|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 27, 2010 20:59:27 GMT
One more commentary that came my way. Excerpt: TSA: Thou Shalt Acquiesceby Gary North As a 40-year student of bureaucracy, beginning with Ludwig von Mises's great little book, Bureaucracy (1944), I have come to recognize a series of near laws governing bureaucracy. This one is, as far as I can see, unbreakable, comparable to the law of gravity. Some bureaucrat will enforce a written rule in such a way as to make the rule and the bureaucracy seem either ridiculous, tyrannical, or both. There is no way to write the rules so that some bonehead in the system will not find a way to become a thorn in someone's side – a thorn that cries out for removal. There are corollaries to this iron law of bureaucracy. 1. The bureaucrat in question will not back down unless forced to from above. 2. His superiors will regard any public resistance to the interpretation as an attack on the bureaucracy's legitimate turf. 3. The bureaucracy's senior spokesman will defend the policy as both legitimate and necessary. 4. Politicians will be pressured by voters to have the policy changed. 5. The bureaucracy will tell the politicians that disaster will follow any such modification of the policy. 6. The public will finally get used to it. 7. The politicians will switch to some other national crisis. 8. The internal manual will then be rewritten by the senior bureaucrats to make the goof-ball application mandatory. 9. Senior management will increase the budget so as to enforce the new policy. 10. Politicians will acquiesce to this increased budget. This leads me to North's law of bureaucratic expansion: Any outrageous interpretation of a bureaucratic rule, if widely resisted by the public, will lead to an increased appropriation for the bureaucracy within two fiscal years. There is an exception. If the enforcement of the interpretation requires major expenditures for new equipment, the process will take only one fiscal year. www.lewrockwell.com/north/north913.html
|
|
|
Post by jimgineer on Nov 28, 2010 9:50:20 GMT
The topic of the thread asked if we have had out pat down yet. Let me ask something similar: Who on this thread (besides me) has even flown since this began? Is there anyone else? If so, they sure haven't said anything about it. This thread is a perfect example of mob mentality. (Excuse me for getting close to what I don't like with other people posting, but I'm having a problem keeping up when I feel like I'm being overwhelmed by some just posting whatever bullshit story they can find with a google search). We have one person saturating the thread with every political charicaturization, cartoon, and blog post they can find from the internet while saying they notice how the news is trying to "convince us that it is all okay." But let's look even at the history of things that this person puts up to support the allegations of violations. One is a story of a soldier getting nail clippers confistated while having an assault rifle. The best I can tell, the source of this story is something from twitter. Some questions that need to be asked include: Why does this guy have an assault rifle in the airport? What armory was that checked out from? Is he deploying? PCSing? going TDY? I can't think of any military movement through civilian air travel facilities that involves them having an assault rifle. So why does the person posting such things not ask such questions? Why do they just believe this at face value. Military units heading out or returning from overseas duty are always carrying their weapons when they board commercial flights in my area. This is seen commonly on all the local broadcast channels, such as NWCN.com People who live in glass houses....
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 28, 2010 15:54:45 GMT
This has been fun watching this little food fight between you two. ;D But I have a couple questions. What happens when some guy (or girl) with a suitcase bomb or vest walks into a terminal and blows himself and others to kingdom come at the ticket counter or some other spot this side of the checkpoints? What happens when the same thing happens at a mall, a stadium, or theater? Or at a Xmas tree lighting in Portland? How far down this security/safety road do we go? Good question. There has to be more than one layer of security, and I think that's what we saw in Portland. That's what we've seen in most of the follow up attempts at airplanes as well. Intelligence (not the mental abilities type) has to be part of it. I think the airport security is just one layer of security for the airplane. How far we go is what the debate is all about. My general idea is that if someone wants to risk their own life, they should have the freedom to do that. So if someone wants to try to climb a mountain, they should have the freedom to try. When other people's safety becomes an issue, then it is no longer just an individual choice - we have to consider the other people who may not choose to risk their lives in that situation or may not have the same view as I do about whether or not a certain measure is useful or not. In my view, the airplane, being an enclosed environment where there is no escape, is an example of the second. We do have some limited security at ballgames, but admittedly I don't think it is very good. I also don't ascribe to the big conspiracy ideas. I recognize that governments try to expand their power, and individuals are not always honest, but I don't see evidence of any big conspiracy trying to keep me down, etc. That's part of where my position comes from. I guess we'll have to decide them individually. I don't know what someone is going to propose, so I'll have to wait to see whether I concur or not. When it's proposed, though, I want to think it through and take a balanced view when making a decision - to the extent that is possible by individuals (it's really hard to account for one's self when trying to think objectively ).
