5 ms·

Is this the kind of problem that a politician like ron paul can fix though? Thanks in great part to Reddit, Ron Paul is largely associated with crackpot ultra-l

by swombat 16y ago

Is this the kind of problem that a politician like ron paul can fix though? Thanks in great part to Reddit, Ron Paul is largely associated with crackpot ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand type movements, so anyone in the know would probably dismiss anything he does out of hand as "just a stunt move". Certainly, that's my first impression for his introduction of a bill with no political support and, as far as I understand the US legal system, zero chance of actually getting anywhere. Now, if someone with some political credibility introduced a bill with support from other members of the House and Senate, that'd be worth pointing out. But as it is, this is no more "serious" than a good sketch on the Daily Show, is it?

pdx 16y ago
To be clear, I think for many of us, this is not about "being naked in public". It's not that "those silly Americans with their unreasonable body taboos" What this is, is just another straw, although a fairly large one, that's being piled on the back of an increasingly cranky camel since 9-11. This straw could have been any other increase in the erosion of rights of US citizens. I'm confused why you seem to be so hostile to a member of congress from another country speaking up about an issue. We have no elections for two years so I'm uncertain why his motives are suspect to you.
- michael_dorfman 16y ago
  Dr. Paul is a respected member of that body. Well, there's respected and respected. How many co-sponsors does he have on that bill? I have to agree with the assessment that it has "zero chance of actually getting anywhere."
  - knieveltech 16y ago
    So get out and PUSH. I've already contacted my representatives this morning.
  - soldarnal 16y ago
    I was under the impression that last June (2009) the House voted 310-118 to add an amendment (the Chaffetz amendment) to a bill to ban the scanners as a primary means of screening, but that the Senate never voted on the bill. It seems to me that such a bill would have popular support - supposedly it was backed by both the ACLU and the NRA - but maybe I am understanding the politics wrong.
    - camiller 16y ago
      The amendment may have enjoyed popular support, but did the bill? What bill was it attached to?
      - soldarnal 16y ago
        The bill is HR 2200. It passed the House on 6/4/09 by a vote of 397-25. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02200:@@@R http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02200:@@@R
- swombat 16y ago
  My understanding of your legal system is that before a bill introduced in the House becomes law, it needs to: - be amended and approved by the appropriate Representatives committee - be passed by the House of Representatives - be amended and approved by the appropriate Senate committee - pass the "filibuster" gate - be passed by the Senate - have any amendments reconciled - be signed into law by the president See http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html for more details. Each of those steps are difficult and require a lot of politicking about, building consensus, getting public support from other politicians across both houses, and so on. Successful bills are usually announced with political support from leading figures right away, particularly when they touch on a controversial topic. So, proposing a bill with no meaningful consensus-building or public support is effectively just a PR gesture. It is utterly and completely fucking pointless when you're known as a politician associated with crackpots. Except, of course, for the purpose of getting the aforementioned crackpots worked up that "something is happening". Hence my point: Is Ron Paul just capitalising on yet another libertarian crackpot movement and actually hurting the very legitimate cause of telling the TSA to keep their grubby paws and scanners away from travellers' bodies?
  - ellyagg 16y ago
    While I mostly agree with you, I could really do without the repeated "libertarian crackpot" sideswipes.
    - swombat 16y ago
      If you've ever spent any time on reddit/r/politics, it's pretty hard to call them anything else... but, fair enough, less sideswipes in the future.
      - fogus 16y ago
        You'll live a very "interesting" life if you choose to filter your world view through the comments sections of Reddit.
      - ynniv 16y ago
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
I don't know. I'm hugely aware of how Ron Paul got stereotyped in the last election, and I think he's not the guy to fix it. But we're not at the point of fixing it yet, I don't think (unless TSA comes to their senses. One can always hope). More likely is that you will see politicians who are considered outside the mainstream begin to pound the podium over this. In time, I expect it to become more mainstream. A month maybe? A year? As hot as folks are, it might happen very quickly. The big problem here is that the answer requires putting people in charge at the local airport who are allowed to make mistakes. I hate what's happened to airport security, but I'd happily do the naked body scan and group grope -- as long as it was done on an ad-hoc basis. Maybe once out of every thousand flights or something. There's a bit of a quagmire about the way politics works, especially involving areas of risk and fear, which I won't go into here. Let's just say that yes, Ron Paul is not the guy, but things could change, and change quickly. But the overall problem of how to solve airport security is just going to stick around. Even if the grownups show up and set TSA straight, the only thing they're going to learn is how to use fear to sell even more equipment that intrudes on every passenger. Just in a different way. They need to find the terrorist, not the weapon. The plane can be full of weapons, and as long as nobody wishes any harm to be done, it's as safe as a plane without weapons at all. Such a simple concept, yet I think it's going to be a bridge too far for policy-makers. (of course a plane can't be full of nervous people carrying nitro-glycerin and hand grenades, but you get my point)
- pyre 16y ago
  You're not necessarily looking for the terrorist, though. You might also be looking for the guy who might have too much to drink, get into an argument with his seat neighbor, then reach into his bag for his glock. Or the guy that's just mentally unstable. Granted, these are one-off cases, but I can't think of a good reason for people to have guns, or (large) hunting knives in their carry-on luggage. And truthfully, if people want to pack guns in their checked luggage, from a safety perspective, it's probably better to have them declare it and put it into some sort of 'safe' container. Lord knows there will be people with ammunition that is waiting to misfire inside the luggage storage compartment of the plane. (Not that I'm defending the TSA's actions for the past 9 years or anything...)
grandalf 16y ago
I think that in spite of Ron Paul having been marginalized, he still has a lot of credibility among people who irrationally didn't vote for him b/c they prefer to vote for a candidate who they believe has a chance of winning.
astine 16y ago
Paul's reputation for submitting legislation that gets ignored by congress is much older than Reddit. For better or worse, Ron Paul has always represented an agenda that is unpopular in congress and he has always voted with that agenda in mind. He is not prone to compromise. He's actually gotten into a much stronger position of late than he has been in past.
jdp23 16y ago
fixing the problem will take bi-partisan agreement -- which (at least in my opinion) will only happen if the grassroots outrage continues to mount. in that context, a powerful speech on the floor of Congress adds flames to the fire not matter who makes it. and don't underestimate Ron Paul's influence. the Tea Party movement (which has a lot of overlap with libertarians on a lot of issues) and a general "small government" attitude were big winners in November. and with the Republicans recapturing control of the House, Paul's seniority leaves him well-positioned. for more about the general political situation for privacy-related issued in the upcoming congress, here's my notes from a Privacy Coalition call early this month: http://getfisaright.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/looking-forward-to-the-next-congress/ http://getfisaright.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/looking-forward...
maxharris 16y ago
> ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand type It is a mistake to conflate Ayn Rand with libertarians: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html
- alanh 16y ago
  The strongest libertarians I’ve met in my own personal live seem to be fans of objectivism.
tzs 16y ago
> Thanks in great part to Reddit, Ron Paul is largely associated with crackpot ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand type movements, so anyone in the know would probably dismiss anything he does out of hand as "just a stunt move". You greatly overestimate the power of Reddit. You also misread Reddit--he's most associated with just plain crackpots there than with ultra-libertarians. Ultra-libertarians are for reduced government everywhere--Ron Paul doesn't seem to mind government, as long as it is not Federal government.
- ryandvm 16y ago
  > Ron Paul doesn't seem to mind government, as long as it is not Federal government. Indeed. And with a number of U.S. states having economies larger than most countries, this is not such a illogical ideal.

by swombat 16y ago

pdx 16y ago

To be clear, I think for many of us, this is not about "being naked in public". It's not that "those silly Americans with their unreasonable body taboos" What this is, is just another straw, although a fairly large one, that's being piled on the back of an increasingly cranky camel since 9-11. This straw could have been any other increase in the erosion of rights of US citizens. I'm confused why you seem to be so hostile to a member of congress from another country speaking up about an issue. We have no elections for two years so I'm uncertain why his motives are suspect to you.

michael_dorfman 16y ago
Dr. Paul is a respected member of that body. Well, there's respected and respected. How many co-sponsors does he have on that bill? I have to agree with the assessment that it has "zero chance of actually getting anywhere."
- knieveltech 16y ago
  So get out and PUSH. I've already contacted my representatives this morning.
- soldarnal 16y ago
  I was under the impression that last June (2009) the House voted 310-118 to add an amendment (the Chaffetz amendment) to a bill to ban the scanners as a primary means of screening, but that the Senate never voted on the bill. It seems to me that such a bill would have popular support - supposedly it was backed by both the ACLU and the NRA - but maybe I am understanding the politics wrong.
  - camiller 16y ago
    The amendment may have enjoyed popular support, but did the bill? What bill was it attached to?
    - soldarnal 16y ago
      The bill is HR 2200. It passed the House on 6/4/09 by a vote of 397-25. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02200:@@@R http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR02200:@@@R
swombat 16y ago
My understanding of your legal system is that before a bill introduced in the House becomes law, it needs to: - be amended and approved by the appropriate Representatives committee - be passed by the House of Representatives - be amended and approved by the appropriate Senate committee - pass the "filibuster" gate - be passed by the Senate - have any amendments reconciled - be signed into law by the president See http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html for more details. Each of those steps are difficult and require a lot of politicking about, building consensus, getting public support from other politicians across both houses, and so on. Successful bills are usually announced with political support from leading figures right away, particularly when they touch on a controversial topic. So, proposing a bill with no meaningful consensus-building or public support is effectively just a PR gesture. It is utterly and completely fucking pointless when you're known as a politician associated with crackpots. Except, of course, for the purpose of getting the aforementioned crackpots worked up that "something is happening". Hence my point: Is Ron Paul just capitalising on yet another libertarian crackpot movement and actually hurting the very legitimate cause of telling the TSA to keep their grubby paws and scanners away from travellers' bodies?
- ellyagg 16y ago
  While I mostly agree with you, I could really do without the repeated "libertarian crackpot" sideswipes.
  - swombat 16y ago
    If you've ever spent any time on reddit/r/politics, it's pretty hard to call them anything else... but, fair enough, less sideswipes in the future.
    - fogus 16y ago
      You'll live a very "interesting" life if you choose to filter your world view through the comments sections of Reddit.
    - ynniv 16y ago

