OT: TSA (again)

Comments

busterkeaton wrote on 5/29/2006, 10:41 PM
I think 90% of the airport absurdity gauntlet is due to touchy-feely Political Correctness that is still pervasive in the USA. Never mind that the 9/11 perpetrators were young Saudi/Egyptian males; lets make sure we force Grandma through the security screening process too. After all, we don't want to give the appearance of DISCRIMINATION, do we? Heaven Forbid..

Granted it wasn't Grandma, but did you ever look at Jose Padilla?
Logan5 wrote on 5/29/2006, 11:09 PM
So is all this TSA crap acceptable?

I think if a flight has enough passengers on it – Then just do the basic x-ray & explosive detection and if some terrorist out pulls out a Black and Decker drill – he is killed or incapacitated.

I wish TSA would stop the “grandma” like searches.
We live in a republic – so if we could have some freedom back – maybe just ask the other passengers if they would feel better if they searched “grandma” or made a mother drink her breast milk to prove that her baby was not drinking C4.

Of course the “police like state” will restrict your travel or detain you if you defend a fellow American.
busterkeaton wrote on 5/29/2006, 11:14 PM
Newt Gingrinch was responsible for a lot of political nastiness. He is a key factor why bipartisanship seems a thing of the past. If you remember, Newt used to make tapes and send them to congressmen throughout the country. He used to drill them into using progandistic language. The language was even market-tested. The document on language was called Language: A Key Mechanism of Control

The basic idea was when you talk about the Democrats you always use negative words.....bureaucracy, corrupt, obsolete, corrupt and when you talk about Republicans you always use positive words... active, pioneer, tough, humane.

He is probably more responsible than anyone else for why "liberal" is morphing into "progressive" these days. Newt is planning his comeback and will be running for President in 2008. Or if he isn't he's spending a really unusual amount of time of New Hampshire these days.

apit34356 wrote on 5/29/2006, 11:42 PM
Rewriting history?

That docu looks like Jim Wright's worklist for another President from 1980-1988.

In the 1992 Pres election, Clinton PR people coined the the phrase calling a sitting president stupid as a standard phrase for commenting on Sr. Bush.

You seem to have forgotten the bloody primaries the dems normally have. The bulk of reps campaign ads came from dems primaries own blood letting.
busterkeaton wrote on 5/30/2006, 12:28 AM
Do you mean, "It's the Economy, Stupid." ?

I never took the Stupid to mean Bush Sr. Did anyone else?

I thought it was more like, "Keep It Simple, Stupid" which is directed at person thinking about the issue, and saying don't overthink it. That is the frame wasn't about whether Bush Sr was intelligent, the frame was "who do I think would be better on the economy."

Gingrinch took the harsh language of political attack ads and made it an every-day-of-the-year thing. History at the time routinely described him a something new and a bombthrower.
apit34356 wrote on 5/30/2006, 12:49 AM
ABC NEWS did and most the Sunday news shows. Of course, then Clinton's group hired that man dressed as a chicken, following Bush's Campaign, carrying that slogan. But then, I quess, the ABC NEWS reporter got the message wrong, thou the video tape shows the chicken leading a jeering crowd,( Clinton's Library, pre-warroom pr plans,) . Of course, then we have Clinton's famous WarRoom in the WhiteHouse for politics, so much for friendly relations.
ken c wrote on 5/30/2006, 2:11 AM
one experienced seminar presenter who's logged thousands of miles in airflight time (not me), suggested that you FEDEX all your stuff to your destination when flying, and never trust the airlines with it .. just pack travel stuff like clothes (cheap ones only! ship expensive suits, or carry on) ... fedex is a lot more reliable/secure than TSA/domestic air..

ken
GenJerDan wrote on 5/30/2006, 2:28 AM
It could be these reasons why TSA has a problem dealing with theft.

Much simpler. They do it in secret. I couldn't lock my luggage because they might not have a key for an off-brand like Samsonite.

Then they took the luggage behind a screen so no one could see them going through it.

Any particular reason they make it *easy* for thieves? Why not examine the luggage while you're standing there? Just in case they have questions...or maybe need to arrest you... Makes no sense.
apit34356 wrote on 5/30/2006, 4:47 AM
kencalhoun, This is the only way to ship/send a lot of critical items when travelling that you can not carry, since 1975 I have used UPS and Fed EX. From diving equipment to computer parts, the only way to go. Even for display booths, during 1970/80s, I would have duplicate critical items shipped by alternate carrier outside of our own shipping crew.
risce1 wrote on 5/30/2006, 7:11 AM
I had a 2 chimera boxes stolen from a set, most freelancers lack intelligence and many are thieves.

