The Revolution has begun

Posted on by
17

by the Night Writer

“When just one man says, ‘No, I won’t,’ Rome began to fall.”

— Spartacus

I think just about everyone is aware by now that Homeland Security and the T&A — I mean, TSA — has decided that it can look at you naked or aggressively grope you as a prerequisite of flying from one place to another in the land of the free. With the new, so-called “Naked Scanners” TSA agents tell you to “assume the position” with your hands over your head as if you are already guilty of something. Then they irradiate your body from the front and back so they can see under your clothes to determine if you’re packing weapons, explosives or just a little too much of Grandma’s fruitcake.

Sure, you can “opt out” of sharing X-ray-ted imagesof yourself but if you do then  the snap of a rubber glove signals that you are now subject to what Big Sister Janet Napolitano calls an “enhanced pat-down”, or what we used to call a “feeling up”.  TSA agents used to do these with the backs of their hands but now they get to palm your inner thighs, crotch, butt-crack and breasts because that will really show the terrorists.  Seriously, just think about it: we’ve had to go along with taking off our shoes, our belts, chucking our shampoo and deodorant, and now we have to submit to being molested just to fly. No wonder that all the would-be airline suicide bombers since 9/11 have been stopped not by the TSA but by pissed-off passengers. As Napolitano says, “the system works.”

The Christmas Day Knicker-bomber incident (where the nut-job’s father tried to alert the U.S. government of his son’s radical affiliations but was ignored) proved that Homeland Security can’t handle information, so they’ve decided to “handle” everything else, and they’d sure appreciate your cooperation. As Napolitano wrote in an open letter to the people who pay her salary,  “We ask the American people to play an important part of our layered defense. We ask for cooperation, patience and a commitment to vigilance in the face of a determined enemy. We also ask that you turn your head and cough.” (Ok, I added a few words at the end.)

Signs are, however, that after years of progressively greater indignities the public is starting to push back. The airline pilots and flight attendants unions are protesting and now passengers are saying “you touch my junk and I’ll have you arrested.” That’s what ticketed passenger John Tyner said in San Diego the other day after “opting-out” of the Nude Scanner and being faced with a government “grip and grin”. He demurred, and also happened to record his experience with his cell-phone:

A supervisor is heard re-explaining the groin check process to Tyner then adding “If you’re not comfortable with that we can escort you back out and you don’t have to fly today.”

Tyner responded “OK, I don’t understand how a sexual assault can be made a condition of my flying.”

“This is not considered a sexual assault,” replied the supervisor, calmly.

“It would be if you were not the government,” said Tyner.

“By buying your ticket you gave up a lot of rights,” countered the TSA supervisor.

“I think the government took them away after 9/11,’ said Tyner.

“OK,” came the reply.

Mr. Tyner didn’t get to make his flight to South Dakota but he was able to upload the 30-minute audio of his encounter to YouTube.

httpv://johnnyedge.blogspot.com/2010/11/these-events-took-place-roughly-between.html

Mr. Tyner’s decision to opt-out of the scanner treatment was based on concerns about radiation exposure. Big Sister assures us, however, that these concerns are unfounded. After all, the government has had  hours to test these machines and are confident that there are no short-term or long-term effects. Hey, if you can’t trust your government, who can you trust? Big Sister even says that Johns Hopkins has signed off on the safety of these scanners. Apparently, not everyone at John Hopkins got that memo, as described in this article, Naked Scanners At US Airports May be Dangerous: Scientists:

“They say the risk is minimal, but statistically someone is going to get skin cancer from these X-rays,” Dr Michael Love, who runs an X-ray lab at the department of biophysics and biophysical chemistry at Johns Hopkins University school of medicine, told AFP.

“No exposure to X-ray is considered beneficial. We know X-rays are hazardous but we have a situation at the airports where people are so eager to fly that they will risk their lives in this manner,” he said.

…

A group of scientists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) raised concerns about the “potential serious health risks” from the scanners in a letter sent to the White House Office of Science and Technology in April.

Biochemist John Sedat and his colleagues said in the letter that most of the energy from the scanners is delivered to the skin and underlying tissue.

“While the dose would be safe if it were distributed throughout the volume of the entire body, the dose to the skin may be dangerously high,” they wrote.

The scientists say the X-rays could pose a risk to everyone from travelers over the age of 65 to pregnant women and their unborn babies, to HIV-positive travelers, cancer patients and men.

“Men’s sexual organs are exposed to the X-rays. The skin is very thin there,” Love explained.

The Office of Science and Technology responded this week to the scientists’ letter, saying the scanners have been “tested extensively” by US government agencies and were found to meet safety standards.

But Sedat told AFP Friday: “We still don’t know the beam intensity or other details of their classified system.”

The high-handed actions of Homeland Security and the TSA have even led to calls by some for a National Opt-Out Day on Wednesday, November 24 where travelers are asked to “opt-out” of the scanner treatment and accept a public groping in order to demonstrate opposition to these unreasonable searches. As the Opt-Out Day website says:

It’s the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government’s desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an “enhanced pat down” that touches people’s breasts and genitals in an aggressive manner.  You should never have to explain to your children, “Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it’s a government employee, then it’s OK.”

The goal of National Opt Out Day is to send a message to our lawmakers that we demand change.  We have a right to privacy and buying a plane ticket should not mean that we’re guilty until proven innocent.

If you can’t avoid flying on the 24th or  some other time, you might find this video helpful when someone comes up to you and says “I’m from the government and I’m here to grope you.”

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXDLQPfqc04&feature=share

Spend ’em if you’ve got ’em

Posted on by
2

by the Night Writer

The FDA will soon be mandating graphic anti-smoking warnings on packages of cigarettes, the result of a law passed last year giving the Feds authority to regulate marketing and labeling of tobacco products.
Cigarette graphic

Apparently the current anti-smoking efforts and warnings have only been able to reduce the number of smokers in the U.S. population to around 20%, a level that has held steady for the past several years. The thinking now is that gruesome, graphic images taking up half of the packaging on a pack of death sticks will gross the die-hards out. I already don’t have a desire to smoke so I don’t know how effective this might be, but apparently those pushing this measure think this will help until they’re able to pass a law requiring smokers to wear distinctive patches sewn on their clothes in order to make it that much easier to shun them.

If graphic photos are effective, though, then I’m excited about future possibilities. What if we were to put gruesome images on the front of everything dangerous? What if, for example, we were to require the cover page of every trillion-dollar deficit budget submitted to Congress to have a picture of, say, gutted Detroit or the Greek riots?

Abandoned Detroit

Greek riots

WARNING. UNCHECKED SPENDING WILL KILL YOUR ECONOMY.

They may not take time to read the bill itself, but they’d at least see the cover. Do you think it might work?

 

 

Braveheart, 2010: Boehner as Robert the Bruce to Bachmann’s William Wallace?

Posted on by
23

by the Night Writer

“There’s a difference between us. You think the people of this country exist to provide you with position. I think your position exists to provide those people with freedom. And I go to make sure that they have it.”

With those words Mel Gibson as William Wallace in the movie Braveheart challenged a feckless Scottish noble, foreshadowing not only Braveheart’s battles with the English but also with the gentry that represented his supposed allies in the fight for Scotland’s independence. It also symbolically foreshadows an uncomfortable relationship between the Tea Party and the Republican leadership in the ongoing fight for freedom in America.

In 1297 the central players in an uneasy alliance were William Wallace, the upstart rebel who shocked and demoralized the English with a dramatic victory in the Battle of Stirling Bridge,  and Robert Bruce, the scion of a wealthy and politically powerful Scottish family. In 2010, Republican lion and presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner plays Robert the Bruce to Michelle Bachmann’s  Wallace.   Bachmann was out-front for the burgeoning Tea Party movement, driving her enemies to distraction and helping spark a historic Republican rout that changes the balance of power in much the same way that Stirling Bridge did. Her decision to now run for a leadership position in the Republican caucus has been greeted coolly by her nobles. I know there are those who will raise an eyebrow or a guffaw at equating Michelle Bachmann with a figure as historically significant as William Wallace but at the heart of the matter there are similarities.

Bachmann is derided by her enemies (both in and outside the Republican party) for being out-spoken, outrageous and deliberately provocative. That’s pretty much how Wallace was presented in Braveheart: coarse, blunt and sometimes appearing to be making it up as he went along. The way the Scottish nobles fought the English in those days is also not too different from the way the Republican leadership has historically contended with the Democrats: a show of force before the battle which merely sets the stage for a parley in the center of the field that ends in negotiation. When Wallace showed up — nearly unwanted — before one battle he was told to hang back and be quiet. When he rode forward to be part of the parley anyway someone asked him what he was doing and his response was “picking a fight.”  The passion and taunts of Wallace and his men discomfited the “civilized” combatants who weren’t expecting to be mooned or to be told that their general could bend over and “kiss his own arse.” Similarly, Bachmann and her unwillingness to “play nice” is barely tolerated by the party elite, while the passion and populism of the Tea Party rallies and town halls has shaken the political professionals and pundits who hope it is an aberration and not a new fact of life.

Consider this as well — the English king, Edward I (aka “Long-shanks”) was as ruthless and canny a leader as there ever was. He controlled the Scottish nobles by also granting them lands in England as well as Scotland, meaning any true rebellion wouldn’t just undermine him, it would undermine their wealth as well. Similarly, the entrenched Republican leadership, epitomized by Boehner the Bruce, has gained power, prestige and wealth by managing the status quo. Like any good general, the Boehner knows how to take advantage of opportunity when someone rocks the boat, but also realizes that if the boat rocks too much there’s no telling who all will go overboard. (At least he may take comfort in knowing that President Obama is no Edward I.)

In the movie, Robert the Bruce is stirred by Wallace’s example and conviction, but also swayed by his father’s adamant insistence that the only thing that was important was keeping his land, his possessions and his title, even if it meant lying, cheating and betraying others. As for the Boehner and the others who have been in D.C. for a long time, they will have to search their own souls to determine whether to be guided by principal or the political equivalents of the land, possessions and titles they’ve acquired by playing the game.

Of course, the risks aren’t solely with them. History tells us that Robert the Bruce eventually united the Scottish clans and factions and became king of an independent Scotland  (even if this was helped by Edward I dying and being replaced by a less resolute heir). History also tells us that William Wallace was defeated at the Battle of Falkirk, just one year after Stirling Bridge, when the Scots cavalry, commanded by the faithless nobles (Bruce was not present), abandoned the field when they could have routed a broken English attack and left Wallace and his pike-men and archers (under the command of one Sir John Stewart) at the mercy of the English cavalry and long-bows. Wallace and his surviving army were scattered and within two years he was ultimately betrayed into English hands, taken to London, convicted of treason and summarily drawn and quartered. While there are many who would like to see the same happen, metaphorically, to Bachmann (or perhaps literally given the vitriol some use in the comment sections of the newspapers), there are two historical lessons to be learned. One is not to trust your “leaders” to have your back. If they’re truly leaders then they need to be out front, which is what Wallace urged Bruce to do. In the movie he tells Bruce, “Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don’t follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they’d follow you. And so would I!” In the movie Bruce is inspired by Braveheart’s passion and sacrifice and summons the will to ignore his father’s advice and to see the cause through to the end.

The second lesson is that a cause that captures people’s hearts and minds is greater than any one individual or group of individuals. While some might say that it’s silly to compare our modern circumstances with Scotland’s fight for freedom from tyranny, let’s not lose sight of the fact that the Scots had little knowledge of what we call democracy. They were used to a feudal system of gentry and serfs where the individual was regularly at the mercy of his “betters” who could impose sanctions and indignities with impunity, even to the point of claiming “first night” rights with a bride. Yet the people  still valued and longed for the right to live their own lives, even if it cost their lives. In comparison, our dealing with a government that would force us to buy health insurance, tell us what kind of light bulb or fast food we can buy or electronically strip-search us “for our own protection” seems almost petty. Or does it?

One of the remarkable documents that came out of Scotland’s battle for independence was the Declaration of Arbroath. Written in 1320, some 450 years prior to our own Declaration, it includes the words that I hope will resonate for another 400 years or more:

It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Anorex[st]ics Inaneymous 108

Posted on by
1

Anorex[st]ics Inaneymous 108

NATIONAL NOVEL WRITING MONTH HAS BEGUN! Dad and I went to a Countdown To Midnight part last night, where everyone gathers at a restaurant at 11 and counts down to midnight, amazingly enough. There is much consuming of caffeinated drinks (I myself consumed four cups of black tea). At midnight, a deathly silence falls, broken only by a stampede of ‘tikka tikka tikka tikka’ from keyboards.
The first fifteen minutes after midnight were a Word War- see who can write the most in 15 minutes. Once the time was up, people started calling out their numbers. 456, 568, 716… 966. Yeah, that was me. I don’t even know how I accomplished that many in fifteen minutes, that’s pretty much unheard-of for me, as it usually takes me two to three hours for me to accomplish the daily goal of 1667.
Anyway, I came away from that with 1402 words in one hour. That’s almost the full day’s amount! Woohoo!

It’s the most wonderful time of the year… (Yeah. We’ll see how I feel during week two.)

Ciao for now!

Anorex[st]ics Inaneymous 107

Posted on by
3

Anorex[st]ics Inaneymous 107

Also, I took Ben’s test:

You are a
Social Liberal
(68% permissive)
and an…
Economic Conservative
(65% permissive)
You are best described as a:

Libertarian

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

MD and I got the same results, at almost the same percentages. We’ve got that link going on…

Ciao for now!

ETA: Huh. I wonder why the graphic didn’t load…

A Post!

Posted on by
1

by Son@Night

Patience was complaining the other day that she’s been carrying the load around here.  She may be my adversary, but she’s probably right on that one.  So as a nod to the good ol’ days (Was it Bogus Doug who always did these things?), here’s a little quiz.

Your true political self:

You are a
Social Moderate
(56% permissive)

and an…
Economic Conservative
(80% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Capitalist

You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.

NW threatened to kick me out of the house when I told him I was “socially moderate.”  He saw reason when I explained that my libertarian leanings skewed that score.  Good thing too, because the rent is pretty “moderate.”

Take the test here if you so desire.

Declaration of Dependence

Posted on by
Reply

by the Night Writer

We hold these truths to be self-defeating, that all men are created ignorant, that they are endowed by their Government with certain unknowable rights, but among these are lies, subservience and the pursuit of higher taxes. That to obscure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their assumed powers from the apathy of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes effective enough in achieving these ends, it is the plight of the people to alter or to demolish their will, and to allow even more government, laying its foundation on such principles as the healthcare they must buy and the type of light bulbs they may not buy, ceding their powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect the safety and happiness of those in charge.