Rhona Mahony has posted about her experience with the TSA while traveling to Denver. . .with a fake boarding pass. You can read her story here.
She also brought with her three jars, one carried Charcoal, another Sulphur, and the last Saltpetre. These three items mix together to make gun powder. This did not raise the attention of the overly efficient and profoundly educated government agents who performed an extra thorough check of her suitcase.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
This is clearly and example of wasted tax payer's money, but not a failure of the idea of screening individuals to stop terrorism. The real problem is the incompetent, corrupt administration administering the TSA with its deregulatory ideology. They will only spend so much as they are pressured to do so. They do not operate on the assumption that the TSA can be made efficient and rational in its implementation of its mandates. The TSA allowing these ingredients to pass is not a failure of the TSA, but a failure of free market ideology.
"The real problem is the incompetent, corrupt administration administering the TSA with its deregulatory ideology."
This is the real problem with most government agencies.
"They will only spend so much as they are pressured to do so. They do not operate on the assumption that the TSA can be made efficient and rational in its implementation of its mandates."
You sight lack of funding and lack of efficiency in almost the same breath. They lack efficiency because they don't have competition. A private company could probably come in and do the same job for less money, and would be motivated to do so. Airports and airlines should be handling security on their own.
"The TSA allowing these ingredients to pass is not a failure of the TSA, but a failure of free market ideology."
LOL! You made NO connection to support this statement.
"This is the real problem with most government agencies."
No, it's the problem with their governing ideology. A well-run government organization is no different than a well-run business.
"You sight lack of funding and lack of efficiency in almost the same breath."
Yes, it takes money to train officials.
"They lack efficiency because they don't have competition."
There is no reason to believe that government agencies are inefficient because they lack competition. Less efficient than businesses with competition? Sure, but inefficient? I don't think so. That's an immmoral stance perpetuated by right wingers. Government agencies have been efficient when run by competent bosses.
"A private company could probably come in and do the same job for less money, and would be motivated to do so. Airports and airlines should be handling security on their own."
A private company is NOT the government.
If fact, the bureaucrat I've been talking to in Calgary is one of the most efficient and competent ones I've ever talked to. The one in Amherst, however, didn't know her shoe from her nose.
"No, it's the problem with their governing ideology. A well-run government organization is no different than a well-run business."
Only they exist without competition.
"Less efficient than businesses with competition? Sure, but inefficient?"
If they're not as efficient as they potentially can be, they're inefficient.
"Government agencies have been efficient when run by competent bosses."
Unfortunately they're typically run by hacks of their profession that couldn't make it in the in private sector.
"A private company is NOT the government."
Thankfully.
"Only they exist without competition."
Wrong. Elections and the fear of losing power is the competition.
"If they're not as efficient as they potentially can be, they're inefficient. "
And they're not, because we would be foolish enough to compare apples (government organizations) with oranges (businesses). A governmental organization or department can only be as efficient as a governmental organization or department can be. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A FREE MARKET>
"Unfortunately they're typically run by hacks of their profession that couldn't make it in the in private sector."
LOL, that's a stupid statment. Those who were successful in business, but thought they could easily be a politician have lost OVER AND OVER again in the past. A person who makes a good business person does not necessarily make a good politician... and vice versa. The two professions are mutually exclusive. I can't believe that you would make such a retarded statement!
"Thankfully."
Amen.
"Wrong. Elections and the fear of losing power is the competition."
Maybe in the congress, but even newer congressmen are controlled by the major party leaders that only ever change when they move on to bigger or better things or retire. Senators can raise funds all over the country, so they don't really need to be beholden to their constituents as long as the American elite support them. This perception that they have to be worried about being taken out of office has been mostly false.
"And they're not, because we would be foolish enough to compare apples (government organizations) with oranges (businesses)"
This must be why I like oranges more.
"THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT A FREE MARKET"
Yep, I know, its a monopoly. There's a reason we don't like monopolies, isn't there?
"A person who makes a good business person does not necessarily make a good politician... and vice versa."
Pointing out successful business people who have failed in politics doesn't prove my statement false.
"Maybe in the congress, but even newer congressmen are controlled by the major party leaders that only ever change when they move on to bigger or better things or retire. Senators can raise funds all over the country, so they don't really need to be beholden to their constituents as long as the American elite support them. This perception that they have to be worried about being taken out of office has been mostly false."
That's the decision of the voters, Josh, not a postive-statement that there is no competition.
"This must be why I like oranges more."
Uncritical idiots usually do.
"Pointing out successful business people who have failed in politics doesn't prove my statement false."
Yes, actually, it does. And if you are in the habit of lying to yourself, I can point to politicians who have faired equally dismal in business. However, there are examples of successful crossovers as well. Success in either field depends on the attributes of that field, not the tenets of market evangelism.
"That's the decision of the voters, Josh, not a postive-statement that there is no competition."
The fallacy of a democracy.
"Yes, actually, it does. And if you are in the habit of lying to yourself, I can point to politicians who have faired equally dismal in business. However, there are examples of successful crossovers as well. Success in either field depends on the attributes of that field, not the tenets of market evangelism."
The only successful cross over a politician makes into business is as a lobbyist. And no, you didn't prove my statement false, you made a completely different statement that has no relation to the statement I made. There is a significant difference.
"The fallacy of a democracy."
Nope, the decision of people.
"The only successful cross over a politician makes into business is as a lobbyist."
I'm quite sure there are failed politicians out there operating businesses, Josh, because I know the failure rate and entry rate of politics is much steeper than business.
"And no, you didn't prove my statement false, you made a completely different statement that has no relation to the statement I made. There is a significant difference."
"And no, you didn't prove my statement false, you made a completely different statement that has no relation to the statement I made. There is a significant difference."
You asserted that businesspeople can easily make good politicians, because politicians are the leftovers who couldn't make it in the business world. I countered that that assertion patently false, because many businesspeople fail when they try to become politicians. In addition, I will point out that most politicians never tried to become businesspeople. They either entered law, and became very successful lawyers or entered entertainment and became famous actors, both of which require intense intelligence and personalty. In fact, most of these tend to be the top of their classes.. Obama graduated with great honours from Harvard law school...
"Nope, the decision of people."
What do they about mobs?
"I'm quite sure there are failed politicians out there operating businesses, Josh, because I know the failure rate and entry rate of politics is much steeper than business."
Yes, typically as a lobbyist.
"You asserted that businesspeople can easily make good politicians, because politicians are the leftovers who couldn't make it in the business world."
No, I asserted politicians couldn't make it big in the private sector, so they became politicians. If you're not good enough to become an executive, why not run for congress? I never said there was anything easy about it. But yes, they are the leftovers of the business world. They have all of the contacts needed to get into politics, but none of the talent needed to exceed in business.
"They either entered law, and became very successful lawyers or entered entertainment and became famous actors, both of which require intense intelligence and personalty."
And neither require the ability to run a business successfully. This was very clear when Carla Fiona (ex-ceo of HP and huge supported of McCain) was asked if Sarah Palin was qualified to run a business the size of HP, and she said NO. But, apparently she has the qualifications to be president.
"What do they about mobs?"
Mobs is a non-causal description and hence unscientific. Did you have a specific example in mind? Or are you comparing the votes of the majority to that of the sterotypical mob?
"Yes, typically as a lobbyist."
I'm quite sure there are failed politicians out there operating businesses, Josh, because I know the failure rate and entry rate of politics is much steeper than business.
"No, I asserted politicians couldn't make it big in the private sector, so they became politicians."
It's not a black-and-white decision between becoming rich and something else, Josh. I know you'll have a hard time believing this, but there are people who don't give a fuck about getting rich! *Gasp*
"If you're not good enough to become an executive, why not run for congress? I never said there was anything easy about it."
You also failed to mention that some people don't care about getting rich. Some people care about gaining power, being liked by huge crowds, art, wisdom, the satification of helping others. Yep, I'm quite sure that your reduction of politicians to "those who wouldn't make it as a businessman" is one of the most retarded thing you've ever said.
"But yes, they are the leftovers of the business world. They have all of the contacts needed to get into politics, but none of the talent needed to exceed in business. "
And usually none of the talent to succeed as a politician. No, those who choose to becomes politicians become politicians for many different reasons, NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY COULDNT GET RICH IN BUSINESS>
LOL, what a stupid reduction of the facts. You need to get back to science, Josh. Your frequency of stupid statments is increasing. And, no, just taking the opposite view because it is the opposite of my view is NOT the scientific thing to do.
Post a Comment