Slashdot Mirror
Confessions Of an Ex-TSA Agent: Secrets Of the I.O. Room
Jason Edward Harrington has seen some of the same frustrations, misgivings, and objections that have crossed the mind of probably every commercial airline traveler who's flown over the last decade in the U.S. One difference: Harrington got to see them from the perspective of a TSA agent. His description of the realities of the job (including learning the rote responses that agents are instructed to reassure the public with) is wince-worthy and compelling. A sample makes it clear why the TSA has such famously low morale, even among Federal agencies: "I hated it from the beginning. It was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly and even infants as part of the post-9/11 airport security show. I confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security. I was even required to confiscate nail clippers from airline pilots—the implied logic being that pilots could use the nail clippers to hijack the very planes they were flying." It only gets worse from there.
The TSA exists because Americans tolerate it.
It's that simple.
We hold the purse strings AND the votes. Either one alone is enough to eliminate the TSA. But we have said, en-mass, that the TSA is acceptable in our society. So it will continue.
I've been reading that guy's blog since day one:
http://takingsenseaway.wordpre...
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Glad to know the only two times I ever went through the scanners (I travel for work frequently) that maybe somebody did see me flipping the double bird. Even happier that the on last several dozen trips my wife and I live by the words 'opt out'. Several agents have commented to me readily while feeling me up and violating my privacy that what they were doing was completely useless. In one case I was told by an agent that he felt up the CEO of the company that makes the current machines, who refuses to use them for himself or his family.
Time to get rid of the TSA, the only organization that can still get funding with a 0% success rate.
... confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security.
In all fairness, if I got a job as a TSA agent, and my bosses told me that jars of homemade apple butter could be a threat, I for one would take their word for it. I might post on slashdot hoping some educted chemists could debunk the issue, but I wouldn't presume to know that apple butter didn't happen to be a great masking material for some other explosive material.
Wouldn't be easier to put a security guard on each flight and instruct them to shoot to kill? Bullet holes? How about special hatches in the floor so they could just drop the MFs from the plane? Projectile extremists destroying property and endangering people on the ground? Tasers. Give every adult on the plane a taser. Boom! Done! Sure, there will be a few injuries every year. But, it would be a much better experience (and perhaps a little fun) for everyone. You would really need to hang new signs though. Like: "Please, do not taze the aloof parents of crying babies"
For the love of god, could we please try something else? The TSA is truly embarrassing.
Brave Sir Robin ran away. ("No!") Bravely ran away away. ("I didn't!")
Um, they have the Federal government in common. That's the point.
Did he mention Obama, or was that a revealing slip on your part?
I'm assuming the latter, and its good to know you understand where the problem is, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it in public.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Most of the people where I work feel the TSA is doing a good job. In fact their response reminds of the Simpson's clip where Lisa sells Homer a rock that keeps bears away. You cannot reason with people this ignorant. They actually believe that the TSA is preventing terrorism and that the only people complaining are brown people. The only way for people to question the TSA is if someone like Edward Snowden manages to get media publicity and expose a bunch of documents or expose some insider contract on those X-ray porno machines sold by Michael Chertoff.
wrong.
i think the US government is incredible at building roads, and it's military seems rather well managed.
also, library's kick ass.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
I don't know what's the worst part of your anecdote. How oblivious you seem to be at your privileged status and why that is a Bad Thing for the rights of all to be considered equal under the law, or how easy it would seem to be to join those ranks. One faked up official looking ID and maybe I could be treated like a free citizen like you.
Oh and using repeated exposure to relax the vigil of the guards is an old ninja trick, get a job as feeble sweeper of courtyards or emptier of chamber-pots until the guards know you, then strike your target. The guys who go easy on you because they know you are failing in their jobs. (no surprise there. Their jobs were failures from the beginning)
Then there is the servile response of the TSA agent and what it says about his mindset. He's trained and required to do things he KNOWS are useless, annoying and almost certainly infringing on the civil and constitutional rights of the citizens he searches. He's trained to say that everyone is subject to this, no exceptions, but he appears to believe that irritating a member of the bureaucracy may result in retribution in some form. A civil servant, in one of the crappiest jobs there is to be had in government service, was afraid of you and what you might choose to do if delayed. Do you really think that cringing, on the part of any civil servant, but security people especially is a good thing?
