Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

As I said in another post -- the TSA people who've actually searched me have acted very competently and professionally.

As to those doing secondary screening, that has been my experience as well.

But I have grown very frustrated with agents spending upwards of 30 seconds scrutinizing every ID that was presented. Initially I thought this was just inefficiency on the part of the occassional agent, but it seems to have become standard practice and to have been an edict from on high.

As usual, I am skeptical that AQ can't manage the same techonology available to most college freshman who have fake IDs, and thus skeptical that the slow down of the process is worthwhile.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

who gives a shit if Cuba sells a t-shirt?

I, for my part, do not, but presumably Congress does, and it's not for individuals to undermine our foreign policy, however unwise that policy may be.

Or, more accurately, if you want to engage in acts of civil disobedience, fine, but to expect a government agent at any level to stand by and tolerate it in the name of autonomy or freedom or what-have-you is to expect a government of corruption, or at least one of men and not laws.

I get that it's just a t-shirt but it pushes my buttons when someone says it's outrageous that the government is enforcing Ridiculous Policy A (that I oppose) when its limited resources would be far better spent enforcing Ridiculous Policy B (which I favor). Both of those ridiculous policies are the sausage made by our flawed democratic process, and I've seen personally how awkward it can be when a citizen engages with a government functionary with the "That rule is bullshit" argument. The functionary is probably in the 49% or less of America that opposed that rule, but there is no good answer other than "Okay, I'll only enforce the rules that I would have adopted if it were my choice" or (much more commonly) "Ma'am, this is my job to enforce these rules" the latter of which always seems to result in the Nuremberg argument, and we all know how productive THAT is.

ETA Your friend probably was cool about it -- "Yes, of course sir, just doing your job" etc. so I'm not implying s/he flew off the handle. It's no fun having to put up with other people's bullshit rules but in a democracy you can/should only get but so mad at the people who enforce them -- get mad instead at the idiots who made the rule, which as often as not involves looking in the mirror.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

Tel Aviv airport is actually much quicker to get through than a U.S. airport.

But speaking of privacy and the 4th Amendment, check out Judge Kozinski's dissent in a recent case involving police putting a GPS device on a suspect's car. This is but a sample:



http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...2/08-30385.pdf

Disturbing. Not least because the government can apparently request and record an unlimited number of cell locator pings without a warrant, whenever it wants.

On the plus side, "micturate" and "curtilage" are used within three lines of each other. Kind of underscores Kozinski's rich vs. poor point.

CDF

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I, for my part, do not, but presumably Congress does, and it's not for individuals to undermine our foreign policy, however unwise that policy may be.

Or, more accurately, if you want to engage in acts of civil disobedience, fine, but to expect a government agent at any level to stand by and tolerate it in the name of autonomy or freedom or what-have-you is to expect a government of corruption, or at least one of men and not laws.

I get that it's just a t-shirt but it pushes my buttons when someone says it's outrageous that the government is enforcing Ridiculous Policy A (that I oppose) when its limited resources would be far better spent enforcing Ridiculous Policy B (which I favor). Both of those ridiculous policies are the sausage made by our flawed democratic process, and I've seen personally how awkward it can be when a citizen engages with a government functionary with the "That rule is bullshit" argument. The functionary is probably in the 49% or less of America that opposed that rule, but there is no good answer other than "Okay, I'll only enforce the rules that I would have adopted if it were my choice" or (much more commonly) "Ma'am, this is my job to enforce these rules" the latter of which always seems to result in the Nuremberg argument, and we all know how productive THAT is.

You are reading too much (or too literally) into my (admittedly sloppy) statement of "who gives a shit..."

It would have been more accurate to say, "I submit that the imminent danger presented by a child walking away from a flight that just landed and wearing a t-shirt that appears to be of Cuban origin, is significantly lower than that presented by a child walking towards a flight that is about to take off and wearing something that set off a metal detector. And yet, we hear outrage about the latter (male) child taking off his shirt (even though it appears that it was his father's idea, and act) than we ever did about the former (female) child having to remove her shirt."

I am certain that you are intelligent enough that, were you on Customs duty that day, you would have found a way to separate the girl from her shirt without having her stripped to her bra in public. Unless your feeling is that engaging in a minimal act of civil disobedience costs a young girl her right to complain about that sort of thing.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

As usual, I am skeptical that AQ can't manage the same techonology available to most college freshman who have fake IDs, and thus skeptical that the slow down of the process is worthwhile.

"If someone tries really hard, they can get around this security measure, so there is no point to having the security measure, because after all it's not like having a variety of measures that someone would need to work around would ever make it harder for that person to get through without making a mistake."

