Politics: A new beginning

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by bilmore
A French-looking, haughty rich bastard who, by the way, served in Viet Nam?

Well, if he's French, I'm definitely not voting for him. Fuckin' frogs.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
But you're a tax-and-spend liberal. I mean, a fucking tax-and-spend liberal asshole.

Takes one to know one.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(I think that is the big differerence, and what makes them more subject to abuse. If this makes me a partisan idiot, then so be it.)

I don't think it makes you a partisan idiot - I really don't like the principle of giving up on some of the looseness in our society either - I just see some of this as a rational reaction to dangers that we didn't necessarily perceive several years ago. Some here seem to be acting on the premise that there's nothing we can or should do to heighten our security post-9/11, and, just as a policy choice, I disagree with that. Balance is the question, and, looking to the incredibly minimal effects on society of what we've actually done, (beyond the scare-mongering, "we're in a dictatorship!" cries with little or no support), I think we've retained that balance.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I got on the list (well, some list) that made it incredibly bothersome getting on a plane for a short bit of time.

So, should we just call you "Abdul Baggins"?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think it makes you a partisan idiot - I really don't like the principle of giving up on some of the looseness in our society either - I just see some of this as a rational reaction to dangers that we didn't necessarily perceive several years ago. Some here seem to be acting on the premise that there's nothing we can or should do to heighten our security post-9/11, and, just as a policy choice, I disagree with that. Balance is the question, and, looking to the incredibly minimal effects on society of what we've actually done, (beyond the scare-mongering, "we're in a dictatorship!" cries with little or no support), I think we've retained that balance.

Like S_A_M,* my understanding was that the USA PATRIOT Act** did change the law, but I don't know the details. The worse post-9/11 abuses that I know of, though, were the treatment of resident aliens who were rounded up in the following weeks. I think this was permitted under the immigration laws, which was bilmore's point. It seems to me that our response to 9/11 was to rush to create new laws or procedures, when what we needed was smarter, better judgment and enforcement. I come back to airport security -- I would prefer to have TSA hire some really smart people, and have them focus on using better judgment to identify dangers, rather than developing a massive color-coding system to rate every air traveler. When the feds use poor judgment, most of the effects are borne not by terrorists, and not by affluent lawyers, so it's easy for us to dismiss.


* I move that we eliminate the underscores in your acronym, as I am getting tired of typing them. Wouldn't you rather be SAM?

** In a particularly depressing and mediocre fashion, this law's name is an acronym for something stupid, and should always be capitalized to remind us how second-rate its naming was.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I was worried about whether I got the declensions right.

Oh, my grammar sucks in many languages, don't ask me.

you're confusing rights. or they are in the original quote (which I'm not going to scroll back to post). The civil right at issue is participating equally with other citizens in pursuing the liberties we have in our (supposedly) free country.

I don't think so. Again, I don't think traveling by plane is a fundamental attribute of citizenship.

If you want to argue that there is a general freedom to travel that the gov't shouldn't be able to infringe, even to the extent of barring specific sorts of common carriers from carrying certain persons, I'd agree. I just don't agree that the right to travel by a certain form of conveyance is a fundamental political right necessary to being able to engage equally in the political and civic life of the nation.

Then again, I admit I take a very narrow view of what I consider to be fundamental rights, be they the civil/civic or human sort. Not believeing the gov't should be able do anything to begin with has the nice benefit of ensuring that one doesn't have to turn every minor annoyance into Jim Crow to oppose it.

It's a freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, not the freedom to fly, that's at issue.

Well, one is always free not agree to subject oneself to security scruitiny or searches by not flying, so in a very real sense submitting to the search (&/or seizure) is voluntary. Since for various reasons I cross national borders a fair amount, I am constantly aware that I subject myself to detention, cavity searches, and other miscellaneous harrassment for all sorts of bad reasons (gender and national origin being the main reasons I personally happen to get harassed), and that if I don't like it I can stay home. Further, I'm of the opinion that anyone who isn't already aware of that fact is an idiot. I think it sucks, and I think customs/border control/security guys (the world over, not just ours) violate my and your freedoms on a regular basis and they should be stopped (stopped, I tell you!!). But it's not quite the same as the G seizing your socialist action committee distribution list (or even your smut collection).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I would prefer to have TSA hire some really smart people, and have them focus on using better judgment to identify dangers,

Just because this is always sort of a hot-button issue with me - most of the last fifty years have been spent eliminating opportunities to use "judgment", because it's a subjective measure. (See Sentencing guidelines, anti-profiling, etc.) If we tell someone to use their "judgment" in deciding who to scrutinize, don't we just set them up for complaints, no matter who they choose? The lack of ability to use intelligence on a case-by-case basis is a direct result of the recognition that allowing smart people to use their own judgment confers that same power on stupid, venal people, who will make individual determinations based on factors we don't like nearly as much.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
So, should we just call you "Abdul Baggins"?

God, not out loud!

(Another two months of having my underwear X-rayed every five minutes. No thanks.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Just because this is always sort of a hot-button issue with me - most of the last fifty years have been spent eliminating opportunities to use "judgment", because it's a subjective measure. (See Sentencing guidelines, anti-profiling, etc.) If we tell someone to use their "judgment" in deciding who to scrutinize, don't we just set them up for complaints, no matter who they choose? The lack of ability to use intelligence on a case-by-case basis is a direct result of the recognition that allowing smart people to use their own judgment confers that same power on stupid, venal people, who will make individual determinations based on factors we don't like nearly as much.

If the war on terrorism is important -- and I think it is -- then we need to find a way to make sure that the TSA is full of smart people, and that the stupid, venal people get sent over to the DMV, or something. I don't think all those stupid, venal people in the airports are doing much to protect us right now, no matter what procedures you use. I don't really understand the pervasive mistrust of individual discretion, except that our elected representatives both pass laws and try to get themselves re-elected at regular intervals, and use the one to help with the other.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think it makes you a partisan idiot - I really don't like the principle of giving up on some of the looseness in our society either - I just see some of this as a rational reaction to dangers that we didn't necessarily perceive several years ago. Some here seem to be acting on the premise that there's nothing we can or should do to heighten our security post-9/11, and, just as a policy choice, I disagree with that. Balance is the question, and, looking to the incredibly minimal effects on society of what we've actually done, (beyond the scare-mongering, "we're in a dictatorship!" cries with little or no support), I think we've retained that balance.

Agreed. It's all about utility. The second the infringements tip the balance, I'll be right in line with Ty, SAM, Burger, etc. But please. The fact that the government COULD in theory see what books I'm checking out of the library is but an insignificant concern. I can always (a) lend a book from a friend, (b) not check it out, but read it there, or (c) buy the book (which would help the economy as well).

Now if the goverment is going to start tracking all the porn sites I visit . . . them's fighting words.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't really understand the pervasive mistrust of individual discretion . . .

Well, just as one example, allowance for individual discretion resulted in highly disparate criminal sentencing based on race. That was the prime driver for the "anti-discretion" movement, but there are other examples, too. Point is, the only way to get rid of "discretion" is to substitute a complex, usually arcane, often thought-up-by-idiots explicit set of rules/procedures/criteria. It's the mindless imposition of those rules that usually gets called out as an example of bureaucratic stupidity, but, in reality, if you can't use discretion, you're going to have to deal with rules that can't possibly be made to fit nicely into every situation.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
If the war on terrorism is important -- and I think it is -- then we need to find a way to make sure that the TSA is full of smart people, and that the stupid, venal people get sent over to the DMV, or something.

If you figure out the way to do this, please tell the Department of Education ASAP.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed. It's all about utility. The second the infringements tip the balance, I'll be right in line with Ty, SAM, Burger, etc. But please. The fact that the government COULD in theory see what books I'm checking out of the library is but an insignificant concern. I can always (a) lend a book from a friend, (b) not check it out, but read it there, or (c) buy the book (which would help the economy as well).

Uh, if it was "all about utility," we wouldn't need a Constitution in the first place.*

*I gather you would make a very special exception for 5Ad regulatory takings cases.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
If you figure out the way to do this, please tell the Department of Education ASAP.

Note that all departments cited practice tenure.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Agreed. It's all about utility. The second the infringements tip the balance, I'll be right in line with Ty, SAM, Burger, etc. But please. The fact that the government COULD in theory see what books I'm checking out of the library is but an insignificant concern. I can always (a) lend a book from a friend, (b) not check it out, but read it there, or (c) buy the book (which would help the economy as well).

Now if the goverment is going to start tracking all the porn sites I visit . . . them's fighting words.

In what might be a pointless hypothetical exercise (a phrase which describes most of my typical day), I'm curious to hear what you or other defenders of the admin would find to be "over the line" in this context.

For example, would it be the fairly widespread pulling of library records, waste of time issues aside? Frequent intrusive searches of god-fearing americans like Hank as he tries to board his weekly flight to Vegas? Or would all of these be fine in light of the age in which we now live?

It seems to me that you and your compadres' (fairly persuasive) arguments are based at least in part on the fact that the actual implementation of these measures has not been far-reaching as yet. If that is the case, then I feel like a person can accept every one of your statements as true and still feel as though our government may have taken too many steps down the "security over privacy" path.

The fears may indeed be personality and ideology-driven, but I can see where I wouldn't want the same government who has seen fit to hold terrorist suspects for years without representation and who threatens aging cancer patients with jail time for joining medical marijuana collectives to have a similar opportunity to deem me a "person of interest" because of my use of library computers to post my lefty anti-admin screeds on this and other forums. N.B. I make that point for rhetorical reasons (and cheap ones at that), not because I believe it's likely, so don't go lumping me in with the "it's a dictatorship" crowd.

I'm not a big fan of the slippery slope argument in general, but in this case it seems rational to express discomfort about the trend and the people doing the enforcing, before the actual enforcement reaches a point where we all get in line with Ty, Sam and Burger.

Lisa: But if the police are corrupt, who will police the police?
Homer: I dunno.....Coast Guard?