The moral of your story seems to be that the security theatre we all complain about is clearly something to be inflicted on the peasant masses, not members of the elite like yourself. You get a free pass on the bullshit the rest of us are being forced to endure and you attribute that to a few agents having their heads on straight. You are a functionary of what has become the ruling structure, you are getting special treatment as a result and you think that means the system works. You're an apparatchik and don't even know it....
i said it, as a self-contained construct, is well-managed, and seems to be perhaps the most powerful military force in the history of the world. i stand by that compliment of the US government.
now, as how US politicians *use* that construct...well that really *is* off-topic.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
no...i don't believe so.
the US government being involved in health care is a very new thing. it can be argued that the TSA was perhaps the largest new program that the US government created before the health care thing. that links the two in a very powerful and factual way.
the US government has been using the military for hundreds of years, and the politics of military use go back thousands.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
Five of the items you listed are "mobilization for ___ war". You're far too smart to actually believe the US has stopped getting ready for war. The NAME of the war has changed, the activity has not.
Similarly for most of the other names in your list. FSA was the FDA, Social Security Administration, and a few other things. Has the FDA stopped? SSA? No, they moved the program from one department to another. Nothing stopped .
I'm kind of disappointed, cold fjord. You normally think before you post, but you're off your game on this one.
So, your saying that Senator Obama was responsible for the formation and implementing the TSA when Bush jr. was the President?
Hint for the uninformed:
The TSA was put in place by a Republican George Bush jr., during the first of his two terms in office.
I marked you foe NOT because I'm an Oama fan, but because I see you as too stupid to even describe in words, and because of the whole TSA, PATRIOT Act, DHS, and all of the other unconstitutional crap turning me fiercely anti-Republican.
Bush jr. and company all need to be lined up against the wall and shot for the traitors they are.
And while we're at it, Obama and co. can join them for not correcting this crap.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
uhhh..just FYI i wouldn't give a damn about your meaningless partisan politics...i'm so over that crap i can't stand the words "republican" and "democrat" anymore.
i'm talking about EXACTLY what the FTA's author is really saying behind his rant...which is the TSA ( which i believe was created under Bush BTW ) is a fucking joke, and the people in charge ( US government bureaucrats ) of the ideas and implementation of it are idjits.
how could anyone think that the two programs, run by basically the same set of bureaucrats, won't eventually share the same basic outcomes?
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
well it comforting to know that the same government that managed this program is now moving on to something as *truly* important as our and our childrens healthcare.
right?
Exactly. Only, it's not. The ACA is to ensure more people have health *insurance*.
I'm curious why you felt the need to break out "our childrens (sic) healthcare", as if one might assume that their (again, insurance, not healthcare) was separate from ours. Just for the emotional weight?
IN America, our homeless are richer sleeping in the water conduit tunnels below Las Vegas than the middle class of India and China who have beds and warm meals. How? Because in America we have choice.
This statement is absurd. You seem to be saying that homeless in the U.S. are richer because they can, what, choose to starve on the streets? Are you really speaking for people to claim that they are better off without beds and warm meals because they have some theoretical "choice"? I imagine a majority of them would disagree.
The other way this is absurd is to lump two very different countries together. You do know that India is a democracy, yes? In fact, the most populous democracy on the planet.
The *third* absurdity is your bald statement that the U.S. maintains armed forces to "get into wars to scare the ever loving hell out of every other nation". I think most politicians in both parties would facepalm over that assertion. I defy you to find any description of U.S. foreign policy by anyone with authority over it that describes the ENGAGEMENT in wars as a deterrent to other countries' aggression.
Because you just used the excuse "We've always done it this way so it's ok"?
The TSA must be a "different" kind of organization than that which I work for, the United States Air Force. I have written many "letters to the editor" under my real name on many topics that expose my generally Socialist bent and strong anti-authoritarian opinions. Yet, I have never been "admonished", and I recently had my security clearance extended for another 10 years after the standard Security Clearance Anal Probe.
I think the TSA is a "different" kind of US government agency, one that need to go.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
In Tennessee it is different if you're poor. I was a young single parent who was jobless. I go down to the welfare office to sign up for Tenncare and my son who was 3 at the time was enrolled at once, no questions asked. I, however, was denied Tenncare. I had absolutely zero medical bills at the time. I mention that because the lady told me that if I wanted to get Tenncare, I would need to go out and rack up approximately $16k in medical bills that I couldn't pay and THEN Tenncare would take me. What the hell kind of policy is that? I wanted Tenncare so that if something bad did go down I could manage to scrape by but the State actually advocated for me to go do irresponsible and illogical things. We do take care of our kids though at least. In that regard, there are 2 separate kinds of healthcare.
I'm not sure I would consider a state worker as the state advocating something. I can understand why the state wouldn't cover you unless you were in debt by medical expenses. But if you had no medical bills, then you wouldn't need coverage until you did. The kid has no fault in you being unemployed and unable to provide for him so covering him is a no brain'er.
Covering you without some extenuating circumstances however might encourage the likelihood of you continuing to need coverage. So I think what the state was actually encouraging was you to get a job and provide for yourself while they assisted the innocent child that followed your into that mess. I guess if you are the type who looks at the glass as half empty all the time, you could find the go into medical debt sentiment in that scenario. The interesting thing is, if you are 16k in debt with no job, you are also bankrupt and could discharge that debt pretty easily.
IN America, our homeless are richer sleeping in the water conduit tunnels below Las Vegas than the middle class of India and China who have beds and warm meals. How? Because in America we have choice.
This statement is absurd. You seem to be saying that homeless in the U.S. are richer because they can, what, choose to starve on the streets? Are you really speaking for people to claim that they are better off without beds and warm meals because they have some theoretical "choice"? I imagine a majority of them would disagree.
The other way this is absurd is to lump two very different countries together. You do know that India is a democracy, yes? In fact, the most populous democracy on the planet.
The *third* absurdity is your bald statement that the U.S. maintains armed forces to "get into wars to scare the ever loving hell out of every other nation". I think most politicians in both parties would facepalm over that assertion. I defy you to find any description of U.S. foreign policy by anyone with authority over it that describes the ENGAGEMENT in wars as a deterrent to other countries' aggression.
[most politicians are in politics for money and control]
You believe its absurb because you lack perspective because of your lack of experience and teaching. The fact you don;t even understand the concept of compare and contrast is absurd.
A: Those people have a choice to be in the tunnels or in a homeless shelter. They choose the tunnels for various reasons. They have food, they have shelter, then have all the ammentives they want. Several work still. They chose to be there. They can choose to leave and be elsewhere and make more money and in the years to come be as wealthy as some of our wealthiest people.
B: In India, there is a cast system in place. No matter how you or they try to dismantle it its still there. There are people who because they were born by someone in the bottom caste they will remain all their lives without things we take for granted like basic hygenie, clean water, the ability to walk for five minutes and get something to eat of their choice from a wide array of choices. Their life will be hard sleeping on the ground in a wood or metal ramshakle hut in a slum of New Delhi, without the hope of it ever getting better.
I have been there. I have seen people who live like this. Democracy means nothing to them. The govt means nothing to them because family and local groups still have control. Want to know why the rapes are happening in India? Because the towns allow it. Want to know why the rapes happen in egypt? Because woman their are believes to be property of men and should remain silent.
Also obviously you are clueless about what a democracy is:
So I will let Our Military who you despise explain it:
From the USMC Training Manual No. 2000-25
A Republic is representative government ruled by law (the United States Constitution). A Democracy is government ruled by the majority (mob rule). A Republic recognizes the unalienable rights of individuals while Democracies are only concerned with group wants or needs for the good of the public, or in other words social justice.
Lawmaking is a slow, deliberate process in our Constitutional Republic requiring approval from the three branches of government, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches for checks and balance. Lawmaking in Democracy occurs rapidly requiring approval from the majority by polls and/or voter referendums, which in turn is mob rule 50% plus 1 vote takes away anything from the minority. Here is one example; if 51% of the people don’t pay taxes they can vote a tax increase on the 49% that do, which is mob rule.
Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-
Do we really want to keep repeating the same mistakes for thousands of years? Because basically, if things stay as they are, that's exactly what will happen.
I'm just tired of the world being mediocre because of the wishes of a few people at the top, be it my own country Australia with our tremendously stupid Prime Minister, Mr. Abbott, or the Tea Party douchebags who wouldn't just shut the fuck up and deal with the fact that they can't have everything their way. (they're both practically the same thing, right wing extremists who are just re-hashing the same old shitty conservative policy from 30 years ago).
I mean, Tony Abbott is practically trying to make Trickle Down Economics work here... although you will NEVER hear anybody characterize it as that, personally I think my fellow Australians are too stupid to know what that even means. It would be hilarious if he wasn't so hell bent on achieving it.
It comes down to this: You can't shit on other human beings and expect to get away with it all the time, sometimes people will get fed up, sometimes people get tired of the arrangements they have. Look what happened in your country 13 years ago, a small faction of Radical Islamists basically got fed up with America, what they did was horrible, I can only imagine the pain and anguish of those people who lost somebody because of that event, but your government did a deal with them many years previous, your country helped them get into power in their region all just to make things difficult for the Soviets, and what was the point? They fucking collapsed under their own weight during the early 90's!
Ultimately, America is responsible for what happens to America, don't fuck with people if you can't handle the retaliation.
I mean you guys are so mixed up, you want to all be good righteous people who treat eachother right according to your constitution, yet as soon as someone blows up some buildings you all lose your fucking minds and practically tear the same piece of paper to pieces AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT go to some shithole country that the vast majority of Americans had not even heard of and can't even find on a map and then rain down fire and death upon anybody who even resembles a Taliban supporter, to the point where you have drones killing civilians over there for looking suspicious.
It's very simple, all humans should be treated the same, with respect and courtesy, but if you fuck other people over, don't expect to get away with it forever. The TSA is something I would definitely class as fucking people over, there's just no justification for touching other people's genitals, I don't care what some paranoid pol or military official says, they all have proven track records of lying to the public at this point, anybody who is still supporting all this security bullshit in it's current form is suspect, mainly because it's been proven time and time again that even with all of this TSA crap, there's still GAPING holes in the security. If the average American can see them, you can bet your ass that the Taliban can.
Its amazing what you can do when you have the world's reserve currency.
He said black powder. Black powder is potassium NITRATE aka kno3.
A little charcoal, a lot of potassium nitrate, and a pinch of sulfur.
And we didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie!
The US government needs to learn a few more lessons on building roads. If you would inform us of the aspects of roadbuilding in the US that impress you, maybe some of us could disillusion you.
For starters, our interstate highway system is demonstrably unsafe, compared the Autobahn. Have you ever noticed that nothing separates oncoming traffic? It has been pointed out to me that the Germans have double guard rails separating oncoming traffic. What do we have? A grass filled median. I have observed vehicles going out of control, and rolling, flying, coasting, skidding, or otherwise finding their way into the oncoming lanes. In view of the physical laws of nature, it is safer to hit ANYTHING other than oncoming vehicle. Steel guard rails, concrete dividers, trees, bridge abutments, ANYTHING.
There are a large number of places in the United States where the engineers flubbed. Dead Man's Curve, in Cleveland Ohio has lots of optical warnings that the curve is unsafe at speeds over 35 mph - but they seem to fail, as year after year, idiot manage to wipe out in that curve.
Bridges in various places during rainstorms become very unsafe. The crown of the road, couple with the incline of the road surface when it meets the incline of the approach ramp often just dams water up on the road way. I have hydroplaned fully loaded tractor trailers in these areas, while driving the posted speed limit or less. If I can float 80,000 pounds, you can rest assured that you will float your 3,000 pound personal vehicle in these areas.
Lighting. I have rather sensitive eyes. As I age, they are becoming more sensitive to bright lights at night. I can be blinded by lights pretty easily. Truck stops, restaurants, and other businesses often put very bright lights near the highway to attract attention. Billboards often have bright lights that are aimed improperly, so that they shine into motorist's eyes. The cops themselves are on a quest to find the brightest possible lights to mount on their patrol cars. I was very literally blinded as I came around a curve in Memphis late one night, by a police car stopped at the scene of an accident. Only luck, or the hand of God, prevented me from running into the survivors and the emergency workers.
Speed limits? Those are set by politicians, for the purpose of extracting revenues from the motoring public. When Eisenhower specced the interstate, it was intended that the interstate sustain 80 mph traffic. The human body has physiological reactions to traveling. On an open highway, with little to look at, the sound, vibrations, and general motions of the vehicle tends to lull people into relaxation and sleep at speeds around 55 mph. At speeds approaching 80 mph, everything about the vehicle tends to key the occupants into full alertness. Except for known unsafe areas, the interstates would be much SAFER with higher speed limits.
I'm sorry, but we are merely mediocre road builders. Leaving the interstate highway system behind, the US Highway system gets worse. State and local highways are oftentimes abysmal failures.
We CAN actually build superb highways. We have the technology, we have the knowhow, we have the materials, and we have the money to do so. We simply choose not to. Any movement to force the issue will be defeated by politicians. The courts will side with the politicians, because they love their cash cow. America will not be building any incredible highway systems in our lifetimes.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"It was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly and even infants"
Never make a job of what you love.
In the end it's still just a job, and you've ruined your hobby.
kartune85 : Incapable of reason, observation or learning. A kind of dim, drab, flightless parrot.
A recent article shows that the Pentagon is reconsidering uniform requirements to permit beards and turbans for Muslims. Now consider that beards have been outlawed by our military for decades, based on "discipline" considerations. No redneck, no Jew, no mountain man has been permitted to display a beard while in uniform. Suddenly - we are courting Muslims, so out of the goodness of our hearts, we are going to allow them to wear beards and turbans.
