Seattle Resturant Bans TSA Officers

[ScottM]

http://upgrd.com/matthew/seattle-restaurant-bans-tsa-agents.html

We even have the police on our side and they have helped us escort TSA agents out of our cafe. Until TSA agents start treating us with the respect and dignity that we deserve, then things will change for them in the private sector.

I cannot confirm any of this. It is appeared on a blog. What do y'all think?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Meh. The agents themselves are merely doing a task and collecting a paycheck.

Sounds vaguely similar to the rationale Henry Wirz might have used - though he had even greater fear than lack of a paycheck to motivate his actions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ1h2kh1tHE

 

[Jim Logajan]

Unemployment was really high in the 1930s when Hilter and the Nazis were looking for a few guys that would just follow orders.

To avoid Godwin'ing a thread by mentioning the "Nuremburg defense" I like to use the U.S. post-civil war Andersonsville trial. :wink2:

 

[Jim Logajan]

Assuming you're making a serious point about the willingness of ordinary people to follow barbaric orders, then I would say that the incredibly toxic and pervasive climate of nationalistic pride and Antisemitism that prevailed after WWI and the collapse of the Weimar republic had more to do with the ensuing genocide than unemployment.

One does not need any particular social climate to demonstrate that ordinary people will follow barbaric orders. Repeated experiments by psychologists have shown a predilection of people to follow the orders of authority figures, even when said orders violate their own conscience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

"Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority." - Milgram, Stanley. (1974), "The Perils of Obedience." Harper's Magazine. Abridged and adapted from Obedience to Authority.

I believe the evidence is clear that can be amended to include even victims. Whether it is a call to arms to sacrifice one's life for the greater good or to "put up" with invasive security procedures. So long as it is being requested by a figure of authority.

 

[Jim Logajan]

As soon as the TSA corrals travelers into a large pen and holds them there with no potable water, food, or sanitation facilities,

The TSA hasn't done that yet - but some airlines may have. :wink2:

resulting in the death of 30% of those travelers, then we'll start making Henry Wirz comparisons.
Please, guys, I'm not standing up for the TSA. I really don't like their policy. But I also don't think that the TSA screen procedures are evil or that the people who perform them are evil. Unconstitutional? Probably. Evil? No.

You argue against a line of reasoning I did not present. I'm talking pedestrian moral choices. Some are more extreme than others - but the principle underlying those choices are, IMHO, the same. I guess for some people the principles change based on the severity of the "wrong". I try to use the same principles, though severity of punishment should be proportionate to the severity of the "wrong." Social ostracism seems a proportionate punishment to me.

Simple question: Do you believe that a person becoming a TSA screener involves any moral choices or not? I can't tell if you believe they have no choice, or that what they do is not immoral.

 

[Jim Logajan]

I understand the Milgram experiments, but those relate mostly to closed systems with little outside oversight or influence (hospitals, prisons, very secluded villages, et cetera). The TSA performs its brand of ineptitude right out in public, which prevents the screeners from going buck wild.
I think that some people are way off the mark here. The TSA procedures are stupid, unconstitutional, ineffective, and grossly disturbing.
They don't actually kill people, though. Come on. I can see your point, but I really think that you weaken your position by making a false comparison between the TSA, which is creepy and gross, versus a death camp.
You see: one is an annoyance, and one is a DEATH CAMP where people are held TO DIE.

So I brought up Milgram and Andersonville in order to provide examples of alleged false "I had no choice" excuses for not being held responsible for one's actions. (I thought I had to present cases that involve no moral ambiguity - I guess that was my mistake.)

So you are saying they involve "false comparisons" with TSA screeners because nobody dies, and therefore the excuse "I had no choice" for their actions is therefore acceptable and they shouldn't be punished in any way - correct?

 

[Jim Logajan]

There has still to be a single word in the Seattle or Tacoma newspapers about this, and nothing on the TV news EXCEPT that CNN picked it up from who knows where.

Bob Gardner

One TV station has been looking into it and has so far been unable to find any restaurant or cafe that claims to be banning TSA agents:

http://www.kirotv.com/news/26958857/detail.html

I find it hard to believe that a blogger would invent a baloney story just to drive traffic to his site! :wink2: