that federal investigators recently passed homemade bombmaking materials through checkpoints at 21 US airports, "Airline screeners fail government bomb tests":
Because they were leaking information from a classified report, NBC said they would not publish what materials were used, but they presumably were easily obtainable ingredients.
1
Can anyone really say they're surprised at such ineptitude and inefficieny in government employees? On top of all other hiring guidelines, including Affirmative Action, I think it's a prerequisite for applicants to be about as dumb as a bag of hammers. Of course if one thinks about it, anyone who would take such a crap job can't be the sharpest knife in the drawer in the first place, and they've probably got a union, so they don't care if they let a bomb through.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 17, 2006 05:59 AM (0yYS2)
2
I can't help but think this is partly due to the government insisting that it's better at anything than private contractors when they decided to take over all screening. The government has proven time and time again that it is totally inferior to private industry. Why should this be any different?
Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 06:38 AM (YudAC)
3
Why do the employees always get the blame? They only do what their highly educated supervisors let them do. Government Screening Officers have been trying to tell the world about how poorly TSA is protecting the flying public and if , falls on deaf ears, the ears of the congress that put them in the job. NOt even the press will take an interest in what a screener has to say. Think twice before you are so quick to blame the employees. BTW they do have a union, but no collective bargaining. Maximus should get over the hate of unions. They are what brought us the middle class in this country.
Posted by: JJ at March 17, 2006 07:18 AM (Qst5x)
4
So what is the deal with the full cavity search I keep getting every time I get on a plane? Is all that for nothing?
Posted by: Rusty at March 17, 2006 07:45 AM (JQjhA)
Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 08:52 AM (g9UJq)
6
IM: eleven out of twelve applicants for screening positions were rejected when the TSA was formed. The uniformed portion of the TSA is heavily former military and law enforcement. They are barred by act of Congress from being represented by a union, but odds are heavy that they wouldn't vote Democrat even if they were not the case.
Many of them, as did I, joined after 9/11 as a way to serve in the war on terror. I got to see quite a bit, because I was an MSF, part of the Mobile Screener Force, that trained screeners in airports around the country as they Federalized. It cost me about $10,000 per year to serve vs. my private sector earnings.
If you were angry at some policy of your local police chief would you shit all over the beat cops?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 17, 2006 09:16 AM (RHG+K)
7
Rusty, I've heard that there's a renegade who's been impersonating a TSA agent and conducting full cavity searches on men he finds attractive. Did he say, "was it good for you" after he finished?
You should have been suspicious when the room he told you was the "Secure Search Privacy Area" said "Men" over the door.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 17, 2006 09:19 AM (RHG+K)
8
Dear God, Rusty...did he...did he tell you that the rectal probe was "pre-warmed for your comfort"?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 17, 2006 09:21 AM (RHG+K)
9
JJ,
As a decendent of one of the families that instigated and maintained both sides of the Harlan (KY) County Wars, I have heard "first person" accounts regarding the early formations of unions all my life. And, yes, at their inception, they were indeed a force of good for the blue (black in KY) collar workers. Now, however, as with anything that brings political and financial power, the only thing the unions bring are corruptness and cronyism.
They brought us a middle class, yes, but now they've left that same middle class to fend for itself -- the very thing they were originally formed to prevent in the first place.
Posted by: Sly2017 at March 17, 2006 09:57 AM (UADHi)
10
Damn Leakers. We should have the reporters of this story brought up on charges. Leaking classified material is unaceptable and should be punished. Now the terrorist know just how lax our security is.
Posted by: CDB at March 17, 2006 11:05 AM (EUBui)
11
Sly is exactly right. Their [unions] main objective has become self preservation.
And what I meant by deriding the government in respect to screeners is the same sentiment I have for many organizations. The lower ranks are certainly not at fault. They're only as good as their training and the tools they're given to do their jobs. It's the fault of upper management when substandard work becomes the norm. Even when a lower ranked employee demonstrates ingenuity they're often rebuffed by upper management who either feels threatened or is forced to adhere to a too rigid policy in some respects.
Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 11:19 AM (g9UJq)
12
Sly2017 said:
"Now, however, as with anything that brings political and financial power, the only thing the unions bring are corruptness and cronyism."
And corporations are SO much better. Actually I could have put "corporations" in place of "unions" in that statement and it would be just as true. However, this is not a union issue. It is an issue of the priorities of this particular administration. They love spending money on all the glamorous stuff like wars abroad but ignore/mishandle the important stuff like ports, borders and intelligence.
