First, much respect to John Tyner for recording the events as he was hassled by Lindbergh Field's TSA in the name of "security," and decided not to take it.

I am still baffled to find people supporting these excessive procedures.

If safety outweighs personal privacy, should I expect to have my home searched on a regular basis as well? I might be working on a dirty bomb. There is equal evidence that I will try to bring down an airplane.

Ah, but I don't *have* to fly, do I? A dirty bomb would only be used in a densely populated area. I don't have to live in a densely populated area, right?

Cavity searches really are the next step. The porno-scanners don't read through skin, nor do the TSA rubdowns. Guess where I'm hiding my C4.

In the Union Tribune article regarding the situation, Michael J. Aguilar, chief of the TSA office in San Diego, said that Tyner could face penalties of up to eleven-thousand dollars - I am still not clear what he is guilty of that would warrant such a thing. Trying to get out of the way when it is clear he does not want to proceed further? Sounds like he was saving their resources.

Aguilar also seems to be concerned that Mr. Tyner's behavior was intentional. Does that matter? Should the TSA have done things differently knowing he was trying to make a point or just trying to catch a plane unmolested?

Lots of people are outraged over the firefighters' lack of action over a homeowner missing a $75 subscription to fire protection service.

Are the same people upset about not having healthcare available for people who don't pay? How is it different?

The homeowner said, "I'm no freeloader, I've worked all my life for everything I've got. It happens to anybody, I don't care, you forget things and I did. I suffered the consequences for it."

He made it clear that he understood the way this capitalistic system works. So should we now ignore him? Or change the system?

What if he had not been forgetfulness or irresponsibility, but an inability to pay? Would there still be outrage?

(Opinions expressed do not represent those of my employer or anyone but me. Sometimes not even me - I'm still trying to understand this myself.)

The problem is primarily one of reportage, exasperated by attention whoring.

The story becomes about the knuckleheads at the townhall meetings who start yelling, rather than any actual concerns they might have. Attention focuses on the guy carrying a gun rather than the message. Anything real gets lost, the story is now about methods.

The two main concerns regarding this issue have come about from misinterpretations of the bill(s): There are no death panels, and illegal aliens won't get free health care. No, I have not read the entire bill(s), nor have you (you can find it here http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf though). Thousands of pages each, several versions, several drafts. Many lies regarding them (Page 425 begins the section that Betsy McCaughey and Sarah Palin liked to present as the Death Panels. Really it's about enforcement of the patient's own choices regarding living wills and other end-of-life issues). Congressfolks claiming to have eliminated passages that were never there.

Yelling and noise.

How will it get paid for? Don't know. People are busy debating misinformation and being disruptive when they could be clarifying misunderstandings or presenting concerns to their representatives.

From a capitalist perspective, universal healthcare would be very good for small businesses.

If an owner of a small business needs a bit of help, there are wage minimums that may make it prohibitive to hire a worker even part-time (one more person out of work, one more business weakened). Assuming that business owner can budget payroll, odds are she won't be able to pay for health insurance as well. The employee in this case clearly cannot afford it on his own.

Since the employee can't pay for healthcare and needs the income, he will work when he really should not, lowering productivity, spreading germs, costing the business more money (and long-term income with potential loss of customers). Government assisted health care would help alleviate that.

More and stronger small businesses would make for a more stable economy.

Why don't we hear an outcry like this when public funds go to support a private entertainment business (if a stadium is so great for the local businesses, shouldn't they be investing it it themselves?)? How about the communist aspects of eminent domain and its abuses (as far as I'm concerned, that's most if not all uses of it)?

But if someone is broke and needs some help with their own physical well being, it's all WHARRGARBL!!

Why health and not housing, food, and fuel?
Someone who is unhealthy can't or shouldn't necessarily work, go to school, and be able to improve their lot to the point where they can contribute to society at a greater level.

Ideally, this would mean fewer people on other government programs. Reality? No idea. Is it open to abuses? Probably.

How will it be paid for? I'd like to know.

Summary

Rejected:
* Easily distracted media
* Debating misinformation
* Minimum wage laws
* Being ill
* Public funds for entertainment venues
* WHARRGARBL

Approved:
* Openly carrying a weapon
* Small businesses
* That picture of the wharrgarbl dog

Previously mostly against but find myself accepting more and more:
* Universal healthcare

From the Washington Post:

The Bush administration was at least better at branding.