TSA

Reason Morning Links: The Future's Uncertain for Ben Bernanke, the Future's Over for Air America, the Future Looks Bright for John Edwards' Genes

|

• Senate Dems aren't sure they have the votes to reconfirm Ben Bernanke.

• The country's most prominent deadbeat dad comes clean.

• A federal task force calls for holding 50 Guantánamo prisoners indefinitely.

• The lights go out at Air America.

• Europe reacts to Barack Obama's proposed bank regulations.

• A Chinese teen becomes a folk hero by assassinating a Communist official.

• That wacky, wacky TSA.

NEXT: China: Powerful yes, but still oh-so-" vulnerable to the effect of multifarious information flowing in," a.k.a. "information imperialism"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “A Chinese teen becomes a folk hero by assassinating a Communist official”

    Zhang Xuping, Yang Gia, and the unnamed Chinese Woman have my respect and admiration.

  2. “That wacky, wacky TSA”

    Poor girl. And at least that assholes is no longer working in the TSA according to their spokeswoman.

    1. When she complained to airport security, Solomon said, she was told the TSA worker had been training the staff to detect contraband.

      Given *that*’s training in detection, much about airport “security” becomes even clearer.

    2. Somehow liberals and conservatives always forget, in dreaming up their utopian airport security schemes, you know, *reality*.

      Like the reality that these jobs are staffed by high school grads earning $9.50 per hour. As if their won’t be abuses left and right, and naked scans of people (and kids!) showing up on the internet.

      1. These are federal jobs. IOW, people who should be making $9.50 an hour make $40 – 60k a year.

        1. It was just a federal jobs program. Security failed on 9-11. No question about that. But it is not like the airlines and airports don’t have plenty of motivation to make sure their passengers are not routinely blown up. I see no evidence that the private system wouldn’t have fixed itself. TSA was nothing but a federal jobs program. You can tell that by how pissed off the Democrats were when the Republican Majority wouldn’t let them unionize it. They just wanted pork. They didn’t care about security.

          1. No, security did not fail on 9-11. Boxcutters were allowed on board. Not a single thing the TSA has done since 9-11 would’ve prevented it from happening. The only three things that’ve happened that would’ve prevented it have nothing to do with the TSA: (i) Banning boxcutters (done by the FAA, and relatively meaningless, since you can have other small blades on board), (ii) hardening cockpit doors (done by the airlines), and (iii) a different passenger response to hijacking. That’s it.

            1. Hardening cockpit doors and banning blades is an increase in security.

              1. The hardening of cockpit doors and passengers’ different response to attacks are significant improvements in security.

                And the full body scans, I assume, would make flying more safe… it’s just the cost-benefit analysis that needs to be worked out.

                1. They’d make it minimally more safe at a substantial cost to liberty (and in money). WBIs would not, for example, have detected the underwear bomb. They are, however, going to do a great job of embarrassing people wearing adult diapers and the like.

                  1. The people at the checkpoint can’t see the scan…it’s viewed by someone in another room who has no direct view of the checkpoint. So no one needs to be embarrassed.

    3. And at least that assholes is no longer working in the TSA according to their spokeswoman.

      Why would you think that? He was given some unspecified “discipline.” Probably suspended with pay.

      1. The article was updated at the bottom with the TSA spokeswoman saying he was no longer working there.

        1. There’s a whole lot of distance between “he’s not working there” and He’s been fired!

        2. He was probably promoted and is no longer working “there” but in some federal building somewhere.

  3. “A Chinese teen becomes a folk hero by assassinating a Communist official.”

    It is better to die a man than a slave.

  4. China is really having a lot of problems in their rural areas. It must be all that evil information from America. I mean, it couldn’t be a systematic thing about giving assholes nearly unlimited power.

  5. A Chinese teen becomes a folk hero by assassinating a Communist official.

    Marvin Heemeyer approves.

  6. First Ted Kennedy, then His Seat?, then Air America. If Babs Boxer drops dead, I’m joining a monastery.

    1. What if the Fed drops dead?

      When Ben goes, who knows …. ;-(

  7. A Chinese teen becomes a folk hero by assassinating a Communist official.

    Luckily China has a strong socialist govt to protect people from ‘capitalist’ abuses, right MNG and Tony?

    Can I get a ‘Che’ tshirt w/ this kid’s face on it?

  8. Where’s “Blogger Bob” the TSA asslicker, to explain how that Philly airport thing was no big thing?

  9. The move appears to be setting a barrier between commercial and investment banking, similar to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that separated investment and commercial banking. That separation was repealed in 1999.

    Wait just a minute now. If that was repealed in 99′ that means it happened when Clinton was in office wouldn’t it? How in the name of all that’s right are we sposed to blame Bush for the BIGASS banks ruining the economy of the whole freakin world? I’m so confused.

    1. Come on, BB, the republican congress made Clinton sign the bill.

      One thing I’ve learned is that if it’s not George Bush’s fault, it’s Ronald Reagan’s.

      1. George Bush and Karl Rove acting from the governor’s mansion in Austin, made Clinton sign it.

      2. Don;t forget Nixon.

        1. Actually, I have absolutely no problem with blaming Nixon.

          The amount of LBJ’s Great Society legislation that he signed disqualifies him from any consideration for libertarian sympathy.

          I’m always astonished when conservatives step up for RMN. The man was a Cold War liberal, not a conservative.

          1. He was a total liberal. And he actually did more for progressive causes than Johnson ever did. The Civil Rights Act didn’t mean shit until Nixon came along and created the EEOC and changed the law to make people personally liable for job discrimination.

            1. And you had the Burger court running interference for the expansion of the welfare state…..

              Goldberg v. Kelly, etc. (yes, it is a case that libertarians will cite for some due process arguments, but the upshot of the case was that b/4 a welfare benefit can be taken, the gvt. must provide some due process).

            2. But it’s all the wars we have been in since WWII that are Nixon’s fault! I was just trying to follow the theme.

            3. Price and wage controls also come to mind.

              Central planning of the economy is a hallmark of Progressivism(tm).

    2. The repeal of Glass-Stegall was very bi-partisan. It was considered at the time to be an example of Congress being responsible. I recall someone, I don’t remember who, writing in the Wall Street Journal at the time that the reason why we live with pork and grandstanding in Congress is so that occasionally Congress can get down to some serious and needed work like banking reform.

      I am not an expert in the field. And I won’t pretend to know if the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a bad idea much less caused the damage people are claiming. But to claim that its repeal was some evil plot shoved down the country’s throat by right wing Republicans rather than the bi-partisan bill it was, is just a lie.

      1. It’s yet another bogeyman. The repeal had little to do with the banking industry meltdown.

        1. Yes, Pro Lib, but tell that to Bob Brinker. Some of us may have our hobby horses, but Mr. Moneytalk will not let Glass-Stegall go.

          1. The statists have to talk about Glass-Steagall, because if they don’t they have absolutely no content to their “Deregulation caused the bubble” talking point/lie.

            No one – NO ONE – has ever given a satisfactory explanation of the precise mechanism by which the repeal of Glass-Steagall led to either the bubble or to regulatory failure. For the simple reason that no such relationship exists, and in fact the two events are so unrelated that not even the fevered dreams of statists can come up with a connection.

            1. One big problem with that, too, is that few banks did much to take advantage of the opportunities opened by the repeal.

              It’s amazing when you have specialized knowledge about a topic how much bullshit you see spewed about it by the media and by politicians and their fanboys

      2. Considering that the mercantilists supporting Clinton pushed repeal every bit as hard as any Republican did, I’m still amazed that liberals are still pushing this.

        1. Did I come across as pushing this? I was trying real hard to hock up a real thick chunk of snark.

          1. Sorry, bb, that wasn’t meant against your snark.

    3. Just go with the flow. The Demoholics are in a round of blaming Bush for the Kennedy Chair being lost in Massachusetts right now.

      1. I’d consider that “crediting” if I believed it.

  10. If that was repealed in 99′ that means it happened when Clinton was in office wouldn’t it?

    SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!!

    MOMMIE!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Clinton era changes to Glass-Steagall weren’t too far in the past to cause all the problems, but Clinton era changes to affordable housing programs were. See the difference?

      1. A very nice article Johnny.

        As someone who was a real estate appraiser from ’01 to ’06 the only government programs that you missed was the creation of the “Appraisal Institute” and USPAP “Universal Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice”. Real estate appraisers were given strict regulations, with holes large enough to drive a McMansion through. This “objective” third party allowed buyers, sellers and mortgage makers to pretend that mortgages had “collateral”.

        1. Um…you might not be aware of this, but appraisals existed before 2001.

          Almost nothing changed for the mortgage appraisal process following the creation of the Appraisal Institute. Frankly, any minor change to the Fannie Mae 1004 form or to the forms required to issue government appraisals impact appraisal practice more than anything the Appraisal Institute does.

