Slashdot Mirror


Homeland Security Cuts Causing Extreme Delays And Missed Flights (chicagotribune.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The Chicago Tribune reports on "a growing backlash over extremely long airport security lines," which the Transportation Security Administration is blaming on a loss of 4,622 screeners. "In the past three years, the TSA and Congress cut the number of front-line screeners by 4,622 -- or about 10% -- on expectations that an expedited screening program called PreCheck would speed up the lines. However, not enough people enrolled for TSA to realize the anticipated efficiencies."

Passengers in security lines waited one hour and 45 minutes at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, with other airports reporting wait times of 90 minutes, and crowded lines "snaking up and down escalators, or through food courts, and into terminal lobbies." Some flights have even delayed their take-offs just to wait for more of their passengers to clear security. (One Dallas-Fort Worth flight waited 13 minutes, resulting in 23 more passengers who made it onboard -- while another 29 passengers still had to be rescheduled for later flights.) "We encourage people to have the appropriate expectations when they arrive at airports,â said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Friday, saying the screenings were necessary to ensure passenger safety. "Contemplate increased wait times as you travel."

Johnson also said the TSA would increase the use of overtime, hire 768 new officers as soon as mid-June, and use more threat-sniffing dogs. Meanwhile, a TSA computer glitch caused 3,000 pieces of luggage to miss their flight in Phoenix, prompting city officials to investigate replacing the TSA with a private security contractor.

50 of 302 comments (clear)

  1. Appropriate expectations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I expect that the children playing security theater in the airport will grow up and go away. Maybe find something useful or meaningful to do with their time. Is that not an "appropriate expectation"?

  2. The cure by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Don't fly.

    This isn't trolling - it's truth. If enough people simply stop flying, it will change. Not only the airlines but mega corporations like Disney will have their way.

    Last time I flew was - holy cannoli - 2002. I'm a little shocked at that because I really didn't think about it until I typed it. I still go on vacations, and even though I love the act of flying, Idon't miss the modern flying experience very much.

    And it's pretty simple. If you still fly when you don't absolutely have to - you are okay with all of this.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:The cure by Snotnose · · Score: 3, Informative

      Same here, haven't flown since I was given the choice of being sexually molested or having naked pictures taken of me.

      I enjoy driving, so now I spend a couple days driving to my destination. I pick the wife up at the airport, we do our thing, take her back to a different airport, she flys home and I drive.

    2. Re:The cure by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you still fly when you don't absolutely have to - you are okay with all of this.

      Please tell me if visiting my relatives who live 6000 miles away is absolutely necessary.

      It's easy to say "don't fly" -- for someone who doesn't fly anyway.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:The cure by Moof123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Flying has become miserable on so many fronts. I minimize it, and dread it when it cannot be avoided.

    4. Re:The cure by guises · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well obviously what we need to do is get rid of the TSA, and I don't think that asking people to boycott flying is going to work. It didn't work when the TSA was first introduced and the lines jumped back then, it didn't work when they introduced the stripscanners (even though the early ones were possibly carcinogenic), didn't work with "enhanced patdown", etc. The best we seem to get with a boycott is the TSA makes things much worse, people complain and business slows a little, the TSA partially rolls back the change, and everyone starts flying again. Ignoring the fact that the change was only partially rolled back, so things keep getting worse incrementally.

      But demanding that congress gets rid of the TSA and just goes back to metal detectors isn't going to work either, it's too much backpedaling. It would mean admitting a mistake. So I was thinking maybe a market solution would be the right approach: get a few startups offering low security flights, operating from a low security terminal at the airport. If they get a lot of business (and they will) it could drive a larger change as the bigger airlines adopt similar practices for some of their flights.

    5. Re:The cure by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have a relative who lives 1,700 miles away and I'm driving to see them this week.

      While not the same situation as you, I have made adjustments so I don't have to fly.

      Being considered a criminal when I have done nothing wrong doesn't sit well. All this has done is give a would-be terrorist a ready, easily accessible and indefensible juicy target. If the whole point of this setup was to make people safe it has failed miserably.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    6. Re:The cure by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Please tell me if visiting my relatives who live 6000 miles away is absolutely necessary.

