Originally Posted by
TSORon
Liquids for example. Believe it or not water is a liquid, yet even to this day we have people who just cant seem to grasp that they are not allowed to transit the checkpoint with it in containers larger than 3.4 ounces. That rule has been in place for quite some time, yet we collect bottles of water every few minutes. It’s a rule, plain and simple. Just like the rules of the road. Exceed the speed limit and you chance getting a ticket. Why that speed limit exists is totally beside the point, its one of the rules. The rule could be that no men with pink hats with blue flowers on them can transit the checkpoint (as silly as that may be), but it could be a rule that we would have to enforce. “Why” is not up to me. But I’m reasonably confident that there would be a fairly good reason for it.
This is one of many reasons why I get so frustrated with what I perceive to be the TSA mentality. The thrust of your argument is that the rules are the rules, they exist for a reason, and we shouldn't be so quick to question. Your BIC/nail clipper argument seems to undercut that argument. Besides, I am not one to shut off my brain and never question authority. I think many of the checkpoint rules are nearly as stupid as your pink hat argument.
Originally Posted by
TSORon
Like it or not, there is not a single large institution anywhere that does not have its secrets. Hospitals are no exception. They never tell you all the gory details of what they are going to do, and sometimes they don’t even tell you why. A doctor that you have met maybe three times (if that) is going to stick a knife into your guts and remove your spleen, has your life in his hands literally, yet you trust him. He does not tell you about the clamps, the cauterizations, the drugs, the blood on the floor, the “oops” that occasionally occur, yet you trust him. Why? Because of an oath he took years ago?
Please don't spin the thread.
The doctor is not in a government-sponsored position of authority. Besides, every doctor I've met has been willing to share whatever information I've wanted to know about what s/he's going to do to me. I don't need to know the gory details, but I can get them if I so desire.
But this nation was founded on the principle of limited government. I view it as not just my right, but my
duty to question. I cannot and will not just trust that everything is dandy in TSA-ville. No doubt I'd be hearing the same stuff out of you if I had been questioning the BIC policy shortly after its implementation in 2005.
If a doctor commits an "oops", seeking redress is much easier than seeking redress against the TSA and the federal government, which has the force of the law behind it.
And I won't even begin to get into the numerous examples of the bogus and self-serving "TSA-can't-tell-you-why-you-can't-do-[pick your verb]-because-it's-SSI" arguments that are at odds with stated policy. See Phil Mocek, this incident at Dulles airport (
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQqM_B6IVwg), etc.
Originally Posted by
TSORon
Again you are incorrect. You had your say. You had the opportunity to vote for the administration that is currently in power. If you chose not to vote then that is your own fault, but just in case you voted for this administration then you really have no right to complain about who they hire.
While the above quote may first appear to be tangential to your larger arguments, I think it's actually quite revealing. A citizen's First Amendment rights are not predicated on who they voted for, or even whether they voted at all. Have you actually voted for someone who you agreed with 100% of the time? If not, does that mean you never complained when that politician acted in a manner contrary to your views? You just decided to shut up? That explains a lot. A whole lot.