>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

At least forcing corporations to have to take that extra step by bribing the government slows them down a little. Deregulation just cuts out the middle man.
Corporations will do what they please with or without a corrupt government standing in its way. The only way to break the cycle would be major campaign finance reform and the reversal of the mind-bogglingly corrupt and unethical 5 to 4 Supreme Court ruling that gives corporations unlimited, anonymous influence over our electoral process.


Doesn't that just place the power into the hands of people who can throw you in jail though? I mean, a robber baron might be able to rip you off, but he can't lock you up...or fine you for not buying his product. Governments tend to be one of the main factors in companies abilities to gain captured audiences as well. Like what I consider the first big monopoly of a non-natural resource was the East India Company, which was a government sanctioned monopoly. In our current day, some of the most power forces on the planet started as government sanctioned monopolies..and some still are; the cable and phone companies. Sure they got broken up once or twice, but states and municipalities still make it illegal in many areas to run new cable. As a result, their power blossomed into the media super giants that control a great deal of the worlds information. That power is slowly being undermined by things like NPR, Real News Network, and various other small label news outlets.

My main point is that government intervention has the guise of being the only solution to social problems of domination by wealth. But in reality, you are only trading domination of wealth for domination of liberty AND wealth...over time. The entropy of that system is worse than of us getting pissed at the railroads, and either using and developing new technology or bocotting, ect.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

It's win/win for corporations. Lobby the government to give you huge contracts to build invasive scanners, then criticize the government for using invasive scanners, then propose the government privatize airport security.
Corporations profit from corruption and then use the corruption they funded to justify giving themselves more power, which also gives them more ability to create more corruption, which they can then use to justify giving themselves more power.... rinse and repeat until plutocracy is achieved.


Heheh indeed, doesn't it seem like the solution would to be to keep government sponsored corruption out, and let airports decide what is best for them and their passengers? It seems like the only way to break the cycle of which you speak.

^It's win/win for corporations who profit off of both roles, villain and hero. Lobby the government to give you huge contracts to build invasive scanners, then criticize the government for using invasive scanners, then propose the government privatize airport security.

Corporations profit from corruption and then use the corruption they funded to justify giving themselves more power, which also gives them more ability to create more corruption, which they can then use to justify giving themselves more power.... rinse and repeat until plutocracy is achieved.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

hmmmmm....
Who benefits over the TSA controversy?
The civil liberties fight over airport body-scanning and patdowns is tainted by corporate interests. It's time to follow the money
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamer
ica/2010/nov/26/air-transport-theairlineindustry
Congressman Seeks to Ditch TSA for Private Firms, Some of Them Campaign Donors
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/19/airports-consid
er-con">http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/19/airports-consider-congressmans-ditch-tsa/#ixzz16huP7lCLhttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/19/airports-cons
ider-con
gressmans-ditch-tsa/


Isn't their money in the scanners for someone already though? And if it wasn't the government, by nature it would be private firms, right? If they government wasn't involved with regulating those firms it wouldn't have implied power to install its "buddies" either. If it was completely left up to airports, and their partners, the airlines, and their primary customer, the traveler, I would say it would most likely be a better process overall. Did you see that other sift about the bomb dogs? Seems like a pretty neat solution, depending on the effectiveness.

You are right though, we want to avoid another Goldman Sachs level corporate scandal of the TSA...err should I say MORE of a scandal, or furthers scandal.

I would rather have racial profiling than DEATH SCANNERS and COCK GROPING, but that's probably because I'm a Caucasian male with a friendly face.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I wonder why this issue is getting so much attention in the corporate media. Is this all leading towards something? Perhaps privatization of the industry with contracts going out to corporate campaign patrons? If that happens, I called it first.


Perhaps, but I think it has more to do with they get to show people and talk about people being naked...a lot. That sells by the truckloads. It just happens that what sells is actually relevant for freedom for a change...unlike the normal indulgence of Celebrities and Politicians.

Fullbody x-ray (nude 'scatter type') scanners at mall, now!!

I'm fine with it, so why aren't you.

I don't know if TSA scanners are dangerous or not. The manufacturers claim they are safe, while this guy says they are not. He says they MAY be dangerous. However, he has NOT tested the machines themselves. No one outside of the manufacturers have tested them. Therefore independent testing needs to be performed.

BTW, there are actually two types of scanners in use at airports: millimeter wave scanners and X-ray backscatter machines. It's the X-ray backscatter machines that have some experts concerned. Read the transcripts from an actual interview with Dr. Brenner, the same one Dr. Corsi referred to. Dr. Brenner suggests independent testing because they can only guess at the radiation levels from the machines based on the images they've seen. He thinks they radiation levels are higher because of those images, but he (along with other experts) are NOT sure.

This guy is being alarmist, which is totally irresponsible, and he's also misrepresenting Dr. Brenner's comments on the subject, which is downright deceitful.

Like Dr. Brenner suggests, let there be independent testing on the machines. Maybe they ARE bad. But we can't draw conclusions based on what we know right now.

>> ^entr0py:

But, she didn't actually suggest body scanners for trains, ships and buses, did she?

You're right. She did not. But if she did install the backscatter x-rays and 'gate rape' pat down procedures at bus stations, train stations and ship ports, would it really change your opinion of her in the slightest? And why are Democrats now laying down and claiming "this is the world we live in" instead of protesting this for the civil liberties violation that it is?

But, she didn't actually suggest body scanners for trains, ships and buses, did she? This is another example of Fox News stepping over the line between exaggeration and simply lying about shit.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5311-janet-napolitano-considers-advanced-screenings-for-mass-transit

Even the Fox News website got it right originally. Compare this to the impression you just got from the video:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/25/body-scanners-headed-trains-ships-mass-transit/

*lies

I mean..., Isn't Lobbying just a fancy word for "BRIBE"!
>> ^Reefie:

Skip the first 45 seconds!
Oh and some interesting info about lobbying by the scanner manufacturers:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-22-scanner-lobby_N.htm

The guy running the scanner probably recognized him. "OMG! IT'S RAZOR BLADES!! Oh. It's the Mythbuster dude. Nevermind."

Skip the first 45 seconds!

Oh and some interesting info about lobbying by the scanner manufacturers:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-11-22-scanner-lobby_N.htm

>> ^jwray:

Yeah, fuck the TSA.
But how are they going to find a nonmetallic glock in somebody's jacket without either a scanner or a pat-down? Oh, right, because they don't exist. There is no such thing as a gun without metal in it.

But what about John Malkovich's gun from In the Line of Fire? Are you telling me that the movies lied to me??

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Adam, Savage, TSA, body scanner, seattle, ineffective' to 'Adam Savage, TSA, body scanner, seattle, ineffective' - edited by lucky760