Defending The Skies Against Congress And The Elderly 1230
theodp writes "After watching a burly airport screener search her lymphoma-stricken father, forcing the frail and faltering 78-year-old to hand over his oxygen meter, stand at attention with arms spread for a wand search, take off the Velcro strap shoes that he'd struggled to put on, and strain to keep his balance as his belt was tugged repeatedly, a Newsweek columnist wonders: have we lost our common sense when it comes to passenger screening?" An anonymous reader writes "CNN reported that Kennedy wasn't alone in being listed in the airport watch list as reported in a Slashdot article. Rep. John Lewis, D - Georgia, a nine-term congressman, has been stopped many times because his name appeared on an airline watch list as told to Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on border security. He contacted the Department of Transportation, the Department of Homeland Security and executives at various airlines in an effort to get his name off the list, but failed. Instead, he received a letter from the TSA indicating he has cleared an identity check with the agency even though he might still be subject to extra security checks."
Security? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Security? (Score:5, Informative)
linky link [yahoo.com]
limbless can't fly (Score:5, Funny)
Well, in one sense, it is quite true, since if she could fly on her own, she wouldn't need Air France in the first place. However, since she was denied transportation only after her luggage was checked, it would appear that she could manage other forms of transport on her own.
I would hazard a guess that Air France is currently contemplating dropping off that particular employee mid-flight to allow him to demonstrate his particular ability to fly on his own using his arms and legs.
I'm certain that this would more than satisfy the poor woman who was so shabbily treated by Air France.
Re:limbless can't fly (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about it. If you owned and operated an airline, and a quadraplegic showed up unescorted to fly on your airline, somebody without enough limbs to turn herself over if, say, something hot fell on top of her, or something was moving towards her very fast and she needed to move, or a rat started knawing on her... This is a no-brainer. You're not going to let somebody who's physically impaired to the point of not being able to remove themselves from harm's way to the extent that it applies to normal, everyday caution fly on your airline. They're a gigantic, huuuge lawuit just waiting to happen. You would be slaughtered, and rightly so, by the courts, the shareholders and the media. Can you think of a more sympathatic witness than a fucking quadraplegic? Do you want to be the one to answer the question: "And when you saw that this woman had no ability to remove herself from harm's way whatsoever, to the point that, were she buckled into her seatbelt and a pot of scalding hot coffee to fall into her lap, she would be unable to prevent herself from serious injury, *you deemed her fit to be her own escort on a commercial airline flight, with all the risks that entails?*"
And hey, if you hate the French so much (and before it gets mentioned I was born of poor British, Irish and Scottish stock in NC and reside in WI now), right after you get done giving them the statue of liberty back and thanking them for helping out against the Brits and being the only other democracy back when we were and producing some of the best minds (and best food) of most of the second millennium AD, not to mention the french kiss, after you're done with all that, why don't you be a *real* bigot and go start killing them? Just hang them from trees like you guys used to do, back in the good old days. Bigots back then were *real* bigots, they lynched their victims and were proud of it. Stood around for pictures of it. Put those pictures on postcards, in photo albums, in frames. But now have you, the ubiquitous Anonymous Coward.
Back in the good old days evil wasn't nearly as afraid to brag.
Mod me down as offtopic or flamebait if you want, since I adressed the topic, I personally don't think this is either - I'm a normal American who's fucking fed up with the anti-French shit. It's fucking ridiculous. There's a lot of countries out there more dangerous and subversive to the US than France. And at the end of the day racism is fucking racism, whether it's popular or not.
Re:limbless can't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
This woman knew the risks of flying alone, and decided that she was capable of doing so independently. Will you tell her otherwise? Her brain works just fine, and she's able to make choices for herself. In the US, we used to have a system in which physically handicapped people were virtually prisoners of institutions designed by able people. Handicapped people have rejected that system, and instead prefer to get the help needed to live as independently as their bodies allow. This comes at no higher financial cost to society.
The Disability Gulag, by Harriet McBryde Johnson [realchoiceinillinois.org] is one of the articles that made me start to think seriously about these issues. I hope it will open your eyes too.
Re:limbless can't fly (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not strictly true. All ramps, elevators, extra parking spots, wider isles etc. don't come free or without costing extra resources for everyone.
That is not to say its a bad thing. As a civil society I think its is important for everyone to do that little bit to help the disadvantaged members. This is true of all forms of inequalities, not just able-bodied vs handicapped. For example, everyone pays a little bit to have public transport systems even in the suburbs, without which peuple who can't afford a car would be completely paralyzed.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is due to intentional malice, disorganization, stupidity, or any combination of the above. You'd think, though, at the very least - they'd remember to clear at least some of their more influential employees. I guess not.
