Societal Values.

[GreenGeek]

Recently I was at an airport in Norfolk Virginia. While there, I saw a scene
that made me think about the evolution of values in the US.

An older gray-haired military officer was being patted down by a young TSA
agent. My thoughts turned to the value systems that drove each of these
gentlemen in their choice of careers.

[list][*] The officer chose a career in which one offers their life to preserve freedom.[*] The agent chose a career that limits freedom to preserve lives.[/list]

Somehow this seems an apt metaphor for the direction that the system
of values underpinning our society is trending. Your thoughts?

[palmetto defender]

In today's environment both careers are necessary.
A military person does potenially risk his life to protect the lives of others (many times the lives of people who are not citizens). He also accepts, in his capacity, a certain loss of his own rights because of miliary rules which are more stringent than civilian ones.
A TSA person is merely insuring that a traveller is not a real threat. This can be done in a way which minimizes violation of our individual liberties. Unfortunately, many TSA people are poorly trained and are power hungry, letting their jobs go to their heads. This is a function of the job being new and people, including managers, learning their way.
Common sense needs to prevail more. Doing a full body search on Henry Kissinger in a wheel chair recently is stupid. The same with a three year old while we dare not disturb Mr. Turban with the beard.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=palmetto defender;4499095]A military person does potenially risk his life to protect the lives of others...[/QUOTE]

So do fireman and police. But your party says that they are lazy, belong to a union and hate America.

That's why your party sucks.

[FF2®]

[QUOTE=GreenGeek;4499034]Recently I was at an airport in Norfolk Virginia. While there, I saw a scene
that made me think about the evolution of values in the US.

An older gray-haired military officer was being patted down by a young TSA
agent. My thoughts turned to the value systems that drove each of these
gentlemen in their choice of careers.

[list][*] The officer chose a career in which one offers their life to preserve freedom.[*] The agent chose a career that limits freedom to preserve lives.[/list]

Somehow this seems an apt metaphor for the direction that the system
of values underpinning our society is trending. Your thoughts?[/QUOTE]

This iappend appens when you try and make people "symbols."

more often than not I would say people choose careers be cause they need jobs.

I doubt the TSA guys woke up one morning and said: " I want a career that limits freedom."

[shakin318]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4499164]So do fireman and police. But your party says that they are lazy, belong to a union and hate America.

That's why your party sucks.[/QUOTE]

LOLOL....yeah, the Republicans and conservatives are the ones hating on and demonizing police officers. LOLLLOLOLOLLL

[cr726]

[QUOTE=shakin318;4499187]LOLOL....yeah, the Republicans and conservatives are the ones hating on and demonizing police officers. LOLLLOLOLOLLL[/QUOTE]

There is a con on here that does nothing but rip police and fire pensions.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

[QUOTE=cr726;4499217]There is a con on here that does nothing but rip police and fire pensions.[/QUOTE]

Public sector Pensions are excessive. Abuses of same are rampant.
Police at times are brutal abusive and corrupt.

My father had a business for 38 years and the only person who ever
tried to shake him down for protection $ was a NYPD cop.

All of that doesn't diminish the appreciation most folks have for police and firemen. They're our friends and family too. My brother owes his life to one.

Smart people can separate the two concerns.

[shakin318]

[QUOTE=cr726;4499217]There is a con on here that does nothing but rip police and fire pensions.[/QUOTE]

And there's a boob in the white house who publicly characterized a legitimate police action as "stupid."

Who holds more clout?

[Warfish]

Society does not have values.

People do.

[Bonhomme Richard]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4499164]So do fireman and police. But your party says that they are lazy, belong to a union and hate America.

That's why your party sucks.[/QUOTE]

Holy **** dude.

The OP actually posted a thoughtful thread with some interesting comments, one that I thought was pretty good. But you're lazy, and you go right to this crap. That's why you suck.

[PlumberKhan]

[QUOTE=Bonhomme Richard;4499282]Holy **** dude.

The OP actually posted a thoughtful thread with some interesting comments, one that I thought was pretty good. But you're lazy, and you go right to this crap. That's why you suck.[/QUOTE]

Yes.

Because is is ME that always brings up unions. That's why I was the one that said teachers unions were to blame for students verbally abusing a bus monitor.

Nope.

Paulie was strangely silent then.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...

[GreenGeek]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4499274]Society does not have values.

People do.[/QUOTE]

True enough.
However, our lawmakers (sometimes) try to deduce a common
set of values held by most people and (when well intentioned) create
laws and agencies to reflect these values.

[GreenGeek]

[QUOTE=FF2®;4499175]This iappend appens when you try and make people "symbols."

more often than not I would say people choose careers be cause they need jobs.

I doubt the TSA guys woke up one morning and said: " I want a career that limits freedom."[/QUOTE]

Agreed at the level of the person.
At the level of the position, both are created by government with
seemingly different sets or at least different priorities for the ordering
of these values.

[shakin318]

[QUOTE=FF2®;4499175]This iappend appens when you try and make people "symbols."
[/QUOTE]

So now you're posting in a cockney accent?

You are an enigma wrapped in a donut.

[GreenGeek]

[QUOTE=palmetto defender;4499095]In today's environment both careers are necessary.
A military person does potenially risk his life to protect the lives of others (many times the lives of people who are not citizens). He also accepts, in his capacity, a certain loss of his own rights because of miliary rules which are more stringent than civilian ones.
A TSA person is merely insuring that a traveller is not a real threat. This can be done in a way which minimizes violation of our individual liberties. Unfortunately, many TSA people are poorly trained and are power hungry, letting their jobs go to their heads. This is a function of the job being new and people, including managers, learning their way.
[b]Common sense needs to prevail more. Doing a full body search on Henry Kissinger in a wheel chair recently is stupid. The same with a three year old while we dare not disturb Mr. Turban with the beard.[/b][/QUOTE]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply and getting to the heart of the point.

I read your remarks as bringing either "political correctness" or "equal
treatment under the law" into the mix. I was going for this a bit in my
original post since I viewed the military officer in very much the same way
as your more extreme example of wheel-chair-bound Kissinger: Someone
being searched who was CLEARLY not a threat. Your post has helped to
sharpen the point, and I'll continue after your example and be more
bold with my remarks.

TSA and its parent organization (Homeland Security) are both recent
examples of governmental agencies that absorb all three powers
(legislative, executive, and judicial) into one entity. This is a precarious
pattern that leads to the misuses of power you mention. Philosophers
such as de Montesquieu and Jefferson tried to blend into their theory of
government that people are and will always be flawed. This is why
they designed systems that are slow to change, exhibit internal
opposing factions (e.g. checks & balances), AND create absolute limts
to the power of the government over the governed.

You're spot-on that the TSA agents are not well enough trained. I would
put forward that they will NEVER be well enough trained since they are
just people. For this reason, I believe that TSA and Homeland Security
are flawed BY CONSTRUCTION! The only limits to their power that I know
about are the conscience of the individuals that run the agencies.

Liberals (justly, IMO) railed against Homeland Security when it was created
during the Bush Administration. Conservatives rail against TSA for exactly
the same reasons: unchecked power. I'm trying to point out that IMHO,
both sides are right. We survivied for a very long time without either
such agency, despite threats to individuals both domestic and foreign.

The old model was to formulate panels of experts to [b]assist in writing a law[/b]
that would be debated, amended. and eventually passed by elected
representatives, enforced by the elected president (via justice dept) and
judged by the courts.

The new model (IMHO) recognizes that lawmakers no longer learn & tackle
complex issues that cross political boundaries. Therefore they choose
INSTEAD to hand off the full powers of government to ad hoc agencies
of experts detached from the direct votes of the people. Each such agency
is tasked with a limited purview or goals, rather than the big picture.
"Keep us safe", "Save the planet", but not "Preserve our Freedom".

When I was young, I would lie on the beach, stare at the sky, and formulate
5-minutes-each solutions to every problem we could imagine in society.
As an example, I thought of cameras on every street corner with watchful
people seeing and thereby stopping all crime. After I grew up, I came to
believe that my 5-minute-solution was laughable. Losing completely our
privacy to reduce crime to zero was a BAD TRADE. We got something,
but we lost SO MUCH MORE.

I am now horrified that drones are making possible my 5-minute-solution
and the people grasping the small picture (we could finally eliminate farmers
from breaking regulations) have lost the big picture (our privacy is gone).

My post may get LOTS of flame, but I believe that we should tolerate
imperfection to retain freedom. Imagine what TSA rules would be required
for 100% security. Look at one decade of their existence and extrapolate
to 5 (my age) or 50. I would rather be on the plane taken down than
doom my son and his future kids to an absence of freedom in exchange for
100% air travel safety, or 100% absence of obesity, or 100% elimination of
crime, or 100% compliance with farm regulations, or 100% handling of
any narrow issue-du-jour in exchange for our free society.

What say you?
<...waits to be engulfed by flame...>

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=GreenGeek;4499327]True enough.
However, our lawmakers (sometimes) try to deduce a common
set of values held by most people and (when well intentioned) create
laws and agencies to reflect these values.[/QUOTE]

Leaders, elected and otherwise, have the power to enforce, under threat of Law, what keeps them in power or what they believe should be sociatal values for all.

That does not make them societal values. Outside some very basics (like murder and theft), there is very little universally held values in humankind.

This forum should be enough to prove that.

[parafly]

[QUOTE=GreenGeek;4499339]I believe that we should tolerate
imperfection to retain freedom.[/QUOTE]

There aren't many people who would disagree with this premise, but the question is where do you draw the line. Basic forms of security are a necessity in any modern form of society.

Are pat downs at the airport and drones in our skies the limit? As technology advances, it's inevitable that the boundaries will be tested. The people will need to play an active role in keeping these policies and tactics in check, but will we have the wisdom to do it? Some days I have my doubts.

[Bonhomme Richard]

[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;4499308]Yes.

Because is is ME that always brings up unions. That's why I was the one that said teachers unions were to blame for students verbally abusing a bus monitor.

Nope.

Paulie was strangely silent then.


Sent from my Double-Wide using Semaphore...[/QUOTE]

You know I don't read every single goddamn thread, right?

[cr726]

[QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4499222]Public sector Pensions are excessive. Abuses of same are rampant.
Police at times are brutal abusive and corrupt.

My father had a business for 38 years and the only person who ever
tried to shake him down for protection $ was a NYPD cop.

All of that doesn't diminish the appreciation most folks have for police and firemen. They're our friends and family too. My brother owes his life to one.

Smart people can separate the two concerns.[/QUOTE]

Tell It to CPA.

[cr726]

[QUOTE=shakin318;4499229]And there's a boob in the white house who publicly characterized a legitimate police action as "stupid."

Who holds more clout?[/QUOTE]

I know you are but what am I? You're rubber I'm glue. :zzz: