TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal). ******
Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) […]
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal). ****** Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints about as far it can go). 17 out of 17 TSA employees responding to a small personal survey (out of 20 queried) vehemently dreaded in lengthy terms performing too personal invasions of privacy (at last look there were 812 mostly vehemently opposed comments).
Administrative searches must also serve a balancing social need. Even if one of 10 million yearly US flights goes down taking 300 souls with it, that would hardly constitute an excuse to assembly line even same-sex naked scanning nearly 800 million and private area groping nearly 40 million (counting involuntary pat-downs when all lanes eventually covered) of the remaining passengers. Not even if X-rated security theater were capable of saving that flight (absolutely no purpose at all in courthouses).
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal). ****** Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints about as far it can go). 17 out of 17 TSA employees responding to a small personal survey (out of 20 queried) vehemently dreaded in lengthy terms performing too personal invasions of privacy (at last look there were 812 mostly vehemently opposed comments).
Administrative searches must also serve a balancing social need. Even if one of 10 million yearly US flights goes down taking 300 souls with it, that would hardly constitute an excuse to assembly line even same-sex naked scanning nearly 800 million and private area groping nearly 40 million (counting involuntary pat-downs when all lanes eventually covered) of the remaining passengers. Not even if X-rated security theater were capable of saving that flight (absolutely no purpose at all in courthouses).
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal). ****** Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints about as far it can go). 17 out of 17 TSA employees responding to a small personal survey (out of 20 queried) vehemently dreaded in lengthy terms performing too personal invasions of privacy (at last look there were 812 mostly vehemently opposed comments).
Administrative searches must also serve a balancing social need. Even if one of 10 million yearly US flights goes down taking 300 souls with it, that would hardly constitute an excuse to assembly line even same-sex naked scanning nearly 800 million and private area groping nearly 40 million (counting involuntary pat-downs when all lanes eventually covered) of the remaining passengers. Not even if X-rated security theater were capable of saving that flight (absolutely no purpose at all in courthouses).
A Cornell University study showed 242 more driving fatalities per month occurred post 9/11: while driving to avoid flying (commenter #770 on the TSA survey above said he will fly to Mexico and drive to the U.S. if necessary). How long will it take the TSA to outscore Bin Laden on collateral kills (while killing the economy — come to think, Bin Laden did that […]
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal). ****** Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints about as far it can go). 17 out of 17 TSA employees responding to a small personal survey (out of 20 queried) vehemently dreaded in lengthy terms performing too personal invasions of privacy (at last look there were 812 mostly vehemently opposed comments).
Administrative searches must also serve a balancing social need. Even if one of 10 million yearly US flights goes down taking 300 souls with it, that would hardly constitute an excuse to assembly line even same-sex naked scanning nearly 800 million and private area groping nearly 40 million (counting involuntary pat-downs when all lanes eventually covered) of the remaining passengers. Not even if X-rated security theater were capable of saving that flight (absolutely no purpose at all in courthouses).
A Cornell University study showed 242 more driving fatalities per month occurred post 9/11: while driving to avoid flying (commenter #770 on the TSA survey above said he will fly to Mexico and drive to the U.S. if necessary). How long will it take the TSA to outscore Bin Laden on collateral kills (while killing the economy — come to think, Bin Laden did that too)?
The scanning is in response to the “underwerar bomber” attempt….. what was his name? oh yeah, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, anywho we have to scan children, grannies etc. because we don’t want to treat them any differently than young, male Muslims who associate with terrorist groups, because that would be “profiling.”
There is a lot of obsession dealing with sticking it to the rich. I.E. Our current president’s obsession on the number 250000. In my past post, I stated even if Bush tax cut expires, it won’t really stick it to the fat cats in wall street, the mega corporations. Instead, we will be hitting the productive “rich” whom honestly paid the highest tax rates already. If we stick it those rich and they tries to run away, whom are we going to replace them with?
