US House 'Creator' of TSA Wants To Kill It 681
U.S. Representative John Mica (R-Florida), the sponsor of the original House bill that helped create the TSA, has become an outspoken opponent of the agency. In a recent interview, "Mica said screeners should be privatized and the agency dismantled." Mica seems to agree with other TSA critics that the agency 'failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.' Mica is the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman and receives classified briefings on TSA. Perhaps we should trust him more than most people on this topic.
In an older ABC news article (ignore the unrelated video) Mica describes how he deals with security checkpoints. "He won't go through a full body scanner at an airport because 'I don't want them circulating pictures of my beautiful body' all over. He said he opts for a pat-down, and just 'closes his eyes and imagines a beautiful female.'"
Got my vote (Score:2)
TSIA
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
I can solve the problem for half the population: (Score:5, Interesting)
Turn this around into a profit center. As a bonus, flyers are less stressed. winning all around.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is that? The Israelis seem to do it quite well and there would be nothing that would single right wing retards or even brilliant republicans out over the rest of the population.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is that?
Because doing security the Israeli way is very expensive, and it's mostly done behind-the-scenes. Thousands of ten-dollar-an-hour TSA drones are much cheaper, and provide the appearance of security.
Re: (Score:3)
I somehow can't help feel like it's my natural right not to get groped
It may be; unfortunately, flying isn't.
"A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace."
49 U.S.C. Sec. 40103 (2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a private company gropes you, public opinion forces them to change or they go out of business from driving away airport travelers. If the government gropes you, they tell you "tough shit," which is what the TSA has been saying for the last 12 months.
It intrigues me that so many people still don't understand the huge disadvantages that come with government control, especially when they bitch so much about corporate monopolies. Governments don't have to compete for you as a customer because you're forced t
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is only one provider of the service, it does not matter if it is government or a private company. If you must use them or not fly it will always be "tough shit".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Got my vote (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Don't know if you know but in the military (government job) BAH (Basic allowance for Housing) and I think BAS (Basic allowance for subsistence) are based upon zip code. The ones near NYC get paid WAY more then the rest.
Not saying thats wrong.. just wanted to clarify that.
wrong: there is a locality pay adjustment (Score:3)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Schedule [wikipedia.org]
"In January 1994, the Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 (FEPCA) introduced a "locality pay adjustment" component to the GS salary structure."
http://www.tsa.gov/join/careers/pay_scales.shtm [tsa.gov]
TSA agents are not on the GS pay plan, but they also get a locality adjustment
The math isn't perfect, but the principle is there
To refer to your specific example. NYC is +28.72%, Little Rock, as part of the "Rest of US" category, is +14.16%.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
The private firm, too, can tell you to go fuck yourself.
B-b-but then you can go to the snazzy new competing airport across the street which was built with zero startup capital (and does not actually exist), and they'll give you a backrub and a blowjob and then pay YOU to fly with them and then the "go fuck yourself" airline will go out of business for lack of customers, because competition always leads to the best deal for the consumer!
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
What airline isn't going to want to take on an additional, non-income problem domain, which is universally publicly hated, NEVER historically a profitable area of service, and which belongs historically and logically to airport staff (pre-TSA) already? Pick one - none of them will want the hassle. There's zero appeal for an airline in being the one to run the security, and there's basically zero chance of the airport failing to handle physical security, given that the physical plant belongs to DURR-HOY th
Re: (Score:3)
The problem would be if they are granted special powers like stewerdesses have. If they say "sit" and yo
Re: (Score:3)
"Voters" didn't put the TSA and their ilk into power. Voted-in politicians who promise exactly the opposite sort of behavior are the ones who did. Besides, at least if it's a truly private agency you can sue them when they get out of line and maybe actually get somewhere. Try doing that with the government.
You are nuts to think there would be even a remote chance of that happening. The enabling legislation would certainly give the 'private' companies blanket immunity from implementing the government policies.
