TPRJones' Last 100 Shared Items TPRJones' Last 100 Shared Items|
How It Felt Originally Published January 31st, 2012, 07:28 PM |
|||||
|
Note from TPRJones: I was at the Houston show. Most fun I've ever had at an author's signing event. And the book is damn good as well. The only weird bit was feeling a little weird about being the only 40-year-old male fan in a room full of screaming teen-aged girl fans, but still worth it.
|
|
Etymology-Man Originally Published January 29th, 2012, 06:00 PM |
|
|
Half Caf, Summ Saff Originally Published January 26th, 2012, 11:00 PM |
|
|
|
Open Letter to Nickelodeon, Re: SpongeBob's Pineapple under the Sea Originally Published January 24th, 2012, 04:12 PM |
|||||
|
|
Time To Reply Originally Published January 24th, 2012, 10:12 AM |
|||||
|
|
GET MONEY, TURN GAY - Songify The News Originally Published January 23rd, 2012, 09:37 AM |
|||||
|
Note from TPRJones: The bit with Ron Paul took me by surprise. Very nicely done.
|
|
Sustainable Originally Published January 22nd, 2012, 06:00 PM |
|
|
Doodling in Math: Spirals, Fibonacci, and Being a Plant [Part 3 of 3] Originally Published January 20th, 2012, 08:23 PM |
|||||
|
|
Jediism Originally Published January 20th, 2012, 02:28 AM |
 |
|
523 – In the middle of a chain reaction Originally Published January 19th, 2012, 03:30 PM |
|
I’m campaigning for President on a pro-slavery ticket: Chains we can believe in! |
|
There is no process. There is no spoon. I had to eat my soup with a ladle. Originally Published January 19th, 2012, 01:01 AM |
|
Victor trying to talk me down from an impending panic attack about me not knowing what the hell I’m doing in my life: Victor: Dude. Just calm down and breathe. Just…trust the process. me: But I don’t have a process. Victor: Well, maybe not having a process is part of your process. me: YOU’RE JUST SAYING A BUNCH OF RANDOM BULLSHIT THAT DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE. Victor: No, I’m trying to make you calm down and stop freaking out. me: No, you’re just trying to get me to shut up so you can watch TV. Victor: Well, both actually. And that’s my process. Me: Well, it’s not working. Victor: Really? So what exactly was it you were so worried about? me: Um…FUCK. I can’t remember because you distracted me with bullshit. Victor: Exactly. Trust the process. |
|
The MPAA: "Nice Internet. Shame If Something Happened To It." Originally Published January 17th, 2012, 04:27 PM |
|
Popehat will be blacking out tomorrow, January 18, 2012, to protest SOPA and PIPA. Even though those measures appear to be on the ropes, vigorous resistance is essential. If we had any doubt, the MPAA helped clear it up today with a press release that reveals it and its allies for what they are: rent-seeking thugs using their political influence to push through legislation beneficial to them and detrimental to everyone else. In the MPAA's release, shill Chris Dodd comes out swinging:
Only the MPAA and a used-up ex-Senator like Dodd could imbue "technology business interests" with a mock-populist sneer whilst lobbying for one of the titans of American business interests. Note also the sneer at internet users, who are mere "pawns" of sites participating in the blackout. Also note the ambiguity of the last phrase, "a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging." What problem is that? SOPA and PIPA's creation of dangerous avenues of censorship and MPAA-driven government control? Piracy? The MPAA's and RIAA's long-standing hostility to technological change?
As opposed to the actions of the MPAA and RIAAA, which propagandize to make fundamental changes to the way the internet works, increase government control of it, and rent-seek in order to protect their 1950s-era business model. That's perfectly responsible.
Nice freedom you've got there, Reddit and BoingBoing and Wikipedia. Shame if something happened to it. Shame, shame if influential lobbyists from the MPAA and its allies had to start thinking more about how it might be restricted. [Note to people who decry Citizens United and despise the idea that corporations have free speech rights: I think Dodd and the MPAA agree with you in this instance.]
The "punishment," of course, comes in the form of lack of financial and electoral support, which the MPAA apparently views as inappropriate. It is "dangerous" to "punish" elected and appointed officials by organizing opposition to measures they support when you disagree with that message. That does not comport with the MPAA's view of what America is: a protected market. A feeding ground. The role of the citizenry is to pay for the MPAA's products through the venues the MPAA favors, and the role of the government is to protect the MPAA's market, using any means necessary.