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 28, 2010 16:07:35 GMT
The topic of the thread asked if we have had out pat down yet. Let me ask something similar: Who on this thread (besides me) has even flown since this began? Is there anyone else? If so, they sure haven't said anything about it. This thread is a perfect example of mob mentality. (Excuse me for getting close to what I don't like with other people posting, but I'm having a problem keeping up when I feel like I'm being overwhelmed by some just posting whatever bullshit story they can find with a google search). We have one person saturating the thread with every political charicaturization, cartoon, and blog post they can find from the internet while saying they notice how the news is trying to "convince us that it is all okay." But let's look even at the history of things that this person puts up to support the allegations of violations. One is a story of a soldier getting nail clippers confistated while having an assault rifle. The best I can tell, the source of this story is something from twitter. Some questions that need to be asked include: Why does this guy have an assault rifle in the airport? What armory was that checked out from? Is he deploying? PCSing? going TDY? I can't think of any military movement through civilian air travel facilities that involves them having an assault rifle. So why does the person posting such things not ask such questions? Why do they just believe this at face value. Military units heading out or returning from overseas duty are always carrying their weapons when they board commercial flights in my area. This is seen commonly on all the local broadcast channels, such as NWCN.com People who live in glass houses.... I looked for video and couldn't find it, so I tried another angle. This is the TSA guidelines entitled "Accommodations for U.S. Military Personnel": www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1880.shtmA couple of excerpts: And this: (The bold is theirs). So for units, it sounds like it is required to be collectively secured in banded or locked crates. Individuals have the same rules as non military individuals who transport firearms. I can't see any place where individual firearms are allowed to be carried through security by individual soldiers, airmen, sailors or marines. I have a few long-time friends who are still in and who have deployed and/or returned recently (not many ... most my age are retired.) I'll ask them to see if I understand this correctly. I wasn't able to find any videos of military in civilian airports with weapons. If you have any, please show us. Edit: I got an answer back from one of my old buddies who is still in, and who has deployed to and returned from theater recently. He is now a Captain in the 187th Ordinance Battalion. If you can understand, I will not give his name. His response is: So that looks to be consistent with the TSA guidelines I posted above.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 28, 2010 16:55:55 GMT
One more commentary that came my way. Excerpt: TSA: Thou Shalt Acquiesceby Gary North As a 40-year student of bureaucracy, beginning with Ludwig von Mises's great little book, Bureaucracy (1944), I have come to recognize a series of near laws governing bureaucracy. This one is, as far as I can see, unbreakable, comparable to the law of gravity. Some bureaucrat will enforce a written rule in such a way as to make the rule and the bureaucracy seem either ridiculous, tyrannical, or both. There is no way to write the rules so that some bonehead in the system will not find a way to become a thorn in someone's side – a thorn that cries out for removal. There are corollaries to this iron law of bureaucracy. 1. The bureaucrat in question will not back down unless forced to from above. 2. His superiors will regard any public resistance to the interpretation as an attack on the bureaucracy's legitimate turf. 3. The bureaucracy's senior spokesman will defend the policy as both legitimate and necessary. 4. Politicians will be pressured by voters to have the policy changed. 5. The bureaucracy will tell the politicians that disaster will follow any such modification of the policy. 6. The public will finally get used to it. 7. The politicians will switch to some other national crisis. 8. The internal manual will then be rewritten by the senior bureaucrats to make the goof-ball application mandatory. 9. Senior management will increase the budget so as to enforce the new policy. 10. Politicians will acquiesce to this increased budget. This leads me to North's law of bureaucratic expansion: Any outrageous interpretation of a bureaucratic rule, if widely resisted by the public, will lead to an increased appropriation for the bureaucracy within two fiscal years. There is an exception. If the enforcement of the interpretation requires major expenditures for new equipment, the process will take only one fiscal year. www.lewrockwell.com/north/north913.htmlWhile there may be some truth (and some satire) in what is stated, don't you also see a tendency in people to react and call things they don't like, or things that don't line up with their political viewpoint "boneheaded," "stupid," or bureacratic? Do you also see a tendency from people disagreeing to throw out broad statements like "it has no chance of being successful" or "it does nothing" whether they can know that or not?