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

I don't know. I'm hugely aware of how Ron Paul got stereotyped in the last election, and I think he's not the guy to fix it. But we're not at the point of fixing it yet, I don't think (unless TSA comes to their senses. One can always hope). More likely is that you will see politicians who are considered outside the mainstream begin to pound the podium over this. In time, I expect it to become more mainstream. A month maybe? A year? As hot as folks are, it might happen very quickly. The big problem here is that the answer requires putting people in charge at the local airport who are allowed to make mistakes. I hate what's happened to airport security, but I'd happily do the naked body scan and group grope -- as long as it was done on an ad-hoc basis. Maybe once out of every thousand flights or something. There's a bit of a quagmire about the way politics works, especially involving areas of risk and fear, which I won't go into here. Let's just say that yes, Ron Paul is not the guy, but things could change, and change quickly. But the overall problem of how to solve airport security is just going to stick around. Even if the grownups show up and set TSA straight, the only thing they're going to learn is how to use fear to sell even more equipment that intrudes on every passenger. Just in a different way. They need to find the terrorist, not the weapon. The plane can be full of weapons, and as long as nobody wishes any harm to be done, it's as safe as a plane without weapons at all. Such a simple concept, yet I think it's going to be a bridge too far for policy-makers. (of course a plane can't be full of nervous people carrying nitro-glycerin and hand grenades, but you get my point)

pyre 16y ago
You're not necessarily looking for the terrorist, though. You might also be looking for the guy who might have too much to drink, get into an argument with his seat neighbor, then reach into his bag for his glock. Or the guy that's just mentally unstable. Granted, these are one-off cases, but I can't think of a good reason for people to have guns, or (large) hunting knives in their carry-on luggage. And truthfully, if people want to pack guns in their checked luggage, from a safety perspective, it's probably better to have them declare it and put it into some sort of 'safe' container. Lord knows there will be people with ammunition that is waiting to misfire inside the luggage storage compartment of the plane. (Not that I'm defending the TSA's actions for the past 9 years or anything...)

grandalf 16y ago

I think that in spite of Ron Paul having been marginalized, he still has a lot of credibility among people who irrationally didn't vote for him b/c they prefer to vote for a candidate who they believe has a chance of winning.

astine 16y ago

Paul's reputation for submitting legislation that gets ignored by congress is much older than Reddit. For better or worse, Ron Paul has always represented an agenda that is unpopular in congress and he has always voted with that agenda in mind. He is not prone to compromise. He's actually gotten into a much stronger position of late than he has been in past.

jdp23 16y ago

fixing the problem will take bi-partisan agreement -- which (at least in my opinion) will only happen if the grassroots outrage continues to mount. in that context, a powerful speech on the floor of Congress adds flames to the fire not matter who makes it. and don't underestimate Ron Paul's influence. the Tea Party movement (which has a lot of overlap with libertarians on a lot of issues) and a general "small government" attitude were big winners in November. and with the Republicans recapturing control of the House, Paul's seniority leaves him well-positioned. for more about the general political situation for privacy-related issued in the upcoming congress, here's my notes from a Privacy Coalition call early this month: http://getfisaright.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/looking-forward-to-the-next-congress/ http://getfisaright.wordpress.com/2010/11/15/looking-forward...

maxharris 16y ago

> ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand type It is a mistake to conflate Ayn Rand with libertarians: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/libertarians.html

alanh 16y ago
The strongest libertarians I’ve met in my own personal live seem to be fans of objectivism.

tzs 16y ago

> Thanks in great part to Reddit, Ron Paul is largely associated with crackpot ultra-libertarian Ayn Rand type movements, so anyone in the know would probably dismiss anything he does out of hand as "just a stunt move". You greatly overestimate the power of Reddit. You also misread Reddit--he's most associated with just plain crackpots there than with ultra-libertarians. Ultra-libertarians are for reduced government everywhere--Ron Paul doesn't seem to mind government, as long as it is not Federal government.

ryandvm 16y ago
> Ron Paul doesn't seem to mind government, as long as it is not Federal government. Indeed. And with a number of U.S. states having economies larger than most countries, this is not such a illogical ideal.