Radioactive Communist Zombies

Unintended Consequences

When Congress passes a law or a bureaucrat makes a regulation, there are almost always unintended consequences.  Often the law or regulation will make things worse than the problem it was supposed to solve.

Case in point: the Department of Transportation made a regulation penalizing airlines if they leave passengers sitting in a plane on the tarmac for more than three hours.  Sounds reasonable (although the fine of  $27,500 per passenger seems excessive since that would be millions per plane).

And what's the unintended consequence?  Canceled flights and not being able to reach your destination.

Continental Airlines plans to cancel flights rather than risk stiff fines under new federal rules designed to punish carriers for delaying passengers.

CEO Jeff Smisek said Tuesday the result will be that passengers will have more trouble getting to their destinations . . .

Smisek said many passengers on delayed flights "really want to go to LA or Mumbai, but the government by God says, 'We're going to fine you $27,500.' Here's what we're going to do: We're going to cancel the flight."

Because airlines have cut flights, leaving the remaining ones more crowded, passengers will have fewer chances to rebook on another flight. Passengers, he said, won't get to their destinations "for maybe days."

Oh, and the cause of those delays: often the antiquated air-traffic control system the government has refused to update.

So, which would you rather deal with: a delay of 3 hours sitting in an airplane, or spending days in an airport trying to get home?  Well, a bureaucrat has made that decision for you.

Napolitano Wants to Unionize the TSA

(Hat Tip: Instapundit)

Secretary of Homeland Security Janet "The System Worked" Napolitano wants to unionize the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).  That according to the Washington Examiner.  According to Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC):

The administration is intent in on unionizing and submitting our airport security to union bosses [and] collective bargaining, and this is at a time, as Senator Lieberman says, we've got to use our imagination we've got to be constantly flexible. We have to out think the terrorists. When we formed the airport security system we realize we could not use collective bargaining and unionization because of that need to be flexible. Yet that appears to be the top priority of the administration.

Why does unionization matter?  As Mark Hemingway says:

After a British airliner bombing plot was uncovered in 2006, the TSA overhauled security procedures in a matter of 12 hours to deal with the threat of liquid explosives. It's difficult to imagine that kind of flexibility under ossified union rules.

Also, unionization will cause more headaches and delays for travelers, as I said the last time unionization for the TSA came up:

Imagine this situation: you're in a long line at an (probably Atlanta) airport, looking at time creeping away while the security line oozes toward the X-ray machines and metal detector.

The clock ticks over to 4:00 P.M. and suddenly two stations are abandoned.  Why?  Those workers are going off shift and due to unexpected volume of travelers, the TSA didn't plan for so many people to show up and didn't schedule more (and knowing the government, they made the schedule two months ahead).  And since they have no "mandatory unscheduled overtime" they can't make them stay.

So now the line slows.  And 4:15 rolls around and two more screening stations are abandoned because it's time for the workers' break.  Don't worry, they'll be back in half an hour.  After you miss your flight.

Why in the world would Napolitano want to unionize the TSA?  Simply: it would then become another Democrat-leaning public employee union that would fill the coffers of Democrats with mandatory union dues. 

More Airline Security

My internet died Christmas Eve.  I spent the morning today getting it back up and running and the afternoon catching up on blogs, news, etc.  But in the mean time, I missed a lot of what's going on.

So apparently there was a Christmas Day attempt to blow up an airliner by a passenger.  And apparently it was thwarted by other passengers.  As Mark Steyn says:

On September 11th 2001, the government's (1970s) security procedures all failed, and the only good news of the day came from self-reliant citizens (on Flight 93) using their own wits and a willingness to act.

On December 25th 2009, the government's (post-9/11) security procedures all failed, and the only good news came once again from alert individuals . . .

A man is on the no-fly list but is allowed to board the plane. Everyone flying on an inbound long-haul flight to the United States is forced to hand over excessively large amounts of liquids and gels and put the small amounts permitted into separate plastic bags, yet the no-fly guy's material for bomb-making sails through undetected.

But now the TSA is reacting with . . . more new security regulations for airline travelers to deal with:

Some airlines were telling passengers on Saturday that new government security regulations prohibit them from leaving their seats beginning an hour before landing.

The regulations are a response to a suspected terrorism incident on Christmas Day.