I'm willing to listen to the military on issues of the military, but you sound like an armchair general who saw a minor change in the rules that happened recently. Many modern militaries allow facial hair -- Spain, France, Germany, .... (And historically, beards have been very common.) One of the major reasons for prohibiting it was not discipline, but for having a good seal in gas masks -- god, I know, a crazy idea, that military regulations would be set for issues of warfighting, and not whatever crazy idea you thought up.
how is the government in our health care again?
the ACA
sets the minimum standard insurance companies must provide. a lot of insurance plans basically failed if you tried to use them.
Requires everyone to take part and since everyone has an equal chance of being sick and needing health care they need insurance anyways. a simple doctors visit without insurance costs hundreds of dollars.
uses the IRS Who is watching your income anyways to monitor it to make sure you are paying for insurance anyways.
created a website to link states, and available insurance plans in those states together so that you didn't have to go to dozens of different places to shop around. like amazon one stop shopping.
For Car insurance you can go to X insurance company website any where in the country and they would give you the correct answers. for health insurance it varies by city even though it is owned by just a couple of companies across the country.
lastly the USA has only moderate health care overall since most can not afford to pay for it. however we also have the most expensive care in the world by several times. we pay more for less care in the USA than anywhere else. The free market has failed miserable in Health insurance.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
How is this modded 4+ Insightful?! It's ignorant, hypocritical bollocks!
"Women, gays, Muslims & atheists" are no more special interest groups than bible-bashing white males. And how the fuck do you make "accommodations" for atheists? Not force them to sing words of praise to your special interest deity?
On an organisational level, religion should have no place in military procedures. If you're having to make "accommodations" for people absent of any religion, then there's something horribly wrong with the procedures of your military.
And how the hell can you complain that atheists DON'T have to follow your religious doctrine, AND at the same time complain that other religious groups get to follow theirs?
A recent article shows that the Pentagon is reconsidering uniform requirements to permit beards and turbans for Muslims.
Suddenly - we are courting Muslims...
Under pressure from Sikhs, the Pentagon has publicly clarified its existing procedures to permit certain practices "as long as the practices do not interfere with military discipline, order or readiness."
And not just that, they have to go the through the procedures to request permission for every individual deployment.
A number of highly decorated professionals have been drummed out of service for the crime of failing to wholeheartedly support the gay agenda.
So it's OK for people to break with agreed military procedures & speak out against a minority, but it's not for a minority to request to do the same? Go fuck yourself.
...often enough, accusations of sexual harassment and/or assault are political tools used against good soldiers. It is impossible to even guess at the numbers of such instances, but I know for a fact that it happens. Other times, a female soldier who is busted for drugs or other infractions tries to turn the tables by accusing supervisors and investigators of sexual harassment. Again - it's impossible to even guess at the numbers, but it happens.
Given the accuracy of your comments so far, I'll choose to take these self-professed baseless assumptions with a pinch of salt. You don't have enough information to even make a guess, but you "know" it happens? Do you have *anything* to back this up?
...the fact is, our military is being improperly used to advance a number of political agendas.
Something the whole world would probably agree with you on.
[/RANT]
You mostly have it BECAUSE you spend that fuckton of money on the military.
Every country so far that considered trading oil for Euros got bombed. Every time Iran starts pondering, we get to hear about their dangerous nuke program.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The military is too expensive for its efficiency and as a European, I don't even want to comment on your roads.
After driving a bit around the US I finally figured out why SUVs are so popular. A compact would probably vanish in the potholes on your highways.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I call BS on much of your post.
For starters, our interstate highway system is demonstrably unsafe, compared the Autobahn. Have you ever noticed that nothing separates oncoming traffic? It has been pointed out to me that the Germans have double guard rails separating oncoming traffic. What do we have? A grass filled median.
Umm, on many of the highways I drive on in the U.S., when the oncoming traffic is placed closer (without a significant median), there are guardrails. If it's even closer, there's a concrete or double concrete barrier. You can argue that maybe we need more barriers, but engineers clearly use these solutions in many places in the U.S. when conditions warrant it.
I have hydroplaned fully loaded tractor trailers in these areas, while driving the posted speed limit or less.
In heavy enough rain, you can hydroplane. News at 11.
There's something called "adjust your driving to conditions." You simply can't always go the posted speed limit in heavy rain. Yes, there are places where the road is not ideal and water channels or pools happen in heavy rain. Those sorts of places exist in Germany and in Europe in general too. The U.S. is HUGE, and sometimes engineers don't predict things quite right over literally millions of miles of roadways. But your assumption that you should be able to just travel the speed limit without ever hydroplaning -- I don't think that's reasonable. (The size of your vehicle also won't make this impossible: heavy aircraft have been known to hydroplane, which is the reason many airports have adopted grooves on runways.)
