My great-grandfather started out as a painter -- of carriages. Horse-drawn carriages. He was one of the last ones to do that. He eventually went into painting other things, such as houses.

The TSA's mission public mission is security. Its true mission is to provide the illusion of security. The flying public needs that show of security to continue flying and keep the economy rolling. That's all it really is -- a show.

People seem to have no idea what is really going on sometimes.

I had to laugh a few Christmases ago during one of the panic alerts. Someone commented on live TV news about how comforting it was to have their airliner escorted by F-16s. This idiot had no clue the jets were there not to guard them, but to shoot them down should they be hijacked.

-- Craig

That is hillarious. Without people like that there would be a little less laughter in my life. <img src="/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I believe the government and the TSA can get away with what they are doing because the public is so effing stupid in the first place.

I'll sign that, about being stupid. Case in point, yesterday I was opening some boxes of supplies we had been waiting on for months (gotta love working for the government) and another employee came in and asked, "What's that?," pointing to my 79-cent boxcutter (you know the kind, the foldover piece of metal that holds one single-edged razor blace).
"It's a boxcutter," I replied, continuing to slash at the miles of packing tape.
"Like they used on 9-11?" she asked, her voice rising.
"No," I said, "I'm sure those were much nicer."
"But that could be dangerous!" she said, getting agitated.
"Only if you keep distracting me," I replied.
I found out later she went and complained to a supervisor that I had a deadly weapon. He came, took one look, and left laughing ...

The problem with such complainers are, they have a habit of suing to get their way. Companies, not wanting to risk a court case or sympathetic jury, will quickly settle out of court. The settlement usually involves:

(1) firing the employee who was complained about -- if you could cost them money, you've become a liability they can't afford, and/or

(2) equipping everyone with new gear far less capable of doing the job, but "safer" (AKA doesn't LOOK as dangerous), and/or

(3) making reparations to the complainant to account for the "mental cruelty" she endured while working in a "hostile environment."

Sad but true. Court costs and legal liability rule the workplace.

-- Craig

Graig:

I disagree in part.

In addition to being a show of security for the PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. flying public, which is a secondary concern, I believe it is a step to make the American public at large become more used to having liberties taken away in the name of security.

I haven't forgotten the late President Nixon's "no knock law" for entering private citizens homes passed under the guise of helping law enforcement, or former President Bush Sr. allowing the "assault weapons ban" to become law. The fact that the two Presidents are Republicans has no bearing as it is the act and not the actors that matter.

The taking of small pocket knives and tools from passangers does not engender safety after the first time it happens to good people, but they do not protest when they have to fear being placed on the "no fly" list.

This is basically a "guilty without even being able to prove innocence" law by a President and Congress which claims it wants to give people more control over their lives.

Bountyhunter

Maggot:

You may be missing the point on your situation.

If she in fact used the words you claim to your superior instead of asking him to see if you were using something illegal, you may be able to sue her for damages and demand her termination for her actions.

I definitely would and I would also go after anyone who supported her, even our respective superiors.

Bountyhunter

Craig:

All the more reason to go after her in the workplace and sue her if you have an honest cause of action!

Offensive action always has the advantage over defensive action no matter what those stupid action movies portray.

Bountyhunter

In all the cases I've read about or heard of, countersuits and pre-emptive suits were never filed or pursued, as far as I know.

-- Craig

Agreed. I have had more arguments with family members, acquaintances, and co-workers about their collective attitude of "They can take away anything they want or inspect anything they want because that will make us safer and protect us from terrorists."

What?!

They seriously believe that and they think I'm foolish for questioning governmental authority in this matter. It seems everyone has forgotten Vietnam and Watergate already. Memories fade quickly. Far too quickly.

-- Craig