more companies on the govt dole are not needed
Poll
TSA Screening to see ya naked
| Accept fate and proceed through body scanner | 22% | 22% - 12 | ||||
| Opt out for pat down | 26% | 26% - 14 | ||||
| Express discontent and proceed through scanner | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Opt out for pat down after making self hard. | 22% | 22% - 12 | ||||
| Leave the airport sans screening, take ship down under | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| Other | 5% | 5% - 3 | ||||
| FU Brinson | 11% | 11% - 6 | ||||
| Total: 53 | ||||||
I understand what you're saying, but the only sticking point I see in that analogy is that privatized utilities like power companies are usually government supported monopolies.SenorToenails wrote:
If an area like Buffalo, NY can support TWO airports, I doubt Atlanta would have any trouble making money. But are we now saying that companies that own airports are too important to fail (and should thus be state-run)? We already trust critical parts of infrastructure to companies. National Grid, National Fuel, Iberdrola, Constellation Energy...all these are private companies that provide the area I live in with energy (electricity and gas)...and I don't hear cries of 'what happens when National Grid goes bankrupt...does that mean Buffalo goes dark???' That's just lunacy.11 Bravo wrote:
what happens if a company that owns atlanta goes bankrupt? close atlanta? lol no chance.
So, while they usually don't require bailing out, they are being artificially propped up by a fixed market.
I suppose it's a trade off of companies on 'govt dole' or government waste. Lose/Lose if you ask me.11 Bravo wrote:
more companies on the govt dole are not needed
Because the TSA, like every other government agency once created, has become a fiefdom whose sole purpose is to expand its budget as much as possible. It gives TSA execs +dicksize when standing at the urinal with other agency heads.SenorToenails wrote:
I was poking at this:Turquoise wrote:
Consumers are like that. No one ever said that the general public was rational.Yes, the general populace is fickle (we all are)...but why must we all assume that flying carries a signicant chance of terrorism?Turquoise wrote:
well... until a terror attack occurs again.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
They are subject to oversight and price controls BECAUSE they are monopolies, right?Turquoise wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but the only sticking point I see in that analogy is that privatized utilities like power companies are usually government supported monopolies.
So, while they usually don't require bailing out, they are being artificially propped up by a fixed market.
Exactly, but at the same time, they aren't subjected to antitrust laws.SenorToenails wrote:
They are subject to oversight and price controls BECAUSE they are monopolies, right?Turquoise wrote:
I understand what you're saying, but the only sticking point I see in that analogy is that privatized utilities like power companies are usually government supported monopolies.
So, while they usually don't require bailing out, they are being artificially propped up by a fixed market.
For practical reasons, most cities have specific companies they strike deals with for basic utilities. It's hard for a competitive market to arise regarding basic amenities like power and water.
That's kind of the point of the oversight, is it not? They are held back from heartless profiteering by public oversight while they don't have to worry about competition.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly, but at the same time, they aren't subjected to antitrust laws.
For practical reasons, most cities have specific companies they strike deals with for basic utilities. It's hard for a competitive market to arise regarding basic amenities like power and water.
Yep, so what Bravo is proposing for airline security is basically the same, assuming that only one agency is used per airport.SenorToenails wrote:
That's kind of the point of the oversight, is it not? They are held back from heartless profiteering by public oversight while they don't have to worry about competition.Turquoise wrote:
Exactly, but at the same time, they aren't subjected to antitrust laws.
For practical reasons, most cities have specific companies they strike deals with for basic utilities. It's hard for a competitive market to arise regarding basic amenities like power and water.
The fact is...the fear of another attack is so deep that another large scale attack isn't even necessary. Lame half-ass attempts are enough to freeze up the system enough to make a difference.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I agree that it doesn't. However, doing the math reveals that, with the volume of flights that occur annually, there is bound to be another hijacking in the near future.SenorToenails wrote:
I was poking at this:Turquoise wrote:
Consumers are like that. No one ever said that the general public was rational.Yes, the general populace is fickle (we all are)...but why must we all assume that flying carries a signicant chance of terrorism?Turquoise wrote:
well... until a terror attack occurs again.
I seriously doubt anything as complicated as 9/11 will occur again, but a bombing on a plane or a hijacking certainly isn't out of the question.
Basically, it's just a matter of odds. The chances of you being on a hijacked flight are infinitesimal, but all it takes is one hijacking for the public to call for more security.
I mean...shit...an impatient man running down the upward moving escalators is enough to ruin your whole day at the airport.
...
TSA says you have to go through the new scanner 5,000 times in order to get any kind of radiation you would received from a simple xray
but that is based on old studies from over a decade ago
they need more research before they nuke us all
but that is based on old studies from over a decade ago
they need more research before they nuke us all
in the meantime don't you dare put that cell phone to your ear, it causes brain cancer!!! Let's riot!
LOL... pretty much. We get more radiation on a daily basis from cell phones than we'd get from weeks of walking through scanners.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
in the meantime don't you dare put that cell phone to your ear, it causes brain cancer!!! Let's riot!
Or hell, if radiation is such a concern, we should ban tanning salons.
should have banned those already
at the salons they still tell you it's healthy UV rays and shit like that
at the salons they still tell you it's healthy UV rays and shit like that
In my experience, those who face the least danger i.e. anyone living in middle America, are the ones that have the most fear. Why? Why does Middle America demand an outsized military and ridiculous airport security? Those of us living on the coasts have much more to worry about and are relatively blaise on both subjects.tuckergustav wrote:
The fact is...the fear of another attack is so deep that another large scale attack isn't even necessary. Lame half-ass attempts are enough to freeze up the system enough to make a difference.Turquoise wrote:
Well, I agree that it doesn't. However, doing the math reveals that, with the volume of flights that occur annually, there is bound to be another hijacking in the near future.SenorToenails wrote:
I was poking at this:Turquoise wrote:
Consumers are like that. No one ever said that the general public was rational.
