ParanoiA

Excellent point. I have wondered just how demo's are supposed to fight back against the war without being accused of non-patriotism or not supporting the troops. Although, using "the children" would have taken all the steam out of opposing it at all.

I can't imagine why any sane person would want to set that precedent in the first place. I guess lawyers are lawyers and they'll pursue such ends regardless, but it's such an obvious step backwards in terms of freedom. Innocent people - as in all of them - will be punished.

Oh yes. The precious children. No one can say no to anything to do with children. Why don't republicans use this for the Iraq war? Just somehow make it about "the children" and everyone would be on board and NO ONE could dissent. They're not victims of GWB. They're victims of poor parents. How is it the fault of anyone in government that these kids don't have health insurance? Why aren't you complaining about their parents? Don't they have a duty to do without TV, cable, cell phones, DVD players, and all the other crap that america's impoverished typically own so they can afford insurance? Oh of course not. It's George's fault. He won't bail them out, so apparently that makes it his fault, since they're "victims" and all. You know, I wonder how long it's going to take before every bill is spun to benefit "the children".

If that's the case then fine, I'll shut up about it. But iNow, Severian, Cap'n, some others have implied as much. I see no issue with using our standard means of taking down a suspect. And if no one is saying that, then why are we still arguing about what a bomb is capable of looking like? If we all agree it's no big deal to restrain someone with suspicious electronics, obvious or otherwise, until we can inspect then why is it still an issue for everyone? I prefer a more common sense approach. I don't think you should draft systems and flow charts - procedures - too easy to undermine predictable behavior. Instead, keep everything flexible. They should now what a bomb can look like, the basic elements, but should never ignore their instincts or their gut. Everything that looks suspicious should be treated suspicious. Even if it turns out harmless. Laugh it off and move on. We're not talking about violating civil liberties. Any of us can be pulled over by the police - detained for questioning and so forth. Just as long as we're not prosecuting breadboard bandits as terrorists. That's a far worse issue - and more concerning to me. I'm afraid they'll (republicans) try to make the case that homemade electronics worn in public should be illegal and draft special legislation for it. We'll lose a lot of freedoms if that happens. Go Ron Paul. No, I've been watching pcollins' posts and I don't think he's making that argument at all. He's saying that any circuit on a breadboard could be an electronic detonator and you should be detained until we know otherwise.

No. Just don't walk into an airport with it strapped to your chest and expect no one to get the wrong idea. No one in this thread concluded she was a terrorist. I can't speak for the idiots that handled this after the fact. How is it not free? If you draw a gun in the airport should you not be questioned or restrained for it? I see no oppression of freedom in any way here.

But would you agree that the standard protocol for restraining a suspect should be done until this inspection? Using guns to stop people is basic stuff. We all have a duty to submit to authority, to a point. It is unreasonable to think that the tried and true method of restraint should be tossed out because breadboard enthusiasts don't like being misinterpreted. If we suspect it's a bomb, then we better freaking act like it. Pointing guns and restraining someone for this inspection should be expected. The overreaction came when the authorities didn't like being "had" and tried to punish her for this incident. Personally, I can understand the anger. They're human. They got scared - they did their job and didn't shoot her - but they felt the fear and were probably angry at her in the way any parent would be angry at their child after a close call. She could have won a Darwin award.

Why does it look less like a bomb? We already know that anything can be a bomb. We get it. Everyone here gets it. Let's move past it and get to the point. Why should we treat obvious items any differently than non-obvious ones? Why on earth would you rule something out because "a real bomb wouldn't be that obvious"? Ruling anything out is an automatic in. Give me cold logic here.

A new slant on Mock Outrage... http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/01/reid.limbaugh/index.html?iref=newssearch I've seen this guy misquoted so many times over the years, I don't even take them seriously anymore. This blown up mock outrage display is just a rehash of all the other misquotes I've witnessed, only intensified. I don't know what's so hard to understand about "phony soldiers". Phony means fake. Fake soldiers. It's obvious he was talking about Jessie MacBeth and the 7 other phony soldiers that have lied and told ridiculous stories of slaughter by US troops. Even the caller uses the phrase "real soldiers". How funny. I can't believe so many people can make asses of themselves at one time - in unison. Too bad Reid didn't follow through with the resolution to condemn him. I guess he realized 41 democrats doesn't get the votes to pass it.

Yes, you're right. I just meant I didn't want them dismissing suspicious gizmos based on anecdotal knowledge, false confidence from conversations like these. By all means, real training by people with experience would seem a given now that you bring it up.

You're absolutely right. Exactly. Security guards and law enforcement are not experts in electronics and personally I don't want them trying to be. I want them to go with their gut, without losing their heads. I think iNow made the same point - it's the aftermath that I'm concerned about. Trying to punish people or rough them up for exercising their freedom is unacceptable. Right, so at least make them hide it. Everything we do in the way of preventative security will NOT make us safe and will NOT make me feel any safer. The only thing preventative security is going to do, is make it more difficult for terrorists to act, and give us a chance to thwart their plots ever now and then - at best. In other words, I have no expectation we'll ever see a bomb with gangly wires and perfboards, so that doesn't then mean that everyone with wires and perfboards get a free pass now. Don't you see how you're opening a door for a real terrorist? According to your logic, he just needs to display his bomb with wires and LED's so no one will suspect him. No hiding or engineering required - just make it "look" like a bomb and the americans won't do anything. This sounds more reasonable to me. No, but there's still time and I've always wanted to see the Cowboys play. I may have a story for you yet...

Perhaps partisanship isn't just for politicians...

It's totalitarian to react to what appears to someone to be a bomb? I think you have a distorted view of freedom. You don't have a right to walk down the street and not be questioned. You don't have a right to ignore law enforcement. You don't have a right to insist that you are above detention while the rest of us are not. We are a free country, but we have laws and we have to be able to enforce those laws. That's why we have such a crafty justice system that was built to ensure you're rights are not railroaded during the process of enforcing those laws. Your rights are not being denied because law enforcement stuck a gun to your head thinking you had a bomb. Only when they try to convict you for LED's and silly puddy... Think on that. You're not nearly as free as you're suggesting and never have been. We are quite a free and non-totalitarian country. I remain hopeful that rational, intelligent minds will see the non-issue in reacting, like we always have, to a perceived threat - no matter how stupid others seem to think it is. Police investigate, detain, train weapons on, and jail people every day for less. Remember iNow, everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so everyone who is ever arrested is done so as an innocent person. How does that strike your totalitarian chords?

I belive a minority will make the association. About as many as the number of people who think the phone company is enabling NAMBLA. And I'm free to share my phone conversation with my neighbor, but it was still a private line during our phone consversation. Bulk SMS, again, is not Verizon's content. People already know this. I don't believe near the number of people will mistake Naral's messages for Verison's endorsement that you seem to. I think they're smarter than that. Exactly, so if SMS goes with phone service, then why would anyone associate Naral's message with Verizon? They don't associate their own messages with Verizon so why do you suddenly think they'll incorrectly associate Naral's? So, if Showtime shows child porn then you're going to blame Directv? The bulk SMS is broadcast, I agree, I didn't realize that was everyone's hangup. Still, I see no precedence to burn the carrier over the intelligence here. The carrier carries whatever intelligence you provide and most people understand that.

Did you forget about the box knives? Another rather benign tool that no one freaked out about. If security had made a big deal out of those box knives, I'm betting we'd hear about how stupid security was and if they were going to hijack a plane they would have used actual knives, long knives - not little box knives that can only penetrate roughly an inch or two into the skin. The point is, why NOT assume a bundle of wires could be a bomb? Why NOT take a couple of minutes, see it through? No bomb? Good, no problem. What's the issue? I don't get it. What if Star is actually an Al Queda operative? What if the plan was to fake us out once or twice, make everyone look stupid, so then she can show up at an airport with a real bomb? I'll bet you no one is going to tackle her now, no matter how well she advertises she has a bomb strapped on. Or better yet, how do we know Al Queda isn't watching all this and taking notes? Americans are more scared of looking stupid than dying. What a priceless bit of intelligence that is...

No it doesn't. You're still trying to compare broadcast services to private ones. One is a conceptual "end-to-end" circuit of private information, the other is a "all can view" information channel. Their priorities and responsibilities couldn't be any more different. One has to be aware of the content, the other had better not.

This seems quite reasonable to me. This was more or less my initial impression of conservatism. Probably is more likely to be considered moderate, or middle of the road - which is just a way of each ideology saving face. I've always thought liberalism came across far more whimsical. But then again, that's why I like a libertarian federal landscape. Liberalism can afford to be more whimsical and progressive when effecting one state, while the rest of us observe and adopt what works and stay conservative with what doesn't.

How does "branding" effect content? Answer: It doesn't. Granted, it may appear so to the end user, but that's not the reality of the technology. Land line phone companies have dealt with this for years. The Bells brand on all operator services calls, voice mail and tons of other services I don't use, and they're not responsible for me plotting a terror attack over their phone lines. Even public perception agrees with that. I think you have to bring quite a bit of luggage to even make believe Verizon would be responsible for messages sent over its network. Radio stations and television broadcasters are delivering broadcast content that all can view. These messages are private. The precedence is land line phone service, not TV and radio. Sisyphus is right on the money here. It was only controversial when they made it that way. Do plain ole telephone service companies decline to offer a phone number to controversial businesses? I'm sure NAMBLA has a phone number and I'll bet they're in the yellow pages <shutters>.

How is hanging a rope a crime? Does it have to be a noose? And when does it become a noose rather than a loop for me to hold onto (with my hands) and swing with? It requires historical reference and interpretation in order to find offense, so how is it a violation of anyone's rights? And not to mention the noose is a useful tool. Not just for hanging people. Also, it's not illegal to be racist. It's not illegal to express racism either. I'm not fond of anyone exercising this particular set of rights, but we have to be consistent here, and tolerant.

Can I ask what is wrong with reacting to wires and perf boards and other silly contraptions as bombs? Not sure I'm getting the message here. I want people to react, no matter how stupid it may seem. What I don't want them to do, is to follow up by prosecuting these people and trying to find fault and reasons to punish them. I think terrorists would get even more of a kick out of creating a mess of wires and puddy and a bomb and watching us laugh just before it goes off because we thought the security guard that stopped him was stupid. Until it gets out of hand, why not question these things? Are we experiencing an overflow of fake bombing jokes? Seems pretty narrowed and tame so far to me...

Because it has to be a crime first, before you can make it a "hate" crime.

I agree. And in this case, they are exercising choice, as in what college they will attend. Either way, choice is present, which is the point I was trying to make to Dak. Somewhere along the line, we have a choice about our education. Well, without getting into pre-college education issues anyway....

I'm a firm believer in net neutrality. They should not be looking at those text messages and certainly should not be held accountable for any content - should be no different than voice calls. That said, I do think it was a mistake to initially deny the service to Naral, from a business perspective. Obviously, legally they can deny it all they want, but I'm glad they changed their position. I understand they were trying to avoid bad publicity and so forth, but I don't think it ever would have been associated with Verizon. I don't see how their brand was in any danger.

Do you also draw the line at letting people in other countries do stupid things to their kids? I ask because this mentality of "stepping-in" to stop people from doing what we believe to be stupid things is what gets my country into all of these wars and international conflicts that has pissed everyone off. Maybe we should just let people be stupid, let their kids be stupid, and concentrate on those causing physical harm - less than subjective violations of other's personal sovereignty. After all, we're still talking about subjects that are being feverishly debated - far from a consensus. Your idea of smart teaching - like evolution - is someone else's idea of stupid. I appreciate the spirit, but kids aren't free. My kids are under my control - they have no sovereignty not granted by me and my wife. The lack of choice is a common theme for children as we parents exercise our choice of how to raise them - what we have decided as stupid or smart.

True freedom means people are free to do stupid things.

How ridiculous. Why do we feel the need to punish people when we make a mistake? The dude wasn't a bioterrorist. Once that was figured out, why mess with him? They should be kissing his ass and saying they're sorry. A funny incident in Texas involved the mistaken identification of marijuana plants by the DEA or something - it was some other plant. But for a few hours they were ransacking his house and had him in cuffs. Later, once they figured out he was right and they were mistaken, they supposedly laughed it off and the guy didn't give them any more slack about it. Gee, how down to earth the deep south has become in comparison...