Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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.

It would if the security guys would just carry your bags for you while asking the questions.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.

Just what garbage is so out-of-control that this trade-off makes sense to you?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It would if the security guys would just carry your bags for you while asking the questions.

Maybe the close study of the drivers license is really just a ruse, intended to screen out and/or punish the assholes with too much carry-on baggage.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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.

Dissent. Adder's gripes prove no more about the average person's tolerance of such a security measure than a study of his sexual conquests give you insight into the sexual experience of the average male of a similar demographic (or really any demographic as long as we are talking over 11 and under 103 years of age and possessing a reasonably functioning penis). No offence.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

Dissent. Adder's gripes prove no more about the average person's tolerance of such a security measure than a study of his sexual conquests give you insight into the sexual experience of the average male of a similar demographic (or really any demographic as long as we are talking over 11 and under 103 years of age and possessing a reasonably functioning penis). No offence.

You have a point, my moderately whackadoo friend.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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.

Agree, which is why this isn't "the other way" from my post. My risk tolerance is the same as yours -- I think the security procedures in effect between 9/11 and two weeks ago weren't an unreasonable risk, and that some of the stuff even then was purely theatrical. My beef is with the people who claim they want zero risk but also want "reasonable" exceptions to the rules based on a parade of horribles, like Mr. Doused-With-His-Own-Urine.

A lifetime of air travel is already 99.999% safe. The people who go further and want six sigmas are entitled to their opinion but also seem to think you can have 99.99966% security and not frisk nuns and children. You can't eat the cake and then complain you don't have it anymore.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

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.

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.

Sometimes it is the case that the government agent is "just doing their job." Sometimes it is not. A lot of these assholes relish the power that the position gives them (any question at all is almost always met with "Sir, we can do this in the other room with the police" or something similarly ridiculous). They are rude, obnoxious, often incapable of applying common sense and they are generally angry at the world. I acknowledge that dealing with the general public when they are in a rush will lead someone to these feelings. But you need to acknowledge that if you give anyone a little bit of power, they will abuse it--especially in situations like this, where any type of resistance puts you in league with terrorists.

And yeah, here's another anecdote. My wife and I once had a connecting flight for which we were late because the first flight was late. We made a mad dash through the airport, got to security and the line was very short. My wife went on one and I went on another to maximize efficiency. The gate was within view and we saw they were finishing up and about to close the doors. We went through the machines and nothing was out of the ordinary. But the screeners saw we were in a rush and decided to seach BOTH of us. Okay. Fine. My wife's screener ran the wand over her, looked through her bags quickly as we both explained that our flight was about to leave and sent her on her way. My guy was power tripping and intent on making us miss the flight. He intentionally went as slow as possible (and I'm not kidding here, the guy was being a real asshole for no real reason). I told my wife to go to the gate to make sure it didn't leave, which she did and it took me 10 minutes for him to do his search. Power trip. We were lucky we chose two different lines or we would have missed the flight just because this guy's wife made him feel like shit earlier that morning.

And I've seen similar garbage happen dozens of times to other people. I know you love authority and cut them every break you can, but I don't agree that's it's always just a matter of a guy doing the job we and our elected officials are asking him to do. Sorry.

TM

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Sometimes it is the case that the government agent is "just doing their job." Sometimes it is not. A lot of these assholes relish the power that the position gives them (any question at all is almost always met with "Sir, we can do this in the other room with the police" or something similarly ridiculous). They are rude, obnoxious, often incapable of applying common sense and they are generally angry at the world. I acknowledge that dealing with the general public when they are in a rush will lead someone to these feelings. But you need to acknowledge that if you give anyone a little bit of power, they will abuse it--especially in situations like this, where any type of resistance puts you in league with terrorists.

And yeah, here's another anecdote. My wife and I once had a connecting flight for which we were late because the first flight was late. We made a mad dash through the airport, got to security and the line was very short. My wife went on one and I went on another to maximize efficiency. The gate was within view and we saw they were finishing up and about to close the doors. We went through the machines and nothing was out of the ordinary. But the screeners saw we were in a rush and decided to seach BOTH of us. Okay. Fine. My wife's screener ran the wand over her, looked through her bags quickly as we both explained that our flight was about to leave and sent her on her way. My guy was power tripping and intent on making us miss the flight. He intentionally went as slow as possible (and I'm not kidding here, the guy was being a real asshole for no real reason). I told my wife to go to the gate to make sure it didn't leave, which she did and it took me 10 minutes for him to do his search. Power trip. We were lucky we chose two different lines or we would have missed the flight just because this guy's wife made him feel like shit earlier that morning.

