Username:	Password:

Remember me

Forgot your username/password?

Print Email

Home>Articles

STA, TSA, Chemicals and Felix

By Bill James

November 27, 2010

Over the weekend I got a question in the "Hey, Bill" section, which was:

In re Wins and Losses, as a Mets fan we always pointed to Steve Trachsel's 15-8 and 16-10 years with us, the last record coming with a 4.96 ERA as he led the league in run support. What comes to mind as the most egregious in recent years?

Well, let’s see; that’s a fun question. How can we figure that?

I created a "Steve Trachsel Award", which is Not Actually Awarded annually based on the following conditions:

1) To be eligible for the Steve Trachsel Award, a pitcher much meet three conditions:

a) 15 or more starts,

b) a winning record, and

c) an ERA higher than the league ERA.

2) Among those eligible for the award, the winner will be selected based on the following formula:

5 times wins,

minus 3 times losses,

times ERA divided by league ERA, squared.

The most "egregious" in recent years was Shawn Estes in 2004, 15-8 with a 5.84 ERA.

Steve Trachsel never actually won the Steve Trachsel Award, although he was close a couple of times, losing out to Randy Johnson and Kevin Tapani. I had another question in the "Hey, Bill" section, which I didn’t answer, about players that I confuse. . .are there any players I can’t keep straight? I’m an old guy; there are a bunch of them. I’m too confused to answer the question. I always mixed up Steve Trachsel with Kevin Tapani. Nobody ever mixed up Steve Trachsel with Randy Johnson.

Steve Trachsel in 2005 had 15 wins, 8 losses, which is 75 minus 24, or 51 points. His ERA was 10.8% higher than the league norm (4.97 vs. 4.49), so we square that (1.108). 1.108 squared is 1.228, times 51 is 62.6, so Steve Trachsel’s "Steve Trachsel Score", in 2005, was 62.6.

That’s an award-winning type figure, but it doesn’t happen to lead the majors that year. The Steve Trachsel Award winner for 2005 was Randy Johnson, 17-11 with a 5.00 ERA. That also scores at 62.6, but it’s a higher 62.6. Trachsel also came in at 56.3 in 1998, but Kevin Tapani waltzed in at 89.0 (19-9 with a 4.85 ERA). I was going to call it the Kevin Tapani Award, but then I wanted to say something about the TSA controversy, so, you know. . .TSA, STA. I couldn’t resist.

These are the Steve Trachsel Award winners for the last eleven years:

Year	First	Last	Team	W	L	ERA	Steve Trachsel Score
2000	Scott	Elarton	Houston Astros	17	7	4.81	68.8
2001	Ryan	Dempster	Florida Marlins	15	12	4.94	50.1
2002	Jason	Jennings	Colorado Rockies	16	8	4.52	67.7
2003	Jeriome	Robertson	Houston Astros	15	9	5.10	67.8
2004	Shawn	Estes	Colorado Rockies	15	8	5.84	93.6
2005	Chan Ho	Park	Texas-San Diego	12	8	5.74	62.4
2006	Randy	Johnson	New York Yankees	17	11	5.00	62.6
2007	Tim	Wakefield	Boston Red Sox	17	12	4.76	54.8
2008	Livan	Hernandez	Rockies	13	11	6.05	63.7
2009	Braden	Looper	Brewers	14	7	5.22	76.2
2010	Phil	Hughes	New York Yankees	18	8	4.19	67.5

And these are the highest figures of each decade since 1900:

Year	First	Last	Team	W	L	ERA	League ERA	Steve Trachsel Score
1905	Mike	Lynch	Pittsburgh Pirates	17	8	3.80	2.99	98.5
1911	Jack	Coombs	Philadelphia Athletics	28	12	3.53	3.34	116.2
1926	Lee	Meadows	Pittsburgh Pirates	20	9	3.96	3.82	78.4
1937	Roxie	Lawson	Detroit Tigers	18	7	5.27	4.62	89.8
1948	Jack	Kramer	Boston Red Sox	18	5	4.35	4.28	77.5
1956	Brooks	Lawrence	Cincinnati Reds	19	10	3.99	3.77	72.8
1965	Sammy	Ellis	Cincinnati Reds	22	10	3.78	3.54	91.2
1977	Larry	Christenson	Philadelphia Phillies	19	6	4.06	3.91	83.0
1989	Storm	Davis	Oakland A's	19	7	4.36	3.89	93.0
1992	Jack	Morris	Toronto Blue Jays	21	6	4.04	3.95	91.0
2004	Shawn	Estes	Colorado Rockies	15	8	5.84	4.31	93.6

Four men have won the Award in back-to-back years—Sam Weaver in 1882 and 1883, Fred Klobedanz in 1897 and 1898, Guy Bush in 1930 and 1931, and Jim Merritt in 1969 and 1970.

TSA

For the Harry Potter novels, J. K. Rowling invented a sport, Quidditch, which is played by magical peoples. But in inventing the sport she made an obvious mistake. She placed a very high value—150 points—on catching the golden snitch. What is obvious to a sports fan is that this would, in effect, make the game unplayable; the too-high value for the snitch would crush all of the other objectives of the sport, making the entire game revolve around capturing the snitch. In practice, every player would be basically committed to spotting the snitch, rather than just the Seeker, so that the game would not in fact play out the way that Rowling assumes that it would.

We are in the middle of a controversy about the Transportation Security Administration, having to do with unnecessary delays in flying and unnecessary invasions of privacy. I had something I wanted to say about this which seems so obvious to me that I am almost embarrassed to say it, but then none of them real smart talkin’ heads says it, either, and I kind of think they’ve overlooked the obvious, so I’ll go ahead.

Virtues are always in conflict with one another. Any two virtues that you can conceive of will at some point collide. If one seeks to be both honest and modest, you will find at some point—particularly if you’re a really cool person like me—that you cannot be both honest and modest; you have to choose. If you attempt to be both fair and tolerant, if you attempt to be both generous and thrifty, if you attempt to be both open and cautious, if you attempt to be both clean and punctual or any combination of these, you will find that at some point these goals will collide, and you must choose one or the other.

If, in the collision of virtues, you declare that the value of one virtue is infinite, then that virtue must always prevail. This means that it will crush whatever other virtue it collides with. In real life this frequently has terrible consequences.

In the 1960s the Warren Court acted on the unstated assumption that a fair trial, free of certain flaws, was an infinite value—that whenever and wherever there was a taint upon a trial, the trial must be re-done. The ultimate consequence of this assumption was that tens of thousands of Americans became the victims of totally unnecessary violent crimes by ruthless criminals whose convictions and incarceration did not accord with the court’s lofty standards. The courts acted as if a fair trial was an infinite value—and thus allowed the pursuit of better trials, free of certain abuses, to crush any competing values with which it collided. Over the period of fifteen years it collided with the practical needs of law enforcement in a hundred different ways, and on every occasion the needs of law enforcement were crushed, since an infinite value always crushes whatever it collides with. Gradually, in a series of decisions beginning with California v. Chapman (1967) and culminating in Arizona v. Fulminante (1991), the high court placed limits on the infinite value of a fair trial, which allowed law enforcement to function rationally, which helped to bring the scourge of violent crime—unleashed by the Warren Court about 1963--under control.

At this point, speaking of fulminations, 30% of my audience will gasp in horror and attempt to instruct me on the "real" causes of the explosion in crime rates of the early 1960s. . .the baby boom, etc. To believe that demographic changes in the population caused the crime rate to explode is more ignorant than believing that Storm Davis was an outstanding pitcher when he went 19-7 in 1989. That’s a political position, masquerading as a data analysis. It is—like the confidence of the Kansas City Royals in the value of a "winning" pitcher like Storm Davis--something that people choose to believe rather than facing the real facts and acknowledging the obvious conclusion.

Here (in the TSA controversy) we have a similar situation, with similarly disastrous consequences to which the Transportation Security Administration has chosen to blind itself. The TSA has placed an infinite value on the safety of each flight. In fact, the FAA since its founding in 1958 has placed an infinite value on the safety of each flight. What has been accomplished by this pursuit of perfection is stunning. The frequency of flight crashes has been reduced, and reduced, and reduced, and reduced, until an astonishing level of safety has been achieved. There hasn’t been an airplane crash in the United States on a major carrier (knock wood) in more than nine years, since November, 2001. The policy of zero tolerance for risks of any kind, for the FAA, has been phenomenally successful, and, for whatever reason, has not clashed with any other values in a notable or harmful way.

The Transportation Security Administration also uses a zero-tolerance policy, but this unfortunately has collided with other values. The TSA places an infinite value on the safety of the airplanes, which means, unfortunately, that they place zero value on your time and your privacy—zero value, relative to the value placed on the prevention of a terrorist event. Let us suppose that the value of each human life was put at $100 million, and let us suppose that 150 lives would be lost if there were a crash. The cost of an event, then could be placed at $15 billion; let’s throw in another $5 billion for the cost of the airplane and the collateral damage on the ground, and make it $20 billion.

Well, what is the chance that Mrs. Esther Pugh, aged 93, flying from Ft. Lauderdale to Cleveland with her son Herbert, 61, is secretly a terrorist agent who will cause a plane crash if she is not thoroughly searched and humiliated before being allowed to the gate area? Let’s say it is .000 000 000 001; in reality it is much less than that, but let’s say. The cost of allowing her to proceed to the gate without any kind of security operation, then, could be estimated at $20,000,000,000 ($20 billion) times .000 000 000 001, or 2 cents. The cost of searching her—not the cost in terms of delays to others or the cost in terms of the value of privacy, but merely the cost in terms of hiring TSA workers to rummage through Esther’s private possessions and feel up Esther’s privates, plus the costs of their machinery and equipment—would probably be more like a dollar. Cost, $1.00. Benefit, 2 cents.

The only way this makes sense, then, is if we place an infinite value on the prevention of a terrorist act. If we place an infinite value on the prevention of a terrorist act, then the benefit is always greater than the cost, no matter what the cost might be.

Well, but what is the cost? The cost—as was the cost of the disastrous clumsiness of the Warren Court—is many human lives. American airline carriers carry about 800 million passengers a year. Let us estimate that the security apparatus wastes 10 minutes of each passenger’s time per flight. . .the loss of 10 minutes of life for each flying customer, those 10 minutes being both unproductive and unpleasant. That is a gross loss of 8 billion minutes.

And how many minutes are a lifetime? Assuming that the average traveler would live another 40 years and not counting the time spent sleeping, we could say that each 14 million minutes would be a lifetime. The TSA is, in effect, killing about 570 people a year, ten minutes at a time. It’s a conservative estimate; it doesn’t include the time invested by the TSA employees themselves or, for example, the time that people lose by the need to be at the airport early to allow for the worst-case scenarios caused by airport security delays, or the time that is lost by taxpayers in earning the money that goes to pay the TSA to force us through time-consuming delays and humiliating searches.

The 570 lives is a conservative estimate, but the number is not the real point; the real point is that lifetimes are being lost while lives are being saved—therefore, that a rational accounting might be helpful. We have gotten into this pickle for a simple reason: that we have placed an infinite value on one virtue—the safety of flights. All virtues collide at some point, and, when an infinite value collides with any other value, it is as if the other value did not exist, since it does not matter what the other value might be.

