Monday, January 3, 2011

Why in many cases, uniformity is not the better option....

I was reading a Washington Post article on the supposed merits of the TSA vs using private security contractors at airports around the country.  One union, the American Federation of Government Employees, not surprisingly bemoans the idea of a "patchwork quilt" of security measures at different airports. 

But think about it a bit more logically.  What is better to stymie terrorists, using the same measures and regulations at all airports, or switching it up?  Additionally, different airports would have different priorities depending upon location, traveler types, layout, etc.  Using the same methods at all airports gives terrorists a better chance to scope and break the system.  Sure there would have to be some base rules for travelers, after that, leave it to the airports and their security folks.  The airports and airlines have a dog in the hunt about not allowing terrorists to blow up anyone so let them take some responsibility.  Let them look at their systems, above and below the deck and close any holes they find without outside interference (this would include hiring practices too).  Who knows their particular needs better--the folks that work there daily or some bureaucrat like Napolitano sitting on her duff in DC?

This is a big country and everyplace is different.  Each state (and sometimes each county and town) have their own personalities, social mores, etc.  Trying to put  'one size fits all' regulations into place is doomed to fail.  What works in MA might not (probably won't) work in TX.  The TSA and airport security are just one part--the federal Department of Education and several others are suffering from overreach.  You absolutely cannot bring this country into a homogenized whole and trying to fit all of those square pegs into a federally mandated round hole just exacerbates problems rather than solving them.


Anonymous said...

All of that is perfectly logical if your goal is the prevention of another terror attack on US soil.

TSA is not about that.

TSA is about:

1) Employing government workers
2) Spending taxpayer dollars
3) Giving the illusion of safety as long as no victim groups are offended.

None of that involves actually doing anything that can or will prevent the next terror attack.

DirtCrashr said...

The TSA could keep a bunch of idiot-Gubb'mint workers employed, and yet still put a local spin on things. All politics including Gubb'mint politic is local as the Left reminds us, and a Texas/Judge Roy Bean style approach still leaves the door open for a W.C. Fields/Philadelphia Lawyer approach and a Gay/San Francisco drag-queen approach or a Seattle/Hemp-stained Tree Hugger method...

Midwest Chick said...

AF--I know that the TSA is just a big job-works program (or that's what it has evolved to be) but I'm of the mind that one of the easiest ways to solve some problems on the federal front is to cut all agencies back to their original missions and keep them out of the states' and citizens' collective hair.

DC--you've got a point.