Like TSA? You'll Love VIPR

Security expert James Fallows has a short post about The Great Fear:

The actions of VIPR in Tennessee, moving beyond the known territory of air travel, are noted in his piece.

Amtrak is able to find explosives with only dogs. No need to abrogate travellers' rights as they get off trains. Kudos for remaining unterrorized by the DHS/TSA and pushing back against encroachment on their transportation system security. Amtrak does just fine without TSA. As would private airlines. As would we all.

 

Road travel is a known gamble for pretty much all of us. We all know of people who have either died or been hurt in car accidents. We silently accept that risk. Air travel for the vast majority of people, remains an unknown and therefore frightening to one degree or another. Death by what is known, while not being desired, is more acceptable than is dying by an unknown.

As to TSA VIPR'ing around Tennessee, well I hope some politician with guts will shut this down and fast.

 

The VIPR stint in Tennessee over, this AOL commentary gently mocks the obvious:

and quotes Pistole on not "getting into the business of body cavity searches." My bodily entry by his agency at the checkpoint pat-up notwithstanding...

 

Good luck finding one of those.

 

Don't hold your breath.

 

Actually, you might be pleasantly surprised. Google Ron Paul.

 

I've had dinner with him, thanks. And while I agree with him on a number of things, he's moderately disingenuous on other topics...

 

if you look at the other clowns running, Paul is the only one who gives a damn about civil liberties.

 

MOST civil liberties.

He's also stated that he wouldn't be opposed to banning atheists from office - which I consider a serious failing in someone who is supposedly so staunchly in support of civil liberties.

 

Except when it comes to my uterus, then he wants the government to decide what reproductive rights I have.

 

No, it is after you have created a life that he wants to get involved.

 

It takes 2 people to create a life...just sayin'...

 

Agree completely.

 

Absolutely False!

Ron Paul wants to return this issue to the States, along with many others.

 

Do you have a link for this? I'd like to know more about it.

 

HR 539, also known as the "We the People Act."

• So, basically, he thinks the Feds shouldn't interfere in the states' rights to discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation - among other things.

 

According to Fox News.com Ron Paul's stance on abortion is: Abortion: Says federal government should have no authority either to legalize or ban abortion. Yet signed pledge to advance only anti-abortion appointees for relevant administration jobs, cut off federal dollars for clinics that perform or finance abortions, and support a ban on abortions after the fetus reaches a certain stage in development

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/07/republican-candidates-on-issues/#ixzz1d3TAArkg

 

In other words, the claim that Ron Paul wants to religiously test atheists out of office is an outright fabrication. The "We the People Act" was an attempt to promote the idea that the 9th and 10th amendments weren't written because the founders got bored and wanted an even 10. The state are supposed to be equal partners in the Republic, and controversial issues like marriage, religion and and abortion are best handled at the local level. Should we really be using the Feds to decide whether or not the 10 commandments should be hung up at a local school? Should something as divisive as abortion have a centralized decision in Washington? Should marriage, which has always been a state institution, become a federal institution? This is about the role of the federal government in our lives, not atheist witch hunts.

 

Keep in mind, the Republican establishment hates Ron Paul, so Fox News will be less than favorable in most cases. The first sentence sums it all up. He doesn't believe the Feds have the authority to legalize or ban abortion, just like they don't handle laws regarding murder, rape theft, etc. He wouldn't want to finance abortions, because that forces taxpayers who oppose the procedure to pay for something they believe is immoral. As far as a ban after a certain stage, he might personally like the idea, but that wouldn't change his policy decisions, which are outlined in the first sentence.

 

Yes, it is an outright fabrication - on your part, not mine. My exact words were "He's also stated that he wouldn't be opposed to banning atheists from office," if you look at the post above.

Look, I've spoken to him personally - face-to-face - on the topic, not just read the news or his bill. And as I said, he may be the closest thing we've got to a "politician with guts," but that doesn't mean he's the best person for the job. He's just apparently the best person who wants the job.