And some airlines are only letting you take one bag aboard and other absurd rules:

Passengers on a flight from New York to Tampa Saturday morning were also told they must remain in their seats and couldn't have items in their laps, including laptops and pillows.

This is so typical.  Instead of trying to figure out what security measures didn't work, the TSA is imposing new inconveniences on airline passengers.

Why don't they just ban . . . everything.  Issue you a paper gown to fly in and not let you have anything on the plane.  Then maybe we'd all be "safe" (until a terrorist figures out a way around that).

And that's just the issue: the terrorists will always find ways around whatever security you have in place.  There is and never will be any security system that is 100% fool-proof.  Yet there has to be a point of diminishing returns.  How much security do you buy by not letting passengers up during the last hour of a flight?  Not a lot.

New Pictures

There's new pictures in "Photo Intelligence" from my recent travels (travails?).  See here, here, here, here and here.

Blogging will resume tomorrow.  Or Monday at the latest.

Mt. Rushmore

Yesterday I visited Mt. Rushmore.  I was more impressed than I planned to be.  The visitor's center is very nice and modern and large.  The only charge is a $10 per car parking fee (RVs and buses are more).    The entrance is nice:

There is a bit of commercialization with a huge gift shop and expensive cafeteria.  But the basic view is very nice:

  However there is a nice trail around to the base of the mountain which allows various views of the sculptures:

 

After Mt. Rushmore we visited the "work in progress" Crazy Horse Monument.  It's huge.  The face alone is 9 stories tall.  But they are trying to make money to complete the project so its very commercial.  This picture was taken from one mile away:

  

And they aren't taking any government money, it's all money donated or raised through the visitor's center.  So who knows when they'll finish it.  It's been going for more than 50 years.

Where the Buffalo Roam

Blogging has been light (okay, nonexistent) because I'm traveling.  Spent two days at Yellowstone Park.  When I was a kid there were bears everywhere in the park (because we lived close we visited often).  Now the bears are gone and there a buffalo/bison everywhere.  They are often on the road blocking traffic:

  

They sometimes come up close to your car:

 

And cause backups as they block traffic:

 

We saw a Park Ranger use his car to scare some off the road (something they'd probably throw you in jail for).

But most of the time, you just see them by the side of the road, often in groups:

 

After two days in the park we were thinking "Buffalo/Schmuffalo" as we saw more bison.

We also saw some deer and a female moose or elk (I can't tell the difference).

Today we're going Mt. Rushmore.

New Pictures

Two new pictures in Photo Intelligence from my trip to Kona, Hawaii.  See here and here.

Sea Turtles

Blogging has been light (if you haven't noticed) because the Zombie is on vacation in Hawaii (just in time for Hurricane Felicia).  The hotel I'm staying at is right on the water and sea turtles swim right up to it or bask in the sun on the nearby rocks:

 

The shadow is the shadow of the hotel.  The turtle in the water was taken from the hotel's bar, looking over the railing.

Only problem so far: it's hot a muggy and the AC in the hotel room is like an asthmatic blowing through a straw even on full "blast."

New Pictures

Two new pictures from my travels in Photo Intelligence.  See here and here.

Maybe I Don't Want to go to Australia

Lots of places I want to visit in the world and Australia is one of them.  But I'm having second thoughts after reading this report and seeing the picture accompanying it at left (click for larger view).  As the report states:

THIS amazing image of a mammoth spider devouring a bird was taken in the backyard of a property near Cairns . . . The photo, believed to have been taken earlier this week, shows the spider clenching its legs around a lifeless bird trapped in a web at a property near Atherton, west of Cairns.

Joel Shakespeare, the head spider keeper at NSW's Australian Reptile Park, has told ninemsn the spider was a golden orb weaver.

"Normally they prey on large insects, it's unusual to see one eating a bird," he said.

Mr Shakepeare said he had seen Golden Orb Weaver spiders as big as a human hand but the northern species in tropical areas were known to grow larger. 

A spider larger than a human hand?  Capable of eating a bird?

Now I'm not afraid of spiders as a general rule.  But I really don't want to be where ones that size are roaming around freely.  I mean, what if you stepped on it?

Still probably visit Australia if I get the chance.  I'll just watch were I step.  And look out for large webs.