It is my hope that everyone involved will invite the MPAA to snort their taint. But that's probably too much to ask for. The MPAA is crossing into Westboro Baptist Church territory: it has the Constitutional right to do what it's doing, but decent people everywhere should regard it with contempt and rise up against it. The MPAA: "Nice Internet. Shame If Something Happened To It." © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping. 
|
|
My Drunk Kitchen, S2E01: Meat Pie! Originally Published January 17th, 2012, 10:29 AM |
|||||
|
Note from TPRJones: Hannah Hart makes me wish I was Charlize Theron.
With this sort of entertainment being produced by independents these days, the old entertainment industry doesn't stand a chance at long-term survival. But by god, if they're going down they're going to try to take all the rest of us with them! I think that's what the summary text in ACTA says, at least.
|
|
These puppies aren’t my fault Originally Published January 16th, 2012, 09:21 PM |
|
(I’m in NY but I wrote this last week before I left. Be back soon…) Me calling my friend Laura after I had a fight with Victor about something stupid that was actually probably my fault to begin with. Laura: Hello? me: So, I’m sitting in the parking lot of the Dollar Store because I just had a big fight with Victor and I told him I needed to get out of the house, but now I feel all bitchy and I don’t want to see a movie or shop or eat and I just realized I don’t have any outside hobbies. I AM TERRIBLE AT FIGHTING WITH VICTOR. Laura: Huh. me: By the way, this is Jenny. Laura: I figured that one out. You can come to my house and I’ll feed you ice cream. me: I’m lactose intolerant. Laura: Then I will give you a puppy. me: That would be nice, actually. And then when Victor was like “Why do you have a puppy?” I could say “Because you were mean to me.” Laura: And every time you have a fight you come home with a new puppy. It’s like couple’s therapy but with puppies. me: OhmyGod, we are going to have SO. MANY. PUPPIES. Laura: The puppies are a metaphor, Jenny. Don’t really buy a bunch of puppies when you’re mad. Everyone always regrets angry revenge puppies. me: Oh, I’m getting puppies. There’s gonna be puppies everywhere. And then when Victor is all “WHERE ARE ALL THESE PUPPIES COMING FROM?” I’d just say “These puppies came from you. You brought these puppies into our house. With your wrongness.” And then he’d complain that I was the one that kept sneaking puppies in and I’d have to explain that his actions brought the puppies in. And then he’d realize just how crazy it is to fight about ridiculous shit for no reason at all. Also, the puppies get shafted because we aren’t responsible enough to have that many puppies. I mean, think about the puppies, Victor. Laura: So, it’s his fault you have all these puppies. me: Right? NOW I DON’T EVEN LIKE PUPPIES BECAUSE I RESENT BEING SMOTHERED IN THEM. YOU’VE RUINED PUPPIES FOR ME, VICTOR. Laura: You know what? I don’t know the details but I can pretty much say without a doubt that you are right and he’s being irrational. THESE PUPPIES ARE NOT HELPING ANYONE, VICTOR. me: *deep breath* I feel better. Laura: Good. Now stop being crazy, go home to your husband, and tell him to stop it with all the puppies. And that’s exactly what I did. And he just sort of looked at me oddly and made us lunch and we watch Pawn Stars together. And that’s why I love Victor and also why we don’t have a puppy. |
|
Comic: Exclusivity Originally Published January 16th, 2012, 01:01 AM |
|
New Comic: Exclusivity |
|
Fus Ro Dah! Cat Originally Published January 15th, 2012, 10:48 AM |
|||||
|
|
Flint and Steel at 5000fps - The Slow Mo Guys Originally Published January 13th, 2012, 06:33 PM |
|||||
|
Note from TPRJones: I love these guys' videos. Always have, but this is the first one I felt just HAD to be shared.