Even if we maintained the Bush tax cuts, the current administration already targeted the baby boomers ready to cash out on their biggest retirement package. Anyone whom sells their house will pay 2.5 percent more tax. (it’s on the healthcare bill)
Again, the honest people pays their taxes and bears more and more insanity, but the masses including middle class kept voting believing they are voting to stick it to the rich!
When will the left and the right wake up and even the playing field between the honest people whom pays their taxes(small businesses) versus congress supported corporations whom write their own tax code?
i kind of a agree with you. but until they stop shouting about the deficit i am in favor of repealing all the Bush tax cuts. that would increase average taxes about 3% for the rich, and maybe a little less for the “middle”. i don’t think anyone would notice it if no one told them about it.
as for the poor, i think they should pay their payroll tax, all of it, plus the extra half of one tenth of one percent each year it will take to keep up with rising life expectancy.
get pretty tired of “tax the other guy” and “poor me.”
as for picking up the taxes on the chiselers, that’s a separate problem, but don’t hold your breath. us honest citizens will have the privilege of paying the country’s bills. wouldn’t have it any other way.
I used to drive a gypsy cab in the South Bronx. Relatively safe occupation; it’s not like I rode a motorcycle to work.
The Son of Sam was around then; hit a couple of people in the north-east Bronx area my car service of that time was located in. I told people there are 8 million people in New York; he’s not going to kill me.
A terrorist may bring down 1 of the 10 million domestically boarded flights this year — but it wont kill you. Terrorists are much more rare than accidents. And when they get here on the ground they try to kill us here on the ground here. They mostly don’t want to commit suicide.
If 10 bomb attempts were made in the next year we would have switch to a boarding security that actually worked — because the current setup would be lucky to thwart 2 of them. Israeli level security costs $50 a passenger more. We spend $6 a passenger; Israel spends $56. If we don’t want to pay the $50 we are not worried — not enough to strip search by the opposite sex (half the 800 million passengers a year) and too personally grope another 30-40 million (once the whole crazy thing is going 100%).
A TSA underwear bomber laugh: at first TSA prohibited bathroom visits for the last hour of flight — as if a suicide bomber would be afraid go to the bathroom without permission. What were they going to do about it, have the stewardess give him the ruler on the knuckes before he blew up the plane? 🙂
Oh, whow is me. The wealthy plantaion owners (Mitch McConell and the new Klan) have backed me into a caughner. I think I betta agree witch them and …. (for da ske of dem othaughts)
Oh, whow is me. The wealthy plantaion owners (Mitch McConell and the new Klan) have backed me into a caughner. I think I betta agree witch them and …. (for da ske of dem othaughts)
Oh, whow is me. The wealthy plantaion owners (Mitch McConell and the new Klan) have backed me into a caughner. I think I betta agree witch them and …. (for da ske of dem othaughts)
if they can’t take a joke hellwiddem. i tried to explain the concept of uncle tom once to a woman who decided i must be a racist even after i told her where i learned the term.
I feel the Democrates have failed miserably in terms of making people “feel good” about themselves. People are always going to complain about taxes no matter what, unless one is actually benifiting from the status quo, entitlement programs etc.
I remember the Clinton years where somehow the charisma of his presidency overcome the objection of taxes. Similar thing from Reagon… Offcourse people are going to disagree over political ideologies but feeling good about the country your in contributes a lot more willingness to work together… Taxation matters included…LOL
1) Back benchers: Ministers and lesser Govt officials. 2) Front benchers: National leaders. 3) Back benchers: Ministers and leaders of “Green” groups. 4) Front benchers: Same as 2 above.
I’ll reply to myself here so I can get right up front — it’s a cab driver thing. 🙂
This TSA mess is just another symptom of the SLUMMING of America for the average person. First we lost our pay; now we are losing our privacy. Core cause: creep-creep, A.K.A. Parkinson’s Law, A.K.A.. any pressure just naturally expands if not met by counter-pressure. In laissez faire America unlike in social democracy Europe there is never any counter pressure for the average person.
This is why in straight lace Illinois the Cook County courthouse started using scanners (hopefully not for long) while in wild and woolly California, county prosecutors threaten airport security with jail if they inappropriately touch (whatever that might mean under TSA laissez faire). In the “people’s republic” people EXPECT to be taken care of — makes all the difference.
European social democracy — contrary to the “socialist” label Newty and friends like to put on it — was invented, if that is the word, by very anti-communist, very conservative, German Roman Catholics — to TAMP DOWN wage demands so their post fascist industrialists could rebuild after the war.
The core of social democracy is sector-wide labor agreements. What works to tamp down the race-to-the-top (to keep one union from being afraid to moderate demands because they fear the others wont — worked our for the worst in post war England where they did not adopt sector-wide right away — now most everywhere in the better paying world) also prevents the (American style) race-to-the-bottom.
The free medical and education of the welfare state aspect of social democracy have no moral hazard component (saith Hayek) — no reason we have to copy their automatic dole.
Sector-wide would be the easiest, most saleable way to introduce Americans to the idea of being taken care of right. Airline and super-market workers would kill for sector-wide.
sounds interesting. would be a hard sell in america, even without the “social” in the label, on accounta the powers that be don’t want it, the media won’t tell the people, and the people haven’t a clue.
i would throw into the mix my own ideas about insurance as insurance, protected by the government in the same way SS works, but funded directly by the workers themselves. this is not working for SS at the moment because the Liars have been pretending that SS is welfare, and even the liberals have been talking about it like it is, and like they want it to be even more like welfare.
but i can dream of an America where people know what they are talking about.
a tax raise should be sold as a patriotic act for the good of the country… at least until the deficit is “solved.” instead we get everyone saying tax the other guy, cut my taxes, oh the horrible deficit we are all going to die, unless granny is forced to work until she dies, of course.
MG I’m not sure of which exchange you’re referring to on the thread you linked to. If it is the final exchange concerning time for change then yes, this is just one more action that underscores the need for a reassessment of our values as a country. That is especially true of the elected officials that represent us in the Congress and the Presidency. The country has lost its way. Or maybe it all suits the financial elite. It has been working very well for them.
coberly, My primary focus is on the labor market. As long as Americans are not organized they will not only lack economic muscle but pollitical as well.
You should read the new main post that I cited and then my comments as well as juan’s in the thread.
There is a capitalists vs. Marxists standoff in play. No question.
We have a number of participants who are anti-capitalist as evidenced by their remarks here and elsewhere. We have had two recent main posts focusing on anti-American positions and, most recently, a main post focusing on the economic views of a known Marxist who is an anti-capitalist.
Saying that blog is looking more and more like a standoff between capitalists and communists may not be fully accurate, but it’s safe to say that the standoff is with Marxists, socialists, and others opposed to capitalism. There should be no denying this point at this time. It’s becoming clear.
MG, I’m sorry to disillusion you, but there are no marxists that are getting any air time here or else where in America. Some commenters may identify themselves as left of center, as liberal, as socialist, etc, but none of their comments has even the slightest odor of socialism. What you’re reading as marxist is simply other people’s view of what good and responsible government in a democracy should look like. Holding businesses and individuals accountable for the consequences of their actions on the lives of others is not socialism, but good government of any kind. It is no different from those
MG, I’m sorry to disillusion you, but there are no marxists that are getting any air time here or else where in America. Some commenters may identify themselves as left of center, as liberal, as socialist, etc, but none of their comments has even the slightest odor of socialism. What you’re reading as marxist is simply other people’s view of what good and responsible government in a democracy should look like. Holding businesses and individuals accountable for the consequences of their actions on the lives of others is not socialism, but good government of any kind. It is no different from those actions of our government that are taken inorder to assure the success of various sectors of our economy. The Too Big to Fail Bank bailout was a huge government investment in saving the fraudulent asses of the financial industry. Was that an indication of a socialist government? I don’t think so. The only indications of any socialist behavior in the good old USofA is when our government or its elected officials is looking out for the financial interests of its high society citizens. I’m rather surprised that a Federal judge has decided that the government can’t force individuals to buy health insurance from private health insurance companies. That provision was a perfect example of socialist medling in the free market, but it only advantaged the private marketeers.
