Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

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

"Ignoring what you said to talk about the point I want to make since 1998"

[Hank Chinaski]

I'm at bush Int'l listening to CNN on airport security.


ever notice that airport news is slanted to air terrorism and security? am I crazy, it seems like there is Airport news and I'd think it would be all sweetness and light but it seems like it's always shit that should bother or scare us as we wait.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

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

For it to be material to you, me or TM, all it takes is the one we actually have to deal with. But, yeah, sadly true.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by 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?

you aren't a lawyer are you?

[Adder]

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.

That's twice now that you have failed to grasp the cost vs benefit thing.

I'm complaining about the extra seconds spent on each of the hundred people in line in front of me, when there is close to zero additional detterent.

As for the interview-every-passenger approach, that is a different balancing. unlike the stare-at-each-id-intently-for-half-a-minute policy, it might actually catch someone. But it will cost a crapload more in terms of TSA budget, and likely in terms of time. And as it is, we have not successful terrorist attack resulting from a beach in airport security since I don't know when.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

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.

The issue for me is not about feeling gross. It's that TSA's procedures are a colossal waste of time, designed not to be effective but to persuade everyone that TSA and the government are doing something. It's security theater. Meanwhile, cargo isn't being screened, and terrorists have figured that out. If you wanted to design security policies to reach the optimum balance of effectiveness and cost, you wouldn't do what we do now. But the current policies are designed to serve other ends.

Far more people are killed in and by cars every week in the U.S. than have been killed by terrorists since 9/11. We could dramatically reduce that death toll with measures that would inconvenience people. (Or not -- speed cameras, e.g.) We don't, in large part because government officials aren't worried about covering their asses in that regard. In turn, that is because all of us are much more scared by the idea of terrorists killing us on or with planes than we are by being killed by a fellow American by or with a motor vehicle, irrational though that is.

It would be nice to have a government that devotes resources where they are most needed, rather than pandering to collective irrationality and hysteria, but it's a lot to ask for.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

I'm not a parent, so take this for what it's worth, but I suspect this is more of an issue for the parent than the child. I would not want anyone else laying hands on my child, especially in sensitive areas. You'd think that there is a compromise here, where the parent could be the one actually touching the child at the instruction and to the satisfaction of the TSA agent. Would be interested to hear from the parents out there on this one.

My sister's dog was patted down the last time they came home to visit. My sister set off the detector, and was pulled aside for a more thorough pat down, and when she brought the dog carrier with her, the guy in charge told his underling to pull out the dog and pat her down too. The underling was a little confused, but went ahead with the pat down. I think Chicken probably liked it, though. Slut corgi.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Beyond that -- How much does El Al spend on security every year? How much does the Israeli government spend?

I thought the whole point is that we're really scared of terrorists and need to suck it up and do what it takes. Or does that not apply to paying taxes?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I understood your point about distinguishing the policy makers from the enforcement folks on the ground, and it makes sense to me, to a point. the effect of the policy will ultimately be predicated on the ability of the enforcement folks to carry it out competently. they are the lab rats for trial and error, and, while I don't think most, if any, of the TSA officers on the ground are either evil and/or thuggish, I question the competency of most of them, whether it was competency to screen terrorists or competency to empty my wastebasket (and most, if not all, tasks in between).

there's no right or wrong here (at least I don't think that there is), I comfortable with the conclusion that we have different sensibilities and tolerance for the trial and error platform.

The policymakers have adopted a policy of hiring people whose competency seems underwhelming. Compare that to our military, which really works on finding and training competent soldiers.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I bristle at paying to be inconvenienced. My take on border control inconvenience is a bit different, but they don't charge me hundreds or thousands of dollars to cross the border.

OTOH, on the half dozen or so times a year I cross the border with our neighbour to the north, I consistently notice that the lines to come into the US move more slowly than the lines into Canada, and the Canadian officers are typically amiable, where the US officers are typically giant oozing a-holes. Maybe Canada is lax on the security and that's why all the major terrorist attacks in North America over the last 11 years have been in Canada?

I would suggest that the assholishness of government agents is in inverse relationship to the prestige and importance of their agency. When I have dealt with FBI agents, they have been low key and pleasant. They don't need to be assholes; they work for the FBI. OTOH, there are border agents (or clerks at the DMV).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would suggest that the assholishness of government agents is in inverse relationship to the prestige and importance of their agency. When I have dealt with FBI agents, they have been low key and pleasant. They don't need to be assholes; they work for the FBI. OTOH, there are border agents (or clerks at the DMV).

I don't know. There are assholes within the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission too, at various levels of the hierarchy.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I would suggest that the assholishness of government agents is in inverse relationship to the prestige and importance of their agency. When I have dealt with FBI agents, they have been low key and pleasant. They don't need to be assholes; they work for the FBI. OTOH, there are border agents (or clerks at the DMV).

If i trusted you to stay off the boxed grape juice I would give you my proxy on the topic du jour. alas, that's more trial and error than my risk assessment can bear.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

If i trusted you to stay off the boxed grape juice I would give you my proxy on the topic du jour. alas, that's more trial and error than my risk assessment can bear.

You say syrah, I say shiraz, let's call the whole thing off.

eta: A review of recent books from Tucker Max and George W. Bush -- snide, unfair, and quite fun.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You say syrah, I say shiraz, let's call the whole thing off.

I think the grape originated in France. What do they call it there? (as let's say, the deciding factor, oui?)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

I think the grape originated in France. What do they call it there? (as let's say, the deciding factor, oui?)