Patrick McIheran seems to think we don't shame people enough.  Specifically, he's upset that Eliot Spitzer is writing for Slate, and that his call girl is writing an advice column for the New York Post.  In fact:

All we're ashamed of now is dealing out shame -- even to those who earned it. Yet if we don't set limits, what kind of society will we have?

He's not alone in thinking that.

But of course, shame is a rather blunt weapon, and it seems that a lot of people only want to point that weapon at people they disagree with.  Take Patrick, who directs his ire of shame at a former Democratic Governor of a state where he does not live.  Eliot resigned from office because of this scandal.  And his mistress?  Hell, she was just doing her job... a job she was paid very well to do.  But of the Governor... why shouldn't he have an opinion column?  After all, he has already been shamed from public office... what more punishment by society is required?  We no longer live in a world where people have to wear a red letter because of their activities.  Should Eliot be resigned to the poor house, because he should not be allowed to have any job due to his infidelity?  Where does shame end, and the allowance for one's ability to function in society begin?

And if someone like Eliot Spitzer not only should be forced to resign his office, but also shouldn't write a column in a major publication (nor apparently should his mistress), what of our own local cadre of adulterers?  We have a Chief of Police in Milwaukee who has had an admitted affair with a columnist for the Waukesha Freeman.  Where is their shame?  If Spitzer and his mistress should be shamed out of public office and public papers for what they did, shouldn't Flynn have resigned, and Jessica McBride be shamed from writing again for the Freeman? Of course, Edward Flynn is beloved by many conservatives, and Jessica McBride is supposedly conservative herself, so maybe that's why Patrick can't bring himself to aim the blunt instrument of shame towards them.  But a Democrat and a hooker?  No problem.

Though it does make me wonder why Edward Flynn ought to keep his job.  After all, Flynn seems to strongly believe in the benefits of the "broken window theory of policing".  And in fact, there is some support in studies that says that policing minor crimes helps prevent larger ones.  Doesn't a similar theory hold true regarding the public trust, which the Chief of Police is meant to uphold?  Is there no "broken window theory of morals"?  As I said when I wrote about Tiger Woods, if a man can't be trusted to keep a lifelong and sacred promise to his wife and children... one made before God; if a man can't be trusted to not hurt his wife and children, who he is closest in this world too, then how on Earth can he be trusted not to hurt complete strangers?  If he feels that he can break that trust with his wife, who's to say he won't be just as cavalier with the law.  And if he is allowed to get away with this violation in trust, would he be emboldened to violate the trust of others?  What would he do to the people in Milwaukee? After all, we're mere strangers to him compared to his family, which he did great harm to.

And what of other public figures on the right?  John McCain has been allowed to use his status as a war hero from Vietnam to his benefit for many years, and yet the adultery he committed after he came home from war has largely been left as a relic of history.  John McCain represented the party most associated with family values in a run for President.  Newt Gingrich is a conservative warrior over issues like the "sanctity of marriage", despite cheating on two former wives, and divorcing one while recovering from cancer surgery.  So much for "in sickness and in health".  No shame for Newt however, for he is a regular guest on Fox News.  At least Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was impeached because of his infidelity (yes... yes... his perjury... but we all know why people were really upset).  Ironically, Newt was cheating on his second wife while Congress investigated Bill Clinton for cheating on his wife.

My personal view is that those who are in government (especially police) are to be held to a higher standard than others.  They are granted extraordinary powers to be used against the people, and therefore must be watched very closely.  If a Governor should be made to resign over infidelity, then certainly the Chief of Police of a major metropolitan city should do the same.  Someone who can't be trusted to keep their family safe certainly can't be trusted to keep the people of a city safe.  Of course, when it comes to politicians, the voters have the ultimate say.  Then again, the Chief of Police is not an elected position.  But shame serves as an important tool in policing those in the public trust.

