TSA: Totally Shit Agency?

[Mister Fiend]

For an interesting take on this subject listen to the Drunk Tank podcast for this week. The sentiments pretty much follow that of the article. With the added remark that whenever something like this happens it's the passengers that take care of business. My advice would be to carry a roll of quarters on the plane with you in case you have to start throwing punches.

[Alja-Markir]

Set of keys. It's called a granny fist, because even a granny can take you down using it.

~Alja~

[elvor]

Also known as a Moran handshake.

[iwashere33]

as someone who worked in airport security for 3 years i can tell you that the term "illusion of safety" is the motto of the entire operation, although hearing what the TSA is up to the last few weeks is mind boggling. i mean, asking bloggers about where they get an unclassified document? that just time-wasting. In case you are wondering why you really need to get to an airport about 4 hours before your flight leaves has got nothing do with 'security measures' it's got to do with cut backs - they try to run the entire screening point on as few people as possible, with low pay and some bullshit theory of control and tell the people working there they have some power. which really is just the illusion of power, because as we all know the security doesn't do anything (as christmas day has shown). the TSA can bitch and moan, and go after people they even talk about the paper thin excuse they call security and all the flaws it has, problem is the TSA has never stopped a terrorist and never will. they just waste time and money, my time is slightly more valuable then explaining why my bottle of water isn't dangerous and my money is more important than seeing the cost of 5 people staring at a walk-through metal detector that isn't going to even stop knives, let alone a bomb or in some cases a gun.

if you really wanted to be safe, try and stop the people that are dangerous from leaving prison. now let's look at who is dangerous hmmm? let's see, muslims. even those that follow islam don't get along with each other, and every day Israelis and Palestinians are fighting about one thing or another. and i don't count ireland as being terrorist, the english invaded and the irish fought back, over time there became a northen ireland that is different from the irish and the english (that story is told over a greater period of time).

so the short version here seems to be, religion. and the vast majority appears to be muslims making trouble. so the answer would be - to get rid of muslims and you will remove 90% of the trouble.

of course, that might just be my point of view and i stand around as a non-believer but you can't ignore the fact that if i talk to a christian person and say "i don't believe in your god" he will just say "then you just burn in hell if you sin". if i go over to a muslim and say "i don't believe in your Allah" then he will pull out a bendy knife and try to seperate my head from my body.

if they don't practice world peace than doesn't that mean they practice world war. (you show me someonw who says otherwise and i'll show you someone you has never been to pakistan)

[Master Gunner]

First off, I personally know plenty of Muslims who are even more laid back about their religion than I am, and their religion specifically states that they'll burn in hell for killing others. No matter who is committing acts of violence, Christian, Muslim, Roman, Irish (where, I should point out, there is/was just as much animosity between the Catholic and Protestant Irish as there is/was between the Catholic(/Protestant) Irish and Protestant English), religion has always being a sham excuse. What it is, is nutjobs who want to power, and use pre-existing organizations, such as religion, to recruit people and control them. Remember, Hitler claimed to be Catholic.

Hell, go through parts of the US "Bible Belt", and you will find plenty of people willing to separate your head from your body for "mocking" God. Primarily because of the culture they lived and were raised in, and religion being an important part of that, if you insult their religion (and you can never predict what people will find insulting, and many will take offense at you not believing in their deity of choice), they will take that as a grave insult against themselves, and act as their culture dictates.

The issue with Pakistan, especially when dealing with India, has almost nothing to do with religion, but rather the English coming in a few hundred years ago, mucking things up, and then leaving without cleaning up their mess. Much of present-day Arab culture still has its roots in the days long before the Prophet Mohammad came along, and the area of Israel/Jerusalem has historically being an area of conflict because of its location, which is also why the Abrahamic faiths wound up with it as a holy place and (because of the shared backgrounds in the religions) their Promised Land. Religion just got overlaid over the whole debacle, just as religion got overlaid over pre-existing cultures and situations further West, and became a useful tool for motivating people into whatever they wanted (France being broke was a major motivator behind some of the Crusades, for example, so in turn, they major powers of the time used the idea of "retaking the promised land" to whip people into a frenzy and make them go off to war).

There are plenty of reasons that most of "the West's" terrorist problems have roots in the Middle East, Religion is just a tool driving them, not a cause. Manifest Destiny isn't the reason why America began expanding so rapidly in the 19th century, but it did drive the people to expand in turn.

So in summary: Focus on the geo-social-political reasons behind terrorism, that's the cause. Don't blame religion for what it was co-opted to motivate people to do, and don't make blanket generalities that can be quite offensive.

[Arius]

Nested parentheses!

The big thing is that religion is the easiest way to reach the masses. MG is right. Bin Laden used religion as a tool to rally people. And it's not the religion's fault. Nor does it mean that all people in that religion are subject to following him.

Those that commit acts of terrorism are already desirous of committing them. They just use their religion as an excuse. And even if some of them honestly believe their religion makes killing right, those are essentially the Manson Family of the middle east.

So, condemning a people based on the acts of the great minority is like saying that all white people are evil because of the KKK. It's wrong. White people are evil because we have no souls.

[Alja-Markir]

Stuff

Wow.

In a single post you went from saying insightful and intelligent things about the failures of airport security to spouting mind-bogglingly xenophobic bullshit about a people and a religion you know jack-all about.

Muslims are people. People who make up 1/5 of the world population. People who believe in the same god as a separate 1/3 of the world population known as Christians. People who are no different than anyone else, who want love and harmony and happiness and peace just as much as anyone.

Islam is not a religion of hate anymore than Christianity is. There are extremists in every culture. There are Christian mad bombers and there are Muslim saints. There are even non-religious people as well who fall into either side of the spectrum, some good, some less so.

I truly hope you someday realize just how closed-minded you are, and just how cruel a person you seem for it. Open your eyes, think for yourself, meet some actual Muslims, admit the possiblity that your preconceptions are wrong.

~Alja~

[empath]

Look, we're pretty much in agreement on 'Air Security is just an exercise in giving an illusion of safety', but how about proposing some actual alternatives?

I'll go first: A little idea I came up with after the "no fluids allowed" rule (I was even considering submitting it to the Project 10^100 but as usual my tendency to procrastinate made me miss the deadline. )

[AlexanderDitto]

Suggestion: Support Amtrak. I've never really done much flying as it is, but with the BS the TSA is pulling, I'm not planning on doing any, at all, in the future.

Ride the train, support Amtrak. It takes longer now, but you're not perpetuating security theater, and hey! You get two carry on bags and three free checked bags! :O

I'll be taking Amtrak when I go back up to Philly in a week, and when I had to PAX East.

[Lord Chrusher]

While I greatly prefer to take trains, they do not cross oceans very well. Nor do they provide good service in less densely populated parts of the world.

[Alja-Markir]

See, rail systems are an entirely different creature.

Britain, for example, has a notoriously slipshod rail system. Japan, in contrast, has the best rails in the world. There are a lot of factors that go into the viability of a rail system, which is why there is such a difference.

Why is Japan's rail system so good? Because they have the geography for it, for one. All of their major cities are on their eastern coast in a straight goddamn line. There is almost no need to reach the western coast, so those areas can be serviced by a few small lines, while almost all the major rail travel is down a single, flat, very densely populated, coastal corridor. Additionally, Japan is a very green and eco-conscious nation with emphasis on public transportation and communal benefits. Combine that with capable and efficient administration and management, and you get a cheap, fast, clean, and enjoyable ride.

Britain is nearly the polar opposite. British cities are strewn everywhere haphazardly, so trains run in every direction across all sorts of terrains. With population spread much less densely across larger areas of land, you also get lesser density of passengers traveling along rails. Any single rail line is likely to service a fraction of the numbers Japanese railroads service, and this inefficiency can be seen reflected in time tables and ticket costs. Britain also has put far more focus into alternate travel methods, so British trains are hardly the most advanced or cleanest, but rather the cheapest and more reliable over long term usage. It's an entirely different world of railway viability, both physically and socially.

So the question is, are American railroads liable to work out any better than Britain's? Probably not. The geographic problems are ten times worse than Britains's, with massive amounts of land with people spread all across them and through some of the most varied terrain in the world. America is also too much of a car culture, and we're far too non-green and inefficient with our major businesses for a rail system on a large scale to work effectively.

~Alja~

[JesterJ.]

So the question is, are American railroads liable to work out any better than Britain's? Probably not. The geographic problems are ten times worse than Britains's, with massive amounts of land with people spread all across them and through some of the most varied terrain in the world. America is also too much of a car culture, and we're far too non-green and inefficient with our major businesses for a rail system on a large scale to work effectively.

~Alja~

I disagree. Between metropolitan areas (the areas people would typically fly to and from), trains work out just fine. If there is a market for it (if airlines prove to be a bitch, if trains step up their game and be very accommodating, affordable, and become [somehow] fashionable), it will work.

[Alja-Markir]

Try taking trains from Los Angelos to New York.

The physical distances between, and disparate locations of, major American cities is still a bitch to deal with.

Not saying it could never work, merely that I don't think it's likely to happen.

~Alja~

[Arius]

Alja's American?

Never woulda guessed. I thought he was from Ottawa.

---

Trains in America suffer because the infrastructure is built around highways. America had a burgeoning rail system before the automobile became the standard, but in the mid 1900's, a car culture arose. Travel times are also roughly double that of cars on long trips, because of layovers, switching trains, and taking busses between stations. Hell, I have a train station about 30 miles north of me, but to take a train west, I have to take a bus 50 miles east.

[Lord Chrusher]

Having recently used the British railway system I found it quite capable. The only time I got anything close to lost was when I took the train from Conwy to Kendal which not a common trip. I found the German railways slightly better organized - they had timetables which would tell you which platform your connecting train would be on - but the German trains where late more often. All the Europe railways I traveled on seemed efficient. However trips I made were between 50 km and 500 km requiring train trips of an hour to seven hours.

Train travel is ideal for short to medium length journeys. Once the length of the journey is longer than about four or six hours trains lose out to airplanes. For instance to take the train from Melbourne to Brisbane takes about 34 hours and costs about $150. Flying takes two hours (plus a couple hours spent getting to and from the airport, checking in and also waiting for your baggage) and also costs about $150. For the same price why spend the extra day traveling?

[Alja-Markir]

Alja's American?

Never woulda guessed. I thought he was from Ottawa.

Well I used to be American, anywho. Wasn't always a demi-god, ya know.

Honestly though, I've never considered myself a part of that culture. I really find very little appealing about that place and people. The land itself can be amazing, with incredible natural areas, but it's spoiled by a race of creatures full of greed and ignorance and willful stupidity. Everything there is slapdash and half-baked, nothing is done with long-term vision or forethought, everything is about profit and the lowest common denominator.

Perhaps it's simply a case of the grass being greener, or perhaps I simply value different things than the people I grew up around do and did, but every time someone tells me the USA is the greatest nation on earth I flinch and feel dismayed.

~Alja~

[theo5p]

A flaw in the us rail system is that after air travel became cheap it focused less on passenger service and more on shipping freight between distribution hubs efficiently and cheaply. One result is AMTRAK not owning any of their own trackage and passenger trains being forced to wait on sidings while freight has the right of way. This makes a trip that is usually 6 hours in a car take anywhere between 5 and 12 hours by rail. If you are lucky enough to have a train that goes anywhere you are trying to get you get the frustration of not knowing when you are going to get there.

[empath]

Yeah, suggesting trains as an alternative sounds good, but a) Lord Crusher has already hit the main limitation (until we make subway tunnels under the oceans), and 2) the terrorists will just switch to the trains right along with us...

[AlexanderDitto]

Yeah, suggesting trains as an alternative sounds good, but a) Lord Crusher has already hit the main limitation (until we make subway tunnels under the oceans), and 2) the terrorists will just switch to the trains right along with us...

A) I'm pretty sure that if the number of over-land flights was drastically reduced, there could be a larger focus on safety on the few overseas flights that would still be needed. Yes, the TSA kneejerking problem would still have to be delt with, but I would venture to guess a large percentage of flights are domestic.

Besides, there are always steamships. OK so maybe it is unrealistic for me to imagine the world being turned into an AU 1900's steampunk transportation utopia. But a man can dream, can't he?

B) Trains have a MUCH reduced potential of destruction than airplanes do. How's someone going to crash a train into a skyscraper?

[Alja-Markir]

Steamships?

I do believe you mean airships, my good man.

*adjusts his monocle and sips his warm Earl Grey*

~Alja~

Addendum: Also!

How's someone going to crash a train into a skyscraper?

This is how.

[AlexanderDitto]

Steamships?

I do believe you mean airships, my good man.

*adjusts his monocle and sips his warm Earl Grey*

~Alja~

Airships come afterwards, good sir! One step at a time...

In fact I know a Chemical Engineer who has dedicated his life to the goal of building an airship. Bit of a loon, that one. But also awesome and I told him I'd get dibs on first mate for his maiden voyage.

Addendum: Also!

How's someone going to crash a train into a skyscraper?

This is how.

*Monocle pops out*

GOOD HEAVENS!

[tak197]

In response to the earlier comment about "get rid of the muslims", I think what he really means is get rid of the extremists. Al qaida, KKK, the radical tibetan monks, all of those extremist groups. We all see them.

But 'illusion of security'? We don't want an illusion, we want the real stuff.

[Arius]

Wait... You want to get rid of the RTMs?

[Theremin]

The People's Front of Judea!?

[tak197]

The IRA too.