OK! Getting back to this thread ... I've been ill for the past few days with a rotten summer cold, and have been too addled by antihistamines to manage a coherent reply (but hey, I didn't miss any time off work!).
You really need to read this paper The Quixotic Quest for Invulnerability:
Asessing the Costs, Benefits, and Probabilities of Protecting the Homeland by John Mueller, Department of Political Science, Ohio State University
Some good reading there! I agreed with his conclusion. I Googled his name and found other stuff he's written, too. He makes the point that a scattershot, over-the-top approach to homeland security may have been understandable, and perhaps acceptable, in the immediate wake of 9-11, but after 7 years, it's time for cooler heads to prevail, and cost-benefits analysis to take place. You won't get an argument from me there!
Doesn't matter when TSA is free to move the goal posts even if SOP or guidelines on their website are known.
You're going to see more of this, too, as "Checkpoint Evolution" is aimed at "empowering" individual TSOs to use their discretion. Our illustrious leader goes on and on about the highly trained and experience workforce, which I find curious in light of the fact the agency has a turnover rate around 20 percent, meaning one in five screeners has less than a years' experience under his/her belt.
My cynical side tends to believe someone in Admin realized that if screeners are required to follow a strict set of procedures, and an attack takes place, the blame that is hurled (think in terms of monkeys hurling feces) will stick to the persons who enacted the policies. However, if we leave matters at the discretion of screeners, it would possible to blame low-level, perhaps unnamed, workers for any lapse. No?
I would argue that we would be better-prepared to prevent another 9/11 if the TSA was not currently in charge of security. The illusion of security is more dangerous than no security at all.
I'm not so sure about this. Mueller (author of the paper cited above) notes: "If there is a measure which makes passengers feel substantially safer, this would have to be considered as a benefit even if the measure itself does not actually enhance security at all."
Remember that a significant purpose for the TSA at its inception was to restore public confidence in air travel. However, given the lapse of time, and the current negative perception of the TSA, any initial benefit may have evaporated.
What direct effect did the attacks have on our economy?
Again, citing Mueller (hey, I'm lazy!
):
Unlike the destruction of other modes of transportation, the downing of an airliner (or, especially, two or three in succession) does seem to carry with it the special dangers of a widespread, lingering impact on the airline industry and on related ones such as tourism (Schneier 2003, 235-36). Three years after 9/11, domestic airline flights in the United States were still 7 percent below their pre-9/11 levels, and by the end of 2004 tourism even in distant Las Vegas had still not fully recovered. One estimate suggests that the American economy lost 1.6 million jobs in 2001 alone, mostly in the tourism industry (Calbreath 2002).
When watching the stock market panic in '01, my thoughts were that Americans were doing far more damage to the economy than the terrorists ever did.
That may be true, but damage is still damage! The pensioner watching his lifesavings vanish is unlikely to be consoled by the notion the loss is due to "friendly fire."
Keep in mind that we live in an age dominated by what might be labeled the Soccer Mom Mentality, a time when a significant portion of the population believes Government should protect us from all harm, going so far as to insulate us from the natural results of our own poor decision-making (i.e, the mortgage crisis).
Mueller makes the point (perhaps somewhat wistfully) that security decisions would be best made by people not overly burdened with the need to CYA. I agree, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented, short of politicians suddenly growing a pair, en masse, and frankly I don't see that happening.
I'd argue that my LEO friend in the wheelchair and my own security clearances were far more extensive than the rubbish checks performed by the TSA.
Agreed, but if we're going to exempt people on the basis of security checks performed by other agencies, we need 1) reasonable evidence of such checks, and 2) a way to ensure that the person presenting the evidence is, in fact, the person upon whom the check was done. As I said earlier, I believe we'll eventually have a mechanism in place for this (it's working great with pilots!) but it's not going to happen overnight.
Also, there are those who'd say a TSA physical search actually seems less invasive psychologically than would a government background check, and I'd be inclined to agree.
I offered to help (since I had helped him put them on that morning) but multiple TSOs barked at me to leave the area. They didn't seem to be willing to help. My friend told them they could take them off, but only if they were willing to help him put them back on. We're talking simple trainers here, not any special shoes. They could have helped him if they wished.
Actually, according to the SOP, they were REQUIRED to help him!
Stuff like this just p*sses me off ...
Whoa, hold up a second there. You can't spell rationale without rational. There isn't anything rational about the TSAs policies. Just because one idiot tries to light his shoes on fire, the TSA creates a knee-jerk policy of shoe removal.
See earlier reference to the pressing need to CYA ...
I actually don't expect TSOs to treat LEOs nor disabled pax any differently than any other pax. I expect them to treat ALL pax with respect....something which the TSA still has yet to understand. I think it'd be quite beneficial if the TSA would focus less on the # of screeners and instead focus on the quality of the screeners. Give the TSOs more training and more money to encourage a higher-calibre of person, people who WANT to be in this job, not because ground ops jobs at the airport are full.
Does this mean I'm going to get a raise? Or fired ... hmmm ... I dunno!
