The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. – H.L. Mencken
As I’ve pointed out many, many times before, governments look for any excuse they can find to increase their powers and reach, and once those powers are assumed not only are they never renounced, but also never limited only to the stated purpose. A perfect example of this is the “War on Terror”; the special powers granted by the PATRIOT Act were supposed to be used only for fighting “terrorism”, but as of October 2011 had been used only 15 times for that purpose, 122 times for fraud and a staggering 1618 times for drugs. Similarly, though the stated purpose of the TSA’s security theater is to fight terrorism, its actual purpose is to condition Americans “to submit to any indignity inflicted by an ‘authority’, no matter how invasive and arbitrary”; it’s been so wildly successful in that mission, the government has been itching to expand its reach from airports to other means of public transportation. Up to now, railway officials had successfully resisted the imposition of police state checkpoints on train stations, but the government has now succeeded in securing Amtrak’s cooperation by switching the excuse from one which is rapidly declining in popularity (terrorism) to a new and more popular one. This article by Wendy McElroy explains exactly what that new excuse is, but I’ll bet you’ve already guessed:
According to Homeland Security Today, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has forged “a new partnership” with “the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Amtrak to battle the trafficking of humans.” DHS will train “over 8,000 frontline transportation employees and Amtrak Police Department officers” on how to recognize and report trafficking indicators and suspected traffickers…[these] employees will overtly or covertly examine passengers for the validity of their identification, their level of stress, how they interact, and their conversations. It is so necessary to treat Amtrak customers as criminal suspects because, according to HS Today, an “estimated 100,000 children are trafficked in the sex trade in the United States each year,” with the average age being 11 to 14, and some being as young as 9. This means that passengers — and especially men — traveling with children will be subject to enhanced scrutiny. Perhaps the trained employees will engage children in conversation or demand a statement of their relationship status with the accompanying adults.
I probably don’t need to remind anyone that this supposed “estimate” is roughly six times the total number of underage prostitutes in the entire country at any given time, and that if the “average” underage whore were really 13 that would mean there were tens of thousands of toddler tarts out there that nobody has ever seen the faintest evidence of.
The total police state that operates at airports is spreading to train stations — and beyond. HS Today states that the Department of Transportation “is currently training its more than 55,000 employees to identify and report human trafficking.” Even traveling in a car does not exempt people from being treated as criminal suspects. Last year, Tennessee became the first state to partner with DHS to conduct an exercise in which trucks were randomly inspected, complete with drug- and bomb-sniffing dogs…In theory, people may still be free to exercise their constitutional right against unreasonable searches and refuse to comply. In practice, as happens at airports, those who resist will almost certainly be denied the ability to travel and will perhaps be detained for questioning by the police…
So now everyone is assumed to be a terrorist, a drug dealer and a pimp unless he can prove otherwise. It’s for the children! But McElroy has something to say about that as well:
…According to 2010 census data, the number of children…in the United States was 74.2 million…Assuming an even distribution within the 18 age groups from 0–17, there would be roughly 4.12 million children in each group. Accepting the DHS claim that the youngest child trafficked was nine years old — and, so, eliminating younger groups — there would be 37 million vulnerable children. If 100,000 children are trafficked each year, then 1 in every 370 children was a sex-trade victim in 2010. How many people personally know of a child who has been trafficked? How many are acquainted with anyone who personally knows of a trafficked child?
Perhaps the claim includes children who are “imported” en masse from other countries. The 2010 DHS pamphlet entitled “Human Trafficking Indicators” lists its “Anti-Trafficking Successes” (rescued victims), all of whom are foreign-born…Only 85 rescued victims are listed, and the descriptions are anonymous, which precludes verification. Of those listed, 21 are clearly identified as children, 20 of whom were forced to work in hair-braiding salons, while 1 was prostituted. An additional 15 “women and girls” were reported forced into sex work. Even generously assuming that 13 of the 15 “women and girls” were girls, the total of foreign children rescued from sex work was 14…if DHS had examples of more massive raids on child sex dens, I presume they would present them. In short, the statistic of 100,000 children a year seems wildly implausible, unless you expand the definition of trafficking. The DHS…does precisely that; it expands the definition to include every minor involved in commercial sex as “a victim of human trafficking, even without force, fraud or coercion.” Thus, the 8,000 Amtrak employees will have reason to scrutinize children and teenagers even if they are clearly not forced to be with the adults accompanying them…
In other words American teenagers, who are already subject to twice as many restrictions as incarcerated felons, can now look forward to even more restrictions, which will almost certainly include “status checks” (i.e. unwarranted stops without probable cause) once this program expands to the highways as planned. And if you’re an attractive and youthful-looking woman below 30, that will probably include you as well on the grounds that you “look like you might be underage”. For your own good, of course. Nor will it stop there:
…The partnership between DHS and Amtrak allows the government one more avenue of surveillance; it chips one more bit of freedom away from the average person, who is just trying to make it through the day. In the future, when a man boards a train in the company of a minor or a woman, or when he merely looks suspicious, he may be asked where he is going, for how long, and why. What is his relationship to the companion? What is his profession? The companion may be asked whether she feels free to step away from the other passenger. She may be questioned separately and her story compared to the other passenger’s. And heaven help anyone who looks sad, enraged, or stressed out…
Once when my husband and I were travelling through Kentucky, I became violently carsick due to the twisting roads; my husband had to stop the car so I could sit down on the grass in the cold air and attempt to get my head to stop spinning. While I was so engaged, a cop stopped and even after my husband told him I was sick he demanded (not asked, mind you, demanded) that I walk off with him to a distance to talk where my husband couldn’t hear. I told him to go to Hell (yes, I really said that; I get very irrational when I’m motion-sick) and that if he touched me I would throw up all over him. Even so, he still hovered until I literally screamed for him to leave me alone, at which point he seemed to get the hint. This was in 2003, before “trafficking” hysteria had become popular; I presume he thought my husband was beating me in broad daylight on the side of a highway. But it’s an example of what might be in store for every couple in the next few years, no matter what means of transportation they use, if either of them does anything which might conceivably attract the attention of any armed busybody in the vicinity.
It seems that the number of ways of traveling around the US without being violently harassed are quickly shrinking. People don’t even ask for ID when I board a train or inter-city bus here in Canada, and though I haven’t flown in years (I get severe ear pain) the searches always seemed relatively respectful/reasonable. I’m thinking your long distance travel will soon be limited to horse and buggy, Maggie. 🙁
“DHS will train “over 8,000 frontline transportation employees and Amtrak Police Department officers” on how to recognize and report trafficking indicators and suspected traffickers…[these] employees will overtly or covertly examine passengers for the validity of their identification, their level of stress, how they interact, and their conversations.”
I actually worked on related lie detection and credibility assessment research in one of my early contracts. The kind of thing where trained personnel are supposed to use verbal and non-verbal cues to determine whether someone is lying or otherwise being suspicious. The whole thing is a racket. Training “works” but only gets about a five percentage point increase in accuracy (from a base hovering around 55%). The takeaway from the literature as a whole is that supposed expert lie detectors/assessors (such as the 8,000 mentioned above) are much more confident in their judgements but not actually any more accurate (and in some studies, actually less so).
If this program works anything like the airport equivalent it will cost much money, inconvenience millions and rescue none…
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/gaos-damning-report-on-spot/
GOD! I would LOVE to talk to you! I work for the government and spent THREE DAYS in a polygraph chair answering questions. The interrogator said I was being deceptive on ALL QUESTIONS – including the one where he asked me … “Are the lights in this room on?”
Three … frickin’ … days. He said I was being deceptive about cooperating with terrorists and sabatage to U.S. installation and equipment, of conspiring with foreign nationals, etc …
Every time I denied he said … “Well there’s something in your mind that’s causing you to give a negative response when you answer.” And then I’d go through my mind to figure out what it could be and we’d sit around talking about things that could have given the negative indication.
I think he was simply “milking” me to volunteer more information on myself than he was authorized to ask. Well, he got three days of confessions out of me, like he was my Priest or something – but nothing I told him was indicative of being unfaithful to this government.