          I will grant you that state-level regulation and licensing of appraisers increased between 1980 and 2000. And regulation of mortgage brokers increased dramatically between 1980 and 2000 as well – oddly enough, the increase in both kinds of regulation was highest in precisely those areas where the worst bubble excesses existed. So we have a situation where the less-regulated time frame actually saw much less in the way of abusive practices than the more-regulated time frame. Not that any of the statists are willing to admit this, of course.

          1. Frankly, any minor change to the Fannie Mae 1004 form or to the forms required to issue government appraisals impact appraisal practice more than anything the Appraisal Institute does.

            This is strange, perhaps you meant something else? From where do you think changes of the form(s) originate? Are you aware that there is no requirement to use the form? Are you aware that using the form does not absolve you from following the requirements outlined in USPAP, which are created by the Appraisal Institute?

            One of the most important changes was the Nationalization of Appraisals. There were appraisals done before 2001, but, as you say, they were regulated by the State in which the appraiser was licensed. In many States you were not even required to have a license.

            I can say with any authority what kind of appraisals were approved as “conforming” before ’01. I guarantee that after 2001 this amounted to appraisers stating “while adjustments exceed FNMA guidelines, in the appraisers opinion these are the closest and best comparables available.”

            By definition a bubble is over-valuation. Appraisers and the entire Nationalized system of appraisal carry a share of the blame.

            1. Let me also add that I think there is a tie in with the Nationalization of the appraisal process and with the securitization of mortgage products. Once you had a “standard” then you could grade them accordingly. Since real estate in rural Oklahoma has little similarity with property in California it was a government boondoggle from the get go.

  11. Sean Kemp?

    1. “Walking Dead” revolves around a group of survivors, led by a police officer, who travel the country in search of a safe home.

      I expect at least one dead dog per episode.

      1. There are a number of zombies killed with a screwdriver. If that helps.

        1. Killing zombies with a screwdriver? That is just way too out there. I am sticking with Avatar until something more realistic comes along.

    2. THAT’S FUCKING RIGHT!!!

      Love that book and I’m looking forward to seeing how they do the show.

      1. AMC gets props for Mad Men and Breaking Bad, but the Prisoner was doo-doo. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

    3. I thought that was already approved by ABC news….you know…about the democrats!

    4. + Woos a thousand fold.

    5. Traditional slow-moving zombies, or those newfangled fast ones?

      1. Slow. If they stick to the comic.

  12. Europe Divided Over U.S. Bank Proposal, Seeks Global Pact

    …The move appears to be setting a barrier between commercial and investment banking, similar to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act that separated investment and commercial banking. That separation was repealed in 1999.

    In Europe, major banks have traditionally adhered to the one-stop-banking, or “universal bank,” concept of bundling traditional commercial banking with investment banking and other financial services under one roof.

    Changing this, European governments believe, makes an internationally binding agreement the only alternative to prevent competing banking policies between banking centers. London, for example, would be at a competitive disadvantage to Frankfurt or Zurich if the U.K. government followed the U.S. lead but the German and Swiss authorities didn’t.

    In the U.K., whose finance-heavy economy was one of the biggest casualties of the credit crunch, the Labour government has backed off from any separation of risk in large banks or caps on size. …

    …In Berlin, the government said the Obama initiative should be assessed within international forums. “The U.S. president’s new proposals are helpful suggestions for further discussions on an international level. As known, the [German] government strives toward internationally coordinated solutions as far as the addressed problems of ‘too big to fail’ are concerned.”

    The U.S. initiative is a rejection of the European “universal bank” model, traditionally championed by Germany. The Obama administration’s plan to limit the absolute size of banks also contrasts sharply with the slowness of German regulators, in particular, to come to grips with the issue of banks that are “too big to fail.” …

  13. Davis said privacy law prevents her from identifying the TSA employee. The law prevents her from disclosing what sort of discipline he might have received.

    Change these fucking laws.

    1. Why should privacy laws be applicable to people that are ostensibly hired and paid by the public?

      1. Yes, but wouldn’t that trip you up too?

        The application of privacy laws to law enforcement abuses is a narrow enough line to draw to keep a public light on the real jerks.

        1. It would trip me up. Perhaps is not outright privacy laws, applied across the board, that upset me – it’s as you say, we need to make it more applicable to LE types, and in situations where they’ve abused power. But the wording and wrangling required to delineate those situations might take more time and effort than it would be worth. I can imagine endless challenges to the various contingencies, so we end up wasting time and money litigating whether or not privacy laws apply, and still don’t get the information sought in the first place.

