In the June 3, 2019 Wall Street Journal crossword, edited by Mike Shenk, the clue for 13 Down is “SFO screeners.” The answer is TSA.
The answer is wrong. Why?
In the June 3, 2019 Wall Street Journal crossword, edited by Mike Shenk, the clue for 13 Down is “SFO screeners.” The answer is TSA.
The answer is wrong. Why?
Jun 18 2019
The news is becoming increasing surreal. This morning I saw the following story in the Financial Times: The euro sank by about 0.5 per cent against the dollar, reaching a low of just under $1.12, while European equities rose - Germany’s Dax index was up by 2 per cent on the day. In response, Mr Trump suggested th...
Jun 18 2019
I've previously argued that George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire is implicitly a great pacifist work. While rewatching season 2 with my younger son, I re-discovered a scene worthy of a pacifist ovation. While Talisa, the crucial pacifist character, appears only in the show, the following exchange sheds grea...
Jun 17 2019
In the June 3, 2019 Wall Street Journal crossword, edited by Mike Shenk, the clue for 13 Down is "SFO screeners." The answer is TSA. The answer is wrong. Why?
READER COMMENTS
HH
Jun 17 2019 at 8:06pm
SFO has privatized security so it’s not done by TSA.
Benjamin Cole
Jun 17 2019 at 10:00pm
Like when I watch Jeopardy, I admire with wonder how people can do crossword puzzles.
That is interesting if SFO has privatized security and excluded the TSA.
Should we ask oil-tanking concerns to provide their own security through the Persian Gulf?
Mark Z
Jun 18 2019 at 8:05am
Are we willing to let private citizens and firms purchase and use high caliber machine guns and cannons?
How can we begrudge someone for relying on the state to defend their property when the state also prevents them from being able to defend it themselves?
BC
Jun 18 2019 at 11:29pm
Great point. Some neo-isolationists say that we should stop helping to defend our allies in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. However, we have actively prevented many of those allies from developing nuclear weapons. For example, the CIA deliberately disrupted Taiwan’s nuclear weapons program [https://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/20/world/how-a-spy-left-taiwan-in-the-cold.html]. Perhaps, South Korea could have developed a nuclear bomb long before North Korea and/or crushed the North long ago if China and the US had taken a hands-off approach to the Korean Peninsula. Russia invaded Ukraine only after the US persuaded Ukraine to give up its nukes.
It’s not obvious to me that the US is worse off when others are less armed (both nuclear in the case of allies and conventional in the case of oil tankers) but the US has greater world police obligations than if others were much better armed even if the US had fewer world police obligations, especially since, in the latter case, fewer world police “obligations” would really arise from fewer world police *capabilities*. (One can’t really be the world police even if one wanted to when everyone else is just as well armed.) Gun rights activists don’t zealously guard gun rights because they think it will save the police money or lessen the police’s obligations. It’s good to be the armed police in a disarmed world.
Robert EV
Jun 19 2019 at 11:14am
And the sorts of entangling alliances that led to the world wars wouldn’t need to exist if everyone was capable of MAD.
ColoComment
Jun 18 2019 at 11:29am
Although TSA direct employees don’t perform the actual activity of screening passengers, it seems that TSA still has overall repsonsibility for the contractors whose employees do that.
This article suggests that it’s a labor cost/results situation.
https://www.marketplace.org/2016/08/11/pros-and-cons-privatizing-airport-security/
Comments are closed.