If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Americans famously distrust their government, and understandably so.
Why is it that we don't see daily stories about citizens trying to obtain some data from their government as to the impact of TSA and other forms of border screenings on Americans? This is something that impacts many Americans, especially those that fly or have people come visit them from abroad, so it's not this sort of covert behind-the-scenes thing that we don't have to deal with too much in our day-to-day such as torture of prisoners, recording phone calls, etc.
I'm even open to the possibility that maybe these screenings do help, but why can't we see the data that looks at the costs and benefits of these policies and programs? Why are we seemingly accepting of something like this as a new normal? There was plenty complaining about these rules when they were enacted, but that has seemingly died down.
I swear, if the government decided to lower the speed limit to 50 MPH on interstates and started enforcing this, there would be lots of bitching initially, but a few months later it would be business as usual. Why is our distrust not matched with action rather than apathy?
Perhaps many Americans feel that an investment will not be worth their time and that government is so corrupt that they alone can't fix things, but surely there are things we can do to make these issues not just sort of go away after a while?
Time spent?
Dollars spent?
Terrorists caught?
Overall utility?
Yes, all of those things, and any other ways this can be analyzed. The programs have been going on long enough that there should be enough data to come to some meaningful conclusions, right?
Americans are a bundle of contradictions...and it's "only" $8 billion a year.
I think that though people bitch about the particulars of the the way the TSA handles things like what you can have in your carry on, the nudey scanners, rent-a-cop groping etc., they still feel like the purpose of the TSA is a good and necessary one so it's easy to just let it go.
The price tag in the context of a federal budget that literally throws away hundreds upon hundreds of billions (or more) on waste, corruption, and things that they have no business spending money on, $8b is hardly a big deal...if one believes in the purpose of the TSA. Likewise, if you are such a person, limiting your carry on items and standing in front of a scanner isn't really a big deal is it? I mean, gotta get those terr'ists, right?
I personally oppose the TSA in principle (shocker), but you didn't ask about that.
Americans are a bundle of contradictions...and it's "only" $8 billion a year.
I think that though people bitch about the particulars of the the way the TSA handles things like what you can have in your carry on, the nudey scanners, rent-a-cop groping etc., they still feel like the purpose of the TSA is a good and necessary one so it's easy to just let it go.
The price tag in the context of a federal budget that literally throws away hundreds upon hundreds of billions (or more) on waste, corruption, and things that they have no business spending money on, $8b is hardly a big deal...if one believes in the purpose of the TSA. Likewise, if you are such a person, limiting your carry on items and standing in front of a scanner isn't really a big deal is it? I mean, gotta get those terr'ists, right?
I personally oppose the TSA in principle (shocker), but you didn't ask about that.
To me the technology is not as stressful as having to deal with the little interview and the super no-nonsense border guys that sort of assume everybody is a criminal until proven otherwise. It adds a degree of stress to travel, especially for foreigners to visit the country (many of which may bring with them economic stimulus in the form of business and tourism).
If we gotta get those terr'ists, why can't we know whether this is actually getting them? I don't think many Americans need the specifics as to what specific parts of this screening is most effective/ineffective (i.e. specific technologies, training methods, etc.), but just the high level stuff: are these programs working, how much are they costing, etc. With this, we can help make better choices about whether we want to be a police state which the country often feels like these days.
If we gotta get those terr'ists, why can't we know whether this is actually getting them? I don't think many Americans need the specifics as to what specific parts of this screening is most effective/ineffective (i.e. specific technologies, training methods, etc.), but just the high level stuff: are these programs working, how much are they costing, etc. With this, we can help make better choices about whether we want to be a police state which the country often feels like these days.
This is why a principled (as opposed to pragmatic, which is the antithesis of principle) approach is what is needed. In this case, we are talking about rights. Is what the TSA is doing within our rights or not? If not, then whether they are actually effective is entirely beside the point. They are infringing on a person's right to travel, plain and simple. This is no different than having to be "screened" before making a speech or writing an article. Or imagine if EVERYONE had to take a breathalyzer every time they got into their car (well, some of you libs would probably approve of this one). Or imagine if you had to have a federal agent regularly audit your church to make sure you were a "proper" religion and aren't espousing "dangerous" ideas. The TSA is no different, not in principle.
If you believe that rights don't apply or don't matter, then you really open yourself up to putting up with whatever the government wants to do. What happens when a "rectum bomber" makes it onto a plane? Are we going to discuss whether 'random" cavity searches (or worse) are "effective"? Or are we going to discuss rights?