      Visiting relatives is overrated. Skype ftw. And if they don't like it then they can come to me.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:The cure by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

      Is it necessary to live 6,000 miles away? Or do you live 6,000 miles away because it has been so easy to visit them? Would you move closer if it were no longer so easy to visit?

      1) Yes, it is necessary.

      2) Don't be a fucking idiot, this is why they invented airplanes.

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    8. Re:The cure by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Wow. 1700 miles is about 28 hours of driving, not excluding stops. And presumably you are doing it twice (there and back) in one week. That's impressive, and makes me realize just how awful air travel in the US must be.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:The cure by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a relative who lives 1,700 miles away and I'm driving to see them this week.

      While not the same situation as you, I have made adjustments so I don't have to fly.

      It's not too difficult on trips of that length. drive a similar distance a few times a year. I just get up really early, drive through the night and arrive not exactly fresh, but I have my own vehicle, not a rental, and can enjoy music on the way down. I don't miss the couple hour wait at each stop, the groping, waiting on the tarmac before and after the flight, the wait at the luggage merry go round, the wait at the rental car place.

      And if I missed my flight because of the delay I really don't miss the hassle of cancelling the hotel.

      All in all, on trips from say the northeast to the south, you don't save a huge amount of time by flying. Yes, the in-air part is relatively short, but the rest of it makes for a huge delay.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    10. Re:The cure by Pulzar · · Score: 2

      If they were that important, why did you move 6000 miles away?

      Are you really that naive? You must've lived a very privileged life to not understand that tough choices have to be made frequently, including moving away from family that you love dearly.

      In the grand scheme of things, waiting in line at the airport security is really not that high on most people's list of deciding factors on where to live and work. It doesn't mean they "accept" it. World isn't such a neat black and white place.

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    11. Re:The cure by sir1963nz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Most people I know who fly from NZ/Aus to Europe/UK to go through Asia/middle east to avoid the USA. They typically spend 3-7 days in Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai on the way to/from the UK etc buying up hotels nights, tourist attraction tickets, food, shopping etc etc etc. The US is already missing out on Billions of dollars in Tourism, and its only going to get worse. We have a trip coming up, but it will be our last to the USA, there is simply too much else to see in the world to be bothered with the aggravation. We were going to be coming for 8 weeks, but have reduced this to 3, 8 days of which are now a cruise in the Caribbean. Time has been allocated to Hong King, London and when we get back, off to Samoa for 10 days.

    12. Re:The cure by GrumpySteen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please tell me if visiting my relatives who live 6000 miles away is absolutely necessary.

      Will either you or they die if you don't visit them? No? Then it is not absolutely necessary, no matter how much you enjoy it.

    13. Re:The cure by fnj · · Score: 2

      $995-$2461 for a Piper J3 Cub in 1938 to 1947 was one thing. The median income in 1940 was $956, so it was a big chunk of change. But still, that was only a little more than a single year of gross income, and taxes were pretty damn low[*] for people earning the median at that time.

      [What follows for 2012 is about as close to the present day as I could find information for]
      But $398,100 for a Cessna 182T in 2012 is another thing entirely. The median income in 2012 is $33,276. That is 12 FRIGGIN YEARS OF GROSS INCOME, and god knows, maybe around 20 years of net income.

      The base price for a 2016 BMW M3, hideously overpriced as it is, is $63,500. "If you can buy" a $63,500 car, and that's a damn big if, that HARDLY means you can therefore buy and maintain a $398,100 airplane.

      [*] The Federal income marginal tax rate in 1940 for anyone (single or married) earning $0-$4000 was 4%. I'm not sure what the personal exemption was. I do know it was $3000 at the outset in 1913.

    14. Re:The cure by Mr.CRC · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The answer is to absolutely forbid ever absolving the airlines of liability for loss of life if they loose a plane due to negligence or letting on a bad guy.

      Establish a fairly simple standard set of security criteria. Let the airlines voluntarily submit to independent testing of their defenses. If they pass (with periodic re-inspection) then they get some bonus, like protection from *criminal* liability for an accident. This way, small private charters can forego the standard compliance without undo risk because they basically know their clients.

