Go TSA

Well we have not been attacked using airplane, so it must have been worth it.....right?

There was a minority voice that was shouted down when they tried to make that arguments that the tSA was too much for a problem that could be fixed otherwise. But there was wide spread hysteria that last for several years that made that type of conversation impossible.
 
Not a huge surprise. Government does few things well, and none efficiently.

The identified security issues could have easily been addressed through regulatory and compliance and at a cost which would have been a fraction of what they've spent.

Good reminder for current events...
 
Big difference. There really wasn't a problem after 911. If the bastards tried it again it wouldn't even begin to work, they wouldn't even get into the cockpit before a planeload of people beat them to death.

There are some serious problems related to health care in America. You might not agree on how to fix them, but to deny their existence is willful ignorance.
 
steingar said:
Big difference. There really wasn't a problem after 911. If the bastards tried it again it wouldn't even begin to work, they wouldn't even get into the cockpit before a planeload of people beat them to death.

There are some serious problems related to health care in America. You might not agree on how to fix them, but to deny their existence is willful ignorance.
Click to expand...


And to think that the government is the solution to all the problems is even more so.
 
steingar said:
Big difference. There really wasn't a problem after 911. If the bastards tried it again it wouldn't even begin to work, they wouldn't even get into the cockpit before a planeload of people beat them to death.

There are some serious problems related to health care in America. You might not agree on how to fix them, but to deny their existence is willful ignorance.
Click to expand...
Yep....:thumbsup:
 
steingar said:
There are some serious problems related to health care in America. You might not agree on how to fix them, but to deny their existence is willful ignorance.
Click to expand...

Some of those serious problems related to health care in America are the result of past government decisions.
 
Do you suppose this thread should have been started in the Spin Zone?
 
SCCutler said:
Not a huge surprise. Government does few things well, and none efficiently..
Click to expand...
Why do you hate America? ;)


Seriously though I am tired of hearing that statement. The policemen, fireman, soldiers, sailor, airmen, air traffic controllers, etc. all do a pretty good job. way better than the greedy knuckleheads on Wall Street are doing. The fact is that government does it's job pretty darn well and really does not to be disparaged that way. Sure it is not perfect, but then what institution or company is?

The TSA is a bloated agency that is doing somethings well. For instance setting security standards. But is stinks at actually making anything safer. I think it should get out of that biz and focus back on the air marshals program and be the regualtory authority for airport security standards, it should not be looking at my luggage.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Why do you hate America? ;)


Seriously though I am tired of hearing that statement. The policemen, fireman, soldiers, sailor, airmen, air traffic controllers, etc. all do a pretty good job. way better than the greedy knuckleheads on Wall Street are doing. The fact is that government does it's job pretty darn well and really does not to be disparaged that way. Sure it is not perfect, but then what institution or company is?

The TSA is a bloated agency that is doing somethings well. For instance setting security standards. But is stinks at actually making anything safer. I think it should get out of that biz and focus back on the air marshals program and be the regualtory authority for airport security standards, it should not be looking at my luggage.
Click to expand...

Federal government...

I don't recall the USFD, or USPD responding to local house fires.
 
Original link: http://online.barrons.com/article/SB125270793866604679.html

By BECKY AKERS

The Transportation Security Administration bilks taxpayers and inconveniences passengers while not delivering safer air travel.

HOW DO YOU TURN AN INDUSTRY THAT costs $700 million annually into one that eats $6 billion? Nationalize it, as Congress did airport screening after Sept. 11, 2001.

Even before the groping of passengers and the rifling of their belongings became a federal duty, aviation security was never an honest solution to a legitimate problem. Federal and local governments long controlled most aspects of aviation safety, from municipalities that policed the airports they owned to the Federal Aviation Administration's air-traffic control system. When political protestors began hijacking planes in the 1960s, Uncle Sam elbowed his way into security, too. Airlines didn't hire experts to invent checkpoints; the Feds imposed them. Though private employees staffed the federally mandated metal detectors, the FAA dictated all procedures and policies, whether they involved wanding passengers or determining which items screeners had to confiscate from them.

The Aviation and Transportation Security Act of 2001 brought that control of security into the open. In effect, it fired 25,000 non-unionized, private screeners and established the Transportation Security Administration. Congressional Democrats indebted to organized labor had long hoped to nationalize airport screening; Sept. 11 gave them a reason.

Foisting the TSA on us protected politicians of both parties far more than it did passengers. "After 9/11," said the former chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), "we had to show how committed we were by spending hugely greater amounts of money than ever before, as rapidly as possible."

The TSA's nearly 50,000 screeners have delayed, frustrated and harassed passengers at airport checkpoints from Maine to Hawaii. What they haven't done after eight years and $48 billion is catch a single terrorist. So the agency justifies its existence by protecting us from each other, from little kids and expectant mothers, embarrassed vacationers and congressmen. One tourist claimed the sex toy that screeners fished from his luggage was a bomb rather than explain it in front of his family, while Democratic Representative John Lewis (D- Ga.) and the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) so menaced America that the TSA added their names to its No-Fly List. This lunacy ruins lives: The embarrassed tourist and other Americans without criminal records or motives have gone to jail.

Unabashed, the TSA wastes our taxes on things like a lavish headquarters whose artwork and plants alone cost $500,000 -- to say nothing of its seven kitchens with Sub-Zero refrigerators. Indeed, "Irregularities in the Development of the Transportation Security Operations Center" merited their own 68-page report from an Inspector General.

The TSA's response? Assistant Secretary David Stone huffed that since the attacks on Sept. 11 cost Americans over $100 billion and took thousands of lives, every dollar the agency spends "in an era of threatened terrorism" is worth it.

Taxpayers might disagree. While some Americans fought a Global War on Terror, those at the TSA celebrated its second anniversary with a $500,000 party. The agency spent $81,000 for employee award plaques, including a "lifetime achievement" award for one worker with the two-year-old bureaucracy.

More expensive and more infuriating are the geewhiz contraptions that don't work: Puffer machines at $160,000 a pop were supposed to detect residues of explosives by blowing air at passengers and dislodging particles for analysis. But the dirt and jet exhaust rampant in any airport soon sidelined these gizmos -- something the TSA might have considered or tested before buying 200 of them.

The CTX machines it bought fared no better. Priced from $800,000 to $1.5 million each, they supposedly detect bombs in baggage by analyzing the contents' density. Unfortunately, they're "chemically blind," as the manufacturer of a rival technology put it: They can't differentiate peanut butter, fruitcake and other foods from explosives of similar density. So many false alarms resulted that screeners resorted to asking passengers what they had packed. Apparently, an agency that believes Listerine and Crest turn explosive at 30,000 feet also believes terrorists answer questions honestly.

One thing our money hasn't bought is safety. The TSA's elaborate checkpoint charade tries to fool us into feeling secure. But screeners typically fail to find 60%, 75% and even 90% of the weapons undercover investigators smuggle past them.

Those scores don't improve even if screeners cheat. When a bureaucrat at the TSA's headquarters alerted Federal Security Directors at airports about these pop quizzes, he described the investigators' appearance and divulged the locations of their simulated weapons. Screeners still frequently missed the contraband.

Before Sept. 11, there was no TSA. Can we really credit the agency with stopping any terrorists in the past eight years?

Whether weighed against history, common sense, or economics, the conclusion remains the same: The TSA is another terrorist victory. It's time we sent this boondoggle of a bureaucracy packing.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BECKY AKERS is a free-lance writer and historian. She is working on a book about the TSA.
 
EdFred said:
Federal government...

I don't recall the USFD, or USPD responding to local house fires.
Click to expand...

There was no distinguish in which level government it is in the quote.

But even if you Ed, wish to limit it to the feds then I have to ask why you think our fighting men and women are doing such a bad job, what are the air traffic controllers doing that are so bad, etc.

The statement is a mantra that really makes no-sense except as an expression of shallow conclusions.

The truth is most people like our government, anarchy is not a good choice. What I find most amusing about the whole 'government is bad' argument is that it originated with people in government who wanted to be elected to additional government jobs.

If government is so inept would they not be the reason it is so? And why would anyone want to elect them to another office? It just does not make any sense.

But back to the TSA, far from me to defend them. But they are their because a majority of Americans thought it was a good idea. It was not government that created the TSO out of the blue, it was created because 95+% of the American population was screaming for government to do something. Well they did what you asked.
 
smigaldi said:
But back to the TSA, far from me to defend them. But they are their because a majority of Americans thought it was a good idea. It was not government that created the TSO out of the blue, it was created because 95+% of the American population was screaming for government to do something. Well they did what you asked.
Click to expand...

I don't think a majority of American wanted them. I believe a majority of representatives wanted them. We need to get that 3/4 popular majority workin' again.
 
EdFred said:
I don't think a majority of American wanted them. I believe a majority of representatives wanted them. We need to get that 3/4 popular majority workin' again.
Click to expand...
You are mistaken. There was a lot of vocal support to 'get the hamburger flingers' out of the airport security. If you will recall that the National Guard was deployed for a while and there were some looking to repeal laws to continue to let the military be in charge of airport security. As one of the ones who spoke out against the concept of the TSA at the time I can tell you it was not a popular position to be in. People were scared and wanted something, anything, that signaled improved security.

It was a bi-partisan CF!
 
EdFred said:
I don't think a majority of American wanted them.
Click to expand...
They didn't want the inconvenience but they wanted the security. That's why we got things like the TSA and the Patriot Act (opposed by only one Senator).
 
I would say exactly why we have an idiotic approach to security, but then everyone would get upset because it's too political. I'll bow out on this one.
 
steingar said:
I would say exactly why we have an idiotic approach to security, but then everyone would get upset because it's too political. I'll bow out on this one.
Click to expand...

Because a great deal of Americans don't believe in personal responsibility and want everyone else to take care of them.
 
Kelvin said:
Yep....:thumbsup:
Click to expand...
No. You might wish that people would act courageously and overwhelm the attackers, but that won't happen.

Of course, they wouldn't try to do the exact same thing. Maybe they'll have guns next time. Either way, people won't continue to charge an attacker if the people around them are being gunned down. And that's the simplest case, and the bad guys aren't naive. Not much you can do against some nerve gas. There's lots of empty talk; in real live, 99% people do exactly as they're told.

What _should_ happen is that we have some very rudimentary screening at airports to keep the crazy people with shotguns out. This can be done for 1/10 of what we're spending now. Then we need to admit that we cannot stop the bad guys by spending money on security. Politics, maybe, but not security. If it gets to that point, and we have some determined bad guys, it's too late. It's the determination that we need to prevent. Of course, none of this won't happen because the uneducated populace won't reelect a politician who won't throw money at the problem. Maybe it's time for a philosopher king :P

-Felix
 
Last edited:
sba55 said:
No. You might wish that people would act courageously and overwhelm the attackers, but that won't happen.

Of course, they wouldn't try to do the exact same thing. Maybe they'll have guns next time. Either way, people won't continue to charge an attacker if the people around them are being gunned down. And that's the simplest case, and the bad guys aren't naive. Not much you can do against some nerve gas. There's lots of empty talk; in real live, 99% people do exactly as they're told
-Felix
Click to expand...

Felix, you obviously don't know much about Americans.
 
steingar said:
Felix, you obviously don't know much about Americans.
Click to expand...


Actually, he's pretty spot on. I see it every day. Hazard in the middle of the road, hundreds of cars will drive by it, before one stops to remove it.
 
smigaldi said:
Well we have not been attacked using airplane, so it must have been worth it.....right?

There was a minority voice that was shouted down when they tried to make that arguments that the tSA was too much for a problem that could be fixed otherwise. But there was wide spread hysteria that last for several years that made that type of conversation impossible.
Click to expand...

We haven't been attacked by elephants from Carthage either...how much did we spend on that? :ihih:
 
EdFred said:
Actually, he's pretty spot on. I see it every day. Hazard in the middle of the road, hundreds of cars will drive by it, before one stops to remove it.
Click to expand...

Does the hazard have the drivers cornered and is actively trying to kill them?
 
bullwinkle said:
Does the hazard have the drivers cornered and is actively trying to kill them?
Click to expand...

Cornered no, actively attempting to kill no, but a bumper laying in the middle of the road has the potential to kill more than a few people, and it is very easy to stop and remove it. A much easier decision to make than, "should I sacrifice myself," but it's still the mentality of "someone else will take care of it."
 
I stop in the middle of the road to move turtles off to the side and get screamed at by drivers. If I stop for garbage they will probably start shooting. Heaven forbid someone be delayed by 30 seconds form getting to their destination.
 
EdFred said:
Cornered no, actively attempting to kill no, but a bumper laying in the middle of the road has the potential to kill more than a few people, and it is very easy to stop and remove it. A much easier decision to make than, "should I sacrifice myself," but it's still the mentality of "someone else will take care of it."
Click to expand...

The thought is simply that there are duly appointed authorities who's job it is to remove said debris, and it is somewhat dangerous for an individual to do so. A far cry from a terrorist attempting to hijack the airplane on which you're sitting.
 
steingar said:
The thought is simply that there are duly appointed authorities who's job it is to remove said debris...
Click to expand...

My point made better than I ever could have illustrated it. I will say it again, Felix is not far off.
 
EdFred said:
Actually, he's pretty spot on. I see it every day. Hazard in the middle of the road, hundreds of cars will drive by it, before one stops to remove it.
Click to expand...
Completely different risk/reward decision.

Terrorists on an airliner? You can be reasonably sure you're gonna die. So, no real risk. The only way to live is to defeat them. It only takes one person to start the mob to do the right thing in that case.

A
 
TMetzinger said:
Completely different risk/reward decision.

Terrorists on an airliner? You can be reasonably sure you're gonna die. So, no real risk. The only way to live is to defeat them. It only takes one person to start the mob to do the right thing in that case.

A
Click to expand...


And studies have show that most Americans wait for someone else to be the one to start the mob.
 
smigaldi said:
Why do you hate America? ;)
Click to expand...

Appreciate the wink- it's hard to talk when folks attack the messenger instead of the message, isn't it?


TelecomGenius said:
Seriously though I am tired of hearing that statement. The policemen, fireman, soldiers, sailor, airmen, air traffic controllers, etc. all do a pretty good job. way better than the greedy knuckleheads on Wall Street are doing. The fact is that government does it's job pretty darn well and really does not to be disparaged that way. Sure it is not perfect, but then what institution or company is?
Click to expand...

Scott, not disagreeing with you at all. The things you cite are generally within the (very modest) list of things which government does relatively well, and which are (by the way) inherently governmental in nature- and nothing I wrote disparages good faith well-executed government agencies.

You may also note that, in general, the higher you get in government, the less effective government is, and this is not particularly surprising, since it is tougher for a local bureaucrat, or his/her politician boss, to hide from the constituent, when they live within a few blocks or miles.

But doing things well, and doing things efficiently, are vastly different concepts, and history has shown us, time and again, that governments are simply not efficient administrators of enterprises of any kind.

There are things that they simply must do (you cite some excellent examples above, and I don't think I want to see border protection or national defense subbed-out to Blackwater), and while you will always strive for efficiency in them, you will get what you will get, and you will accept it because the consequences of doing without are vastly worse.
 
EdFred said:
Cornered no, actively attempting to kill no, but a bumper laying in the middle of the road has the potential to kill more than a few people, and it is very easy to stop and remove it. A much easier decision to make than, "should I sacrifice myself," but it's still the mentality of "someone else will take care of it."
Click to expand...

While there's no doubt that the self preservation instinct will prevent some folks from attempting to subdue a group of hijackers, if enough folks are convinced that failing to act will insure their own demise, there will be plenty of folks making the attempt. What concerns me in a situation like this is that the next terrorist group might manage to falsely convince the plane's occupants that the hijacking is for money and that there's no intention of crashing the plane. I don't know how likely is to succeed but if the deception were good enough it's quite possible that no passengers would attack the hijackers until it was too late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top