We have control. We simply choose not to exercise it. We vote these congress-people into office, and they allow these things to happen. Mail your congressman, ask them to introduce a bill to fix this. Tell them if they don't you'll work to drive them out office. Campaign against those that support tyrannical security theater.
What is that going to do? You have to remember that these people have been in office long enough to ignore their constituents and get away with it. They are prepared for when you send them a complaint. They'll return a form letter indicating. "Thank you for sending your complaint... insert a subtile fuck off but polite message .. etc"
It's the same with sex based laws. [I.e. having a broad def for a registered sex offender] They're unwilling to repeal ineffective ones in the hopes of not appearing ineffective towards the subject.
----
Anyways going off the rant. The problem is that the only way that we have the opportunity to "sway" the organization's actions is via a set of proxies. We have to influence our congress person, along with others, then we have to convince them that it's worth doing something and following through. If that's not enough we'll have to compete with the TSA unions/employees who claim that what they're doing is important/etc, the lobbyers who have fancy material for the congress person claiming "effectiveness", etc.
This decision didn't pass either congress or the senate, so no need to harp on them. The signature on the paper giving this decision authority is the signature of POTUS, nobody else's. For once, it wasn't the congresscritters' fault.
Obama is in charge of the executive, so this decision either passed on his desk, leaving with a stamp of approval, or he at the very least has the power to block it.
Other candidates were Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson.
If I had to pick one least likely to approve this, I'd put my money on Gary Johnson, but I realize it's a fool's bet. Though I think I'd also put my money on Obama if the question was "who's most likely to approve this decision ?".
I look forward to you producing a list of all representatives and senate candidates that are against these privacy violations, with citations of course.
Comments
We have control. We simply choose not to exercise it. We vote these congress-people into office, and they allow these things to happen. Mail your congressman, ask them to introduce a bill to fix this. Tell them if they don't you'll work to drive them out office. Campaign against those that support tyrannical security theater.
What is that going to do? You have to remember that these people have been in office long enough to ignore their constituents and get away with it. They are prepared for when you send them a complaint. They'll return a form letter indicating. "Thank you for sending your complaint... insert a subtile fuck off but polite message .. etc"
It's the same with sex based laws. [I.e. having a broad def for a registered sex offender] They're unwilling to repeal ineffective ones in the hopes of not appearing ineffective towards the subject.
----
Anyways going off the rant. The problem is that the only way that we have the opportunity to "sway" the organization's actions is via a set of proxies. We have to influence our congress person, along with others, then we have to convince them that it's worth doing something and following through. If that's not enough we'll have to compete with the TSA unions/employees who claim that what they're doing is important/etc, the lobbyers who have fancy material for the congress person claiming "effectiveness", etc.
It pretty much looks hopeless.
This seems to assume there is a glut of qualified candidates we could back instead who don't also support it.
This decision didn't pass either congress or the senate, so no need to harp on them. The signature on the paper giving this decision authority is the signature of POTUS, nobody else's. For once, it wasn't the congresscritters' fault.
Obama is in charge of the executive, so this decision either passed on his desk, leaving with a stamp of approval, or he at the very least has the power to block it.
Other candidates were Mitt Romney, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson.
If I had to pick one least likely to approve this, I'd put my money on Gary Johnson, but I realize it's a fool's bet. Though I think I'd also put my money on Obama if the question was "who's most likely to approve this decision ?".
I look forward to you producing a list of all representatives and senate candidates that are against these privacy violations, with citations of course.
And what happens when both electable parties' political machines put up primary candidates on the same side of an issue?
Would you like more war or more war?
If you don't want war just choose one of those options.
This.