      Seriously, we aren't even trying to solve this. I haven't heard a new political idea about just about anything in decades.

    15. Re:The cure by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Yes, I think that your replies show the small-minded lack of vision and smugness from those who have never moved. Never experienced life in different cultures. Perhaps you see it as a noble sacrifice. It's certainly a sacrifice -- much less of a sacrifice that I make by accepting the abuse that the TSA hands out. My parents accepted that I moved to a different continent. They welcomed the fact that I could move thousands of miles away for what I hoped would be a better life. I wasn't the first in my family to move away. You know that the USA was founded by people (presumably your ancestors) who moved away from their family, with the expectation that they would probably never see them again, don't you? Now, I live in the situation that, due the to vagaries of US immigration law, I have children in two continents. So, to see one of my children, I accept that I need to suck it up when I fly and accept (but don't like) the abuse that the TSA hands out. Not everyone has the liberty of living close to their parents. I would have thought that, as someone who has given up many opportunities in life to live close to parents, you would understand that I would go through a little inconvenience in order to meet face-to-face with family.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  3. Time to get rid of the TSA by Kohath · · Score: 5, Informative

    We need to get the government out of the passenger screening business and let the airports do this screening. Airports actually try to do a good job serving airport customers. And airports will be no worse than the TSA at detecting threats and providing security.

    The worse it gets for travelers at airports, the easier it will be to get rid of the TSA.

    1. Re:Time to get rid of the TSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      9/11 happened because the standard reaction at that time was to let the hijackers have control. They were just going to fly and then land somewhere you weren't planning on.

      Now people know better and anyone trying to hijack a plane will likely end up dead before they can do much of anything.

    2. Re:Time to get rid of the TSA by BitterOak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The security used to be private, and let through 9/11. That's one of the basis of the TSA, though there was nothing let through that wasn't on the government's allowed list.

      That's EXACTLY the point. The hijackers used box cutters which weren't on the list of prohibited items. 9/11 was NOT the result of a failure of airport security personnel. There is thus no rational basis for the existence of the TSA. Pre-9/11, I don't recall any significant security lines. The biggest worry was the line at the ticketing desk if one needed to check luggage. (Otherwise, back then, you could just check in right at the gate. No boarding passes were necessary to get through security.) Now, you need to get the the airport hours ahead of time (even for a 1 hour flight) to make sure you get through security in time to catch your flight. I didn't realize airports were allowed to fire the TSA and go back to their own security, but I don't understand why all airports don't do this right now!

      --
      If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
    3. Re:Time to get rid of the TSA by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Informative
      The '60 hijacks were people going to Cuba, everyone walks away. The 2000+ hijacks result in death of everyone. Making the assumption that a success results in the death of everyone has stopped shoe bombers and others that made it through security and were uninterested in cockpit doors.

      Yes, the lock would have stopped 9/11, but many other things would have stopped it as well.

      I didn't realize airports were allowed to fire the TSA and go back to their own security, but I don't understand why all airports don't do this right now!

      They aren't. It's a bluff. The FAA could shut them down. For now, those who could call the bluff appear to be waiting to see what happens. If nobody calls their bluff, everyone will start doing it.

    4. Re:Time to get rid of the TSA by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      They aren't. It's a bluff.

      Sure they are. Kansas City International contracts with Akal Security for screening services, and had used another private contractor for years prior. There are still a few TSA agents at the airport as Akal works under federal oversight, but the screening personnel themseves are Akal employees. I saw it myself when I flew through there back in November.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    5. Re:Time to get rid of the TSA by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      The TSA has to give them permission and sets the standards. Several major airports made the request after the last big Fuckup by the TSA and the TSA refused to allow them. This is the loophole congress gave the TSA the ability to stop the airports from dropping out of the program.

      Fact is we are outnumbered. There are plenty of Americans that want the TSA to exist and to harass people. There is huge public backlash at any mention of reforming the TSA. And that's the scary thing.

  4. As wait times approach infinity... by Steve1952 · · Score: 4, Funny

    As wait times approach infinity, security gets better and better! How many terrorists are willing to wait more than 100 years, for example? Heck, most give up after only 10 years.

  5. End the theater by Vrallis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    End the bullshit security theater. Do enough to keep serious explosives off (the crotch-bomber was no threat to the flight as a whole), basic metal detector.

    People know now hot to cooperate with hijackers, and have started reacting appropriately (beating the fuck out of anyone attempting it). Cockpit doors are locked now. Those two changes alone were all that were really needed to improve airline security.

    Taking away bottles of water and baby formula, stopping people with pocketknives, making everyone take off their shoes and gut half their luggage for the xrays are all a waste of time. They have caught NO THREATS yet. They have failed every single test to actually sneak stuff through.

    End it.

    1. Re:End the theater by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does anyone else have a problem with there being a fee at all? This sure seems like government treating people differently because of their economic levels, something that we are generally supposed to oppose. This really bothers me lately -- I'm standing in the high speed PreCheck line and watching the woman with three kids try to keep them entertained in the slow main line. She's a lower threat profile than I am (male traveling alone), but I have the time and resources to go get the TSA interview. Something feels really wrong here.

  6. The real purpose of security checks? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTA:
    "the screenings were necessary to ensure passenger safety"

    I rather suspect the screenings are 'necessary' for two reasons having nothing to do with passenger safety:
    -- To further grow the thriving empire that is government-mandated security theatre, so more people can draw bigger salaries and have better job security as they pretend to contribute to the good of society.
    -- To expand and reinforce among the population the knee-jerk response of obedience to the dictates of authority, regardless of the pointlessness and impracticality of said dictates.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  7. ineffective security theater by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    how much longer are we going to put up with this ineffective security theater (search security breach TSA) that is but a total waste of time?

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
    1. Re:ineffective security theater by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Until the voters vote for change. And no, "hope and change" from a mainstream candidate is neither.

    2. Re: ineffective security theater by Luthair · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Forever, no politician wants to cancel it and something to happen whether the TSA would have prevented it or not

    3. Re: ineffective security theater by elcor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Politicians work for us. They do respond to requests, just contact your representative or shut the hell up.

    4. Re:ineffective security theater by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Informative

      Forever, probably. The crazy thing is that at virtually any airport outside the United States of Total Paranoia you can clear security in 5-10 minutes, no queues, with no more (or less) terrorist attacks than in the USTP.

    5. Re: ineffective security theater by thesupraman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The suppliers and consultants working for TSA pay for their campaigns.. You annoy then with letters or emails then vote however you want.
      Who so you think they will side with exactly?
      Welcome to democracy 2.0

    6. Re:ineffective security theater by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      None of the two parties want Trump, yet here he sits, the presumed candidate for a major party, and polling with a reasonable chance of winning. He could afford the buy-in without "permission" and had enough popular support to upset many.

      The problem is the voters are dumb.

  8. Re:Open the gates by radarskiy · · Score: 2

    A slight modification that I would suggest is to pass people by random number generator with a dynamically scaled threshold. This prevents a DoS by just packing the line with a sudden surge of confederates, and it also normalized the fact that some people don't get searched at all.

  9. TSA wastes more human life than terrorists could by Kludge · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Flights per year in US: 800x 10^6. Assume 2/3 of those go through TSA.
    Average time spent in line at TSA: 20 minutes
    Average human lifetime: 40 x 10^6 minutes
    800 x 10^6 * 2/3 * 20 minutes / (40 x 10^6) = 267 human lifetimes

    The TSA wastes at least 270 human lives every year. Even if we had no security at airports, terrorists would never kill that many people EVERY year.
    That does not even factor in the billions of dollars that it costs to run the TSA.

  10. You must be new here by raymorris · · Score: 2

    You must be new here (earth). For most of my life, airport security was by private contractors hired by companies that want your business- airlines and airports. There wasn't a two hour wait and cost was far lower.

    It's interesting to me that so many people guess what might happen if ______ (something that's happened a lot). We know exactly how private security works, we had it for decades. A lot like people who make predictions about the effect of ignoring the second amendment- we don't have to guess, gun bans have been done numerous times in numerous places and we know what the results have been.

  11. Re:TSA wastes more human life than terrorists coul by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You forgot the extra 500 deaths due to people driving rather than flying, which is more dangerous on average.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  12. That is why, but you need not wait by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    I'm sure that's why a lot of people do not sign up for pre-check, because the wait to get an interview seems way to long.

    In reality though you can do it pretty much any day, you just may have to wait a bit longer - just show up and say you'd like an interview, there are often openings as the interviews are pretty short and they usually have time between each one.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:That is why, but you need not wait by Ingenium13 · · Score: 2

      Yeah my pre-check "interview" (if you can even call it that) was at most 5 minutes. Walked in, said hi, showed my passport, then placed both hands on the glass fingerprint readers. Done. They said I should have my KTN within 24 hours, and by the time I got home and checked it was already there.

  13. Instead of contemplation, just tell me. by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's an idea for the people who seem to love to spend money on technology - have a system where I can take a look at the current (and expected) wait times before I leave for airport.

    While I'd still hate long waits, right now I have no idea if I'm going to be done in 10 minutes, or an hour. Maybe you could tell us? I'm sure you will come up with a "security" reason why us plebs shouldn't know how long the lines are going to be, and instead have to guesstimate the wait time.

    It might in fact work out better if you use an appointment type system - recently I was in line with a person who had come to the airport two hours before his flight, and someone whose flight was going to depart in the next 15 minutes. When you make wait times unpredictable, you are creating these type of situations.

  14. Re:How can I get in on this? by mspohr · · Score: 2

    This is standard Republican neoliberal economics.
    1. Cut funding for a government service.
    2. Service deteriorates.
    3. Privatize the service (of course, it's much more expensive now but that's OK since it's going to private corporations.)

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  15. Former road warrior here. by hey! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I used to spend almost half my time on the road. I used to have nightmares about air travel, but it was never about plane crashes, it was about horrible mess-ups on the ground -- delayed or canceled flight causing me to miss my connection. That kind of thing.

    Then a funny thing happened: sooner or later all of my nightmares ended up coming true.

    I've missed key meetings with clients because the airlines couldn't get me to my destination on the appointed day. I've spent the night trying to sleep sitting up at Chicago Midway. I once spent 23 hours and 53 minutes in the loving embrace of the air travel system, just to cross the continental United States. I've flown across the continent sandwiched between two sweaty three hundred pound men, and I'm no lightweight myself. I've flown to Chile on a ten hour flight that allowed smoking. I was supposed to be on the flight that flew into the South Tower of the WTC on 9/11, but my trips was cancelled at the last minute so I could attend a bullshit meeting at Oracle in Nashua NH, which of course didn't happen because we spent the whole day glued to the TV in the conference room.

    After having had almost every kind of bad air travel thing that can happen short of a crash or a hijacking, and having dodged one very major bullet, I just take all the crap air travel throws at me in stride. Flying will always be unreliable and inconvenient. Oh, you can learn the tricks of the trade, like "Never book an itinerary that involves Newark in any way," but there's no way to get around the fact that flying will always be inconvenient and unreliable, because the airlines will always promise more than they can deliver. So you show up ridiculously early in case of security snafus, bring plenty of stuff to read, and roll with the punches. It's like Hamlet said: there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. A screwed up itinerary is just an opportunity to catch up on my reading.

    The poster is right: if you have any option other than flying, choose that instead. I'll even take a four hour bus ride over a one hour flight, provided it's a non-stop bus. But if you have to fly, you just have to put up with it, because it'll never get much better than it is now. Sure, the TSA should fix their manpower problem, but even if they do flying will never be like what airlines promise it will be.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  16. Re:Another solution by Mr.CRC · · Score: 2

    The problem is a 3rd party. The airlines should be responsible for security. They have the incentive to not loose planes, and not have their company liquidated to cover liability for loss of life due to negligent security practices leading to a major catastrophe. Of course it was the Feds who took that liability away.

    We mess up the incentives and then wonder why society is broken--only to try and solve it with further distortions. We really have no idea what we are doing.

