4 ms·

> If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security. Battli

by daeken 14y ago

> If the Senator wants to put her attention somewhere related to aviation, I would think there are more interesting issues surrounding airport security. Battling the TSA is political suicide right now, by and large. Might as well make some positive change with the power you have, rather than fighting a battle you know you can't win. That's not to say that there won't be a time for the TSA to go away or dramatically change form, but I don't think that's now.

mtgx 14y ago
This is the problem with bad legislation. Once it's passed it can take 2 decades, which is quite a lot of a person's life, to change. We need governments that are a lot more responsive to bad policy, either through better use of data, to know exactly how the policy is doing in just a few short years, or through a much more fluid feedback system from the population - or both. Politicians are also heavily influenced by money in politics right now, and I'm not even talking about lobbying, which I think is legalized bribery and that's a huge other problem. I'm talking about corporations being able to ramp up media campaigns against them, and make them look bad in the public's eye because of a position they've taken, that the corporations do not like. This is why many politicians are afraid to even go against certain policies, unless they are pretty sure many others feel the same way, and they have a chance of winning. Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits, and they wouldn't have to worry about their "career in politics" as much, and would care much more about what impact they can have in the short time they are in Congress.
- derleth 14y ago
  > We need governments that are a lot more responsive to bad policy You say this like someone who doesn't know that everything they value the government doing, or not doing, can be cast as 'bad policy' by someone who owns a think tank. > a much more fluid feedback system from the population I think California's Proposition system is illustrative here. And, therefore, California's current budgetary crisis. > Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits Then the power would shift out of the hands of elected representatives and into the hands of unelected party bosses, because the elected officials wouldn't be able to develop the real-world experience needed to navigate the halls of power on their own.
temphn 14y ago
I disagree. The TSA is extremely unpopular and an attack on it could get a lot of positive press.
- seanmcdirmid 14y ago
  Yes. Given all the frustration with air travel these days, going after the TSA/FAA is definitely low hanging fruit for a politician. They don't have many friends.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  I don't think that's true. The TSA is unpopular, but it's seen as a necessary evil by most Americans. The average person has thoroughly bought into the government's propaganda that security theater serves some functional purposes.
patdennis 14y ago
CMC doesn't have an election for another six years, I wouldn't say it's suicide. On the other hand, you're right that she's not going to spend political capital on something she knows isn't going to go anywhere. Edit: To be clear, she could do it. She's on the Homeland Security committee. But she's a in a tough battleground state and it's she really has to pick her battles carefully

by daeken 14y ago

mtgx 14y ago

This is the problem with bad legislation. Once it's passed it can take 2 decades, which is quite a lot of a person's life, to change. We need governments that are a lot more responsive to bad policy, either through better use of data, to know exactly how the policy is doing in just a few short years, or through a much more fluid feedback system from the population - or both. Politicians are also heavily influenced by money in politics right now, and I'm not even talking about lobbying, which I think is legalized bribery and that's a huge other problem. I'm talking about corporations being able to ramp up media campaigns against them, and make them look bad in the public's eye because of a position they've taken, that the corporations do not like. This is why many politicians are afraid to even go against certain policies, unless they are pretty sure many others feel the same way, and they have a chance of winning. Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits, and they wouldn't have to worry about their "career in politics" as much, and would care much more about what impact they can have in the short time they are in Congress.

derleth 14y ago
> We need governments that are a lot more responsive to bad policy You say this like someone who doesn't know that everything they value the government doing, or not doing, can be cast as 'bad policy' by someone who owns a think tank. > a much more fluid feedback system from the population I think California's Proposition system is illustrative here. And, therefore, California's current budgetary crisis. > Maybe this problem would be ameliorated if there were short term limits Then the power would shift out of the hands of elected representatives and into the hands of unelected party bosses, because the elected officials wouldn't be able to develop the real-world experience needed to navigate the halls of power on their own.

temphn 14y ago

I disagree. The TSA is extremely unpopular and an attack on it could get a lot of positive press.

seanmcdirmid 14y ago
Yes. Given all the frustration with air travel these days, going after the TSA/FAA is definitely low hanging fruit for a politician. They don't have many friends.
w1ntermute 14y ago
I don't think that's true. The TSA is unpopular, but it's seen as a necessary evil by most Americans. The average person has thoroughly bought into the government's propaganda that security theater serves some functional purposes.

patdennis 14y ago

CMC doesn't have an election for another six years, I wouldn't say it's suicide. On the other hand, you're right that she's not going to spend political capital on something she knows isn't going to go anywhere. Edit: To be clear, she could do it. She's on the Homeland Security committee. But she's a in a tough battleground state and it's she really has to pick her battles carefully