Not until I lost my cool with him on the third day did he let me off the hook. Immediately after I blew my top on his ass he plugged me in again – asked me those seven or eight questions (yeah, that’s all there was) – and he gave me a “thumbs up” when the test was over.
It really sat badly with me. I’m one of the few fuckers in this nation who spent his whole life defending this nation and who actually still believes that terrorism is a threat to us. If you want someone to give a terrorist the “braveheart” death – I could do it – I hate them that much. And this guy still treated me like he was Gestapo and I was a British collaborator. Really pissed me off.
I never worked with polygraphs directly but I’ve reviewed the literature on them before. Long story short: polygraphs may or may not be better than guessing – they’re certainly not finely-tuned “lie detector” in any real sense. Just as in your incident, its real power comes from its ability to intimidate people into confessing (though my guess is that the interviewers actually believe it works in and of itself). If you don’t believe the polygraph works, that it’s just a prop, then it probably won’t indicate even when you are lying.
You have to look far and wide to find a credible scientist to claim that those machines are actually “95% accurate” as advertised. If you ask psychologists, they tend to estimate a 61% accuracy rating, which is only slightly better than people tend to get unaided (~55%) or chance guessing (50%)
There’s been such a big change in the USA, I’m surprised more don’t notice it. As a teenager, i was able to roam all over the country, with dodgy papers, and no one ever questioned. (Actually, wrong. The only one to ever be suspicious of my fake ID giving my age as years older was a strip club manager.)
Most people have been frightened into not noticing it.
It was a very short time ago, too. After I was divorced from my first husband in 1996 I tried to change my driver’s license back to my maiden name, and was refused, nor would they let me keep my old license; a computer error had assigned the same license number twice. I had to sue the state of Louisiana for a new license, a process that took until 2001…during which time I continued to drive, buy insurance and fly without any “official” ID whatsoever.
LMFAO! You’re my hero!!! 😛
(after writing the statment above, I took a break to make a cup of coffee and thought about this again though and …)
I have a question. Does chivalry PISS women of the 21st century off? Is a male who will stand up to defend a woman no longer appreciated by women?
Reason I’m asking is when I was participating in the GWOT – I really thought of myself as a defender of innocent Americans back home. You can argue about the merits or demerits of the GWOT – just like you can argue the merits and demerits of secession – but you can’t really argue the motives of the soldiers who fought in those wars, who saw themselves as defenders of not just a way of life – but innocent people they loved back home.
And I’m thinking – this cop is the same way. I think when he stopped and pulled you aside he thought he was doing a chivalrous thing and acting as a protector.
Maybe a better response to him might have been to ask him to WAIT until you recovered, because you did have something you’d very much like to tell him. Then, when you felt better – taken him aside and pointed out that you knew his motives were good – but they were not helpful and not appreciated by you.
As it is – he probably blew you off as some hysterical cop hating woman – and didn’t learn anything from the encounter.
I can certainly understand why you lost your cool with him though – feeling the way you were – a cop is the last thing you want to deal with.
You can have no idea how horrible I feel when I’m sick, and for that moron to hover over me, making irrational demands and refusing to accept my word did not fill me with a desire to be polite to him. Ignoring a woman’s clearly-expressed wish that you leave her alone is not chivalry; it is paternalism.
Back about 10 years ago, I went skiing all day and didn’t bother to hydrate. As a result I ended up with altitude sickness that expressed itself as extreme vertigo. I laid down for four days and even turning my head would cause me to vomit.
I drank water through a straw and didn’t eat because it wouldn’t stay down. And when I had to turn my head to throw up, it would set up a cycle where turning my head to throw up would prompt nausea which would require me to … ad nauseaum.
And for about 3 months, if I turned my head too quickly, the same thing happened.
I do get motion sickness and can’t do carnival rides with any degree of enjoyment; the last one I went on was a pirate ship that swung back and forth, back and forth, back and… and I was sitting in the stern making a heroic effort NOT to spew all over my fellow riders while I was at the apex of the swing and all were laid out below me.
Fortunately, I don’t get carsick. Given that I drive for a living, well…
Mencken was sometimes too cynical for his own good. There are genuine reformers, who truly believe that something ‘terrible’ is happening and that they must act to stop it. And sometimes they are correct; e.g. slavery.
But too often, a reform movement is co-opted by more sophisticated manipulators, who see an opportunity to expand their power while being concealed by a patina of ‘good works’.
One of the ways of judging a reform movement is by who opposes it. If the powerful, the elite, those who benefit from the status quo vehemently object and state that there’s no reason for reform…the urge to change matters is probably correct.
You will love this quote by Mencken:
Mencken wrote during Prohibition. The Prohibitionists fit the quote’s description perfectly. Meanwhile, true saints (who want only the best for other people) are few and far between.
Just want to see if this is the format that you use to make quotations on this blog:
Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.
WordPress accepts (some) HTML. Enclose those in less-than and greater-than signs and they’ll work.
What I want to know how to do is the quote effect you see in krulac’s post of November 2nd. Does he use a special code for that effect, or is it something only the blog owner (Maggie) can edit in afterwards?
Keep in mind, it’s just icing on the cake. If people see the quote, it doesn’t matter that much how it’s presented.
I changed your square brackets to angles so you can see the effect: “blockquote” gives the effect you’re looking for, and as you can see “quote” does nothing at all.
Now I see how it works. Thanks!
I’ve had trouble with that myself. I got the angle brackets thing a while back, but had about given up on quotes.
IT WORKS!
Terrorism? wtf krulak. an existential threat to this country?
Maggie wrote, I told him to go to Hell (yes, I really said that; I get very irrational when I’m motion-sick)”. When you characterize as irrational then you’ve bought into their “sick” mindset. They all should be scorned and told to GO TO HELL.
On terrorism, we can agree to disagree. However, I’ve never been told that terrorists aren’t a threat by anyone who’s actually met one. I’ve met more than a few myself. I could be wrong about it – but that’s just me. I re-evaluate this position every so often and I keep coming to the same conclusion. I don’t want to argue about it – it’s not really germaine to the point I’m making.
On the “sick mindset” – well, if you’re not going to be civil with those cops you’ll never convert them to our side and their minds will never be motivated to “challenge” the status quo or what their superiors are telling them.
Not that I like Cops – they “profile” me all the time. My avatar is a silverback gorilla – because I actually LOOK like a gorilla. 6’2″ – 230 pounds and built like a bouncer. I have long hair and sideburns and when I pull it back – the look is pretty “mean” when you add my ugly face in. The cops don’t like this look – neither does airport security and I get stopped a lot and it’s a pain in the ass for me – seriously.
Look man … Cops – there, but for the grace of God – I would be. Lots of cops are ex-military. The military guys I served with really believe in this country and what it stands for and they’re willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for it. It’s not a case of these guys are too stupid to anything else but be bullet-catchers – it’s a case of these guys keep reenlisting in combat zones because they believe in what they’re doing.
Now, I was one of those guys and there’s still a lot of that in me. However, after I retired, I started questioning things and I came upon blogs like Maggie’s. Maggie, the fucking cop hating woman but I read what she was saying and I believe her experiences are real – and her writings, and a few others, have brought me around. I was not Pro-Choice until I started reading this blog. Decriminalizing prostituion? It wasn’t a priority for me.
If I can learn these things – then the other guys – like SOME cops (I say some because I know some are bad and will never be “salvaged”) … but some Cops can be brought around to our way of thinking. And – why wouldn’t we want them on our side? These are loyal guys who’s loyal traits are being manipulated by a bad system. We need to get in there and co-opt some of the propaganda they’re being fed.
Cuz … I’m gonna tell ya … if it ever comes to “revolution” in this country – our side is pretty damned because we don’t have a lot of “alpha males” with us if you catch my drift.