Posted by: Herbabida at March 17, 2006 12:16 PM (5a01y)
13
FANTASTIC!!! Checked in just to see how the savages would respond to a straightforward story of bureaucratic incompetence, and there it is: Republicanism in all its predictability and mind-numbing ignorance. Among the usual suspects, we've got the nigger-haters, union-haters, and the high school dropout who never learned that "Democrat" is a noun, not an adjective. It's only a matter of time until the homophobes and abortion nuts get into the act. Best -- and most comical -- of all, of course, is CDB, who denounces the story because now "the terrorist
know just how lax our security is;" hey, Bonehead, no situation more clearly demonstrates the justification for the existence of a free press. In any case, it's always great fun to see Republicans wallowing in their own incredible and monstrous stupidity.
Posted by: legaleagle at March 17, 2006 12:30 PM (fMQ6j)
14
Oyster, you are so very right.
The business revolution of 10 years ago, where employees were "empowered" to "think outside the box" in order to create a more efficient business was nothing more than smoke and mirrors for the majority of big business and government operations. It was the proverbial "cookie crumb" so that those in charge could say they encourage input from their workforce. But when the work whistle blows, it's "my way or the highway" -- at least until accountability is mandated, then, of course, it's all the little guys' fault. And since they can't do their jobs right, more money (and power) is needed in order to train them so they can (not) do their jobs any better than they already were.
Posted by: Sly2017 at March 17, 2006 12:38 PM (UADHi)
15
Herbadida and legaleagle: neither of you have a clue as to the situation here. The executive service of the TSA was given ample funding.
Unfortunately, they squandered much of it on lavish offices and furnishings, and perks and salaries for their fellow bureaucrats. If you think that bureaucracy is a purely Republican issue, you're simply grossly naive.
As for the value of a free press, well, that's practically nil, as Lisa Myers botched the reporting of this story right from the headline. None of the TSA screeners are "airline" screeners. They are Federal agents, who could be described as "airport" screeners or "passenger and baggage screeners", I suppose, but the "airline" head is simply incorrect. It amply displays Myers' surface knowledge of the story this "senior correspondent" is supposedly covering.
You don't like "Democrat" used as a noun? Better learn to deal with it because it's an excellent way to distinguish between something that's "democratic" and the partisan machinations of the now-inaptly named DNC, which has very little respect for democratic institutions.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 17, 2006 12:48 PM (RHG+K)
16
Story is incredibly vague on details and clearly ignorant of why, how, and where internal testing (and probing for you Rusty) is done as both performance standards and continuious training exercises.
Story also seems to have no idea (or cares to know) of structure, authority, positions, responsibilities, terminology etc. of security ops at airports (or anywhere for that matter).
A story for the sake of a story - sensationalized with that "OH MY GOD!" feel.
I blew it off as meaningless - and expected it to would attract some of the "OH MY GOD BDS" crowd.
Bluto - I've done "Security Breeching" a few times against your military counterparts (Facilities Security) - IT'S FUN!
My finest work forever earned me the local title of "SGT HONDO - THAT SOB WISE-ASS PRICK!
My goal - 2 full armsrooms with munitions inside an armory facility - Alert Security Status - full latest tech security plus 10 (armed personnel) in the immediate area alone ... and I took down the entire facility (apx 150 pers) w/2 privates (we were unarmed).
Bluto - I have a fair idea of what you do - you would just love to know what I used for "weapons and explosives".
Posted by: hondo at March 17, 2006 01:59 PM (9pQ6D)
17
Herbabida, I agree on yur assessment of this admin's spending and imigration policies. But the fact is unions are getting out of hand and to use the pot and kettle analogy doesn't address the issue.
Posted by: Oyster at March 17, 2006 02:16 PM (g9UJq)
18
hondo: from the, admittedly questionable, information in the story, it sounds like a "Red Team" was demonstrating gaps in security for TSA management, not as a test of the screeners. That's what makes its leaking damaging.
FYI, I caught a suit at one of the airports I trained screeners at freelancing a "test device" he had discovered and dusted off. He was gigging screeners if they missed it. Trouble was, it was intended as a visual aid only, and did not show explosive characteristics on X-ray.
This clown, a friend of the FSD, was the airport's "Training Officer".
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 17, 2006 02:28 PM (RHG+K)
19
Bluto - I'll email you what I used as "tools". I know this general area is now covered in training - its a tough one to spot. Doesn't fall into the categories most people see as weapons or explosives.
Posted by: hondo at March 17, 2006 03:17 PM (9pQ6D)
20
Make sure you check the little children, and old women. Those are the ones who blow themselves up to Allah the false moon god most of the time. We do not want to upset anyone by looking at middle eastern men between 15, and 50.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 17, 2006 04:27 PM (D2g/j)
21
Leatherneck, no offense but you don't know shit about security. I want ANYBODY who causes an alarm to be checked, and that's what is done. You might be comfortable getting on a plane where only the middle eastern males and their baggage have been screened, but not me.
Ever heard of Lockerbie?
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 17, 2006 06:17 PM (RHG+K)
22
Sorry Bluto, your a shit bird. Little old American ladies, and their grand children are searched to make it look like the United States cares about Islam. It is just to funny.