(This article grew out of a conversation with my son, Isaac. Isaac objects that in fact the FAA’s zero tolerance policy for risk has had very high costs in its collision with other virtues. We should now be able to fly from San Francisco to Paris, he argues, in an hour or so, by having airplanes that rocketed into space. We are unable to do so because the FAA’s insistence on zero risk has inhibited innovation, forcing us to fly around on 20-year-old airplanes because those are the only airplanes that the FAA is certain are 100% safe. Objection noted.)

Chemicals

How many chemical compounds do you use in the process of getting yourself cleaned up and ready for the day? I use nine to eleven, which seems like an awful lot, but I would bet that it’s below the American average. I would assume that most everybody uses soap, shampoo, toothpaste, mouthwash and deodorant; that’s five. I use soap for parts of my body which shall remain nameless and body wash for things like arms and chestal areas, so that’s six. I spray my toes with an anti-fungal agent (seven), and put a little talcum powder in my shorts to keep me dry; that’s eight. If I neglect my heels they will dry out and crack, literally rendering me almost unable to walk or walking in blood, so the stuff I put on my heels is nine; actually I vary that among several different products—petroleum jelly, heel cream and a product called Heel-tastic, but I only use one at a time, so I’ll only count one. I know two people who actually use Crisco on their heels, and I have once or twice become so desperate while travelling that I smeared margarine on my heels. Believe me, letting it go is not an option. You’ll understand when you get old.

I store my contact lenses in some sort of solution, but that’s not really a part of the cleaning-up process, so I’m not going to count that. I don’t normally use hair conditioner. . ..occasionally I will, but not as long as my hair behaves itself, so that’s a partial. Sometimes, after gargling with mouthwash, I will also gargle with hydrogen peroxide (USP), so that’s another partial, and I’ll count myself at nine to eleven.

I don’t shave, so I don’t normally use shaving lotion or after-shave, but many people do. I’m under the impression that some shavers now use a third product, but I don’t really know. I don’t use any kind of hair spray or hair gel or anything like that, but obviously a lot of people do. I don’t use hand lotion or skin lotion of any kind, but hotels have four products they provide—soap, shampoo, conditioner and hand lotion—so presumably a large number of people must use that. My wife must have fifteen or twenty other products that she uses. . .bath oils, and hair sprays and hair treatments and hand lotions and Oil of Olay type stuff and face creams, and of course perfumes or other smelly stuff that she uses sometimes. People who have dentures have to use a denture paste, but my artificial teeth are bolted into my head, so I don’t have to do that. I probably should have used a dentist for that, but you know, I got the nail gun for Christmas. Presumably people who use hearing aids have to use something to keep those from chafing, I don’t know. I don’t use any kind of eye wash or eye moistener, but I’m sure a lot of people do. Many people use chapstick or something every day and several times a day to keep their lips from cracking, although I’ve been fortunate enough not to need that. People who have acne or bad skin patches use powders to cover them up. Some people use a moustache wax, but I don’t think that’s very common, and anyway I’m not sure if that should count.

I’m not talking about medicines, or even about stuff like acne creams, and I’m not talking about the pills and vitamins and whatnot that old people have to take. I’m not even talking about stuff like lipstick and fingernail polish. I’m just talking about the OCC, the Optional Cleaning Chemicals. How many chemicals do you use to prepare a face to meet the faces that you meet? How many does an average person use? Obviously this number is increasing—150 years ago nobody used toothpaste--but how fast is it increasing? How high will it go? Do young people use more products, because they are more concerned about their appearance, or old people, because we are more concerned with not falling apart in the middle of the afternoon? Do people in prison get something to put on their heels? They can’t let them walk around in blood, right? I’m pretty sure that would be illegal, so there must be some provision for that. How about deodorant? Do prisoners use deodorant? Anybody know?

Felix

I’m doing some research about voting patterns in the Cy Young Award vote over time, but that’s taking longer than expected. I should have that up by early next week.

COMMENTS (37 Comments, most recent shown first)

those
"I think what really bothers me most about some of Bill's writings (non-baseball) is that he treats his opinions as though they are facts and non-political, while if you disagree, you are being both ignorant and political."

This is absolutely, 100 percent true. Bill, like any writer, has strengths and weaknesses in his writing. I think it's appropriate to note this, rather than take the "Bill James is awesome! End of discussion!" approach.
6:33 PM Dec 5th

evanecurb
Hank Gillette:

You are right about prosecutors. Same thing applies to defense attorneys, police, and unfortunately, some of the judges, too. When I say "conservatives and liberals" I am referring to people in the general population who have no stake in the outcome of a case at hand. Your point is well taken regarding people who are involved in the process. They generally care more about winning their side of the case than they do about justice.

To your point about Bill: Bill has always been one of my favorite writers. I enjoy his conversational style of communication. His style is more like that of a person talking to you over a lunch table than someone lecturing from a podium. He expresses his opinions bluntly. I don't always like it, either when he's talking about politics. The statement about the Warren Court linking it to higher crime rates is not an established fact, and he was wrong in the tone in which it was stated. This is of little consequence to me. I don't feel that he uses this forum as a bully pulpit. Everyone gets a chance to weigh in. No one gets censored.

I am keeping my subscription and I wish you would keep yours. Your posts are usually intelligent and well thought out, and you make a contribution here.
5:04 PM Dec 5th

hankgillette
"There are two key issues within this topic on which conservatives and liberals can agree: Both sides want criminals to be punished. Neither side wants innocent people to be punished for crimes they didn't commit. The common ground here is much wider than the differentiators."

