Legislators of all people should have more effective methods of making changes to the law than civil disobedience.
Per the article, he wasn't held at all. Just not allowed past security. Sounds like he needs a hug. Is it ironic he's missing an anti-abortion rally, at which he would speak out against a woman's right to privacy over decisions affecting her body by asserting his perceived right of privacy over his own?
Civil disobedience doesn't directly lead to changing the law but to drawing attention to raise the issue. Paul obviously has other means at his disposal but he is just one legislator out of 435. Something like this helps to raise attention and hopefully put more pressure on the rest of Congress to act.
I don't believe Rand Paul would argue a woman shouldn't have the right to make the decision about whether not she should have sex.
There is only 435 of them. He can speak to all of them from the House floor. He could give every single one a phone call. A civil disobedience stunt like this is something you pull because powerful people aren't paying attention. Getting the attention of powerful people in Washington is not his problem. The problem is that they don't agree with him. That makes me think he's not trying to bring attention to the issue, but just attention-whoring for the voter when he can remain safe in the knowledge that Congress will not actually do anything to compromise airport security. If he thought he could actually get a law passed that eased up the invasion of privacy at airports, I'm betting he wouldn't push so hard.
Isn't that somewhat contradictory? He wants to change the law but at the moment most of the other legislators don't agree with him. Clearly even though he can call the powerful people they aren't paying attention to him on this issue. Civil disobedience seems like a reasonable way of raising the attention of powerful people to the issue. I don't know if he is just doing this for his reelection and cynically doesn't believe the law can be changed. I have no reason though to doubt that he actually wants the policy changed. Also I don't follow why he wouldn't push so hard if he didn't think a law could be passed. It seems to me he would do the opposite.
don't reaalllyy want to steer the discussion in this direction....just commenting that in this particular instance he was on his way to speak out against a court decision that grappled with an individual's rights over common/global rights and sided with the individual (for a certain timeframe)....and was almost prevented from doing so on an issue that also pits individual rights vs common good -- only this time he's all for the individual. Like rain on your wedding day. ...and he was free not to fly -- he could even drive GPS-surveillance free (for now).
Paul is just trying to get more public attention for the issue. I don't want to be patted either. It makes me uncomfortable. So does wanding me. I wonder why he wouldn't be allowed a second scan?
I think what happened was, the scan from his body showed a BACKBONE and two of the largest SCRUPLES they've ever seen. It's unusual to see, so they felt a pat down was warranted.
too late.... i'll just say, don't confuse a man's fight for rights (unborn's right to live) as a stance on pro-life. simply put, pro-rights is different than pro-life.
Sure you didn't. You made that post just to take a shot and hoped that no one would respond unless they were giving you the lulz and agreement. You're free not to go into a shopping mall. That doesn't mean if you choose to do so the mall has the right to let a private security firm feel your testicles and take naked scans of your body.
If he doesn't want to be patted down then he can drive or take a train. No one likes the TSA. And I don't see how body scanners in Milwaukee make us safer when they aren't used out of NYC. But he offers no alternative to ensuring weapons are not brought on board an airplane.
More frequent occurrence... Weapons on an airplane or weapons at school? Perhaps TSA should go feel the testicles and vulvas of Johnny and Susie.
First off, I'm really curious towards these terrible experiences that people have with the TSA when they fly. I like to think I fly fairly frequently, and I've never really ever had a problem with the security. Yeah, it's annoying to take off your shoes and belt and make sure your laptop's out of your backpack, but that's barely anything. To the people griping about how evil it is: do you guys sincerely have bad encounters with those guys regularly? Secondly, what does abolishing the TSA or reforming it or whatever necessarily have to do with improper sexual harassment? That sort of stuff can occur regardless of whomever is dealing with airport security
1st, i fly with co-workers many who are minority and let's just say we've all been "randomly" selected for screenings. i'm not naive, i know there is no randomness to it but why not just admit it? 2nd, let's say united (IAH) was responsible for security not the government. if someone was sexually harassed (it would happen as you said) then that person could legally and criminally pursue justice. seems to me this is exponentially more difficult against the federal government.