I had a set of darts stolen from my glove box while getting my car inspected,, most mechanics lack intelligence and many are thieves
johnmeyer wrote on 5/30/2006, 7:55 AM
We would have been in a better position if he had done something to reduce oil consumption, such as by updating fuel economy standards that were last touched in 1974.

I disagree that setting standards can be counted on to do anything at all.

Those standards were set in 1974, and then, for many, many years were completely unmet. If you drove back then, you'll remember the cars manufactured during those years would almost always stall when they were cold, especially when you pushed down on the accelerator starting up an intersection. Pretty darned dangerous actually. The only solutions engineers could come up with to meet the abitrarily mandated standards was to blow by a lot of exhaust gas back into the crank case.

Fuel economy, and also emission standards, which were also mandated at the same time and which directly conflicted with MPG standards, were not being met until the microprocessor got developed to the point where it had both enough compute power and also enough "hardness" to withstand the unfriendly environment under the hood. The remarkably cleaner air in all our cities, and the tremendous improvement in fuel economy for cars in the same class are a result of an invention which no one forsaw and which could not have been mandated.

The results for air quality in particular have been stunning. On "Earth Day" a few months ago, only a few newspapers ran a story showing the actual data from then and now (good news doesn't sell). The air quality improvement is phenomenal -- something everyone should feel good about. I remember my first visit to Los Angeles in 1964 and how sick I got at Disneyland breathing the smog. My whole family had to leave early and go back to the hotel. Every time I go there I am amazed at how much better it has become. Night and day. Not perfect, but awfully good.

So, on the one hand I agree that it takes government policy to set goals and force behavior that might not happen absent those goals, but it also is very naive to believe that invention can be mandated. Without the microprocessor, none of those goals would have been met. If it were that easy, then Dave Hill (engineering head in charge of Vegas) could just mandate render times that are 10% of what we have today.

Boy, that way easy. Let's do it again!
johnmeyer wrote on 5/30/2006, 8:07 AM
Obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but if you are of the opinion that these clowns do ANYTHING to benefit US citizens, you apparently don't travel much. As John Cline said, travel used to be exciting and fun. Now, it's an exercise in Pavlovian response.

I have a summer home in Wisconsin that I haven't seen since 2003. I am not afraid of flying, even though I have every right to be after the worst possible personal experience anyone could have (unrelated to security). However, Spot and John are exactly right: the coarseness and unprofessionalism of the entire airport security process is both intimidating and degrading. What's more, it is so completely removed from how we are treated -- and how we treat others -- in our everyday experience, that it is just plain shocking.
Coursedesign wrote on 5/30/2006, 8:39 AM
emission standards, which were also mandated at the same time and which directly conflicted with MPG standards

What is the source for this novel thought?

Everything I've seen indicates a direct correlation between low fuel consumption and low emissions, measured in grams per mile. A percentage of however much fuel you use goes out the tail pipe, if you consumer more you leave more behind.

I have lived on the Westside of Los Angeles for 25 years. During this time, the air first got a bit better, then it got worse. This is because the traffic has increased so much in a relatively small area, and lately many more people have traded in their comfortable, fairly emissions clean fuel efficient sedans for gas-guzzling 200-300 horsepower SUVs with cool-looking but high rolling-resistance gigantic tires, tires that also leave behind a large amount of particulate for smog to form around.

I like to get up in the mountains around Los Angeles, but I avoid looking down at the yellow smog layer that today covers the entire city about 364 days of the year. There is often a clear day in January when strong winds blow away the smog for a few hours...

The cold start problems you're talking about, I think those were simply from cold carburators, where the gasoline mixture condensed on the walls and the cylinders got a mixture that was way too lean. I don't know if anybody managed to make a low emissions car that used a carburator (maybe Honda?). For the rest it was all fuel injection, which also increased gas mileage and available horsepower.

We finally have field-proven reliable microprocessor technology for cars today. It's been used more to squeeze out more horsepower though, rather than to reduce emissions.

A few brands have voluntarily created ULEVs, SULEVs (Super Ultra Low Emission Vehicles), and even PZEVs (Partial Zero Emission Vehicles, mostly or perhaps only, Toyota Prius and Honda Insight).

For consumers, it would be a good practical start to get meaningful fuel economy data from the Feds.

The current 1974 standard assume that people drive 55 on the freeways, accelerate slowly, rarely stop in the cities, never use air conditioning, and put away the car in winter.

No wonder nobody can meet the rated mpg in practical driving.

Unfortunately, car manufacturers are not allowed to publicize any other more realistic test results for fuel consumption, or they get massive fines.

