This link isn't what is says it is...perhaps I need to fast forward to some unknown time indication?

You're absolutely right...I do not know what happened. It indexed correctly earlier.

I am not able to find it on the vid now...may have to play the whole thing to find it and fix or discard it and start over.

Sorry about that. Thank you for the comment alerting me.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This link isn't what is says it is...perhaps I need to fast forward to some unknown time indication?


>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

This link isn't what is says it is...perhaps I need to fast forward to some unknown time indication?

Fixed.

Thanks to GeeSussFreek again.

*quality *doublepromote

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Double-Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Thursday, November 18th, 2010 9:31am PST - doublepromote requested by gwiz665.

Nothing helpful at all.
A single paragraph bill? Proposing senators go through it? (As if they don't already?)

Dont get me wrong, I like Ron Paul...but this is just, meh...wasting his breath really.

I have a feeling it's been many a year since anyone has wanted to touch Ron's junk.

>> ^charliem:

Nothing helpful at all.
A single paragraph bill? Proposing senators go through it? (As if they don't already?)
Dont get me wrong, I like Ron Paul...but this is just, meh...wasting his breath really.


If you wanted to exact change, make the people who write it and the agents themselves...it is the quickest way to exact change. For example, make it law that all US employees could not have someone else do their taxes for them, they had to complete all aspects without any help whatsoever...you would have such a drastic change to simplify the tax code it would make your head spin.

I have also been considering an amendment to the constitution. That ALL federal legislation have a maximum time limit, let say 10 years. That way, any unpopular, or down right complete failures of legislation would expire without a huge act of congress (drug war, wars in general, war on terror, DHS, ect). Basically, we would keep what works, and what doesn't would fall away. (it would also bog down congress a bit, which was always the founders intent with the system)

Speaking of being treated like cattle, has anyone ever eaten at a Texas roadhouse?

Ron Paul: Groping people at the airport doesn't solve our problems.

Me: Wait, what?

Why isn't this man president?

*promote a politician doing the right thing.

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, November 19th, 2010 7:08am PST - promote requested by blankfist.

IMO we should be more tolerant of these screening practices. We have to secure our airports.

You know, his bill may be too simplistic and may NEVER see the light of day, but he's speaking on behalf of everybody in our country and he's doing a great job voicing my thoughts and fears. If this is merely a cathartic rant by Mr. Paul, I'm still happy to have heard it.

>> ^rottenseed:

You know, his bill may be too simplistic and may NEVER see the light of day, but he's speaking on behalf of everybody in our country and he's doing a great job voicing my thoughts and fears. If this is merely a cathartic rant by Mr. Paul, I'm still happy to have heard it.


The bill is supposed to remove immunity for certain Federal employees.

@blankfist "supposed to" and what it actually does can become two very different things by the time they pass this bill. I won't hold my breathe.

Everything about this makes perfect sense.
>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^charliem:
Nothing helpful at all.
A single paragraph bill? Proposing senators go through it? (As if they don't already?)
Dont get me wrong, I like Ron Paul...but this is just, meh...wasting his breath really.

If you wanted to exact change, make the people who write it and the agents themselves...it is the quickest way to exact change. For example, make it law that all US employees could not have someone else do their taxes for them, they had to complete all aspects without any help whatsoever...you would have such a drastic change to simplify the tax code it would make your head spin.
I have also been considering an amendment to the constitution. That ALL federal legislation have a maximum time limit, let say 10 years. That way, any unpopular, or down right complete failures of legislation would expire without a huge act of congress (drug war, wars in general, war on terror, DHS, ect). Basically, we would keep what works, and what doesn't would fall away. (it would also bog down congress a bit, which was always the founders intent with the system)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Ron Paul, House of Representatives, TSA, DHS, Boycott, Opt Out, Pat Downs' to 'Ron Paul, House of Representatives, TSA, DHS, Boycott, Opt Out, Pat Downs, HR 6416' - edited by MarineGunrock

If anyone wants to read this common sense short bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h6416:

Excerpt:
"No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent."

What's no to like?

^ So if an airport receives any federal funds (for whatever reason) then they wouldn't be able to provide their own security?

I know people don't like being searched, and I'm fine with keeping the government out of it, but I have a feeling that some airlines will want a way to prevent their aircraft randomly exploding mid-flight.

