Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

-healthcare (only because that's by and large the only industry I have worked in for the last 12 years at about 3000 hour/year level).

After all the virtual ink spilled here on the topic, I'm surprised I didn't know this.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I understand that the TSA is not related to the airlines, yes.

and I am not taking a partisan shot in any of it. I don't fault the concept (i.e. the legislators intent), its the execution I have problems with.

The execution seems to include a little trial-and-error -- policies that are announced and then hashed out over a little bit of time. This is hardly the first time anyone has complained about the TSA going overboard. Remember when no one was allowed to bring water on the plane? Eventually, that got worked out in a way that imposes relatively little hassle for (hopefully) substantially improved security.

The TSA has to balance privacy and security, plus other interests like cost. It has to do this in a context where the threats are shifting and evolving (as are the nature of privacy and cost concerns).

If anyone thinks that they could develop policies that score perfectly on both competing concerns, well, that's probably the same person who thinks that he can eliminate the deficit solely by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

whiff?

Me or him?

Also, for the record, your response to my soft ball set up wasn't as amusing as I would have hoped either.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

-Also, I probably know enough about sex to qualify as a semi-pro

Can you suck cock like Thurgreed?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

Me or him?

Also, for the record, your response to my soft ball set up wasn't as amusing as I would have hoped either.

You, little man.

smd.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I'm not sure what annoys me most about the current storm over TSA screening, but I've narrowed it down to the following:

1. A small group of people who will bitch loudly about anything have decided to bitch about this.

2. People are actually proposing to disrupt security lines with an "opt-out" day on Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. Great plan, people.

3. Participating in the discussion apparently requires thinking about Ty's junk.

Did you know Playmobil made a TSA screening set? It is off the market now, maybe because of this.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Eventually, that got worked out in a way that imposes relatively little hassle for (hopefully) substantially improved security.

You really buy that part in bold?

The TSA has to balance privacy and security, plus other interests like cost.

Not to mention justifying its own existence.

If anyone thinks that they could develop policies that score perfectly on both competing concerns, well, that's probably the same person who thinks that he can eliminate the deficit solely by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.

TSA's task isn't easy, but it has pretty powerful incentives to err on the side of safety/security, which, in my view, is why it has been so hopelessly reactive and so unwilling to let go of very silly procedures with very minimal safety benefits (see, most notably, the continued shoe farce that happens only in this country).

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

The execution seems to include a little trial-and-error -- policies that are announced and then hashed out over a little bit of time. This is hardly the first time anyone has complained about the TSA going overboard. Remember when no one was allowed to bring water on the plane? Eventually, that got worked out in a way that imposes relatively little hassle for (hopefully) substantially improved security.

The TSA has to balance privacy and security, plus other interests like cost. It has to do this in a context where the threats are shifting and evolving (as are the nature of privacy and cost concerns).

If anyone thinks that they could develop policies that score perfectly on both competing concerns, well, that's probably the same person who thinks that he can eliminate the deficit solely by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse.

While I don't expect perfection on day one, I think that you're more tolerant of trial and error than I am. Having hired/managed enough people in my life in disparate jobs and industries, I can do a quick once over of the TSA personnel at most, if not all, airports that I have been in, and surmise, in my subjective analysis, that at base line there's a competency problem that's going to lead to a grossly inefficient trial and error process.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

Me or him?

Also, for the record, your response to my soft ball set up wasn't as amusing as I would have hoped either.

Me (meaning me, me, not you) , which answer coincides well with your second sentence above.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

After all the virtual ink spilled here on the topic, I'm surprised I didn't know this.

Do you have a scorecard? You can't tell the players without a scorecard.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Can you suck cock like Thurgreed?

Interestingly, I had my secretary record an audio version, which is saved to my iPhone. I play it for potential suckers before they get down to business, npi, and I have found that it helps the gals up their game.

I sent TM a salmon as a thank you.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

While I don't expect perfection on day one, I think that you're more tolerant of trial and error than I am. Having hired/managed enough people in my life in disparate jobs and industries, I can do a quick once over of the TSA personnel at most, if not all, airports that I have been in, and surmise, in my subjective analysis, that at base line there's a competency problem that's going to lead to a grossly inefficient trial and error process.

I don't normally respond to my own posts, but in this case I will make an exception. If we are operating on a trial and error basis, why do continue to just make new shit up to try? Why not try something that is already been successful and see if we can make that work (or make it better), eg El Al?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

You really buy that part in bold?

Do I buy the notion that not allowing people to bring any liquids from outside the aiport onto the airplane improves security?

Leaving aside my use of "hopefully," I would say yes. Eliminating liquids means eliminating one relatively easy way to disguise explosives/combustibles.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

TSA's task isn't easy, but it has pretty powerful incentives to err on the side of safety/security, which, in my view, is why it has been so hopelessly reactive and so unwilling to let go of very silly procedures with very minimal safety benefits (see, most notably, the continued shoe farce that happens only in this country).

Yet, they will not employ the technique which is, perhaps, the most critical to ensuring safety - profiling. Instead, they strip search nuns and children. Good times.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Why not try something that is already been successful and see if we can make that work (or make it better), eg El Al?

Leaving aside your e.g., isn't that what we are doing? We just keep doing more and allegedly better of the same thing we have always done.

Granted, we scrapped (at least for flights originating here) or own half-assed attempts at questioning passengers and have never adopted things like screening luggage/packages on entry to the airport, but those things were never a serious part of the tried and tested procedures that make up the base of our (increasingly absurd) system.