*citation needed

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

GeesusFreak: There are plenty of private prisons.

Okay, I'll throw my testicles into the ring. First, Amanda Marcotte is a staunch feminist and modern liberal. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's important to note when considering the source of the above article. Not sure why DFT is posting it here as if it was anything but a biased article.

Second, I like how NetRunner tried to completely disqualify GeeSussFreeK's comment by pointing out I'm not part of the national media. That was classic. Apparently NR has never heard of BNN. It's only the smallest national news outlet in all the world.

Third, and most importantly, why does the Democratic fight against "privatization" take precedence over their fight against the civil rights violations? Honestly this comes back to bipartisanship. Going along with the party and all that.

The truth is the TSA is under the purview of the Obama Administration so it opens this entire discourse up to bipartisan rhetoric, and that's all we're seeing here with NR and DFT. I believe if the porno-scanners and the enhanced gate rape pat downs were implemented under the McCain Administration (shudder) then the Republicans would be saying the exact same shit the Democrats are saying now, "These are the times we live in" and "The number one priority is safety" and so on.

And the Democrats would be in the streets protesting them for their civil rights violations. What hypocrisy. Where are our civil liberties loving Democrats? Oh, that's right, they're too busy defending their saintly leader to fight the good fight. Maybe later when a Republican gets in office we'll see the "Party of Peace" rear their pretty Code Pink faces again. Wouldn't that be something?

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Did you see the post Blank had where the guy just flat out says we are violating your 4th amendments rights...now sit down and shut up....I might be paraphrasing a bit.

Is blankfist part of the national media?

As for the rest, this is the other half of why I'm annoyed about the way the right operates, even when on the surface they agree with us. They're not satisfied to join onto a campaign that says "we want the TSA to scale back what they do", instead you've always got to make this into an excuse for extracting some sort of pound of government flesh.

Instead of focusing on the actual problem (overbearing security requirements on flights), the libertarian voices demand that we privatize the TSA (read: hire for-profit companies to conduct the gropings and porno scans at the TSA's behest) as if that's a solution to the issue. Republicans want that too, but they also want the gropings and porno scanners to say, they just want to make sure white people don't have to suffer them use racial profiling to determine who gets singled out for these invasive measures.

The more consistent (but even less reasonable) libertarians say they'll only sign on if what we aim for is abolishing the TSA entirely, and while we're at it the DHS too.

Throughout, all the various right-wing groups try to pretend like somehow this was originally a Democratic idea, and that the liberal grassroots were and are all for it.

The sad thing is, most if not all liberals are on the "small government" side of this argument. They want less onerous restrictions on airline security, period. I think plenty of them would be fine with turning over the actual hiring of security guards and purchase of scanners to the airlines, and leave the TSA as more of a regulatory agency than an actual paramilitary organization. Most see this whole process as an erosion of their civil rights.

Thing is, does the right want to tap into that and actually build a coalition that could do something about it? Or are they going to insist that this is all about conservative heroes fighting to defeat liberal villains, and thus guarantee that nothing changes?

>> ^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?


I'm so glad you discovered this sudden interest in corporate donations in politics. Let's look at those contributions: http://www.followthemoney.org/database/IndustryTotals.phtml

Looks like Republicans and Democrats are leading the race with a large majority. And which party are you defending again?

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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?

>> ^quantumushroom:
Or you can vote Libertarian and get an awesome .10% of the vote.
Libertarian ideas = Yay! but man, are they poorly marketed. You'd be better off changing the GOP from the inside like Ron Paul. Oh, it's possible. How do think the Donkey Party went from center-left to radical marxist?
>> ^blankfist:
This is what voting for Democrats and Republicans gets you. Republicans created the Department of Homeland Security and the Democrats increased its security measures to include porno-scanners and gate rape pat down techniques. This was change we could all believe in.



Yes, but is it the fault of Libertarians for selling well made American products but not advertising them right? Or is it American's faults for buying cheap-made Chinesse prodcuts with lead because they look pretty?

I say the fault lies nothing with the party and everything to do with the people. Besides, what would better advertisement do? People want the handouts that Repubs give and Democrats give---how can Libertarians fight that?

Corporations and 'market forces' are how we got here. I know that by admitting that, you'd have to tear down your entire belief system and start over from scratch, and that's a lot to ask of anyone. I've got no problems attempting to treat the numerous symptoms, but this kind of shit is going to continue as long as big business is in the drivers seat.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
Who said anything about them being the "brainchild" of Obama? You're stuck in that fallacious bipartisan thinking. Just because I've got a beef with Obama doesn't mean I an absolving Bush of his atrocities. But he's not "in charge" anymore, so to insinuate that these porno-scanners are in place now because of Bush's Administration is a fallacious and disingenuous argument. Let's go over the finer points:

First, the TSA today is under the purview of the Obama Administration, so anything it does is the fault of that administration. Period. The chain of command works like this: TSA > Department of Homeland Security (DHS) > Janet Napolitano > Obama. When Obama is no longer the president, then the TSA will be the responsibility of the new Administration... and so on.

Second, more porno-scanners are being added under Obama.

Third, the "enhanced security procedures" are being added under Obama. This includes touching of groins and the added frequency of the porno-scanners.

Fourth, Obama even admits the buck stops with him.

Lastly, Obama ran on a platform of "change". That change was meant to "correct" the ills of the previous administration, including the Bush Doctrine, FISA, the Patriot Act, and domestically the DHS. It hasn't been corrected. It's gotten worse.

Who said anything about them being the "brainchild" of Obama? You're stuck in that fallacious bipartisan thinking. Just because I've got a beef with Obama doesn't mean I an absolving Bush of his atrocities. But he's not "in charge" anymore, so to insinuate that these porno-scanners are in place now because of Bush's Administration is a fallacious and disingenuous argument. Let's go over the finer points:

First, the TSA today is under the purview of the Obama Administration, so anything it does is the fault of that administration. Period. The chain of command works like this: TSA > Department of Homeland Security (DHS) > Janet Napolitano > Obama. When Obama is no longer the president, then the TSA will be the responsibility of the new Administration... and so on.

Second, more porno-scanners are being added under Obama.

Third, the "enhanced security procedures" are being added under Obama. This includes touching of groins and the added frequency of the porno-scanners.

Fourth, Obama even admits the buck stops with him.

Lastly, Obama ran on a platform of "change". That change was meant to "correct" the ills of the previous administration, including the Bush Doctrine, FISA, the Patriot Act, and domestically the DHS. It hasn't been corrected. It's gotten worse.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

^I think it's better when you do. Leave the insults and bullshit behind, and deal in facts.
These machines were not the brainchild of Obama, and for you to imply they were is dishonest. If you want to talk about corruption, and Obama getting cozy with scanner CEO's, I'm down with that. My big problem with you is that you are either unwilling or unable to see these same corrupting market forces in your own ideology. Over the last few decades of deregulation and increased market influence over our politics, things have gotten drastically worse. Markets have proven that they are neither efficient or just, and they have zero to do with liberty.


I have been dealing in facts. In no way did I mean to imply these scanners were his brainchild. I'm not even sure that's relevant to anything. My point is simple: currently, the TSA is under the Obama Administration, and these pat down procedures and recent additions of more porno-scanners has happened under his rule.

Therefore. He. is. Responsible.

Pointing out anything Bush has done is disingenuous because Obama ran on a platform of "change", so shouldn't he be "changing" the Bush policies instead of worsening them? Or are you okay with his lies as long as people like me aren't here to rub your nose in it?

Umm... Religious doctrine? Cults? Market research? Corporate policy? Economic policy by banks, hedge funds, Wall St.? Big Pharma? Big Agro? Big Oil? People who blame government for everything don't understand government. Government fails because of people, not because of intention. If you are down on government save us all the time and just denounce humanity and go live in a cave somewhere. Build your own running water system, police, and fire dept. while you're at it.

Also, if you don't like it, don't fly. Maybe instead of bitching about the TSA you could suggest an alternative? Do something constructive? I'm not going to sit here and scream "GROPING" and "PORNO" for these measures, even though I don't like them either. Call a spade a spade. The kid will be just fine. He'll get over it. Check your rhetoric. It's a brave new world. Educate yourself about it before you turn into the very type of radical that gets everyone into trouble.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Ever notice how the only thing in human history that EVER creates that kind of mindset is government policy?

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Sorry to contradict your dishonest narrative, but Bush Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was the guy behind the porno scanners. He got his corporate buddies a huge contract to create them back in 2005.
"Chertoff’s advocacy for the technology dates to his time in the Bush administration. In 2005, Homeland Security ordered the government’s first batch of the scanners - five from California-based Rapiscan Systems. Rapiscan is one of only two companies that make full-body scanners in accordance with current contract specifications required by the federal government."
Boston Globe Article:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/w
ashington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/
wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff#Body_Scanner
s_and_Conflict_of_Interest


Also I can post links, too.

Body Scanner Manufacturer Accompanies Obama on Trip to India:
http://publicintelligence.net/body-scanner-manufacturer-accompanies-obama-on-trip-to-india/