|
|
Bruce Schneier Originally Published January 13th, 2012, 03:21 PM |
|
Yesterday, Bruce Schneier wrote a blog post about abolishing the Department of Homeland Security. It was based, in large part, on a CATO report calling for the same citing that DHS has too many subdivisions in too many disparate fields to operate effectively. Agencies with responsibilities for counterfeiting investigations, border security, disaster preparedness, federal law enforcement training, biological warfare defense, and computer incident response find themselves under the same cabinet official. This arrangement has not enhanced the government's competence. Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu epidemics.Schneier agrees, citing his own writing from 2003: Our nation may actually be less secure if the Department of Homeland Security eventually takes over the responsibilities of existing agencies. [...] Security is the responsibility of everyone in government. We won't defeat terrorism by finding a single thing that works all the time. We'll defeat terrorism when every little thing works in its own way, and together provides an immune system for our society. Unless the DHS distributes security responsibility even as it centralizes coordination, it won't improve our nation's security.But Schneier takes issue with CATO's suggestion, later in the above linked report, that the TSA should abolished. Instead, he believes abolishing the TSA isn't a good idea. Airport security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, but someone is going to have to be in charge of it. Putting the airlines in charge of it doesn't make sense; their incentives are going to be passenger service rather than security. Some government agency either has to hire the screeners and staff the checkpoints, or make and enforce rules for contractor-staffed checkpoints to follow.It would be very easy, at this point, to attack Schneier on the basis that the TSA is a colossal failure. However, that TSA is not a failure of epic proportions is not what he is arguing. In fact, Schneier himself is the progenitor of the idea that exactly "two things have made flying safer: the reinforcement of cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know now to resist hijackers". Furthermore, just this week, he penned an article calling the TSA irrelevant. So, let's look at exactly what he did say: that airline security should return to pre-9/11 levels with the government being in charge of it, either directly (government-hired goons staffing the checkpoints) or indirectly (private contractors acting under government regulation). If we hearken back to the pre-9/11 days, we find that his statement is redundant. Prior to 9/11, the government via the FAA was in charge of airline security, and what Schneier is suggesting is exactly how we arrived -- ignoring the reason(s) for the attacks themselves -- at 9/11 in the first place. Before addressing Schneier's claim that putting the airlines in charge of airport security doesn't make sense, let's start with why his own solution doesn't make sense. First, there is the empirical evidence. As I just pointed out, 9/11 happened on the government's watch. While I agree that airline security should be rolled back to pre-9/11 levels, putting/leaving the government in charge of it is ludicrous, and the reason for that is that the government's interests do not align with that of the traveling public. Ostensibly, both care about flight safety. But in reality, as Schneier himself points out relentlessly, the TSA fails to provide this on any level. Just last month, a Vanity Fair writer explained how Schneier helped him circumvent TSA security to meet Schneier at the gate when his flight arrived. Then there's my own personal experience: after leaving the screening area (without being screened), the TSA demanded that I return because they feared that I may have an explosive device on my person. Why would they usher me back to the most crowed area of the airport if they feared that I had explosives? In reality, the government's interest(s) lie in an ever increasing role in security. This provides, not an actual increase in security, but an ever increasing ability to funnel money to favored contractors and further ratchet up the police state apparatus for the same reason. The other reason that having the government in charge of airline security doesn't make sense is the same reason that letting the airlines manage their own security does: the profit and loss test. The basic idea is that when a business produces a product that consumers want at a cost that is less than what consumers are willing to pay, then the business profits. If any of these conditions are not met, the business suffers a loss. If the business does not change, then it goes out of business, government intervention notwithstanding. Let's apply this test to the government's handling of airline security. It is producing a product that consumers want, namely, security. It is producing it at a cost of approximately $8.8 billion per year according to the federal government's 2011 budget. But this is where the profit and loss test ends for the TSA or any government entity. The profit and loss test requires that consumers of a product voluntarily pay or not pay for it. The government is funded via compulsory taxation. Therefore, the government need not concern itself with whether or not it is producing a product that people want or, more importantly, in a way that they want. That the government acts in exactly this way is borne out by reality. The TSA's budget during its first full year of funding in 2003 was $4.8 billion. It's current budget, only 8 years on, is a near 100% increase from that initial budget. This comes despite repeated TSA bungles