          1. You make me mad that I didn’t have better teachers growing up.

            1. I am reading that as a compliment – hope it was meant as such.

              1. Oh, yes, it was. Very much so.

                I had a few very good teachers, but the majority were just a bored as I was, and a percentage were actively malevolent.

                Lil’ SugarFree would have thrived under your tutelage.

    2. I wouldn’t take that claim at face value. What privacy law, chapter and verse?

      1. You know, it’s the one that states that it’s fine to name the victim in this case, but not the perpetrator, because he works / worked in a government agency. It’s in one of the 10,000 federal codes. Look it up if you like.

  14. That TSA fucksicle should be given a promotion to the position of trainer/model. He could be a scanner image model specializing in providing images of items hidden rectally.

    1. I like this idea, brotherben.

  15. Your government at work

    ATF: solving crimes by committing them
    Link

    Undercover ATF agents in Virginia have funneled more than 250 million cigarettes onto the nation’s streets in the past three years through black market sales targeting smugglers, an Associated Press review has found.

    Authorities say the flood of government-provided smokes – a pack and a half for every man, woman and child in New York City, the smugglers’ main destination – leads them to organized crime rings and can even cut off financing for terrorists. The stings by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have yielded about five dozen federal arrests, albeit none on terror charges.

    Many of those cigarettes undoubtedly wind up in the mouths of minors, since black market vendors have no reason to turn away teenage purchasers.

    Despite that, government auditors and anti-tobacco groups want the ATF to do even more.

    http://taxingtennessee.blogspo…..-them.html

    1. Wait wait wait…”terrorists”?

      1. Terrorists, gangs, human smugglers, drugs and such are sort of one big bundle. Terrorist organizations are not above drug smuggling. And drug smugglers are not above smuggling for terrorists. They are right about that.

        But of course the answer is to legalize drugs and de-fund organized crime. It takes a certain kind of insanity to understand that the illegal drug trade is funding lots of horrible and destabilizing groups and then conclude that the solution is to make drugs even more illegal and drive more money into the hands of said groups.

        1. I would expect that cigarette smuggling is firmly in the hands of the olde schoole organized crime in New York. I seriously doubt that AQ has anything to do with it.

    2. Fucking great. The feds nationalizing the ciggarette smuggling business now.

      Mark my words, next it will prositution.

      ALL YOUR HOS BELONG TO US

    3. So by providing them with millions of pack of smokes they are somehow curtailing the illegal tobacco trade?

      ummmmm, okay then.

    4. It’s not black market any more. It’s dark market. From a story yesterday.

  16. The lights go out at Air America.

    I guess people just don’t want to hear truth spoken to power. I don’t know who is going to keep the Repugs in check now.

    1. Fairness doctrine is just around the corner.

      1. I though the same thing.

        I read the post at the Times site. Interesting that Kireker says that the “company cannot escape the laws of economics,” yet many of their progressive yakking advocated saving people from the laws of economics…

        And the part about having a “discussion” kills me. Discussion usually involves allowing varied viewpoints to be expressed and analyzed, but my Air America listening days don’t include any memories of fairness in discussion when middle-ground or right-wing callers tried to shed different light on the topics at hand.

        1. d’oh! that’s “thought”

  17. Is there any interest in the U.S. military carrying weapons with bible references on the scopes?

    Linky here

    1. Old story. Its been known for years that Trijicon does this. It hasn’t exactly been a secret.

      1. Thanks. For whatever reasons, I am seeing it for the first time in Wednesday’s USA Today.

      2. The Army says they just found out days ago.

        1. Having been in the Army, I can explain that one. It was brought to their attention in a way they could not ignore a few days ago. The Army, at all levels, is very keen on not knowing things that would be troublesome to know. A blind eye will be turned to much shenanigans if they don’t affect readiness or mission accomplishment. But once it becomes officially noticed or affects the mission, actions have to be taken. That’s what happened here.

          1. When I said Army, I have to admit, is a generalization fallacy.

            Sure what you say is possible, they rarely confess.

            The way people move in and out of commands it’s possible people today didn’t know it, but people in the past did.

    2. I’m bothered by this. Even though the contractor seems to have been solely responsible, it puts DoD in the awkward position of passively violating the establishment clause.

      If this is ignored then it encourages similar shenanigans by contractors, and me-too piling on from every religious group.