Then again, it's all too often that those in power selectively choose which laws they are subject to, or get special treatment -- so it's refreshing to see some of them inconvenienced by the same laws they thought were good enough to create.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Funny)
Don't bother flying.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't bother flying.
Get serious. He'd make a movie about the idiocy of airport security and revel in how he had to jump a freight train like a hobo to get to his latest film award ceremony.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Security? (Score:5, Funny)
It also doesn't seem to work if you volunteer for the extra-special screening search. I always enjoy those. Some people get annoyed, but I just see it as an opportunity to annoy them. There is a legitimate argument that the screeners themselves are just doing their job, and it's a lousy job to have, and so on, so you shouldn't annoy them. But I figure the more we can annoy them, the more they're going to bitch amongst themselves, and hopefully over time the gripes will flow up the ladder to the decision-makers.
I'd really like to see more and more people added to these lists and subjected to the extra-moronic searches, and more people being annoying. Hopefully at some point the system would start to break down, and people would demand something better.
Re:Security? (Score:4, Interesting)
How about if they are doing this to Edward Kennedy et al on purpose. So far the US has asked us for their trust and if Mr. Kennedy is a suspected terrorist and under review will not be given a clean slate in terms of flying on an airplane then should he be holding office?
Why is it that they are not arresting any of the people that they flag as terrorists (or likely to be)?
They are swinging a big stick and pointing it all around but not 'doing' anything rather than threatening to use it again.
If they want all of this trust, patients and understanding why don't they ever accomplish anything other than moving the 'terrorist alert' level?
With all this intelligence and lists they have compliled why have they not made any arrests? Its been 3 years (almost) now but the same thing over and over again, "if you dont do what we say you will die at the hands of some religious freak".
I don't know about you but if I had a list of bad people that were gonna do bad things I would do a little more than wait for them to get on a plane to just ask them questions and waste their time, then of course let them go on thier marry way.
Common Bush give us some reason to buy your bullshit it can't be that hard you have a lot of intelligent people working for you just give em more tax payer money, because in my opinion you are the worst terrorist of them all
my $0.02 take it or leave it
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you seen the US Senate lately? It seems the only think keeping half of them out of prison are constitutional priveleges against arrest!
Re:Security? (Score:5, Funny)
Well, in fairness to the TSA, Sen Kenendy may have tried to drive home after leaving Logan.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't that what they always dreamed of, making american lives a real pain ? Destroying the "American Way of Life" and all that ? Making american citizens misable ?
I have to say that they were very successful. With a lot of help from USA government.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with you that the terrorists are winning, I would like to point out that a lot of Americans are quite in favour of the U.S. government doing this in the name of protecting them. Since these are the voters, they will keep electing a government that says they can protect them from terrorism. Unfortunately, nobody can really be protected from terrorism, but most people can't accept that.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
stupid/ignorant/evil/jerk-offs/small-minded/"ca
Just because they are citizens does not mean that they should be allowed to make policy. Viz, just because they happen to be human doesn't mean their opinion is useful, important, or valuable.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
Fine... then it follows that a representative government is nothing more than a system where less than 1% of the people take away the rights of the other 99+%
I think a democracy has to win; it indeed sucks as per M. Jefferson's observation, but it is far better in principle than a representative system.
Our current system not only fits the 1% definition, but I am also under the very strong impression that it is doing considerably worse than a 50% majority of citizens would.
I have always found it telling that the US judicial system is set up so that a vote of your citizen peers is the trusted heart and soul of votes that affect you in major ways, unless you choose otherwise; but that politicians have set up a system where our peers have pretty much zero input, no matter how we choose. Citizens are OK to choose if you live or die; but apparently they're far too stupid to decide if you should be allowed to screw someone doggie style, or give/receive oral sex. We "need" politicians to do that for us. Thank goodness for politicians, eh? Seriously - it's OK for a jury to decide if you are guilty of murder, but not to rule on if piercing the labia is OK. The lesson is clear: In the current system, your life is less important than rulemaking, and the reason for that is because the politicians have voted themselves permanent pensions and other fabulous perks from parking places to travel junkets, and you are definitely not going to get to vote on those issues.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
Whatever the administration[1] does is wrong. If there is another attack, whatever they were doing wasn't enough. If there isn't another attack, whatever they were doing was too harsh.
[1] administration = whoever is in power, dem/reb/lib/tory/labour/socialist/whoever...
