101–110 of 120 posts
Welcome to America's permanent big government state. This is a prime example of excessive government bureaucracy, and it demonstrates how inefficient and wasteful many of these govt. programs are but exist anyway to keep politicians happy. The only reason TSA is getting called out for its unnecessary bloat is because the public despises what they do.
Why do people accept this reality when talking about the TSA, but not other government agencies? All government agencies are like this, especially the Federal ones.
So they think patting down 5-year-old girls and 90-year-old grandmas and grabbing my testicles each time I have to fly - not actually making the country more secure? Banning cupcakes and handbags with gun-shaped emboidery is actually not protecting us from terrorists? I can't believe it...
Where can I sign up for free testicle grabs? This is not the TSA I know.
As for the questions where you can sign up - I'm sure there are fine establishments around which for a modest sum of money can fulfill some of your fantasies. I can't help you with that though, as my expertise with such matters is limited to rumors and hearsay.
The TSA is good for a variety of business interests. One specific example is the manufacturers of back-scatter X-Ray machines. They're hideously expensive and pure security theater but, in large part thanks to the TSA, they're in most U.S. airports now. How would you like to own a company that makes a product that doesn't actually have to work in order for you to gross billions? Now, if this bothers you, you should p…
Why do we have to learn the lesson over and over again that x-ray radiation causes cancer? I hate the arguments that it only hurts us a little bit each time.
The whole trick of designing institutions is to make sure that when they act for their own self-preservation (as they will and do) they will simultaneously be achieving the goal we want them to be achieving.
The problem is we've somehow managed to create organizations that continue to exist even when they completely fail to accomplish the intended tasks. Once your method of self-preservation shifts from "functioning" to "lobbying", the whole thing needs to be dismantled.
The TSA is fortunate in that they have other people lobbying on their behalf, but that doesn't change the fact that they exist due to legislation rather than effectiveness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true of almost every entity.
Probably, yes. But at least private entities can be (and frequently are) killed by customers starving them of their income - this can happen passively by simply not buying their products anymore. Public sectors ones need politicians to actively invest political capital in not just removing it, but figuring out what it was meant to do in the first place, how to do it better and then setup a new entity that's better -…
Welcome to America's permanent big government state. This is a prime example of excessive government bureaucracy, and it demonstrates how inefficient and wasteful many of these govt. programs are but exist anyway to keep politicians happy. The only reason TSA is getting called out for its unnecessary bloat is because the public despises what they do.
The size of the federal bureaucracy has hovered around 2m +/- 10% for the last 50 years, even as the U.S. population has increased by over 70%.
Side note: it's appreciated (expected?) to provide sources when throwing out stats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably, yes. But at least private entities can be (and frequently are) killed by customers starving them of their income - this can happen passively by simply not buying their products anymore. Public sectors ones need politicians to actively invest political capital in not just removing it, but figuring out what it was meant to do in the first place, how to do it better and then setup a new entity that's better -…
I think a good example to point to would be Pinkerton security, which for example guards some military bases when needed for things like air shows. They are highly trained at security. The TSA seems to hire almost anyone that is breathing and hasn't been to prison. They seem completely unconcerned with security and more concerned with being rule-bent weirdos.
I was referring to making security a private concern in the same way operating an airline is a private concern - that I struggle to see how would work: How do you align the long-term interest that a terror attack doesn't occur with the short-term horizon of an industry that bankrupts itself every decade?
On the other hand, FAA seems to be mostly sane and evidence-driven, so they might take on the task of creating and maintaining the regulatory framework that private airport security would operate under.
Why do people accept this reality when talking about the TSA, but not other government agencies? All government agencies are like this, especially the Federal ones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There have been no terrorist attacks (excepting the shoe bomber, but there have been no shoe attacks since shoes started to be inspected), but does that prove the TSA is effective? Hard to say. No, really, it's not. Of prevented terror attacks since 9/11, TSA has prevented exactly 0% of them. The shoe bomber was on the plane with the bomb when he was subdued by fellow passengers. The underwear bomber also made it o…
Neither the shoe bomber flight nor the underwear bomber flight originated in the US, so TSA did not screen passengers for either one.