  18. WASHINGTON ? The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guant?namo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, an administration official said on Thursday.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22gitmo.html

    But but, Libertarians needed to vote for the Obamasiah to end all those evil Bush terrorist policies. Right?

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. OK, nobody knew ahead of time that this would turn out this poorly.

      Turning this back on you, can you state with absolute certainty that things would have been better under a McCain/Palin administration? (Hint: No, you can’t).

      1. It would not be one bit different. But the difference is that McCain and Palin made no secret about that. McCain pledged to close GUITMO but he never claimed he would stop indefinite detention. I agree with that. And I actually agree with Obama here.

        I just think it is hysterical that some Libertarians and Liberals were such chumps to actually believe anything “the One” said.

        1. Perhaps some did believe, but for others it was more about getting Cheney, Rove et als out of there.

        2. Didn’t SCOTUS already rule that Gitmo detanees get a day in (some sort of) court.

  19. Which of these things did not happen this week?

    1. A Republican winning a Senate seat in Massachusetts, thus breaking the filibuster-proof Dem majority.
    2. A landmark SCOTUS ruling wiping out many of the worst aspects of federal campaign finance laws.
    3. Air America going off the air.
    4. The NY Times announcing its impending financial suicide by charging for its content.
    5. Deval Patrick delivering a “state of the state” address that wasn’t irritating and dull.

    1. Air America goes off the air in a few weeks, I think. What do I win?

  20. What is this, the Year of Schadenfreude?

    1. I don’t know about that but we are definately in an era of freudenschade.

      from wiki: The transposed variant “Freudenschade” seems to have been multiply invented to mean sorrow at another person’s success.

    2. I find nothing shameful about my current joy.

      1. That’s right. What you’re doing with that cucumber is entirely natural and seemly.

        1. You sure thought it was last night.

      2. Okay, this is something that people regularly get wrong, so I must correct it. There is no “shame” in schadenfreude. It means enjoying the misfortune of others. Not shameful enjoyment, just plain old joy. Schaden means damage or injury, and freude means joy.

        I declare 2010 the Year of Schadenfreudanalia!

        1. Finding joy in damage or injury to others is shameful. Or, at least it is to normal people. Just because were are monsters doesn’t mean everyone is. 😉

          1. So you were ashamed at the joy you felt when Hitler was finally defeated? Nazi.

            1. You’re the Nazi-lover. Correcting other people’s German. Go ahead and change your name to Miss Oatlash, why dontcha!

              1. Stop hating on the Germans. They haven’t invaded France in nearly seventy years.

                Enjoy your schadenfreude, SF. You’ve earned it while enduring theirs.

                1. You’re just a poopy-head that poops poop.

                  1. Say whatever you want about me, but just don’t mention the war.

          2. So watching MSNBS on Tuesday night makes me a monster?

            1. Once you kill those brain cells, they never ever grow back.

    3. It is the time of tasting the yummy and sweet tears of our enemies…

  21. What is this, the Year of Schadenfreude?

    God, i hope so. It’s been a shitty century for libertarians so far.

  22. WOOHOOO!!!!

    Let me feast upon your lamentations.

  23. Yesterday, an acquaintance was practically sobbing into his beer about how teh eeevul corparashins will be taking total command of America at any moment.

    I had to turn my back to conceal my snickering.

    1. Fuck that. You should have laughed in his face and then tried to educate him.

    2. The doublethink among some lefties is stunning. Corporations own America, lock, stock, and barrel – this is an article of lefty faith – and yet this court decision will enable corporations to take over America.

    3. You should have demanded his papers and started writing down his license numbers.

  24. Last night it dawned on me why the Dems were pushing the trillion dollar healthcare bill they wanted instead of something sensable.

    Tort reform could be passed without raising taxes, so that’s out.

    A law making insurance portable could be passed without raising taxes, so that’s out.

    A law permitting people to purchase insurance across stae lines could be passed without raising taxes, so that’s out too.

    poo – tee – weet

    1. None of those reforms allow Dems to steal for their cronies. Get your priorities straight man.

      1. That was my Aha!

        Everything the Dems wanted to do would require a massive transfer of wealth to their cronies.

  25. If Air America is no more, how will the progressive hive mind know what to think?

    1. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS, ?

      Who’d I forget?

