5 ms·

Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of

by wahsd 13y ago

Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple. Let's also remember what genius methods and techniques the "terrorists" used to hijack some planes....they "smuggled" some box cutters on the plane. .... The END ... FIN I bet you if any one of you put a plastic craft blade, you know, the marker sized ones with the break away blades, in your carry on bag you would not be stopped or discovered; especially if you placed it with the blade on edge to the image. Here's a tip though, never, NEVER ever will another plane be hijacked by anyone else using those means. Not only did the "authorities" finally secure the cockpits like it had been pleaded for years prior to 9/11, but I can guarantee you that anyone even attempting would be ripped apart by the limbs. I, for one, don't care if you were able to smuggle a middle-earth battle axe on the plane; you will be dead within seconds of pulling some shit. That being said, I'm not quite certain if it has gotten any better, but just relatively recently it was still rather easy to access the runways and bays. Just saying, the phantoms we are fighting might get "genius" and pull of a "highly sophisticated plot" that my seven year old could plane and execute with just a tablet computer at their disposal.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple. The transfer of existing security responsibilities from airlines to the federal government wasn't a make-work program, it was a measure to eliminate potential airline liability for future security failures. It was about the economy, because reducing the airlines liability risk going forward was one of many steps taken to help the airline industry, but it wasn't primarily a "make-work" program.
- ams6110 13y ago
  It was also at least partly intended to streamline coordination of all the parties involved. You had various federal organizations under Treasury, DOJ, DOD, FBI, DOT, and others that were all silos. Sounds good on paper, merge them into one overall "DHS" and poof everything runs like a Swiss watch. Of course that never happens in reality. It was just an even bigger bureaucracy that still has a bunch of internal silo organizations.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Forming DHS was, at least notionally, about coordination. Moving airline security from private carriers to the federal government was about liability. Since it was a new internal security operation, it made sense to included it in the new internal security department. But since it wasn't a federal agency before, it wasn't really part of the coordination of existing federal agencies that motivated the creation of a new internal security department.
greedo 13y ago
Just a quick question. Why the scare quotes around terrorists? Are you disputing that that is what they were?
vidarh 13y ago
Meanwhile, one of my pet peeves is that while they stop small sharp items, I can, and do, carry my 1.2 meter umbrella with a solid wood handle and thick steel ribs. It would take about 10 minutes to reshape it into a sturdy pike. To be clear, I don't think they should stop them, but I do think that if you aim to stop sharp items with the excuse that they might be used as weapons, stopping something that can actually easily be turned into a fairly dangerous weapons ought to be top of the list. First time I was travelling with it, I went to check it in, and they looked at me as if I was stupid. Clearly no terrorist has tried to use a huge umbrella as a pike yet, so it's not yet a risk. If I was a terrorist, testing a suitable set of objects with enough sharpened metal pieces for whether or not they'd ask me to check them in would be trivial - any terrorists being stopped by their lack of ability to bring something sharp on are so dumb they'd be stopped by someone drawing a stop sign in crayons and insisting they're not allowed to pass. So the terrorists are either really stupid, there aren't that many of them, or they, like you, are smart enough to realise that they'd better have some pretty horrible weapons to be able to survive a hijack attempt in a post-9/11 world. In other words, it's not even about stopping sharp items, but about giving the appearance of stopping a suitable set of objects that will keep people concerned about terror threats. What about liquids? Pretty much every trip I end up forgetting some bottle or other of liquids, generally a half litre bottler of some drink, often because the mother of my child keeps putting bottles in his bag that I don't notice until after security. Not once have they been noticed at the security checks. So it's a show, as those who do want to get liquids past can just put them in their carry on and send it through with good odds of being able to walk straight on. If they cared, they'd do better. But they don't care, as this is not about stopping a viable plot, but about keeping up appearances. Meanwhile my 4 year old was picked out for secondary screening when we flew to visit my mother for christmas, without setting off the metal detectors, and had to pass his shoes through and go through the new scanners, and get patted down; I was furious, but didn't want to upset or scare him or risk messing up his christmas by making a fuss about it; and when we'd gone through, I found a full drinks bottle in his bag that they'd missed.
- foobarian 13y ago
  Why would terrorists need pikes on an airplane? There is no cavalry there.
twoodfin 13y ago
Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple. Initially, the Bush administration and the GOP resisted the creation of a Federal airport security service. They were not at all excited about a big new (particularly unionized) government workforce. But the Democrats fought for it and won that political argument. Here's a contemporaneous news account that covers the basics: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87570 http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=87570 How did you end up remembering it differently?
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  The GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate, and the linked article mentions begins by mentioning the unanimous passage of the bill in the Senate. The law in question was the Aviation Security Act. When it passed in the house, 136 Democrats voted against it (partly due to concerns about unionization eligibility), but only 2 Republicans and 1 independent did. So I don't think it's fair to say 'the GOP resisted the creation' of the TSA. As for the administration, transportation secretary Mineta wanted to federalize airport security from the outset. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml
  - twoodfin 13y ago
    The GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate... No, they didn't. By then, Senator Jim Jeffords had become an independent, caucusing with the Democrats and giving them a one-vote majority control of the chamber. Also, FWIW, Norm Mineta was the token Democrat in the Bush cabinet. And of course everyone voted for the bill once it was clear it would pass. Who wanted to be against enhanced airline security? I'm not saying the GOP put up the fight of the century on the TSA, far from it. But it's a mischaracterization of history to say that Bush demanded a dramatic expansion of the Federal workforce as some kind of economic smokescreen. If that were so, you'd expect to find accounts of Democrats at least raising token opposition to this brilliant political stratagem.
yetanotherphd 13y ago
The idea that the Bush administration created the TSA just to create jobs is ridiculous. There are much cheaper ways to create jobs (e.g. fixing highways), and much as people like to deride George Bush's intelligence, there is no way his administration would have created the TSA for such a stupid reason.

by wahsd 13y ago

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Let's all remember why the TSA was created; solely so the Bush administration could buffer the economic impact of their shit economic policy and the effects of the terrorist attacks that group of feeble minded simpletons played right into. It's a make-work program, plain and simple. The transfer of existing security responsibilities from airlines to the federal government wasn't a make-work program, it was a measure to eliminate potential airline liability for future security failures. It was about the economy, because reducing the airlines liability risk going forward was one of many steps taken to help the airline industry, but it wasn't primarily a "make-work" program.

ams6110 13y ago
It was also at least partly intended to streamline coordination of all the parties involved. You had various federal organizations under Treasury, DOJ, DOD, FBI, DOT, and others that were all silos. Sounds good on paper, merge them into one overall "DHS" and poof everything runs like a Swiss watch. Of course that never happens in reality. It was just an even bigger bureaucracy that still has a bunch of internal silo organizations.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Forming DHS was, at least notionally, about coordination. Moving airline security from private carriers to the federal government was about liability. Since it was a new internal security operation, it made sense to included it in the new internal security department. But since it wasn't a federal agency before, it wasn't really part of the coordination of existing federal agencies that motivated the creation of a new internal security department.

greedo 13y ago

Just a quick question. Why the scare quotes around terrorists? Are you disputing that that is what they were?

vidarh 13y ago

Meanwhile, one of my pet peeves is that while they stop small sharp items, I can, and do, carry my 1.2 meter umbrella with a solid wood handle and thick steel ribs. It would take about 10 minutes to reshape it into a sturdy pike. To be clear, I don't think they should stop them, but I do think that if you aim to stop sharp items with the excuse that they might be used as weapons, stopping something that can actually easily be turned into a fairly dangerous weapons ought to be top of the list. First time I was travelling with it, I went to check it in, and they looked at me as if I was stupid. Clearly no terrorist has tried to use a huge umbrella as a pike yet, so it's not yet a risk. If I was a terrorist, testing a suitable set of objects with enough sharpened metal pieces for whether or not they'd ask me to check them in would be trivial - any terrorists being stopped by their lack of ability to bring something sharp on are so dumb they'd be stopped by someone drawing a stop sign in crayons and insisting they're not allowed to pass. So the terrorists are either really stupid, there aren't that many of them, or they, like you, are smart enough to realise that they'd better have some pretty horrible weapons to be able to survive a hijack attempt in a post-9/11 world. In other words, it's not even about stopping sharp items, but about giving the appearance of stopping a suitable set of objects that will keep people concerned about terror threats. What about liquids? Pretty much every trip I end up forgetting some bottle or other of liquids, generally a half litre bottler of some drink, often because the mother of my child keeps putting bottles in his bag that I don't notice until after security. Not once have they been noticed at the security checks. So it's a show, as those who do want to get liquids past can just put them in their carry on and send it through with good odds of being able to walk straight on. If they cared, they'd do better. But they don't care, as this is not about stopping a viable plot, but about keeping up appearances. Meanwhile my 4 year old was picked out for secondary screening when we flew to visit my mother for christmas, without setting off the metal detectors, and had to pass his shoes through and go through the new scanners, and get patted down; I was furious, but didn't want to upset or scare him or risk messing up his christmas by making a fuss about it; and when we'd gone through, I found a full drinks bottle in his bag that they'd missed.

foobarian 13y ago
Why would terrorists need pikes on an airplane? There is no cavalry there.

twoodfin 13y ago

anigbrowl 13y ago
The GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate, and the linked article mentions begins by mentioning the unanimous passage of the bill in the Senate. The law in question was the Aviation Security Act. When it passed in the house, 136 Democrats voted against it (partly due to concerns about unionization eligibility), but only 2 Republicans and 1 independent did. So I don't think it's fair to say 'the GOP resisted the creation' of the TSA. As for the administration, transportation secretary Mineta wanted to federalize airport security from the outset. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll425.xml
- twoodfin 13y ago
  The GOP had majorities in both the House and Senate... No, they didn't. By then, Senator Jim Jeffords had become an independent, caucusing with the Democrats and giving them a one-vote majority control of the chamber. Also, FWIW, Norm Mineta was the token Democrat in the Bush cabinet. And of course everyone voted for the bill once it was clear it would pass. Who wanted to be against enhanced airline security? I'm not saying the GOP put up the fight of the century on the TSA, far from it. But it's a mischaracterization of history to say that Bush demanded a dramatic expansion of the Federal workforce as some kind of economic smokescreen. If that were so, you'd expect to find accounts of Democrats at least raising token opposition to this brilliant political stratagem.

yetanotherphd 13y ago

The idea that the Bush administration created the TSA just to create jobs is ridiculous. There are much cheaper ways to create jobs (e.g. fixing highways), and much as people like to deride George Bush's intelligence, there is no way his administration would have created the TSA for such a stupid reason.