Not too far, but the wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that security has gone too far, but that it has been implimented in a way which leaves open the possibility of political harrassment or retribution, and offers very little security as a result. I am sure terrorists would have an easier time attacking our airports than in most third-world countries (they might not be able to attack the planes, but then it might not matter if they can cause massive economic damage without doing so).
What we need is an open and public political discussion about *how* to secure our nations' airports (except JFK, which is probably fundamentally insecure, at least in some terminals). We need to also recognize that if we can provide proper agility to our security measures, we can beat the terrorists to their attacks not with no-fly lists but by recognizing that they require *years* of preparation to launch any large-scale attack anywhere with the possible exception of places like Afghanistan where sufficient chaos exists to allow them to more or less freely operate in many parts of the country.
Once we identify weaknesses, we can count on havint at least a year, possibly three or more, to actually find and impliment a fix. As in computer security, we need to have a wide community of white-hats disecting the security of our nation's infrastructure looking for exploits.
No government can completely protect the public against terrorism by security measures or war (examples include N. Ireland and Israel). But we can ask our government to look for ways to reduce its impact. This means real, robust security at the airports which still respects civil rights, and it means the cultivation of "white hat" security communities who publically discuss the security or lack thereof to our nation's infrastructure. We can also ask them to make our country safer by pursuing a two-pronged strategy in combatting terrorism. This includes:
1) Hunting down terrorists and bringing them to justice.
2) Looking at the reasons why individuals might choose to support terrorist organizations and see how we can change our foreign policy to rob them of support (for example, we should start mixing actions with words regarding at least the Israeli settlement and assassination issues-- the words of opposition are simply not enough). Pursuing #2 should not mean that we stop working on #1. It means that the actual terrorists have no victory because even if we play against their rhetoric, they, as a group, still lose in the end.
Re:Not too far, but the wrong direction (Score:5, Insightful)
I flew through Heathrow a couple of months ago. What creeped me out was the security checkpoint. There were probably 400 people crowded into two ling queues that snaked back and forth in front of the security check. Perfect target for a suicide bomber and he need never actually go through security. The traffic jam outside of the security check is a better target than anyplace inside, including the plane.
Re:Security? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, that foreign soil method worked so well in Korea and Vietnam.
Whilst you're talking about WWII you might also want to thank the Russians for their part in the victory, they not only broke the back of the German army but did it on their own soil and still managed to emerge as a super power without having to terrorize any civilian populations by dropping nuclear bombs on them...
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
For what it's worth, I was bitching about the IRA since the mid-80's
So not everyone in the USA was blind to what was going on. Just 99.9% of the population.
I was also bitching about Arab terrorism ever since the Beiruit Marine Barracks Bombing in 82... my family and friends (except a few) couldn't care less...they thought I was going through a phase.... for all those years.... I knew that bad things were going to start happening in the US....
After 1993 WTC and especially after 9/11 I started saying "I f*king told you so..." everyone still thought I was nuts "they can't hit here"... even though there was a 5 story hole below the WTC for all to see.... Idiots.
-1993 WTC
-bomb in the battery tunnel (93)
-terrorists arrested in queens mixing fertilizer bombs (94) plan to bomb the lincoln tunnel, FBI HQ and others
-bomb found on plane at Newark Airport (95?)
-OKC 95 (not done by arabs..unless you find it coincidence that Terry Nichols was in the Phillipines the same time as the arab that planned 9/11)
-3 planes downed out of Kennedy Airport in 3 years (coincedence?)
Besides my personal experieces in the 80's hanging out with Muslim guys from Sri Lanka during college in the late 80's who told me 'more or less' that there's a growing force here in the states, getting ready to strike out. (I have since talked to the FBI about them....)
People still don't get it.... we haven't been hit again not because the bad guys can't do it... we haven't been hit again because the bad guys haven't planned to hit us since 9/11.
It's gonna' happen... I hope to god I'm wrong though.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Interesting)
All over the world, people know that if you give the U.S. a big enough black eye, we'll turn tail.
The Iraqis know it too. How many GIs would they have to send home in a day to end this thing? Fifty? A hundred? Think tet. All they need is one big PR victory and the war's over and it won't be for the best.
These problems are solved with cash. Big fat fucking sacks of it. CIA finds the most radical mullahs and buys them off. Trust me, they're for sale. Next stop, make life livable in those countries, shit make it comfortable. Nobody with 500 channels straps a bomb on. People with air conditioned malls don't want to breed a generation of martyrs, they want to breed a generation of consumers. We win this thing by making nice, not by making more terrorists.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. So that American Troops will get out from Saudi Arabia, since for him, it is a sacred land.
2. Stop backing off Israel in term of every military movement they do against Palestine people.
Now what is the difficulty in at least taking the troops from Saudi Arabia??
Just so that Saddam won't attack Saudi Arabia? Nah. If Saddam ever did that at that time, it only takes several hours for several F-16 and B2 to go to Iraq and kick his butt. Or so that Saudi Arabia won't stop their oil production, so that there won't be any oil crisis like in the 80s? If that's the case, it is much better to reassign the budget for the troops that stay in Saudi Arabia for production of new fuel and new engine that doesn't use any fossil fuel, eg: bio diesel.
Unless the American's start looking themselves at the mirror, the Islamic people will always hate us.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Funny)
If you want fat-powered vehicles to work on a large scale and sustainably in America, put Americans on bicycles.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Informative)
And while Osama was "living in a single-room rain-soaked mud-house with 8 family members and watching them die of hunger" (yeah, right), it seems he was also going to bars and nightclubs in Lebanon. In fact, "poor old Osama" seems to have inherited somewhere between 25-300 MILLION US DOLLARS after his father's death.
Poor Osama Bin Laden. He was so starved, hungry, and tired of death, that he asked the friendly US troops for help. Oh wait, no he didn't. He called them "infidels" and tried to kill every one of them in the name of Allah.
Don't believe me? Try reading for yourself. [wikipedia.org] Maybe you'll learn something.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
A) Yes he did, it was to fight Russia in Afghanistan. We sent him help too. Lots of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles for one.
B) Some republicans like to point out that the democratic party is full of rich people yet claims to represent the poor and downtrodden. They claim that for all their rhetoric, the guys in charge have no idea what its like for the rank and file members that outnumber them by more than 10,000 to 1.
Do you think it is possible to recognize the same disconnect in a global organization that has actually directly killed members of the republican party? Or is it only the common American man that has it rough in this world, and all those dirt-poor people living under the oppression of US-corporate supported dictators are really just lounging away their time at Club Med?
Re:Security? (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorists are inspired by poverty, hunger, abuse, religious fanatacism, etc. They see something which is so abhorent to them they are willing to die to change things.
Most terrorist leaders(and revolutionary leaders in general, including those who founded the USA) on the other hand are nearly always members of an almost ruling class. Despite rhretoric to the contrary their goal is simply to replace the present ruling class with one which includes them. There are exceptions of course, the occaisional insane or truly evil person who just wants to cause destruction.
Now we can't really do anything about the leaders, so long as there is a ruling class there will always be people who want to replace that ruling class with one which includes themselves, since they rarely have any real ideology they can sometimes be bought off, but it won't solve the problem. We can however do something about the actual people who serve the cause(you'll notice that Osama bin Laden wasn't flying one of those planes).
The solution is to treat these people like human beings. You can't win this fight with an army without exterminating entire populations because for every person you kill you bring two more of his or her friends/family into the fight. You essentially become the monster people like Osama claimed you were, and bring more people into the movement.
The real cause of Osama's rage? (Score:5, Insightful)
To Osama they have all the cards. With a friend of theirs in the White House he knew that he couldn't shake them. But let's get something straight. Osama isn't against them because they are secular, it is because he can't stop them. The Saudi's are worse than the Taliban because we literally look the other way when they act secular and execute people in the name of Islam [amnesty.org]. His beef with them is deep. They invited us to stay. They treat their people like crap. I know this is hard to believe but humanitarian efforts are one of the key aspects of Islam (as well as fair treatment of animals and the like).
It isn't Israel. It has nothing to do with them, its all the actions of the Saudi's alone. His family is very close to the Royals and they don't use their influence to better their nation either. They are all in it for the money. Bin ladin doesn't seem to be in it for the money however. His goals are much higher.
I know it's lame (see my nick) - but here goes:
What do you do if your biggest enemies are unstoppable? Anything. Its the same reason McVeigh did it, it's the same reason the IRA does it. Their enemies are too big to simply fight against them in the traditional sense. I'm not saying that Osama is completely sane, or that he is noble in his efforts. But you must understand where these thoughts and actions come from. It comes from a lack of control. He can't do anything - the IRA can't, McVeigh couldn't. When faced with a Goliath you may only be able to sling a stone, hopefully you hit him good. Osama did just that.
One mans barbarian is another mans freedom fighter.
