The Moral Liberal: Fight Back Against Airport Scanners and Gropers

The Moral Liberal: Fight Back Against Airport Scanners and GropersThe Moral Liberal: Fight Back Against Airport Scanners and Gropers

 

We should make an effort to get letters out to all of the politicians we can encouraging them to support this bill. A good letter writing campaign may spur some action with election year looming.

There is plenty of time to get this organized since they will effectively be on recess for another month. Maybe we could assemble a form letter of sorts and a mailing list and post it around the various sites. We have some accomplished wordsmiths on this site who may be able to craft a compelling argument.

 

I can't help but think that until the airlines are severely financially impacted by TSA atrocities, no amount of legislating is going to change TSA. Considering the number of air travelers, public outcry and boycotts have been minimal, therefore the airlines consider TSA an annoyance but not a major game changer.

In addition, the economy, the deficit and unemployment are far greater concerns for most American's and I fear they view TSA as a necessity and certainly not a cause they're willing to fall on their sword for. This doesn't mean we at TUG give up however I just hate seeing the voluntary compliance from travelers while lined up waiting to be barked at, groped, degraded etc.

 

I agree, but the airlines are not running at capacity due to demand. The are running at capacity because they have reduced capacity. The impact of annoyed travelers will not be felt until the economy rebounds and the airlines are unable to ramp up loads as they would expect to -- because people are driving & riding trains & buses.

 

Did you just answer my question?

 

Indeed. And an important nexus with lawmaker concern (or should be) is the budget/cost of this nonsense. We have some great data on that, and can compile some more...

 

Maybe it can be tied to this urgent legislation.

 

I'm envisioning a letter that encourages (demands?) legislators to support the ATDA and includes budgetary information as justification (i.e. "here's how much money we're pissing away on abusing travelers and giving a good arse-rogering to the airline industry in the process").

Would it be best to do separate letters? Both saying "Support American Traveler Dignity Act," one with civil-rights reasons and one with financial reasons? Or better to combine them?

As in, reallocate TSA funding to the ATC towers? Or just add on another section that would cut TSA jobs?

 

That and including costs in lost tourism. We have some data and can get more. A more elaborated packet could go to the Super Committee and the executive summary could be that letter or similar to it.

My opinion is that the financials are most compelling--especially trade-off with serious security measures. The Constitutional issues are gravy. Screaming six-year old children are the imagery for the demand to save money, return to sane screening, and support ATDA.

I think the TSA toys/programs which are incredibly expensive and ineffective/wasteful are the best immediate targets as far as cuts, and from the budgetary increase of half a billion or whatever it ended up being this year-- as a direct funding source for FAA. What is more important to safety?

 

I think I have my next letter decided, then. At the very least, it will be a call to support ATDA. Additionally, it may have budget-related reasons for smacking down TSA.

My question now, similar to the one I asked in post 8, is: Should I send one letter saying "Support ATDA" and a separate letter saying "This is the financial damage TSA is doing to us, cut their budget!"? Or should I combine those two points?

My worry is that combining the points may get them "lost in the shuffle" if the reader considers one more significant than the other or speed-reads the letter and misses one. Separate letters would maybe have more "punch" in this case.

On the flipside, again, I don't want to lose impact by having too high a number of letters sent and diminishing the perceived importance of each if the recipients read them and think "What a pain in the (expletive deleted), couldn't he have just written me one letter? Tree-killer."

Anyone with lots of past experience on this thing (KrazyKat?) want to weigh in on that matter? I'll do whatever we all determine is more effective.

 

Thanks for doing this, Celtic. I think showing how ATDA would save money and be more effective is a critical set of points to include.
The costs of the current arrangement, and even anecdotal evidence of the hit to tourism, can be added in at a sentence each. One powerful letter, not overly long. My thoughts.

 

In general, you don't want to "mix ideas" as it were. If you send one letter with both thoughts, it is interpreted as "anti-TSA, check". If you send 2 separate letters, one that is more anti-TSA, and one that more clearly highlights the financial issue, you've got a winning combination.

They count letters about "issues", not how many issues are in a letter.

 

Okay, finally cranked this bad boy out. Initial release follows, and as always I'm open to editorial review. Bah, I'm rambling though - you folks know the drill by now.