Originally Posted by
IrishDoesntFlyNow
Every time you tout TSA as a preventative element (as you did in the post to which I responded), you undermine yourself.
The post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy certainly also applies to the way in which you've reworded the argument. Please don't reword the argument. I did not posit there is zero threat from shoes. In fact, I didn't address the level of shoe-threat at all; I merely pointed out a logical fallacy in your argument.
However, since you raise the point, the challenge is not whether the threat is "viable" (whatever "viable" may mean). What has been posited is: there is an extraordinarily low probability that such a threat would be actualized.
TSA is obsessed with providing a zero-risk environment at any cost, and the shoe carnival is just one example of this mindset. First, a zero-risk environment is a virtual impossibility. Second, I object to TSA's demonstrated willingness to disregard law and regulation in its attempt to realize this impossible-to-obtain obsession. Third, this impossible-to-obtain obsession, combined with rash and ill-conceived methodology, has resulted in a magnitude of fiscal waste by one single agency, within an extraordinarily short time frame, unseen in this country's history -- and, wow, do I ever object to that. (And I'm not even going to the absolutely appalling lack of training and competence demonstrated by most of its employees.)
TSA IS a preventative measure, you are safer getting on a plane with TSA there than you would be without them there. That is not undermining myself, it is simply a fact. With no screening, there would be a chance for anyone with anything to get on the plane.
Websters defines viable as :
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/viable
It means it has a reasonable chance of working. I agree that the aim of the organization is a risk free enviornment, I also agree with you that it is impossible. I believe that means we should try to prevent what we can with all means at our disposal, that is just trying to do the best you can with what you have. Probability is a bad reason to change a screening process. the probability of someone taking over a plane with a gun is an extremely low, but there is the chance that several people on the flight will be injured or killed if someone tries it - does that mean we should not screen for guns? The probability of someone taking over a plane with a box cutter or knife is nil, does that mean we should stop screening for them? All it takes is one person to try the shoe bomb apporach again and then the same people on here that have been raising hades about the shoe screening would be whining about how TSA stopped the "shoe carnival" (as you so affectionately call it) and it was all our fault. I reworded the argument to make the point that most of the arguments made here against the shoe screening process can be defended with the same thought process. I think that the agency has taken legal issue to heart and consult before making changes. Do they get it wrong sometimes? Yup, they would be computers if they didnt, but they are human, so mistakes will be made from time to time. If there are legal questions for the procedures, they will be worked out in the courts system, that is what it is there for. As for the lack of training or competence, I challenge your assumption, this is the best trained workforce in the federal government, we recertify, train constantly and learn new stuff almost every week. The fact that 99% of the publicity you see is negative must have influenced your assumption, because for every bad thing I see on the news, I see a thousand good things done by my coworkers (both here and nationally). I will agree that we have room for improvement, that will always be the case and to say or think otherwise is unrealistic.