Let's look at it this way. There are better ways to secure the airport and the airliners. But people need to realize this: danger is everywhere. Threat is everywhere. You walk outside you risk of endangering yourself to a hit & run. You walk outside and there's a threat to your health of someone who is smoking near the door. You walk inside your home and there is danger that there's a gas leak that you're not aware of. You take a shower and there's a danger that you may slip & fall. You sleep at night and there's the danger of monoxide poisoning. The point: you are never completely safe. Danger is always around us. When it is our time to go, it is our time. Shit happens.

What I hate is how people rely so much on others and the gov't to keep themselves safe. If there's a hijacker on the plane, what's to fear? It's one (maybe 2) against 50+ people! C'mon, man!

Yes, Sept 11 is a tragic day. It does leave a bad scar. But so did Pearl Harbor. It's time for the American people to move on and start standing up for themselves. USA is supposed to embody freedom. FREEDOM. Yet many are now prisoners of their fears because of terrorists. You can't win the war on terror if the American population are too scared to fend for themselves.

Too bad Al Qaeda never existed.

Otherwise, the TSA might have a point.

It's only Muslims who should be deep scanned and patted down, and they should have to do it in a separate line. Why do Muslims even need to fly? To hate Jews in two different cities on the same day?

That's right folks, I'm addressing the elephant in the room. The one wearing a turban.

@quantumushroom, Sikhs wear turbans, not Muslims.

Oh yeah?
Last time I recalled, not a single one of the 19 terrorists from 9/11 was wearing turbans. We have to come to terms with reality and accept the fact that not all people are terrorists, and as Ron said, the problem is mainly the failure of our foreign policy. These body scans are worthless and we are always one step behind. I could think of simpler ways to create more terror in our homeland, one of which is dropping a HME in a trash can at a mall or in a populated subway station. What's next, these silly machines at every mall/subway station?


>> ^quantumushroom:

It's only Muslims who should be deep scanned and patted down, and they should have to do it in a separate line. Why do Muslims even need to fly? To hate Jews in two different cities on the same day?
That's right folks, I'm addressing the elephant in the room. The one wearing a turban.

100% correct.

This TSA bullshit is just that - bullshit. The statisical odds of being a victim of aircraft terrorism is astonomically low and the amount of time and resources dedicated to "preventing" it has been astronomically high - what a misappropriation of effort.

Freedom is dangerous kids... wear a cup.

>> ^ObsidianStorm:
Freedom is dangerous kids... wear a cup.

Congratulations! You've just won the blankfist 'ain't that the damn truth' prize! And the prize is a picture of Peter Temple. Enjoy!

What an honor!

I'd like the thank the academy...

>> ^blankfist:
Sikhs wear turbans, not Muslims.




HI Wikipedia! Say, could you come over here for a minute?

The men of many Islamic cultures have worn or wear a headdress of some sort that may be considered a turban. Islam considers the turban as being a Sunnah Mu'akkadah (Confirmed Tradition) . Head wraps that men wear are called several names and worn in different ways dependent on region and culture.


I love Sikhs. Sikhs do not consider non-Sikhs a threat, nor try to kill or convert them, unlike you-know-Alahu.

You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal. For that reason, any self-righteous goofii who feel bad for The Profiled may join them in the separate line.

I'm just gonna throw this out there, when it comes to security like an airline, racial profiling is not a bad thing. If the actual people in the TSA were a bit more clever like for instance the Israeli airport security (who's had to deal with potential terrorist since forever) then shit like this never needs to happen.

>> ^quantumushroom:

You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal.

I challenge that as an assumption, one that is generally held by most people (even liberals). So I actually decided to do some research; imagine that!

Before I started I'd say my opinion was that I was sceptical about any useful correlation between terrorism and race or citizenship but if any strong correlation could be found then it may be possible to convince me that it becomes a question of weighing the security benefits against the offence caused to individuals.

It's also my opinion (and still is) that the mainstream media continues to portray correlation between terrorism in the US and UK and Islamists through consistent inference, without ever stating it as fact; and therefore not requiring validation or providing opportunity to be directly contested.

I looked at the list of notable aircraft hijackings on wikipedia and followed them up via the references and/or additional searching. My conclusion is that if any profiling is used in America then it would be most useful to target middle aged white American men; and any Americans citizens with flying experience.