This whole concept of privitising the TSA is ludicrous. These private companies would be following governmental policies, there would be no competition between companies. The traveling public would NOT be the customer. The government is the customer, so the public would have as much say in the matter a
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really wonder which entity has the ability to make sure you "go f___ yourself": 1) a private security company or airline, or 2) a department of the federal government? Because I don't.
Some people also think this exact thing about net neutrality. Yet, private telcos have gotten pretty comfortable with telling people to fuck themselves - and by and large, their customers are acquiescing and fucking themselves.
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
This argument would be more convincing if market competition in America actually worked the way free-market fundamentalists swear it works.
BTW, there's also a theory about how when the government gropes you, this is supposed to hurt their poll numbers and therefore their job security. You might even call it the central idea of representative democracy. Unfortunately that mechanism is just as broken as the "competition" one.
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Informative)
And why wouldn't the government feel it should regulate pollution?
"That would be difficult in a country where the government feels it has the right to interfere with the market at any time in any way for any reason. You can hardly blame the free market for screwups in a country where the government feels it has the right to control mercury and arsenic."
See how that sounds?
Re:Got my vote (Score:4, Funny)
Try breathing it and you might think differently.
Re:Got my vote (Score:4, Insightful)
This argument would be more convincing if market competition in America actually worked the way free-market fundamentalists swear it works.
That would be difficult in a country where the government feels it has the right to interfere with the market at any time in any way for any reason. You can hardly blame the free market for screwups in a country where the government feels it has the right to control carbon dioxide.
What about slavery, child labour, false and misleading advertising, dangerous products, nuclear bombs, stolen property, child pornography, buying votes, emergency services, military, submarines, gambling, prostitution, extortion, blackmail, drugs, land rights and immigration!
The government is out of control!!! Someone save the free market please!
Re: (Score:3)
I'll grant that the IRS does a fine job on stolen property, extortion and blackmail
Of course there would be no private property or land ownership without a government to enforce it. Heck, without government there would be no money.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The environment is an externality for businesses. In other words, a form of market failure. It doesn't matter how free your markets are, they will never be able to handle environmental problems. This is why things like carbon credits are being tried - they attempt to make the externality internal.
Re: (Score:3)
Conveniently, any action whatsoever can be declared interference at any time by the market fundamentalists, so that no true free market will ever do anything bad.
If you really believe that, you should be an anarchist, since any other state has the probability that the free market will somehow be interfered with.
It gets especially funny when the free market fanatics go on to claim that then they'll work just like Smith said, blissfully unaware that Smith was an advocate of market regulation.
It never did work. (Score:3)
Traditional economic 'theory' assumes that people act as entirely rational selfish entities. Unfortunately that isn't how people actually work [wikipedia.org].
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
When somebody says "Privatize", you can usually expect that they are demanding that the public employees be fired; but that the function continue to be paid for by taxpayer money, and backed by whatever force of law it previously enjoyed, just now being wielded by the employees of whatever contractor scooped up the bid. At best, this is an improvement of degree(ie. if the prior employees were genuinely a mess and the new contractor is actually efficient at something other than landing contracts); but it is not an improvement of kind: it is still state agents, paid with public money, backed by force of law. The fact that they aren't those evil public-sector workers with their wicked unions and whatnot doesn't change that a bit.
Unless proven innocent by demonstrated presence of a spine and some affinity for actual freedom, anybody who wants to "privatize the TSA" should be treated in roughly the same way as those who have shepherded along the privatization of parts of the prison industry... Shockingly enough, when your "product" is incarceration, you turn all your vaunted-efficiency-of-the-private-sector toward moving more product... Should the TSA be sacked and replaced by SecuriDyne LLC, it is extremely unlikely that SecuriDyne will be any better an advocate for less, and less invasive, screening than the TSA is, why would they cut into their own market?
Private companies are always accountable after all (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The contractor who takes away my garbage. They skipped pickups. Enough complaints and they were forced out of holding the monopoly in my town. I have a new contractor who costs the same and has better service performance
Re: (Score:3)
for certain definitions of "out of business"
Re:Got my vote (Score:5, Insightful)
If a private health insurance company fails to cover your health problems, public opinion forces them to change or they go out of business from failing to provide health insurance coverage. If the government fails to cover your health problem, they tell you "tough shit".
Hmm, if that ACTUALLY worked, we wouldn't have the mess that is the current state of health insurance. The reality is if a private health insurance company fails to cover your health problems, then either you are stuck paying for it yourself because switching to a new policy won't pay for a procedure that occurred before you were covered (in the case of finding out your insurance won't cover something after the fact of). If you find out that a procedure you need won't be covered by your insurance company before hand, then you're still screwed because you have a "pre-existing condition" and thus no one will give you a new policy that'll cover it. At least not something you're likely to be able to afford.
As for public opinion, in general most people just take whatever coverage their job gives them and hopes it covers whatever they need. Which means there's no free-market. Health insurance is too important and thus people take whatever they can get that gives them what they think they need as cheap as they can get it. They'll deride, complain, and campaign against an insurance company but the company won't go out of business because people still need to have health insurance, even if the company says "Tough shit".
The difference is a single-payer system that will always cover your health problem versus a profit based company that says "Tough Shit" because you cost them too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
glad that your shit sandwich now has a different kind of bread.
That's hardly fair. GP's shit sandwich has a whole new flavour of shit!
Killing it... (Score:4, Insightful)
...to replace it with privatized equivalents.
Not really better is it?
Re:Killing it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really no. The point of the TSA - a government agency that assumes accountability for security of air travel is good. The implementation as a long parade of security theatre which reacts as though past specific plans are guides to future threats is disastrously wasteful and ineffective, not to mention a drain on the economy when no one wants to travel for fear of being repeatedly groped, poked, and prodded by people in blue gloves who hate their jobs,
Re: (Score:3)
It's bad enough when the government wants to grop you, but for-profit corporations?
I won't visit the US until you guys sort this stuff out. Japan is bad enough with photgraphs and fingerprints taken when you enter.
Privatization? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Privatization? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just what we want, to pay more for less security.
Would be hard to pay more or get less than we currently do.
That was good coffee, damn it! (Score:2)
Would be hard to pay more ... than we currently do.
Re:Privatization? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Privatized airport security works just fine in Canada.
Yeah but who wants to attack Canadiens eh?
Re: (Score:3)
It also worked fine in the US (Score:3)
Prior to 9/11 airport security was private. Now yes, people did hijack the planes but then two things to remember:
1) Box cutters weren't something security was looking for.
2) The TSA has done no better, they miss shit all the time. Their record is awful.
Also a big benefit of private security is accountability. The TSA has done a wonderful job of creating a system where nobody is accountable and any complaint just gets stopped up in bureaucracy, and gets you placed on the no-fly list. Well in the case of pri
Re: (Score:3)
What are you talking about? Privatization generally leads to more for less. Airport security has already been privatized in other countries; the U.S. would just be catching up in that regard.
Re:Privatization? (Score:5, Informative)
What are you talking about? Privatization generally leads to more for less. Airport security has already been privatized in other countries; the U.S. would just be catching up in that regard.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/13/us/13contractor.html?_r=4 [nytimes.com]
There was another story a few weeks ago, about a state that took back a previously privatized prison that wasn't being maintained properly (i.e., the company was just cream-skimming), and much to their surprise they saved about a million dollars in the first year they had it back.
Also, notice that if you privatized the TSA you still have all the same expenses, *plus* the expectation of a profit on top of all that. They only way you get more for less by privatizing is by cutting corners - and you've got to cut enough to satisfy the profit motive just to break even.
Privatization isn't about smaller government, or even getting more for less. It's about putting public money in private pockets. Why do you think Republican politicians always favor it?
Re:Privatization? (Score:5, Insightful)
If the logic is extended, it appears you are an advocate of government running absolutely everything.
The reality is that there are evil people both in private enterprise and in government service, who are out to line their pockets as much as possible with no regard to the consequences as they apply to others. So, you can find arguments on both sides why they are evil and inefficient. Using such examples, unless the examples are comprehensive enough to be considered endemic, does little to advance an argument for either side.
Re: (Score:3)
I worked for a subsidiary of one of the US major carriers including the period from before 9/11 to after the TSA was created. Going through security five times a week, you notice things. At my airport terminal, the carrier hired Wackenhut (now part of G4S Secure Solutions) to staff the checkpoints. What concerned me most about that arrangement was that it was the carrier could exert pressure upon the security vendor to meet passenger per hour quotas that might pressure the security vendor to cut corners. I
Re: (Score:2)
And did at least as good a job!
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. The current situation is nothing more than a false sense of security, which is worse than no security.
Privatizing Air Security [mises.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Blackwater/Xe agrees.
USA (Score:5, Insightful)
USA is on MY no-fly list.
Re: (Score:3)
USA, Fuck yeah. We need less cowards over here :)
Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair the idea is that the private screeners will have a vested interest in getting passengers through quickly (since they'll be paid for by airlines/airports) and will have no financial interest in tighter security (which is good, since nothing implemented post-9/11 has helped, so it's plenty tight enough.)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
To be fair the idea is that the private screeners will have a vested interest in getting passengers through quickly (since they'll be paid for by airlines/airports) and will have no financial interest in tighter security (which is good, since nothing implemented post-9/11 has helped, so it's plenty tight enough.)
To be even fairer, screening used to be entirely private and it was just as effective and less intrusive without costing anything remotely close to $8 billion a year.
Re: (Score:3)
But the 70s had a whole series of very high-profile hijackings, and nobody apparently gave enough of a damn then to institute the kinds of policies we have in 2011.
In the 1970s, the US still had a ready-made Major Enemy (USSR), and people who hijacked planes were merely criminals.
In 2001, it needed a new one.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure... (Score:2)
Too big (Score:5, Insightful)
The TSA is a bureaucratic monster that has grown to big to dismantle (or indeed, even control anymore). It's already starting to branch out into areas that are far beyond its mandate, all in the name of "security", of course. We'll always have that little bogeyman.
They should get their own prescribed treatment (Score:2)
These government officials always must be the first to get anything that they prescribe as treatment to other people done to themselves first.
You want to pass a TSA type act? For a year you should be the only one, to who these treatments are applied. You should be forced to these treatments on daily basis, and if after a year you think it's still a good idea, then maybe... you should still forget about it and think how to increase individual liberties instead of destroying them, and how to uphold and protec
The TSA can't be the best we can do (Score:2)
It would be a good start for the kinds of cuts necessary for the bloated federal budget. Next do the BATFE, DEA, IRS and DOD.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I still open my BATFE themed convenience store?
Umm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Perhaps we should first ask, does Mica own stock or part of any private security firms?
Re: (Score:2)
Before everyone proclaims hallelujah (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before everyone proclaims hallelujah (Score:5, Insightful)
This guy is spouting Republican talking points, saying the program is "creating too much bureaucracy" and "being wasteful government spending". Notice he doesn't actually care about the loss of privacy and rights. If he could contract a private company to strip search everyone and save money on the budget, he'd probably do it. Heck he might even be able to spin it off as "helping the job creators." Just because someone agrees with you an issue doesn't mean he agrees with you for the same reasons nor that you'd like the solutions he'd propose.
Frankly, who cares what the instigator thinks as long as the action is accomplished? Security was private before the TSA took over. The rest of the world uses private security. It's in their best interest as a private company to cut the costs and speed people through security checkpoints just doing the basic security check. It's all theatre anyway, just pay less for it. We all would win if we got rid of the TSA.
Re:Before everyone proclaims hallelujah (Score:5, Insightful)
Because if he doesn't care about the privacy aspects, supporting his change could make things worse than they are now. The law could exempt the private companies from lawsuits, and there wouldn't even be a FOIA or a Congressional committee to uncover the uncalibrated machines spewing radiation, or the repeat molesters allowed to "retire" without prosecution.
If it remains illegal to walk away from your flight when you decide to not be groped or irradiated, then the organization running security is still the de-facto government no matter who pays their bills. In that case, I'd prefer it to be the government because they have better (if bloated and still not all that great) oversight.
Re: (Score:3)
If contracted out properly, yes. Somehow I expect the U.S. would totally fuck up the privatization, though, and end up with a cost-plus contract that would actually give the privatized T.S.A. more incentive to institute bullshit and expensive security measures, so they could bill back more cost-plus fees to the contract.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not like it in the entire E.U. In Poland at least, it's all run by the military, and they seem like quite competent people, with plenty of experience. I'd take military any day over a contractor, at least in Poland.
Re: (Score:2)
Because rent a cops will be better? (Score:2)
Really? Hey maybe he is right but over all I find the application of logic in the editorialization of Slashdot submissions to be lacking at best.
"Mica is the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman and receives classified briefings on TSA. Perhaps we should trust him more than most people on this topic."
And if he as all for keeping the TSA would you also say you should trust him more because of his insider info? I doubt it, I am sure that we would hear screams of "who is paying him off" o
Or perhaps... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Privatize? (Score:2)
There's evidence that government services provided by private contractors can cost twice as much as the same services, provided by full-time federal employees --- all while doing everything even less efficiently than before. (...Just like it is with private prisons, private war contractors, private health insurance, and many other scams.)
This whole scheme seems like just another RepubliScam(TM), mean
I am amazed (Score:2)
I just really have a hard time imagining that private firms would be worse; they're already rent-a-cops, but as it is they're government rent-a-cops. Any oversight at all, even if it is just the fictitious "free market" oversight, is an improvement over an organization that actively works against any sort of oversight.
Like Poland? (Score:2)
It's kind of ignorant to use Poland as an example of expensive security administrations. Security at Polish airports is handled by the same mix of military, police, and private security as in most European airports and stations. It's nothing like the TSA.
When a politician takes a position, any position, the main key to understanding why is "follow the money". In this case, I'd assume, even without research, that the TSA budget represents a huge and lucrative pot of money and certain people think they can gr
Trust him?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of trusting the guy that originally worked to create the monstrocity, how about we trust the guy that fought against it originally? We had one outspoken guy in government saying we do not need to give up freedoms for temporary safety the day after 9/11..
Rep John Mica says 'I helped create it. It sucks. We should privatize it.'
Rep Ron Paul says 'I voted against it. It sucks. We should get rid of it.'
I believe the new cockpit doors did more to combat terrorism than all of the air marshalls and TSA screeners combined.. and the doors did not do much.
And who's going to take over? (Score:5, Funny)
Funny how the guys who were spending.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it interesting that the very people who were spending money like drunken sailors are suddenly in favor of "smaller government" and financial conservatism? And yet almost no one is calling them on it. An entire political party apparently had an epiphany and started claiming that Obama was outspending every President in history (while Bush Jr. - all by himself - increased the national debt by over $5 trillion according to the NY Times).
I keep wondering how firing a million government employees is going to help create jobs.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I've thought the same thing for a long while. From 1995 to 2007 we had an Republican majority in both houses of Congress, a largely Republican SCOTUS, and for 6 of those years a Republican President. They set us up for failure with deregulation of the banking and housing industries and they went to war with no plan at all to pay for it (Every other war in US history was paid for by raising taxes and every war was followed by a recession).
Why would people trust them to get us out of this mess? Why
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, I forget to mention, there are only 2 ways for a government to "create" jobs:
1. Spend money and expand existing programs.
2. Spend money and create new government programs.
They can also encourage the private sector to create new jobs by using incentives, but those aren't guaranteed to work. We saw how a lot of those programs have worked over the years.
Gov: hey, you get a break on your taxes if you promise to hire people.
CEO: Thanks, we'll sure try to! We really really promise to try!
Gov: Pinky swear??
C
Re: (Score:3)
??? represents the continuation of Afghanistan and Iraq, plus Libya, and the Global Financial Crisis that you may have heard of...