This is why a principled (as opposed to pragmatic, which is the antithesis of principle) approach is what is needed. In this case, we are talking about rights. Is what the TSA is doing within our rights or not? If not, then whether they are actually effective is entirely beside the point. They are infringing on a person's right to travel, plain and simple. This is no different than having to be "screened" before making a speech or writing an article. Or imagine if EVERYONE had to take a breathalyzer every time they got into their car (well, some of you libs would probably approve of this one). Or imagine if you had to have a federal agent regularly audit your church to make sure you were a "proper" religion and aren't espousing "dangerous" ideas. The TSA is no different, not in principle.
If you believe that rights don't apply or don't matter, then you really open yourself up to putting up with whatever the government wants to do. What happens when a "rectum bomber" makes it onto a plane? Are we going to discuss whether 'random" cavity searches (or worse) are "effective"? Or are we going to discuss rights?
I disagree strongly.
The problem with taking principled stands is that our political parties are good at making certain issues seem like gray areas, we tire of these debates, and then the issue disappears. Politicians have mastered this process, and probably use it strategically to their advantage with issues (e.g. torture).
Principles are important, but we can avoid this whole process and even having these debates if the data and economics do not check out. If we are not getting an ROI for these programs, it doesn't matter how you feel about the principles behind them - the data is the data, and if it is crystal clear that the ROI isn't there, the principles will not cloud issues.
As a country we can't even agree upon basic stuff like whether to support sensible cybersecurity measures. Until the principles are actually about principles and not about power/money driven by our corporate overlords, I say let's put the focus on data and economics first. It is harder to make this into a wash of gray area.
The problem with taking principled stands is that our political parties are good at making certain issues seem like gray areas, we tire of these debates, and then the issue disappears. Politicians have mastered this process, and probably use it strategically to their advantage with issues (e.g. torture).
Politicians try to cloud EVERY issue, and they are quite adept at manipulating numbers as well. If fact it is this that they excel at. Also, I don't believe that a principled argument shouldn't be avoided "because it's hard".
Principles are important, but we can avoid this whole process and even having these debates if the data and economics do not check out. If we are not getting an ROI for these programs, it doesn't matter how you feel about the principles behind them - the data is the data, and if it is crystal clear that the ROI isn't there, the principles will not cloud issues.
You are contradicting yourself here. If principles are important, how can the mere practicality of the issue override them? You are engaging in pragmatism, which as I said is the antithesis of principle.
So, what happens if the data suggests that everything the TSA is doing is "worth it" and perhaps they need to go even further? To suggest that effectiveness should determine the validity of the program is to obliterate the concepts principle and rights entirely.
Principles are fundamental, they are the STARTING point, not an afterthought. Properly understood and established, they give clarity to an issue, they don't cloud it.
As a country we can't even agree upon basic stuff like whether to support sensible cybersecurity measures. Until the principles are actually about principles and not about power/money driven by our corporate overlords, I say let's put the focus on data and economics first. It is harder to make this into a wash of gray area.
It is precisely the denial of principles that we have these "corporate overlords" in the first place, to the extend that it's true.
Politicians try to cloud EVERY issue, and they are quite adept at manipulating numbers as well. If fact it is this that they excel at. Also, I don't believe that a principled argument shouldn't be avoided "because it's hard".
You are contradicting yourself here. If principles are important, how can the mere practicality of the issue override them? You are engaging in pragmatism, which as I said is the antithesis of principle.
Let me modify what I said to make it a little more nuanced...
My approach does not work for all issues. Some issues are purely moral issues, for example gay marriage and abortion. For issues like this one with a clear objective, however, would you agree that actual data almost seems to be a complete non-factor? This issue seems to be about emotional appeals to fear and "preventing another 9/11".
Politicians are adept at manipulating numbers, but it seems like bombarding them with data points makes them work harder than when they can just resort to a talking point that appeals to their base in a purely emotional way. Take global warming, for example. Anti global warming politicians generally look bad when they have to debate scientists. They don't look bad to those firmly invested in believing that global warming is a hoax, but there is less cover-up than going back to a line like "abortion is murder" which can't really be argued with our current scientific knowledge.
So, what happens if the data suggests that everything the TSA is doing is "worth it" and perhaps they need to go even further? To suggest that effectiveness should determine the validity of the program is to obliterate the concepts principle and rights entirely.
If the data suggests that the TSA efforts are working, and that data is pretty bulletproof, principles might still be a significant factor in my ideology, but my ideology will at least be shaped by compelling data points. It might break up some log jams in disagreement. Again, would you agree that emotions and principles seem to dominate these discussions over data and Nate Silver-y type analysis?
Principles are fundamental, they are the STARTING point, not an afterthought. Properly understood and established, they give clarity to an issue, they don't cloud it.
I still disagree on some issues, but to further qualify this, the data needs to be pretty comprehensive. If there was data that showed us that there were fewer terrorist attacks with these policies, that alone wouldn't be compelling. This is kind of like the Lisa Simpson selling a rock to Homer to keep tigers away, and when Homer asks her if it works she says "there are no tigers around, right?"
What would be more compelling, and what I think we should be doing anyway regardless of whether you are staunchly supportive of these programs, is to randomize their existence. Stop the programs in some airports for a while, start them up again, mix it up, and measure the results with all of these experiments. These experiments will help us learn from how we can make these programs better if we decide to keep them. If you just start a program and it becomes the new normal, terrorists just adjust and do something else. They need to be kept on their toes, especially since they'll operate much quicker than getting legislation passed through this congress. The legislation should include authority to conduct these kind of experiments within specific boundaries.
It is precisely the denial of principles that we have these "corporate overlords" in the first place, to the extend that it's true.
Border patrol can even pull people over within 100 mile of border. Supposedly they need a warrant to search your car when this far from border but they do it all the time without one anyway, they did one on me. They were quick about it and it didn't bother me.
I've also heard it argued that any international airport counts as a border, which places much of the country within 100 miles of a border. Including most cities.
Since their search of your car didn't bother you, they didn't find anything. You were innocent. So rewording that: they falsely accused you, searched your car illegally, but at least they were fast.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, for a while it seemed like border fences and barriers were a thing of the past in Europe. Many on the continent hoped for a new era of integration and receptivity. It didn't happen. Instead, various pressures have led Europe to adopt wall-building projects that would make Donald Trump proud.
The UK has its own problem with people hopping the Chunnel trains from France to sneak in.
I don't know if this is much of a problem. Why would people sneak into the UK? From the news I've read: persistent surveillance, budget deficits, and a lagging economy. You'd think people would be sneaking out.
I don't know if this is much of a problem. Why would people sneak into the UK? From the news I've read: persistent surveillance, budget deficits, and a lagging economy. You'd think people would be sneaking out.
Last I heard, the UK has a growing homeless/unemployment problem. Usually discussed along with the bedroom tax, which tends to make housing cost more. It's gotten bad enough that metal statues and plaques sometimes vanish from parks. Scrap metal cashed in for a few pounds.
Perhaps the Chunnel problem is thousands of below-average-IQ migrants trying to get into the UK. That *would* be a problem.
There are a number of reasons people want to get to the UK.
Lots of people from places like India and Pakistan have family over here already;
The NHS is attractive to anyone in need of medical services who has no cash;
Our job market isn't as bad as our jobseekers make out, they think they are above certain jobs so they claim there aren't any. Hard working migrants I doubt have much trouble finding paid work of one kind or another;
There is a perception that you can just wander in with a kid under each arm and be given a house. Its not as easy as it was but there is an element of truth to it;
I have no time for people moaning about the bedroom tax like its unfair. They live in oversized houses paid for by my tax money while others are on the streets. And if I lost my job and my house, as a single male with no disabilities or dependents I'd be on the street too despite paying taxes for twenty years. So anyone claiming its a travesty that they don't get a spare bedroom can **** off.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Also scrap prices are really high. Cars are worth hundreds of pounds as scrap.
Oh and a lot of these migrants are actually refugees from Syria, Iraq and Eritrea. There is a big campaign against the BBC for refusing to call them refugees.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
That's a supremely dishonest article. "Right now, in Hungary, for example..." When you write like that, it is assumed that you are picking one example instead of listing them all. No - the Hungarian situation is unique, and not (yet) evidence of a larger trend.
Hungary is building a long wall, 109 miles. Hungary is doing a lot of crazy things right now, courtesy of its right-wing government that is inching closer to dictatorship every other week, it seems.
Estonia is building two small stumps on its border towards Russia, not to keep migrants out but to keep Russian agents out. They recently kidnapped an Estonian counter-espionage official and tried him in Russia for espionage, which sparked the fence-building plans.
In the same manner, Ukraine is planning a fence against Russia. This has nothing to do with migrants and lot to do with the fact that there is a shooting war going on.
Spain has two small enclaves in North Africa, which are fenced in. I believe they "always" were (ie, for as long as the enclaves existed).
Greece and Bulgaria also have short fences along the border with Turkey, and perhaps they were reinforced to keep migrants out, but those countries do not have the best history with Turkey, and the border has never been particularly open. A good chunk of Greece's budget woes comes from its (historically) large spending on its armed forces because of the perceived threat of Turkey.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Cyprus has always had a border between Greek and Turkish sides of the island. Complete with a no mans land full of land mines and abandoned cars and homes.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
That's a supremely dishonest article. "Right now, in Hungary, for example..." When you write like that, it is assumed that you are picking one example instead of listing them all. No - the Hungarian situation is unique, and not (yet) evidence of a larger trend.
Hungary is building a long wall, 109 miles. Hungary is doing a lot of crazy things right now, courtesy of its right-wing government that is inching closer to dictatorship every other week, it seems.
