Of course, some of them are worse than others.

But every one of them is there to do nothing more than collect a check for doing something that makes their coerced subjects worse off than they would be otherwise. If I had the complete power of the state allowing me to do to you what I want, against your will, all while getting paid for it by money stolen from you and others, I imagine I could smile and wish you a nice day while doing it as well.

Someone willing to do that is not someone I would put most other bad behaviors past.

When I first heard of the advertisement in the bins story, I started thinking about the ethics involved in this practice. Then, I saw it for myself recently at LAX. Having seen it go public now nation-wide, it's time for me to send in a letter to the DHS IG stating my objection to this practice based on ethical grounds. If the local airport authority is selling the advertising space, I can see no legal issue, but advertising at a checkpoint sends a perception that the TSA and, by default, the DHS and the US government, endorses the products being advertised. In the LAX example, one could conclude that the government ensorses Rolex watches and Rolex Corporation and that Rolex paid the US government for advertising. This is a whole lot different than "Boeing" and their logo on the side of a B-52, which Boeing built for the Air Force under a contract. Commercial advertising at a US government location is completely out of bounds as far as I am concerned. I'm going to ask the IG about the rationale the DHS OGC used to allow this and declare this practice ethical -- might take a FOIA, but why not? I've got a new senator here in VA & this might be his first opportunity to be responsive to the guy who voted for him.

I know I'm anal when it comes to government ethics and I'm proud of it! (Comes with the territory of being in government since 1976.)

fyi, it is ROLODEX ... not ROLEX

Senior moment!

I'm at a loss to come up with another instance where the federal government sells advertising. Can anyone think of one? Bueller?

Clearly it has some sort of affect, since you remembered it. That's not a slam at you in anyway, but rather a statement that the advertising in place at LAX's checkpoint is doing something, if nothing else getting Rolodex's name out there.

Why anyone needs a Rolodex these days is beyond me, but hey if you want to carry around 7000 2x4" cards on a wheel that's your business.

Goes perfectly with the TSA's strategy of fighting the last war, if you ask me.

That and Comrade Hawley using the x-ray to detect explosives. It's like trying to take someone's temperature with a hammer, but Idiot Boy still thinks it can be done.

i only remember because i work at lax (as a tso).

Every other agency, a long time ago, made a no-brainer decision that this type of advertising was inappropriate. Kip the Idiot is really an out-of-the-box thinker, you know.