Here are names of people who did board a plane at a US airport and then subsequently hijacked the aircraft:

John J Divivo
D. B. Cooper (pseudonym)
Billy Gene Hurst Jr
Garret Trapnell
Melvin C. Cale, Louis Cale, Henry D. Jackson, Jr.
Clay Thomas
Aubern Calloway

There was a spate of hijackings by both Americans and Cubans in the 60's and 70's; mostly for political reasons that was mostly quelled by a Cuban-American agreement; and there was a notable incident of a hijacking by Croatian separatists in '76. Other than that, hijackings were overwhelmingly committed by white and black Americans.

Doing a more general search I couldn't actually find any hijacking of aircraft by middle eastern or Muslim passengers who boarded a plane at a US airport, apart from 9/11.

The most recent hijacking prior to 9/11 was Aubern Calloway; a black American and former pilot for FedEx who had a personal beef with his employees.

I also continued reading about non air related terrorism in the US and UK and found that the vast majority of incidents are domestic and carried out by non Muslim, non middle eastern men. I also noticed that whenever the individual perpetrators of an incident are unknown, then it will generally be attributed to an Islamic organisation; but when the perpetrators are found they are almost always non Muslim. This remains true in recent times, as well as in past history.

You can make a pretty decent start with this list of terrorist incidents; however it must be pointed out that it's generally difficult to define what is and what is not an act of terrorism; and as the issue is about security then I think what we're really interested in is any destructive and harmful incident.

To be honest I was quite surprised by the extent to which there is a lack of correlation; as well as the extreme rarity of terrorist incidents when compared to the media representation that we get of them.

If you ever find yourself wondering if anyone around you is a terrorist then the only people you can really discount are women and children. I'd therefore offer that it would be much more useful and give you a much happier day if you just stopped wondering altogether.

Hey, maybe D. B. Cooper was secretly a Muslim.

@quantum: You dont think that maybe, just maybe, if a rule was introduced that only needed to be searched, they might ... i dunno... recruit non muslim looking extreamists ?

just a thought. I know their usually quite incompetent, but even by those standards this is a stretch.

With all due respect, hijackings are not the primary threat as the means to accomplish such deeds have been handily remedied by fairly simply and minimally intrusive procedures and technology.

Things that go boom....
>> ^L0cky:

>> ^quantumushroom:
You all know who we REALLY need to profile: primarily swarthy Middle Eastern men ages 18 - 40 and behind them Middle Eastern women wearing any kind of "cloak". Unfortunately, the acolytes of political correctness don't give a sh!t if their cowardice is lethal.
I challenge that as an assumption, one that is generally held by most people (even liberals). So I actually decided to do some research; imagine that!
Before I started I'd say my opinion was that I was sceptical about any useful correlation between terrorism and race or citizenship but if any strong correlation could be found then it may be possible to convince me that it becomes a question of weighing the security benefits against the offence caused to individuals.
It's also my opinion (and still is) that the mainstream media continues to portray correlation between terrorism in the US and UK and Islamists through consistent inference, without ever stating it as fact; and therefore not requiring validation or providing opportunity to be directly contested.
I looked at the list of notable aircraft hijackings on wikipedia and followed them up via the references and/or additional searching. My conclusion is that if any profiling is used in America then it would be most useful to target middle aged white American men; and any Americans citizens with flying experience.
Here are names of people who did board a plane at a US airport and then subsequently hijacked the aircraft:
John J Divivo
D. B. Cooper (pseudonym)
Billy Gene Hurst Jr
Garret Trapnell
Melvin C. Cale, Louis Cale, Henry D. Jackson, Jr.
Clay Thomas
Aubern Calloway
There was a spate of hijackings by both Americans and Cubans in the 60's and 70's; mostly for political reasons that was mostly quelled by a Cuban-American agreement; and there was a notable incident of a hijacking by Croatian separatists in '76. Other than that, hijackings were overwhelmingly committed by white and black Americans.
Doing a more general search I couldn't actually find any hijacking of aircraft by middle eastern or Muslim passengers who boarded a plane at a US airport, apart from 9/11.
The most recent hijacking prior to 9/11 was Aubern Calloway; a black American and former pilot for FedEx who had a personal beef with his employees.
I also continued reading about non air related terrorism in the US and UK and found that the vast majority of incidents are domestic and carried out by non Muslim, non middle eastern men. I also noticed that whenever the individual perpetrators of an incident are unknown, then it will generally be attributed to an Islamic organisation; but when the perpetrators are found they are almost always non Muslim. This remains true in recent times, as well as in past history.
You can make a pretty decent start with this list of terrorist incidents; however it must be pointed out that it's generally difficult to define what is and what is not an act of terrorism; and as the issue is about security then I think what we're really interested in is any destructive and harmful incident.
To be honest I was quite surprised by the extent to which there is a lack of correlation; as well as the extreme rarity of terrorist incidents when compared to the media representation that we get of them.
If you ever find yourself wondering if anyone around you is a terrorist then the only people you can really discount are women and children. I'd therefore offer that it would be much more useful and give you a much happier day if you just stopped wondering altogether.
Hey, maybe D. B. Cooper was secretly a Muslim.

One might ask the pool from which this would manifest.

Since the Divine Wind faded, generally one might be forced to resort to those with psychological disadvantages and hence therefore unsuitability owing to dubious reliability rather than be able to dip into a willing cadre of like minded militant zeal willing to cash in their chips selflessly for a divergent albeit allied purpose. This notwithstanding a glaring contradiction in attributes of such parties.
>> ^sirex:

@quantum: You dont think that maybe, just maybe, if a rule was introduced that only needed to be searched, they might ... i dunno... recruit non muslim looking extreamists ?
just a thought. I know their usually quite incompetent, but even by those standards this is a stretch.

>> ^chicchorea:

With all due respect, hijackings are not the primary threat as the means to accomplish such deeds have been handily remedied by fairly simply and minimally intrusive procedures and technology.
Things that go boom....

I totally agree that the focus should be on bombs; however globally there are more hijackings and attempted hijackings than plane bombings and attempted plane bombings.

I can only find ten successful plane bombings; none of which took off in America; and four of which were found to be perpetrated by Islamists (3 of them from Libya), including the Lockerbie bombing. In four of those incidents the bomb was in the cabin; the rest were in the cargo.

Interestingly, while checking that, I did find support for my assertion that unsolved plots and acts are usually attributed to Islamists, while solved ones usually aren't.

The Russian airplane bombings in 2004 were originally attributed to an Islamic group; but then additional terrorist attacks took place shortly afterwards and it turned out the perpetrators were actually Chechen.

Are we not speaking here of threats domestic? Apples and oranges. The apple cart is TSA/DHS/US airport security. Global is irrelevant excepting as players imported may act in the theater here thus affecting our internal security considerations and measures. Again, hijacking is all but not spoken of or a consideration in current domestic efforts. With all due respect, I see no argument or disagreement with your laudable research except as to its pertinence and relevance to this discussion.
>> ^L0cky:

I totally agree that the focus should be on bombs; however globally there are more hijackings and attempted hijackings than plane bombings and attempted plane bombings.
I can only find ten successful plane bombings; none of which took off in America; and four of which were found to be perpetrated by Islamists (3 of them from Libya), including the Lockerbie bombing. In four of those incidents the bomb was in the cabin; the rest were in the cargo.
Interestingly, while checking that, I did find support for my assertion that unsolved plots and acts are usually attributed to Islamists, while solved ones usually aren't.
The Russian airplane bombings in 2004 were originally attributed to an Islamic group; but then additional terrorist attacks took place shortly afterwards and it turned out the perpetrators were actually Chechen.

>> ^gwiz665:

I'm just gonna throw this out there, when it comes to security like an airline, racial profiling is not a bad thing. If the actual people in the TSA were a bit more clever like for instance the Israeli airport security (who's had to deal with potential terrorist since forever) then shit like this never needs to happen.


Israel isn't a melting pot.

Excellent...been waiting for this one. A big chink in the argument. However, not a stake to the heart of it either.
>> ^blankfist:

Israel isn't a melting pot.

Did you all ever stop and think that maybe these new screening protocols are actually a necessary invasion of privacy in order to prevent bombers from getting their explosives through security?

Or that there is not another way other than pat downs and the scanner?

Grow up!

>> ^Entropy001:

Did you all ever stop and think that maybe these new screening protocols are actually a necessary invasion of privacy in order to prevent bombers from getting their explosives through security?
Or that there is not another way other than pat downs and the scanner?
Grow up!


Or that these few bombing attempts are blowback from an encroaching hegemonic interventionist policy the US has sustained for a very long time in the middle east? In other words: maybe if policy makers didn't start nothing there wouldn't be nothing.

>> ^chicchorea:

With all due respect, I see no argument or disagreement with your laudable research except as to its pertinence and relevance to this discussion.

I have no disagreement either

The inclusion of hijacking was simply an example. The goal of the TSA is to prevent taking objects aboard the aircraft which could be used to jeopardise security and such objects are generally required to take control of a plane; so it's a good fit. After looking at more general terrorism, and plane bombing the initial point still stands:

Racial profiling would not be an effective method in preventing terrorism as there is no useful correlation between terrorism and race.

@L0cky : "Racial profiling would not be an effective method in preventing terrorism as there is no useful correlation between terrorism and race."

Cultural sensitivity is good, but if it turns us into intellectual contortionists, it's going too far.

There are a small number of cultures that are responsible for a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks against the US and Europe. If we discover that x% of Japanese-Americans are terrorists, and x% x 100,000 of Syrian-Americans are terrorists, we have thus increased our intelligence.

... x-rays?

Maybe if you define the very specific form of terrorism (airplane attacks?) and what you mean by culture (from a certain country, region, religion, ethnicity?). I don't mean to bust balls, I just think its important that you clarify what you mean to say a little more.

--"There are a small number of cultures that are responsible for a disproportionate number of terrorist attacks against the US and Europe."--chilaxe

@bamdrew

I appreciate that you're not trying to bust balls.

However, this really doesn't seem complicated. 'Individuals with X features blow up planes at a higher rate. Rational search parameters thus prioritize X features.'

@chilaxe

My basic point is that you were first saying middle easteners are more likely terrorists (within the context of a video about TSA); now you're telling me you don't need to provide ironclad statistics supporting your statement that middle easterners blow up more US/European planes because it is so obviously rational an assertion to make. My statement of "O RLY?" was thus replied to with a "YS RLY", leading me to ask "... RLY?".



... I mean, one look at this shit and it seems like there are crazies everywhere, not just in Saudi Arabia... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_notable_aircraft_hijackings

When the Progressives and Democrats start asking for racial profiling, we know we're in trouble.

@bamdrew

It's beyond belief that you doubt that radical Muslims support terrorism against the US more than other groups. Not having "ironclad statistics" on hand doesn't mean we're not allowed to use our brains.

The current national political climate instituted greater aircraft safety not because a North Korean agent hijacked a South Korean plane in South Korea in 1969, as your list points out, but because the mainstream opinion in the intelligence community (and everywhere else) is that in the current time, in the United States, there is an enhanced threat from radical Muslims, as seen in numerous high profile aircraft safety threats in recent years.

>> ^blankfist:
When the Progressives and Democrats start asking for racial profiling, we know we're in trouble.


See, 9/11 was never the fault of lax security. I am glad people finally see that. It was the people at fault?. I mean, it was the people at fault! Stupid civies.

Listened to the audio. I can't believe how unprofessional that TSA moron was. Two swear words in the same sentence, in the first five minutes. Clown should be fired. If a federal employee is dealing with an American citizen who has broken no laws, they should act as if they were on live news. I seriously doubt that the TSA moron would call someone a smartass or say "fucking" on live news.

@chilaxe

Thanks. We may have argued off in a weird direction.
I don't believe discriminatory security measures targeting muslims (or brownish people who look middle eastern, which is how that would actually play out) would work, and I do believe they could only hurt.

The few high-profile cases are still such an incredibly small minority from such a HUGE pool of people that I think constructing this class distinction (based on religion/race/skin color!) between who can be trusted and who can not is a terrible idea.

@bamdrew,

Yeah, I think it just comes down to that we have different temperaments. If you and I went to China and people of our culture were engaging in terrorism, it would seem silly to me to complain. I can't care less about being searched.

@chilaxe

mmm, I see; good points.

I've had caucasion friends who've live in Japan and China, and after a year or two of people reminding you that you look like an outsider every day (mostly with harmless comments like 'oh your Japanese/Cantonese is so good!') it can wear you down. Maybe thats somewhat analogous to the suckier (in my mind) scenario of being searched every time you want to fly somewhere because some assholes that look like you did something retarded.

I fly a lot, so thats impacting how much I think this would suck.

@bamdrew,

I understand.


I think we do personally have a lot of room for proactive action in these situations.

As always applies, the difference within groups is larger than the difference between groups. That is, a Han Chinese person in China who looks like an idiot will get treated worse than a foreigner who looks intelligent and respectful.

Having a social presence aspiring toward that of Barack Obama or Colin Powell (sophisticated mannerisms, sophisticated attire) would make everybody we meet treat us well.