterosexuals" advertisement doesn't have a right to free speech? They deserved to have their ad taken-down from youtube??? This is the anti-free speech position you are adopting?!?!? Not very progressive of you.
Yeah well I guess I'm just sick of it. I'm now listening to White House people who are collecting salaries from MY taxdollars claiming fox is a "wing of the Republican party". Don't these persons have anything better to do than sling mud at the free press??? Besides we all know MSNBC is an arm of the Democratic Party. Which is fine - one channel's left - the other is right - the truth lies in between. I like BOTH channels because it's democracy in action.
Anyway this tidbit is interesting:
.....Fox News had sent three notices of copyright infringement demanding the takedown of Progress Illinois' videos. In the videos, Progress Illinois, a union-sponsored blog, apparently used short clips of Fox News coverage of local and national political events to set up political commentary about those events.....
It's also disappointing that YouTube hasn't already restored the videos. When similar shenanigans took down campaign videos by Senators McCain [CBS] and Obama [NBC] during the presidential election season, we called on YouTube to take steps to protect online speech, among them human review of videos that have been subject to a counternotice, and immediate restoration of videos that are clearly noninfringing fair uses.
Since we the taxpayers are paying for National Public Radio, shouldn't all their productions be considered public domain, or at least open-licensed, under U.S. Congressional law?
Stand for Marriage Maine (SMM) created an ad criticizing same-sex marriage that excerpted a brief portion of an All Things Considered interview. Although the ad's use of the content was clearly necessary to its critical political message, NPR sent a takedown demand to YouTube resulting in the removal of the video. NPR failed to recognize that SMM's excerpting is simply another clear-cut example of a fair use in political speech -- the 21st century equivalent of an issue pamphlet.
Forget NBC. What about FOX News? With all the hate I see directed at them from Usenet posters and even our own White House, surely they must be enemy #1 when it comes to censorship.
What?
They don't censor free speech? Well su'prise su'prise su'prise.
False.
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
I propose that since the Constitution is a contract between the US and the 50 States, same the as the Treaty of Lisbon is a contract between the EU and the 30 Member States, the persons who decide what powers can or cannot exercised should not be a branch of the US/EU. That's like asking Microsoft to police itself. Instead it should be an independent Constitutional Council, whose members are the original States that formed the respective U.S. and EU contracts.
It's only a matter of time (2018 when the SS account runs dry, or shortly thereafter), when it will transition to a Welfare-like program that is strictly for the poor. If your bank account is empty, you get SS checks. If not, then you get nothing. The Congress won't have any choice.
P.S.
I think it's about time somebody challenge the TSA authority. I suspect it's only a matter of time until somebody refuses to consent to search, ends-up arrested, the court case rises to the level of the Supreme Court, and they declare random searches on *domestic* flights to be unconstitutional..... just the same as they declared random searches of cars by the DHS to be unconstitutional.
International flights which cross the U.S. border will likely still allow searches.
>>>>>When it was a private security firm hired by the airlines, it was a perfectly reasonable term of sale.
>>
>>And it still is. If you don't want to agree to it, don't buy a ticket
By that logic there is no end to government power. The government could make the argument, "If you don't agree to a random road block/search of your trunk, don't buy a car." Or "if you don't agree to a random police patdown on the sidewalk, don't walk on the public thoughfare." Your logic is flawed and the SCOTUS agrees (random searches are unconstitutional).
>>>glorified security-guard hiring practices, over-reaching harassment
You mean like this? The guy in this audio recording was harassed, first with the TSA and then some cops, when they spotted his cash box and demanded "Where'd you get all this money?". They had no constitutional warrant, but still they said they can stop him from entering the airplane. Laws don't matter when the government can detain you at will.
10-minute version (unedited) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEJpzVPmih0 [youtube.com]
3-minute version (edited) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMB6L487LHM [youtube.com]
I think it's funny when one of the guards says, "You act like a child." No. He's acting like a Man standing-up for his inalienable rights not to answer questions or otherwise be searched w/o warrant.
I agree with your 100%.
The problem is the people who were denying entrance were not a private company, but the Missouri State Police and U.S. TSA officers. And these government officials are bound by sworn oath to obey this law: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." No warrant; no search. No probable cause; no search.
Plus the simple fact that carrying a cash box to fly from St. Louis to Washington D.C. is not a crime. Even if he opened it up and said, "I've got 4,000 dollars," it's not illegal to carry that amount of money. If you believe it should be illegal to carry cash, then I hope the next person TSA stops is you, and throws you in jail for a night.
Maybe then you'll better understand the injustice.
Consolidation of all those agencies seems logical to me. Might be the only good think Dubya did. However I hate that name "Homeland"..... sounds like something out of the Bundeswehr Handbook (copyright 1933). The War Department was renamed Defense Department. How about DHS became just the Department of Domestic Security, to echo the words of the constitution ("from enemies foreign and domestic").
For that matter we should have some kind of Constitutional Council, to be made-up of the 50 state legislatures (and 2-3 delegates of their chusing), whose task is to nullify any Congressional acts they consider unconstitutional. The U.S. Court can have its opinion, but ultimately it was the 50 States that formed the original contract and they should have the right to ignore non-contractual grabs for power.