IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New the issue for me
is that we're screwed no matter who's in charge. One of the Democrats main platforms in 2008 was clean up the Patriot Act and eliminate the unconstitutional parts, yet in 2010 they renewed it w/out change.

Sure the TSA was established under Bush, but "The TSA Rules" have been under constant revision since then. The OK for them to sexually assault the public came under Obama, not Bush.
New Things can change for the better.
I understand the cynicism and share some of it, but things will only get better if we push the outcome the way we want it to go.

(I can't address your specific points because I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to without a linky or two.)

James Fallows has been a consistent TSA critic. But he occasionally has stories about TSA acting responsibly. E.g. http://www.theatlant...g-the-tsa/247014/ from October 2011:

Since I so often complain about the nuttiness, petty tyranny, and "security theater" mentality of the Transportation Security Administration, and since I would complain ten times more if I weren't afraid of sounding like a total (versus partial) crank, let me say something deservedly nice about a TSA experience I had today.

It was at San Diego's Lindbergh Field, which has had its rough moments on the TSA-versus-humanity front. But for me today's passage-through-security was different from any in recent memory, in that the TSA officials I dealt with seemed relaxed. There was no stentorian yelling about what to do with your computers and your shoes-and-gels. There was no one who looked like he or she was spoiling for an opportunity to show a passenger who was boss. The agents were smiling -- not because they were joking with each other and then turning to glower at the passenger/subjects, as I've seen at other airports, but in their interactions with people filing through.

[...]


The bad incident was in November 2010.

Why were things better? Maybe part of it was the Obama administration making appropriate changes. Maybe Pistole is cleaning things up as he can - http://www.tsa.gov/w..._pistole_bio.shtm Maybe part of it was TSA no-longer being prevented from negotiating with unionized workers - http://www.npr.org/b...bargaining-rights. An agreement with AFGE was reached in August - http://www.afge.org/...essReleaseID=1376

I don't know why things seem to be getting better. But they do seem to be with TSA. Is it enough? Of course not.

Change is a slow process. We all need to help it along. :-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New it would change faster
if the sheeple woke up to the fact that it's not an either-or decision. We keep getting slight variations of the same old crap from the same two groups.
New Please see my reply below.
     Yeah, the two parties are the same. Give up. Let it burn. - (Another Scott) - (29)
         Yes, they are - (SpiceWare) - (28)
             Point of order. - (Another Scott) - (27)
                 the issue for me - (SpiceWare) - (3)
                     Things can change for the better. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                         it would change faster - (SpiceWare) - (1)
                             Please see my reply below. -NT - (Another Scott)
                 Re: Point of order. - (hnick) - (22)
                     Man - please lighten up a little. :-) - (Another Scott) - (4)
                         yeah, they'll really listen - (SpiceWare) - (3)
                             It was an important call. - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 it was Sheila being Sheila - (SpiceWare) - (1)
                                     Meh. 14 years ago.... :-) - (Another Scott)
                     turning your stomach - (rcareaga) - (16)
                         <blush> You're far more eloquent than me. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                             I'm eloquent. You're cogent. There's a difference. -NT - (rcareaga) - (3)
                                 Who's Curly then? -NT - (malraux) - (2)
                                     Every man for himself! -NT - (Another Scott)
                                     Hey Moe! Poink. -NT - (crazy)
                         Re: turning your stomach - (hnick) - (2)
                             Don't. Lets reason together and get closer to the truth. -NT - (Another Scott)
                             'course I don't want you to shut up. - (rcareaga)
                         Um, "not second-guess your ethical stance"? - (mmoffitt) - (7)
                             I was talking about *his* ethical stance - (rcareaga) - (6)
                                 :0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (5)
                                     further to nader - (rcareaga) - (4)
                                         He makes a very strong case. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                         I thought it was a load of crap. - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                             Ralph in 2008 was harmless, so good for you - (rcareaga) - (1)
                                                 Noted. But, ... - (mmoffitt)

Better than an iron-shod boot to the head!
63 ms