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 28, 2010 17:10:00 GMT
One more commentary that came my way. Excerpt: TSA: Thou Shalt Acquiesceby Gary North As a 40-year student of bureaucracy, beginning with Ludwig von Mises's great little book, Bureaucracy (1944), I have come to recognize a series of near laws governing bureaucracy. This one is, as far as I can see, unbreakable, comparable to the law of gravity. Some bureaucrat will enforce a written rule in such a way as to make the rule and the bureaucracy seem either ridiculous, tyrannical, or both. There is no way to write the rules so that some bonehead in the system will not find a way to become a thorn in someone's side – a thorn that cries out for removal. There are corollaries to this iron law of bureaucracy. 1. The bureaucrat in question will not back down unless forced to from above. 2. His superiors will regard any public resistance to the interpretation as an attack on the bureaucracy's legitimate turf. 3. The bureaucracy's senior spokesman will defend the policy as both legitimate and necessary. 4. Politicians will be pressured by voters to have the policy changed. 5. The bureaucracy will tell the politicians that disaster will follow any such modification of the policy. 6. The public will finally get used to it. 7. The politicians will switch to some other national crisis. 8. The internal manual will then be rewritten by the senior bureaucrats to make the goof-ball application mandatory. 9. Senior management will increase the budget so as to enforce the new policy. 10. Politicians will acquiesce to this increased budget. This leads me to North's law of bureaucratic expansion: Any outrageous interpretation of a bureaucratic rule, if widely resisted by the public, will lead to an increased appropriation for the bureaucracy within two fiscal years. There is an exception. If the enforcement of the interpretation requires major expenditures for new equipment, the process will take only one fiscal year. www.lewrockwell.com/north/north913.htmlWhile there may be some truth (and some satire) in what is stated, don't you also see a tendency in people to react and call things they don't like, or things that don't line up with their political viewpoint "boneheaded," "stupid," or bureacratic? Do you also see a tendency from people disagreeing to throw out broad statements like "it has no chance of being successful" or "it does nothing" whether they can know that or not? You tell me. You were the one doing personal attacks.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 28, 2010 17:46:48 GMT
You tell me. You were the one doing personal attacks. Okay, so let me outline what I normally see (obviously my perspective): In any organization, there are different individuals with different levels of motivation. Some just want to put in thier time, others are always looking for ways to innovate. Most are somewhere in between those two positions as they try to balance work and life. This applies in private as well as public institutions. The innovators tend to spend more time thinking through problems that are in front of them, and they think of ways to address the problems, or improve the processes. Sometimes, they may work in groups to address problems, but they will decide to invest themselves into the solution. They will tend to deal with the problems they can see, but they cannot think of all challenges during this phase. They will think of more as they work toward implementation, and usually deal with the ones they can. At some point, however; they have to put it forward, or forget it. So processes go foward - never perfect. Why innovators tend to do this may range from job satisfaction to personal fullfillment to wanting to distinguish themselves from their peers for advancement. It probably involves differing levels of a number of motivations. The reaction from those who are not a part of the process is usually negative. I'm not sure why it is, but it's been obvious time and time again. Maybe these people don't want the innovators to "distinguish" themselves; maybe they are comfortable with the way things are and just don't want to change; Sometimes it may be personal distaste for the person or persons presenting the ideas; etc. I'm sure there are a number of reasons why people resist the change, but resistance is as predictable as the sunrise. Some of the criticism is both justified and good. Wider ranges of challenges are seen and can be addressed during this phase. The people who want to engage in partnership while pointing out flaws are especially helpful at this point. However; it requires investment of one's self to engage in the partnership, and that risks criticism from those who will refuse to consider that there is any merit to what is being done. Some innovations never get implemented. In fact. probably most don't get to this point. But at some point, some ideas come to reality. At this point, some people accept and work to improve what is in place. Some just accept. Some have their minds made up before they ever try anything that they are not going to like it. The only input some people can make into the process is to call it "boneheaded," "stupid," or talk about how it makes no sense, or has no chance of actually accomplishing what it claims it will accomplish. This stage requires no risk, no investment of energy; has not considered the things considered in the hours (months, years?) spent in incubating the ideas; does not realize the scope of input sought and taken; and offers no ideas to improve the process. It is just critical. Why are there those like this? I imagine the ranges of motivations go from trying to improve social status by pretending aloofness, to pretending superior insight, to some who just genuinely disagree, and there are probably many levels of other reasons involved. Wherever someone is on that spectrum (anywhere from innovator to perpetual critic), you can guarantee the person has someone who has produced a few cute axioms they can use to support and justify their position. Sometimes the axioms even use words like "bonehead," "stupid," "bureacrat," or ____________. (insert favorite adjective for the occasion). I also notice there are a few nice neat groups that people at every point in that spectrum tend to use to categorize those who don't agree with them in their position.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 28, 2010 18:45:27 GMT
This has been fun watching this little food fight between you two. ;D But I have a couple questions. What happens when some guy (or girl) with a suitcase bomb or vest walks into a terminal and blows himself and others to kingdom come at the ticket counter or some other spot this side of the checkpoints? What happens when the same thing happens at a mall, a stadium, or theater? Or at a Xmas tree lighting in Portland? How far down this security/safety road do we go? Good question. There has to be more than one layer of security, and I think that's what we saw in Portland. That's what we've seen in most of the follow up attempts at airplanes as well. Intelligence (not the mental abilities type) has to be part of it. I think the airport security is just one layer of security for the airplane. How far we go is what the debate is all about. My general idea is that if someone wants to risk their own life, they should have the freedom to do that. So if someone wants to try to climb a mountain, they should have the freedom to try. When other people's safety becomes an issue, then it is no longer just an individual choice - we have to consider the other people who may not choose to risk their lives in that situation or may not have the same view as I do about whether or not a certain measure is useful or not. In my view, the airplane, being an enclosed environment where there is no escape, is an example of the second. We do have some limited security at ballgames, but admittedly I don't think it is very good. I also don't ascribe to the big conspiracy ideas. I recognize that governments try to expand their power, and individuals are not always honest, but I don't see evidence of any big conspiracy trying to keep me down, etc. That's part of where my position comes from. I guess we'll have to decide them individually. I don't know what someone is going to propose, so I'll have to wait to see whether I concur or not. When it's proposed, though, I want to think it through and take a balanced view when making a decision - to the extent that is possible by individuals (it's really hard to account for one's self when trying to think objectively ). There are 2 objectives in the mind of terrorists ( professionals, not amateurs) . 1. Make a political statement and/or demoralize by killing/injuring as many people as possible - call it the big bang. 2. Cause severe economic/political harm by attacking critical infrastrucure - common military practice. A combination of the above is, of course, the most desirable. Following the logic then, any large gathering of people automatically becomes a potential target for a big bang assault. Since it is impossible to screen everyone who might be part of a large gathering somewhere, either thru intelligence or "hands on", then to ensure the safety of others we should avoid congregating, correct? The ridiculously ultimate "safety" measure would be solitary confinement of everyone. Or slightly less ridiculous, the banning of any gathering of more than say a dozen people in one place ( for their own safety of course ), without prior permission of the authorities. I'm pretty sure this has been tried in the past. The correct response to the above threats would be to eliminate the source of the threat. "How" is the only question. We are not doing a very good job of that; in either the military search and destroy approach, the hearts and minds approach, or politically/economically. Defaulting to what amounts to punishment of the intended victims because we are unwilling (as opposed to unable ) to address the source of the threat effectively, is unacceptable. It merely reinforces the idea that we are impotent to deal with the issue, and is ultimately self defeating.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 28, 2010 20:25:03 GMT
