You know, I can understand not being brave enough to do this yourself. I'm not.
But pooh-poohing those who do do it? "Proper channels"? Yeah, I'm sure they're getting right on it.
How bad would it have to be before you stopped saying "Oh quit causing a disturbance"? I mean, this is already violating our most sacrosanct freedoms. Would I have to violate godwin's law to get you to agree with civil disobedience?
You seem to think that she is fighting the good fight on behalf of humanity. She is a professional writer who did this as a publicity stunt so she could write about the experience afterwards.
Her biggest accomplishment is that she managed to make one of the scummiest organizations in the United States appear to be in the right. Way to go freedom fighter.
I never said that I disagree with civil disobedience. I just don't agree with this woman's perspective on exactly what transpired in this situation.
I've worked for the federal government my entire adult life. If you want to convince them to get rid of the TSA, the side asking for the change has to appear blameless.
The way bureaucrats make decisions is not logical. If you give them 999 examples of the TSA breaking the law or violating basic human rights, they will simply shrug and say "remember that one time that woman went to that airport and purposely tried to get arrested? Yea, well these other complaints are probably from people just like her."
To make it clear, I don't like the corrupt, incompetent, abusive illusion of a democracy that we have built for ourselves in the United States. Unfortunately, the scumbags at the TSA has been put in charge of our Nation's airports. Unfortunately, if you want to board an aircraft in the United States, you have to submit to being processed through the security checkpoint. Unfortunately, if we want this to change it will be a long and painful process.
This woman's efforts will have no positive impact on the effort to get the TSA disbanded or reformed. Being able to recognize this doesn't make me a freedom-hating fascist. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to imply that I am.
A woman was terrified of the relatively minor consequences of speaking loudly in an airport. She did it anyway because she knew she should be allowed to. And we all learned a valuable lesson: our government and the airline industry allow innocent civilians to be subjected to abuse and detainment if they don't silently obey all commands regardless of how stupid they are.
This woman's efforts show everyone just how inhuman and wrong the system is. She can't change the system by herself. But if more people like her show up, maybe, just maybe, it can make a difference.
I respectfully disagree with your opinion that her efforts will have no positive impact. What you may be trying to say is that her actions alone will not change the law, and that is true. It may also be true that she is a lunatic, but that does not change her status as a citizen and is, therefore, irrelevant. Since civil disobedience may involve breaking the law in order to demonstrate injustice, whether she broke the law or not is also irrelevant.
Rosa Parks has been mentioned before. Her civil disobedience was not the first of its kind in the fight for civil rights. It was not even the first of its kind involving the bus laws. She is famous for having been the last such incident before the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
I believe this woman's actions in demonstration against the TSA will be one of many that plant a seed. I also mention her because part of her story sounds eerily familiar.
"Two policemen came on the bus and one asked me if the driver had told me to stand and I said, 'Yes.' And he wanted to know why I didn't stand, and I told him I didn't think I should have to stand up. And then I asked him, why did they push us around? And he said, and I quote him, 'I don't know, but the law is the law and you are under arrest.'" - http://achievement.org/autodoc/page/par0int-1
the side asking for the change has to appear blameless.
Right there, you have your finger on the rot. First, why should there be sides? Second, why is it important to appear blameless instead of appearing right?
You are correct; the federal government is rotten.
In any conflict, there are multiple sides, otherwise the conflict wouldn't exist. If the TSA had been designed with the intent of finding ways of protecting us while at the same time ensuring that the protective measures don't violate our constitutional rights, we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the TSA had been staffed with competent, compassionate human beings, there would be no conflict.
You and I may view things in terms or right or wrong, but bureaucrats don't. The government is rotten because we keep electing rotten people to rule over us. Isolated efforts to fight the TSA will do far less than an organized political movement.
People need to organize and take action as a collective. Just look at what happened to godaddy and you can begin to understand.
>If you want to convince them to get rid of the TSA, the side asking for the change has to appear blameless.
Is this workable? People, and specially governments, can find blame in so many ways that you can't convince them of anything unless they are forced or they realise it themselves. (In my country, protestors against massive corruption are framed for minor things they did in past and both media and government repeatedly use those points to distract masses from main issues.)
It appears to me that the lady was trying to convince others of the unreasonableness of the process. That is one of ways of democracy. Do you think "jared" will have something to think about? Do you think "the old goat" will be somewhat careful next time? Will somebody in public or those reading her blog see her point? I do think so and that is a positive impact, however small it is.
You have suggested other channels. The most obvious is voting, other is organised protest. The lady is trying to tell people that it may not be good idea to subject oneself to such procedures, and in a way creating a mass for the organised protests or cohesive votings to happen.
And for her personal courage I am inspired: she knows that she is going to appear a fool to others, she sweats, she knows that it can lead her to physical, financial problems, but she is risking because it is a step ahead.
ps: personally I don't think politicians take note unless there is a mass protest against some existing law, so to ask an individual to use other channels is unreasonable.
She is a professional writer who did this as a publicity stunt
I thought she identified herself as a doctor.
But in any case, you're simply building a strawman argument. You don't, and cannot, have any idea what her actual motivations were. Deluding yourself into believing you know what other people are thinking is not a good way to get to the bottom of any conflict.
PHaus was saying that professional writers have ulterior motives (what ever those are) and that we should discount the communication of people who are professionals. Only amateurs can be impartial.
No wait, I just put words in his mouth AND made a straw man. Now I am confused.
Under her profile on that website it stated that she was a writer. Maybe she's a doctor too.
You are correct that I cannot tell what another person is thinking. I formed my opinion based on the impression I got from reading her article. Due to the nature of the topic it should be a given that anything stated is an opinion unless someone specifically claims to be quoting a law or statistic.
But pooh-poohing those who do do it? "Proper channels"? Yeah, I'm sure they're getting right on it.
How bad would it have to be before you stopped saying "Oh quit causing a disturbance"? I mean, this is already violating our most sacrosanct freedoms. Would I have to violate godwin's law to get you to agree with civil disobedience?