The TSA - on the Horns of a Dilemma

The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is on the horns of a dilemma, and a big one it is.

In the early days after 2001, just after the TSA was created, a huge corps of highly zealous officers was recruited to monitor those boarding our airlines. (Similar screening is now in place worldwide.) They looked for the slightest violations in the rules. Any breach meant the perpetrator would be awarded a thorough search. Taken aside in front of all travelers, the "perp" was given quite a thorough going over. With over 50,000 employees the TSA faces formidable problems.

Forget to remove your shoes, you were searched; forget to remove your belt, you were searched; forget to remove your computer (horror-of-horrors), you were searched. That is, you were taken aside and given a careful inspection. But there is more, there were the pat-downs, sometimes bordering on sexual assault. People complained, and in large numbers. More was involved in the general search for bombers. The process was supposed to be random, and there were also those of us, me many times, that endured the careful search for no apparent reason. In the eyes of the TSA, I suppose it was thought to be something of a deterrent. Then came grannies-in-a-wheelchair and the granddaughters of age five. When these folks were searched, patted down and otherwise semi-molested, the events made the national news. Of course, the TSA agents use hermetically sanitized rubber gloves.

Profiling of more the likely suspects was completely disallowed. It still is.

The TSA, under a barrage of complaints and pressure, decided to become more humane. The consequence has been a drastic diminution of such granny and little girl searches. Until now, when in the current situation, the TSA relies mostly on their technological scanning devises. Just the other day in flying to DC, of all places, I forgot to remove my computer from the case. The TSA caught this and simply asked me to please wait while they rescanned the computer and bag separately. What? No search? The other day when being scanned, I had forgotten to remove a quarter from my pocket. They caught it, and when I showed it to the TSA agent, he said no problem and to proceed to my gate. No search? Then, when entering the scanning machine, I had forgotten to remove my belt. I offered to remove it immediately. "No problem," was the response. No search? I rarely, any more, see people remove little bottles of this or that from their luggage and place them in clear plastic bags for separate scanning.

It's been a long while since I've seen one of our poor citizens, or senior citizens, or even children pulled aside for one of the TSA patented pat-downs. So, it occurred to me, what's happened? And then it came to me. First, the TSA can't profile, which evidence shows would work. Second, the TSA gets many complaints and horrible PR for their dedicated pat-downs. Thus, they have found themselves on the horns of a dilemma. That is, they can't do anything unless there is incontrovertible evidence in one of their scans that something is really amiss.

My conclusion is we are seriously at risk for any clever terrorist who wishes to take a gamble.* Or could it be that terrorists are waiting for a "lull" in scrutiny?

The TSA directives have been compromised by political correctness on the one side the coin, and compromised by public opinion (and the news) on the other. Let us hope and pray, the TSA electronic devises are up to the challenge.

* An apprehended terrorist should always be given the maximum penalty allowed by law. These people are intent on murder with no purpose other than to murder as many as possible. There can be no allowances for a first offense, no mitigating circumstances, no credits for good behavior.

Suicide terrorists are nothing more than contract killers with an ecclesiastical contract and having an arbitrary target.

Behavioral Science and Problem-Solving

I. I. Introduction. Concerning our general behavior, it’s high about time we all had some understanding of how we operate on ourselves, and it is just as important how we are operated on by others. This is the wheelhouse of behavioral sciences. It is a vast subject. It touches our lives constantly. It’s influence is pervasive and can be so subtle we never notice it. Behavioral sciences profoundly affect our ability and success at problem-solving, from the elementary level to highly complex wicked problems. This is discussed in Section IV. We begin with the basics of behavioral sciences, Section II, and then through the lens of multiple categories and examples, Section III. II. ...

Principles of Insufficiency and Sufficiency

The principles we use but don't know it. 1. Introduction . Every field, scientific or otherwise, rests on foundational principles—think buoyancy, behavior, or democracy. Here, we explore a unique subset: principles modified by "insufficiency" and "sufficiency." While you may never have heard of them, you use them often. These terms frame principles that blend theory, practicality, and aspiration, by offering distinct perspectives. Insufficiency often implies inaction unless justified, while sufficiency suggests something exists or must be done. We’ll examine key examples and introduce a new principle with potential significance. As a principle of principles of these is that something or some action is not done enough while others may be done too much. The first six (§2-6) of our principles are in the literature, and you can easily search them online. The others are relatively new, but fit the concepts in the real world. At times, these pri...

The Lemming Instinct

In certain vital domains, a pervasive mediocrity among practitioners can stifle genuine advancement. When the intellectual output of a field is predominantly average, it inevitably produces research of corresponding quality. Nevertheless, some of these ideas, by sheer chance or perhaps through effective dissemination, will inevitably gain traction. A significant number of scholars and researchers will gravitate towards these trends, contributing to and propagating further work along these established lines. Such a trajectory allows an initially flawed concept to ascend to the status of mainstream orthodoxy. However, over an extended period, these prevailing ideas invariably fail to withstand rigorous scrutiny; they are ultimately and conclusively disproven. The disheartening pattern then reveals itself: rather than genuine progress, an equally unvalidated or incorrect idea often supplants the discredited one, swiftly establishing its own dominance. This cycle perpetuates, ensurin...

First Blog

Search This Blog