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal).
******
Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) […]
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal).
******
Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints about as far it can go). 17 out of 17 TSA employees responding to a small personal survey (out of 20 queried) vehemently dreaded in lengthy terms performing too personal invasions of privacy (at last look there were 812 mostly vehemently opposed comments).
Administrative searches must also serve a balancing social need. Even if one of 10 million yearly US flights goes down taking 300 souls with it, that would hardly constitute an excuse to assembly line even same-sex naked scanning nearly 800 million and private area groping nearly 40 million (counting involuntary pat-downs when all lanes eventually covered) of the remaining passengers. Not even if X-rated security theater were capable of saving that flight (absolutely no purpose at all in courthouses).
A Cornell University study showed
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal).
******
Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints about as far it can go). 17 out of 17 TSA employees responding to a small personal survey (out of 20 queried) vehemently dreaded in lengthy terms performing too personal invasions of privacy (at last look there were 812 mostly vehemently opposed comments).
Administrative searches must also serve a balancing social need. Even if one of 10 million yearly US flights goes down taking 300 souls with it, that would hardly constitute an excuse to assembly line even same-sex naked scanning nearly 800 million and private area groping nearly 40 million (counting involuntary pat-downs when all lanes eventually covered) of the remaining passengers. Not even if X-rated security theater were capable of saving that flight (absolutely no purpose at all in courthouses).
A Cornell University study showed
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal).
******
Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints about as far it can go). 17 out of 17 TSA employees responding to a small personal survey (out of 20 queried) vehemently dreaded in lengthy terms performing too personal invasions of privacy (at last look there were 812 mostly vehemently opposed comments).
Administrative searches must also serve a balancing social need. Even if one of 10 million yearly US flights goes down taking 300 souls with it, that would hardly constitute an excuse to assembly line even same-sex naked scanning nearly 800 million and private area groping nearly 40 million (counting involuntary pat-downs when all lanes eventually covered) of the remaining passengers. Not even if X-rated security theater were capable of saving that flight (absolutely no purpose at all in courthouses).
A Cornell University study showed 242 more driving fatalities per month occurred post 9/11: while driving to avoid flying (commenter #770 on the TSA survey above said he will fly to Mexico and drive to the U.S. if necessary). How long will it take the TSA to outscore Bin Laden on collateral kills (while killing the economy — come to think, Bin Laden did that […]
TSA administrative regs — created with delegated Congressional legislative power – cannot overwrite clearly expressed Congressional will banning naked child viewing: a legislative house divided against itself. Note well: the First Amendment exception is justified by the damage done to the child. Ergo, naked viewing of children by either TSA or non-airport security personnel both constitute the same federal felony.
Without TSA regs for legal cover (agent provocateur mode: the government made me do it), male TSA agents (only one remote screen per scanner — only one gender viewing) viewing the kind of naked images that scanners transmit of adult females could be prosecuted under the same federal and/or state laws that make such viewing a crime at any high school or skating rink entrance.
Ditto — most especially! — for male TSA personnel physically ” meeting the resistance” of female genitalia or brushing hands over any female parts, as much as at any department store entrance. Can any reasonable person maintain that federal administrative regs can go as far legalizing — nay, mandating — male on female intimate touching if, for instance, female agents are short (many small airports?), instead of just blocking unchecked women from boarding aircraft (crackpot itself but not criminal).
******
Same-sex naked viewing and private area groping are in conflict with the classic rationale handed down by courts for okaying so-called administrative (warrant-less) searches: relatively limited invasion of privacy (sobriety checkpoints about as far it can go). 17 out of 17 TSA employees responding to a small personal survey (out of 20 queried) vehemently dreaded in lengthy terms performing too personal invasions of privacy (at last look there were 812 mostly vehemently opposed comments).