Amen. Here’s a good article of how to deal with cops http://www.itsuptoyou.net/how-to-deal-with-cops-and-get-out-of-crimes/ which I agree will help tremendously; and, you summarized many of this articles points nicely. It’s not a foolproof plan and the authors Tucker Max and Nils Parker will tell you that, but it helps everyone to some degree when dealing with cops. It does help some people more than others. It explains how cops think and the 3 basic personality types, Blue collar pros, High-school Napoleons and Legacy kids. My opinion is that with the expanding police state there is an ever increasing number and percentage of High-school Napoleons which sad. Cops are cut from the same cloth as military types, and you know this because you are a U.S. Navy veteran and Iraq War Veteran too. I am an U.S. Army veteran as well as a Iraq War and Afghanistan War veteran.
Here’s my opinion about the 3 types of cops. The Legacy kids, a small minority, are all but on our side for freedom as they know and understand that law and order are fluid concepts, but they are the best at jacking you up if they become upset at you enough, and they decide to stick it to you. The Blue collar pros, who are still the majority, are a little further away from understanding how arbitrary many of these laws are in comparison to the legacy kids. The High-school Napoleons, a large minority, are really the most hard core about having power trips and abusive of all cops to more citizens and even criminals of all cops. all cops are on a power trip, and it’s best to deal with that as it is, not as you would like it to be. Your goal in life should be to calm the cop down and get him to do as little as possible. Most cops like most military personell hate paper work and will often let you go on a lesser charge or no charge at all to avoid it if you do not upset them. High-school Napoleons like jacking people up and tolerate paper work more than the other 2 types.
Krulac, you gave good advice. Had you done what Maggie McNeill had done, you would have most likely been arrested and put in a jail cell for at least a few hours. This is because you are a man and men commit more crimes on average than women as well as men being more naturally scary than women on average. It hurts you more because you are a big, strong and scary looking man. Older people are let go more than younger people. Women are let go more than men. Whites and Asians are let go more than Blacks and Hispanics because blacks and Hispanics commit a higher percentage of crime than Whites and Asians. Middle Class and Rich looking people are let go more than poor people of any race for the same reason as the racial reason I listed in the previous sentence. Prettier women are let go more than uglier women. Because Maggie is middle-aged, a woman and probably prettier than most other women as well as middle-class or rich looking is the reason she was let go by the cop is my opinion.
I agree that we are being conditioned to accept this abuse, but most of the American public thinks this is ok which is sad. You as an individual can either be a martyr for a better cause or accept it, but realize what you’re getting into. You as a sole individual can not usually win and will only lose until enough others join you in the U.S Constitution being followed, increasing liberty and respect for human rights. You may die with noone helping you or trying to help you in getting the U.S. Constitution followed, increasing liberty and respecting human rights.
On terrorism, we can agree to disagree. However, I’ve never been told that terrorists aren’t a threat by anyone who’s actually met one.
They’re a real threat, all right — just a tiny one, making them comparable to sharks, or for that matter human traffickers. (Falling coconuts kill more people each year than either sharks or terrorists.)
On the “sick mindset” – well, if you’re not going to be civil with those cops you’ll never convert them to our side and their minds will never be motivated to “challenge” the status quo or what their superiors are telling them.
These days, the job of cop attracts only those who want to bully and/or “nanny” other people against their will. Converting them is unlikely. If reform comes, it will be imposed on cops by their bosses, and on them by us as voters.
I’ve argued with Krulac before on this board. However, I’ll defend him here. You are absolutely correct that terrorism is a a very smal threat as of right now, but it could potentially grow larger especially if the people of our beloved USA figure out how much our ruling elite have screwed up the nation. I’m not saying it will, but our ruling elite are frightened of both foreign terrorists seeking vengence for American military presence overseas and U.S. citizens wrath seeking redress for the abuses suffered at home because all of us who have any brains know the U.S. Constitution is pretty much a dead letter, freedom at home is being rolled back for more than 150 years increasingly over the past 80 years and our founding American forefathers of the American Revolution are rolling around in their graves. You are correct that an increasing percentage of cops are High-schcool Napoleons into bullying and nannying people. Why? The first reason is that with increasing number of police per capita, the quality of the police is going down on average which although sad makes sense. Keep in mind that even poorer quality police try to do a good job most of the time, but they unfortuneately don’t have it in them to be any better. The same thing would happen if you expanded the National Football League or National Basketball League. rect that the voters turning on the bosses, i.e. the mayors and police cheifs, for the police to be better is really what is going to solve these problems. However, the majority of the public feels that inreasing tyrannny is either tolerable or worse even good. Therefore, Krulac’s advice is meant for one on one interactions which is the best any individual can do alone when dealing with the police.