On top of that pussy, I know more about security than most of the nice people who post here. Of course, you are having your tea, and nails done, while you read about how some old talking head feeeeeelllls security should be done.
We will not win this way.
Posted by: Leatherneck at March 17, 2006 07:26 PM (D2g/j)
23
Mr. Leatherneck sir, with all due respect, pull your head out of your overstuffed ass. You don't know the first thing about security. First and foremost, you resolve every alarm. Every single alarm whether it's Mahmoud or his pretty Cauc girlfriend who doesn't know that Mahmoud stuffed a Lockerbie-style bomb in her carryon. Even if it's an elderly Chechnyan Muslim (also a cauc, btw) who has decided to meet Allah with a bang in his old age.
You follow the procedures laid down in the SOP without deviation and you do NOT establish a pattern when selecting passengers for extra screening because patterns can be identified and exploited. Even jarheads can understand this, when they don't have their stubborn hats on.
I trained screeners at airports all over the country as an MSF. I gave up a nice comfy desk job, 10 grand a year, and the company of my family because after 9/11 I just had to do something because the military discriminates on the basis of age, even though I can still kick the shit out of the first two twenty-five year olds you find on the street. I worked seven day weeks and I liked it.
And Mr. Devildog, you just might want to figure out that it's not a good idea to call someone you have no clue abut a pussy. Especially when the one you lack clues about happens to stand six one and go two-fifty and has fought and won regularly in full-contact Tae Kwon Do tournaments. Also when the one you have no clue about was taught to shoot by an Expert Rifleman Sergeant of Marines who won the Bronze Star and Purple Heart on Okinawa, and paid the price for both, and just btw, had his stripes before he turned twenty going a hundred.
So you can take your tea and nails talk and put it in the same place you pulled your "I know more about security" from.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 17, 2006 08:30 PM (RHG+K)
24
ha ha ha ha
Yeah! What he said! Just that face alone is enough to frighten a blind-panhandler!
Posted by: hondo at March 17, 2006 09:02 PM (9pQ6D)
25
Incompetent management? An administration built on nepotism and cronyism? They must be talking about O'Hare.
Posted by: Robin Hood at March 17, 2006 09:10 PM (uZVV+)
26
Heh. Legaleagle is just another idiot libtard who will have that priceless look of utter surprise and astonishment on his face when either a muslim is putting the knife to his neck or a patriot is slipping the rope around it. God I love that look.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at March 17, 2006 11:41 PM (0yYS2)
27
Maximus: Good of you to point out the moral equivalence of "patriots" like yourself and homicidal muslim fanatics; it's always been obvious to me, of course, but is so much more persuasive to others coming directly from the horse's ass, so to speak.
Posted by: legaleagle at March 18, 2006 12:17 AM (fMQ6j)
28
legaleagle: you waltz in here and start berating everyone and we're suppose to bow down to your moral superiority and intellectual acumen? Since denigration and belittlement seems to be your MO, I'll gladly respond in kind with two words - "shove it". If you just want to pick a fight, go somewhere else. Rather than engage in debate with civility, appealing to those who might be willing to talk, you just jump off the deepend and alienate everyone. Nice job.
Posted by: Oyster at March 18, 2006 06:50 AM (YudAC)
29
Oyster,
I hope you check in again because I feel youÂ’re entitled to a response. Though I didnÂ’t ask anyone to acknowledge my intellectual or moral superiority, you called me out for being abusive and derogatory, and the point is a fair one. Your own observations seem measured and sincere, and deserve to be answered in kind. Having said that, perhaps youÂ’ll be interested in a more serious expression of my views on this matter.
I didn’t “waltz” into the discussion, but was brought here through a link from the Doau Report in Salon, as I imagine some others were. I’ll admit I came in with some preconceptions, but here is why I responded in the way I did.
It seems to me that there is a sensibility and rigid ideological agenda that informs the conservative position on virtually every single issue – political, social, cultural, etc. – which is never acknowledged, but is only expressed in transparent code. This may not be the agenda of every Republican, but it is most definitely the animating force of Republicanism, and is evident even in what – as I described initially – is a straightforward discussion of bureaucratic incompetence. Specifically, the reference to affirmative action in this context means one thing, and one thing only: “it’s the niggers.” Can I prove it? Of course not; but I don’t have to; we all know exactly what it means, and if there are sincere conservatives who stand for something other than racial pandering, they would rid themselves of this filth. Not surprisingly, this is the same poster who relishes the fantasy of seeing my throat slit; not that it disturbs me, but I would think it might provoke some concern among those who wish Republicanism to stand for something other than a rank appeal to hatred.
