What would we do without Democrats?

The bill would devote $1 billion to upgrade security along Amtrak and freight rail systems, require screening of all cargo carried aboard passenger airliners and allow airport screeners to form a union.

Because everyone knows that 911 never would have happened if screeners had been unionized. Whenever I think that the administration is incompetent, all I have to do is look at the new majority in Congress to realize that it could be much worse.

And of course, if Bush resists, and threatens a veto, the media will accuse him of being indifferent to security.

[Update at 6 PM Eastern]

A little good news. The administration is actually threatening a veto, and the Senate will sustain it. But I stand by my prediction of the media response.

"What would we do without Posted by Rand Simberg"... Another broken post. :(

Do you think workers should not be allowed to form
Unions?

Do you think they are not allowed rights of free association,
or to voluntarily decide to withhold their labor?

If capital is allowed to aggregate in corporations, why
shouldn't labor aggregate in unions?

Fine, let them unionize but deny them collective barganing so you can go 'patco' on their ass if they strike.

If capital is allowed to aggregate in corporations, why shouldn't labor aggregate in unions?

Because, you fool, these are national security workers. Would you allow soldiers to go on strike, too? Geez, do you ever actually engage your brain before you put your mouth in gear?

I have to agree with my namesake. It's a bad idea to allow government workers to unionize. One need only look at the mess in US cities and public schools (or most of the EU for that matter) to see how bad an idea that is. The key problem is that it allows rent-seeking to occur. Namely, the union can use the voting power of its members to get more squeeze for itself either from government or directly from the public. One can prevent this conflict of interest by denying government workers the right to unionize.

And let's be clear. It'd only be a matter of time before a Reagan type fired all the union people.

So to summarize, if you work directly for government at the national, state, or local level, you don't get to unionize. I like it.

Let me add that I'm the recipient of the dubious benefits of the United Auto Workers who happen to represent the graduate students or "academic student employees" in at least part (looks like all) of the University of California system. I would be extremely pleased to be included (along with my fellow graduate students) in my proposed ban.

Airport screeners are national security workers?

Airport screeners are national security workers?

Um, yes. (1) They work for the national government. (2) They do security work (preventing folks from blowing up airplanes or flying them into buildings, et cetera).

Need any more help? Maybe just to save time, I'll go over what might be confusing you the most about modern life: The right pedal makes you go faster and the left pedal slows you down. Socks before shoes. If you use the fluffy white paper which you'll find in a roll next to every toilet seat, people will be more willing to shake your hand.

Hope this helps, dude.

Rand, I think I speak with the rest of the world here when I say that your country scares me.

Adrasteia, what are you going to do with that fear? If you don't do anything, then it doesn't matter whether you fear something or not. Might as well not feel the emotion then.

My take is that the US is rather big and scary right now with a level of power which for at least a few years will continue to be unparalleled in human history. So it isn't unexpected or unreasonable to feel some fear concerning what the US may do. What I have a problem with, is the ineffectual and irrational behavior inspired by that fear.

For example, I hear an occasional example of people who claim to fear the US more than a genuine danger like nuclear proliferation, various existing terrorist and authortarian threats (eg, Iran, China, Al Qaeda, etc), or the power of their own governments. My take is that this fear is excessive and irrational. It probably comes from powerlessness (the person in question has no power over the US's and its citizens' attitudes) and the fact that the US is similar (ie, it too is a democracy-republic), but has a somewhat alien and provincial outlook jarring to the fearer. I think it's natural but irrational to fear more that which should be like us, but isn't.

Rand, I think I speak with the rest of the world here when I say that your country scares me.

Gee Adrasteia, I'm pretty sure I can see your ego from here. It's like a giant yellow orb in the sky.

Kudos to Karl for being more methodical in addressing your psychological issues.

> Rand, I think I speak with the rest of the world here when I say that your country scares me.

Let me explain America. (This isn't emphasized in our movies or other products that you folks can't get enough of.)

(1) If you have cool stuff, we'd like to buy it.
(2) We have cool stuff so if you've got money, we'd like to sell it.
(3) If you kill Americans or tolerate/support those who do, we'll get around to killing you.

Is (3) a problem for you? Why?

so if the TSA workers go on strike, fewer airliners fly.

Big deal.

Air Cargo will still work. The airlines get hosed.

If railroad police go on strike, it's a similiar thing.

Rand, I think I speak with the rest of the world here when I say that your country scares me.

Gee, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Air Cargo will still work. The airlines get hosed.

Written by a person proving his complete ignorance on the industry.

UPS will fly, fedex will fly, the specialty
cargo companies will fly.

within a week or two, the TSA and FAA will settle with their
staff.

Sun continues to rise.

The ignorance continues and expands to include the FAA.