Sonoma County Sheriff posted 911 call and some bodycam footage of the event on their Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=299507084375956

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised...

The US has a long storied history of destroying freedom. The prohibition, the Cold War years, post 911 etc. The fact that a lot of people still buy in to the comfortable lie that they live in the "land of the free" is because admitting they are meat puppets for a corrupt government is too bitter a pill too swallow + the US national sense of superiority to places like China because they do things better than those totalitarians...

This will not change. There is no analogous period in history to compare to. The participants of the French revolution or the American war of independance didn't have facebook or twitter to sit around whining on and feeling like they were making a difference. They got off their asses and rose up because the only alternative was to be ploughed under.

Online slacktivism is an acceptable panacea for the discontented masses, they have an outlet to complain while easily identifying themselves as 'persons of interest'.

1. Lower taxation, these things cost money (initial outlay and ongoing costs) to keep an eye on a populace that, by and large, aren't doing anything wrong. Most of us don't want em, don't need em and don't want to pay for them.

2. Changing rules aka slippery slope. The people who agree to big brother on the first day might become victims of it later down the track. Once you establish a state where the citizens are constantly under surveillance and have accepted that onus, you can implement worse measures. Look at post 911 USA... Land of the free? As long as you don't mind the government setting up camp in your rectum 24/7.

3. There is no such thing as "safe". CCTV doesn't deter crime, it just catches the idiots too stupid to take it in to account (ie. people who cut down poles sans facial coverings for example...). Much like any other precaution, criminals find ways around CCTV. That is not an argument for more surveillance, it's an argument about the futility of it in the first place.

4. Sometimes the rules should be broken. How many things were illegal 100 years ago that are perfectly legal now? Worse, think of the things that were legal 100 years ago that are outlawed now (*hint: most of them are self harm crimes such as drug use etc) How often have nanny states tried to decree what you can and can't do only to find that people do not want to live under that rule? The camera is the start, if they can see what you are doing constantly, they can stop you. Why do you think organisations like Anonymous exist? To quote a memorable cutscene from Sid Meir's Alpha Centauri, "We must dissent...".

Send 10 bucks to the charity of your choice.

If we take her at her word.
Okay, she didn't know that in this post-Seattle, post-911, post-Oakland, Drug War obsessed America that the cops would use inappropriate violence against non-violent student protesters.

Well, then someone that stupid shouldn't be a chancellor of a university.

I seem to recall McCain making statements about Obama being dangerously naive and not having a correct mindset for our "post-911 world" -- which at the time I considered to be about the best endorsement that McCain could make for Obama. I think the steps of implication here go like this:

1. new scanners and patdowns piss everybody off
2. they come from the TSA
3. the TSA is part of the government
4. Obama is the boss of the government
5. Obama is a democrat
6. Democrats are pissing everybody off! Vote republican!

Before getting caught in that trap, remember what McCain said. Did he give you the impression that if he had been elected, he'd have been stronger about homeland security and have a better "post-911 world" mindset by being less extreme in TSA crackdowns? I rather doubt it.

That being said, some accountability is a good thing. The woman is the secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. A real "change I could believe in" would be for Obama to boot her out of his cabinet, and then to disband the entire Department of making everyone in the Homeland feel more inSecurity, along with the TSA.

Of course that won't happen, but I do think that some more unrest and civil disobedience, lawsuits, etc. could restore some measure of sanity back to the system.

>> ^Mikus_Aurelius:

>> ^harry:
And as a herp derp Yurpean, I'm struck by that little American flag there. Is that a fairly normal thing in classrooms?

Students are lead in the pledge of allegiance (to the flag) every morning. So every room where students may start the day needs a flag.


Only in some states. The number of such states increased a bit in the post-911 jingoism. For example in Missouri we had to say the pledge daily until about 1992, then it was removed in favor of actually spending that time learning something, and then in 2002 Missouri's congress passed a law that forced my school district to do the pledge once a week. I think the pledge of allegiance is creepy because it simultaneously resembles both Nazi Germany and The Borg.

Wharrgarble! We're not "living in a different age", we're not in a "post-911" world. The TSA is a massive overreaction to one incident. That incident sucked, and there is no downplaying it. But the lesson that needed to be learned, ie that hijackers might do more with a hijacked plane that just kill everyone on board (as terrible as that alone is), has been learned.