  17. All this is done on purpose by elcor · · Score: 2

    Problem-Reaction-Solution. They cause the problem by cutting budget, our reaction is what we get now. They will soon come with solutions such as biometrics, private contractors which are not bound by law etc... Time to contact your senators - in drove and saturate them with firm requests to do the right thing. And remember: the heads of the TSA are all ex-military. So in essence civilians are answering to militaries.

  18. Re:How can I get in on this? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know; competition very often produces much better results for a better price.

    The ground reality is that there will be very little competition for such contracts - the TSA replacement initiative will be created/overseen by politicians (the airlines/airports can't arbitrarily decide to switch to private providers, as far as I know), and they are going to write language/requirements so that only one (or at most a few) companies are capable of handling the project. There will be very little true competition - it basically will look like the US internet situation today. If more than one company can meet the requirements, they'll divvy up the market between themselves (mostly geographically) to avoid directly competing.

  19. Budget shenanigans by andymadigan · · Score: 2

    "In the past three years, the TSA and Congress cut the number of front-line screeners by 4,622 -- or about 10% -- on expectations that an expedited screening program called PreCheck would speed up the lines. However, not enough people enrolled for TSA to realize the anticipated efficiencies."

    So, really, this was just congress cooking the books with the budget by cutting something that would have to be restored. PreCheck (or, rather, the Trusted Traveler programs that give you access to PreCheck) require an in-person interview. Last time I checked, the next available appointment at SFO (the only location for this in the Bay Area) was November! Plenty of people have signed up, but there isn't enough capacity to process the applications.

    Congress should have realized that enrolling millions of people in a new program would require significant funding.

    --
    The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
  20. Re:Wrong disease by rtb61 · · Score: 2

    So when exactly are you going to apply for a job as a TSA screening officer, they are looking for 768, after all it is like winning the lottery or are you just bullshitting. So people should be banned from joining unions or perhaps having a government jobs means becoming a second class citizen with less rights or well, seriously. Perhaps you can just kick a random fireman, soldier or policemen in the nuts for you jollies, as they do not deserve the protection of unions and they should be regularly 'sacrificed?', seriously.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  21. What a maroon by s.petry · · Score: 2

    So when exactly are you going to apply for a job as a TSA screening officer, they are looking for 768, after all it is like winning the lottery or are you just bullshitting.

    What a foolish question. Why would I take a starter job anywhere for any reason? Not everyone on Slashdot is young enough to do so. Now if these jobs existed 3x years ago do you think I'd have served in the Army? Do you think I'd have struggled to put myself through 8 years of College as a restaurant manager instead of taking a TSA job? You are not performing mental gymnastics, you are just being a stupid prick.

    So people should be banned from joining unions or perhaps having a government jobs means becoming a second class citizen with less rights or well, seriously.

    Awe, is someone so enraged that they can't hold a single concept for more than a second? Government jobs should not be allowed to unionize, it's very specific very intentionally. That same opinion and all of the warnings about the dangers can be found as far back as President Hoover. Milton Friedman warned of the same a bit more eloquently. You being too stupid to read has nothing to do with your broken logic and appeal to emotion. Government service, like "Government" can not be treated the same as personal business.

    Perhaps you can just kick a random fireman, soldier or policemen in the nuts for you jollies, as they do not deserve the protection of unions and they should be regularly 'sacrificed?', seriously.

    Talk about absurdity, yes... I think that anyone I don't like should be thrown into the volcano to be sacrificed. You first.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  22. Re:Stil a maroon by pnutjam · · Score: 2

    UCMJ, Article 138 (Chapter 13), protects a soldier's right to complain and request correction of a grievance against his commander.

    Your other rants are just an asshole being an asshole. You can't get away with that shit in the civilian world. None of it would get you in Leavenworth, just dishonorably discharged. That will warn others that your an asshole with poor impulse control.

    I actually started the procedure to get into West Point, but was bumped because of my poor eyesight. I have brothers who serve and my Father and Father-in-law both retired from the military.

    You should really sit in a corner and think about how you can be a better person, but since nobody is there to make you, you'll just keep being a huge asshole. I'm sorry you have to live with someone like you.