Administrative searches must also serve a balancing social need. Even if one of 10 million yearly US flights goes down taking 300 souls with it, that would hardly constitute an excuse to assembly line even same-sex naked scanning nearly 800 million and private area groping nearly 40 million (counting involuntary pat-downs when all lanes eventually covered) of the remaining passengers. Not even if X-rated security theater were capable of saving that flight (absolutely no purpose at all in courthouses).
A Cornell University study showed 242 more driving fatalities per month occurred post 9/11: while driving to avoid flying (commenter #770 on the TSA survey above said he will fly to Mexico and drive to the U.S. if necessary). How long will it take the TSA to outscore Bin Laden on collateral kills (while killing the economy — come to think, Bin Laden did that too)?
The stratey is to bankrupt the USA and it is being effected from inside the USA.
I ONLY fly for business, if I cannot drive.
After 9/11 trips 700 miles and under are driving.
Winning are war profiteers and fascists.
Losing…………. Any semblence of US civil society.
The scanning is in response to the “underwerar bomber” attempt….. what was his name? oh yeah, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, anywho we have to scan children, grannies etc. because we don’t want to treat them any differently than young, male Muslims who associate with terrorist groups, because that would be “profiling.”
Sammy, you’re not implying that being Politically Correct is now more correct than the constitution? Nah!!!! You couldn’t be implying that! 🙂
This is an interesting conversation on Econospeak about the payroll tax holiday. The speakers are Bruce W and Levit. FYI.
http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2010/12/hidden-dagger-in-budget-deal.html
There is a lot of obsession dealing with sticking it to the rich. I.E. Our current president’s obsession on the number 250000. In my past post, I stated even if Bush tax cut expires, it won’t really stick it to the fat cats in wall street, the mega corporations. Instead, we will be hitting the productive “rich” whom honestly paid the highest tax rates already. If we stick it those rich and they tries to run away, whom are we going to replace them with?
Even if we maintained the Bush tax cuts, the current administration already targeted the baby boomers ready to cash out on their biggest retirement package. Anyone whom sells their house will pay 2.5 percent more tax. (it’s on the healthcare bill)
Again, the honest people pays their taxes and bears more and more insanity, but the masses including middle class kept voting believing they are voting to stick it to the rich!
When will the left and the right wake up and even the playing field between the honest people whom pays their taxes(small businesses) versus congress supported corporations whom write their own tax code?
Pax
i kind of a agree with you. but until they stop shouting about the deficit i am in favor of repealing all the Bush tax cuts. that would increase average taxes about 3% for the rich, and maybe a little less for the “middle”. i don’t think anyone would notice it if no one told them about it.
as for the poor, i think they should pay their payroll tax, all of it, plus the extra half of one tenth of one percent each year it will take to keep up with rising life expectancy.
get pretty tired of “tax the other guy” and “poor me.”
as for picking up the taxes on the chiselers, that’s a separate problem, but don’t hold your breath. us honest citizens will have the privilege of paying the country’s bills. wouldn’t have it any other way.
I used to drive a gypsy cab in the South Bronx. Relatively safe occupation; it’s not like I rode a motorcycle to work.
The Son of Sam was around then; hit a couple of people in the north-east Bronx area my car service of that time was located in. I told people there are 8 million people in New York; he’s not going to kill me.
A terrorist may bring down 1 of the 10 million domestically boarded flights this year — but it wont kill you. Terrorists are much more rare than accidents. And when they get here on the ground they try to kill us here on the ground here. They mostly don’t want to commit suicide.
If 10 bomb attempts were made in the next year we would have switch to a boarding security that actually worked — because the current setup would be lucky to thwart 2 of them. Israeli level security costs $50 a passenger more. We spend $6 a passenger; Israel spends $56. If we don’t want to pay the $50 we are not worried — not enough to strip search by the opposite sex (half the 800 million passengers a year) and too personally grope another 30-40 million (once the whole crazy thing is going 100%).
A TSA underwear bomber laugh: at first TSA prohibited bathroom visits for the last hour of flight — as if a suicide bomber would be afraid go to the bathroom without permission. What were they going to do about it, have the stewardess give him the ruler on the knuckes before he blew up the plane? 🙂
My poor librul heart is broken. I thought I was electing Martin Luther King. Instead, I got Michael Steel.
(Or worse, the Powells)
My poor librul heart is broken. I thought I was electing Martin Luther King. Instead, I got Michael Steel.
(Or worse, the Powells)
My poor librul heart is broken. I thought I was electing Martin Luther King. Instead, I got Michael Steel.
(Or worse, the Powells)
Oh, whow is me. The wealthy plantaion owners (Mitch McConell and the new Klan) have backed me into a caughner. I think I betta agree witch them and …. (for da ske of dem othaughts)
Oh, whow is me. The wealthy plantaion owners (Mitch McConell and the new Klan) have backed me into a caughner. I think I betta agree witch them and …. (for da ske of dem othaughts)
Oh, whow is me. The wealthy plantaion owners (Mitch McConell and the new Klan) have backed me into a caughner. I think I betta agree witch them and …. (for da ske of dem othaughts)
I think I went to far. I apologize to you.
Please delete my indiscretions.
Sorry.
I think I went to far. I apologize to you.
Please delete my indiscretions.
Sorry.
Sandi
if they can’t take a joke hellwiddem. i tried to explain the concept of uncle tom once to a woman who decided i must be a racist even after i told her where i learned the term.
I feel the Democrates have failed miserably in terms of making people “feel good” about themselves. People are always going to complain about taxes no matter what, unless one is actually benifiting from the status quo, entitlement programs etc.
I remember the Clinton years where somehow the charisma of his presidency overcome the objection of taxes. Similar thing from Reagon… Offcourse people are going to disagree over political ideologies but feeling good about the country your in contributes a lot more willingness to work together… Taxation matters included…LOL
COP 16, the global Warming Conference in Cancun, ended at nearly the same time as the release of this “Open thread”. Attended mostly by back benchers from the large industrial sates, it may very well be the last in the series of useless demagogic wealth redistribution blathering. Much press has been negative. A summary may be seen here: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/5392-cancun-climate-summit-ridiculed-in-world-press
Who are the “back benchers from the large industrial states,”?
Who are the “front benchers from the large industrial states,”?
Who are the “back benchers from the small industrial states,”?
Who are the “front benchers from the small industrial states,”?
Who picks front benchers?
Are they picked off back bench once in a while or all the time?
1) Back benchers: Ministers and lesser Govt officials.
2) Front benchers: National leaders.
3) Back benchers: Ministers and leaders of “Green” groups.
4) Front benchers: Same as 2 above.
I’ll reply to myself here so I can get right up front — it’s a cab driver thing. 🙂
This TSA mess is just another symptom of the SLUMMING of America for the average person. First we lost our pay; now we are losing our privacy. Core cause: creep-creep, A.K.A. Parkinson’s Law, A.K.A.. any pressure just naturally expands if not met by counter-pressure. In laissez faire America unlike in social democracy Europe there is never any counter pressure for the average person.
This is why in straight lace Illinois the Cook County courthouse started using scanners (hopefully not for long) while in wild and woolly California, county prosecutors threaten airport security with jail if they inappropriately touch (whatever that might mean under TSA laissez faire). In the “people’s republic” people EXPECT to be taken care of — makes all the difference.
European social democracy — contrary to the “socialist” label Newty and friends like to put on it — was invented, if that is the word, by very anti-communist, very conservative, German Roman Catholics — to TAMP DOWN wage demands so their post fascist industrialists could rebuild after the war.
The core of social democracy is sector-wide labor agreements. What works to tamp down the race-to-the-top (to keep one union from being afraid to moderate demands because they fear the others wont — worked our for the worst in post war England where they did not adopt sector-wide right away — now most everywhere in the better paying world) also prevents the (American style) race-to-the-bottom.
The free medical and education of the welfare state aspect of social democracy have no moral hazard component (saith Hayek) — no reason we have to copy their automatic dole.
Sector-wide would be the easiest, most saleable way to introduce Americans to the idea of being taken care of right. Airline and super-market workers would kill for sector-wide.
drew
sounds interesting. would be a hard sell in america, even without the “social” in the label, on accounta the powers that be don’t want it, the media won’t tell the people, and the people haven’t a clue.
i would throw into the mix my own ideas about insurance as insurance, protected by the government in the same way SS works, but funded directly by the workers themselves. this is not working for SS at the moment because the Liars have been pretending that SS is welfare, and even the liberals have been talking about it like it is, and like they want it to be even more like welfare.
but i can dream of an America where people know what they are talking about.
pax
exactly
a tax raise should be sold as a patriotic act for the good of the country… at least until the deficit is “solved.” instead we get everyone saying tax the other guy, cut my taxes, oh the horrible deficit we are all going to die, unless granny is forced to work until she dies, of course.
MG
I’m not sure of which exchange you’re referring to on the thread you linked to. If it is the final exchange concerning time for change then yes, this is just one more action that underscores the need for a reassessment of our values as a country. That is especially true of the elected officials that represent us in the Congress and the Presidency. The country has lost its way. Or maybe it all suits the financial elite. It has been working very well for them.
coberly,
My primary focus is on the labor market. As long as Americans are not organized they will not only lack economic muscle but pollitical as well.
Jack,
You should read the new main post that I cited and then my comments as well as juan’s in the thread.
There is a capitalists vs. Marxists standoff in play. No question.
We have a number of participants who are anti-capitalist as evidenced by their remarks here and elsewhere. We have had two recent main posts focusing on anti-American positions and, most recently, a main post focusing on the economic views of a known Marxist who is an anti-capitalist.
Saying that blog is looking more and more like a standoff between capitalists and communists may not be fully accurate, but it’s safe to say that the standoff is with Marxists, socialists, and others opposed to capitalism. There should be no denying this point at this time. It’s becoming clear.
Check it out.
MG,
I’m sorry to disillusion you, but there are no marxists that are getting any air time here or else where in America. Some commenters may identify themselves as left of center, as liberal, as socialist, etc, but none of their comments has even the slightest odor of socialism. What you’re reading as marxist is simply other people’s view of what good and responsible government in a democracy should look like. Holding businesses and individuals accountable for the consequences of their actions on the lives of others is not socialism, but good government of any kind. It is no different from those
MG,
I’m sorry to disillusion you, but there are no marxists that are getting any air time here or else where in America. Some commenters may identify themselves as left of center, as liberal, as socialist, etc, but none of their comments has even the slightest odor of socialism. What you’re reading as marxist is simply other people’s view of what good and responsible government in a democracy should look like. Holding businesses and individuals accountable for the consequences of their actions on the lives of others is not socialism, but good government of any kind. It is no different from those actions of our government that are taken inorder to assure the success of various sectors of our economy. The Too Big to Fail Bank bailout was a huge government investment in saving the fraudulent asses of the financial industry. Was that an indication of a socialist government? I don’t think so. The only indications of any socialist behavior in the good old USofA is when our government or its elected officials is looking out for the financial interests of its high society citizens. I’m rather surprised that a Federal judge has decided that the government can’t force individuals to buy health insurance from private health insurance companies. That provision was a perfect example of socialist medling in the free market, but it only advantaged the private marketeers.
Jack,
Did you read the newer main post that I linked?
Jack,
I am copying your comment and adding it on this thread’s discussion:
http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/12/beyond-tax-cuts-and-stimulus.html#comments