including sleeping on the job, physically harassing passengers, allowing criminal activity to bypass security, stealing from passengers... the list goes on and on. If the TSA was a private corporation, consumers would have put it out of business almost 10 years ago. Instead, its costs are higher than ever and rising with no end in sight. In fact, the TSA's only measurable goal is total security, something that requires an absolute police state. Despite the desire on the part of the traveling public for total security, I'd wager that none would actually want to pay for it in terms of money or liberty required to implement said police state. Now we can return to Schneier's claim that putting airline security in the hands of the airlines makes no sense. He believes this because he thinks that the airlines' focus will be on passenger service instead of security. Somebody didn't think through his rationale, completely. Tsk, tsk. Security is part and parcel of the service provided by the airlines. No passenger is going to be concerned about a glass of soda and a bag of peanuts or that he didn't get a blanket and a fluffy pillow if his plane is commandeered or blown up by a terrorist. Not only that, but the loss of a plane costs an airline hugely. There is of course the capital loss of the plane and the fuel, but more than that, if the airline wants to stay in business it's not only going to have to beef up its security, but it is going to have to figure out how to prove to passengers that it had changed its ways so that they'd be willing to fly again. We see then, that the airlines' interests, unlike the government's, align perfectly with the traveling public. In addition, airlines carry insurance for their operations. This means that airlines want their operations to be safe and secure because they don't want their premiums to rise in the event of an accident, and the airlines' insurance companies have every incentive to pressure the airlines to keep their operations safe and secure lest the insurance company have to pay out a multi-million, possibly billion, dollar claim. "We can't trust the airlines", I hear you scream. "They're greedy capitalists!" Indeed they are, and that's exactly why the system would work. The airlines, unlike the government, cannot just take consumers' money to fund their operations. They must induce consumers to voluntarily give money to them. Thus, the airlines are subject to the profit and loss test described earlier. If the airlines provide too little security, passengers won't be willing to fly. The airlines will have saved some money by skimping on security, but the lack of income will ultimately result in losses. If they provide too much security, either the costs will drive ticket prices to a level that consumers are unwilling to pay, or consumers will find alternate means of travel because they find the security required by the airlines too onerous. In either event, the airlines will again find themselves losing money. In order to make money, the airlines will have to provide enough security to satisfy their passengers' desire for safety and their insurance companies' risk tolerance while not imposing so much security that passengers seek other airlines or other modes of travel entirely to avoid the costs and hassles. Astonishingly, a self-correcting and self-policing system like this hasn't taken hold. Part of the reason for this is human nature. Humans have demonstrated a surprising inability to correlate events with the likelihood of their occurrence. For example, very few people are concerned about choking to death on their own vomit. However, it turns out that one is 9 times more likely to die by this method than via an act of terrorism. This is a topic that Bruce Schneier has also written about repeatedly. Because of this, people always demand ever more security in the event of some kind of accident or attack. Normally, the costs of these demands would temper them somewhat, but this doesn't happen because of government involvement. This is the other reason that a free market system has not taken hold: the government provides moral hazard. The airlines prefer that the government be involved because by using government provided security and/or standards, responsibility for security failures falls on the government, not the airlines. When something tragic occurs, the airlines can point to the government as the failure. Insurance companies are likewise not terribly worried about having to pay airline claims because the government has proven willing to bail them out. Even consumers are unwitting accomplices in this system because the costs of security have been separated from the cost of a ticket. Instead, these costs are (or would normally be) imposed as taxes, but even if one went looking for them, they would be difficult to find as the government has taken to inflating the currency in order to finance its operations. The increased costs of security are found in the rising prices of everyday items like milk, rent, electricity, and gasoline. The government's involvement in airline security is not only an abject failure but an impediment to allowing a free(d) market to discover what the people really want when it comes to airline security. Bruce Schneier is a smart guy, and he's one of the TSA's harshest critics. He's written extensively about security and the trade-offs made in its name; he's no stranger to economics, especially when it comes to security. In light of this, I can only conclude from his desire to keep the government involved in airline security that he secretly loves the TSA.  
|
|
TFiOS PARTY! Originally Published January 13th, 2012, 02:10 PM |
|||||
|
Note from TPRJones: It really is a very good book. Go read The Fault in Our Stars now, please.
|
|
They Say Marijuana Is Dangerous Originally Published January 13th, 2012, 11:52 AM |
|
. . . and damn, are they ever right. I mean, if you get involved with marijuana, and the cops catch you with a small amount, they may bully you into cooperating with one of their drug investigations — which can get you killed. Or, if you use marijuana, and have a small amount of marijuana in your home, you may get shot to death by police during a raid. In fact, marijuana is so dangerous that police may shoot you when they raid your home if they just think you may have it. And it goes without saying that marijuana is dangerous to your dog, who may get shot during a raid. And I need not remind you that if you have preexisting health condition, marijuana can kill you. For instance, if you are a paraplegic who requires adequate medical care to live, if you get caught with marijuana a sociopathically indifferent judge may condemn you to death by sending you to a jail that cannot care for you. But that's not all. Marijuana encourages lawlessness — by encouraging law enforcement to disregard laws. It turns parents against children — through state-run programs encouraging children to inform on their parents. In fact, marijuana is so dangerous that merely speaking of it in less than condemning tones can lead to you losing your job . . . with the government. If you were a hand-wringing soft-on-crime looney liberal, a damned dirty hippie, you might say that the thread running through all of this is that the War on Drugs is dangerous, not marijuana. If you were a wild-eyed Paulbot glibertarian, you might conclude the common thread is that government is dangerous. But of course good Americans have listened to Nancy Reagan, listened to the nice DARE officers, listened to the decades of public officials exhorting us to win the War on Drugs, and they know the truth: it's marijuana that's dangerous. Hat tip: Jacob Sullum. They Say Marijuana Is Dangerous © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping. 
|
|
Hey Ash Whatcha Playin'? - Puzzle Quest Originally Published January 11th, 2012, 11:54 PM |
|||||
|
|
Signs Your Game May Be Popular, #4 Originally Published January 11th, 2012, 03:51 PM |
|
A Congressman stops by to post in your official forums |
|
January 11, 2012 Originally Published January 10th, 2012, 11:00 PM |
 Whee! |
|
AAAAAA Originally Published January 8th, 2012, 06:00 PM |
|
|
Kill your TV Originally Published January 6th, 2012, 08:48 PM |
|||||
|
|
Penny Arcade: The Series Season 3, Ep. 8: Mitigated (4th Panel) Originally Published January 6th, 2012, 02:01 AM |
|
Note from TPRJones: It's fascinating, the deep and personal stories that end up being the secret back-end of some of the most silly comic strips on the internet. Tastefully straddling the line between documentary and guilty-pleasure voyeurism, Penny Arcade: The Series collects the bizarre continuum of one of the world's strangest companies. In this episode, our heroes create the strip "Mitigated." |
|
Excessive Force Is Dangerous — To View on YouTube Originally Published January 5th, 2012, 05:38 PM |
|
Since Rodney King, we've been told that citizens with video cameras will deter excessive force by law enforcement. As video cameras have miniaturized until they're just one app on a smartphone, we're told the same thing, only more emphatically. Patrick highlighted the possibilities here years ago, though sounding a note of caution that a mechanism for reporting what you've taped to a powerful entity is as important as the recording itself. But you really didn't think that it was going to be that easy, did you? A certain segment of law enforcement has always viewed the use of force against citizens not as an ugly necessity in extreme circumstances but as a perquisite of the job. Those cops are not going to change their spots just because everyone's got an iPhone. So now we have pushback. Radley Balko documented it at Reason, Carlos Miller documents it tirelessly at Photography Is Not A Crime, and Injustice Everywhere frequently has pertinent stories. Sometimes the pushback is cloaked in shameless OMG-9/11-CHANGED-EVERYTHING rhetoric, and sometimes it's straight-up thuggery. Cops arrest people for filming police conduct — whether it's out in public or from the photographer's own lawn. Cops profess not to recognize cameras and pretend they are potential weapons, sending the not-too-subtle message that pointing a camera might get your ass shot. When they think they can get away with it, they destroy cameras wholesale. Prosecutors back the cops up: they prosecute citizens for things like "wiretapping" or "disorderly conduct" when they record encounters with cops (even — or perhaps especially — angry and abusive cops), and they abuse governmental power in an effort to keep government-created recordings secret. So, how is this relevant today? Well, a link on Reddit led me to a disturbing but entirely consistent-with-this trend discovery: Google's Transparency Report, in which Google describes the number and type of take-down demands it receives. Did you think that the New Professionals would be content arresting photographers in the street? Hell, no. If we've gone digital, so have they. And they know how to work the system. Google reports:
Click that link and see the statistics for various six-month periods. Note that Google records not just take-down demands (including categories for executive and police demands premised on "national security" and "criticism," among others), but demands for user identifying information. Police would never abuse the system by demanding the identity of photographers who posted videos documenting their conduct, would they? Heaven forfend. So: bear in mind, when you consider measures like SOPA, that giving the government increased power over internet posts and increased ability to seek out user information may not just impact talking about music and movies — it might impact our ability to talk about, and document, police misconduct. Think the police would never seek to abuse such power? Then you're a damned fool. Excessive Force Is Dangerous — To View on YouTube © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping. 
|
|
January 05, 2012 Originally Published January 4th, 2012, 11:00 PM |
 FOOMP! Whoa. Did you know Makeshift Miracle is back and incredibly beautiful? |
|
Quantum Fishing for the Higgs Boson Originally Published January 4th, 2012, 03:56 PM |
|||||
|
|
My Theory of TSA Arrest Powers, By Mike Elk (Mr.) Originally Published January 3rd, 2012, 07:49 PM |
|
What could be worse than a self-righteous TSA agent? Answer: A TSA agents' union advocate. One such arrives, dripping with angry entitlement on behalf of genital-pokers and prosthesis-fondlers everywhere, via In These Times. His name is Mike Elk, and he is concerned, very concerned, on behalf of our nation's TSA agents:
OK, OK, Thomas didn't actually say that in Elk's article — even though he may as well have. Thomas said "any bag I open could be my last." That prospect deeply concerns Mike Elk (Mr.), who emphasizes that the many guns TSA agents find every week (to say nothing, one supposes, of the many they don't find) illustrates the "dangerous nature of their jobs." Oddly, Mike Elk offers no evidence whatsoever that any TSA agents have actually been injured the course of searching Americans — just as the TSA offers no evidence that its search procedures has actually halted any terrorist attacks. What are Mike Elk's more specific concerns? Well, he's upset that some TSA "supervisors are former military members who create a hostile work environment for employees." You know, military members — bad people. Bad people who, despite potentially having some relevant experience and training in leadership and threat detection as a result of a military background, have very little regard for the feelings and dignity-rights of the sort of people who are recruited via pizza boxes into positions of authority over strangers. Mike Elk is also very concerned because TSA agents tell him that they are being brutalized by uppity Americans:
Note that Mike Elk believes that (1) TSA agents are telling the truth about being assaulted, and (2) TSA agents understand what "assault" means, not to mention (3) we should give a shit about citizens cursing at polyester-clad strangers empowered by the federal government to grope their children. Some of us are more skeptical on each of those points. After all, we know that TSA agents think that reciting the Fourth Amendment is "disorderly conduct," that objecting to a government employee sliding her fingers between your labia is "defamation" and "intentional infliction of emotional distress," that being in the same aisle as brown people is "reasonable suspicion," that a small toy hammer used as a comfort object by a severely disabled man is a "weapon," and that traveling in the United States of America is a "privilege." So you'll pardon me, Mr. Elk, if I question both TSA agents' veracity and their grasp of legal terminology like "assault." What does Mike Elk (Mr.) want, anyway? Well, he seems to want to give TSA agents more power. Specifically, he wants the United States to confer upon TSA agents the power to arrest Americans:
If they only had that power, TSA agents could feel swell again. They could arrest people themselves for "assault" and "disorderly conduct" and for having sequential checks or carrying too much cash or for generally failing to respect their authority, rather than waiting for police officers trained (sort of, occasionally) in crime detection and law enforcement. What else does Mike Elk want? Well, he wants Americans to adjust their priorities. Just as the TSA wants Americans to return to the days of unquestioning compliance, Mike Elk wants Americans to focus not so much on the fact that TSA agents are making money by subjecting them to demeaning and largely pointless searches, but on the fact that it's an unpleasant job, and agents need a better contract:
Damn those selfish Americans! Damn them for thinking that TSA agents are making money by subjecting Americans to unwarranted abuse in the name of insipid security theater! Damn them for thinking that TSA agents across America are drunk with power, largely incompetent to conduct their mostly symbolic job, and subject to very little scrutiny from a mostly canine news media! Oh, won't somebody think of the gropers? Well, Mike Elk, I have thought about it. I've thought about the plight of people who have decided that it's okay to take a paycheck to promote the security state, advance the cause of unquestioning compliance with government demands, demean travelers without just cause, and stand in as feckless scarecrows. I've thought considerably about it. And now I invite you to examine my wellspring of sympathy, and do so methodically and carefully. I'll tell you just where to find it. You're going to need those gloves. h/t Balko. [Title reference for the Python-impaired] My Theory of TSA Arrest Powers, By Mike Elk (Mr.) © 2007-2012 by the authors of Popehat. This feed is for personal, non-commercial use only. Using this feed on any other site is a copyright violation. No scraping. 
|
5802
ratings