Estonia is building two small stumps on its border towards Russia, not to keep migrants out but to keep Russian agents out. They recently kidnapped an Estonian counter-espionage official and tried him in Russia for espionage, which sparked the fence-building plans.
In the same manner, Ukraine is planning a fence against Russia. This has nothing to do with migrants and lot to do with the fact that there is a shooting war going on.
Spain has two small enclaves in North Africa, which are fenced in. I believe they "always" were (ie, for as long as the enclaves existed).
Greece and Bulgaria also have short fences along the border with Turkey, and perhaps they were reinforced to keep migrants out, but those countries do not have the best history with Turkey, and the border has never been particularly open. A good chunk of Greece's budget woes comes from its (historically) large spending on its armed forces because of the perceived threat of Turkey.
None of that dispels the linked story, it merely puts a more flowery face on it. I can spin Mexican > US migration in both positive and negative lights, to the point where I can sway most people one way or the other, but the fundamental fact is they are more of an economic drain than they are a benefit.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
They pay virtually no state or federal income tax, overall use public services at a rate higher than US citizens, while on avg ~40% of their income is sent back to Mexico (they consume less, which means they're paying less per capita in sales tax).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
They pay virtually no state or federal income tax, overall use public services at a rate higher than US citizens, while on avg ~40% of their income is sent back to Mexico (they consume less, which means they're paying less per capita in sales tax).
Isn't that only half the equation?
They provide cheap labor, which leads to cheaper products.
Also, there are lots of jobs which don't require fluency in English. Putting native speakers in those jobs is wasting resources.
I'd say more than half, maybe 70-80%, and though cheap labor does compensate for some of the drain, labor across the board is no longer "cheap" (even under the table). For example, my local McDonald's is starting new employees @$10 /hr, and I'm in the 3rd lowest cost of living market in the country.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Well, I'd say there's a huge chunk of the labor market below the McDonald's level, and unlike most of the jobs at McDonald's level, the jobs at that lower level don't require you have the ability to communicate well.
The usual construction is "immigrants do jobs Americans don't want". I argue Americans shouldn't want those jobs. If you're a native speaker of English, seeking a job which makes no use of that ability is seeking employment below your value.
None of that dispels the linked story, it merely puts a more flowery face on it. I can spin Mexican > US migration in both positive and negative lights, to the point where I can sway most people one way or the other, but the fundamental fact is they are more of an economic drain than they are a benefit.
The story tries to make the point that "all" of Europe is building walls to keep immigrants out - that that is somehow the new normal. Since it can only find two remotely related examples (Hungary - which is condemned pretty universally - and Bulgaria), it stretches by including two border fences against Russia, which have nothing to do with immigration, two that aren't even in Europe but in Africa (and which arguably date back to the 17th century, btw), and one fence inside France that is meant to prevent accidents in a train tunnel. It just looks like the reporter had an idea for a narrative and couldn't find enough facts to support it, so he included unrelated examples to flesh out the story.
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
Well, I'd say there's a huge chunk of the labor market below the McDonald's level, and unlike most of the jobs at McDonald's level, the jobs at that lower level don't require you have the ability to communicate well.
The usual construction is "immigrants do jobs Americans don't want". I argue Americans shouldn't want those jobs. If you're a native speaker of English, seeking a job which makes no use of that ability is seeking employment below your value.
The problem is they're not just working at fast food joints. Take a walk across any of the construction sites here in the Phoenix area. Most of them are day labor picked up at Home Depot.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
People hire unskilled labor for framing and bricklaying because it's only unions who consider this skilled labor. A more real-world indicator of whether it's skilled (in construction, at least) is asking the question "will people die if this is done improperly?"
People hire unskilled labor for framing and bricklaying because it's only unions who consider this skilled labor. A more real-world indicator of whether it's skilled (in construction, at least) is asking the question "will people die if this is done improperly?"
That explains why so many new homes are falling aprart here in Arizona.
Using unskilled labor for carpentry (framing) might explain a few things. I visited a relative in a new-ish house. The shower curtain rod kept slipping off the walls. Reason: while the shower wall was 60" at the tub rim, it was about 61-62" at the ceiling. Someone didn't bother to measure and square up all the walls.
You think we have an issue with the border with Mexico? The EU is in crisis and it will only get worse. ISIS is already claiming they have members among the "refugees". Obama wants to though gas on the fire by brining in many of the same "refugees" streaming to the EU.
What percentage of refugees do you think are ISIS plants?
I'd say ~1% are plants by various Islamic groups.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
From watching the news videos, it look like most of the "refugees" are not families, but young males in their 20's. 1% of those could wreak havoc when called upon.
He also says that white people are the problem, WRT nearly everything. He's becoming more racist by the day.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
He also says that white people are the problem, WRT nearly everything. He's becoming more racist by the day.
Top