subscribe or follow us:                    

Left vs. Right? Statism Is The Problem

0 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on May 11, 2009 in Gonzo | 0 comments

adbusters-the-product-is-you-shaved-head-barcode-skuThe constant media coverage clings to a misguided belief  that is dead and obsolete.  It is that the perspectives that issues are a matter of this imaginary left vs. right.  That is one of the worst political lies on earth.  We blindly accept that there are concepts of statism on the left and statism on the right but nothing else.  Really how many Americans call themselves left, right, or see themselves somewhere in between?

The problem with politics is the left and the right.  They are concepts of statism.  They both hold to large Federal control of the people.  They both feel that people are to be controled.  That is rubbish.  We set up a system that was to eliminate the Federal Bureaucrats from controlling us.  Then we eliminated restrictions that were put on them?  What the hell? Take the Filibuster concept for a minute. We have all but eliminated this.  If these people want to fight for a bill shey should be fighting for it.  It should not be this simple to pass legislation to control and take from the people.  Cloture is a joke, and needs to be outlawed.  Make these people in congress stand up and read the phone book or the Bible Jimmy Stewart style dammit!  Make these people show up for work dammit! they are not there to guide us around like sheep.

The problem is the size and power of government.  Most issues should be fought here in our neighborhoods not at a federal level.  What we have done is to take the most important element out of the equation.  That element is the individual.  You must fall under federal categories and you must fall in line with limited concepts or it is not valid.

You can not give power to one person without forcing ones self on another.  Power and legislation will always impose on another.  We must not be naive and just throw out justice, but also we must not allow one people to rule over another.  This is oppression.  This will breed oppression.  This is what we need to fight against.

Many that support these federal concepts and anti-capitalist concepts tend to raise the argument of greed.  I will take that argument, validate it and use it also.  If greed is an inevitable why is it better to have rulers with power to give and take or to regulate the power?  They do not have to work to fill their greed, they will pass legislation.  They are doing it now.  If a businessman is greedy people can boycott the guy and end his career.  If a federal machine is greedy it will pass legislation to get what it wants from you.  It did this throughout history, just look at Jim Crow laws.

I beg of you to put aside petty differences, and look for a minute on where you actually stand.  Is this current game of fat greedy bureaucrats getting richer and growing in the name of defense and compassion really what you support?  These do as I say not at I do leaders need to be taken out.  These Megalomaniacs see an opportunity for power and wealth so they go to ivy league schools to further agendas just to profit.

Get them out! Limit terms, make them live amongst us.  Make real changes and policies here in our neighborhoods, locally where we are able to look at an issue and address it.  They gain power but will not relinquish the power they gain so easily.  They are growing top heavy crushing the people who hold them up underneath the weight of their bloated lard.  These vile creatures claim compassion as they take large sums of money trickling out little amounts of change down to the needy.  This hypocrisy is vile.  If they want to help the hurting then go get your damn hands dirty! Step out of their rich homes they obtain through their “works of compassion” in the senate, and walk down to the shelters and help someone dammit!  I do!  You can too!  Open your Rich bureaucrat mansions up for people who need a place to sleep! NO! they don’t!  They grow rich by taking, keeping, and doing little for the needy. It’s a lie, a joke, a scam, a farce.  The Bureaucracy is growing every day as we suffer.

The politicans rarely see or are affected by unemployment.  Why? Because they are covering their asses, lining their bank accounts and giving the American people a great big Fuck You.

But we foolish sheep buy it and listen to fancy rhetoric as if we were sitting down watching the Miss America pageant.

It’s not Left Vs. Right.   It’s Statism & Oppression vs. Freedom & Equality and the CNN & FOX sheep seem to not see it.  Unity & Justice is not at the other end of the Oppressors Legislation.  It is not found within their huge bank accounts.  You federalists and statists may just get what you are looking for, and that scares me.  I fear what exists now and I fear more what comes as the Federal Imposition grows.  They may just get what they want, and that is to make your decisions, decide your ethics, and to be your choice and will.

No Man or woman should have power over another.  No people should control another. No person should own another.  Sorry, just had to rant…

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s the TSA’s 10th birthday. Should we celebrate?

The Washington Post November 13, 2011 | Christopher Elliott Happy birthday, TSA. go to website boston logan airport

The federal agency charged with protecting the nation’s transportation systems turns 10 Nov. 19. And although its supporters will probably spend the coming days talking about its apparent successes, including the absence of a 9/11 sequel, the question of whether we’re better off with this fledgling $8 billion-a-year federal agency remains very much unanswered.

Maybe it’s a good time to ask it. Not only has the Transportation Security Administration been with us for a decade, but it’s also the one-year anniversary of the unpopular pat-down rule, when officials arbitrarily decided to either send air travelers through the agency’s new body scanners or frisk them. A citizen-initiated petition on the White House Web site encouraging the government to eliminate the agency is gaining momentum, having collected more than 30,000 signatures.

So what are the TSA’s major achievements? Greg Soule, an agency spokesman, offers a list that includes the TSA’s quick formation after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the fact that no major terrorist incidents have happened on its watch. “Through significant improvements to our processes and technologies, as well as the ongoing professionalization of our workforce, transportation systems are safer now than they ever have been,” he says.

Several experts who have been supportive of TSA policies in the past agree that the agency has done a respectable job during its first decade.

“The TSA’s greatest accomplishment is treating transportation security like the serious, professional, your-life-depends-on-it law enforcement job that it is,” says Mary Schiavo, a former inspector general with the Transportation Department and now a lawyer in Mount Pleasant, S.C.

She says that air travelers have forgotten pre-9/11 airport security, which was run by the airlines and was porous and shoddy. Do we really want to return to that? “The airlines allowed 9/11 to happen,” Schiavo says. “They caught [9/11 hijacker] Mohamed Atta at Boston Logan Airport on May 11, 2001, knew he was photographing, filming and watching the security checkpoints at the airport, and they let him go.” Frank Cilluffo, director of the Homeland Security Policy Institute at George Washington University, believes that the TSA deserves recognition for adapting to meet the terrorist threat since its creation in 2001. When it comes to aviation security, he says, there’s no quick and easy fix, and the agency’s approach of building a layered defense and using intelligence underpinned by technology and a well-trained workforce is keeping air travel safe.

But other TSA watchers aren’t so quick to label the agency a success. Steve Lord, the director of homeland security and justice issues with the Government Accountability Office, considers the TSA a “work in progress.” It has made significant improvements in some areas but is “still trying to meet other key goals, such as meeting the congressional mandate to screen inbound air cargo,” he says. “Also, they need to adopt more risk-based screening measures to deploy resources more effectively. A one-size-fits-all approach is inefficient and tends to frustrate the traveling public.” Some experts are more critical. Rich Roth, the executive director of CTI Consulting, a Germantown firm that specializes in aviation security, says that the TSA has been “a miserable failure” at one of its unstated goals from the beginning: making travelers feel that they’re more secure than they were under the private screeners that the agency replaced.

Clark Ervin, who was the Department of Homeland Security’s first inspector general and now directs the Aspen Institute Homeland Security Program, considers the TSA’s biggest shortcoming to be its slowness in adopting cutting-edge technology to make air travel safer. “Generally, such technology is deployed after security threats have materialized and not beforehand,” he says. go to website boston logan airport

But when the discussion moves from the theoretical to the practical – that is, when I talk to air travelers about the TSA and its achievements – the responses are a little less diplomatic.

Although many passengers are grateful to the agency for protecting them and are generally supportive of its efforts, the federal screeners have no shortage of vocal detractors. Sommer Gentry, a math professor from Annapolis and an outspoken agency critic, believes that in the past decade, the TSA has made air travel miserable. She sees the agency’s legacy as one of rude employees, nonsensical rules and violating passengers’ privacy.

“Over 10 years, the TSA’s demands have become more and more offensive to a normal person’s sensibilities,” Gentry says. “After each new outrage, the TSA simply refused to acknowledge legitimate criticism, refused to subject its procedures to any cost-benefit analysis, and somehow travelers seemed to resign themselves to more and more debasement.” Frequent agency critic Bruce Schneier agrees that passengers have simply rolled over. The TSA, he claims, “has turned airplane passengers into sheep.” And so, as the TSA marks its anniversary with what I’m told will be a brief reflection on its accomplishments, what’s the answer to the question of whether it’s worth keeping?

I’m terribly biased. I’ve been covering the agency since the beginning, and we haven’t always gotten along. The agency has on various occasions lied to me, threatened me and even served me with an illegal subpoena in an effort to persuade me to reveal the name of a source. (I declined.) If anyone has a reason for wishing that this agency would go away, it would probably be me. And yet I’m not entirely convinced that eliminating the TSA would be the smartest move.

I’m deeply skeptical of the agency’s suggestion that it has somehow prevented another act of terrorism. And although the TSA has never been anything less than professional when I’ve flown, I agree with the detractors who say that it seems to operate above the law and with virtually no accountability to the taxpayers who fund it.

All that’s certain is that we haven’t had another 9/11 in the past decade. Would that also have been true without the TSA? Possibly.

Perhaps the only thing I can say for sure is this: We should never stop asking ourselves whether we’re better off with the TSA.

After all, we’re not all sheep.

Christopher Elliott

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments