"Objectively Pro-Terrorist": GOP Blocked Appointment of TSA Head

Via Jonathan Singer, Politico reports:

South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint has a hold on the appointment of a TSA chief, over his concern that the new administration could allow security screeners to unionize. Republicans have cast votes against the key TSA funding measure that the 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security contained, which included funding for the TSA, including for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures. In the June 24 vote in the House, leading Republicans including John Boehner, Pete Hoekstra, Mike Pence and Paul Ryan voted against the bill [. . .]

Objectively pro-terrorist. (This is snark from me. When Republicans, Joe Lieberman and the Washington Post Editorial Page Editor said it about Democrats, they were not joking. They were doing their best Joe McCarthy imitations.)

Speaking for me only

< Why Not Gitmo For Latest Suspected Terrorist? | FBI Lists Top Ten Terror Cases of the Year >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    While its not (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    objectively "pro-terrorist" or any such non-sense, this is pretty screwed up-- I mean this isn't the war-funding bill, were despite what GOP hacks and Joe Lieberman liked to say a holded up would have just resulted in the Pentagon shifting funding from other areas-- not allocating explosion detection systems funding means said systems don't get bought- which is pretty screwed up (unlike, say Defense spending- buying explosives detectors would in all likelihood both increase effectiveness and lower the overall costs- due to lowered man-hours).

    I forget where I first heard that phrase (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:00:07 PM EST
    but I remember thinkng that it was deliciously evil.

    Sigh (none / 0) (#1)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:30:44 PM EST
    I'm gonna have to take a break or the mom in me is gonna rear it's ugly head.

    I have really come to despise partisan politics.

    Do you think we should (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:03:26 PM EST
    unionize the armed forces? FBI? CIA?

    While I would agree airport screeners are under paid and should receive hefty raises...enough to attract first class people... we don't need them unionized with the inevitable work rules, conflicts on firing inept workers, etc., etc.

    In a word (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by jondee on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:18:22 PM EST
    or two words: Good idea.

    Then maybe the last word wouldnt always go to jodhpur-wearing, houseboy-slapping, whiffenpoof alumni (at the CIA) or General Jack D. Ripper types (at the Pentagon).

    We couldnt be any worse off.


    all of the organization (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by otherlisa on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 03:27:00 PM EST
    you just named are government agencies, and the personnel rules they follow adhere more closely to "union" shops than to "right to work" workplaces.

    CIA and FBI employees are Federal government civil servants, are they not?

    The TSA should never have been privatized. Any agency tasked with national security functions should not be.

    Or do you think we should just hire Blackwater and call it a day? Because that's worked so well so far.


    Alot of government agencies are union (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    the VA workers have a union. The Railroads which operates under the FRA are also union. It isn't like there aren't procedures in place to prevent a "walkout" per se. The GOP just doesn't like that the unions have largely supported Dems. There, of course, is a solution for them. They could gasp actually vie for the union constituency too. It isn't entirely unheard of for the unions to support Repubs that support them.

    Do you think your comment is in any way (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by esmense on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    objective? Do you really believe that not allowing worker representation is protection against ineptness? Based on what? Are you sure you would, for instance, prefer non-union workers hired off the street at minimum wage do work that could affect the safety of your home, your workplace, your community's energy or transportation infrastucture, etc? You are absolutely convinced that non-union workers are more skilled than union workers? Really?

    My father was a union welder, one of the best in his field. One of only 4 or 5 people in the world qualified to do the type of work he did during the 50s and 60s. He worked on all kinds of large scale energy projects all over the world. He would have told you that it is the exceptional worker who most needs and profits from a union (because mosr companies don't want exceptional, they want, at best, "good enough.") Did you know that in my Dad's field union workers "test out" EVERY SINGLE DAY. That means your skills are tested every morning before you start work, and if you don't pass you pack up your gear and go home -- you are off that job for good. Personally, I don't know of other jobs that demand thar type of accountability. But I do know enough about how the world works in general to know that the type of contractor who prefers cheap over safe for his workers probably has the same preference for his customers.  


    yeah (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by cawaltz on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:27:26 PM EST
    cuz it's absolutely obvious that having non union people doing the job is going swimmingly.

    Yes, it's harder to fire a union person but it isn't impossible and they are able to "suspend" them pending an investigation or board. The idea that it would be the end of the world to allow collective bargaining in airports when we have it on railroads (and we do)is crazy.


    I've (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by cal1942 on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 01:27:27 AM EST
    yet to hear a good argument against unions.  

    The real objection that Conservatives have is that most unions support Democrats and destroying unions leads to a helpless workforce and that's what the American business community wants.