Congress Wants To Cut Funds To The TSA For Naked Scanners
from the looks-like-someone's-paying-attention dept
Via Slashdot we learned that the House Appropriations Committee's latest plan specifically cuts funding for the TSA's naked body scanners. In the section about the TSA, it notes:
The bill includes $7.8 billion for the TSA, an increase of $125 million over last year’s level, and $293 million below the President’s request. These funds will be used to sustain the current cap level of 46,000 full time screening personnel, and for explosive detection systems, security enforcement, cargo inspections, Federal Air Marshals, and other TSA activities. The bill also includes an additional $10 million to address air cargo threats. However, the bill does not provide $76 million requested by the President for 275 additional advanced inspection technology (AIT) scanners nor the 535 staff requested to operate them.This won't stop the many such machines already in service, but could potentially slow the expansion of the use of such machines. Of course, I'm sure one carefully placed "soft on terrorists!" fear mongering report will ensure such machines get funded soon enough anyway.






Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
With fewer naked scanners, it will be necessary to grope even more people.
After all:
* You must be a pirate
* You must be a terrorist
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
These "air marshals" we keep funding...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These "air marshals" we keep funding...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: These "air marshals" we keep funding...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish they would
Funny thing was, I told the guy at the scanner I wasn't going through it. He got testy and asked why. I got testy back and told him it was my choice and I wasn't going to do it. I figured he would make the groping as horrible as possible to encourage me to be scanned instead. But he didn't which could be because he doesn't enjoy fondling me anymore than I enjoy the fondling.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish they would
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I wish they would
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I wish they would
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Then again, maybe it's tiny? The US GDP is 14 TRillion. All this copyright-let's-kill-the-internet horseshit is over such a tiny industry.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's 60 billion out of 14 trillion, or 0.4%.
Compare that to the IT industry. Google alone has a market cap of over $180bn.
Seriously, cut the TSA and you're 1/6 to making up the difference.
It's just too much ado about nothing. I can't believe we're putting up with things like internet censorship for an industry this size. What are the politicians even thinking?? -- especially when the protectionist laws they're making are getting in the way of innovations like YouTube, Bittorrent, Google Books...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We might have to add more incentives to being a politician or we could lose them all, cause really this is a more direct way to rape people.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As to stopping reproductive health care, I would really like the other "side" to consider the following...
I do not want my tax dollars to pay for wars.
Why are my demands ignored while you get to hold everyone hostage for your "religious" beliefs?
You refuse to educate them so they avoid the problem, you refuse to help them even if they are raped, and you refuse to help the unintended offspring who often find themselves wards of the state. Please pull your head out of the sand and stop pretending that these problems are not connected. I understand your desire to make sure there are still guests for the afternoon talk shows looking for their baby daddy, but I think your just being selfish again.
Maybe if you stopped worrying about having control over somebody elses uterus because your "religious leader" told you you have that right, and focused on the real problems in our society we might solve some of them.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting Called “Soft On Terrorism”
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Getting Called “Soft On Terrorism”
Illegal Immigrants!
Domestic Terrorists!
Anyone who dares to be Muslim!
Gays! They want to get married and destroy the world!
The "theft" of our valuable intellectual property!
CyberWorld War!
Bradley Manning!
Julian Assange!
People who question how we torture!
Teachers! How dare they expect a contract to be upheld!
For the children!
All of societies ills are caused by easily identifiable targets, unless you take the pragmatic approach.
We didn't have these problems until the government created the situations that caused them, and they cause them to get elected and stay in power. I look at it like religion, your beliefs are fine and dandy up until you expect someone else to tell you how to do it.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Getting Called “Soft On Terrorism”
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
a little modesty
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
never
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment