4 ms·

I don't know about that. The person who flies once or twice a year probably don't care that much and appreciate the security theatre- all part of the drama of

by brc 16y ago

I don't know about that. The person who flies once or twice a year probably don't care that much and appreciate the security theatre- all part of the drama of flying. Definitely those that never fly would support unlimited security restriction - like those who don't work support higher taxes. I recently was at a conference, and was pulling my old laptop from my bag. I joked to some people standing around that I use my old laptop in case the TSA decide they like it more than I do. One person looked at me seriously and said 'why would they do that'. I responded with 'well, it's not like anything they do makes any sense at all'. Most people laughed at my joke but that one person looked offended. I'm guessing that person was the visible representative of a population who thinks the TSA is doing important work and actually improving things. I don't know what the answer is. Everyone is painted into a corner by this : any politician that mentions disbanding the TSA is going to be slammed by opponents for being soft on terrorism. Soon enough the TSA employees will have a srong union and lobby against any changes and actually ask for more. The only way around would be an eventual change in technology that busts the old paradigm apart - like a new way of getting onto planes, or a whole new transport system. If you look at shipping, there are practices and laws which date back 400 years. I don't think all this cruft being attached to air travel is ever going away. Maybe with another big war when there is not enough resources or something. 'TSA abandoned for war effort' - that type of thing.

loewenskind 16y ago
>like those who don't work support higher taxes. Warren Buffet doesn't work? >any politician that mentions disbanding the TSA is going to be slammed by opponents for being soft on terrorism. Has the TSA ever stopped even a single real threat? Ever? If they haven't [1] then how could disbanding them be seen as being soft on terrorism. Nothing they do appears to actually be related to terrorism. [1] I can't remember anything. All the bombings I've heard about got past them. And I hope no one starts this nonsensical "oh they stop hundreds, we just never hear about because they're so good!" nonsense. These are clearly "bottom of the barrel" workers.
- brc 16y ago
  The premise was that nobody but people who work support higher taxes. It was that people who don't work probably support higher taxes, because they get benefits with no cost to them personally. It doesn't matter what the TSA does - the fact is they were invented as a response to terrorism. Thus removing them would be an opportunity for an opposing politician to use the attack of 'being soft on terrorism'. I think the TSA should be abandoned - I shudder to think of the lost actual dollars in funding, as well as the lost productivity of millions of air travelers going through a couple of minutes of invasive screening. As for 'prevention' - many western nations have been victims of Terrorism attacks since 2001 - including the UK and Spain. None of these countries have/use TSA style screening or restrictions. None have had an airline-based terror attack since. That should tell you about the need for the TSA.
vaksel 16y ago
Fun fact, defense spending was always criticized and cuts were always proposed, even at the height of cold war. But since 9/11, it's never considered because proposing something like that would label you as soft on terror.

by brc 16y ago

loewenskind 16y ago

>like those who don't work support higher taxes. Warren Buffet doesn't work? >any politician that mentions disbanding the TSA is going to be slammed by opponents for being soft on terrorism. Has the TSA ever stopped even a single real threat? Ever? If they haven't [1] then how could disbanding them be seen as being soft on terrorism. Nothing they do appears to actually be related to terrorism. [1] I can't remember anything. All the bombings I've heard about got past them. And I hope no one starts this nonsensical "oh they stop hundreds, we just never hear about because they're so good!" nonsense. These are clearly "bottom of the barrel" workers.

brc 16y ago
The premise was that nobody but people who work support higher taxes. It was that people who don't work probably support higher taxes, because they get benefits with no cost to them personally. It doesn't matter what the TSA does - the fact is they were invented as a response to terrorism. Thus removing them would be an opportunity for an opposing politician to use the attack of 'being soft on terrorism'. I think the TSA should be abandoned - I shudder to think of the lost actual dollars in funding, as well as the lost productivity of millions of air travelers going through a couple of minutes of invasive screening. As for 'prevention' - many western nations have been victims of Terrorism attacks since 2001 - including the UK and Spain. None of these countries have/use TSA style screening or restrictions. None have had an airline-based terror attack since. That should tell you about the need for the TSA.

vaksel 16y ago

Fun fact, defense spending was always criticized and cuts were always proposed, even at the height of cold war. But since 9/11, it's never considered because proposing something like that would label you as soft on terror.