As for an adulterer's ability to write a column, ultimately that is in the hands of the paper who hires them, and the people who read them.  Should we shame people out of a job?  Absolutely not.  Despite what I wrote about Tiger Woods, I wouldn't suggest that adultery should keep him from playing golf.  That does not mean that we shouldn't use the information at hand when deciding how much to trust someone.  However, that is an individual responsibility.  For my part, I would trust what that person has to say less and I'd be much less likely to read a person's column knowing what they'd done to their family.  After all, I'm a mere stranger to them.  That is one of the reasons why I don't listen to Charlie Sykes.

But hey, everyone has to make a living, right?

This essay really hit home... especially I tend to spend a lot of time debating libertarian policies with both liberals and conservatives, neither of which really "get it".  Here is an excerpt:

Being a libertarian means living with an almost unendurable level of frustration. It means being subject to unending scorn and derision despite being inevitably proven correct by events. How does it feel to be a libertarian? Imagine what the internal life of Cassandra must have been and you will have a pretty good idea.
...
Libertarians spend their lives accurately predicting the future effects of government policy. Their predictions are accurate because they are derived from Hayek’s insights into the limitations of human knowledge, from the recognition that the people who comprise the government respond to incentives just like anyone else and are not magically transformed to selfless agents of the good merely by accepting government employment, from the awareness that for government to provide a benefit to some, it must first take it from others, and from the knowledge that politicians cannot repeal the laws of economics. For the same reason, their predictions are usually negative and utterly inconsistent with the utopian wishful-thinking that lies at the heart of virtually all contemporary political advocacy. And because no one likes to hear that he cannot have his cake and eat it too or be told that his good intentions cannot be translated into reality either by waving a magic wand or by passing legislation, these predictions are greeted not merely with disbelief, but with derision.

It is human nature to want to shoot the messenger bearing unwelcome tidings. And so, for the sin of continually pointing out that the emperor has no clothes, libertarians are attacked as heartless bastards devoid of compassion for the less fortunate, despicable flacks for the rich or for business interests, unthinking dogmatists who place blind faith in the free market, or, at best, members of the lunatic fringe.

Professor Hasnas essay concentrates on the free market aspects of libertarianism (where those who complain the loudest tend to be liberal), but the same problems exist with social libertariaism (where conservatives are the loudest to complain). Read the whole thing.  Via Hit & Run.

More than 200 hundred years ago, a brave group of citizens of a nation, yet to exist, declared their independence from tyranny.  This day, many people are quoting that declaration:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain Inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

But that was not all of what was said.  What came after was a list of charges against the King that demonstrated why the colonies wanted their independence.  But when we examine that list today, how many of those things has our own government repeated, against us?

"He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only."

How is that any different from how the Federal Government has usurped the power of the states?  Between the DEA refusing to recognizing the rights of states to legalize medical marijuana, or even something a simple as allowing the states to pass a drinking age law of their own choosing, the Federal Government has refused the rights of states to pass laws of their choosing.  Either the Federal Government has simply refused to recognize the rights of the states, or it has blackmailed the states into passing laws under threat of withholding the taxpayer's own money.

"He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures."

While legislative bodies aren't kept far from public records, the Federal Government has kept the public records far from the people.  While we supposedly have a "Freedom of Information Act", the government makes the cost and paperwork required to get information so high, that it serves the same purpose to "fatigue us" into not asking for that information any more.  In some cases, even when the people request the information correctly, the government still refuses to give it to those who every right to see it.

"He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

Could there be any more apt description for our current mess of immigration laws which makes it nearly impossible for people to legally immigrate into this nation?

"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

Does anyone actually know how many agencies are contained within the Federal government?  And anytime we decide that there is a problem with the Federal Government, the only solution they seem to accept is the creation of yet another agency to manage it.

"He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power."

Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation... For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent... For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury."

While the battle cry of the Revolution was often, "No Taxation Without Representation", all levels of our government have sought to create boards which may create taxes, where the members of those boards are not directly answerable to the people.  And between our government's lack of respect for the 4th amendment, and it's "creative use" of civil asset forfeiture law, our trial by jury rights seem to disappear more and more as every year passes.

This is not about Republicans vs. Democrats, for both parties have shared equally in the dissolution of our freedom.  This is about the powers of the government vs. the powers of the governed.  Surely, there are many abuses which the King of England thrust upon us, which our Government has yet to repeat.  But despite that, every Administration that passes seem to thrust more abuses on us, or makes worse the abuses of their predecessors.

Remember the immortal words of our Founding Fathers on this day, as so many seek to grant even more power to our government.

Apparently, people don’t understand that shaking a baby can actually hurt that baby, and so there is going to be a public service announcement to increase awareness of that horrible, yet fairly obvious danger. 

Luckily, the good folks at Scrubs have given the Shaken Baby Association a good head start:

If you need a public service announcement to let you know that shaking a baby is dangerous, then perhaps you should rethink parenthood.

One of the cooler online applications I have ever seen is called “Turning the Pages”, and was created for the British Library.  They spent many hours photographing and digitizing some of the worlds oldest books. These are books that are normally behind glass, and can only be touched by people with specialized training, wearing white gloves.  But through the magic of software, you can actually turn the pages of some of these books, including an original Leonardo da Vinci manuscript.  It is quite amazing, and allows the average person to read something that, before recently, was completely inaccessible.  Enjoy.

My sister Sarah just left from another quick 4 day visit.  And as has become tradition, here is a random sampling of some of her wisdom for all of you:

Delightful!

Remember, I'm the funny one, but I'm also dead inside.

I'd never seen so many men with Viagra bags before in my life.

You didn't want to go over there unless you didn't want to eat, or you hadn't eaten recently.

Everybody likes a gun, until it's pointed at them.

Some people look like a retarded monkey playing it.

I think I might be starting menopause.  I'm either hot or cold or hot again.

Can you imagine if I suggested in a meeting: "I have this great idea. We're going to cut out 2 foot pictures of sperm and put them everywhere!"

At least you're a geek with social skills.

You better get ready to lose rights to all your closets.

In case some of you were wondering where I've been... well... I've been very busy this last week.  One thing happened which I won't talk about publicly at this point, which was not that hot... but at the same time as that was going on, I've been moving to a new place.  I'm still in Tosa... don't worry... but to a nicer place.  So as you might imagine, I've been pretty busy packing, taking trunk loads of stuff over to the new place, and then unpacking... a lot.

The final move is tomorrow, at which point you may starting seeing more of me again.  Suffice it to say, it's amazing the stuff you forgot you had, which you find again, when you start cleaning.

There are a lot of things that go into making sustainable energy.  When debating the merits of different types of energy, you often times hear about the long term sustainability of oil... especially peak oil theory.  Though "peak oil" is not a proven fact, it is certainly compelling.  One of the problems with "peak oil" theory seems to be the same problem that plagued Malthus Theory... timing.  It is highly susceptible to new technologies and discoveries, which make predicting exactly when peak oil occurs very hard.

But what of other energy sources?  Most people look to technologies such as solar power, and even to hydrogen fuel cells as a "sustainable" energy source.  After all, unlike oil, the Sun will keep pumping out energy for billions more years, and hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe.  The problem with both of these however, is that you need more than merely the sun and pure hydrogen in order to convert them to useful forms of energy.  The New Scientist has an excellent article regarding the problems that will plague these new energy sources.

The first problem is with solar energy.  Current low efficiency solar cells use silicon, but are only 25% efficient at converting solar radiation to electricity.  That's not efficient enough to be useful as a long term energy source.  There are solar cells that are about 40% efficient, but they use indium, which is a very rare earth metal.  It is estimated that there is only a 10 year supply of Indium.  One of the problems is that Indium is also used in the production of LCD screens, which are booming right now.

Hydrogen fuel cells also utilize rare earth metals as a catalyst in the chemical reaction that creates electricity.  In this case, it uses platinum, which is even more rare than Indium.  The supply is estimated to last only 15 years, only because it is not in as heavy demand as Indium.

Now then, all of this could change, just like peak oil timing changes.  The problem that's important here is that "peak indium" and "peak platinum" are coming along much faster than "peak oil".  They also discuss the sustainability of biofuels.  Read the whole thing.

Normally I don't blog about cars, but for some reason this item from the Kausfiles motivated me:

Why did Honda have to design it's new hybrid to look exactly like the Toyota Prius? I like the Prius' appearance, but a lot of people don't. This seems like a missed opportunity to create a new trademark design. Timid.

Via Instapundit.  Granted, I'm no marketing expert, but this is not Honda's first attempt at selling a hybrid.  When the Toyota Prius was first making waves, Honda came out with an Accord Hybrid.  While the Prius was designed to look unique, the Accord Hybrid looked just like a normal Accord.  The only way you could tell the difference was that it said Hybrid in a fancy font next to Accord on the trunk lid.  It sold like crap.  The problem was image.

For as much as people complain about the cost of gas, the economics of a hybrid aren't that clear cut.  There is added cost to buying a hybrid, and so a lot of people calculate out how long it will take them to get their money back through increased gas mileage.  With gas prices back down below $2 a gallon (at least in my area), the economics of a hybrid aren't that great.  Home owners do the same types of calculations all the time when they consider whether its worthwhile getting a newer energy efficient furnace for instance.  But of course, there are always people who will buy a car for reasons other than economic considerations.

Some people want to make a statement with their car, like "I care about the environment".  The problem is, if you bought an Accord Hybrid, people down the block couldn't tell you owned a hybrid.  The only people who could tell were those tailgating you on the freeway.  That's not much of a statement.  The Prius became the car you bought if you wanted people to know you owned a hybrid.  And so, Accord Hybrid sales floundered, and Honda learned its lesson.  If they wanted to build a successful hybrid, they'd have to make sure it looked like a hybrid.  And for now, the Prius is the hybrid look.

I suppose they could have competed with a new trademark look... but when you've failed once already, you are much less likely to take a risk a second time.

I kind of forgot that I still had a few stories to tell from Mexico.  Having grown up in California, it should be no surprise to anyone that I enjoy good Mexican food.  As a small aside, Taco Bell is not Mexican food by this (or really any objective) definition.  So I was looking forward to getting some good, authentic Mexican food, or as they call it down there, food.  Well, actually they call it comida, but that ruins the joke.

As it turns out, if you want really authentic food, you have to get off of Avenida Cinco, because that is the pedestrian avenue that sucks in all the tourists.  Don't get me wrong, they have some great food there too, but its not truly authentic... its still a little Americanized.  There is also a heavy Mayan influence in that region, and that shows up in the food too, which is not a bad thing.

But of all the things we ate down there, the one thing I had, which I loved the most, was the vanilla ice cream.  We had it at a couple different places, and every time I would have to say that it was the absolute best ice cream I've ever had in my life.  The vanilla was beyond compare!  We bought a few bottles of vanilla to bring back with us too.

The coffee down there was also outstanding.  And no, despite my addiction to it, we never went to a Starbucks... not that we didn't have the opportunity.  I think we counted at least 5 different ones on Avenida Cinco alone in Playa del Carmen.

When you're down in that part of Mexico, anything that comes from a bean is guaranteed to be the best you've ever had.

If you're not familiar, Reason Magazine is a publication put out by the Reason Foundation, a libertarian think tank.  I subscribed for the first time to their magazine last January after reading their online version for some time before that.  I decided that their articles and viewpoint were so good, that I wanted to support them more.  I have since let my subscription lapse.  Here is the story as to why.

Like any magazine, Reason begins sending you notices to resubscribe almost immediately after you get your first issue.  In fact, in the last six months of my subscription, I was receiving more notifications via postcard, letter, and email than I was receiving actual magazines.  Now call me crazy, but I actually prefer to get reasonably close to the renewal date before I actually resubscribe.  So I thought I'd wait until December or early January to do the deed.  That's when the phone calls started coming in.

Reason started calling me daily to resubscribe.  The first couple times, I just didn't have the time nor the inclination to talk at that time with someone.  They were very persistent.  When I did talk to someone at more length, she said: "Since we already have all your account information in our system, all I need you to do is say OK, and we'll resubscribe you.  OK?"  I considered that a very deceitful tactic, since ending the sentence with OK would normally cause someone to reflexively say OK, not to want another subscription, but to acknowledge hearing the question.  I said "No".  I had had enough.  I still got another call the next day after that, from a person who seemed to have no knowledge of the previous call.  They probably just have a big list they go through, and one telemarketer never talks to another.

I get plenty of magazines, and this is the first time I have been harassed like this to resubscribe.  And believe me, towards the end, I did in fact consider it harassment.  Now then, I have a strong feeling that the people on the other end of the line actually work for a company hired by Reason to resubscribe people, instead of Reason itself, but it really doesn't matter.  They are endorsing those tactics by continuing to use their service.

And so they have lost my subscription.  I will continue to read their articles online, but I won't pay a dollar for their magazine to come to my door.

Update: I emailed a link to this post to Reason Subscriber services, and got a pretty quick response from them.  They first told me they were investigating things, and confirmed that they used a 3rd party telemarketing services for subscription retention.  I have since been informed in a separate email from them that they have terminated their contract with that service, and that they don't condone the methods they were using.  Now I just have to consider whether I'm going to resubscribe or not.  Either way, its very encouraging that they take this so seriously.

A few days ago I recounted the story of getting back to the United States from Mexico... but I think it's appropriate to book end that story with what happened getting into Mexico the weekend before that.  Ally and I flew into Cancun, but our final destination was actually Playa del Carmen, which is about 50 miles south of Cancun.

After getting through customs (which was a piece of cake), we walked out into a large room the size of a small house which was filled on both sides with podiums, lined with people whose only job was to welcome you to Mexico and give you any information you needed, for free.  Everyone was exceedingly friendly, bilingual, and very knowledgeable.  Compare that to the welcome that people were getting here in the U.S. by the TSA, and the difference is very clear.

Now granted, we were flying into a tourist destination... so they knew we were spending money down there, and so they had every reason to do this, but I still couldn't help thinking of similar destinations in the United States.  I had a hard time thinking of any airport in the U.S. that might do anything similar... maybe Hawaii (though I've never been there).

Another interesting note about the guy we talked with in the tourist information area.  The first thing he asked was: "¿Habla español?"  To which I responded, "Un poco".  To which he responded, "Learn Spanish".  That was also the last thing he said to us before he left.  Of course, my Spanish was a lot better when I left than when I got there.  Immersion in the language tends to spark memory pretty well.

I recieved the following invitation today:

Commuter rail has become a major issue in southeastern Wisconsin, and a new study by Reason Foundation has added more information to the debate. You are cordially invited to hear transportation policy expert Tom Rubin, the author of Reason's study Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee (KRM) Corridor Transit Service Options: An Investigation and Analysis, speak on Friday, January 16 at 10:00 a.m. at the Milwaukee County Courthouse, room 203b, located at 901 N. Ninth Street in Milwaukee. This presentation is open to the public.

I'm not sure I'll be able to get off work in order to attend, but the presentation is open to the public if you would like to.  You can find the study here.

Ally and I got back from Mexico last night after spending most of the day traveling.  While on the planes traveling down to Mexico, and also while in Mexico I read F.A. Hayek's classic, The Road to Serfdom, and also started re-reading Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.  It should be no surprise then, that an incident that happened while in the Atlanta airport seemed to bring the principles in those two books into sharp focus.

The initial leg of our flight home was from Cancun to Atlanta.  In Atlanta, we had to go through immigration, and also get our bags and go through customs, before rechecking our bags and heading off for the next leg of our trip (which happened to be to Detroit).  We were actually late leaving Cancun because of "diplomatic paperwork issues" according to the pilot.  That left us a tight turnaround to make our plane for Detroit when we finally landed in Atlanta.

We made it through immigration pretty quickly, and then headed down to the international baggage claim area to get our bags (we each had one).  Ally's came up reasonably fast... and mine didn't.  As bag after bag came up the conveyer belt, and time kept ticking away, we became increasingly worried that we'd miss our flight.  Ally had to work the next day, so I finally handed her the boarding passes she'd need and told her to go.  I told her I'd wait as long as I thought I could, and then I'd try to make the flight with my bag.  So she headed off through customs.

I then went over to talk to a very nice woman from Delta who was working in the baggage area and explained the situation.  She immediately called down to where the trucks were to find the status of the bags from our flight.  She then stood with me while we waited for the rest of the trucks to come, and called down occasionally.  She even went over to look for my bag at a different carrousel where a flight with a similar number had come from to see if it was there.  Finally she told me to go, and that they could put my bag through customs for me, and I'd get it the next day, but it was better to make my flight.

So I headed through customs.  Just as the woman at the customs desk said "Welcome Home", she then turned to me and said, "Wait, where's your baggage?"  I explained the situation, which caught the ear of her supervisor.  He then walked me back to the carrousel, asked another Delta employee if all the bags had dropped from our flight (he said no) and I was ordered to wait there for my bag.  I had 15 minutes left to catch my plane at that point (which included heading through security again).

The friendly Delta woman found me again, and waited with me, calling down occasionally again.  Only 1 truck was left, but it had multiple flights worth of bags so odds were mine wasn't on it.  Finally, with abut 5 minutes left, the carrousel stopped turning, she turned to me and said "GO!" and I ran back to customs where she waved to the customs folks and they let me through.

It was at this point that I thank God I'm in shape.  I sprinted with my back pack to the security check point, where I went to the TSA official at the head of the line and said "I have 4 minutes to catch my flight!" and he put me  in the "expedited" line.  At that point I called out to the 10 people ahead of me and said "I have 4 minutes to catch my flight, does anyone mind if I skip ahead?!"  They all moved over without a word and I moved to the head of the line, took off my shoes and put everything on the conveyer belt to go through X-Ray.

That's when the TSA official behind the X-Ray machine started openly laughing and mocking me in front of everyone, and to his coworker.  He kept taunting me with "Oh, poor baby is going to miss his plane.  Poor thing is worried he'll miss his plane.  Such a poor boy".  I wanted to shout "Fuck you lazy government bastard!"... but my goal at that point was to make my plane, not get flagged as needing extra scrutiny and a body cavity search.

I put my shoes back on without tying them, grabbed all my stuff and sprinted the half mile to my gate where it was just about to start boarding (thankfully it was 10 minutes late due to weather), where I met back up with Ally.

Ally had a slightly different experience.  When she got through customs fine and as she went to recheck her bag, she kept asking where she needed to put it.  She was directed by a TSA official to place it over in one pile, where she reconfirmed with the TSA official there that it was the correct place for her bag.  She then went through security to the gate, feeling uneasy about the whole thing because it all seemed so disorganized.

When we got to Milwaukee, my bag was there, and her's wasn't.

The whole experience brought into focus all the principles I was seeing in those books.  The Delta employee, trying to do a good job for the company she worked for, went the extra mile in helping me in the baggage area.  And though I don't know for sure, I am convinced that the reason I had my bag when I arrived was because it eventually came through, and she put it through customs so it would make the plane.

The TSA officials, who have no incentive to actually help any travelers, or make sure that air travel is smooth, not only did a poor job and lost Ally's bag, but were openly mocking of those they were supposed to be serving, instead of helping them.  A lost bag, or an offended traveler, doesn't effect the bottom line of the TSA nor his job, and so they may choose to do as they wish.

Of course, Delta is now extremely high on my list of good airlines because of this experience, and as you might expect, I have little respect for the TSA.  Unfortunately, I have no choice but to deal with the TSA every time I fly, no matter how horrible of a job they do.

"Nothing makes conditions more unbearable than the knowledge that no effort of ours can change them; and even if we should never have the strength of mind to make the necessary sacrifice, the knowledge that we could escape if we only stove hard enough makes many otherwise intolerable positions bearable" - F.A. Hayek