I respectfully disagree. Both sides SAY they want the same thing, but their interpretation of what they say is much wider than the rhetoric would suggest. It's like saying that the old East Germany had more similarities with Western Democracies than differences because East Germany had both Democratic and Republic in its name.

One piece of evidence against this is the number of prosecutors, usually (but not always) conservative, who try to block testing DNA evidence that could clear persons already convicted of crimes. To allow someone to stay in prison, or worse, be executed when there is evidence that could exonerate them is simply wrong, in my view.

An area where most "conservatives" and "liberals" seem to have come together is the national hysteria over terrorism. Most Americans seem to be comfortable (or at least accepting) of holding suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial. The Obama administration has asserted the right to hold some suspected terrorists even if they are tried and aquitted, not to mention the right to kill certain American citizens without a trial and conviction (or even being charged with a crime). There has been very little protest against these positions.

I think what really bothers me most about some of Bill's writings (non-baseball) is that he treats his opinions as though they are facts and non-political, while if you disagree, you are being both ignorant and political. In fact, Bill told me (in email) that he has expressed no political opinions. It is for this reason that I will not be renewing my subscription when it expires.
4:47 PM Dec 5th

evanecurb
smbakerwsq@yahoo.com:

I am not an attorney, a Liberal, or a Republican. I agree with some of your sentiments regarding the Warren Court and the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." You and I may not see eye to eye on all issues regarding the Warren Court's influene on criminal justice, but I would be willing to wager that we would be able to find some common ground.

I will let Bill James speak for himself regarding his political views. I've been reading his material for a long time (25 years +/-) and I have yet to detect a loyalty to either of the major parties from his writing. I think he's wrong about the Warren Court's influence on conviction rates; I doubt the Gideon decision and other rulings were the primary reason behind increased crime rates in the 1970s. I think the reasons run deeper than that, but, I honestly don't know.

Having said that, there are three things in your post that I disagree with, and here they are:

1. One should not assume from Bill's statement about the Warren Court that he is a Republican or a Conservative. It is possible to be a Democrat or an Independent and still hold your own views. In fact, I think this is more the norm than the exception. Some Republicans don't favor increased military spending. Some Democrats oppose abortion. They don't get excommunicated from their parties for holding those views. Independents agree with Republicans sometimes, with Democrats other times, and often with neither.

2. I have seen many stories over the years (admittedly they are usually on the local news or in the newspaper as opposed to being on the national news) about people who were found to be innocent of their crimes after many years in prison. In Virginia, where I live, these heartbreaking stories seem to come out a couple of times a year. I think it's tragic that so many people have been wrongfully convicted in our state, which is one of the "law and orderiest" of all of the law and order states. But, to the credit of the local newspapers and TV stations, the stories have been out there and usually on the front page of the local section of the paper.

3. Your statements about Republicans and conservatives carry an adversarial tone that borders on bigotry. If your objective is to preach to the choir that agrees with you, then your tone is consistent with that objective. If instead you wish to convince those of us who may be willing to consider different points of view, your tone needs to change to one that conveys a desire to build consensus.

There are two key issues within this topic on which conservatives and liberals can agree: Both sides want criminals to be punished. Neither side wants innocent people to be punished for crimes they didn't commit. The common ground here is much wider than the differentiators.
10:16 AM Dec 5th

DaveFleming
Where do you get that Bill is a Republican? Using his comments about the Warren court to pigeonhole his political leanings is staggeringly simplistic. To think that Bill James allows ANY party platform to dictate his opinions about anything is utter poppycock.
9:55 PM Dec 4th

those
Mr. James has inherent biases on a lot of topics. We all do.

It's the "I'm not an attorney so I'm better than you attitude" that he sometimes lapses into that is offensive and kind of repugnant -- and I'm not an attorney or planning to be one.
6:38 PM Dec 3rd

smbakeresq
Well, I am an attorney and I am a Liberal, so thats puts me on the opposite side of Mr. James, it is clear he is a Republican and a conservative. Therefore Bill wouldl dislike whatever the Warren court established, I am sure it is on his list of hates along with "professionalism and twice baked potato's." However, in his statements about the Warren Court here is forgets to mention what came before, the unstated assumption that value of "law and order" was infinite, even if the wrong person got covicted. When you say "all men are presumed innocent" that means that is more important to have many guilty people set free then 1 innocent person be convicted. However Bill's inherent bias glosses this over, I hear the same arguments all the time from conservatives and Republicans who are "law and order" types. It is very easy to just say that guy is guilty and he should just be convicted, however it is hard to actually stand for a principle, that in this country all men are presumed innocent and have a right to a fair trial.

Are their mistakes made? Sure, but their was before also, you just didnt hear about them since they were made before the Warren court, before the explosion of mass media. Even now, a former criminal who commits another crime is news, I have yet to see a story about a wrongly accused person being released ever even make the news. From the Innocence Project :"As of August 9, 2010, 258 people previously convicted of serious crimes in the United States had been exonerated by DNA testing. Almost all of these convictions involved some form of sexual assault and approximately 25% involved murder." Did any of you see those ont he news? These people obviosuly DIDNT receive a fair trial, so if you want to go back to before the Warren court "easy days" then at least tell me you have the courage to go tell those people to go back to death row or long imprisionment even though they were wrongfully convicted, as the value of a fair trial wasnt high enough.

As a side note, I have represented a few of the socially dominant authoritarian Conservative Republicans, when they are facing criminal charges all of a sudden they have a tremendous change of heart and want to use every single possible method, ethical or unethical, to not get convicted.

I guess there really isnt any atheists in foxholes.

As far as the TSA, I have no problem with the enhanced searches and such, but then I have travled and lived abroad many times wherein things are MUCH worse. Every single person I have talked to about their problems with the TSA has never done so, they do not realize how nice it is to live and travel here.

1:35 PM Dec 3rd

slemieux99
Hank is correct -- the idea that some Warren Court decisions were almost solely responsible for increasing crime rates (the spike in the number of young men who commit a disproportionately high number of crimes notwithstanding) isn't "political" is untenable. Certainly, the literature has not established any such thing, and given the inherent limitations of social science research it almost certainly never be able to do so. Reasonable people can dispute the precise effect of the Warren Court's decisions (and also disagree about how to weigh the relevant costs and benefits), but laying the blame almost exclusively on the Supreme Court is no less "political" than attributing it entirely to demographics.
11:23 AM Dec 3rd

BringBackTriandos
I heard an interview with a high-ranking security official in Israel recently. They use a series of interviews (up to three, depending on the responses) to screen potential terrorists. And no terrorist attacks have originated from Israeli airports.
1:10 PM Nov 30th

CharlesSaeger
Doug: I'll agree with Bill on this one point: this isn't a rant. Bill made an extraordinary claim -- one I find farcical, honestly -- but that doesn't make it a rant.

Bill: Skipping the crime rate beatdown that seems to fascinate everyone else, I'll address Quidditch scoring. (Geekdom trumps my long-held leftist political convictions.) Harry has a train of thought in the first book about this, inasmuch that he realizes that the total score in Quidditch determines which house wins the Quidditch Cup at the end of the year. There is a competing element to getting the Snitch: racking up points. If your team is able to score easily with the Quaffle, you're best not getting the Snitch right away; the Bludgers would want to pound the rival Seeker as long as possible to keep him from ending the game. Also, Wikipedia says that only the Seekers can touch the Snitch, which would alleviate the problem you cite, though I can't remember this passage and my books are elsewhere.
5:51 PM Nov 29th

hankgillette
I don't see how the idea that the Warren Court unleashed a scourge of violent crime is any less a political position than the idea that the large number of people within the age demographic that tends to commit violent crimes explains the rise in crime in the 1960s, and it has a lot less evidence supporting it.

How many guilty people were released by the Supreme Court requirements for a fair trial, and how many crimes did they subsequently commit? Surely studies could be done on this, rather than simply declaring that this is the reason and asserting that anyone who disagrees with Bill's opinion is ignorant. That may be true if the opinion is baseball related, but then Bill has studies to back up his opinion. Here, as far as I can tell, he is pulling the opinion from where the sun doesn't shine.
6:30 PM Nov 28th

mbrucker
Re Trachsel: I always called it the Steve Stone award for his 1980 season when he won the Cy Young. 25-7, ERA of 3.23, WHIP of about 1.3. I don't know what the league ERA was, but I think his was not that great....
1:47 PM Nov 28th

schoolshrink
Evan,

Thanks for the compliment. Regarding the security measures after 9/11, my position is kind of a cross between yours and glkanter's. I agree that the security measures were well intended, but ultimately business interests trumped our own security needs. I was, and still am, a huge supporter of creating the Department of Homeland Security. I was thrilled when one of my heroes, Tom Ridge was named the first secretary of that department. Unfortunately, Ridge's successor, Michael Chertoff, touted the security needs at our airports while having a vested interest: he has a company that creates scanners for airports. When Chertoff lobbies congress to purchase scanners under the guise of national security, the liberty concerns express by glkanter and others hold weight. I do think we can do things smarter, but will we is the question.

The concern about scanners is identical to Bill's concern about traffic light cameras in another blog. Those with vested interests are always able to get senators, congressmen, and counsel men and women to believe in the security interests of the measure while conveniently directing attention to research that only serves to support the positions that they do. It does not matter if the research is poorly done, or if there is a wealth of contrary information when public leaders buy these lines hook, line, and sinker.

To me, our biggest threat as a country is that we are a fat and lazy lot that would allow a tsunami wash over our heads if it is too much work to get out of the way. The slower we are to react, and the more we want to avoid having to do the real work to see what is in our best interests, the more we will allow shady salesmen to barter our freedoms.
1:44 PM Nov 28th

evanecurb
I think Michael Kirlin has it right. It's good solid police work that makes the difference.

I still maintain that the TSA stuff at airports is mostly for show. I agree with Bill's central point that there are millions (billions?) being spent in the name of security for little actual benefit.

GLK commented that the real intent (I am paraphrasing here) of TSA searches and increased wire taps, data mining, etc. is malicious and amounts to an egregious invasion of our constitutional rights. I don't see it that way. I think the Bush/Cheney White House, which put most of those actions in place, was well intentioned, and I believe the Obama White House has continued most of the things Bush began in the interests of national security. I don't see a boogey man here, just well intentioned government officials who went overboard with the TSA stuff.
12:26 PM Nov 28th

rgregory1956
I love this site!!! We bring such divergent interests, attitudes, experiencesand opinions to the table. I am often humbled by the lack of knowledge I have compared to many. I read Bill's article, and I've read all of your comments. So many thoughtful, insightful points of view. And yet the only thing that I'll remember about this thread a year from now is this:

Bill uses 9 to 11 chemicals every morning!?!?!?!?!

10:39 AM Nov 28th

MattGoodrich
On the point that the 'real' cause of crime was court rulings and not demographics, and that anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant and making a 'political position' - well, seems to me THAT is a political position based on political opinion and not fact. Not to say there isn't some truth to it, but it's a total stretch to declare it as 'the reason'. You want some controvery, the Freakonomics book linked the crime drop to demographics caused by legalized abortion.

On the reference to the TSA 'killing about 570 people a year' and 'lives lost' - maybe that was intended to be entirely tongue in cheek, but I didn't read it that way. The TSA hasn't killed anybody (unless deaths are up due to more driving), they're just costing time and money. Again, I agree with the general point of the article, but using hysterical conclusions to argue a point is Glenn Beck's job.

Seems to me these are the kind of wild irrational statements Bill used to rail AGAINST. I hope he isn't losing it.
10:07 AM Nov 28th

glkanter
Michael Kirlin, I don't go for this 'presumption of guilt' business, followed by a strip search. That's different than mandatory seatbelt laws.

'No presumption of innocence' is how I treat the steroids era, but I never attempt to prove guilt, only say that 'something fits the known patterns'. Perhaps elevating a particular player to a 'profiling' level. Which, while still problematic, at least has a 'makes sense' argument to it.

This TSA stuff is a continuation of a pattern of the man keeping us down. With no perceivable benefit, only for the political/economical purpose of killing our individual and collective independent spirit. It's been going on forever, but was perfected/codified by the Cheney/Bush White House.
8:57 AM Nov 28th

jdw
I think Evan's belief that this the TSA searches will be gone by 12/31 is a pipe dream. We are now half Police/Security State, and half a Corporate Oligarchy. Unless the Oligarchy is against the TSA searches, it's not going to be rolled back. Since they actually have a piece of the massive amounts of money being thrown at the Security State, they want expansion, not rolling back.

Our outcries really mean nothing on this. We're down a path from which there's no turning back. TSA is simply the first place, as we'll see this at courthouses, government buildings, and eventually schools when we have a few more on-campus shootings. "Terror" has been little more than the tool to allow the foot in the door on things like this and domestic data collection. We already know that data collection has gone far beyond the concepts of "war on terror", and what we see now at TSA will before long go beyond airports.
2:21 AM Nov 28th

Kev
Evan:

I did misquote Bill in my comment. I said he said a a socialist kills anyone who disagrees with him. I am wrong. It was a socialist is one who
kills anyone who won't share (para). Not much difference.

Bill and I strongly disagreed as I recall. I believe I probably said some over-the-top things for which I think I apologized.

The reason I say "I think" is that we have had several heated political exchanges, and on the socialist issue there was more to it than mentioned here. Bill is a worthy politics/history debating opponent. I'll say no more on his positions in his abasence, except to thank him for his site and forbearance.
1:31 AM Nov 28th

schoolshrink
glkanter,

Jefferson did not live in a nation of 300 million people and more than 2000 aircraft in the air over our skies at any moment. We have lots of violations of liberties in this society. Many violations are so fully acceptable (i.e., mandatory seat belt laws) that we decline to rise against them. We complain about the TSA because we can, but the amount of information about every person that is readily available for public consumption would make TSA searches seem pale in comparison. I would suggest you and I just are not interesting enough to be researched; Bill might be. I certainly can live with some level of scrutiny in response to the larger mission of safety, but we have to figure out those boundaries still.
1:00 AM Nov 28th

glkanter
"If you've got nothing to hide, then you wouldn't mind [insert prohibited search technique here]."

What about the costs to privacy rights, (more wire-tapping, anyone?) and other constitutional protections? And the increase in the speed of that particular slippery slope?

Some of you don't get it. This TSA bs (liquids, lighters, strip searches, etc...) is a sign that the terrorists *are* winning.

"The price of Liberty is eternal Vigilance" - Thomas Jefferson and others. This TSA stuff violates my liberties.
12:35 AM Nov 28th

schoolshrink
My issue with Bill's TSA article is that I do not think we are approaching the real level needed to violate rights at the expense of security. There are egregious examples that deserve to be pointed out, but they are the exceptions to the rule. He mentions our nine year run without a major airline accident. Well, yeah, but I hesitate to think it is because of work we have done solely at the airports. Before 9/11, there were stories that the FBI and CIA could not get along, police departments and fire departments were at odds with each other because of turf battles, among several destructive civil skirmishes we had. At that time, we had a low crime rate in general, as the economy was still strong in spite of the dot.com correction. Where I think we get things right is when we have better understanding of what we need to be doing to be secure. We need government control for purposes of security, not to mention other things like management of banks. The more we break these essential needs apart and privatize them, the less likely we will be to garnish the security we want, and we will be more able to control for egregious search examples when they happen. It should be easy to accept that Bill's talcum powder is not a weapon of mass destruction, but when we simply react to what the latest nut job does to infiltrate our airports, the probability that are security will be harmed will be greater as a result of these reactionary tendencies.

I was in Portland, OR yesterday when a young college student was arrested for potential terrorism. The most striking thing about the arrest was the terrific police work that led to his capture. The NY Times article describing it is below, and this is what we should focus upon regarding the threat of terrorism: That there are predictable circumstances that will likely develop if someone is to engage in such a heinous activity. To stop a terrorist takes police work, plain and simple. It takes profiling the likely terrorist from the unlikely one. And we need to be sensitive to people who clearly are not the terrorists we are attempting to avert. A breast cancer survivor whose saline implant is dripping after a search is not a threat, but if the name is Mohammad and your nearest relative is someone in Yemen or Somolia, fair or otherwise you should only expect to be scrutinized. Here is the link for those interested: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/us/28portland.html?_r=1&hp
12:20 AM Nov 28th

evanecurb
DCMM:

OK I guess I was getting freakonomics mixed up with Gladwell's book or something else that I read. Having the miscreants locked up makes sense. I have heard that one elsewhere.

Tangential issue: I have no problem with stiff penalties for criminals, and long jail terms are appropriate for violent crimes. I do have a problem with prison conditions. I think we need to do a better job of protecting inmates from violence within prisons. That's not part of the punishment, and they deserve to be treated humanely.
11:09 PM Nov 27th

Richie
The Freako guy found nothing else that particularly correlated with crime rates. And from what I recall, it wasn't particular police method that counted, rather just keeping the miscreants locked up. Not as a deterrent to others, but simply keeping them off the streets and ergo away from continued miscreance.
9:03 PM Nov 27th

evanecurb
Margaret Sanger:

I read Freakonomics a few years ago and remember that chapter but not all that well. I do recall that it's true that violent crime has dropped since the 1970s. The factors that I recall as having been cited were (1) demographics, in that most violent crimes are committed by young men, (ages 15-23 I believe) and that violent crime peaked when the number of young men peaked. I also recall something about attention to details to encourage civility and discourage unruly behavior as being an effective law enforcement technique, with the NYPD under Giuliani having been cited as an example. I don't recall any mention of the Warren Court, drug trafficking, or police/community relations.
8:31 PM Nov 27th

Richie
Evan, Freakonomics (the book) has an excellent short and readable study on violent crime (which of course has gone down since the 70s). Even though its most robust point bothers me greatly in that its evidentiary support is rock solid and I really prefer that it weren't.
7:58 PM Nov 27th

Richie
Having a right to an attorney absolutely helps stupider criminals beat evidentiary weak raps, and so get back out on the street and on the job. Doesn't wipe out or override the good side of the right. But pretending the obvious downside isn't there is just begging people to conclude that you'll tell them whatever lie you need to in order to win your side of the argument.
7:54 PM Nov 27th

markrice
Bill,

Regarding the cost of TSA zero tolerance...
How about the cost of people flying less and using other forms of transportation (like cars) that are much more dangerous? I read is some behavioral economics book (can´t remember which one) that the number of traffic accidents in 2002 shot way up as a response to the fear of flying. So much higher, in fact, that there were more than 3000 extra fatalities resulting from car accidents in 2002 (I have no idea if this is really true, but it does seem possible).
My point is that air travel is now, and was in 1980, 1990 and 2001 much much safer than automobile travel. Making is less attractive to fly pushes people to drive, which is much more dangerous..
7:19 PM Nov 27th

SkeptiSys
"In the 1960s the Warren Court acted on the unstated assumption that a fair trial, free of certain flaws, was an infinite value—that whenever and wherever there was a taint upon a trial, the trial must be re-done."

I fail to see any connection between Warren Court decisions to protect citizens from being falsely convicted (Brady, prevents police and prosecutor from hiding evidence that helps defendant) having a right to an attorney(Escobedo), or being searched without cause (Mapp) and violent crimes. Do you mean that police need to break minimal constitutional rights in order for us to adequately prevent violent crimes? If so, that is baseless and deplorable.

7:15 PM Nov 27th

evanecurb
Bill and Kev:

I was going to stay out of the Warren Court - violent crime commentary, but I can't help myself. I think the issue of the rise and fall of violent crime in this country has been studied and there must be a lot of good research out there. Admittedly, I haven't read the research, but my point is that you both should read at least a couple of studies of the issue before jumping to conclusions. The Warren Court's decisions may well have been a factor; I honestly don't know. The relationship between police and society may also have been a factor; I don't know that, either. But I have many questions about your assumptions:

1. Has it been established that violent crime rates, adjusted for changes in demographics, have indeed fallen since the 1970s?
2. Is there a relationship between violent crime rates and the level of drug trafficking?
3. Has there been a change in the rates of convictions as a function of the number of crimes committed since the 1970s? Has the average time of incarceration relative to convictions increased since then?
4. Has the relationship between cops and the communities they serve improved since the 1970s?

I am sure there are studies out there to answer these questions. Let's not go jumping to conclusions just yet.

Kev: I believe you are misquoting Bill. I recall the comment about socialism (I recall that you and another reader were particularly incensed at the time). He didn't say that socialists are murderers. What he said was that a socialist state is one in which the government may take citizens' property at the point of a gun, or something to that effect. I believe the meaning here (Bill is welcome to come in and correct me on this) is that socialism holds the power of the state to be superior to an individual's right to property. The phrase about the point of a gun is dramatic but technically true, I suppose. What Bill didn't say is that the repossession of property without reasonable compensation has not been the norm in European states where Democratic socialism has been practiced. It has occurred in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and other communist countries, but I am not aware of it happening in democratic countries such as Sweden and Norway, where the state is highly engaged in the daily lives of citizens, but ultimately answers to its citizens through a democratic process.
6:05 PM Nov 27th

Kev
Bill,

It's been a while since we crossed swords (and I'm still indebted to you for bringing Mother Jones to my attention). So, here we go again...

About the innocent people who suffered under the violent crime which you
claim was "unleashed" by the Warren Court in the '60's, do you include those people beaten and killed by police riots among the victims of criminals? Are you satisfied that you have treated that issue fairly? In the context of the larger subject which you are discussing you slip in a slanderous reference to a "liberal" (read un-American) court as though your words are gospel--like when you defined a socialist as someone who kills you if you diasagree with him. That position clearly is not you, and your implication that the Warren court unleashed violent crime affecting thousands of Americans approaches (but certainly doesn't match) your screed of temporary insanity regarding a socialist.

As you remember, there was plenty of blame to spread in the '60's--a large factor was that the police had guns and authority, both of which they used and abused freely. Being anti-war and pro-civil rights was dangerous in those days, fatal in some cases. When the country came to its senses on Vietnam and some progress was made in civil rights, the violence abated; those whose subversive agendas attempted to infiltrate the movement disapeared in failure. Look, people weren't born calling police "pigs"; they were given reason, which is not necessarily justification. Fortunately, that specific period is over, but we are heading toward a similar environment as we proceed with our present unjust wars. Most police were as clean as those in a Norman Rockwell painting, just as most protesters were not "bums" as christened by our second-worst President.

Police and people presently are in harmony as they should be. The police took a bad rap back then; fortunately it was earned by a only a few--a people-state is better than a police-state. And yes, it CAN happen here.

and about Warren:
. if you can ashow me how his Brown vs Board of Education did not change society dynamically for the better in a quantum measure and begin the dismantling of the Jim Crow society in the South
and
. if you can prove that society has been harmed by the Miranda case or other Warren rulings to the extent that "tens of thousands of Americans became victims of totally unnecessary violent crimes", I shall accept such proof and support your statement.

The Warren Court was not perfect. It existed in the most tumultuous of times, and had great minds of both liberal and conservative bent. I still can't believe Warren put his name to the Commission and the fictive Report which it issued.

I believe the Warren Court did much to perpetuate the Marbury vs Madison decision, which has been a cornerstone of our law, simply by its activist nature, but also (your point) has severely hampered police work at times. Was its activism and mistakes worth its activism and its societal advancement and protection?
4:27 PM Nov 27th

Richie
Which Doug's comment itself clearly recognizes, as he treats the TSA and the whole issue very much in the same vein as you discuss it in your article. So Webster aside, Doug isn't using 'rant' the way you're reading it.
3:34 PM Nov 27th

bjames
Responding to Doug from Charleston. . .in what respect is this a "rant"? It is not a rant; it has no characteristic of a rant. It is a calm, rational, analytical comment.
2:09 PM Nov 27th

enamee
Another cost associated with the TSA practices is that it instills fear and resentment of government. I'm not saying this is a bad thing -- I think our society would be better off if people were more skeptical of the state -- but presumably the TSA itself doesn't want to encourage anti-government sentiments. This is especially risky with young children. My son, who is three, identifies the TSA people with "the government." (He has the same identification with police officers, census workers, and toll booth operators.) So when we travel for Christmas, he will be subjected to unpleasant touching from "the government." Seems like a bad idea for the government, long-term.
1:21 PM Nov 27th

Richie
In any division/specialization of labor system, most of us drones are assigned an Infinite Value to pursue as our part of earning our daily bread. The organizational point being to then have someone over us to weigh what we're doing in comparison with what everyone else in our department is also working on.

The sticking point being that when a supervising individual is given a Game Changer ("a successful terrorist attack and boy am I cooked in '04/'08/'12"), well, this can Infinitize things for them, too. Plenty of business examples of this also. I'd point at the Enron folks as one example.

On the political side, Infinitizing something is the most fantastically efficient way of showing How Smart You Are. Any lug can learn and immerse himself in more and ever-smaller details of one single thing. Which when then Infinitized makes you smarter than all the folks so unimmersed, who just don't understand. Unlike how you do.

So the supervising system then gets politically pushed toward Infinitizing by such micro-level forces.
12:58 PM Nov 27th

rollo131
This is the second rant against the TSA I've read/seen in 24 hours. The other one was by an Aussie who is angry about all the fingerprinting/photographing/screening of persons entering the country, and that there's now (as of November 22) a $9 "security fee" for any packages shipped into the US from outside the country weighing more than 16 ounces (!) This will also lead to an additional 2-day delay for these packages to be shipped. Think about that for a minute. All of a sudden, the government thinks we need $9 worth of security to inspect every single package over 16 ounces that enters this country.

Can we vote these TSA boneheads out of office?
12:30 PM Nov 27th

evanecurb
Professional bullfighters use of Oil of Ole'

The controversy regarding the TSA's pat down procedures, which I predict will be reversed and gone before 12/31 due to public outcry, misses a greater point: We are devoting too high of a percentage of our anti-terrorism resources on air travel, when there are so many other vulnerable places that terrorists could easily attack. This statement itself misses a greater point: TSA procedures themselves will never be fool-proof and the main purpose of TSA security appears to be to provide the appearance that the government is in control and has the ability to stop terrorism.

The reality is, we are accepting a certain amount of risk when we leave our homes, an incremental increase in risk when we travel, and we don't like to think of it in those terms. But the risk, infinitesimal though it may be, is there, nonetheless. People who choose to live on the coast of Florida, the Gulf Coast, the outer banks of North Carolina, and the Caribbean are accepting a higher hurricane risk than people who don't live there, just as Californians accept higher earthquake risk and coal miners accept higher levels of workplace risk. Common sense, reasonable precautions can and should be taken to minimize those risks, but at some point, the incremental benefit becomes infinitesimal and the resources devoted to achieve that benefit could better be devoted to a higher yielding safety measure (bridge, dam, and levee maintenance come to mind, preventive medical care, or a hundred other things).

A sniper terrorized the Washington area in the fall of 2001, typically striking at gas stations or retail establishments, but in other public places as well. Would it have made sense to construct fences made of bulletproof glass around all public places? Would have prevented these tragedies. What about metal detectors for anyone entering school property? Would have prevented Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings. Or how about inspection of all vans and pickups entering every US city so that we can prevent Oklahoma City bombings (as well as the 1993 World Trade Center parking garage bombing).

Why the fascination with airplane security at the expense of everything else?
12:09 PM Nov 27th

STA, TSA, Chemicals and Felix

COMMENTS (37 Comments, most recent shown first)

Leave a comment

Report inappropriate comment


Type of Abuse:
Comments: