Hacker News Reader

> A large subset of the American population believe that government can do no good . . . This is why we can't have nice things.

Yup, suspicion of government is the root of all evil, and TSA only act the way they do because some people don't trust them enough.

Good lord.

You're wilfully misinterpreting what I wrote.

Yes, some government employees do bad things. And suspicion of government is widespread. But the response has not been to try and get better government, it's been to hamstring and hobble government instead.

This wilful incompetence in governance is a peculiarly American institution. (I'd have said "unique", but I'm sure there must be at least one other nation out of the 160-odd on this planet that shares it.) And it's hugely detrimental because it contributes to low expectations which in turn lead to poor outcomes.

I have to take issue with the generalization on the number of people that feel this way, there is at least one political party that seems to be quite happy with government doing more and doing it better and I would argue both the major parties seem content to do this albeit for different pet reasons. (The republicans seen to like competent militaries and drug enforcement agencies)

With that said, can you provide some examples of willfully making government incompetent (and hopefully not just anecdotes)? I don't mean to seem confrontational on your point, it's provocative to assert this is done on purpose as opposed to it simply happening on its own, so if in fact you are right that would be outrageous and wasteful set of actions to say the least. Some examples might help to put me in your camp, because I'd consider that worthy of a revolution and I am genuinely interested in your point. It's interesting.

Potential counter example: NSA. They seem quite competent at their stated mission, frighteningly so. Perhaps this hobbling of government is limited to only certain functions, but not all?

Simple example: just compare IRS tax forms with HMRC here in the UK. It's as night and day. Even though they're both income tax agencies administering a complex tax code.

(Yes, the hobbling of government is limited to certain functions: and even within those functions it varies considerably -- it can be argued that there's serious incompetence in the administration of big military procurement contracts, for example, but the reason is that it makes it easier to spread the pork around, which is necessary to steer any large project through to completion because of the way federal spending is administered; whereas once the horrifyingly expensive procurement program has delivered a weapons system, actually operating it is usually carried out quite effectively.)

The IRS 1040EZ form is one page: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040ez.pdf

The IRS 1040 is two: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040.pdf

Both require no more effort than copying values from forms that are mailed to you, and some addition/subtraction-level math. I guess they could still be simpler, but come on, it's less work than opening a bank account or filling out your medical history every time you visit a new doctor.

This is a good comment overall, but I dislike the way it starts off by blaming levity itself for being a problem, when clearly it is not.

We in the US have an expensive, shitty security apparatus, and nowhere is it's shittiness and expense more visible than at our borders, where thanks to vague laws these shitty security organizations have expanded their own powers as much as they think they can get away with.

At this point in time, all security and law-enforcement organizations in the US will use any and all actions they are legally allowed to use to their full extent. There is no value given to self-restraint within security organizations any more. None. And this, I fear, is the central problem in our government today: losing "self-restraint" as a cardinal virtue will be our undoing.

Note that the responsibility for this lies ultimately on Obama's head. He as the leader of the executive branch, he appoints the head of the DHS who appoints the head of the TSA, and so is ultimately personally responsible for the actions of the TSA. Congress can choose to defund the DHS, but that's a very clumsy check on the President's power. Obama needs to issue clear guidance to the TSA: do not threaten people with arrest for joking. Show self-restraint. If an organization or individual show self-restraint, and heaven forbid a terror attack gets through, you WILL NOT be held personally responsible.

Solution #4: Shut down the entire DHS and fire all the TSA dirtbags.

I'd like solution #4 as part of solution #3 please ... now we just need someone in DC to listen to what we want.

But then, people will bring shampoo on flights.

Or worse, joke about bringing shampoo on flights.

Solution #5: The retards in charge of current policy accept that no sane terrorist would joke about smuggling a bomb through a TSA checkpoint while in the queue at said checkpoint, and thus stop arresting people for jokes.

Also, throw the head DHS and TSA officials in Guantanamo for terrorizing the American public.

> Unfortunately, TSA checkers have no discretion: they're supposed to behave like robots[1]. They're not allowed to write off a wisecrack as a joke, but are required to take it at face value. (Even though no sane terrorist would joke about smuggling a bomb through a TSA checkpoint while in the queue at said checkpoint.)

And it's not even new. See all the people dragged off for intimate searches by latex gloved customs inspectors after their pal joked about drugs.

> [1] A large subset of the American population believe that government can do no good.

[2] An even larger subset of American population believe that government was there assigned by God and one should listen and obey it. Anyone who disagrees or criticizes government's position (especially related to privacy issues, torture, wars, extra-judicial executions) is deemed a terrorist sympathizer.

They are also known as authoritarian followers. Their numbers far far surpass the number of those who think "government can do no good". From my observation, the proportion is surprising given the story of "freedom", "war of independence", "democracy". I have seen more dissent and criticism of government in other countries with governments with authoritarian or totalitarian leanings.

Interestingly enough, less than 1% of the population at the time of the revolution, actually fought in it and propped up a government which was the grandfather to the mess we have today…

If history sets any precedent, "authoritarian followers" of any governing/religious system, aren't much of a factor when the dust settles… they're just the icing on the cake for any system in power.

Why would a "competent, intelligent human being with discretion" choose such a crappy job in the first place?

Because they need the money? Many people have little choice in the work they do. It's this shitty job or that shitty job or no job.

Why do many people have little choice in the work they do?

Are you talking about short time scales, or periods of years?

Because they lack the ability to rewind their lives and change the decisions that resulted in their being trapped by obligations and scrambling to get by at age 30 or 40 or 50? And, instead of providing substantial adult job retraining assistance, the US federal gov't spends trillions on dubious military adventures and the domestic security state.

What if their most cherished assumptions were actually the source of the biggest obstacles they faced?

Many people, but precisely not "competent, intelligent human beings with discretion". The very people who would make the TSA (or any other place) a better organization have the ability to navigate away from thankless, low paid occupations.

I think you have that backwards. The TSA is not going to hire people who might try to improve the situation.

Having worked in a company whose product was rent-a-cops it was not uncommon to find many who took the job because to them it was easy, usually indoors, and people you met treated you nicely.

We had students who used their time to study, some read books, others used their beats for exercise, and some just plainly enjoyed a job that was stress free ninety nine percent and more of the time.

At first when I worked there, coding a wide range of programs including payroll, I was a bit distressed at the pay scales. However after meeting many different guards I came to realize that many saw advantages I didn't and they could not understand why I wanted to work so hard, all day and sometimes more at a computer.

To some, it's not a "crappy" job. Friend of a friend left his "crappy" position as a manager at a popular retail chain to go work for the TSA, AND secured an extra $8k per year in doing so.

They're not making engineering salaries, but for a job which, let's face it, requires no skills or education, the make a very decent rate.

Add in a personality which loves a little power and being a TSA jockey surely looks pretty good.

Possible solution #4: Admit that the "terrorist threat" is largely made up; reform security measures to focus on actual threats; allow the rest of us to get on with our lives.

Regarding #2:

I thought the Israeli approach worked because it uses layers rather than one big scary wall between you and the airplane. Educated guards (educated anyone!) certainly would help but it seems layers are the key.

Possible solution #4: arrest the wrong guy for joking and get slapped with a 1st Amendment case so fast the TSA can't pull their hands out of the woman's trousers their "securing".

I'm honestly not even sure how that case would play out at this point. I have such little faith in my country currently that I suspect it would be presented as creating unnecessary panic (or something similar) and thus not be protected by the first amendment.

You can't even joke about crimes on Facebook anymore. I wouldn't take my chances at loci of police state activity.

> Even though no sane terrorist would joke about smuggling a bomb ...

There's the rub: the majority of mass violence attackers are not sane. In their insanity they often talk about their violent plans with no regard to who hears them. It is sound security policy to interview people who make such comments.

I think you over-egg the argument.

Mass violence attackers who are part of an organized political movement are usually sane -- but they're not intelligent. The smart ones almost always find a way to participate in the mainstream political process to get their desired outcome, so they don't take up arms. Relatively few intelligent terrorists exist; they usually do so in circumstances where there's (a) an intolerable level of oppression, (b) the authorities aren't listening and won't negotiate, and (c) peaceful protests have failed -- and if (d) the authorities eventually agree to negotiate, they rapidly lay down arms. (Examples of statesmen who were formerly defined as terrorists by governments they subsequently became part of: Nelson Mandella, Menachem Begin, Martin McGuinness. None of whom were either insane or stupid.)

I would hope that the security apparatus would apprehend any bomber insane enough to loudly talk about plans long before they got to an airport queue. Surely getting that far in your attack is a clear indicator of, if not sanity, then good planning and op-sec?

How do you know this to be the case? Can you give a couple of examples of US attackers who did this? (Not including FBI plants who spoke deliberately attempting to incite violence in others)