The standards need to be made realistic for today's driving, it is way overdue, and these ratings really are consumer fraud, and should be pursued as such.

If we don't give a rat's ass about consumers, then let's boost the standards for the sake of American car manufacturers who currently seem to need to be protected from themselves.

Given, GM has gone cap in hand to other car manufacturers to ask if they can license some of their hybrid technology, but that's a bit late. Toyota for one has been shipping hybrids for 10 years now, and I'm sure they have amassed a substantial patent portfolio.

Hydrogen is a pipe dream that's been held up as a way to justify not doing anything about pollution and foreign oil dependence now, because "soon we'll have a hydrogen economy and all problems will be solved: no emissions, no oil." Only bummer is that it takes a lot of coal burning to produce the electricity to produce hydrogen, so we may be worse off than with gasoline cars. And GM's futuristic "no-expense-spared ultra technology" hydrogen car needs 8 times as much electricity to produce the fuel to go one mile, as their old EV1 needed for a charge to go the same distance.

Progress indeed.
ken c wrote on 5/30/2006, 8:56 AM
re mpg, I love living here in colorado springs, the speed limit is 75mph and the air is clean as a whistle..

I'd like to see more TSA-busting law enforcement sting operations, eg stick a gps tracker inside a camcorder shell and see who rips it off, then arrest the buggers.

ken
Coursedesign wrote on 5/30/2006, 9:09 AM
stick a gps tracker inside a camcorder shell and see who rips it off

..or put a MacBook Pro in sting luggage. One program for it lets it not only "phone home" as soon as it is connected to the Internet, but it also takes photos of the thief (using the very decent built-in iSight camera at the top of the LCD) and sends them to the owner via automatic e-mail, together with the IP address of where it's used....

:O)
Steve Mann wrote on 6/5/2006, 9:40 AM
I just got back from a vacation in NYC to take our daughter to see some Broadway musicals.

We were tagged for extra security screening both ways. No idea why. Was it because we booked our flights six months prior? Was it our middle-eastern names? (Stephen, Kimberly?) Was it our middle-eastern appearance? (Pasty-white, blonde, and red-haired?) No one will say why. Could it be because I have been openly critical of the Bush Regime online? (If it's the latter, then we, the people, have lost what it means to be a free American).

While in NYC, we visited the Statue of Liberty and the Ground-Zero site. Getting to the Statue was a three-hour ordeal. First for x-ray and metal detectors to get on the ferry to the island. I am OK with metal detectors on public transit, and the ferry would hold several hundred people. Then once on the island there was yet another metal detector, personal belongings x-ray and a bomb-sniffing "puffer" inspection. In all, my visit to the Statue of Liberty cost the taxpayer quite a bit of money - and just what are they protecting us from?

When we went to the Ground Zero site, there were four NYPD SWAT policemen in full body armor carrying M-16's protecting what? A HOLE IN THE GROUND? What the hell are they protecting us from?

Are you afraid yet? Hell Yes! I am much more afraid of our government than I ever was of terrorists.

It's a page out of Hitler's rise to power - scare the people enough and there's no limit to the power they will allow the government to "protect" them.

Steve M.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 6/5/2006, 10:47 AM
well I say, as long as they don't take away my right to bear arms, I'm not too concerned that's what puts the power in the hands of the people (granted there are tanks and bombers and such, but if that came into play, it would be about as bad of a situation as you can get).

anyway - as for all the protection of the statue of liberty - they're not "protecting you *from*" something they're protecting the statue, it's an Icon of america (just like the twin towers were in osama's head), and I would imagine that if someone went and blew up the statue, you can believe that there would be all kinds of hoopla about how there wasn't any/enough protection of such a national treasure, etc.... so I think you're looking at it a little off, however I don't think too many folks here ARE scared, so the gov't scaring us so they can "protect us" scheme doesn't seem to be working too well. In fact so many folks aren't scared to the point that they believe the war to be useless and a big mistake (I'm not arguing for or against it, I'm just saying that I think that's part of the reason that it's so negatively viewed, as opposed to a war where people do have an impending sense of fear of an opposing force).

Dave
Coursedesign wrote on 6/5/2006, 10:59 AM
The biggest joke is that Iraq was never a threat, and it was kept from being a threat by a self-protecting very competent nasty guy, at no cost to U.S. tax payers.

At the GAO estimated long term cost of $1-2 Trillion (includes VA benefits, etc, but assumes that U.S. forces are leaving soon), this has to be not only the most expensive mistake in the history of the world, but also the most expensive project of any kind.

Today's L.A. Times reports that the National Guard is now drafting eskimos in Alaska to go to Iraq.

Sounds pretty desperate, although the official word is that the U.S. military is far from overextended.

Uh-huh.
FrigidNDEditing wrote on 6/5/2006, 11:14 AM
whether or not it's a mistake is yet to be seen, and will take a solid 10-20 years to really be able to be seen, if not more.

Dave

(dang double posting)
MH_Stevens wrote on 6/5/2006, 12:07 PM
Religion is still the best way to get people to vote against their own self-interest. It's easy to make people who live their lives according to a gold tablet no one has ever seen believe the national enemy is within and not without

Michael



Coursedesign wrote on 6/5/2006, 1:18 PM
whether or not it's a mistake is yet to be seen

True, but the other Arab states are already feeling free to drop the democracy support they were pressured to implement when the U.S. wasn't so busy with Iraq (and before the U.S. became totally disenchanted with the whole "democracy in the Middle East" thing when the voters elected "the wrong candidates").

Also, in 20 years time, we'll still be paying for this costly "war" out of our federal income taxes, whether it will still be deemed a mistake then or not.

Bang for the buck? Sure. Only problem is that we were the ones getting banged.

dhill wrote on 6/5/2006, 2:56 PM
" To think I pay taxes that support these @#$?#!"

Don't get me started on that!

Hey Spot. I have flown almost a million miles too, so, I know your pain. I've had stuff disappear out of my cases, but nothing as valuable as your stuff. I have however incurred 1000's of $'s in equipment repairs (yes of course I have flight cases) 'caused by the baggage "handlers."

Any way, I'm not going to rant. I'm only posting to tell you that the only way we got paid back for most of the damage 'caused by the airlines (Southwest by far won the most financial damage contest-LAX/Vegas) was for our tour manager to say I guess we'll have to take our 100's of thousands of dollars of annual airline business elsewhere. Then they coughed up the loot every time, though it took about 6 months one of the times.

We now have a company that supplies all of our gear at every venue, so, it's no longer an issue. I always carry my camera stuff on the plane with me, but obviously you can't do that since you have so much more gear than I do. A flight attendant said to us once..."why do you guys carry on so much stuff?" I kind of went off on her. Me and the drummer almost jumped out of the plane to pound this one SWA guy in Vegas one time that was looking up at us in our seats and then SMASHING our stuff down as hard as he could and then looking up and laughing at us. For six months I almost called my HA pals (they can find anyone) to pay a visit to his house. I decided I had too much to lose and I didn't want to be about that...in that order. Damn! I said I wasn't going to rant. If people respected other's stuff as though it were their own, and just did their %$#@ing jobs, none of this would be an issue. Derek
vitalforce wrote on 6/5/2006, 3:02 PM
The Department of Homeland Security should really be named the DCBDAHHE (Department of Closing the Barn Door After the Horses Have Escaped) but once you pronounce the initials someone would think you're having a seizure.

Don't give in to the "Taxes" rant. Without taxes there's no government. It's who we suckers get talked into voting for, that's the problem. We focus on morality instead of the nuts and bolts of government and don't notice who's picking our pockets. If we had truly fine leaders rebuilding our system now, I'd pay more taxes.

One other $.02 worth: I actually agree with the posters who wear a conservative banner, to the extent that Bush didn't start the Iraq war for the mere benefit of the U.S. oil industry. There is another intended beneficiary of the occupation of Iraq--what a great Republican President (Eisenhower) warned us about, called the military-industrial complex. No question they're benefiting in many ways.

But the larger problem is that in doing this, Bush and his allies in Congress have altered our 9/11 mission from defending America to "spreading democracy." That is not our purpose as a republic. Read the nation's mission statement called the Declaration of Independence. Deposing foreign rulers and replacing them with our preferred form of government is something else: It's what empires do. One who advocates spreading, by force, his form of government is an "imperialist." How ironic that the present leaders should fall into the trap of giving our enemies ammunition to accuse us of becoming the very thing we insisted we were not, during the years of the cold war.

Other nations will only adopt democratic forms of government by following our example. It is how we conduct the affairs of America inside our own shores that inspires others to imitate us. If we don't follow our own principles of individual freedom, and equality, and due process and fair dealing, then we are merely hypocrites. I believe this is what infuriates our enemies most about us now--our hypocrisy.

Strange how such a debate bursts out of an empty computer box. Now that's American.

P.S. Someone should set up stings by putting tracking devices in attractive airline parcels.
.
risce1 wrote on 6/5/2006, 3:13 PM
I have had stuff stolen on flights long before 9/11 , had luggage lost, had rude airport people, blah blah. i used to fly weekly when I was in the world of corporate stupid, only difference now is the lines are longer and you take your shoes off,, get over it , buy your own plane, or drive.