Confessions Of an Ex-TSA Agent: Secrets Of the I.O. Room 393
Jason Edward Harrington has seen some of the same frustrations, misgivings, and objections that have crossed the mind of probably every commercial airline traveler who's flown over the last decade in the U.S. One difference: Harrington got to see them from the perspective of a TSA agent. His description of the realities of the job (including learning the rote responses that agents are instructed to reassure the public with) is wince-worthy and compelling. A sample makes it clear why the TSA has such famously low morale, even among Federal agencies: "I hated it from the beginning. It was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly and even infants as part of the post-9/11 airport security show. I confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security. I was even required to confiscate nail clippers from airline pilots—the implied logic being that pilots could use the nail clippers to hijack the very planes they were flying." It only gets worse from there.
and the TSA exists because... (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA exists because Americans tolerate it.
It's that simple.
We hold the purse strings AND the votes. Either one alone is enough to eliminate the TSA. But we have said, en-mass, that the TSA is acceptable in our society. So it will continue.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not necessarily true. There are numerous fundamental phenomena which subvert the notion of democratic rule as its commonly understood, and that's excluding all the cynical drivel that people toss around.
Here's one of the most well known of such phenomena: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the whole country stopped any non-essential travel for 3 months... and made it clear why... and that the travel would not start again until the TSA was gone - not changed, not lip service given to "improvements" and "hearing the public voice", but actually GONE - the TSA would be eliminated within a month.
The TSA exists because it is tolerated by the public.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:5, Interesting)
Nobody would need to do that. If everybody opted out of the scanners, the same effect would be achieved. However, you'd be shocked (or maybe not, given that your premise is 100% correct) at how many Americans think the TSA in its current form is good and necessary for safe air travel. Slashdot and the like might be a circlejerk of anti-TSA sentiment, but that's absolutely not public opinion - reinforced every day by the people that choose to put up with that shit.
In the past, I opted out 100% of the time, for three reasons: 1. I don't trust the safety of the scanners, as the test data is not public; 2. I think the scanners are overly-intrusive; and 3. I WANT that TSA morale to stay low, to have employees bitching about the 1000th guy they had to feel up that day, while doing my part to slow down the line and hope that the delays in aggregate piss people off enough to all be sick of it.
In my old age (read: parenthood), the TSA and I have struck a compromise with some help from CBP and CBSA - we joined NEXUS and now get Pre-Check almost 100% of the time. That, to me, is a fair compromise. It's almost pre-9/11, with the theatrics minimized, and all I really gave up was data the government already had on me and my family anyway - I mean that pessimistically in the sense that it was going to be collected with or without my knowledge, and also in the factual sense that my past employment with the government resulted in far more thorough investigations than anything CBP was going to do for a trusted traveler program.
I can live with this arrangement if TSA is relegated to "hands on" screening of high risk (actual high risk) passengers and letting the rest of us get to where we're going. The pre-check program is a step in the right direction, but I'd also argue that my existing tax dollars should cover it and people shouldn't have to pay to enroll. For something like NEXUS that's cross-border, yeah I think the $50 I paid is reasonable, but for pure domestic it needs to be part of TSA's existing budget. /incoherentrant
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I always opt out. Midway in Chicago the TSA agent got really really mad at me, of course there was an hour line for the checkpoints. Everywhere else they didn't seem to care. I keep threatening to shoot my black powder pistol just before going to the airport one day, see if their residue checker actually works (I would think black powder would be the first thing they check for).
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:4, Informative)
I used to work with a guy who had to get scanned by an airport residue scanner, on the same day that he had been using competitive firearms all morning in practice. He was happy to openly admit it to them (this was in Australia), but the scanner didn't pick up anything at all.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:4, Informative)
The scanners used in Australian airports target nitrate-based explosives only, not the phosphate-based residues which would result from firearm usage.
black powder is k NITRATE (Score:5, Informative)
He said black powder. Black powder is potassium NITRATE aka kno3.
A little charcoal, a lot of potassium nitrate, and a pinch of sulfur.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:5, Funny)
Traveling is stressful. If you opt out you get a free message. What's not to like?
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe some of the local TSA supervisors aren't idiots. Even TFA says that the instructor tasked with teaching TSA agents how to use the scanners said, off the record, that "they're shit."
Re: (Score:3)
HAHA! An awesome Freudian slip. I'd imagine the message you'll get is along the lines of "You gonna get raped." After that is where the massage comes in ;)
Maybe he just likes the Pink Panther movies.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:4, Insightful)
That, to me, is a fair compromise.
There can be no compromise; the TSA must be destroyed.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:5, Interesting)
I always opt out. And usually loudly announce it's because I'm a medical researcher and I don't think they're safe (I *am* a public health researcher; and I have no idea if they're safe - which is kind of the problem). Which sometimes results in one or two others in the line behind me suddenly opting out, much to the disgust of the TSA folks. Although I'm always polite to the TSA people themselves - like Jason Harrington, 90% of them are just there because they needed a job and don't have many other options.
Re: (Score:3)
And you're also helping reduce unemployment. If everyone opted out, we would need more TSA agents. True grassroots stimulus!
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:4, Funny)
Now that's a clever euphemism for a pat down.
Re: (Score:3)
That's another way to formulate the Broken Window Fallacy. In this case, though, an immaterial object (your time) is destroyed instead of a material one (glass.)
Re: (Score:3)
Whoosh. (I didn't realize on /. I needed to use the HTML 99 tag <humor>. I will be more careful in the future.)
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:5, Informative)
In particular, it does not apply when you're talking about subsidies / investment that is required to produce a demand that will cause economies of scale to lower prices to the degree that would increase real demand. If, rather than one window being broken, a few thousand were, then that might cause the glazier in the story to invest in machinery to produce glass in high volumes. Once all of the windows have been replaced, the glazier is still able to produce glass at significant volumes and lower costs, and so reduces his prices to stimulate demand. This then triggers the development of industries that depend on the cheap and ready availability of glass.
That's stretching the story a little bit, because the production of glass is very well understood and there are few changes in the process that are more than small incremental improvements. It is very different in a comparatively new field, for example the production of solar cells, where new processes regularly produce 50% better (more efficient, cheaper, etc.) technology. It would be true of microprocessors, if not for the fact that this market has already moved on to the stage where there is sufficient demand to drive investment without needing external priming.
The motivation is largely irrelevant. The broken window fallacy would apply to the TSA if the TSA is hiring people who would otherwise be employed doing something productive. It is, of course, not the only way in which the TSA costs the economy. On my last trip to the US, I spent a total of around two hours in queues for security theatre, which could have been time spent in the airport lounge working. The same is true of most business travellers.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you troll elsewhere. You know damn well what I meant and completely misrepresented it in order to pursuit some sick agenda you have that involves largely your own imagination.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:5, Interesting)
I can live with this arrangement if TSA is relegated to "hands on" screening of high risk (actual high risk) passengers and letting the rest of us get to where we're going. The pre-check program is a step in the right direction,
I'm pretty sure this is exactly the response the government is banking on.
"We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal unless a classified government algorithm determines otherwise"
From a security perspective the security of a system is only as good as its weakest link and the feedback channel afforded to potential adversaries in obtaining pre-check status is such an enormously ridiculous concept I find it hard to believe anyone who thinks groping + irradiation is necessary for security would have any difficulty with a conclusion that TSA is grossly negligent for implementation of pre-check.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:4, Interesting)
I opt out of the body scanners when I fly alone.
I opted out once when I flew with my wife and kids. The guy that patted me down informed me that they always waved through families with young kids. I haven't been patted down since.
I guess terrorists don't fly with young kids. And young kids can't be trained to carry bomb materials.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's the problem. What do you consider non-essential? I'm thinking that a majority of people flying commercially need to do so, either because their job dictates that they be there quickly (as in, not enough time to drive across country), or they need to travel internationally and a boat is out of the question in today's world.
As much as it would be great to boycott the industry, it just isn't feasible for those that do most of the traveling. Personally, I've never flown (commercially, anyways) and never
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"non-essential travel for 3 months"
I think that flying for your work/job qualifies as essential.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think you can say I hold the purse strings when my taxes are withheld before I even get my paycheck.
Re: (Score:3)
Claim 500 deductions. Withholding is a thing because most people find it a convenience- the majority of people have poor planning abilities and wouldn't be able to pay the bill in April. But you can just claim an insane number of deductions and have basically 0 withholding. You'll just need to write a big check each April.
Re: and the TSA exists because... (Score:4, Insightful)
Extra protip: Don't take tax advice from someone on Slashdot.
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:4, Informative)
You need a certain amount of your expected tax bill on account with the government else they can fine you. I think it amounts to 90% of your current year's tax bill or 100% of the previous year's bill. There are some exceptions but they are limited. The fine is something like a percentage of the underpaid amount or something like that.
There is also a $500 penalty if you knowingly do as you suggest and alter your W-4 to reduce the amount of withholding with no reasonable basis for doing so. Also, you can be charged with a crime for supplying false or fraudulent information on your Form W-4 or failing to offer information that could increase your withholding that can cost you $1000 and/or 1 year in prison.
So while, yes, in theory, you can alter your deductions to effectively have no withholding, it can also cost you a lot more in the end if you do so.
Re: (Score:3)
It's must simpler than that.
You just have to stop flying. Yeah, yeah, some people HAVE to, but a huge part of it is discretionary. Vacations, places you could drive to, etc.
When the revenue stream dries up, and people make it clear why they are not traveling by air any more, the airlines will go lean on the government.
But it has to be enough people to hit them where it hurts: the pocketbook. And they're not even slightly afraid of that possibility, because Americans are sheep.
More than that start taking the train as amtrack has been adamant in their refusal to allow the TSA to harass their customers
Re: (Score:3)
You just have to stop flying. Yeah, yeah, some people HAVE to, but a huge part of it is discretionary. Vacations, places you could drive to, etc.
I love this asshole. Yes, please give up one of the few things left to Americans; their pitifully short number of vacation days. Instead, stay at home. Like we don't work hard enough already. Wanna know what most people fly to? Not to have fun, but to go see family. They do it to go see the people they love. That's what Americans do on their rare time off. And this asshole says "Americans are sheep".
Yeah. Sure. Okay. Maybe they're just working themselves to death trying to live paycheck to paycheck because
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a table of how much people in the US actually have flown, by year: http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_40.html [dot.gov]
The upshot is there was a slight dip in 2001-2002, but then it kept climbing. Until 2008, when it dropped slightly again and stayed dropped. This is easier to explain by price than by TSA.
Re: (Score:3)
The TSA exists because Americans tolerate it.
It's that simple.
We hold the purse strings AND the votes. Either one alone is enough to eliminate the TSA. But we have said, en-mass, that the TSA is acceptable in our society. So it will continue.
wrong, WRONG, WRONG!. there are good reasons that there is a 91% incumbency rate. one reason is unfettered gerrymandering [google.com] which completely subverts democracy.
democracy is dead [washingtonpost.com]
Senator Tom Coburn described the situation well when he said, "In several election cycles in recent history, more incumbents died in office than lost reelection bids."
Re: (Score:2)
The TSA exists because Americans tolerate it.
It's worse than that. It exists because those in power know it is a powerful tool to exert control over those without. It is a sickening propaganda tool much like the duck and cover drills during the Cuban missile crisis. If someone in Cuba had launched a nuke at Miami, hiding under your desk would not have helped. It DID make the public feel like there was something they could do to mitigate their personal damage. The TSA is there to make us feel like something is being done about airline security.
Re: (Score:2)
The TSA exists because Americans tolerate it.
It's that simple.
We hold the purse strings AND the votes. Either one alone is enough to eliminate the TSA. But we have said, en-mass, that the TSA is acceptable in our society. So it will continue.
Brave words from an anonymous coward!
Please tell me who I can vote for to eliminate the TSA?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Welfare for those for have been on it for five years was terminated in 1996.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:and the TSA exists because... (Score:5, Informative)
BS. What government program has ever ended?
Mobilization for the Civil War
Reconstruction in the South after the Civil War
Mobilization for WW1
Prohibition
Federal poisoning of alcohol [slate.com]
CCC - Civilian Conservation Corps
CWA - Civil Works Administration
FSA - Federal Security Agency
PWA - Public Works Administration
WPA - Works Progress Administration
Mobilization for WW2
The Marshall Plan
Mobilization for Korea
The draft
Mobilization for Desert Storm
Cash for clunkers
There are more.
the US stopped preparing for war? stopped FDA? (Score:3)
Five of the items you listed are "mobilization for ___ war". You're far too smart to actually believe the US has stopped getting ready for war. The NAME of the war has changed, the activity has not.
Similarly for most of the other names in your list. FSA was the FDA, Social Security Administration, and a few other things. Has the FDA stopped? SSA? No, they moved the program from one department to another. Nothing stopped .
I'm kind of disappointed, cold fjord. You normally think before you post, but you
Greetings from your new foe.... (Score:4, Interesting)
So, your saying that Senator Obama was responsible for the formation and implementing the TSA when Bush jr. was the President?
Hint for the uninformed:
The TSA was put in place by a Republican George Bush jr., during the first of his two terms in office.
I marked you foe NOT because I'm an Oama fan, but because I see you as too stupid to even describe in words, and because of the whole TSA, PATRIOT Act, DHS, and all of the other unconstitutional crap turning me fiercely anti-Republican.
Bush jr. and company all need to be lined up against the wall and shot for the traitors they are.
And while we're at it, Obama and co. can join them for not correcting this crap.
Re:Greetings from your new foe.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And you know the current president didn't make a rule that mothers had to drink breast milk, don't you?
Just like you make the absurd claim that liberals view everything through the lens of race, you show your own biases quite clearly.
Re: (Score:3)
he was only following orders... (Score:2)
don't want our gov officials of citizens to be on the bad side of that statement. TSA sucks.
Taking Sense Away Blogger (Score:5, Informative)
I've been reading that guy's blog since day one:
http://takingsenseaway.wordpre... [wordpress.com]
The bird (Score:5, Interesting)
Glad to know the only two times I ever went through the scanners (I travel for work frequently) that maybe somebody did see me flipping the double bird. Even happier that the on last several dozen trips my wife and I live by the words 'opt out'. Several agents have commented to me readily while feeling me up and violating my privacy that what they were doing was completely useless. In one case I was told by an agent that he felt up the CEO of the company that makes the current machines, who refuses to use them for himself or his family.
Time to get rid of the TSA, the only organization that can still get funding with a 0% success rate.
Breach of secrecy (Score:2)
Be careful Mr. Harrington. Gitmo isn't closed yet. You wouldn't want some guys in a van to stop by and take you on a "trip" would you?
In All Fairness (Score:4, Funny)
... confiscated jars of homemade apple butter on the pretense that they could pose threats to national security.
In all fairness, if I got a job as a TSA agent, and my bosses told me that jars of homemade apple butter could be a threat, I for one would take their word for it. I might post on slashdot hoping some educted chemists could debunk the issue, but I wouldn't presume to know that apple butter didn't happen to be a great masking material for some other explosive material.
Re: (Score:2)
In all fairness, if I got a job as a TSA agent
You'd be immoral. How safe they make us (and I doubt they actually make us safer) is irrelevant; what matters is the fact that the job requires that you violate people's rights and the constitution, and that cannot be tolerated.
Re: (Score:2)
that was a pretty harsh response considering I did work in " I might post on slashdot hoping some educted chemists could debunk the issue" as about a third of my comment. Why don't you more constructively work with me on that third, rather than AC ripping me for the other 2/3 as if I hadn't had the qualifier in their.
Better ideas anyone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Better ideas anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
uhh...a hole to the outside, suddenly depressurizing the plane while at 30k feet, would be a really, really bad thing. What we should "try" is metal detectors and dogs - you know, the stuff we were using /before/ all this, and which worked substantially better.
I could empty an AR-15 w/30 rounds from inside an airliner flying at 30K feet, reload, do it again, and still not depressurize the cabin to any serious extent as long as no windows were blown out. I serviced/repaired aircraft for a living. (note: this assumes one doesn't carefully aim to enlarge a single hole.) You'd need a hole at least a foot or more across to be in any immediate danger.
An airliner is not a spaceship, and movies are not reality.
Strat
Re:Better ideas anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, and a related set of facts I thought I should mention, just for safety and the odd chance's sake.
Discharging a firearm in an aircraft may not be likely to cause dangerous and immediate cabin depressurization, but there's still a ton of vital stuff that keeps you flying (and landing minus large fireball and crater!) that doesn't play well with getting shot up.
It's a bad idea, period. Unless lives are at stake, don't do it.
That being said, if you're on an aircraft and some surreal turn of events happens to cause you or someone else you have influence over to absolutely *have to* discharge a firearm while flying in an airliner, try to avoid lines of fire that intersect the wings/engines (and the fuel tanks they contain, although a small-caliber round is unlikely to cause a fire/explosion/sudden fuel loss), the cockpit area (obviously), directly aft through the tail (avionics/autopilot/comms/cabin air pressure pumps/etc) and down through the deck you're standing on (more avionics/flight control/comm/nav/etc, fuel tanks, and landing gear).
Avoid the instinct to consider "down" (cabin deck) a safe default direction for discharging a firearm purposefully or accidentally in an aircraft cabin. If anything, "up" (cabin ceiling) would be preferable.
Of course, avoid windows. Easy one to remember for most Slashdotters. :)
Exact locations will vary by aircraft make/model/etc, but that's a pretty good general rule-of-thumb layout.
Again, if there's any choice, do not discharge any firearm in an aircraft in flight. Too easy to fall down go BOO000OOM!
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
OP is right. Airliner environmental control systems move literally tons of air.
Re:Better ideas anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Airliner environmental control systems move literally tons of air.
Spot on.
Airliner cabin seals are nowhere near 100% even when the airliner is paint-still-drying new. Cabin air pressurization systems and their pumps are designed with many times the capacity they would normally need. They are beasts. That's why even dozens of bullet holes wouldn't cause a dangerous cabin pressure problem.
Most people would be shocked at how poor the cabin seals actually are on the aircraft they fly on, and how much cabin pressure depends on the pumps keeping up with cabin seal losses.
Strat
Re:Better ideas anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
I could empty an AR-15 w/30 rounds from inside an airliner flying at 30K feet, reload, do it again, and still not depressurize the cabin to any serious extent as long as no windows were blown out. I serviced/repaired aircraft for a living.
I designed and coded the software for cabin pressurization systems used in commercial aircraft. BlueStrat is correct in all details, and if you know a little engineering you can easily convince yourself.
The cabin pressurization valve is an inflatable balloon [liebherr.com] (of sorts) sitting in an 8" diameter hole, and there are two of them. The system will easily compensate for even a large number of bullet holes in the body - 1" holes are much smaller than the area the valve system has to work with.
The pressure differential between the inside and outside can be at most 15 pounds per square inch(*). That means that a 1" hole would only present 15 lbs of force pressure on an object pressing against it, which can be easily overcome by a person. Bullet holes are much smaller than 1" diameter. Further away and the effect is negligible.
A window being shot out would not suck out a passenger. From experience, when an 8" diameter hole (the pressurization valve) is suddenly uncovered, it doesn't pull very hard on people standing near it and the pull ends almost instantly. Force isn't present for any length of time, and since F=M*A and V = A*T, you end up with very little velocity.
Sorry folks, Goldfinger doesn't get sucked across the cabin and forced through the blown-out window [ew.com], and Pussy Galore [wikipedia.org] doesn't have to pull the plane out of a tailspin.
(*) To reduce stress on the airframe, the cabin is depressurized as the aircraft reaches cruising altitude.This reduces the maximum differential by about 1/3.
Re: (Score:2)
Do your understanding of pneumatics a favor: google "airplane outflow valve".
Most people I talk to support the TSA (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazing (Score:4, Insightful)
The TSA must be a "different" kind of organization than that which I work for, the United States Air Force. I have written many "letters to the editor" under my real name on many topics that expose my generally Socialist bent and strong anti-authoritarian opinions. Yet, I have never been "admonished", and I recently had my security clearance extended for another 10 years after the standard Security Clearance Anal Probe.
I think the TSA is a "different" kind of US government agency, one that need to go.
Ageless Wisdom (Score:3)
"It was a job that had me patting down the crotches of children, the elderly and even infants"
Never make a job of what you love.
In the end it's still just a job, and you've ruined your hobby.
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:4, Insightful)
well it comforting to know that the same government that managed this program is now moving on to something as *truly* important as our and our childrens healthcare.
right?
Exactly. Only, it's not. The ACA is to ensure more people have health *insurance*.
I'm curious why you felt the need to break out "our childrens (sic) healthcare", as if one might assume that their (again, insurance, not healthcare) was separate from ours. Just for the emotional weight?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
that's a good question.
i mentioned it because i personally think that it's going to take years before the inevitably negative effects of the ACA really get shot thru the system, thus affecting our children in a much greater way then we (im 50) will ever feel.
just like the inevitably negative effect that the $17trillion dollar debt that we are burdening our children with will eventually cause some sort of ugly corrective event.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
unfortunately, it is all related my good fellow...although it would be comforting to think it wasn't, so i get where your coming from.
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I would consider a state worker as the state advocating something. I can understand why the state wouldn't cover you unless you were in debt by medical expenses. But if you had no medical bills, then you wouldn't need coverage until you did. The kid has no fault in you being unemployed and unable to provide for him so covering him is a no brain'er.
Covering you without some extenuating circumstances however might encourage the likelihood of you continuing to need coverage. So I think what the state was actually encouraging was you to get a job and provide for yourself while they assisted the innocent child that followed your into that mess. I guess if you are the type who looks at the glass as half empty all the time, you could find the go into medical debt sentiment in that scenario. The interesting thing is, if you are 16k in debt with no job, you are also bankrupt and could discharge that debt pretty easily.
