Backscatter more a threat to safety than terrorism

This is about the best point I've seen about the recent TSA "nude-o-scope" and "crotch grabbing" ('scuse the expressions) debacle.  Thanks, Boarding Area:

Still, Bruce Schneier points out that even though backscatter x-ray machines are expected to increase change of death by only 16 ten millionths of one percent, that’s still more than the risk of death from terrorism. And he points to Nate Silver on inconveniences of air travel pushing people to driving which is far more dangerous, and statistically attributes the equivalent of four full 737s a year in additional traffic deaths.

I could go on and on how awful this all is.  But, let me just say this:

. Remember how gradually the Jews lost their rights in Nazi Germany.
. Contrary to TSA's attitude, airline travel is a right, not merely a privilege, in the sense that we are free to associate and conduct commerce (with airlines, et al) and have freedom of movement (travel).

Puppy

My current favorite flavor of Linux:  Puppy Linux
booting off a USB stick.

Unconventional Marriages

OK, so really I have two points to make. Keeping it short. I don't have a problem with people who want to live together and if they belong to a church that is willing to bless or sanctify their relationship then that is totally up to them  But, you have to realize two things:

1. Today's same-sex marriage controversy isn't about who can be together and who can't. These people are already together. And do they think they need their relationship condoned by some government agency? No, I don't think so. It is about government benefits.  Here's a list the Government Accounting Office (GAO) made up to give "a sense of the kinds of federal laws in which marital status is a factor." What is the point of all of this? Governments have been encouraging and subsidizing marriage for decades. Why? Some of it is tradition, some is religious, some of it is simply doing favors for constituents.

2. Same-gender marriage is just the start.  Other committed relationships are still not recognized by the government and I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be.  For example, why is "two" a special number?  Shouldn't a marriage of three people be recognized by the government? How about one? A single person cannot share in the benefits of marriage--why not? Does there have to be sex involved at all? I can see where an entire congregation or commune of people might enter into a marriage if it means they get more food stamps.

That being said, the government should not be in the marriage business. All the special laws, regulations and exceptions made for married people should be scrapped. There may be an argument to subsidize the raising of children, but that should be a wholly different matter.