In short, I wish there were more people who wanted a genuine give-and-take discussion of the issues at hand, but when I see a topic turned into an excuse for yet another diatribe against Blacks, commies, unionists, and the other standard enemies, it doesnÂ’t provide a basis for much optimism. On the other hand, itÂ’s also true that my initial response hardly contributed much to elevating the discourse above that same level.
Posted by: legaleagle at March 18, 2006 11:11 AM (fMQ6j)
30
Shorter legaleagle:
I can't prove my case, but everyone knows it's true, so there. If I type the word "niggers" often enough, I can maintain an air of smug superiority while hoping that the shock value scares anyone away from actually debating the merits of affirmative action.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 18, 2006 11:46 AM (RHG+K)
31
Bluto:
I'll assume, again, that you're sincere in making your point, and try to explain mine. As to the merits of affirmative action, i suspect you'd be surprised to learn that I probably agree with you. My politics are very left wing, yet I'm against affirmative action, except as a remedial response to specific, demonstrable instances of prior discriminination. But would you honestly claim that there is some conceivable conection between the topic here and affirmative action? Also, I don't think I'm being smug, but I certainly do condemn racists and believe they're contemptible. Lastly, I don't claim my case is proved just because I say so, but I stand behind the point that it isn't groundless because it can't be proved; it's simply not an argument subject to deductive proof. Nor do I use nigger for shock value: I personally hear the word used almost constantly, and it seems to me to be the height of political correctness to pretend it isn't.
Posted by: legaleagle at March 18, 2006 12:43 PM (fMQ6j)
32
legaleagle: you assert that, in your case, you oppose affirmative action, due to your examination of the benefits of the program. However, if a person you have identified as a conservative opposes AA, it is because he or she is racist.
Assigning universal beliefs to a group as diverse as conservatives, as you presume to do here, is intellectually lazy; more a characteristic of fascism than progressiveism. I myself am a neolibertarian. Why would I have exactly the same ideology as say, a Christian fundamentalist? This is why your argument breaks down under deductive reasoning.
Aside: the connection to AA here has less to do with race and more to do with gender. TSA follows different rules than the former private screening companies. Screeners are not allowed to handwand or patdown passengers of the opposite gender. This creates a staffing issue, because many more men than women are interested in joining the TSA. Thus, some checkpoints are chronically under-womanned, if you will.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at March 18, 2006 01:10 PM (RHG+K)
33
First, I'm always shocked that someone openly uses the "n" word to imply that another is a racist who hasn't used such a derogatory word. Not to say either person couldn't be a racist; just that one who is using the word to accuse another who refrains from it seems on its face, well, wrong to me. No one brought up black people as part of the argument here. What actually was a point of contention was the lack of profiling Arabs in the screening process. While I understand their reasoning, I also see why it is a bad argument. As Bluto explained quite well above.
As to legaleagle's depiction of the republican "rigid ideological agenda", I would only say that the biggest part of the conservative or republican agenda is capitalism; letting the free market dictate wages and competitive benefits packages among companies. The unions should have stuck to their original agenda; forcing them to provide safe work environments and adhere to existing government standards on reasonable work hours and wages and promotions comensurate with ability. Not demanding paid personal days off and a better break room or "we'll go on strike". Do I exaggerate? Not much.
The ACLU? Same thing. These "organizations" which do not compete in the free market are the ones that grow into the biggest monsters. The federal government? Yet another. Everyone fears them. No one can fight them. All they promote is fear and ignorance, which is the only way they can ensure their own survival. When was the last time you saw a union or the government or the ACLU do a massive layoff?
Are corporations saintly? Absolutely not. That's why we created such organizations. But they've grown beyond their usefulness and created new problems, which, incidently it seems, only they themsleves are suited to solve. And when that fails, bring the weight of the feds (another incompetent mass) down on anyone who dares to defy them.
Legaleagle, I appreciate your change in delivery, but you're still wrong. We're individuals here and we often disagree. You'll find libertarians, convervatives and liberals here, all to differing degrees. If you'd been coming here as long as some of us, you'd see that. Some are civil and others not. Sometimes we all agree on one thing, sometimes not. That, in itself, disproves that "we" are part and parcel of the "rigid ideological agenda" group you seem to want to paint us as. You first berated the entire group, then when called on it, you did it again, only nicely this time. So again, thanks for being nice about it, but I think you're still wrong.
Posted by: Oyster at March 19, 2006 06:32 AM (YudAC)
34
OK, Bluto starts off by pointing out how management blames the screw-up on the help, and in the process comes off sounding almost like a commie. But, perhaps to forestall any such misconception about the orientation of this blog, maximus jumps in immediately to blame the incompetence on AA. Did legaleagle too quickly infer that racism was behind this apparently knee-jerk, and certainly irrelevant, observation? I'd be interested in hearing an alternative explanation, but the eagle's works fine right now.
Posted by: Tree at March 19, 2006 02:30 PM (nb56Q)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