Re:Security? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Real Problem with Airport Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The Real Problem with Airport Security (Score:5, Insightful)
It is racist. What you are debating is whether or not this racist practice is a good idea, from a security point of view. It is true that the threat from a person of Middle Eastern origins is probably greater now, but how long do you think that will last, especially of security is stepped up on those people?
Really, I don't think it would be that hard to find a few American sympathizers that Al Qaeda could convert. The US is a big place. They use female suicide bombers in Israel now because of just this kind of pressure.
Unfortunately, because nationality profiling is considered "racist", the TSA has contrived an insane screening process whereby a handicapped American citizen, who could never be a threat to anyone, is subjected to an intensive check of all body cavities. At the same time, the airport screeners are forbidden, by TSA regulations, from intensively checking more than 2 Middle Easterners (i.e. without American citizenship) per flight.
The handicapped thing of obviously out of line. The message if purposeful I think - 'nobody is exempt'. But screening based on race won't make you any safer. All other points aside about unfair screening, its just a feeble and easily defeated measure.
Insane? Yep. You can blame the spineless politicians who refuse to stand up to Islamic pressure groups, La Raza, etc.
You know, I really have a hard time believing that the political atmosphere in Washington right now would provide much resistance to 'Islamic pressure groups'.
The system you propose is ineffective. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) No it isn't. There are other nuts out there (think McVeigh, etc.) who might consider such attacks. Moreover, there are other folks who have betrayed this country and won't appear on this list simply because they're the not from one of the "terrorist" countries.
2) Any system which focuses our attention on "more suspicious" people can be abused by adversaries who plan ahead to be less secure than random searches. This has been proven mathematically; it was reported on Slashdot & elsewhere. It has also been published in reputable journals.
Thus, it is irrelevant whether the system you propose is "racist" or not--it only works to make us less safe, and is therefore should never be deployed if we want to be safer.
Our politicians may be spineless, but not implimenting this controversial and ineffective screening system is not something to complain about.
Re:The Real Problem with Airport Security (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, so you didn't know there was plenty of aryan and northern european stock in the middle-east? Well, now you do. There are all kinds of historical reasons for it, not the least of which is known as "the crusades" - they didn't all just go home you know, and of the ones that did, plenty left a little genetic material behind. Just because the stereotype is "dark and swarthy" doesn't mean everybody looks like that.
Besides, even if no member of al-queada were blond and blue-eyed, it takes about 30 minutes with the peroxide and 30 seconds to pop in colored contacts and viola! Whitey-McWhite-White-in-a-box. Given a few years to develop a backstory, do a little identity-theft, and Azif Al-Hazred is now Biff Buffly sporting his new tan from his trip to the Bahamas and with all the right documents to match. Not a terribly difficult transformation, and we already know that al-queada knows how to do long-term planning. (Oh, don't even think of geting hung up over the "tan" either, 5 years of regular topical treatments with benoquin -- look it up -- will take care of that, no problemo. I even know a person who did it herself.)
So please, let's not pander to the racists *AND* reduce what pathetically little security the current system provides.
I don't understand the focus on airline security (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not to say we shouldn't screen for bombs and such. We should. They could still try to bomb planes. But I'd like to see more screening of pilots, and more attention paid to other possible forms of attack.
Re:I don't understand the focus on airline securit (Score:5, Insightful)
Fighting the last war. (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're right. Any terrorist would have to be an idiot to try that again right now. If nothing else, the passengers would fight back this time.
This isn't about making anything "safer". This is about providing the ILLUSION that we are "safer" now because we are "taking these steps".
But illusions are not reality. Rep. John Lewis used to be tagged by the "security" issue. But he can bypass that if he registers as John R. Lewis. Which tells you how reliable that "security" measure is.
The "security" we've put in place is whatever is easiest for the "security" people to do. And that results in the stupid incidents we keep reading about.
Re:Fighting the last war. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what Bruce Schnier refers to as "Security Theater"; that is to say, things which while they look impressive do little to nothing to actually improve security.
Consider the "in depth" searches. In most airports, those folks who are randomly selected have a mark placed on their boarding pass. Kind of defeats the purpose of randomly searching folks if they know they're going to be searched, no?
Re:Fighting the last war. (Score:5, Interesting)
After all this "security" stuff was enacted their were polls that asked how "secure" people felt. One company did the poll and it said 70 some % of people felt safer now. Then they added another question "have you flown on an airplane since 9/11?" After factoring in that answer it was 7% of people who have flown since 9/11 felt safer, where as the vast majority of people who hadn't flown felt safer. It was over 90 some %.
So now we have the most annoying security in the world at our airports that makes people who don't fly feel safe!
