Jesse Ventura on his loss of patriotism and the Gestapo-like TSA

Right, they don't catch anyone anyway. We don't need the harassment. Lets show them we aren't afraid. We're men. They don't dare mess with us.

 

Suppose it is?

 

Pretty much. Let the airliners have whatever security they wish and keep the government out of it. If we really need a backup for out intel agencies sky marshals are the best option, although they have their own issues (for instance their policy makes them very easy to identify, so much so they are regularly thanked on flights by random people).

Edit: It's worth noting I think sky marshals are unnecessary as well. Air carriers can provide their own armed security if they wish, or would be able to if federal law wasn't a mess. That said sky marshals make way more sense than the TSA

 

We pat down folks and take away a swiss army knive and hand lotion, while allowing the person next to them to walk on with a pencil, knitting needles, and bag full of nitrated yarn.

Patting folks down doesn't make them safer. It makes them think they are safer. And that's the only reason it's being done.​

 

And for every one caught, I would guess TEN get through! You know...like Adam Savage (from Mythbusters) walking right through security with a pair of large knives in his bag! My wife has a pair of knives I could certainly get through "security".

It is not security. It is feel-good security theatre, full of sound and fury, accomplishing nothing.

 

Which won't happen. So now you've got a huge security threat in airports.

Alright, here's what you can do with the argument: give us a credible statistic as to how many people who complain about intrusion on liberty and travel then go on to complain a lack of government oversight when something bad happens. Otherwise, it doesn't hold water. It's an existential fallacy. Perhaps some who complain of one will complain of the other, but when something bad does happen, there's a significant population which doesn't complain about intrusion that will very likely complain about not enough intrusion having lead to the bad thing happening. I would argue that the population of people who make the claim that government intrudes too much aren't going to complain that it doesn't go far enough when something bad happens. That's just speculation on your part.

And, of course, those who claim that the TSA is all about security theater would have it right: if the terrorists blow up a plane it would be appropriate to blame the government for doing the wrong job necessary for protection. It's like hiring a plumber to fix a leak and he installs a shower head instead. He crows about his great work while your house floods. You would argue that what we need is more sink fixtures and a new toilet, regardless of whether the leak gets fixed. If the house falls into a sink hole from the water leak, you say that it's the fault of those who didn't want all that plumbing work.

 

Well, the answer seems rather obvious: give the customer a choice. If people want the security of being fondled and groped, and feel that their lives would be enhanced by learning to live like a prisoner, go to Terminals A, C, and E. If, instead, you feel that freedom from unreasonable searches and molestation/radiation is worth a .0000001% chance that you might die earlier than planned, then go to Terminals B,D, and F.