5 ms·
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
by 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 agoDr. 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 agoSo get out and PUSH. I've already contacted my representatives this morning.
- soldarnal 16y agoI 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 agoThe amendment may have enjoyed popular support, but did the bill? What bill was it attached to?
- soldarnal 16y agoThe 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 agoMy 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?