Skip to main content

TSA Backlash Week: Napolitano's Take

Janet Napolitano tries to get ahead of TSA Backlash Week. It might be more convincing if she didn't conclude with a blitz of bureaucratic-speak: "We face a determined enemy. Our security depends on us being more determined and more creative to adapt to evolving threats. It relies upon a multi-layered approach that leverages the strengths of our international partners, the latest intelligence, and the patience and vigilance of the American traveling public." And that's the most engaging part!

Hey, I get it: If a plane goes down, Napolitano loses her job and probably retires to the ranks of HeckuvaJobBrowniedom. It might not be entirely fair: As I've said, it's possible to do everything right and the terrorists still score a point. But read her whole piece and there's a sense that Napolitano -- who should have a bit of a political ear; she was a governor, after all -- isn't really engaging the real concerns of real people who actually have to hurdle TSA's procedures to go on business trips or visit family or do whatever else they have to do. Napolitano's message: It's not that bad. But the people who are coming forward with stories of being felt up or losing their tickets because they refuse invasive screening are adding up, and they have a message, too: It's bad enough. Stop it.

We're approaching a point where TSA is going to have to be responsive to the concerns of fliers -- the people it's trying to keep secure, after all -- or the agency will strangle the airline industry. The worst thing that can happen is that people accept these measures as "the new normal."


Monkey RobbL said…
"Napolitano -- who should have a bit of a political ear; she was a governor, after all"

Yeah, but she was a Governor in ARIZONA. The bar's pretty low out here. She got the Governor job because:

* The "incumbent" wasn't running for re-election. Jane Hull herself became Governor when her predecessor went to jail.

* Napolitano was the Attorney General during the Hull administration, so she had name recognitition, and she also notably saved the state's fiscal bacon by finding a way (as AG) to kill the Alternative Fuel Car boondoggle. So she didn't have to work very hard to get positive attention politically.

* She was running against a reasonably principled Republican who happened to be Mormon. At the time, that worked against him because voters were still skittish due to their last LDS governor, who also had to resign from office in disgrace.

Even so, she only won the election by 1 percentage point - 46 to 45.

All that to say, it didn't take a lot of political savvy for her to get elected.

Popular posts from this blog


I've been making some life changes lately — trying to use the time I have, now that I'm back in Kansas, to improve my health and lifestyle. Among the changes: More exercise. 30 minutes a day on the treadmill. Doesn't sound like a lot, but some is more than none, and I know from experience that getting overambitious early leads to failure. So. Thirty minutes a day.

One other thing: Yoga, a couple of times a week. It's nothing huge — a 15-minute flexibility routine downloaded from an iPhone app. But I've noticed that I'm increasingly limber.

Tonight, friends, I noticed a piece of trash on the floor. I bent over at the waist and picked it up, and threw it away.

Then I wept. I literally could not remember the last time I'd tried to pick something off the floor without grunting and bracing myself. I just did it.

Small victories, people. Small victories.

Liberals: We're overthinking this. Hillary didn't lose. This is what it should mean.

Nate Cohn of the New York Times estimates that when every vote is tallied, some 63.4 million Americans will have voted for Clinton and 61.2 million for Trump. That means Clinton will have turned out more supporters than any presidential candidate in history except for Obama in 2008 and 2012. And as David Wasserman of Cook Political Report notes, the total vote count—including third party votes—has already crossed 127 million, and will “easily beat” the 129 million total from 2012. The idea that voters stayed home in 2016 because they hated Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton is a myth. We already know the Electoral College can produce undemocratic results, but what we don't know is why — aside from how it serves entrenched interests — it benefits the American people to have their preference for national executive overturned because of archaic rules designed, in part, to protect the institution of slavery. 

A form of choosing the national leader that — as has happened in …

I'm not cutting off my pro-Trump friends

Here and there on Facebook, I've seen a few of my friends declare they no longer wish the friendship of Trump supporters — and vowing to cut them out of their social media lives entirely.

I'm not going to do that.

To cut ourselves off from people who have made what we think was a grievous error in their vote is to give up on persuading them, to give up on understanding why they voted, to give up on understanding them in any but the most cartoonish stereotypes.

As a matter of idealism, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on democracy. As a matter of tactics, cutting off your pro-Trump friends is to give up on ever again winning in a democratic process.

And as a long-term issues, confining ourselves to echo chambers is part of our national problem.

Don't get me wrong: I expect a Trumpian presidency is a disaster, particularly for people of color. And in total honesty: My own relationships have been tested by this campaign season. There's probably some damage…