> Interesting, one of the by-standers, who helped hold the gunman down, said he was white and clean shaven. > Where did you hear he was hispanic?
Crap. Who said that? I thought we had screened everyone on-site and they were supposed to say he was Hispanic and had a big beard.
Damage control? Who's doing damage control on this? Sarah-- can you send one of your tanning beds down to the jail?, we need to get some color on that boys cheeks before we have him shot in front of the cameras.
So restrict handguns or something. I've got four rifles in the gun case on the farm-- they're remarkably effective at changing the mind of a 1200-pound bull, and would work for anyone bullheaded enough to come on the property without permission, but don't lend themselves well to concealment.
You make a valid point-- violence in US society is not JUST about guns, but, about, for instance, the continued ghettoization of blacks-- but I fail to see how this disturbed young man could have punched and kicked six people to death in the course of 30 seconds, and critical injured 20. At least, it would have required some more planning on his part.
Your narrative engages in a common but ultimately naive whitewashing, which is the story that genocides happen when the people are deprived of rights and a big, bad authoritarian government forces people into the trenches.
While attractive for its ability to keep people asleep at night and its praise of The People, it's also a Big Lie. The Holocaust did not happen just because of the Nazis; every place and people across Europe engaged, without much State co-ordination, in the persecution and murder of ethnic minorities in the lead-up to and course of the Second World War. No big bad monster in leather and heels was needed; people were quite glad to slaughter their neighbors if they could, if there was no one to stop them of punish them.
Or are you familiar with the Terror in France? When hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen, were gleefully put to death by their fellow countrymen, with the help of Mr. Guillotine? Such was the work of 'the People!'
However, in Israel, while I trust the 18-year old woman sitting next to me with my life, it isn't as if she's just toting around an Uzi for fun. She's a member of the armed forces; her weapon is officially issued to her for that time; all the ammo is logged and checked; unauthorized use, as far as I know, is next to unheard of, though there have been a few, minor incidents. Israel is safe because of the presence of arms, but also because those who hold them are serious, trained and disciplined-- and have a respect for life that is often overlooked from the outside.
A congresswoman gunned down in front of her constituents is an enormous tragedy-- but also one which reveals the moral failures of the United States. This young man should have never had a gun in his hand; someone should have noticed. Surely Israel can't insure that similar acts never happen-- but we come a lot close, and I like to think, despite all the internal conflicts, by occasionally putting principles above all.
Well-- look, I once had a guy who spent the afternoon drinking at the local pub try to take his lorry home, plowing it into the back of my car when I slowed to turn (he evidently was totally unaware), spinning us three times until we hit a retaining fence and, fortunately, we did not clear the fence nor did our fuel tank explode, though the rear of the car was ripped in two and if the front had been what hit the wall, we likely would have been splattered along it.
I'm not in favor of drunken driving. I'm just in no way convinced that these methods are in any way effective, and I don't trust law enforcement that has a financial or zealotry stake, and whose end seems punative, or anything else than effectively removing impaired drivers from the road.
I'd be perfectly fine if officers showed up at every bar, pub and public establishment that served alcohol, and simply prevented people who are impaired from driving. Makes a lot of sense to me, if they don't abuse people and seek anything but the practical goal.
In the above case, the officer who arrived actually let the lorry driver wait and sober up, before administering a breathalyzer.
I've also lived in a number of jurisdictions where I've seen the bartender literally run out and stop people if they heard they were going to drive after a few drinks-- and in others, where there are plenty of 'random' drunk driving stops, and people getting arrested and charged on pretty flimsy evidence, where it seems to me there's no effective disincentive, because people seem to conclude, "it doesn't really matter if I'm drinking or no, I'm still going to get pulled over and arrested, and my chances are pretty low."
I'm saying this is ineffective and from what I've seen, ripe for abuse of all kinds. Sure, only a fool wants people who might kill someone, on the road. But there's plenty of room, for these things to turn into abuse of citizens and rights, while at the same time, it's darn hard to get the,multiple offender who gets into a five ton dump after drinking a bottle of vodka-- that happened here in where I am-- and plows into a family of three.
And as I see it, if you're not getting your priorities right, and finding a way to stop the people who are causing the real damage, and instead harassing citizens with ineffective procedure-- then you're somewhere along the spectrum from not doing anything effective, to actually threatening our freedoms and making the problem worse.
I flow over a half-million miles or so, but only flown SWA two or three times. I don't remember them being particularly bad or good. The pitch between seats can be annoying, but AA, DL, F9, to think of recent flights, all have issues.
If you're well over six feet, you notice this, but I'm not old enough (yet) to not be able to rough it for a four-hour flight.
My sense is SWA is also more creative with a seat layout.
My sense, from being a premier flyer on some airlines, is that the people paying full fair to sit next to me in First (I usually had the travel office book the cheapest fare, and upgraded) were either rich enough not to care about $1000, or flying on the corporate wallet.
For an 8-hour international flight, I'd pay a reasonable premium for the stretch seats-- my pay grade isn't high enough, for the lay downs. The idea that some airlines (AA... ) are trying to charge the same amount, for an extra inch of pitch on a short domestic flight... these guys are just burning goodwill and any remaining brand loyalty.
The people behind the counter are almost always overworked and underpaid, and my advice is always treat them like gold, and they'll treat you well in turn. If there is an available premium seat available during the last ten minutes of boarding, for instance, a gate agent will almost always give it to you if asked nicely and if she/he has the authority.
It has been FAA policy that all PAX must have their seatbelts fastened since an AA plane encountered sudden and heavy microturbulence out of what I believe was San Diego in 1996, leaving multiple passengers who had not worn seatbelts with permanent damage after they slammed into the overhead compartments.
I would have asked the crew to ask the pilot what was up-- for all you know, the microturbulence warning indicator was on for the entire flight. But for all you know, he forgot or was having a drink with his buddy.
I'll agree, AA is no fun, but having been on them several times in the past 18 months, I don't think your assertion about keeping the seating light on "rule" is correct:)
Travel agents still exist in Europe and elsewhere-- it amazes me that they do.
I get the feeling that AA doesn't realize that that age, has passed. I think it was AA's chair, sometime past, who while contemplating a bailout for the industry, stated that AA's business was still providing luxury, not transport. SouthWest's chair shot back that this was ridiculous-- often, the difference between profitability and loss for a SWA flight was the four seats they had found a was to squeeze in the back of the plane.
All this at a time when AA was losing money on each and every PAX.
Because South Korea is such a great example of democracy and liberty... how you like living in advanced fascism, my friend, where a cop can knock on your window and demand that you... well, do whatever they tell you, including blow your brains out? Where your 'Chairman' can order the massacre of 30,000 dissidents, and the CIA will help clean up? Fine example you have there!
There are proxy drivers in the US-- they come with a scooter that folds up and goes in your trunk. Costs about the same or more than a cab, which also costs more than the night out in a lot of places. Personally I think that if the US was rational, they'd just have cops will breathalyzers outside of bars, and stop everyone before they got into a car and check, and make sure they got home without driving drunk if they were impaired.
But that, you know, wouldn't be the US, and wouldn't produce revenue for police departments and jails, and wouldn't fund self-righteous do-gooders like MADD. Because in the the US, there's always that off chance that someone else might be enjoying their life and liberty, and the Protestant Ethic, you know, demands that we do something about that.
No response from UID 125? Hmm. Let's do this again.
I did RTFA. The summary sucks. The summary is misleading and downright pathetic.
I made a smart-ass comment about it.
-1, "I don't like your opinion" is not one of the options. Under current conditions, things do not "work out." People who post pointed, dissenting opinions will get modded down consistently.
Of course, all one needs to do to restore karma in return, is post better stupid jokes at the top of threads-- just being careful that they don't step on and consistituency's fragile toes.
Fuck that. But/. is edging towards the reign of idiots.
You are aware that in certain jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, there is so-called "zero tolerance" for drinking and driving-- which means, you have a glass of wine, you drive home, you're pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint, you tell an officer you drink alcohol at dinner, you go to jail, even if you would have blow "ZERO"?
Your point is logically consistent, but irrelevant and demonstrates that you think my freedoms should be restricted in the name of your zealotry. I should not have to take a cab to not be arrested by your Gestapo. And in response to your zealotry, I'm not "grasping at straws." I'm concluding that the only way for freedom-loving Americans to deal with fools such as you and the 'MADD' woman here, begins at the ballot box, but is rapidly proceeding to the need for the bullet box.
Tolerance only goes so far-- which is to say, if your intent is to restrict my freedom, I'm perfectly willing to accept that our freedom must be renewed with the blood of patriots from time to time, and that implies putting a knife in your gut if you don't give up in your attempt to restrict the rights of others.
You can't prove that... but I can prove, quite easily, that officers in multiple jurisdictions have arrested taxi passengers for public intoxication. As well as (for example) in Austin, walked into a bar and arrested *everyone* for PI; in Virginia, arrested someone for PI for drinking a beer on his porch.
You just have to love the combination of religious zealots, self-righteousness, and authoritarianism.
2) You change you brakes at fifty percent capacity because you check them by hand, or you change them when the squealer device goes off at 5% surface left-- or you ignore that and use the actual retaining cylinders, which will last a good month or two? In any of the latter, you're driving half gone about half the time.
Oh good grief. Go sit in Court in the morning, counselor, and look at the cases (with paid lawyers) thrown out, and look at why. Go talk to a DUI defense lawyer. I just LOVE people with no evidence. The reality is that people get pulled over and arrested, without having had a drink. All the time.
A breathalyzer measures particulate matter of particular types, usually only by size. Have acid reflux? Burp and stick a breathalyzer in your mouth. Good luck!
Are you sure of that? Do you have data that supports the assertion?
If you look at data state-by-state, the US tends to characterize any traffic fatality in which *anyone* involved in the incident-- including a passenger in the vehicle hit -- admits to consumption of alcohol within 24-48 hours of the accident, as "alcohol related." That means if a passenger in a vehicle hit by another vehicle speeding at 120mph says they had a half glass of wine *two days prior*, it's a drunk driving death in the US.
Good luck on finding any state which attempts to keep statistics on deaths when the responsible party was actually driving above a BAC limit-- that's too hard, and doesn't show what the zealots want to show.
Perhaps you live in a country where police are miraculously honest, and have the IQ necessary to calibrate a breathalyzer correctly, and would never miscalibrate the device, nor lie to meet quota, nor vindictively arrest college students and others because their religion tells them that any use of alcohol is evil.
My goodness. I was under the mistaken impression that the Soviet Union collapsed two decades ago. My mistake. Interesting to meet you, tovarich. How much do you have to bribe the judge, to get out of the falsified breathalyzer results, in your county?
Heh. In most of the US, you are presumed guilty of DUI if you have a drink anywhere, and certainly if you drive through a checkpoint and can't afford a lawyer. Much more so, if you're dumb enough to drive by a corrupt/fascist police officer.
More seriously, the presumption you list is a part of the law of almost every state in the US, it's just been challenged successfully in some jurisdictions by some lawyers. For money (which can grease the system), of course.
I think you're mostly right, but this is also probably a good time to drag out Asimov's "never attribute to malice, what can reasonably be explained by incompetence."
In my experience, however, incompetence leads to malice afterthoughs in terms of cover-up; if the US could mount a competent security regime, all the Shock, Fear, Uncertainly, Doubt and Awe wouldn't be necessary.
I flew from Ben Gurion last month. It went about as usual:
1) It took more than an hour from arrival at the front door, to the gate.
2) There were no "four security checkpoints."
3) Of note, my baggage did not undergo the deep scan that occurs at US airport, because I was actually who I said I was and traveling on non-terrorist business, a fact that any intelligent person could ascertain by talking to me for ten minutes.
Etc. By point two you had established that you have no actual knowledge of what you're talking about, that is, security procedures in Israel.
That said, as El Al's former head of security put it last month (reported right here on/.), Israel succeeds by looking for the terrorist, not the bomb. Every passenger is interviewed (usually once) by someone who is educated, and intelligent enough to detect if you are who you say you are, doing what you say you're doing-- not by ignorant TSA boob high-school dropouts.
These people are actually trained, and their procedures are continually tested and refined. If they fail to detect a team making a "test run" of the system, something is done to analyze and correct the problem and if the person who let them through was the point of failure, they are fired.
In comparison, the TSA are a bunch of incompetent boobs, which, after all, seems to be the Best America Can Offer the World, these days.
Slashdot Mirror
> Interesting, one of the by-standers, who helped hold the gunman down, said he was white and clean shaven.
> Where did you hear he was hispanic?
Crap. Who said that? I thought we had screened everyone on-site and they were supposed to say he was Hispanic and had a big beard.
Damage control? Who's doing damage control on this? Sarah-- can you send one of your tanning beds down to the jail?, we need to get some color on that boys cheeks before we have him shot in front of the cameras.
So restrict handguns or something. I've got four rifles in the gun case on the farm-- they're remarkably effective at changing the mind of a 1200-pound bull, and would work for anyone bullheaded enough to come on the property without permission, but don't lend themselves well to concealment.
You make a valid point-- violence in US society is not JUST about guns, but, about, for instance, the continued ghettoization of blacks-- but I fail to see how this disturbed young man could have punched and kicked six people to death in the course of 30 seconds, and critical injured 20. At least, it would have required some more planning on his part.
Your narrative engages in a common but ultimately naive whitewashing, which is the story that genocides happen when the people are deprived of rights and a big, bad authoritarian government forces people into the trenches.
While attractive for its ability to keep people asleep at night and its praise of The People, it's also a Big Lie. The Holocaust did not happen just because of the Nazis; every place and people across Europe engaged, without much State co-ordination, in the persecution and murder of ethnic minorities in the lead-up to and course of the Second World War. No big bad monster in leather and heels was needed; people were quite glad to slaughter their neighbors if they could, if there was no one to stop them of punish them.
Or are you familiar with the Terror in France? When hundreds of thousands of Frenchmen, were gleefully put to death by their fellow countrymen, with the help of Mr. Guillotine? Such was the work of 'the People!'
However, in Israel, while I trust the 18-year old woman sitting next to me with my life, it isn't as if she's just toting around an Uzi for fun. She's a member of the armed forces; her weapon is officially issued to her for that time; all the ammo is logged and checked; unauthorized use, as far as I know, is next to unheard of, though there have been a few, minor incidents. Israel is safe because of the presence of arms, but also because those who hold them are serious, trained and disciplined-- and have a respect for life that is often overlooked from the outside.
A congresswoman gunned down in front of her constituents is an enormous tragedy-- but also one which reveals the moral failures of the United States. This young man should have never had a gun in his hand; someone should have noticed. Surely Israel can't insure that similar acts never happen-- but we come a lot close, and I like to think, despite all the internal conflicts, by occasionally putting principles above all.
Well-- look, I once had a guy who spent the afternoon drinking at the local pub try to take his lorry home, plowing it into the back of my car when I slowed to turn (he evidently was totally unaware), spinning us three times until we hit a retaining fence and, fortunately, we did not clear the fence nor did our fuel tank explode, though the rear of the car was ripped in two and if the front had been what hit the wall, we likely would have been splattered along it.
I'm not in favor of drunken driving. I'm just in no way convinced that these methods are in any way effective, and I don't trust law enforcement that has a financial or zealotry stake, and whose end seems punative, or anything else than effectively removing impaired drivers from the road.
I'd be perfectly fine if officers showed up at every bar, pub and public establishment that served alcohol, and simply prevented people who are impaired from driving. Makes a lot of sense to me, if they don't abuse people and seek anything but the practical goal.
In the above case, the officer who arrived actually let the lorry driver wait and sober up, before administering a breathalyzer.
I've also lived in a number of jurisdictions where I've seen the bartender literally run out and stop people if they heard they were going to drive after a few drinks-- and in others, where there are plenty of 'random' drunk driving stops, and people getting arrested and charged on pretty flimsy evidence, where it seems to me there's no effective disincentive, because people seem to conclude, "it doesn't really matter if I'm drinking or no, I'm still going to get pulled over and arrested, and my chances are pretty low."
I'm saying this is ineffective and from what I've seen, ripe for abuse of all kinds. Sure, only a fool wants people who might kill someone, on the road. But there's plenty of room, for these things to turn into abuse of citizens and rights, while at the same time, it's darn hard to get the ,multiple offender who gets into a five ton dump after drinking a bottle of vodka-- that happened here in where I am-- and plows into a family of three.
And as I see it, if you're not getting your priorities right, and finding a way to stop the people who are causing the real damage, and instead harassing citizens with ineffective procedure-- then you're somewhere along the spectrum from not doing anything effective, to actually threatening our freedoms and making the problem worse.
I flow over a half-million miles or so, but only flown SWA two or three times. I don't remember them being particularly bad or good. The pitch between seats can be annoying, but AA, DL, F9, to think of recent flights, all have issues.
If you're well over six feet, you notice this, but I'm not old enough (yet) to not be able to rough it for a four-hour flight.
My sense is SWA is also more creative with a seat layout.
My sense, from being a premier flyer on some airlines, is that the people paying full fair to sit next to me in First (I usually had the travel office book the cheapest fare, and upgraded) were either rich enough not to care about $1000, or flying on the corporate wallet.
For an 8-hour international flight, I'd pay a reasonable premium for the stretch seats-- my pay grade isn't high enough, for the lay downs. The idea that some airlines (AA... ) are trying to charge the same amount, for an extra inch of pitch on a short domestic flight... these guys are just burning goodwill and any remaining brand loyalty.
The people behind the counter are almost always overworked and underpaid, and my advice is always treat them like gold, and they'll treat you well in turn. If there is an available premium seat available during the last ten minutes of boarding, for instance, a gate agent will almost always give it to you if asked nicely and if she/he has the authority.
My $.02, of course.
It has been FAA policy that all PAX must have their seatbelts fastened since an AA plane encountered sudden and heavy microturbulence out of what I believe was San Diego in 1996, leaving multiple passengers who had not worn seatbelts with permanent damage after they slammed into the overhead compartments.
I would have asked the crew to ask the pilot what was up-- for all you know, the microturbulence warning indicator was on for the entire flight. But for all you know, he forgot or was having a drink with his buddy.
I'll agree, AA is no fun, but having been on them several times in the past 18 months, I don't think your assertion about keeping the seating light on "rule" is correct :)
Travel agents still exist in Europe and elsewhere-- it amazes me that they do.
I get the feeling that AA doesn't realize that that age, has passed. I think it was AA's chair, sometime past, who while contemplating a bailout for the industry, stated that AA's business was still providing luxury, not transport. SouthWest's chair shot back that this was ridiculous-- often, the difference between profitability and loss for a SWA flight was the four seats they had found a was to squeeze in the back of the plane.
All this at a time when AA was losing money on each and every PAX.
Because South Korea is such a great example of democracy and liberty... how you like living in advanced fascism, my friend, where a cop can knock on your window and demand that you... well, do whatever they tell you, including blow your brains out? Where your 'Chairman' can order the massacre of 30,000 dissidents, and the CIA will help clean up? Fine example you have there!
There are proxy drivers in the US-- they come with a scooter that folds up and goes in your trunk. Costs about the same or more than a cab, which also costs more than the night out in a lot of places. Personally I think that if the US was rational, they'd just have cops will breathalyzers outside of bars, and stop everyone before they got into a car and check, and make sure they got home without driving drunk if they were impaired.
But that, you know, wouldn't be the US, and wouldn't produce revenue for police departments and jails, and wouldn't fund self-righteous do-gooders like MADD. Because in the the US, there's always that off chance that someone else might be enjoying their life and liberty, and the Protestant Ethic, you know, demands that we do something about that.
No response from UID 125? Hmm. Let's do this again.
I did RTFA. The summary sucks. The summary is misleading and downright pathetic.
I made a smart-ass comment about it.
-1, "I don't like your opinion" is not one of the options. Under current conditions, things do not "work out." People who post pointed, dissenting opinions will get modded down consistently.
Of course, all one needs to do to restore karma in return, is post better stupid jokes at the top of threads-- just being careful that they don't step on and consistituency's fragile toes.
Fuck that. But /. is edging towards the reign of idiots.
You are aware that in certain jurisdictions, such as the District of Columbia, there is so-called "zero tolerance" for drinking and driving-- which means, you have a glass of wine, you drive home, you're pulled over or stopped at a checkpoint, you tell an officer you drink alcohol at dinner, you go to jail, even if you would have blow "ZERO"?
Your point is logically consistent, but irrelevant and demonstrates that you think my freedoms should be restricted in the name of your zealotry. I should not have to take a cab to not be arrested by your Gestapo. And in response to your zealotry, I'm not "grasping at straws." I'm concluding that the only way for freedom-loving Americans to deal with fools such as you and the 'MADD' woman here, begins at the ballot box, but is rapidly proceeding to the need for the bullet box.
Tolerance only goes so far-- which is to say, if your intent is to restrict my freedom, I'm perfectly willing to accept that our freedom must be renewed with the blood of patriots from time to time, and that implies putting a knife in your gut if you don't give up in your attempt to restrict the rights of others.
Got the argument? I suspect not.
You can't prove that... but I can prove, quite easily, that officers in multiple jurisdictions have arrested taxi passengers for public intoxication. As well as (for example) in Austin, walked into a bar and arrested *everyone* for PI; in Virginia, arrested someone for PI for drinking a beer on his porch.
You just have to love the combination of religious zealots, self-righteousness, and authoritarianism.
1) You're simply wrong about 50% degradation.
2) You change you brakes at fifty percent capacity because you check them by hand, or you change them when the squealer device goes off at 5% surface left-- or you ignore that and use the actual retaining cylinders, which will last a good month or two? In any of the latter, you're driving half gone about half the time.
Slashdot: confederation of idiots.
Oh good grief. Go sit in Court in the morning, counselor, and look at the cases (with paid lawyers) thrown out, and look at why. Go talk to a DUI defense lawyer. I just LOVE people with no evidence. The reality is that people get pulled over and arrested, without having had a drink. All the time.
A breathalyzer measures particulate matter of particular types, usually only by size. Have acid reflux? Burp and stick a breathalyzer in your mouth. Good luck!
Lassen Sie mir bitte eine kleine Gefahr, zu erraten, dass Sie in Bayern leben.
In which case your kind once displayed quite a lot of popular support for a number of other propositions, mein Freund.
Are you sure of that? Do you have data that supports the assertion?
If you look at data state-by-state, the US tends to characterize any traffic fatality in which *anyone* involved in the incident-- including a passenger in the vehicle hit -- admits to consumption of alcohol within 24-48 hours of the accident, as "alcohol related." That means if a passenger in a vehicle hit by another vehicle speeding at 120mph says they had a half glass of wine *two days prior*, it's a drunk driving death in the US.
Good luck on finding any state which attempts to keep statistics on deaths when the responsible party was actually driving above a BAC limit-- that's too hard, and doesn't show what the zealots want to show.
Perhaps you live in a country where police are miraculously honest, and have the IQ necessary to calibrate a breathalyzer correctly, and would never miscalibrate the device, nor lie to meet quota, nor vindictively arrest college students and others because their religion tells them that any use of alcohol is evil.
That country is not the United States.
My goodness. I was under the mistaken impression that the Soviet Union collapsed two decades ago. My mistake. Interesting to meet you, tovarich. How much do you have to bribe the judge, to get out of the falsified breathalyzer results, in your county?
Heh. In most of the US, you are presumed guilty of DUI if you have a drink anywhere, and certainly if you drive through a checkpoint and can't afford a lawyer. Much more so, if you're dumb enough to drive by a corrupt/fascist police officer.
More seriously, the presumption you list is a part of the law of almost every state in the US, it's just been challenged successfully in some jurisdictions by some lawyers. For money (which can grease the system), of course.
Linda G Unfried
626 Druid Hills Rd
Temple Terrace, FL 33617-3861
(813) 980-0051
Age: 60-64
Household: Karl L Unfried
Bill,
I think you're mostly right, but this is also probably a good time to drag out Asimov's "never attribute to malice, what can reasonably be explained by incompetence."
In my experience, however, incompetence leads to malice afterthoughs in terms of cover-up; if the US could mount a competent security regime, all the Shock, Fear, Uncertainly, Doubt and Awe wouldn't be necessary.
I flew from Ben Gurion last month. It went about as usual:
1) It took more than an hour from arrival at the front door, to the gate.
2) There were no "four security checkpoints."
3) Of note, my baggage did not undergo the deep scan that occurs at US airport, because I was actually who I said I was and traveling on non-terrorist business, a fact that any intelligent person could ascertain by talking to me for ten minutes.
Etc. By point two you had established that you have no actual knowledge of what you're talking about, that is, security procedures in Israel.
That said, as El Al's former head of security put it last month (reported right here on /.), Israel succeeds by looking for the terrorist, not the bomb. Every passenger is interviewed (usually once) by someone who is educated, and intelligent enough to detect if you are who you say you are, doing what you say you're doing-- not by ignorant TSA boob high-school dropouts.
These people are actually trained, and their procedures are continually tested and refined. If they fail to detect a team making a "test run" of the system, something is done to analyze and correct the problem and if the person who let them through was the point of failure, they are fired.
In comparison, the TSA are a bunch of incompetent boobs, which, after all, seems to be the Best America Can Offer the World, these days.
They are not *my* insulting Police Academy dropouts. Perhaps they are *your* insulting Police Academy dropouts, but they are not *mine*, thank you.