Conquer Club

The TSA...protecting Americans from their Fourth Amendment rights since 2001:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Fort-Wor ... 83586.html

And this is news because...

Oh right it happens in Amurika where everything is news.

CELEBRITY GETS SPEEDING TICKET <--- news
RANDOM PERSON GETS SHOT <--- news
SOMEONE EMBARRASSED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS <--- front page

Upgrayedd wrote:And this is news because...

Oh right it happens in Amurika where everything is news.

CELEBRITY GETS SPEEDING TICKET <--- news
RANDOM PERSON GETS SHOT <--- news
SOMEONE EMBARRASSED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS <--- front page

weak sauce

Here's a great story on the TSA subject: http://news.yahoo.com/judge-man-strippe ... 22940.html

You never know -- that lady could have been a robot bomb, and her plot was ruined when she forgot to stuff in her final fuel supply tube.

THE TSA WAS JUST DOING THEIR JOB, WOODRUFF.

TERRORISTS.

GOD BLESS.

-rd

Upgrayedd wrote:And this is news because...

Oh right it happens in Amurika where everything is news.

CELEBRITY GETS SPEEDING TICKET <--- news
RANDOM PERSON GETS SHOT <--- news
SOMEONE EMBARRASSED BY PUBLIC OFFICIALS <--- front page

Was your last userid banned for trolling too?

I've got it...the TSA should be broken up (a la Ma Bell) and made to compete for the government's business. They could be graded on cost, actual effectiveness, public relations, etc...then perhaps they wouldn't be the domineering, faux-security organization that they currently are. It's a win-win. Security improves and people aren't virtually raped any longer.

That will solve nothing. Problem with TSA (and all crooked government agencies) isn't with the institution itself, but rather with the people staffing it. It's not like the TSA employees have a mandate to feel up old ladies after all - they do it entirely on their own volition.

So simply changing the structure of the organisation would be futile. A much better solution would be for those old ladies getting groped to raise their kids better (or at least teach them not to grope their elders). But of course that would require work/responsibility on the part of the public and so would get shot down immediately by fat leftist college professors and their psychotic soccer mom wives.

Six year old girl got searched last year...

I can't find the link, but you can probably google: "Six year orld girl searched by TSA"

Tbh, if they selected me to be pat down on the basis of being a "terrorist." I'd punch them in the face and take the fine/jail time/whatever. I ain't letting some random person grope my balls

Upgrayedd wrote:That will solve nothing. Problem with TSA (and all crooked government agencies) isn't with the institution itself, but rather with the people staffing it.

But that's just it. Competition would breed policies that would both fulfill the mission (which current policies really don't) while allowing the customer to retain their dignity (which current policies really don't), else they lose in the competitive marketplace.

Upgrayedd wrote:So simply changing the structure of the organisation would be futile.

I'm not talking about changing the structure of the organization. I am talking about dismantling the organization into separate pieces.

Campin_Killer wrote:Six year old girl got searched last year...

I can't find the link, but you can probably google: "Six year orld girl searched by TSA"

Tbh, if they selected me to be pat down on the basis of being a "terrorist." I'd punch them in the face and take the fine/jail time/whatever. I ain't letting some random person grope my balls

There are worse aspects to what would happen than fine/jail time. You go on lists for doing far less, completely polite but firm actions of refusal.

Woodruff wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:That will solve nothing. Problem with TSA (and all crooked government agencies) isn't with the institution itself, but rather with the people staffing it.

But that's just it. Competition would breed policies that would both fulfill the mission (which current policies really don't) while allowing the customer to retain their dignity (which current policies really don't), else they lose in the competitive marketplace.

Upgrayedd wrote:So simply changing the structure of the organisation would be futile.

I'm not talking about changing the structure of the organization. I am talking about dismantling the organization into separate pieces.

Changing the organisation's structure and restructuring it into smaller departments are the same thing, one's just more specific.

As for magical free market witchcraft, that doesn't apply here. The government is in control regardless of whether the industry is managed overtly through a state aparatus or covertly through private contractors, since it's the only source of capital. The government currently doesn't care about the injustices committed in this industry, therefore nothing will get done to curb them in either scenario. All privatization would do is maybe lower costs, possibly at the expense of quality.

Woodruff wrote:

Campin_Killer wrote:Six year old girl got searched last year...

I can't find the link, but you can probably google: "Six year orld girl searched by TSA"

Tbh, if they selected me to be pat down on the basis of being a "terrorist." I'd punch them in the face and take the fine/jail time/whatever. I ain't letting some random person grope my balls

There are worse aspects to what would happen than fine/jail time. You go on lists for doing far less, completely polite but firm actions of refusal.

Probably true, but still, I would refuse, and if they tried to force me, well, f*ck them.

Thank God I don't fly much

Upgrayedd wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

Upgrayedd wrote:That will solve nothing. Problem with TSA (and all crooked government agencies) isn't with the institution itself, but rather with the people staffing it.

But that's just it. Competition would breed policies that would both fulfill the mission (which current policies really don't) while allowing the customer to retain their dignity (which current policies really don't), else they lose in the competitive marketplace.

Upgrayedd wrote:So simply changing the structure of the organisation would be futile.

I'm not talking about changing the structure of the organization. I am talking about dismantling the organization into separate pieces.

Changing the organisation's structure and restructuring it into smaller departments are the same thing, one's just more specific.

As for magical free market witchcraft, that doesn't apply here. The government is in control regardless of whether the industry is managed overtly through a state aparatus or covertly through private contractors, since it's the only source of capital. The government currently doesn't care about the injustices committed in this industry, therefore nothing will get done to curb them in either scenario. All privatization would do is maybe lower costs, possibly at the expense of quality.

So how long do you think you'll last before they figure out your multis?

At it again (video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEii7dQU ... r_embedded

My employer requires us to fly on business given a certain radius from our home offce (I'm not sure what that radius is). Last time (when I was supposed to be in Atlanta), I attempted to get the firm to allow me to drive. My reason was the TSA issues. They denied my request. I will try again next time I go somewhere for business until I'm successful.

thegreekdog wrote:My employer requires us to fly on business given a certain radius from our home offce (I'm not sure what that radius is). Last time (when I was supposed to be in Atlanta), I attempted to get the firm to allow me to drive. My reason was the TSA issues. They denied my request. I will try again next time I go somewhere for business until I'm successful.

Sue your employer for causing undue stress and mental anguish.

notyou2 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:My employer requires us to fly on business given a certain radius from our home offce (I'm not sure what that radius is). Last time (when I was supposed to be in Atlanta), I attempted to get the firm to allow me to drive. My reason was the TSA issues. They denied my request. I will try again next time I go somewhere for business until I'm successful.

Sue your employer for causing undue stress and mental anguish.

I could sue them, but I would lose. While business travel is a condition for employment, I am not required by the firm to be employed. In other words, if I was caused undue stress and mental anguish, I could quit.

thegreekdog wrote:

notyou2 wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:My employer requires us to fly on business given a certain radius from our home offce (I'm not sure what that radius is). Last time (when I was supposed to be in Atlanta), I attempted to get the firm to allow me to drive. My reason was the TSA issues. They denied my request. I will try again next time I go somewhere for business until I'm successful.

Sue your employer for causing undue stress and mental anguish.

I could sue them, but I would lose.

When I got to this point, I continued the sentence in my head with "because I would be going up against the best lawyers...ours". <grin>

I don't get why people get all worked up about the TSA. They are doing their job. You don't have to fly. They make reasonable accommodations for everything, including private screenings and the ability to declare stuff for medical conditions, etc.

This stupid woman didn't take advantage of those accommodations, and then goes on TV about it. She tried to stuff a bunch of liquid ("soft foods") in her carry-on and didn't think that would be a problem? So you got a little embarrassed in front of strangers because of your colostomy bag or whatever. Deal with it. It certainly won't be the first or the last time.

I have brown skin and an impossible to pronounce name. I fly at least 4 segments a month. I get "randomly" searched a LOT. I do not mind it. I have nothing to hide. I hate the slow people that aren't prepared to go through security efficiently WAY more than I hate security.

Woodruff wrote:The TSA...protecting Americans from their Fourth Amendment rights since 2001:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/Fort-Wor ... 83586.html

I didn't watch the video... but the picture of the woman shows she has "crazy eyes".

Clearly she is someone to avoid.

72o wrote:I don't get why people get all worked up about the TSA. They are doing their job. You don't have to fly. They make reasonable accommodations for everything, including private screenings and the ability to declare stuff for medical conditions, etc.

Because all of this invasion of privacy is way over the top. Furthermore, the TSA is a monopoly because Congress has legislated that private security firms can't be used to provide the same security. If private security firms were used, the airlines/airport could replace them with different companies if there were the same complaints as have been leveled against the TSA. Plus, the TSA is unionized, so they're probably protected in their jobs even if they're complete jerks to the customers.

72o wrote:I don't get why people get all worked up about the TSA. They are doing their job. You don't have to fly. They make reasonable accommodations for everything, including private screenings and the ability to declare stuff for medical conditions, etc.

What? Do you work for the TSA or something? Reasonable accomodations?

72o wrote:This stupid woman didn't take advantage of those accommodations, and then goes on TV about it. She tried to stuff a bunch of liquid ("soft foods") in her carry-on and didn't think that would be a problem? So you got a little embarrassed in front of strangers because of your colostomy bag or whatever. Deal with it. It certainly won't be the first or the last time.

And that's your idea of reasonable accomodations...having to "deal with it" about being embarrassed from a colostomy bag?

72o wrote:I have brown skin and an impossible to pronounce name. I fly at least 4 segments a month. I get "randomly" searched a LOT. I do not mind it. I have nothing to hide. I hate the slow people that aren't prepared to go through security efficiently WAY more than I hate security.

Having nothing to hide is 100% and thoroughly irrelevant to the issue, in my opinion.