Yes, the general populace is fickle (we all are)...but why must we all assume that flying carries a signicant chance of terrorism?
I seriously doubt anything as complicated as 9/11 will occur again, but a bombing on a plane or a hijacking certainly isn't out of the question.
Basically, it's just a matter of odds. The chances of you being on a hijacked flight are infinitesimal, but all it takes is one hijacking for the public to call for more security.
I mean...shit...an impatient man running down the upward moving escalators is enough to ruin your whole day at the airport.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not middle Americans per se, it's stupid Americans that allow themselves to eat up everything the power-elite spoon feed them. Middle America doesn't control spending, implement and/or offer up policy, greenlight government contracts. They can only sway 'popular opinion'.
Sure they do. Every state has two senators. I'm just curious why middle america is obsessed with security and defense.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's not middle Americans per se, it's stupid Americans that allow themselves to eat up everything the power-elite spoon feed them. Middle America doesn't control spending, implement and/or offer up policy, greenlight government contracts. They can only sway 'popular opinion'.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
yeah, and our politicians totally listen to what the people they supposedly represent have to say. Are you fucking joking dude?
Not joking at all. Is the Midwest not predominantly red states? Republicans run on defense, immigration, security, social conservatism and taxes. Clearly those are the values that Midwesterners hold as their own or they wouldn't vote for people running on those platforms.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
yeah, and our politicians totally listen to what the people they supposedly represent have to say. Are you fucking joking dude?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Unfortunately there is not an option in every airport. Some airports do not have the scanners.
Americans are prudes .. afraid of anything that even comes close to their private parts. When I was in Europe I was surprised to see how open they were and comfortable with their bodies (for better or for worse).
I don't think this does much to ensure safety to be honest. Adopting a procedure similar to Israels would be more effective. In Isreal it is interrogation before you can get on a plane. However, that requires actual training. Isreals security officials must learn to pickup on body language, what questions to ask, etc. However, I do recognize that would be difficult to initiate in a country that has a lot of Air Travel. From what I remember about the underwear bomber was a nervous wreck before he boarded. Being aware of your surroundings is something that can keep you safe on and off of the plane. A common sense approach is what I think is needed. It's not going to $ell millions of dollars in scanners though.
However, if this is what our government calls fighting terrorism I find it more acceptable then invading a third world shithole.
Americans are prudes .. afraid of anything that even comes close to their private parts. When I was in Europe I was surprised to see how open they were and comfortable with their bodies (for better or for worse).
I don't think this does much to ensure safety to be honest. Adopting a procedure similar to Israels would be more effective. In Isreal it is interrogation before you can get on a plane. However, that requires actual training. Isreals security officials must learn to pickup on body language, what questions to ask, etc. However, I do recognize that would be difficult to initiate in a country that has a lot of Air Travel. From what I remember about the underwear bomber was a nervous wreck before he boarded. Being aware of your surroundings is something that can keep you safe on and off of the plane. A common sense approach is what I think is needed. It's not going to $ell millions of dollars in scanners though.
However, if this is what our government calls fighting terrorism I find it more acceptable then invading a third world shithole.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
It probably comes down to education. A lot of middle American states have lousy education systems.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
It's not middle Americans per se, it's stupid Americans that allow themselves to eat up everything the power-elite spoon feed them. Middle America doesn't control spending, implement and/or offer up policy, greenlight government contracts. They can only sway 'popular opinion'.
Well, healthy body images probably stem from actually having healthier bodies. Our obesity is considerably higher than most of continental Europe.Kmar wrote:
Unfortunately there is not an option in every airport. Some airports do not have the scanners.
Americans are prudes .. afraid of anything that even comes close to their private parts. When I was in Europe I was surprised to see how open they were and comfortable with their bodies (for better or for worse).
I don't think this does much to ensure safety to be honest. Adopting a procedure similar to Israels would be more effective. In Isreal it is interrogation before you can get on a plane. However, that requires actual training. Isreals security officials must learn to pickup on body language, what questions to ask, etc. However, I do recognize that would be difficult to initiate in a country that has a lot of Air Travel. From what I remember about the underwear bomber was a nervous wreck before he boarded. Being aware of your surroundings is something that can keep you safe on and off of the plane. A common sense approach is what I think is needed. It's not going to $ell millions of dollars in scanners though.
However, if this is what our government calls fighting terrorism I find it more acceptable then invading a third world shithole.
Obesity is a western problem. Europe is trying to deal with it also. I think our shame is anchored in by our religious roots.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
good pointKmar wrote:
Obesity is a western problem. Europe is trying to deal with it also. I think our shame is anchored in by our religious roots.
On a side note.. germans really know how to protest.
Something else of relative interest. I hope this passes .. but I doubt it.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opi … ignity-act
Dvorak's blog is always good for some interesting stuff..
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/
Something else of relative interest. I hope this passes .. but I doubt it.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/opi … ignity-act
Dvorak's blog is always good for some interesting stuff..
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Effective, yes. Feasible no. Spending 3 hours interviewing, testing, scanning, retesting an reinterviewing every single passenger isn't going to make for an efficient or cost effective service.Kmar wrote:
I don't think this does much to ensure safety to be honest. Adopting a procedure similar to Israels would be more effective. In Isreal it is interrogation before you can get on a plane. However, that requires actual training. Isreals security officials must learn to pickup on body language, what questions to ask, etc. However, I do recognize that would be difficult to initiate in a country that has a lot of Air Travel.