Arn't we glad we are making our lives a pain in the ass!!!
Re:Fighting the last war. (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you mean, "this time"? They fought back the first time, as soon as they knew what was happening.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand the focus on airline securit (Score:5, Insightful)
The post office is the best deal in the world. What else can you get for 40 cents? Neither Amtrak or the USPS is a government agency.
-B
Re:I don't understand the focus on airline securit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't understand the focus on airline securit (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to disagree. 9/11, while horrific and twisted, was still brilliant.
Nobody's ever going to make us safer by overestimating the intelligence of terrorists.
Yet everything they do is, in your words, "by definition, stupid"? Methinks you're underestimating them...?
Besides, if you read the 9/11 Commission report, you saw just how close we came to losing Flight 93.
If flight 93 crashing with the loss of all on board doesn't count as "lost", I don't know what does...
And those precious locks on the cockpit doors that so many short-sighted people fought for will do an excellent job of keeping the passengers and crew out of the hijackers' way.
If the passengers and crew can't get in, neither can the terrorists (at least, not without explosives or taking apart the door, but that'd make it accessible by the passengers anyways).
Funny that you accuse others of being short-sighted...
Terrorists won (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds reasonable to me. (Score:5, Funny)
The terrorists aren't going around telling us "we're the greatest generation" all while bilking my generation out of enormous quantities of cash via taxes to give them free medical care, free prescriptions, social security, etc. And Congress... well... that one is obvious.
Re:Sounds reasonable to me. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sounds reasonable to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
My father died at 62 from diabetic complications. In decades past, he would have simply died since they hadn't invented peritoneal dialysis yet (regular hemodialysis would have killed him.) I got to have him around for a few more years because of that technology, for which I will be forever grateful, and I count myself a better person for having had that extra time. Should he have refused that treatment because he was just "supposed to die"? Should I have encouraged him to do so? I took care of the man full time for two years because I promised I wouldn't stuff him into a nursing home and yes, he died anyway
His father, as it happens, died from kidney failure due to hypertension, before they had blood pressure medications. Ironically, this happened the year that the University of Chicago built the first hemodialysis machine a few miles from his home. Had he survived to the point where he could have taken some Cardizem, or perhaps a little Lopressor, should he have refused them because it would be wrong to live a little longer than Nature intended? We are not lower animals: we are no longer entirely subject to the whims of Mother Nature. At what point do you decide that a person's life is no longer worth preserving, and more to the point, who decides? For many families, the value of their loved ones far exceed the cost to keep them alive for a few more years.
Many other socities have "quite different health care systems" because they may not have any particular respect for life, or may simply not have the economic capability to support advanced medical care. Either way, claims that another nation's health care system is superior solely because it allows people to die is really not much of a testimonial. Now, I know what you are trying to say, but I think you should reconsider that point of view. If you have family that you care about, you will eventually be forced to reconsider it.
The problem with the U.S. medical system isn't a matter of when a person's health care dollars are used, but a matter of how efficient the system is in providing care for the dollars it does use. We pay into Medicare our entire lives, we pay vast sums for private insurance, and there's nothing intrinsically wrong with availing ourselves of that for which we've already paid. What is wrong is the level of fraud and malfeasance in the administration and delivery of our health care, and a pandemic of profiteering. And I have no idea how to cure that.
Re:Sounds reasonable to me. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sounds reasonable to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
Have those good times made up for the pain, suffering and cost involved in prolonging my mother's life? Yes, definitely, in this case. But every case is unique. I guess if I was offered a binary choice, 2 weeks of peaceful existance followed by death or 6 months of agony followed by death, it would be a pretty straightforward decision. But in the real world, medical decisions are often made with lots of uncertainties and unknowns. I think one thing missing from modern health care is the idea of doing a better job at discussing those priorities and options with patients in a caring and compassionate way.
Unfortunately, like I said before, sometimes doctors are wrong. In any case, the level of aggressiveness with which you would treat a sickly 79 year old vs. an otherwise healthy 55 year old are very different, as likely are the wishes of the individual and their family in those two cases. But you're right in that ultimately it's not just about prolonging life, it's about the quality of the life that you're prolonging. I know that some doctors, at least the really good ones (who are few and far between sometimes), do understand that concept and do make their best effort to try to help the patient and their family make a balanced decision about the type of care to provide.
Yehaw! (Score:4, Funny)
Didn't I just read... (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time this sort of thing comes up, someone says that it's all the people with "brown skin" who get targetted, but then they cry fowl when the TSA seems to make an attempt to fairly apply their searches.
