You’re going to talk about intellectual fallacies and the same post use the theory that we can’t stop everything so we shouldn’t even bother to try?
TSA certainly has a purpose and a role to keep our air traffic safe. While they might need some wrangling back in terms of overreach, to say their only purpose is to perpetuate it’s own power is absurd.
It’s more of a matter that the point of diminishing returns is a speck in the rear view mirror. The same level of involvement in the pharmecutical industry would be to make all drugs prescription only so that one more person a year can be saved from a bad drug interaction.
Bit of a whoosh, unless you’re trying to help out by illustrating exactly the kind of false dichotomy I’m talking about.
They had no such role before 2002. It’s a stunner, I know, but somehow we survived. And before you leap in with “what about 9-11!!!”, as I pointed out above the TSA’s procedures have nothing to do with stopping such a thing from happening again, and (given its incompetence) likely wouldn’t have stopped it at the time either.
And if securing air travel is their purpose, what are they trying to do groping people in Amtrack and Greyhound stations?
Saying it is the only purpose is incorrect, but saying it is the primary purpose is a fair statement. All bureaucracies end up being dominated by people whose primary purpose is preserving the organization rather accomplishing whatever the stated purpose of the organization is.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/archives2/archives2mail/mail408.html#Iron
How free is it when air travel is a condition of employment? Telling a flight attendant they are free not to fly is to tell them that they free to sleep in a refrigerator cartoon. There are millions of people who have to fly as a condition of their employment.
Furthermore freedom of movement is recognized as a basic right in the United States. That the federal government would take actions to curtail individual rights rather than enforce them is an ominous precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
Also I find it absurd when people talk about the need to ‘guarantee’ safety. There is only acceptable and unacceptable levels of safety, not absolute safety. 9/11 was a bad day for air safety, but the numbers for 2001 were still safer than driving in a car on a passenger mile basis. If we go back to the pre 9/11 standards, except for not letting hijackers in the cockpit, then that is safe enough. If someone disagrees, then they always have the option not to fly as DSeid says. I don’t like people who are willing to give away my rights to humor their irrational hysteria.
Maybe its just that the U.S. doesn’t have the relatively huge amount of young military veterans that Israel, with its mandatory draft, produces every year. Screeners with three years of military training and experience can be trusted to exercise a lot more intelligence and discretion than graduates of a three-week TSA course.
Interrogation isn’t “non-invasive.”
You are free not to take that job as well. Many jobs require drug screens as well, you don’t want to take a drug screen don’t take that job. If that means you don’t work, well that is your choice that you have made. You don’t have a right to any job you want on your terms and you don’t have a right to fly on a commercial airplane.
Mind you, I agree that many of the security measures are more of a sop to hysteria than they are good policy, but that really is not the point, the point is that it is not the states’ to decide individually; this is national policy and must be made at a Federal level.
I can’t help but notice that a lot of states have managed to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana even though it violates federal law. I suspect that it comes down to a court deciding if the TSA actions meets the balancing tests.
As I’ve said before, I doubt that it will come to that. Either the TSA will back down or President Obama will make them back down, because he doesn’t want to run for election, while giving Republicans an issue to beat him over the head with.
That’s not really the same thing. Just because a state declines to prosecute someone is no bar to a federal prosecution. The Texas bill would bar federal agents from carrying out their duties.
If you think LESS security at airports is a winning election issue, let alone one Republicans would enthusiastically embrace, you are living on a different planet.
What will very likely happen is that there will be an injunction against implementing the law, which Texas will respect, and it will be ruled against in the courts.
The issue with decriminalized marijuana is not one I have too good of a handle on, but my understanding such as it is, is that states can make medical or small amounts possession legal under state law, and compel state employees to not arrest offenders, even while it reamins illegal under federal law. It is still within the power of the DEA to come in and arrest people for the Federal offense and the state cannot prevent that or interfere with it if the DEA decided to do so. But such an arrest would have to made by a Federal employee and handled in a Federal court with incarceration in a Federal facility.
Also, agreed with Erdoain.
Since the law we are discussing was passed by a Texas Republican House, a Texas Republican Senate and a Republican Governor is appears that you have limited contact with actual Republicans. You also have to consider that there are a sizable number of Republicans that will embrace any issue if it will make President Obama squirm.
This election, like all presidential elections will be decided by independent voters. Issues will be selected by how they play with independent voters.
Really, how so?
There is nothing in that article to suggest it wouldn’t work. But we’ll just keep asking 95 year old leukemia victims to remove their adult incontinence garments because it’s the politically correct thing to do until the next breach of security creates an even more invasive procedure. It’s just a matter of time before women have to remove their tampons.
But it’s not less security. It’s an equal amount of security, but less sexual assault.
But the law hasn’t been passed. The TSA bill failed in the Texas Senate last May; Perry brought it up for the Special Session as part of his Will He Or Won’t He Run Striptease. With the money shot to be revealed at this August’s Prayerapalooza at Reliant Stadium–fittingly, the site of Janet Jackson’s Wardrobe Malfunction.
Latest bulletin here:
Both you and the writer are mistaking El Al security with that of Ben Gurion Airport. BGN may not be the size of the largest American or global airports, but it saw over 12 million passengers in 2010, on nearly 100,000 flights. Just for reference, the entire population of Israel is 7 million people.
Also, despite its security, Ben-Gurion is constantly listed as one of the most pleasant airports in the world for its size according to customer surveys.
Despite some people having concerns about the whole racial profiling thing, the question just goes back to feasibility of implementing such a system that handles 800,000,000 passengers a year.
Since El Al’s security is estimated to cost ten times what the TSA does, we’d be looking at having to spend an additional $50 billion per year in airport security costs. That increase alone is about as much as we currently spend on the Department of Justice and the Department of Energy combined.
(originally posted by Bridget Burke)
Yes, on this I agree with Straus. Too bad he hasn’t successfully prevented the House from making the whole state of Texas a national laughingstock.