      1. I like PBS they have good documentaries on there and antique road show!
        I wonder how they will explain air america’s failure, im not sure i can explain it myself. You would think their would but just as many lefties ready to listen to air america than there are republicans listening to rush limbaugh. So either the programs really suck, the left already has many media outlets delivering it’s message or there is not that many “al franken democrats”…

        1. I think you hit on it with the left having plenty of media delivering their message to them . That, and I think that lefties would rather listen to themselves talk. I know I still do.

        2. The programs really suck. And the left already has plenty of media outlets to listen to its message. Rush Limbaugh succeeded because conservatives really felt their voice wasn’t being heard in the media and he puts on a good show. Neither of those things were present in air America.

        3. its the demographics that listen to radio? Sho listens to radio? People driving in cars. Who drives in cars? People going to work in suburban and rural areas. So this means, urban poor (many minorites), urban rich( which limosine liberals), the unemployed, and young students arent driving to work. That leaves middle class suburban and rural workers. This demogrpahic is highly conservative.

        4. I live in hardcore liberal country. Practically, everybody I know is a liberal. I’ve never heard one liberal mention, ever, listening to Air America.

  26. You forgot MSNBC, Ben.

    Also- as I was perusing the headlines on Google News, I saw this glittering jewel (ABC):

    Trafficking fears as Haiti children go missing

    !!!!!!!!

    Panic early, panic often.

    1. Tens of thousands in unmarked graves, and any missing children must be victims of slavers?

  27. Well, the anti-First Amendment bonanza has begun. Presenting:

    Move To Amend

    Check out the list of initial signatories. This definitely needs its own thread.

    1. Goddamn, these people are soft-headed. They’re calling for a Constitutional Amendment with no specifics, basically. They just want, you know, good stuff.


      We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

      * Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
      * Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
      * Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.

      They want the Constitution to “firmly establish that money is not speech”…oookaaayyy…what the hell exactly does that mean? Amendment 28, “Money shall not be considered speech”? I look forward to the screams when a future court decides that although you have the right to express your opinion, you don’t have the right to buy airtime or ink to express it, because that would be money and not speech.

      Also, “Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions” – isn’t the law the arbiter of what’s an “illegitimate” preemption already? So this would say that illegal stuff is illegal? Of course, you know that the second some community did something they didn’t like, they’d be calling for preemption, on the basis of “protecting people’s rights”…

      1. They just figure they may as well throw in some nonsense about social justice while they’re stomping on the first amendment.

      2. I’m having a hard time coming up with words for this crap…

        F*cktard works okay.

      3. But we’ve been taught to Feel Good whenever we hear or read these words.

        “Actual” meaning is meaningless, and words speak louder than action.

      4. Unintended consequences. I agree with your point about a court ruling banning the purchase of air time. I don’t think they’ve thought this through. They apparently can’t see how such an ammendment will be used against their own ads for their pet causes.

      5. that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.

        What do they think corporations consist of? Plants or something?

    2. My brain reels at the stupidity.

      Does noone really see that the root of the problem lies in the immense power of gov’t and its ability to grant favors and punish others?

      My Sillyfornia friends have already started bombarding me with their end of democracy tripe, apparently not understanding that populist mob rule is what they should be afraid of.

    3. Of course these assholes don’t present the actual text of the amendment they want.

      They can’t do that, because as soon as they present text anyone with an IQ above 90 would rip it apart and show how it could be used to shut down every newspaper and every non-profit group in the country.

  28. You should have laughed in his face and then tried to educate him.

    I have tried; he’s pretty much a lost cause.

  29. Did they already cover Mexico legalizing drugs?

    sorry if it’s a repost.

    1. Dude, that’s so 2009.

  30. Here is you daily moment of Zen out of Georgia.

  31. I don’t think they’ve thought this through.

    A lot of the people who talk about “saving democracy” have an extremely narrow definition of it. They apparently see no irony in their desire to define the voice of the people as people who agree with them.

    This affects *both* sides.

  32. In defense of the TSA screener, at least he didn’t use it as an excuse to strip-search her and extort sex from her.

    Which I am certain has either already happened somewhere else, or will happen soon unless the TSA gets a major infusion of professionalism and common sense.

    Or gets completely abolished, which would be much simpler and cheaper.

  33. * Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate “preemption” actions by global, national, and state governments.

    What the fuck does that even mean?

    Would that have prevented Eisenhower from placing the Arkansas National Guard under federal command?

    Sweet.

    1. The odd thing about that language is that it doesn’t even necessarily seem to be talking about just the U.S. It sounds like a more global concept. Trying to shoe-horn some U.N. stuff into this fantasy amendment, it seems.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.