Mjolnir wrote:I hate when people say the free market can do anything better than the Government can... mostly because it isn't true, on some things yes and some things no.
Uhm... he wasn't saying "anything". He was very specific...
Jeff250 wrote:Disband the TSA. Anything they can do, the free market can do better.
Though 'they' can mean anyone it does not mean anything, except in this sentence where it's referring to the object in the previous sentence, TSA. On top of that, he's probably right.
Heretic wrote:Yes I can see why you wouldn't have a problem because of all the killer nuns running around blowing people up.
Did you ignore the story of the Serbian women who were nice pregnant ladies? Anyone can get a nun costume.
Isaac wrote: Uhm... he wasn't saying "anything". He was very specific...
I was just going off what he said about other people, though I am definitely not sold on the private contractors/free market doing a better job than the TSA... we saw how well the free market worked before 9/11 with airline security.
Ive only flown a few times in my life. I hated it each time. Totally screwed with my sinuses and made me dizzy, no matter what I tried.
I have not flown in over ten years, and with crap like this going all over the place I cant imagine I would. If I have any place I need to fly to, like another country, I'll look into driving up to Winnipeg and taking a flight that connects to my destination through Vancouver or Toronto. I trust the Canadians much more than I trust my own government at this point. I'm not gonna pay for some TSA employee to get his jollies by groping my junk.
The airports have the option to choose to hire and use any source they want to do the screening and the government will pay for it. If they want to improve their customers opinion of them they could choose to hire private firms that work like the Israelis do for example and provide better screening and less crotch rubbing...
Considering the move to make the TSA a Union operation I hope they do it right away!
Will Robinson wrote:
Considering the move to make the TSA a Union operation I hope they do it right away!
Quick! Before they get a chance to fight for decent wages and defense from bad management!
Just how much do you think the current group makes and how much more do you think they deserve if they have the power of a union behind them?!? Typically once unionized the quality of the service drops and the cost goes up. Do you really think the current TSA needs that kind of protected overpaid inefficiency?!?
Now, do you think it is right that union members have a portion of the dues taken out and given to a political party without their consent? that they will be harassed if they speak out against that practice?
Do you think it is right that when workers are voting to unionize or not, or voting on any concerns once they are a union, that the voting is going to be made open to the scrutiny of the union organizers?
The days where a union was needed by the workers has long passed. The days where a union is a tool of the democrat party are due for an end as far as I'm concerned. There are plenty of mechanisms in place in todays marketplace to protect workers and competition is good for them as well as for the consumer as well as for the tax payers.
Jeff250 wrote:Disband the TSA. Anything they can do, the free market can do better.
Just how would that work anyway, would people just stop flying airlines that let their planes blow up?
I don't think that airlines would start "letting" their planes blow up--if they did, then you're right, people would stop flying them. I think that instead they would find better ways of keeping us secure without the crotch rubbing. As Will suggested--they would be wise to hire a private Israeli firm. "Fly SouthWest--we keep you safe without touching your junk." If an airline thought they could make a convincing case that they have to touch your junk to keep you safe, then they could market that to people who felt the same way. Regardless of how you feel about crotch rubbing keeping you safe, wouldn't it be nice if you had a choice when you fly instead of it being a policy handed down by bureaucrats?
I get it…nothing like a clever marketing campaign to keep everyone safe.
BTW do you know what people in Israel actually have to go through to board a plane? And I have to say…a lot of Israel’s security is profile based…think that will fly here? ( I personally support it)
They use a lot of techniques that we should look at partially adopting, like behavioral profiling. But we'll never know how well it would work if everyone sticks with the government monopoly. I think that airline customers will do a better job of holding airline security accountable than one of these post-9-11 government security agencies. Security should be one of the many arenas in which airlines compete with each other for customers. If I don't like how one airline does security, then I should be able to select another. Get the government out of it.
Spidey wrote:BTW do you know what people in Israel actually have to go through to board a plane? And I have to say…a lot of Israel’s security is profile based…think that will fly here? ( I personally support it)
If enough people get sick of strip searches, maybe the El Al method would look more appealing. The airline industry might take a little more "persuasion" than the general public however when it comes to screening their workers (unionized), cargo handling procedures and tarmac access.
woodchip wrote:So do you think Napolitano goes thru this screening process? Pelosi? Reid? Anyone in the senate or congress?
I vaguely remember hearing that a congressman had problems flying once because of the no fly list. IIRC, it was indeed a democrat, just to shut your partisan gene up.
But I would be very interested to see if congresscritters have to put up with this ★■◆● too.
Avder wrote:I vaguely remember hearing that a congressman had problems flying once because of the no fly list. IIRC, it was indeed a democrat, just to shut your partisan gene up.
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Representative John Lewis (D-GA), Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), and Representative Don Young (R-AK) have all reported being on the "no fly list."
article wrote:As it turns out, former Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, now runs a security and risk management firm and one of his clients is Rapiscan, one of the biggest manufacturers of body scanning machines in the country. While the media continues to interview Chertoff about the value of body scanning machines, they fail to point out that he will benefit financially from the implementation of the machines.
"He’s abusing his relationship with the public by pretending to be a public servant and talking about how these body scanners are going to make us safer… He stands to benefit because he's getting paid by the manufacturing companies to go all over the television networks saying that these scanners are the solution to security," said Kate Hanni, the director of Flyersrights.org, a non-profit dedicated to passengers rights.
article wrote:Q: Has there been a case since 9/11 of an attempted hijacker being thwarted by airport security?
A: None that we've heard of. The TSA will say, "Oh, we're not allowed to talk about successes." That's actually bullsh*t. They talk about successes all the time. If they did catch someone, especially during the Bush years, you could be damned sure we'd know about it. And the fact that we didn't means that there weren't any. Because the threat was imaginary. It's not much of a threat. As excess deaths go, it's just way down in the noise. More than 40,000 people die each year in car crashes. It's 9/11 every month. The threat is really overblown....
So how does everyone feel about the proposed boycott tomorrow?
I think I hope a lot of people do it. I hope it's a big pain for everyone... and I hope it sends a message that we as a country have our limits when it comes to our privacy.
If I was al Queda I'd bring my explosives in through Mexico and walk them across where they don't let the police mess with you. To hell with waiting in line just to let some TSA infidel touch my Mohamed!
I think some of you don't understand how they operate, while the grey hound bus is an option like in Nulls post it's not something they'll go for unless they're thwarted else where... which would mean TSA is actually doing something I'd suppose?
I think attacking an airlines flight would be effective still because it grinds to a halt the thousands of flights around the world where a bomb in a mall or depot doesn't quite reach the same level of interference to our daily lives. It also would show that they can still get to us in the very way we have given our best to stop them.
The sad part is we purposely are not giving our best to stop the airline flight from being hit because we don't want to offend muslims with our efforts!
Next time a white male rapes a woman on a college campus and does it again and is still on the loose and everyone is on the lookout for him let's demand the police not include his race in the description or in their profile.
Lets demand they stop and interrogate a reasonable number of black and latino and asian suspects as well...in fact they damn well better stop and interrogate at least 50% female suspects too! Otherwise we white males are offended!!
One of the key things that need to be done is to make clear that we will hold the country where the terrorist come from accountable. Afghanistan being a prime example. Pakistan has a problem with terrorist operating out of tribal regions. Unless they allow us greater freedom in \"aiding\" Pakistan troops to control these regions then we may look upon Pakistan much the same as Afghanistan. Heaven help us if the terrorist succeed in another 9/11 and heaven help Pakistan if it is proven that the attack emanated from there.
Yemen is another place where certain AQ figures freely disseminate, encourage and aid terrorists. Somehow we have to make it very risky for the terrorists to survive to carry out their plans. Having some fraud masquerade as a Taliban leader has to give everyone pause as to how effective our intelligence is. One has to wonder if the lefts cries to prosecute CIA agents for certain info gathering techniques is now having a effect.
Two identical planes departing from the same terminal to the same destination. A cross section of people on board each.
There is a heightened alert put out for a pending terrorist attack on an airline in America this particular day but you have to fly.
Plane 1 a random selection of passengers is given the intrusive pat down including 4 year old blonde headed children and 90 year old blue haired grandmothers. Because of this random selection process several middle eastern looking men in the 19 to 35 year old range go unchecked.
Plane 2 an obvious concentrated effort is used to make certain that all middle eastern looking men and women are included in the pat downs as well as any passenger from a country on the watch list of potential terrorist hot spots.
Lets see, Arizona wanted random pat downs to catch illegal immigrants yet listen to the hue and cry that entailed. The federal govt wants random pat downs and some people complain when people protest. So when the feds expand their pat downs to people on the street corner we will all quietly acquiesce to this also? After all it will be done in the name of safety. So what is the difference between AZ wanting \"pat downs\" to protect their safety and the Feds doing the same?
woodchip wrote:Lets see, Arizona wanted random pat downs to catch illegal immigrants yet listen to the hue and cry that entailed. The federal govt wants random pat downs and some people complain when people protest. So when the feds expand their pat downs to people on the street corner we will all quietly acquiesce to this also? After all it will be done in the name of safety. So what is the difference between AZ wanting "pat downs" to protect their safety and the Feds doing the same?
What the ★■◆● are you blabbering about? seriously?
Especially with your hearsay evidence. No link just your say. Nice Try.
