The Transportation Security Administration is considering eliminating security screening at 150 small to medium-sized airports around the country that serve planes with 60 or fewer seats.
According to the TSA study group that came up with the idea, cutting out screening at these smaller airports would mean a "small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity."
I, for one, do not like the TSA's language in the above statement. I don't like the (non-zero) appositional. It's confusing: at first glance (non-zero) appears to mean (less than zero), as in there's a less than zero increase in risk. One has to think a minute before realizing that a non-zero increase risk actually means a not zero increase in risk. Not zero means anywhere from one to one hundred percent increase in risk. Right?
So why did they even add the (non-zero) in that phrase? To confuse people, of course, make us think the risk was no big deal, less than zero.
And look at the rest of the phrase: What is additional adversary opportunity other than a soft, squishy euphemism for more terrorist attacks?
So why is the TSA considering putting our country at more risk for terrorist attacks from the sky?
Because this move would save the federal government $115 million dollars annually.
I'm serious.
Apparently it's been determined that security at America's larger airports needs beefing up. Now, Congress just gave a sweet tax break to the rich that's going to pile another trillion dollars on top of the national debt. Hence agencies now have to be looking in drawers and under couch cushions and cutting corners for operational funds. The TSA came up with the idea of shutting down security at small airports and using the $115 million saved in loose change on more security at the bigger airports.
According to the TSA study group that came up with the idea, cutting out screening at these smaller airports would mean a "small (non-zero) undesirable increase in risk related to additional adversary opportunity."
I, for one, do not like the TSA's language in the above statement. I don't like the (non-zero) appositional. It's confusing: at first glance (non-zero) appears to mean (less than zero), as in there's a less than zero increase in risk. One has to think a minute before realizing that a non-zero increase risk actually means a not zero increase in risk. Not zero means anywhere from one to one hundred percent increase in risk. Right?
So why did they even add the (non-zero) in that phrase? To confuse people, of course, make us think the risk was no big deal, less than zero.
And look at the rest of the phrase: What is additional adversary opportunity other than a soft, squishy euphemism for more terrorist attacks?
So why is the TSA considering putting our country at more risk for terrorist attacks from the sky?
Because this move would save the federal government $115 million dollars annually.
I'm serious.
Apparently it's been determined that security at America's larger airports needs beefing up. Now, Congress just gave a sweet tax break to the rich that's going to pile another trillion dollars on top of the national debt. Hence agencies now have to be looking in drawers and under couch cushions and cutting corners for operational funds. The TSA came up with the idea of shutting down security at small airports and using the $115 million saved in loose change on more security at the bigger airports.
| Meanwhile Donald Trump wants anywhere from $12 billion to $70 billion for his see-thru border wall, which will cost $150 million a year to maintain. This expenditure, claims Trump, is necessary for our national security. |
He also deems necessary a military parade in his honor this fall that will cost between $10 million and $30 million
| And every golf trip Donald Trump takes to Mar-a-Lago depletes the U.S. Treasury by $3.6 million. Not to mention the $20 million his Mar-a-Lago vacations have cost the Coast Guard so far. |
But apparently funding for airport screening is not necessarily necessary for our national security.
The rationale put forth by the TSA study group in their proposal is that terrorists aren't that interested in launching attacks against the United States with small planes because the payoff is too low. Terrorists, says the TSA study group, are only interested in using big planes for attacks.
I'm serious.
However the study group did not address mentally deranged shooters who'd now have the added option of smuggling guns on board small planes.
Commented a TSA field leader at a large airport who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, "This is so dangerous."
Uh, yeah.
The rationale put forth by the TSA study group in their proposal is that terrorists aren't that interested in launching attacks against the United States with small planes because the payoff is too low. Terrorists, says the TSA study group, are only interested in using big planes for attacks.
I'm serious.
However the study group did not address mentally deranged shooters who'd now have the added option of smuggling guns on board small planes.
Commented a TSA field leader at a large airport who was not authorized to speak publicly about the matter, "This is so dangerous."
Uh, yeah.
References:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/tsa-considering-eliminating-screening-at-smaller-airports/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/us/politics/senate-democrats-border-wall-cost-trump.html
https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-will-trumps-military-parade-cost-some-estimates-say-millions-1031960
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/18/center-american-progress-action-fund/how-much-do-donald-trumps-trips-mar-lago-cost/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/20/trump-visits-mar-lago-cost-coast-guard-nearly-20-million/715905002/
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/tsa-considering-eliminating-screening-at-smaller-airports/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/18/us/politics/senate-democrats-border-wall-cost-trump.html
https://www.newsweek.com/how-much-will-trumps-military-parade-cost-some-estimates-say-millions-1031960
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/18/center-american-progress-action-fund/how-much-do-donald-trumps-trips-mar-lago-cost/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/06/20/trump-visits-mar-lago-cost-coast-guard-nearly-20-million/715905002/
RSS Feed