And I've seen similar garbage happen dozens of times to other people. I know you love authority and cut them every break you can, but I don't agree that's it's always just a matter of a guy doing the job we and our elected officials are asking him to do. Sorry.

Sidd's story involved a guy who applied a rule with no discretion. Either the shirt was legal to import into the U.S. or it wasn't. The import of Sidd's story was (putting aside asking the girl to take the shirt off in public, which I agree is gratuitous) that it was just a fucking t-shirt -- that the enforcement of a rule always impliedly allows the discretion of looking the other way. I'm making a small point that that's impractical and unwise. I'm not disagreeing with the notion there are assholes with badges, and never have.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Agree, which is why this isn't "the other way" from my post. My risk tolerance is the same as yours -- I think the security procedures in effect between 9/11 and two weeks ago weren't an unreasonable risk, and that some of the stuff even then was purely theatrical. My beef is with the people who claim they want zero risk but also want "reasonable" exceptions to the rules based on a parade of horribles, like Mr. Doused-With-His-Own-Urine.

Got it. Clearly, I misread your post.

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

A lifetime of air travel is already 99.999% safe. The people who go further and want six sigmas are entitled to their opinion but also seem to think you can have 99.99966% security and not frisk nuns and children. You can't eat the cake and then complain you don't have it anymore.

Agreed. We already take off our shoes (including fucking flip flops for christsakes), we throw away 1.6 ounces of cologne. We can't carry water or any other liquid. We walk through metal detectors. We run our bags through the x-ray machine. We have air marshals secretly stationed on flights. The cockpits are locked. The pilots are trained and instructed on what to do if there's an incident. We are subject to random searches. The security lines are almost always insane. Now we all need to be x-rayed or patted down? Get the fuck outta here. The risk, relatively speaking just isn't high enough for all this bullshit.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

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

wouldn't the sniffer catch the Christmas and shoe bombers?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Sidd's story involved a guy who applied a rule with no discretion. Either the shirt was legal to import into the U.S. or it wasn't. The import of Sidd's story was (putting aside asking the girl to take the shirt off in public, which I agree is gratuitous) that it was just a fucking t-shirt -- that the enforcement of a rule always impliedly allows the discretion of looking the other way. I'm making a small point that that's impractical and unwise. I'm not disagreeing with the notion there are assholes with badges, and never have.

Actually, the entire import of my story was the part that you are putting aside.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

The people who go further and want six sigmas are entitled to their opinion but also seem to think you can have 99.99966% security.

Why, if they want 6 sigmas, would they settle for thinking that merely five and a half or so are achievable? Or am I whiffing on an innumeracy joke?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

And yeah, here's another anecdote. My wife and I once had a connecting flight for which we were late because the first flight was late. We made a mad dash through the airport, got to security and the line was very short. My wife went on one and I went on another to maximize efficiency. The gate was within view and we saw they were finishing up and about to close the doors. We went through the machines and nothing was out of the ordinary. But the screeners saw we were in a rush and decided to seach BOTH of us. Okay. Fine. My wife's screener ran the wand over her, looked through her bags quickly as we both explained that our flight was about to leave and sent her on her way. My guy was power tripping and intent on making us miss the flight. He intentionally went as slow as possible (and I'm not kidding here, the guy was being a real asshole for no real reason). I told my wife to go to the gate to make sure it didn't leave, which she did and it took me 10 minutes for him to do his search. Power trip. We were lucky we chose two different lines or we would have missed the flight just because this guy's wife made him feel like shit earlier that morning.

TM

Standard attitude of some subset of the "authorities" as we've discussed before.

[Penske 2.0]

[PLANE SECURITY/PAT DOWN CONVO]

If this stuff is so necessary to the extent that they are now doing it, why aren't they doing it on trains and subways at rush hour or sporting events?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Standard attitude of some subset of the "authorities" as we've discussed before.

"
The issue is "some subset" seems like a material subset.