TSA = Total Sexual Assaut?

[Tangerine]

If you ever want to get to the bottom of something, just follow the money

Excellent point. I wonder who profits the most from the sale and placement of the "backscatter" x-ray machines that are being mandated by the TSA?


As for Private security, who currently pays for the TSA security teams? Are you saying that if they are used there is no cost to the airlines or airport, but if they choose to go private there is?

 

[Tim]

There is a $2.50 per person surcharge currently

The reason to go private is that privatizing saves money. At least that has been what I have seen in my parts. No reason to privatize if it is not a cost savings. Typically the company that comes in hires a good portion of the govt employees that were doing the work originally. Just shows how inefficient govt is when a private company can do it cheaper and usually better

Privatizing saves money? How does your math work?
Government run = costs
Private = costs + profits

Government run means we are in charge and we have a say in how it's done
Private run means they will do whatever they can to maximize profits, and if that means cutting corners or hiring people at minimum wage so they can make a dollar more, then that's what they'll do. Private companies won't be working in the interest of the people, they will be working towards cutting every dollar possible so they can make as much as they can.

This can be equated to running police departments. Would you really want your local law enforcement run by private firms?
If privatizing would work so much better, then why haven't the police been privatized years ago?

 

[retro]

Excellent point. I wonder who profits the most from the sale and placement of the "backscatter" x-ray machines that are being mandated by the TSA?

Michael Chertoff, the former head of the TSA, runs the company that makes the machines. Yeah, that's not suspicious in the least bit.

 

[Tim]

The airlines are exactly the ones that should be paying for their own security, and they should pay for it by whatever means they can, short of government takeover of their security system, as we have it now. I'm completely unconcerned if this is payback. With each airline choosing their own system of security, it would become another way for them to compete for market share.
"Fly us! We have the most secure airline, according to Frequent Flyers Weekly."
"Fly us! We have the smoothest and least intrusive security service to ensure the most comfortable flying experience."

That's absolutely crazy to let the airlines take control of their own security.
It's not just the safety of the passengers that security is designed to protect. It also protects everyone on the ground under our airspace.
So if Airline A decides to cheep out on their security to attract customers that don't like going through intrusive security, I need to worry that one of their planes will become a missile and take me out on the ground?

There needs to be continuity across all airlines when it comes to security and safety.
Your suggestion is almost as bad as saying the FAA should be dismantled and let the airlines police themselves.

 

[Tim]

Michael Chertoff, the former head of the TSA, runs the company that makes the machines. Yeah, that's not suspicious in the least bit.

It's not suspicious, it's criminal.

 

[Tangerine]

Privatizing saves money? How does your math work?
Government run = costs
Private = costs + profits

Government run means we are in charge and we have a say in how it's done
Private run means they will do whatever they can to maximize profits, and if that means cutting corners or hiring people at minimum wage so they can make a dollar more, then that's what they'll do. Private companies won't be working in the interest of the people, they will be working towards cutting every dollar possible so they can make as much as they can.

This can be equated to running police departments. Would you really want your local law enforcement run by private firms?
If privatizing would work so much better, then why haven't the police been privatized years ago?

CORRECTION:
Government run = inflated "Government Contract" costs+waste+corruption/payoffs+entitlement costs+++
Private = costs + profits

 

[PoopaSwoof]

I think this kind of thing could have been handled better.

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine

'I was absolutely humiliated,' said bladder cancer survivor



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40291856/ns/travel-news/

 

[Alien Allen]

Privatizing saves money? How does your math work?
Government run = costs
Private = costs + profits

Government run means we are in charge and we have a say in how it's done
Private run means they will do whatever they can to maximize profits, and if that means cutting corners or hiring people at minimum wage so they can make a dollar more, then that's what they'll do. Private companies won't be working in the interest of the people, they will be working towards cutting every dollar possible so they can make as much as they can.

