Freedom

The best write-up of the TSA mess

/ hsoi

Written by Evan DeFilippis and published in The Oklahoma Daily. This is absolutely the best article I’ve read to date on the whole TSA stupidity.

The money quote:

There’s no purpose in security if it debases the very life it intends to protect, yet the forced choice one has to make between privacy and travel does just that. If you want to travel, you have a “choice” between low-tech fondling or high-tech pornography; the choice, therefore, to relegate your fundamental rights in exchange for a plane ticket. Not only does this paradigm presume that one’s right to privacy is variable — contingent on the government’s discretion and only respected in places that the government doesn’t care to look — but it also ignores that the fundamental right to travel has consistently been upheld by the Supreme Court.

(emphasis added).

I’m going to quote the entire article here, for posterity. This is a write-up that cannot be lost to the ether of the Internet.

Continue reading →

We Must Prevail

/ hsoi / 3 Comments

Head of the TSA, John S. Pistole says:

“We have discovered dozens and dozens of artfully disguised items that have posed a risk,” said Pistole, a former FBI agent who took the TSA post this year. “The threats are real, the stakes are high and we must prevail. When it comes to the TSA, we are the last line of defense.”

The stakes are high and we must prevail.

So, where is the line drawn?

Because that’s all this is… an arms race. They do something, so the TSA reacts by saying we can’t do that any more. So terrorists ramp it up, and you react — just like a terrorist wants — by being fearful. When the next guy shoves something up his ass to smuggle it aboard the plane, does that mean we’ll have to bring our own KY Jelly for our cavity search? Just remember to bring no more than 3 oz of it.

And the TSA is the last line of defense?

Hardly.

The last line is guys like Todd Beamer, ready to roll.

We are the last line of defense. TSA? You’re just affront.

Updated: (yes, I meant to type “affront”… “a front”, “affront”… sounds the same, and both meanings are intended here).

The know what’s best, part deux

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Continuing from my previous post, this MSNBC article discusses it further.

The decision of San Francisco city officials Tuesday to crack down on restaurant meals that include free toys unless they meet particular nutritional guidelines is — depending on whom you ask — either taking away a parents’ right to choose what to feed their children, as some msnbc.com readers have commented, or a gift to frazzled parents up against a massive marketing machine.

What it most likely isn’t, however, is a solution to the childhood obesity epidemic.

Indeed. It’s not going to solve obesity. So, what is?

That’s fine if the child is eating a Happy Meal only for special occasions, not every day. But studies have shown that fast food makes up a substantial portion of kids’ calorie intake, and research suggests that children and adolescents who consume fast food tend to consume more total calories, fat, and sodium and have less healthful diets than those who do not.

So perhaps the first thing we can start with is WHY is fast food making up a substantial portion of kids’ calorie intake?

Furthermore, and I know my father and grandfather wouldn’t necessarily agree with this, but we need to get away from the notion of “clean your plate”. Back when portions were small and we didn’t have much food, no, food shouldn’t go to waste. I still don’t think food should go to waste, but the trouble is portion sizes are huge. If you can’t order smaller sizes, then don’t eat it all. Or, don’t get it all. For instance, I’ll order a “small drink” and be given a bucket… there is nothing saying I have to fill that bucket all the way up and then nothing saying I have to drink it all. Yet, that’s what we do. We are given this vat and feel a need to fill it up and consume it all. Why?

Nevertheless, we’re not getting to the heart of the matter. If the problem is too much caloric consumption, why are kids (and people in general) consuming too many calories? If it’s too many calories because of eating calorie-dense food like fast food, then why are people eating so much fast food? Then what can you do to improve upon that?

Sure, parents can, and do, have a say about what their kids eat, but it’s increasingly tough for them to ignore all the temptations out there. Kids are bombarded with food marketing: in 2006 about $870 million was spent on advertising meals to the under 12 set, the prime target for Happy Meals, according to a 2008 Federal Trade Commission report.

Oh…. pity. It’s TOUGH to ignore all the temptations out there.

Boo-fucking-hoo.

Learn to ignore it. Stop being a wuss. Toughen up.

But, the article attempts to offer some solutions:

“What about a grilled chicken sandwich instead of fried nuggets?” asks New York nutritionist and Bonnie Taub-Dix, author of “Read it Before You Eat It.” “There’s no grilled chicken sandwich for kids at McDonalds. And what about a fish sandwich that’s not breaded and fried with breading that’s thicker than the fish?”

Well, there are grilled chicken sandwiches on the menu. Why not order that for your kids? Oh.. .it’s not “for kids”. What does that mean? If the kid doesn’t want the sauces and veggies on it, ask for it plain and dry. If it’s “too big” for your kid, cut it in half and take the other half home to eat later… or maybe split the sandwich with Junior to save a little money and save yourself some caloric intake.

The trouble is, there’s far greater lifestyle choices involved here… you have to ask people to change how they live and function in a day. No law is going to affect that. People need to have the motivation on their own to care about such things.

See? They know what’s best.

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

You may be a parent, they may be your children, but you don’t know how to best care for them.

Let government do it for you. Government — and our benevolent “leaders” — know best.

San Francisco has become the first major U.S. city to pass a law that cracks down on the popular practice of giving away free toys with unhealthy restaurant meals for children.

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors passed the law on Tuesday on a veto-proof 8-to-3 vote. It takes effect on December 1.

The law, like an ordinance passed earlier this year in nearby Santa Clara County, would require that restaurant kids’ meals meet certain nutritional standards before they could be sold with toys.

I grant that McDonald’s food is pretty crappy. I try to avoid eating there merely because it’s so bland and there are far better burgers out there. But why should McDonald’s (or any restaurant) be forced to play nanny to your children?

The San Francisco law would allow toys to be given away with kids’ meals that have less than 600 calories, contain fruits and vegetables, and include beverages without excessive fat or sugar.

Backers of the ordinance say it aims to promote healthy eating habits while combating childhood obesity.

Sorry, but that doesn’t really work to combat obesity nor promote healthy eating habits. Parents are still going to drag their kids to McDonald’s, the kids are still going to eat the crappy burger and fries and soda, but now just not get a toy. That people feed their kids this food is far beyond the worthless toy. But hey… we’ve got to do something, right? We’ve got to feel like we’re making a difference, because you know… it’s all for the children, and we’re certainly thinking of them whereas you evil corporations just care about your profits.

“Our children are sick. Rates of obesity in San Francisco are disturbingly high, especially among children of color,” said San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar, who sponsored the measure.

But amongst all those transparent children…. well, we can’t see them anyways so we don’t know how fat they are.  I hate the term “children of color” because even “white” children have color… and this “well-intended” comment is also pretty bad because it’s implying all those poor dumb Blacks and Hispanics really can’t take care of themselves so here’s big daddy whitey to take care of them because he knows best. *sigh*

That slope… it’s so slippery…. and how far we have slid.

Free Speech Permit

/ hsoi / 5 Comments

Just a couple of days ago I was reading this article (h/t Uncle) and started thinking to myself “gee… what if we had to go through that much for something like free speech?”  I mean, if you had to go to class, learn the laws, demonstrate proficiency, pass tests, get permits, could have the permit revoked if you didn’t properly exercise your speech, pay all sorts of fees, deal with all sorts of bureaucracy, etc. etc..  If such a thing happened, people would be hysterical and would never allow such a thing. It would be considered unreasonable.

What if such a thing was done for practicing of religion? That before you could practice your religion you had to learn everything about it, demonstrate you could perform the rituals, obtain a license, be forced to renew every 5 years, be fingerprinted and background checked before you could join. Is that reasonable?

Yet, all this permitting and hoopla for gun carry is considered reasonable.

Why?

I mean, you could argue that all of those things would be good before someone could be allowed to speak. Heck, what if we added a requirement that you could only speak English? Would that be reasonable?

Some might say “but a gun can kill”. True, but words can be even more destructive. What’s the difference?

So I was going to write up a nice piece on this, but Linoge took care of it for me. Give it a read. You don’t have to like guns, but if you care about freedom, if you care about consistency and integrity, it’s a hell of a good point.

Muscovy Regulation – an update

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

This is important for all of my readers to read and act upon.

US Fish and Wildlife regulation CFR 21.54 has caused quite a stir with people who care about muscovy ducks. I mentioned the problem regulation before.

FWS has published proposed changes. From George T. Allen:

We have published proposed changes to the regulations governing waterfowl.  The changes are intended to accommodate activities with muscovy ducks, particularly keeping the ducks for exhibition, or as barnyard animals for personal consumption and egg production.  The changes also address sale of the ducks and their eggs.

You can submit comments by either of the methods highlighted in red in the proposed rule.  Submissions by any other means may not be considered when we prepare the final rule.  Comments on the proposed rule are due no later than 30 December 2010.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

George T.  Allen, Ph.D., C.W.B.
Chief, Branch of Permits and Regulations
Division of Migratory Bird Management
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 North Fairfax Drive, Mail Stop 4107
Arlington, Virginia  22203-1610
703-358-1825     fax 703-358-2272
George_T_Allen@fws.gov

You can find the proposed changes here.

Tobi Kosanke has been active in protesting the changes.

“I have two very large issues with this regulation.  First of all, it regulates a non-migratory domesticated bird that has been kept as both pet and livestock since the inception of our country.  A bird designated as livestock should NOT be regulated by the FWS,” Kosanke said.  “Second, the issues with the Muscovy that the FWS is trying to address are nearly identical to those of the Mallard, which IS a migratory bird.  Like the Muscovy, the Mallard duck is a waterfowl that individuals commonly purchase from hatcheries, has become a nuisance population in some areas, and also breeds with other species of duck, yet there is no national control order for the Mallard, nor are all Mallards in the U.S. required to be marked with leg or wing bands; instead, problems with Mallards are dealt with on the local level.”

The regulation just isn’t right to begin with. It makes no sense. It’s not well-thought out nor well-researched. It’s good that they listened to the people (they’re supposed to… they are serving us) and revised the regulation, but the revisions aren’t good enough.

 

“When the FWS announced that they were amending the regulation, I was very hopeful.  But, unfortunately, while the amendment does address the issues of the bird clubs and livestock industry, both of which heavily lobbied the FWS to not include exhibition birds or poultry raised for meat in their regulation, the largest contingent of Muscovy lovers was ignored,” Kosanke said.  “As it is now written, regulation CFR 21.54 makes it illegal for individuals and subdivisions to maintain their pet duck populations.  It also makes it illegal for counties and cities to place Muscovy ducks on their ponds.”

 

 

Dear Readers: please take a few moments and comment on the regulation.

  1. Visit regulations.gov
  2. Search for docket: FWS-R9-MB-2010-0037
  3. Submit a comment on that docket.

It should take you 5-10 minutes to do. Even if you don’t care about muscovy ducks, I know my readers are folks that care about the state of our government. Inconsistent regulation is unacceptable. Come on you gun guys… you hate stupid laws like these, why should this be any exception?  We lose our freedoms not through sweeping acts, but through little things like this. I know you guys care about freedom and a well-behaved government. Please help out.

Thank you.

 

One reason I left BSA

/ hsoi / 6 Comments

There are a lot of reasons I left Boy Scouts of America. I support the general nature of what they do, building character, building leadership. The Scout Oath and Law are some pretty good guidelines to live your life by. There are a lot of good skills that are taught.

But then, there’s shit like this.

When he first met with organizers, [Jon] Langbert told them he was gay, and that his son was interested in joining. There were no problems then, he said.

So, he participated in as many activities with Carter and the pack as he could. Langbert said when Cub Scout Pack 70 was low on money, he hit the streets and raised more than $13,000 last year.