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You are reading too much (or too literally) into my (admittedly sloppy) statement of "who gives a shit..."

It would have been more accurate to say, "I submit that the imminent danger presented by a child walking away from a flight that just landed and wearing a t-shirt that appears to be of Cuban origin, is significantly lower than that presented by a child walking towards a flight that is about to take off and wearing something that set off a metal detector. And yet, we hear outrage about the latter (male) child taking off his shirt (even though it appears that it was his father's idea, and act) than we ever did about the former (female) child having to remove her shirt."

I am certain that you are intelligent enough that, were you on Customs duty that day, you would have found a way to separate the girl from her shirt without having her stripped to her bra in public. Unless your feeling is that engaging in a minimal act of civil disobedience costs a young girl her right to complain about that sort of thing.

I don't fly internationally often, but people pulled for customs inspections go behind a screen as far as I've seen. If this was just "You -- take off the Che tank top" then that's shitty.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't fly internationally often, but people pulled for customs inspections go behind a screen as far as I've seen. If this was just "You -- take off the Che tank top" then that's shitty.

It was, and they pronounced it wrong. Fucking Yanquis.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

"If someone tries really hard, they can get around this security measure, so there is no point to having the security measure, because after all it's not like having a variety of measures that someone would need to work around would ever make it harder for that person to get through without making a mistake."

If you want to paraphrase, do it right. My issue is the balance of costs: the tiny cost of avoidance of the marginal measure for the bad guys vs the huge costs (aggregate of many individual tiny costs) for travellers.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

I don't fly internationally often, but people pulled for customs inspections go behind a screen as far as I've seen.

In this country? I've never seen a screen. Maybe it depends on the airport.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

What private company do you deal with where the lowest-level employees, who get paid whatever the TSA screeners make, have demonstrated great competence and professionalism?

.

Some, in the context of the competence and professionalism that the job duties require.

In my experience I have found that if management is professional and competent and not onerous/arbitrary and/or capricious, the ability to get competent people at the bottom increases.

Shitty management=incompetence throughout.

In my limited experience.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

In this country? I've never seen a screen. Maybe it depends on the airport.

When I got my kilt lifted, they did behind a screen. Apparently they anticipated that I follow Scottish custom.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Some, in the context of the competence and professionalism that the job duties require.

In my experience I have found that if management is professional and competent and not onerous/arbitrary and/or capricious, the ability to get competent people at the bottom increases.

Shitty management=incompetence throughout.

In my limited experience.

As I have always said about Whole Foods vs my previously local and somewhat ghetto Giant.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

When I got my kilt lifted, they did behind a screen. Apparently they anticipated that I follow Scottish custom.

Their mandate is to protect the passengers. That applies doubly to whatever might be visible under your kilt (theoretically).

CDF

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

What I would like is for everyone to acknowledge that allowing children/nuns/breast cancer survivors/bladder cancer survivors/rape victims/etc. to board planes without invasive screening procedures employed with everyone else involves some risk. We all balance risk differently (as noted by the 90% of people who say they have no prob with the new TSA protocols) so the only truly stupid thing one can say about all this mess is "They should use their judgment and not pat down the _______ people because the ________ people aren't the ones bringing bombs onto planes." I mean, come the fuck on -- do we think our enemies are stupid? That they're above putting C4 on a toddler? The only stupid thing one can say is "I want maximum security but I want 0.05% of the population not to be inconvenienced by these searches because it makes me feel gross to see them get frisked." That kind of thinking will eventually mean everybody's exempted OR everybody but the Muslims are exempted and in either case the security effectiveness goes to zero.

I traveled with a seven month old in December 2001. Did I freak out about the fact he was treated like a potential terrorist like the rest of us? Fuck no, because in spite of some of the things I have posted on these boards I am not a solipsistic moron.

I go the other way on this issue. I am willing to take the risk of a plane going down to have reasonable security measures when I fly. You're not going to catch everyone and steps should be taken (the "sniffers" that detect like one millionth of a particle of explosive material or whatever seem fine) to maximize what we can catch, while balancing a level of privacy. Does that mean that every once in awhile a bomb gets through and 200 people die? Yes. And that sucks and I hate it. But this garbage is out of control.

Am I going to be a pain in the ass about it at the airport? No. But I don't think that people complaining about it are necessarily overly-sensitive assholes.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

If you want to paraphrase, do it right. My issue is the balance of costs: the tiny cost of avoidance of the marginal measure for the bad guys vs the huge costs (aggregate of many individual tiny costs) for travellers.

Seriously, you're complaining about a 10 second look at your driver's license under a UV light? Thanks for proving that the interview-every-passenger approach would never fly here.