This can be equated to running police departments. Would you really want your local law enforcement run by private firms?
If privatizing would work so much better, then why haven't the police been privatized years ago?

There are many things that should stay as they are Tim. I don't mean to infer we should privatize everything.

But you have your head buried in the sand as far as privatization.

Our school district saved a ton of money by going to privatizing their bus, maintenance and food services.

You act like there is not accountability which is bull shit my friend. Because if these companys fucks up there will be others to take their place.

Have your ever seen that happen with the public sector employee??

 

[Accountable]

 

[retro]

[youtube]XSQTz1bccL4[/youtube]

 

[Tangerine]

Oh Lookie! Suddenly the TSA is waffling and saying maybe it's not so god-damned important to feel people's private parts after all...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40302432/ns/travel-news/

WASHINGTON — The head of the agency responsible for airport security, facing protests from travelers and pressure from the White House, appeared to give ground Sunday on his position that there would be no change in policies regarding invasive passenger screening procedures.

Transportation Security Administration head John Pistole said in a statement that the agency would work to make screening methods "as minimally invasive as possible,"

 

[Alien Allen]

The should make the head of Homeland Insecurity and TSA along with all the morons who approve this go thru the pat downs. Or if they go thru the screening see how they like the images kept on the machine indefinately which has happened.

If there are going to not be selective then how about we have Obama go thru it along with his wife and see how they like it?

If they would keep the planes flying below 10,000 feet and let everybody have a gun on the planes I bet none would ever get hijacked

 

[retro]

The invasive searches are a method to get people to accept the full body scans instead. That's why the stepped up the invasiveness of the searches when they did... it has nothing to do with increasing security, but everything to do with making people accept the alternative easier than they would without them.

 

[Accountable]

Watch for news stories about how convenient rail travel is ... then the big push for high speed rail.

 

[HottyToddyChick]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4&feature=player_embedded

And not even in private?! Can they do that?

 

[Tangerine]

And not even in private?! Can they do that?

Doesn't that make you feel safer?

 

[HottyToddyChick]

Not really, no. If they strip search an adult, especially a female, it would be done in a private room.

Why should a child be any different? If anything, I'd imagine they'd go to greater extremes to protect the child if there were a need to remove clothing. And then you get into, what if it's a female child? So she's 6 and hasn't developed breasts. Is it acceptable to remove her shirt in a public area?

 

[Tangerine]

Not really, no. If they strip search an adult, especially a female, it would be done in a private room.

Why should a child be any different? If anything, I'd imagine they'd go to greater extremes to protect the child if there were a need to remove clothing. And then you get into, what if it's a female child? So she's 6 and hasn't developed breasts. Is it acceptable to remove her shirt in a public area?

NONE of this is acceptable, and has never been.

 

[HottyToddyChick]

Well, no, it's not. I'm just trying to figure out their thought process on that one.

 

[MoonOwl]

Good to see backpeddling going on. Talk of a day of protest.


I've often wondered when we will have had enough. Perhaps this is the catalyst that is waking people up? Almost too much to hope for.

As I said pages back, if the goal of a terrorist is to change ones way of life through fear, ubl won. I would have never thought that would happen and it makes me sick that it has. I grew up thinking Americans had more backbone than that. To fall over and let the government keep them safe by any means? Wow... I wonder how Thomas Jefferson or George Washington or John Adams or Ben Franklin would feel about their wives & children having to go through airports these days.

There has to be a better way than a full on police state. Unless that was the goal of our sold-out career politicians all along? Tighten those chains slowly over time so we don't realize how chained we are until it's too late?

We have no one to blame but ourselves. Abdicate responsibility to the government and this is what we get.

Live Free or Die?
Don't Tread on Me?
Unite or Die?

How so last Century.......

Submit & Be Safe
War Is Peace
Questioning = Anti-American
Resistance is Futile


blah.... At least it's quite obvious now to anyone paying attention that there are indeed two sets of rules. One for our politicians (none) and the other for us sheep.