Slashdot Mirror
TSA Facing Death By a Thousand Cuts
OverTheGeicoE writes "The Transportation Security Administration is getting a lot of negative attention, much of it from the U.S. government itself. A recent congressional report blasted the TSA for being incompetent and ineffective (PDF). A bill to force the TSA to reduce its screening of active duty U.S. military members and their families was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives. After a TSA employee was arrested for sexually assaulting a woman while in uniform, a bill has been introduced to prevent TSA agents from wearing police-style uniforms and badges or using the title 'officer.' The bill's sponsor calls these practices 'an insult to real cops.' The FBI is getting involved by changing its definition of rape in a way that might expose the TSA's 'enhanced pat-down' screeners to prosecution. Lastly, public support for the TSA's use of X-ray body scanners drops dramatically when people realize there is a cancer risk."
Now if only America wasn't tied down in the pit underneath it.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Must be an election year coming up, because the government's actually doing shit about stuff we've been complaining about for the past... two, three years?
The TSA is the only agency hated more that the IRS. Considering the head start the IRS had, that is an impressive achievement!
'an insult to real cops.'
Perhaps, if they way cops keep handling these occupy movements are any indication, they don't need any help making themselves look bad.
How many terrorist have they caught? The same amount as my pet rock. Comparing the 'terrorist caught/money spent' ratio of pet rocks vs. the entirety of the TSA, if I were a venture capitalist I'd be looking for the next bright mind to bring these geological vanguards to market. They'd do at least a good job as the TSA, cost less, and as an added bonus airports might be more enjoyable. And they don't infringe on civil liberties. And they don't pretend to effect powers they do not really have. And they will not unionize.
Motherfucking pet rocks are more efficient than the TSA.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
A bill to force the TSA to reduce its screening of active duty U.S. military members and their families was approved unanimously by the House of Representatives.
This is silly. Either you do screening, or you don't. Complete ineptness of the TSA aside for argument's sake, if you take the concept of operations for the TSA at its face they're not just looking for active and willing attackers, they're also looking for unwitting attackers. (That's why you screen Grandma in her wheelchair -- How does Grandma know nobody slipped an explosive onto her person or possessions somehow without her realizing it?)
If you're allowing military through, why not the 800,000 people with TS clearances? Or police? Or...? And how do you know that the person is a member of the military? And even if they are, it's not a foregone conclusion that they're automatically safe. (Nidal Malik Hasan? Hasan Akba?)
Screen everyone or screen no one. You're hard-pressed to make a rational risk argument if you're not doing that.
The Roman Empire lasted in some form until the fall of Constantinople. Also, "managably sized units" is not a good reason to split a nation--delegation and limited local governance is possible, and in fact is embodied in our systems of state and local government. Caesar noted that Management of the few was generally the same as management of the many, IIRC. You can have a million people in a city, they have some interests that will be different than those in the countryside, and you need a way to reconcile those interests into a common social contract when it is appropriate--failure to do that raises transaction costs and take value away from pretty much everyone.
In addition, small government *does not* protect against corruption. State governments are far more corrupt than the federal government.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Also, "managably sized units" is not a good reason to split a nation--delegation and limited local governance is possible, and in fact is embodied in our systems of state and local government.
What we have here is a conflict between theory and practice. In theory, it shouldn't matter how large the government is, because you can break it up into smaller regional units that govern themselves to a large extent, and let the top level government only handle affairs that concern the entire nation as a whole. In practice, it doesn't work. The national government draws more and more power to itself over time, increasing its size and duties, until every single issue has to be decided on the national level instead of allowing different regions to do things differently. Then lots of infighting results because people from different regions with different local cultures can never agree on all the issues and constantly fight over them at every election, continuously changing the law back in forth as different groups gain a slight majority and have the ability to alter the law, and do this instead of focusing on new issues. Meanwhile, as "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely", the greater concentration of power in the larger nation and its national government draws more corruption (since obviously, that corruption has higher potential profit; what good is it going to do for you to bribe some government official in Andorra, for instance?), and corruption increases exponentially.
In addition, small government *does not* protect against corruption. State governments are far more corrupt than the federal government.
Right, that's why corporate lobbyists spend so much time and money there trying to pass laws and get defense contracts. Try again. Smaller governments have less potential for corruption to be profitable for those who engage in it. As I said before, what good would it do you to bribe someone in Andorra's government? If you're some corporate lobbyist, not much, because there's not many people there and not much money flowing through it, compared to the USA.
The Roman Empire lasted in some form until the fall of Constantinople.
It's hard to say the Roman Empire "lasted" after the city of Rome was sacked. Yes, another smaller empire lasted for some time after the fall of Rome, but it wasn't the Roman Empire, it was an offshoot of it in a different region. That would be similar to the USA collapsing, and Alaska continuing to call itself "the USA" even though the rest of the nation either became smaller independent nations or were annexed by Mexico or Canada. Just like USA/Alaska, Constantinople wasn't even originally part of the Roman Empire, it was conquered later when they grew really large. AFAIC, you can't have something called "the Roman Empire" if it doesn't include the Italian peninsula and most especially the city of Rome. It reminds me of that little rebel Catholic Church organization that calls itself "the real Roman Catholic Church" even though no one else thinks they are.
The "true red-blooded patriots" can think whatever they want, but all their willpower isn't going to overcome basic economics. If the economy collapses, no amount of patriotism or talk of "united we stand!" is going to make it better. Heck, we even have "red-blooded patriots" in many states doing things that are pretty close to outright rebellion against the nation and federal government: many states have passed laws forbidding themselves to follow the Real ID Act, Montana passed a law saying they can make machine guns if they want, stamped "Made in Montana", as long as they aren't sold out-of-state, plainly in direct opposition to BATFE policy, Arizona and the federal government are suing each other over immigration enforcement, etc. It seems like the "red-blooded" ones are the ones itching the most to cause division (not that I disagree with causing division; obviously with these and many other issues, Americans in many regions simply can't agree on anything, so I think it's better to simply break apart so that they don't have to agree).
Or we could return to the Federal model the US is actually based on instead of this rule from Washington thing we're doing now. Return the States to their rightful place and make the national government small as it should be. Then people can move to the State that best reflects their view of the world. That is how things were supposed to be in the first place, no? :)
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
The problem is with interstate commerce. I know libertarians love to blast that part of the Constitution, but it does serve an important purpose. For example, maybe Mississippi decides they want absolutely no environmental protections. Corporations will move their factories there, and start dumping their toxic wastes into the river. Only now the people in New Orleans have to suffer for their neighbors choices. If the states were each independent countries, that sort of thing would lead to serious border conflicts, sanctions, and maybe even war. Instead we have the federal government to unite us and pass nationwide standards. We're already in a race to the bottom with third world nations. The last thing we need is to start a race to the bottom between ourselves.
Or how about immigration? What if Tennessee decides that they want to let in all comers? Do we build a wall around the state, station guards at every border crossing?
Or the FCC? As nice as it might be to have different radio standards in Philly, Newark, NYC, and Stamford, the laws of physics don't allow it.
Entitlements might be better left to the state, but it would be a bureaucratic nightmare tracking people's moves across the nation (so that someone doesn't spend most of their life in a low tax state and retire in a high entitlement state).
There are some cases where we would be better off giving the states more control, but in many ways the old federal model simply can't work in the modern world.