I also thought it funny that 4 of your five points to Bush are about destruction, yet you follow it up by saying that Bush has more to show.
"privitize" (Score:5, Insightful)
This is political hackery that boils down to the following:
#1) The job will be bid on via a no-bid contract to some firm that some senator is either friends with the owner or a part-owner thereof.
#2) All the current TSA employees will be fired.
#3) All the former TSA employees will be rehired by the private firm (such as Blackwater), at LOWER pay.
#4) Despite hiring everyone at lower pay, the contractor will bill the government double or more what it was costing the government to run the TSA by itself.
#5) Owner and Senator become super-rich, and lobby hard to have their personal income taxes cut because they are Job-creators.
#6) Deficit explodes due to cost-over-runs and how much money is being pocketed by owner/senator. Meanwhile Congress votes to cut taxes on the rich to "reduce" the deficit.
Is there any part of this I haven't covered? It's pretty obvious, and they've done it to us a million times and we let them do it more. The Rich get richer and the middle class becomes poor.
Thanks government for fucking me in the ass again.
Re: (Score:3)
You know what the solution is: vote 3rd party in 2012 and tell all your friends to do the same. Obama's been a joke. The Democrats in general are quite willing to let the country slowly slide into ruin and the Republicans seem bound and determined to rush there as fast as possible.
Neither major party is willing to implement the kind of policies we need to solve the problems with our economy, curb climate change or stop fucking around with our civil liberties and as the tea party showed attempts at grassroot
Failed to detect? (Score:3)
"Mica seems to agree with other TSA critics that the agency 'failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years."
Not that I am a big fan of the TSA but one thing should be pointed out. Failure to detect a threat does not mean if was unsuccessful at finding a threat. There might not have been any credible threats to find. There is a problem in failing many tests of security and he should have pointed at that instead.
OOoooo. Rent-A-Cops (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
don't forget the 9/11 hijackers used no guns or bombs.
Further: they used tiny knives which, if properly prepared, could be easily hidden inside the anus. If the blade is nonmetal (such things do exist), it would be totally undetectable by the current security procedures.
Not that any of this matters...
Re: (Score:3)
Of course the armored door keeps out a knife attack, but that doesn't mean airport security is doing anything more useful than it was before it really went to hell.
That's rather the point: if we still had pre-9/11 airport security along with armored doors and passengers willing to beat any would-be terrorist to death, then the result of the last ten years would have been precisely the same because airport security hasn't stopped any of the actual attacks that were actually tried but passengers have.
balanced. (Score:4, Insightful)
They aren't at zero - they are negative. You have to count the false detections against them as well. Their mistakes have had lasting impacts on their poor victims.
Re: (Score:3)
"Failure to detect threats" does not necessarily mean the program is a total waste of money, because of the deterrent effect on terrorists who would be risking human assets to sneak by the airport checkpoints.
It is a reasonable premise to assume that a deterred terrorist does not simply give up, he looks for an easier target. Therefore the deterrent effect can be measured by counting non-airport cases of terrorism.
In the most favorable interpretation for the TSA would be to count every single non-airport terrorist as having been "deterred" by the TSA. I believe that makes 3 -- the DC sniper, the Fort Hood shooter and the Times Square bomber.
That's 2 nutjobs with just guns and 1 nutjob who couldn't even build
Re: (Score:3)
Well if it's privatized, then maybe they'll do things more like Israel. I don't know much beyond anecdotes (on here) about their screening process, but I gather it's a simple and short Q&A where they profile you and search if needed.
About the only thing I can imagine worse than the TSA is Israeli-style interrogation to get on a plane.
All of these security theater acts fail for one simple reason: there are very, very, very few terrorists and almost everyone who will ever go through the security theater is not one. As a result, all it can do is annoy the 99.99999% of travellers who know they're not terrorists in the hope that perhaps it might one day manage to catch a real one... and because few terrorists are ever caught there's no real
Re: (Score:3)
Read it using 'house' as a verb.
As in, the US is housing the creator of the TSA and wants to kill it. It referring to the creator, not the TSA.