That is what Scouting needs more than anything else: parents dedicated and willing to help and contribute. I should know. I spent many years as a Cub Scout Pack Den Leader, and I know what really makes a Pack go and a program successful is parents willing to step up and help out. Scouting needs more parents like Jon Langbert.

But instead….

“I just found out a few days ago that some of the dads are not happy about having a gay guy running the popcorn fundraiser,” Langbert said.

Once the parents complained, Langbert was told he could no longer hold a leadership position in the Boy Scouts of America. They even took his leadership shirt away.

So it was fine when “the gay guy” was raising $13,000 for the Pack (which is an amazing amount of money for a Pack to have), but it’s not fine that he’s gay. OK then… you guys willing to give up the $13,000 he raised? I didn’t think so. My guess is the Pack leadership didn’t have a problem, but some parents did. So what furthermore burns my butt is the leaders not standing up for both Langbert AND their original decision.

Officials with the Boy Scouts of America said their policy does not permit leaders to be gay or atheist.

“Sexuality of any level does not have a place in the Boy Scouts of America,” said Pat Currie, spokesman with the Boy Scouts of America. “What we are all about is teaching kids lifetime values and trying to develop characters and make them better citizens … We are not about sexual orientation.”

Bullshit.

BSA is very much about sexual orientation! The fact you don’t want fags in your midst tells me you do care about sexual orientation and only wish to permit heterosexuality. The lifetime value you’re teaching here is intolerance and exclusion of people you don’t like.

Langbert said he wants the Boy Scouts to change their policy. He said his pack is meeting Monday at the University Park Elementary School, and hopes the school will reevaluate its connection with the Boy Scouts.

[…]

The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts of American does not have to allow gay individuals into its organization. Langbert said he is researching legal action.

Yes, the whole meeting at a school thing is a sticky situation. But honestly Langbert, legal action? give it up. BSA is a private organization and the courts have already upheld that they can do this. And frankly, that’s the way it should be. If we could force any private organization to behave in the way someone else wanted them to behave well, that’d be an ugly day for America and freedom.

If you really want to put your energy into something, put it into other organizations. There are other “youth groups” like this out there. Trouble is, they are few, far between, and often kinda suck. But this is where a dedicated parent like Jon Langbert can help to promote and improve those organizations.

This is part of why BSA is dying. The world is becoming a more tolerant and accepting place, but BSA isn’t. That is their perrogative, and I do respect them for standing up for what they believe in. But like all dinosaurs, if you fail to adapt, you will go extinct.

When it comes to gays and lesbians, I really don’t care. You live your life, I’ll live mine. With 6 billion people in this world, there are going to be some people who do things I don’t care for, and there are going to be some people who don’t like what I do. So long as we don’t tread on each other, so what? You have your right to life, liberty, and pursuit of your happiness, just like I do.

Freedom is something we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves.

The slope is slippery, n’est-ce pas?

/ hsoi

All those closed-circuit cameras around town. They always claim they’ll be used for some wonderful purpose, like to stop violent crime. They claim they will never be used for anything else. But you ought to know by now, once something gets put in place, it’s not only next to impossible to remove but they will find other things to use it for.

And such is the case in Nice, France. The CCTV was to only be used for violent crimes, but now parking offenses will be handed out based upon video surveillance.

So… how far are you willing to slide down?

Good

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Remember that motorcyclist that videotaped his police stop, where the officer drew his gun, wasn’t justified in doing so, and then after the video was posted to YouTube the Maryland State Police raided the motorcyclist’s home and was charged with violating wiretapping laws?

The wiretapping charges were dropped.

Glad to see there’s a judge that gets it:

Judge Emory A. Pitt Jr. had to decide whether police performing their duties have an expectation of privacy in public space. Pitt ruled that police can have no such expectation in their public, on-the-job communications.

Pitt wrote: “Those of us who are public officials and are entrusted with the power of the state are ultimately accountable to the public. When we exercise that power in public fora, we should not expect our actions to be shielded from public observation. ‘Sed quis custodiet ipsos cutodes’ (“Who watches the watchmen?”).”

Emphasis mine.

Good.