Half the the response should be to lock cabin doors. Done. The other half should be for travelers on planes to remain alert and be willing to fight back against hijackers. Done - flight 93 accomplished that before the 9/11 attacks were even finished.

Instead, the TSA is created. Charged with the task of delaying, inconveniencing, and harassing law-abiding citizen travelers while doing absolutely nothing of any real value to prevent or limit terrorist attacks.

The shoebomber happens, all of a sudden everybody has to wait in line to take off shoes. Somebody realizes that some binary explosives are made by mixing liquids, all of a sudden you can't take a bottle of goddamn water or toothpaste on a plane. The Bush administration decides to make a massive list of names for a "no fly list", all of a sudden many completely innocent people are detained and harassed simply because they happen to share a name with someone who may have a tenuous connection to "terrorism". Not to mention the people who get put on the list out of pure spite, like reporters who question TSA practices. I shudder to think what the response to the "undies-bomber" is going to be.

Now Cheney et al are criticizing Obama for "failing to keep America safe". How about criticizing the goddamn TSA? How about remembering that you're infinitely more likely to die in a car accident, or from smoking-induced lung cancer, or even from being bitten by a snake than you are to die in an air-travel incident, terror related or not?

It bothers me these responses to Cheney running his mouth are good in that they make us remember that a lot of this crap started on the Bush administration's watch, but they don't go the bit further and point out what an obvious farce and waste of time, effort, and money the TSA is in general.

Growing up in the 'Bible Belt', Christmas was a a big deal. I used to look forward to decorating the tree when I was younger, and I would get really excited about opening gifts Christmas morning, so a good night's sleep was rarely an option. There was always this excitement around the holidays for me. In December of '91 I spent my first Christmas away from home and family, and instead spent it in bootcamp.

I think the first time you spend Christmas away from family and you don't make a big deal to celebrate it, it just becomes another day. I still like to get back to North Carolina/South Carolina to see family, but I rarely go back anymore because flying in this post-911 era sucks a massive Jesus cock. I'm not going back to NC/SC this year, either.

I've yet to put a tree up since being on my own. One of these years, however, I may just surprise myself and put up a tree and hang lights and do all that other annoyingly domestic crap. But, then again, probably not.

Thanks for the promote ant.

In reply to this comment by ant:
This is late for east coast, but 9/11 is still here west zones of it AND I didn't have two points to *promote ! Thanks Digg for the reminder -- http://digg.com/television/Flashback_to_The_Daily_Show_s_First_Post_9_11_Show
(official video from CC but blocked to foreigns).

I've seen talk of a blind queue on Sift Talk before, but it was talked down mainly because it does serve a purpose for time-crunched sifters who want to help the queue in some tangible way...

It's an interesting conversation up there, but it looks like I'm too late for the party. And I'm listening to the NADS talk on http://www.videosift.com/video/The-Daily-Show-First-Post-911-Episode so I can't really concentrate on this right now.

My first attempt:
http://my.videosift.com/video/Politics-Aside-War--2
Thought Bushs' Post 911 speech set to heavy metal was surely a way in....

And second:
http://my.videosift.com/video/No-Collection-is-Complete-without-Trojan-Games-NSFW--2
That didn't work so maybe ya'll wanted it sexy!

Finally got up the nerve to try again 3 days later: My first front page post was a beer commercial. LOL
http://www.videosift.com/video/He-who-knows-knows

A brew you may enjoy Michie: Lazy Sunday UK (We Drink Tea) - my next promote, tomorrow. I'll have to wait until next Wednesday to save Post 911 Blues though - I have an older promise to deliver first, sorry!

I see you've got more proactive on those playlists! Nice work...

In reply to your comment:
“lovely...lets all have a nice cuppa tea”

Hope this isn't banned like MTV and most British radio stations did after it's release. Can't see why it was considered too controversial myself.

I mean ..who hasn't got the post 911 blues?

James is right, just like post-911 saw a large boom in the securities market the same thing would happen for clean air technologies. However I must admit that even though that is predictable market forces at work people will be against the idea because short-temr losses are still highest priority. Many have been a time when goverments rescued badly ran companies.

The basic economic fact is that imposition of clean air acts, emmission standards and maybe exchangable tariff tickets would mean there will be a evolutionary step to eliminating all the polluters who cannot clean up their act. However just think of the PR buzz one would create selling itself on clean technology. You already see this with many companies like Shell.