Speed limits? Those are set by politicians, for the purpose of extracting revenues from the motoring public. When Eisenhower specced the interstate, it was intended that the interstate sustain 80 mph traffic.
Sure, if we want to move troops rapidly across the country, which was part of the rationale for the interstate system.
For normal traffic, there's no need to travel at 80 mph. In fact, it reduces gas mileage usually to go significantly above 55 or so, because air resistance increases much more rapidly and you have to fight that at high speeds.
As for why speed limits are what they are, I'm sure there are SOME places in the U.S. where they are politically motivated... corruption is everywhere.
But in general terms, speed limits are set for (1) safety reasons across a broad variety of road conditions, and (2) to increase traffic throughput to maximum levels. Yes, on a dry road on a perfectly clear day, you may be able to go 90 mph down a country road, but add in cross traffic, pedestrians, and any sort of weather, and maybe 40 or 45 mph is safer. A lot of times, people don't realize that proximity to residences or other issues requires a consideration of lower speeds for safety.
Most people also don't realize the necessity and rationale for (2), though, which often plays a role for highway limits.... particularly in cities and high-traffic areas. Believe it or not, you can actually often put more cars through a stretch of road at 45 mph than 80 mph, particularly if there are lots of merges, on/off ramps, other random traffic issues and curves, etc. Merges, lane endings, on/off ramps, etc. require a lot of fast reactions to keep traffic moving. At 80 mph, people overcorrect, and a chain of brake lights can rapidly create a traffic "wave" that snarls traffic for a half hour. If everyone is traveling at 45, it might be easier for those merges, etc. to happen... you can actually increase traffic throughput this way, which is why many cities have adopted flexible speed limits on highways during rush hour.
The human body has physiological reactions to traveling. On an open highway, with little to look at, the sound, vibrations, and general motions of the vehicle tends to lull people into relaxation and sleep at speeds around 55 mph. At speeds approaching 80 mph, everyt
Those groups begin with women and gays, and continue with Muslims, atheists, and ends God knows where.
Please explain why women, gay people, Muslims, atheists, etc can't be good military personnel. I know this much: The soldiers I've talked to and seen polled about it overwhelmingly either support or don't care about these kinds of measures. This might have something to do with the fact that when you're in a firefight you care more about whether the rest of your unit are good shots than who they like to kiss or what they think about spirituality.
Now consider that beards have been outlawed by our military for decades, based on "discipline" considerations. No redneck, no Jew, no mountain man has been permitted to display a beard while in uniform.
Please explain why wearing a beard displays a lack of discipline or lack of military readiness. I'm really not understanding what the purpose of that kind of rule could possibly be, except some silly holdover from the 1950's that stereotyped bearded men as drunkards and foreigners. During the Civil War, wearing a beard was very common, and it doesn't seem to have had any effect on the skill or bravery or readiness on the troops (or at least not enough that anyone made any mention of it whatsoever in any military documents).
While a liberal or a progressive may feel that to be a "good thing", the fact is, our military is being improperly used to advance a number of political agendas.
Well, let me tell you of another time the military was used to "advance a political agenda": Racial integration. In 1948, Harry Truman issued an executive order desegregating the US military. Today, black people are more likely to join the military than white people, in large part because they know that the organization will treat them fairly and give them a good chance of a career. We'd probably lose 5-10% of our military personnel had Truman not done that.
We no longer have the military that we had thirty or forty years ago.
No, we don't, and we're at the very least no worse off for it. Running down the list of US military operations between 1974 and 1984 (the "glory days" you seem to be yearning for), the most significant military actions were the evacuation of Vietnam and the invasion of Grenada. Do you really think those were more difficult military operations than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
I am officially gone from
I call BS on much of your post.
I can smell plenty of it coming from your post as well.
Umm, on many of the highways I drive on in the U.S., when the oncoming traffic is placed closer (without a significant median), there are guardrails. If it's even closer, there's a concrete or double concrete barrier. You can argue that maybe we need more barriers, but engineers clearly use these solutions in many places in the U.S. when conditions warrant it.
There are *vast* stretches of highway that are just as the GP described them - completely and without any barriers other than the median. Apparently you have driven on a select few roads in this country. I've driven many very long distance trips, and about the only region I have yet to drive through is the PacNorthwest.
There's something called "adjust your driving to conditions." You simply can't always go the posted speed limit in heavy rain.
Thanks, Captain Obvious. I think the GP already stated "while driving the posted speed limit or less". I've hydroplaned at speeds of 15 mph in extremely heavy flow on I-35 near Dallas. Do you think either I or the GP continued to drive at that speed?
For normal traffic, there's no need to travel at 80 mph. In fact, it reduces gas mileage usually to go significantly above 55 or so, because air resistance increases much more rapidly and you have to fight that at high speeds.
Cite your sources for this often repeated tripe. My own MPG continues to rise until it peaks when my speed exceeds 110 mph. Most any car that I've owned (and none of them were your big honking pointless SUVs or any other sort of passenger truck) continued to increase in performance up to at least 80 mph. Even in the case of a Toyota Prius, the efficiency won't peak until approximately 75 mph. This statistic that you quote is a relic of the 1970's oil embargo years and the types of cars typically driven at that time. I somehow doubt it even applies to diesel big rigs these days either.
As for why speed limits are what they are, I'm sure there are SOME places in the U.S. where they are politically motivated... corruption is everywhere.
Probably a non-trivial number. Remember, there are many places where the police will harass and/or arrest a private citizen who visibly warns drivers that they are approaching a speed trap. If safety was the real motivation, then the police would not harass people like this. But instead it's about the money.
The human body has physiological reactions to traveling. On an open highway, with little to look at, the sound, vibrations, and general motions of the vehicle tends to lull people into relaxation and sleep at speeds around 55 mph. At speeds approaching 80 mph, everything about the vehicle tends to key the occupants into full alertness. Except for known unsafe areas, the interstates would be much SAFER with higher speed limits.
What the heck are you talking about? Citation needed. Maybe in cars from 25 years ago or in your giant truck.
To the best of my knowledge, the increase in speed limit in TX over the years did not see a significant increase in accidents or fatalities. There are plenty of roads with posted limits as high as 80 and I think even SH 130 toll has 85 even.
In most modern cars, putting the cruise control on at high speeds will result in people relaxing... it doesn't matter whether you're going 55 or 65 or 80.
Citation please.
In any case, even if there were some minor benefit in terms of alertness at 80 mph, it would largely be trumped by the vast increases of kinetic energy that happen as you go faster at high speeds -- which means a subsequent significantly greater time and effort to stop safely... or greater energy thrown into collision s
For normal traffic, there's no need to travel at 80 mph. In fact, it reduces gas mileage usually to go significantly above 55 or so, because air resistance increases much more rapidly and you have to fight that at high speeds.
Cite your sources for this often repeated tripe. My own MPG continues to rise until it peaks when my speed exceeds 110 mph. Most any car that I've owned (and none of them were your big honking pointless SUVs or any other sort of passenger truck) continued to increase in performance up to at least 80 mph.
Good lord. Well, this is enough to call your whole post bogus already.
Try a freakin' search engine. The second link that came up for me is a 2009 study from Consumer Reports, with a variety of vehicles.
To the best of my knowledge, the increase in speed limit in TX over the years did not see a significant increase in accidents or fatalities.
That may be the case. There certainly are situations where raising the speed limit has not increased fatalities, but usually in places where (1) people generally already drove significantly over the limit, and (2) people did not actually increase their speeds on average to keep up with the corresponding increase in limit (in other words, if the limit went up 10 mph, the average speed went up only a little).
But this is irrelevant to the GP's point, which was accusing politicians of lowering speed limits for revenue purposes. If that does happen, my guess is it happens around cities, where highway speed limits are often significantly lowered (and also there are more likely to be a greated density of cops around to collect tickets). My point is that often there are other reasons for those lowered limits -- beyond safety, often the desire to prevent traffic problems.
In most modern cars, putting the cruise control on at high speeds will result in people relaxing... it doesn't matter whether you're going 55 or 65 or 80.
Citation please.
Well, there are a number of studies showing decreased attention for people using cruise control, such as this one. It's clear that reaction times are increased, etc. The higher the speed you're traveling, the more problematic these increased reaction times are.
I haven't really done a search for studies, but I've talked to a LOT of people who agree that the "feel" of higher speeds in many newer cars has become a lot smoother in recent years. Lots of car companies even advertise how quiet and smooth their rides now are.
I'm not saying the difference in traveling at 55 vs. 80 is nil, but I don't think it's anywhere near as noticeable in recent cars. Given the inherent additional danger of higher speeds, I think it's on the burden of you and GP to prove that people somehow are alert enough to actually drive "more safely" overall at 80 compared to 55.
You're pretty much street pizza at speeds greater than 60mph. The risk of bodily injury and the mortality rate increase from a speed of 60 mph to 80 mph is such a small number that you can consider it a foregone conclusion that you're not coming home in one piece or at all.
By that logic, why stop at 80 mph? Why not travel at 100 mph? 120 mph? 140 mph? It's already a foregone conclusion that you're going to die in a crash at any speed over 60, so why bother considering safety at all?
Of course that's nonsense. The faster you go, the more reaction time you need to avoid anything or make any changes to what you're doing. Combined with the increased kinetic energy that increases with the square of velocity, driving faster still is more likely to get you killed.
Sure, in certain types of severe collisions, you're going to
Other governments spend dramatically less per citizen with total government provided healthcare than the US government spends on healthcare per citizen with no national healthcare at all.
If they told the entrenched medical system and insurance system to take a hike and copied a successful system from people who have already solved the problem it would work fine. Unfortunately, they won't, they'll pull an Obamacare half assed solution that really just lines the pockets of insurance companies and it will be the fault of the people who say the government can't manage healthcare because they will push against any attempt at it and try to keep as much private as possible. Whether you support national healthcare or not, if there is going to be national healthcare you need to recognize that it is all or none, a half measure is a really expensive waste of time.
Sure the Federal government is *involved*, but *how* it is involved surely makes a difference. The Federal Government actually *runs* security at airports. It does not run non-military health care facilities. It doesn't even provide insurance except to its employees and their families and the poor. It's actual participation in health care and health care decisions is quite limited.
The Federal government involvement in health care, broadly speaking, is limited to the following five areas:
(1) Mandates individual coverage for US residents.
(2) Sets minimal standards for what must be covered to meet the mandate.
(3) Subsidizes low income insurance premiums
(4) Provides free alternative insurance for households making less than 133% of the poverty line *in participating states*.
(5) Provides a health care "exchange" on which consumers can shop for insurance *in states that decline to provide this service to their citizens*.
That's it. Obamacare is a private sector based health care scheme -- essentially the same scheme, in fact, developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation for Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole in 1996. There is no way to ensure the bulk of Americans have routine health care with *less* federal involvement than what is outlined above.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I've been living in US for over 3 years now, and I've yet to see a pothole on a highway.
I'm sure there are some out there somewhere. But it's a big country. Your experiences with one part of it do not necessarily translate to the rest of it.
There are *vast* stretches of highway that are just as the GP described them - completely and without any barriers other than the median. Apparently you have driven on a select few roads in this country. I've driven many very long distance trips, and about the only region I have yet to drive through is the PacNorthwest.
Yes, of course there are many locations without barriers. In my area, there is insufficient space to have a grass median, and so every highway has a barrier between directions. It's a calculated equation of cost of land versus cost of a barrier, along with accident rates and traffic density. Of course, these aren't always updated, since the interstate system was designed so long ago and receives only few updates due to funds that are typically limited. I'm sure many places would warrant barriers now that did not when originally designed.
Thanks, Captain Obvious. I think the GP already stated "while driving the posted speed limit or less". I've hydroplaned at speeds of 15 mph in extremely heavy flow on I-35 near Dallas. Do you think either I or the GP continued to drive at that speed?
The point is, neither of you should have been driving that speed in the first place.
For normal traffic, there's no need to travel at 80 mph. In fact, it reduces gas mileage usually to go significantly above 55 or so, because air resistance increases much more rapidly and you have to fight that at high speeds.
Cite your sources for this often repeated tripe. My own MPG continues to rise until it peaks when my speed exceeds 110 mph. Most any car that I've owned (and none of them were your big honking pointless SUVs or any other sort of passenger truck) continued to increase in performance up to at least 80 mph. Even in the case of a Toyota Prius, the efficiency won't peak until approximately 75 mph. This statistic that you quote is a relic of the 1970's oil embargo years and the types of cars typically driven at that time. I somehow doubt it even applies to diesel big rigs these days either.
I would suggest a high school physics class. Aerodynamic drag at high speeds is proportional to the square of your velocity; so going from 55 to 110 mph doesn't double your drag, it quadruples it.
Also, I drive a Prius. There is a direct correlation between low speed and high mpg. Somebody even made this handy dandy graph of mpg at a variety of constant speeds in his Prius. The faster you go, the worse your fuel economy, full stop.
It is true that the optimal speed for mpg varies by vehicle; a lot of things go into the calculation, but you typically want to be at the lowest efficient speed in your highest gear; the efficient speed may be higher if your engine is particularly inefficient at low speeds. A good example of this was Top Gear's "race" of a Prius versus a BMW, with the Prius at top speed (~110 mph) getting 17 mpg, compared to the BMW which was getting 19 mpg (because it is optimized to run at much higher speeds).
So it may be possible that your car does very well at high speeds, because they optimized it for high speeds (did you buy some type of sports car?). But most passenger vehicles are optimized for the speeds that people normally drive - or rather, they're optimized for the EPA test cycle, which in turn is meant to be representative of what people normally drive.