Re: (Score:3)
how is the government in our health care again?
the ACA
sets the minimum standard insurance companies must provide. a lot of insurance plans basically failed if you tried to use them.
Requires everyone to take part and since everyone has an equal chance of being sick and needing health care they need insurance anyways. a simple doctors visit without insurance costs hundreds of dollars.
uses the IRS Who is watching your income anyways to monitor it to make sure you are paying for insurance anyways.
created a we
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, they have the Federal government in common. That's the point.
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure the Federal government is *involved*, but *how* it is involved surely makes a difference. The Federal Government actually *runs* security at airports. It does not run non-military health care facilities. It doesn't even provide insurance except to its employees and their families and the poor. It's actual participation in health care and health care decisions is quite limited.
The Federal government involvement in health care, broadly speaking, is limited to the following five areas:
(1) Mandates individual coverage for US residents.
(2) Sets minimal standards for what must be covered to meet the mandate.
(3) Subsidizes low income insurance premiums
(4) Provides free alternative insurance for households making less than 133% of the poverty line *in participating states*.
(5) Provides a health care "exchange" on which consumers can shop for insurance *in states that decline to provide this service to their citizens*.
That's it. Obamacare is a private sector based health care scheme -- essentially the same scheme, in fact, developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation for Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole in 1996. There is no way to ensure the bulk of Americans have routine health care with *less* federal involvement than what is outlined above.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
wrong.
i think the US government is incredible at building roads, and it's military seems rather well managed.
also, library's kick ass.
Re: (Score:2)
wrong.
i think the US government is incredible at building roads, and it's military seems rather well managed.
also, library's kick ass.
It's amazing what you can do when you spend as much on your military as the rest of the world combined.
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:5, Insightful)
You mostly have it BECAUSE you spend that fuckton of money on the military.
Every country so far that considered trading oil for Euros got bombed. Every time Iran starts pondering, we get to hear about their dangerous nuke program.
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:5, Interesting)
The US government needs to learn a few more lessons on building roads. If you would inform us of the aspects of roadbuilding in the US that impress you, maybe some of us could disillusion you.
For starters, our interstate highway system is demonstrably unsafe, compared the Autobahn. Have you ever noticed that nothing separates oncoming traffic? It has been pointed out to me that the Germans have double guard rails separating oncoming traffic. What do we have? A grass filled median. I have observed vehicles going out of control, and rolling, flying, coasting, skidding, or otherwise finding their way into the oncoming lanes. In view of the physical laws of nature, it is safer to hit ANYTHING other than oncoming vehicle. Steel guard rails, concrete dividers, trees, bridge abutments, ANYTHING.
There are a large number of places in the United States where the engineers flubbed. Dead Man's Curve, in Cleveland Ohio has lots of optical warnings that the curve is unsafe at speeds over 35 mph - but they seem to fail, as year after year, idiot manage to wipe out in that curve.
Bridges in various places during rainstorms become very unsafe. The crown of the road, couple with the incline of the road surface when it meets the incline of the approach ramp often just dams water up on the road way. I have hydroplaned fully loaded tractor trailers in these areas, while driving the posted speed limit or less. If I can float 80,000 pounds, you can rest assured that you will float your 3,000 pound personal vehicle in these areas.
Lighting. I have rather sensitive eyes. As I age, they are becoming more sensitive to bright lights at night. I can be blinded by lights pretty easily. Truck stops, restaurants, and other businesses often put very bright lights near the highway to attract attention. Billboards often have bright lights that are aimed improperly, so that they shine into motorist's eyes. The cops themselves are on a quest to find the brightest possible lights to mount on their patrol cars. I was very literally blinded as I came around a curve in Memphis late one night, by a police car stopped at the scene of an accident. Only luck, or the hand of God, prevented me from running into the survivors and the emergency workers.
Speed limits? Those are set by politicians, for the purpose of extracting revenues from the motoring public. When Eisenhower specced the interstate, it was intended that the interstate sustain 80 mph traffic. The human body has physiological reactions to traveling. On an open highway, with little to look at, the sound, vibrations, and general motions of the vehicle tends to lull people into relaxation and sleep at speeds around 55 mph. At speeds approaching 80 mph, everything about the vehicle tends to key the occupants into full alertness. Except for known unsafe areas, the interstates would be much SAFER with higher speed limits.
I'm sorry, but we are merely mediocre road builders. Leaving the interstate highway system behind, the US Highway system gets worse. State and local highways are oftentimes abysmal failures.
We CAN actually build superb highways. We have the technology, we have the knowhow, we have the materials, and we have the money to do so. We simply choose not to. Any movement to force the issue will be defeated by politicians. The courts will side with the politicians, because they love their cash cow. America will not be building any incredible highway systems in our lifetimes.
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:5, Interesting)
I call BS on much of your post.
For starters, our interstate highway system is demonstrably unsafe, compared the Autobahn. Have you ever noticed that nothing separates oncoming traffic? It has been pointed out to me that the Germans have double guard rails separating oncoming traffic. What do we have? A grass filled median.
Umm, on many of the highways I drive on in the U.S., when the oncoming traffic is placed closer (without a significant median), there are guardrails. If it's even closer, there's a concrete or double concrete barrier. You can argue that maybe we need more barriers, but engineers clearly use these solutions in many places in the U.S. when conditions warrant it.
I have hydroplaned fully loaded tractor trailers in these areas, while driving the posted speed limit or less.
In heavy enough rain, you can hydroplane. News at 11.
There's something called "adjust your driving to conditions." You simply can't always go the posted speed limit in heavy rain. Yes, there are places where the road is not ideal and water channels or pools happen in heavy rain. Those sorts of places exist in Germany and in Europe in general too. The U.S. is HUGE, and sometimes engineers don't predict things quite right over literally millions of miles of roadways. But your assumption that you should be able to just travel the speed limit without ever hydroplaning -- I don't think that's reasonable. (The size of your vehicle also won't make this impossible: heavy aircraft have been known to hydroplane, which is the reason many airports have adopted grooves on runways.)
Speed limits? Those are set by politicians, for the purpose of extracting revenues from the motoring public. When Eisenhower specced the interstate, it was intended that the interstate sustain 80 mph traffic.
Sure, if we want to move troops rapidly across the country, which was part of the rationale for the interstate system.
For normal traffic, there's no need to travel at 80 mph. In fact, it reduces gas mileage usually to go significantly above 55 or so, because air resistance increases much more rapidly and you have to fight that at high speeds.
As for why speed limits are what they are, I'm sure there are SOME places in the U.S. where they are politically motivated... corruption is everywhere.
But in general terms, speed limits are set for (1) safety reasons across a broad variety of road conditions, and (2) to increase traffic throughput to maximum levels. Yes, on a dry road on a perfectly clear day, you may be able to go 90 mph down a country road, but add in cross traffic, pedestrians, and any sort of weather, and maybe 40 or 45 mph is safer. A lot of times, people don't realize that proximity to residences or other issues requires a consideration of lower speeds for safety.
Most people also don't realize the necessity and rationale for (2), though, which often plays a role for highway limits.... particularly in cities and high-traffic areas. Believe it or not, you can actually often put more cars through a stretch of road at 45 mph than 80 mph, particularly if there are lots of merges, on/off ramps, other random traffic issues and curves, etc. Merges, lane endings, on/off ramps, etc. require a lot of fast reactions to keep traffic moving. At 80 mph, people overcorrect, and a chain of brake lights can rapidly create a traffic "wave" that snarls traffic for a half hour. If everyone is traveling at 45, it might be easier for those merges, etc. to happen... you can actually increase traffic throughput this way, which is why many cities have adopted flexible speed limits on highways during rush hour.
The human body has physiological reactions to traveling. On an open highway, with little to look at, the sound, vibrations, and general motions of the vehicle tends to lull people into relaxation and sleep at speeds around 55 mph. At speeds approaching 80 mph, everyt
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:4, Interesting)
I call BS on much of your post.
I can smell plenty of it coming from your post as well.
Umm, on many of the highways I drive on in the U.S., when the oncoming traffic is placed closer (without a significant median), there are guardrails. If it's even closer, there's a concrete or double concrete barrier. You can argue that maybe we need more barriers, but engineers clearly use these solutions in many places in the U.S. when conditions warrant it.
There are *vast* stretches of highway that are just as the GP described them - completely and without any barriers other than the median. Apparently you have driven on a select few roads in this country. I've driven many very long distance trips, and about the only region I have yet to drive through is the PacNorthwest.
There's something called "adjust your driving to conditions." You simply can't always go the posted speed limit in heavy rain.
Thanks, Captain Obvious. I think the GP already stated "while driving the posted speed limit or less". I've hydroplaned at speeds of 15 mph in extremely heavy flow on I-35 near Dallas. Do you think either I or the GP continued to drive at that speed?
For normal traffic, there's no need to travel at 80 mph. In fact, it reduces gas mileage usually to go significantly above 55 or so, because air resistance increases much more rapidly and you have to fight that at high speeds.
Cite your sources for this often repeated tripe. My own MPG continues to rise until it peaks when my speed exceeds 110 mph. Most any car that I've owned (and none of them were your big honking pointless SUVs or any other sort of passenger truck) continued to increase in performance up to at least 80 mph. Even in the case of a Toyota Prius, the efficiency won't peak until approximately 75 mph. This statistic that you quote is a relic of the 1970's oil embargo years and the types of cars typically driven at that time. I somehow doubt it even applies to diesel big rigs these days either.
As for why speed limits are what they are, I'm sure there are SOME places in the U.S. where they are politically motivated... corruption is everywhere.
Probably a non-trivial number. Remember, there are many places where the police will harass and/or arrest a private citizen who visibly warns drivers that they are approaching a speed trap. If safety was the real motivation, then the police would not harass people like this. But instead it's about the money.
The human body has physiological reactions to traveling. On an open highway, with little to look at, the sound, vibrations, and general motions of the vehicle tends to lull people into relaxation and sleep at speeds around 55 mph. At speeds approaching 80 mph, everything about the vehicle tends to key the occupants into full alertness. Except for known unsafe areas, the interstates would be much SAFER with higher speed limits.
What the heck are you talking about? Citation needed. Maybe in cars from 25 years ago or in your giant truck.
To the best of my knowledge, the increase in speed limit in TX over the years did not see a significant increase in accidents or fatalities. There are plenty of roads with posted limits as high as 80 and I think even SH 130 toll has 85 even.
In most modern cars, putting the cruise control on at high speeds will result in people relaxing... it doesn't matter whether you're going 55 or 65 or 80.
Citation please.
In any case, even if there were some minor benefit in terms of alertness at 80 mph, it would largely be trumped by the vast increases of kinetic energy that happen as you go faster at high speeds -- which means a subsequent significantly greater time and effort to stop safely... or greater energy thrown into collision s
Re: (Score:3)
For normal traffic, there's no need to travel at 80 mph. In fact, it reduces gas mileage usually to go significantly above 55 or so, because air resistance increases much more rapidly and you have to fight that at high speeds.
Cite your sources for this often repeated tripe. My own MPG continues to rise until it peaks when my speed exceeds 110 mph. Most any car that I've owned (and none of them were your big honking pointless SUVs or any other sort of passenger truck) continued to increase in performance up to at least 80 mph.
Good lord. Well, this is enough to call your whole post bogus already.
Try a freakin' search engine. The second link that came up for me is a 2009 study from Consumer Reports [consumerreports.org], with a variety of vehicles.
To the best of my knowledge, the increase in speed limit in TX over the years did not see a significant increase in accidents or fatalities.
That may be the case. There certainly are situations where raising the speed limit has not increased fatalities, but usually in places where (1) people generally already drove significantly over the limit, and (2) people did not actually increase their speeds on average to keep up with the corresponding
Re: (Score:3)
There are *vast* stretches of highway that are just as the GP described them - completely and without any barriers other than the median. Apparently you have driven on a select few roads in this country. I've driven many very long distance trips, and about the only region I have yet to drive through is the PacNorthwest.
Yes, of course there are many locations without barriers. In my area, there is insufficient space to have a grass median, and so every highway has a barrier between directions. It's a calculated equation of cost of land versus cost of a barrier, along with accident rates and traffic density. Of course, these aren't always updated, since the interstate system was designed so long ago and receives only few updates due to funds that are typically limited. I'm sure many places would warrant barriers now that di
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:4, Funny)
The military is too expensive for its efficiency and as a European, I don't even want to comment on your roads.
After driving a bit around the US I finally figured out why SUVs are so popular. A compact would probably vanish in the potholes on your highways.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been living in US for over 3 years now, and I've yet to see a pothole on a highway.
I'm sure there are some out there somewhere. But it's a big country. Your experiences with one part of it do not necessarily translate to the rest of it.
Re: (Score:3)
i said it, as a self-contained construct, is well-managed, and seems to be perhaps the most powerful military force in the history of the world. i stand by that compliment of the US government.
now, as how US politicians *use* that construct...well that really *is* off-topic.
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:5, Informative)
no...i don't believe so.
the US government being involved in health care is a very new thing. it can be argued that the TSA was perhaps the largest new program that the US government created before the health care thing. that links the two in a very powerful and factual way.
the US government has been using the military for hundreds of years, and the politics of military use go back thousands.
Are you fucking kidding me? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we really want to keep repeating the same mistakes for thousands of years? Because basically, if things stay as they are, that's exactly what will happen.
I'm just tired of the world being mediocre because of the wishes of a few people at the top, be it my own country Australia with our tremendously stupid Prime Minister, Mr. Abbott, or the Tea Party douchebags who wouldn't just shut the fuck up and deal with the fact that they can't have everything their way. (they're both practically the same thing, rig
Re: (Score:3)
If they told the entrenched medical system and insurance system to take a hike and copied a successful system from people who have already solved the problem it would work fine. Unfortunately, they won't, they'll pull an Obamacare half assed solution that really just lines the pockets of insurance companies and it will be t
Re: (Score:2)
how the hell is stating simple facts "polishing a turd"?
please AC, enlighten me?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A recent article shows that the Pentagon is reconsidering uniform requirements to permit beards and turbans for Muslims. Now consider that beards have been outlawed by our military for decades, based on "discipline" considerations. No redneck, no Jew, no mountain man has been permitted to display a beard while in uniform. Suddenly - we are courting Muslims, so out of the goodness of our hearts, we are going to allow them to wear beards and turbans.
I'm willing to listen to the military on issues of the military, but you sound like an armchair general who saw a minor change in the rules that happened recently. Many modern militaries allow facial hair -- Spain, France, Germany, .... (And historically, beards have been very common.) One of the major reasons for prohibiting it was not discipline, but for having a good seal in gas masks -- god, I know, a crazy idea, that military regulations would be set for issues of warfighting, and not whatever crazy
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:4, Insightful)
How is this modded 4+ Insightful?! It's ignorant, hypocritical bollocks!
"Women, gays, Muslims & atheists" are no more special interest groups than bible-bashing white males. And how the fuck do you make "accommodations" for atheists? Not force them to sing words of praise to your special interest deity?
On an organisational level, religion should have no place in military procedures. If you're having to make "accommodations" for people absent of any religion, then there's something horribly wrong with the procedures of your military.
And how the hell can you complain that atheists DON'T have to follow your religious doctrine, AND at the same time complain that other religious groups get to follow theirs?
A recent article shows that the Pentagon is reconsidering uniform requirements to permit beards and turbans for Muslims.
Suddenly - we are courting Muslims...
Under pressure from Sikhs, the Pentagon has publicly clarified its existing procedures to permit certain practices "as long as the practices do not interfere with military discipline, order or readiness." [washingtonpost.com]
And not just that, they have to go the through the procedures to request permission for every individual deployment.
A number of highly decorated professionals have been drummed out of service for the crime of failing to wholeheartedly support the gay agenda.
So it's OK for people to break with agreed military procedures & speak out against a minority, but it's not for a minority to request to do the same? Go fuck yourself.
...often enough, accusations of sexual harassment and/or assault are political tools used against good soldiers. It is impossible to even guess at the numbers of such instances, but I know for a fact that it happens. Other times, a female soldier who is busted for drugs or other infractions tries to turn the tables by accusing supervisors and investigators of sexual harassment. Again - it's impossible to even guess at the numbers, but it happens.
Given the accuracy of your comments so far, I'll choose to take these self-professed baseless assumptions with a pinch of salt. You don't have enough information to even make a guess, but you "know" it happens? Do you have *anything* to back this up?
...the fact is, our military is being improperly used to advance a number of political agendas.
Something the whole world would probably agree with you on.
[/RANT]
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:4, Insightful)
Those groups begin with women and gays, and continue with Muslims, atheists, and ends God knows where.
Please explain why women, gay people, Muslims, atheists, etc can't be good military personnel. I know this much: The soldiers I've talked to and seen polled about it overwhelmingly either support or don't care about these kinds of measures. This might have something to do with the fact that when you're in a firefight you care more about whether the rest of your unit are good shots than who they like to kiss or what they think about spirituality.
Now consider that beards have been outlawed by our military for decades, based on "discipline" considerations. No redneck, no Jew, no mountain man has been permitted to display a beard while in uniform.
Please explain why wearing a beard displays a lack of discipline or lack of military readiness. I'm really not understanding what the purpose of that kind of rule could possibly be, except some silly holdover from the 1950's that stereotyped bearded men as drunkards and foreigners. During the Civil War, wearing a beard was very common, and it doesn't seem to have had any effect on the skill or bravery or readiness on the troops (or at least not enough that anyone made any mention of it whatsoever in any military documents).
While a liberal or a progressive may feel that to be a "good thing", the fact is, our military is being improperly used to advance a number of political agendas.
Well, let me tell you of another time the military was used to "advance a political agenda": Racial integration. In 1948, Harry Truman issued an executive order desegregating the US military. Today, black people are more likely to join the military than white people, in large part because they know that the organization will treat them fairly and give them a good chance of a career. We'd probably lose 5-10% of our military personnel had Truman not done that.
We no longer have the military that we had thirty or forty years ago.
No, we don't, and we're at the very least no worse off for it. Running down the list of US military operations between 1974 and 1984 (the "glory days" you seem to be yearning for), the most significant military actions were the evacuation of Vietnam and the invasion of Grenada. Do you really think those were more difficult military operations than the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! The military has lobbyists to lobby for increased funds, but that's kind of their job. It is congresses job to decide whether or not the increase is reasonable..which they aren't very good at.
Re: (Score:2)
And we all know technically correct is the best kind of correct. Stay classy AC's!
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:5, Funny)
And we didn't lose Vietnam. It was a tie!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
IN America, our homeless are richer sleeping in the water conduit tunnels below Las Vegas than the middle class of India and China who have beds and warm meals. How? Because in America we have choice.
This statement is absurd. You seem to be saying that homeless in the U.S. are richer because they can, what, choose to starve on the streets? Are you really speaking for people to claim that they are better off without beds and warm meals because they have some theoretical "choice"? I imagine a majority of them would disagree.
The other way this is absurd is to lump two very different countries together. You do know that India is a democracy, yes? In fact, the most populous democracy on the planet.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Mutually Assured Destruction perhaps? [wikipedia.org]
I really can't help you here. You put that big word in there as a qualifier because you know it would make it practically impossible to prove. Few people here think that our military might isn't used to scare the ever loving hell out of everyone, you just can't go around saying that publicly lest you appear to be the bully that you may very well be.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Did he mention Obama, or was that a revealing slip on your part?
I'm assuming the latter, and its good to know you understand where the problem is, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it in public.
Re:well i'm reassured! (Score:5, Insightful)
uhhh..just FYI i wouldn't give a damn about your meaningless partisan politics...i'm so over that crap i can't stand the words "republican" and "democrat" anymore.
i'm talking about EXACTLY what the FTA's author is really saying behind his rant...which is the TSA ( which i believe was created under Bush BTW ) is a fucking joke, and the people in charge ( US government bureaucrats ) of the ideas and implementation of it are idjits.
how could anyone think that the two programs, run by basically the same set of bureaucrats, won't eventually share the same basic outcomes?
Re:It's a mixed bag. It depends on the TSA person. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what's the worst part of your anecdote. How oblivious you seem to be at your privileged status and why that is a Bad Thing for the rights of all to be considered equal under the law, or how easy it would seem to be to join those ranks. One faked up official looking ID and maybe I could be treated like a free citizen like you.
Oh and using repeated exposure to relax the vigil of the guards is an old ninja trick, get a job as feeble sweeper of courtyards or emptier of chamber-pots until the guards know you, then strike your target. The guys who go easy on you because they know you are failing in their jobs. (no surprise there. Their jobs were failures from the beginning)
Then there is the servile response of the TSA agent and what it says about his mindset. He's trained and required to do things he KNOWS are useless, annoying and almost certainly infringing on the civil and constitutional rights of the citizens he searches. He's trained to say that everyone is subject to this, no exceptions, but he appears to believe that irritating a member of the bureaucracy may result in retribution in some form. A civil servant, in one of the crappiest jobs there is to be had in government service, was afraid of you and what you might choose to do if delayed. Do you really think that cringing, on the part of any civil servant, but security people especially is a good thing?
The moral of your story seems to be that the security theatre we all complain about is clearly something to be inflicted on the peasant masses, not members of the elite like yourself. You get a free pass on the bullshit the rest of us are being forced to endure and you attribute that to a few agents having their heads on straight. You are a functionary of what has become the ruling structure, you are getting special treatment as a result and you think that means the system works. You're an apparatchik and don't even know it....
Re: (Score:2)
How often does your work keep you away from home for days on end?