Wait, in 2012 150 years ago would be 1862. Which would be the American Civil War. Please tell me you’re joking.
Please tell me that you do know that the abrogation of original Constitutional principles started in earnest with the Civil War, or don’t they teach that in schools any more? If not, start with Glenn Greenwald’s column on civil rights violations by American presidents, linked in today’s (Sunday’s) column.
Thanks. I could not have said it better myself.
After thinking it over, you kinda have a point, in that the civil war and the 13th and 14th amendment do mark a fundamental change in the constitutional.
But, you were talking about Lincoln, and I have to say that Lincoln wasn’t as honorable a person as many people think, he didn’t unleash some 150 year assault on freedom. And the alien and sedition acts which Glenn Greenwald talks about in his column were probably a large assault on civil liberties.
Actually, that abrogation started as early as 1824, with Gibbons v. Ogden, in which the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution was to be interpreted to give the government the widest possible powers consistent with its text, and that the intent of the Founders was not relevant.
I’d say it was irrational because it invited the cop to convict her of contempt of cop, which might have had far worse consequences than nausea. But then, maybe we all need to be a lot more irrational that way….
The thing that can drive you to drink is that this encroaching police state is supported by both parties. Glenn Greenwald had a great column today (http://tinyurl.com/chgdlyt) on who is the worst civil liberties President in history and made a good case that the last two dips (and, I would say, the current challenger) were the worst. Not because their violations were so egregious but because they have the appearance of being *permanent* fixtures, not (perhaps justifiable, perhaps not) wartime measures.
What these people are building is a permanent police state. And it’s just not terrorism. If they are panicking now over humant trafficking despite the evidence that it is wildly exaggerated, when will they ever stop panicking about it?
There’s also an amazing and tight circle of depravity, that works like so:
1) outlaw prostitution, forcing the industry into the shadows.
2) identify your now outlawed industry as trafficking
3) crack down on all of us to fight the menace you created.
I would think it was a deliberate plan except these people are too stupid to be that organized.
That reminds me about something that has bothered me since the Patriot Act was passed, and that is the absolute refusal of George W. Bush to mention any specific enemy—whether as an individual or an organization—which the United States was fighting against. It was just a “war on terror”, and by definition, that’s a war that cannot end as long as somebody somewhere around the world is using “terrorism” against us or against one of our close allies.
What the drug war has done to our “… right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” is going to be mirrored by the human trafficking war on “The right to travel [which] is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment.”
I knew that they’d get around to this eventually. A tyrannical gov’t cannot allow free movement any more than they can allow them to be secure in their person or houses. I just thought that they’d manage to use the War on Terror as their pretext.
I knew that they’d get around to this eventually. A tyrannical gov’t cannot allow free movement any more than they can allow them to be secure in their person or houses.
“This is an anti-fascist protection wall. Counter-revolutionary vermin, spies, profiteers, human traffickers, prostitutes, spoiled teenage hooligans and other enemies of the people’s democratic order have been sucking on our workers’ and peasants’ Republic like leeches and bugs on a healthy body”. – East German dictator Walter Ulbricht, writing in 1961 about the Berlin wall.
Note the reference to trafficking and prostitution; the more things change, the more they stay the same.
gumdeo,
That is a pretty telling statement, isn’t it? And I think that it highlights the totalitarian persuasion of those who are so bent on “protecting” us. Which makes Mencken’s quote even more appropriate.
Thanks. I’m going to keep that quote on hand for further use.
*Crosses Amtrak off her list of ways to travel*
Ugh. I still have to deal with airports on occasion when an appointment takes me out of Chicago. When i visit my friends in Minneapolis, I usually take the Megabus because I have the time to do so and yes, 7 hours on a bus beats dealing with TSA when I don’t have to. Now, I’m just waiting for good ol’ evolution to kick in and have my body grow wings to adapt to the adverse situation that is facing my migratory patterns. C’mon wings…GROW!
Also, this: [these] employees will overtly or covertly examine passengers for the validity of their identification, their level of stress, how they interact, and their conversations.
I’d be detained. I’ve moved at least three times since the address that is on my ID, though it doesn’t expire until 2014. I am always stressed when I travel. Always. The lines, the waits (i’m not very patient), the other passengers….I’m extremely pissy unless I am in a private car. And my conversations during travel times? Along the lines of, “I hope we don’t crash because I don’t want to have to die around these people.” and “*grumblegrumble* Bullshit terrorism, fucking lies…”
Changed flights at O’Hare a few months ago…..really don’t blame you for taking the Megabus! Such a hassle.
“How many people personally know of a child who has been trafficked? How many are acquainted with anyone who personally knows of a trafficked child?”
Get ready for the ‘but if it saves just that one person’ bullshit…..
Thus, the 8,000 Amtrak employees will have reason to scrutinize children and teenagers even if they are clearly not forced to be with the adults accompanying them…
In short, the state is allowed to intervene and control children more than the legal guardians of said minors. Sick. And not in a good way.
Maybe it’s just my kids but every 12 yr old girl on vacation with her family is definitely being forced to travel with those people against her will.
Yup. Guess I’m trafficking her to grandmas house and then on to Disneyland
‘Though the stated purpose of the TSA’s security theater is to fight terrorism, its actual purpose is to condition Americans “to submit to any indignity inflicted by an ‘authority’, no matter how invasive and arbitrary”’
This seems to go further than warranted. I have my doubts that the people who create these systems went into it thinking “Hrm, I haven’t oppressed anyone this week, let’s come up with new police powers to fix that.”
What they were really thinking, I don’t know. Two possibilities come to mind.
Option one is that simple political incentives favor this behavior (i.e. people will vote for the “tough on X” candidate) and the creators are amoral, in which case we’re probably getting exactly the government that most of the people want. Or at least what they ask for. Not a pleasant thought.
Option two is that the creators *really believe* they’re doing the right thing, for whatever reason. And that is a *horrible* thought.
Yeah. No optimism here. Shame I don’t qualify to emigrate to Canada. I’ve checked.
A wrote:
This seems to go further than warranted. I have my doubts that the people who create these systems went into it thinking “Hrm, I haven’t oppressed anyone this week, let’s come up with new police powers to fix that.”
A, I think that what Maggie is getting at is that while no one goes on record, policy-wise, that the outcome desired is the submission of the citizenry to the arbitrary powers of the enforcers, it is at least implicit in their policy approach. And if you read their “apologies” for those times when the actions of their minions are so egregious that they can’t possibly get the public to swallow the canard that it was justified, they try to blame the victim.
For a related phenomenom where the motivations are clearer and a comity between the actions of individual members and the institutions they represent is more obvious, look at police officers who “fear for their safety” and indiscriminately beat or shoot citizens, shout at handcuffed victims to “stop resisting” as they continue to assault them – resistance consisting of trying to protect their heads or genitals or abdomen from the continuing physical damage and pain being inflicted by the officer – and other variants on this theme. And then, when they are faced with indisputable evidence of abuse, are treated to a paid vacation while undergoing the “judgement” of their peers in Law Enforcement, that judgement almost inevitably exonerating them with the finding that they were within policy and practice paramaters of the department.
And then recognize that the TSA doesn’t have the institutional experience – YET – to have deployed these kinds of behaviors in depth. But, rest assured, short of some huge political fallout, they will get there. And that is what Maggie is pointing up.
Actually, they do continually seek ways to oppress others. They rationalize it to the rest of us and, sometimes, to themselves, but their actual intent is to tell others how to live their lives, and that is oppression.
Maggie, I was just wondering if you had ever read The Tipping Point. I think you would be interested in it, even if you didn’t completely agree with it.