Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on January 31, 2011, 02:24:07 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TRAVEL/01/29/tsa.private/index.html?hpt=T2
Now that the TSA is unionized, we can't have any scabs diluting the power of the TSA employee voting and lobbying bloc, you know. ;/ [barf]
Pistole is a true effer in every sense of the word. If there's any heavenly justice, a chunk of blue ice with a nice embedded "peanut" in it will fall from 35k feet onto his head.
Pistole said he has been reviewing TSA policies with the goal of helping the agency "evolve into a more agile, high-performance organization."
Sounds like a real-life "Bob Bullard."
-
TSA is unionized already?! It was just being discussed a week or two ago. Damn, I have got to stop sleeping.
As for this little nugget,
Sounds like a real-life "Bob Bullard."
=D
-
Sounds like a real-life "Bob Bullard."
i c whut u did thar
-
Is their deliberate goal to tee off the public as much as possible?
-
Is their deliberate goal to tee off the public as much as possible?
Maybe. One thing for sure is that the federal government, and TSA and DHS in particular, don't give two shits about public opinion. Grabbing as much power, however, greatly interests them.
-
Is their deliberate goal to tee off the public as much as possible?
Almost enough to make a fellow wonder if the TSA tactics are designed to see just how much BS the American public will tolerate [tinfoil].
-
Maybe. One thing for sure is that the federal government, and TSA and DHS in particular, don't give two shits about public opinion. Grabbing as much power, however, greatly interests them.
Maybe, maybe not. Ignoring for a bit the extra-Constitutional activities...
If your job was security and you were serious about it, would you care about the opinions of a public who wasn't particularly knowledgeable about security and terrorism? They have a job to do and it isn't dependent on your opinion of them.
Now, that said, I wish their superiors (at the Executive level) would be a bit more open to complaints, but I don't expect the depts to listen. It distracts them from their actual, stated mission.
Chris
-
Maybe, maybe not. Ignoring for a bit the extra-Constitutional activities...
If your job was security and you were serious about it, would you care about the opinions of a public who wasn't particularly knowledgeable about security and terrorism? They have a job to do and it isn't dependent on your opinion of them.
Now, that said, I wish their superiors (at the Executive level) would be a bit more open to complaints, but I don't expect the depts to listen. It distracts them from their actual, stated mission.
Chris
Thing is, they know what they are doing is theater and not actual security and TSA activities haven't done a whit to make flying safer.
I'd bet it is more likely that they are not complete ignoramuses and are hardening thier position so as to protect their fiefdom and keep others from competing and showing how little value TSA brings to the table.
-
Thing is, they know what they are doing is theater and not actual security and TSA activities haven't done a whit to make flying safer.
I'd bet it is more likely that they are not complete ignoramuses and are hardening thier position so as to protect their fiefdom and keep others from competing and showing how little value TSA brings to the table.
That isn't the point and you know it. The people providing security services should not be responding directly to us. The respond to their management who responds to those above them, who hear from us. We're a different leg of that triangle.
I'm ok with this too. If we have problems with how TSA and DHS is doing their job, we need to take it up with the elected officials that have oversight.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with how those two groups are operating, but their job is not to cater to our whims, but to perform a mission, misguided as it is. We need to focus on their elected masters.
Chris
-
That isn't the point and you know it. The people providing security services should not be responding directly to us. The respond to their management who responds to those above them, who hear from us. We're a different leg of that triangle.
I'm ok with this too. If we have problems with how TSA and DHS is doing their job, we need to take it up with the elected officials that have oversight.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with how those two groups are operating, but their job is not to cater to our whims, but to perform a mission, misguided as it is. We need to focus on their elected masters.
Chris
They are wielding power and ought to be accountable. To every possible means the citizens have at their disposal. Period. By your rationale, appointed police chiefs ought to receive no criticism and ought not respond and/or change their practices and any complaints only brought before the city council before he modifies his policy. Just because they happen to be in a bureaucracy does not mean they ought to be free from such pressures. Heck, even the .mil has had to respond to pressures outside their chain of command.
Also, your assumptions are suspect, especially, "If your job was security and you were serious about it..." Security is not their job. Their job is the appearance of security and most every action they take reinforces that objective.
-
If there's any heavenly justice, a chunk of blue ice...
Those icy BMs (http://books.google.com/books?id=95ZJXCA25qAC&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=spider+robinson+icy+bm&source=bl&ots=WJkexk4dcW&sig=XgLiU10fAyNBx_9OJfX3yD-IX2Q&hl=en&ei=VSxITbDfBIHGlQeV65S3BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false) are difficult to target.
-
They are wielding power and ought to be accountable. To every possible means the citizens have at their disposal. Period. By your rationale, appointed police chiefs ought to receive no criticism and ought not respond and/or change their practices and any complaints only brought before the city council before he modifies his policy. Just because they happen to be in a bureaucracy does not mean they ought to be free from such pressures. Heck, even the .mil has had to respond to pressures outside their chain of command.
I never said they shouldn't be accountable via some method, I said that they aren't going to be responsive to us, nor should we expect them to be. It's a bonus if they are, but the most effective route is to go to the top and apply pressure there.
Also, your assumptions are suspect, especially, "If your job was security and you were serious about it..." Security is not their job. Their job is the appearance of security and most every action they take reinforces that objective.
Their stated job, what they advertise themselves as doing is security. What we think is irrelevant. For the purposes of this discussion, they are security practitioners. Security practitioners do not respond to the whims of "users". There is a specific process for changing security operations and it isn't directly bottom up. Direction comes from the top of the organization and we should be putting pressure on the top (ie the President). I have no expectation any career bureaucrat is going to respond to input from anyone else.
Chris