I think we as a nation have a rather short attention span when it comes to dealing with things like the problem of terrorism at the source. Or course, there is also the issue of the cost of continued pursuit. That will continue to be a political battlefield internally for us. Then, there is also the problem that covert actions are covert, and we really don't know what actions, or to what extent those types of actions take place. There seem to be some in place, though, since the sting to catch the Portland bomber seems to be a result of covert actions of some sort. I'm certain terrorists (professionals and amateurs alike) have thought of targets like ball games, the Golden Gate Bridge, etc. In fact, I seem to remember an amateur made an attempt at one of the olympiads. I don't remember any details on that. I can only guess that if there is another large scale successful terrorist attack, there will be a reaction security wise, and probably many in the public will be demanding it. I guess in most cases, in public places, I would like to have information to make as informed a decision as possible. I don't intend to live in a shell in fear, but I would like to mitigate risk when it makes sense to do so, and just have the information to decide whether or not I want to take the risk at other times. I'll tend to cooperate more when people around me have a mutual feeling of need for security, at least to an extent that I can see as reasonable. Some places, such as ball games, Rose Parade, driving across the Golden Gate bridge, etc. I know the risk and just continue with the action unaltered. That seems to be the feeling of most around me as well. If someone bombs the Golden Gate bridge tomorrow, I expect that feelings of many will change. I'll have to decide then whether or not to alter my behavior accordingly. I'm not sure I made a point in all of that . I guess I'm saying I'm mostly reactive because I don't think I have enough information to be otherwise, and I think the threat is going to be with us for a long time. Politics dictate what we can or will do as much as anything, so I'll have to live with that as much as with the threat.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 28, 2010 22:44:34 GMT
........................... I'm not sure I made a point in all of that . Don't worry about it. Old guys don't bother with making points. There's no point. ( to quote another old guy in an old movie - Enemy of the State ). PS: Since you said you spent some time in the military, are you familiar with the writings of Sun Wu - the author of Sun-tzu ping-fa ? The old general had some things to say about doing battle for protracted periods. See chpt 2 - www.sonshi.com/sun2.html
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 28, 2010 22:45:37 GMT
slh1234,
don't watch movies much do you? either that or the themes go over your head. I recommend V for Vendetta or Johnny Mnemonic. Believe or not they have similar base ideas.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 29, 2010 5:23:52 GMT
slh1234, don't watch movies much do you? either that or the themes go over your head. I recommend V for Vendetta or Johnny Mnemonic. Believe or not they have similar base ideas. Yor are correct: I hardly ever watch a movie. It's that attention span thing again ... it makes it VERY difficult for me to sit through a movie. Curious, I read that reference. It is indeed interesting. Don't think this hasn't been fun because it has, but I'm going to have to move some of my focus off of the thread. I have to go back to work tomorrow, and need my emotional energy for that - I have a limited amount of it that I usually spend in strong spurts ... I need it focused in the right direction to be successful. I'll process through Airport Security in San Francisco on Tuesday, and in Seattle on Friday. I'll let you know if I see anything changed from what I've seen before.
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 29, 2010 19:23:13 GMT
slh1234, It's a excellent site which includes a forum for discussions of Sun Tzu and other well known works on the art of war, including Clausewitz, Patton, Alexander, etc.
I'd recommend it for anyone interested in business strategy also. In fact, many of the best business schools cover Sun Tzu in their courses - adapting the fundamental philosophy and leadership principles to the business world.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 30, 2010 6:47:06 GMT
One more internet rumor for your enjoyment.
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Dec 4, 2010 16:42:16 GMT
Flying out of the Bay Area on Tuesday, it seemed like about half of the people going through security were going through the scanners instead of the metal detector. (Half is just an impressions based on a very narrow slice of time. I didn't do any counting to arrive at that). There were no real delays. I was directed to go through the scanner instead of the metal detector.
The guy in front of me, in spite of being asked several times if his pockets were empty, forgot that his cell phone charger was in one of his cargo pockets. They caught it on the scanner. He was asked if he had anything like a charger in that pocket at which time he reached in, found it, and handed it to the TSO. The charger was then sent through the carryon xray as it should have been in the first place, and the area of his cargo pocket only was patted to see if that was all that was in that area. He was then let to go. That is the closest thing to an incident I saw. His pat was limited to that targeted area.
In Seattle, I still haven't seen anybody sent through the scanner. It was there, but like last time, they didn't seem to be sending anyone through it.
There doesn't seem to be any excitement in the security lines over any of it. Nobody mentions it. Nobody asks about it. Nobody in the time I was there this time requested a pat-down in lieu of the scan. Nobody seemed upset about it. The flights were full both directions.
|
|