The TSA doesn't get it... (Attn A. Stanley, this is RIC)

[wsuffa]

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/state...rt_to_give_security_clearance_to_felon/79015/

The airport would not identify the TSA employee nor reveal his age. The employee did not divulge on his application—though a records check last fall did—that he had been found guilty of robbery within the past 10 years.

The federal agency’s demand that RIC issue the “security identification display area” badge came despite the fact that Richmond International’s TSA-approved security program prohibits issuing security badges to people convicted of any disqualifying crimes.

I count two strikes here: lying on the SIDA application and armed robbery.

And they want to "protect" the public from GA?!?!?!

 

[sba55]

And they want to "protect" the public from GA?!?!?!

Maybe the low level employees/thugs think they're protecting something, but I don't think the politicians are that delusional. The TSA is basically a $4B public works program designed to help politicians do CYA and get re-elected even if (or when, I'm sure it's only a matter of time) something happens.

That's _all_ the TSA is. The only thing that annoys me about it is the inconvenience they create for us and our money that they waste.

-Felix

 

[astanley]

Ah yes, good old RIC. What a lovely little money pit.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[John Baker]

Like most government agencies, the TSA sets it's own rules and makes it's own laws. This agency is essentially it's own government and can do whatever it wants to do. Much like the State Department or the Department of Defense. Although government agencies are their own autonomous states and independent of all other governing bodies, in some rare cases, citizens may have some recourse through the Judicial branches, but only if you can get them interested in your petty little problems.

Any government agency can use coercion of others to get what they want with complete impunity. It is best to just do as your told, which is what the airport authority quickly learned.

Most government agencies, being around much longer than TSA, accomplishes the same things, but with much more finesse than TSA.

TSA is new to the concept of absolute power, so they are blundering around with a heavy hand and an iron fist, much the way barbarian hoards of old Europe handled a newly conquered peoples. In five or ten years, TSA will tire of raping and plundering, then it will settle into a comfortable bloated bureaucracy like the rest of them. Spending billions and accomplishing little or nothing.

John

 

[Bob Noel]

In five or ten years, TSA will tire of raping and plundering, then it will settle into a comfortable bloated bureaucracy like the rest of them. Spending billions and accomplishing little or nothing.

John

Oh, the money is not wasted if the TSA at least gives us the illusion
of security.

Not wasted at all.

(yeah, right)

 

[wsuffa]

Any government agency can use coercion of others to get what they want with complete impunity. It is best to just do as your told, which is what the airport authority quickly learned.

TSA is new to the concept of absolute power, so they are blundering around with a heavy hand and an iron fist, much the way barbarian hoards of old Europe handled a newly conquered peoples.

Ah, yes, folks on another board refer to the TSA as the "blue shirts", a vague reference to..... (close enough to invoke Godwin's law?)

 

[JeffDG]

Ah, yes, folks on another board refer to the TSA as the "blue shirts", a vague reference to..... (close enough to invoke Godwin's law?)

 

[John Baker]

Man, am I glad I never used Hitler as an analogy. I guess I just got lucky that I, for some reason, didn't think of it. The last thing in the world I would want to do is break the law, especially Godwin's law.

Granted, using Hitler as an analogy to current affairs seems to be against all that is sacred on POA and completely illegal, but then.....who really gives a rats patooty?

Godwin seems like a clever slime ball in that he can successfully drown out apposing statements with his own profound observations and also seems to have quite a following of like minded non thinkers.

As far as I am concerned, if a particular analogy helps to get a point better understood, then by all means, just go ahead and use it. The real issue is being understood.

Just because someone has been convinced that pointing out Godwin's law in a conversation will give the impression that they themselves are clever, it ain't necessarily so.

John

 

[MichaelO]

The last thing in the world I would want to do is break the law, especially Godwin's law.



Just because someone has been convinced that pointing out Godwin's law in a conversation will give the impression that they themselves are clever, it ain't necessarily so.

John

Who is Goodwin, and what the heck is this all about?

 

[AuntPeggy]

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies)is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolph Hitler or the Nazismight be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has arguedthat overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

[John Baker]

After sleeping on it, I owe Bill, Jeff, and Mike Godwin should also be included, l a public apology. I am grumpier than normal when I get up in the morning, yesterday, apparently even more so. Bill and Jeff posted a legitimate opinions about my post, yet I felt it necessary to dump on them for it. My conduct was not gentlemanly, I was wrong.

John