So which is it? The brownskins? The US senators? Elderly men? People with "funny clothes"?
As an aside, I'll agree, to a point, that this type of security largely does nothing more than provide a false sense of the very same. But if a "false sense" of security, as it were, is what it takes to make ordinary Americans travel by air, instead of cowering in their homes (as many did after 9/11), isn't it fulfilling its its goal? The goal may not be security, per se, but simply preventing the entire US air transportation industry from collapsing onto itself (issues of privacy and anonymous air travel [slashdot.org] aside, for the moment).
You're right: we can't stop "terror" or terrorist attacks, almost by definition. But we can do our best to make people feel like they're being protected, and the people whose job it is to protect the public can do their best jobs trying. Simple as it may sound. (And no, I don't mean a police state or "Papers, please". I mean honest people, at many levels, legitimately trying to do their best to protect others. There's nothing wrong with legitimately good airport and airline security, for example...not saying everything the TSA does is perfect.)
The other side? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actors (Score:5, Insightful)
Good point. Y'know, there are people called "actors" who are trained to give convincing performances of people whom they are not. Just because someone looks old and frail, how do we really know? You remember how convincing Patrick Stewart was at playing a bumbling old Jean-Luc Picard in "All Good Things..."? A little bit of makeup and several months practicing and I bet you could get a normally young, healthy person to look and act very much like an elderly man. At least well enough for an overworked security screener who's been dealing with huge crowds all day long. Like brandon said, he's already got a built-in excuse for setting the metal detector off.
GMD
Re:The other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why else do you think "Al-Qaida said to recruit in Latin America" [salon.com]? Getting recruits who don't "fit the mold" would be a coup, especially if we fall victim to a profiling mentality.
Re:The other side? (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'll go out on a limb and say that yes we should pat the old people down once in a while. Just to stir things up. You know these are the people that are making most of the stink about security. What, you want us to just frisk people who don't look like you? Nice try, pops.
Pilots, too... (Score:5, Interesting)
Logic (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're suggesting that there's any age, sex, race, religious disposition, disability etc that procludes someone from being a terrorist trying to get onto a plane then I'd like to see your evidence.
What would you say to the metaphorical parent of a victim of that terrorists acts when they said to you `why did you assume a guy in a wheelchair was not carrying a bomb`?
Re:Logic (Score:5, Insightful)
There was more to it than that, the article ended with a comment on how we should at lest treat people as human beings. I think that would be fair. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in this country for a reason: everyone deserves to be treated the same. You start to judge people in any way (including being disrespectful) you have taken a piece of their freedom.
There is no perfect system, but there needs to be a bit more common sense in it all. For example: Did the guy need to almost yank her father over when he examnined his belt? Could he have asked real quick, or said "Can I see your belt buckle?".
Just RTFA real quick (its not that long) and says what I think needs saying: "This system is insane, lets tweak it."
Easily fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
If the system is so friggin' easy to fool, just why is it being used??
I can only shake my head and wonder. It is not that I'm upset about a few people being harassed; what bothers me is that this is such a lame measure, which is easily fooled, and yet there are people who think it is useful. It is the presence of such people in decision-making roles is what really bothers me. If these people can't even see the problems with this system, are we expected to put faith in their abilities to spot real problems and design real solutions???
Re:Easily fooled (Score:4, Insightful)
Fool? Is his middle initial really R? If so, how is that "fooling" the system? If they are looking for John Q Lewis and he is John R Lewis, then using his middle initial is just adding enough information to allow the system to work. I would be more worried if his name was John Q Lewis and he used John R Lewis, but according to http://www.house.gov/johnlewis/bio.html the R is his actual middle initial.
The real problem seems to be that the name is common and there is a John Lewis (with whatever middle initial) who is on the no-fly list. This is one of the few parts of the system that actually seem to relate to 9/11. Those people *were* on the watch lists, but they were allowed to fly anyway. This just offers a method to keep people like the hijackers off the plane.
That's easy. (Score:4, Interesting)
#2. Rotate the first 2 seats in the plane to face the rest of the passengers.
#3. An air marshal with a pistol or uzi and rubber bullets (no hull penetration) sits here, facing the passengers.
#4. The air marshal has an intercom to the pilots.
#5. Improve training at the baggage inspectors. They are the first line of defense.
That way, a terrorist has to get past the first inspectors, get past the air marshal who will have alerted the pilot who will be calling in for emergency landing instructions and military support and then get past the door to get to the cockpit.
Defense in depth.
Weak old guys and fat senators don't pose any problems to that system.
Oh, I have a better idea. (Score:4, Funny)
If one idiot gets up and says "I'm taking over!" then the other 240 passengers can take say "No you're not!" while training a nice red laser sight on the terrorist's sweaty forehead.
Sounds like fun!
Re:Idle complaints (Score:4, Insightful)
There is no way to stop a hi-jacking or terrorist attack, period. If some one is bound to be sudical, they have nothing to lose.
Treat people with respect and you get it back. Treatment as terrorist and 78 old will attack.
No Common Sense - All signs point to yes (Score:5, Interesting)
Have we lost true media inquisitiveness? (Score:5, Insightful)
And I wonder: why does it take a relative of this Newsweek columnist being hassled for said columnist to write a column about this? the TSA and its secret black lists, and the circus show that goes on in airports across the country, bringing nothing but the sense of security, aren't these enough to call this journalist's attention?
But no, apparently it's business as usual for reporters these days, unless what goes on in America *right now* affects them personally. If the Washington Post and other news outlets behaved 30 years ago like they do today, Nixon would have stayed in office until the end of his term.
Couple of problems here (Score:5, Insightful)
First, the TSA people on the ground have to use some freaking common sense. It kind of disturbs me that the people on the ground can't recognize someone like Kennedy. On the news yesterday, they said some other bozo has been using "Edward Kennedy" as an alias. I can see some lesser known people being stopped, but seriously... who hasn't seen Kennedy?
These people are stopping senators and grandmas, and letting people through that probably should be stopped, all in the name of "political correctness". If a guy is acting shifty and has a foreign passport, chances are the guy is just nervous about being in a foreign country's airport security, so ask the guy a couple of questions... not my grandma.
Second, these congress people have start getting to the airport AHEAD OF TIME, just like the rest of us. They pull up five minutes before flights, and expect to cruise right on through.
Maybe if they start getting delayed more, they'll authorize more money to lower the waiting times at airports.
we don't need the security (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd wager that any terrorist takeover attempt will last a few minutes at most, before the news travels the cabin and several hundred passengers mob the sons of bitches and do unto them before they can be done unto.
The 9/11 terrorists did more for airline security than the government ever could, or can: by forcing the passengers to realize that if *they* don't end the threat then death will almost certainly follow.
Max
Is it any wonder why? (Score:5, Interesting)
See, I'm disabled. I'm stuck in a wheelchair. At the moment, I can still stand by myself, for short periods, I can even put my shoes on (Velcro is my bestest friend), I cannot, however, spend multiple hours waiting in line to be screened - MS has left my bladder very functional, but taken away my ability to sense "fullness" (and no, the drug that's advertised will not help. Tried that. Nada).
So, flying is out. Greyhound is even worse - those toilets are *not* very handicapped accessible. Amtrack? They keep cutting off routes because Congress won't give them adequate funding for anything but the East coast corridor. Driving? Ha! Got no vehicle that can carry my power chair, and I for sure can't drive myself any more.
So I'm stuck here in Seattle, likely until I die. Thank you, TSA, and your over-zealous "screeners" who really can't stop a determined terrorist (or even a half-determined amateur who wants to demonstrate gow ludicrous the "Homeland Security" really is).
Bah. A pox on all their houses.
Re:Is it any wonder why? (Score:5, Informative)
At the least they might be able to put you in contact with disabled people who travel and might be willing to help out with a ride.
We live in an area with a high number of tourists, and there are a lot of them who are disabled and on the road and would no doubt be very willing to give whatever help they could.
Definitely agree with you wrt to the bus and train system, even for non-disabled they have become, to a fair amount, useless. I won't comment on the flying situation except to say it's unlikely I'll ever fly, being more than somewhat agoraphobic (def. wrt to crowds).
Given what airports and airplanes are like, it wasn't that easy for a disabled person to travel that way even before 9/11. Neither of us know for sure, but we both can't believe there isn't *someone* out there who can help. There are a a couple disabled internet gurus I know, who travel quite a bit, and who I will inquire of; if I find out anything from them I'll respond here.
Another person I know locally and just called suggested finding someone to escort you and deal with the airport authorities ahead of time and during the security checks. She's not sure as to how effective it would be, but she used to provide escort services at JFK so she at least knows (or used to, as she said
Keep on looking and good luck.
SB
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:5, Insightful)
The disturbing thing is that for reasons that remain unexplained, people opposed to Bush's policies seem to get added quite readily. Combine this with Ashcroft's recent defense of using FBI resources to investigate (aka harass) Bush protestors and it's not hard to imagine how such a system could and probably is being abused.
Want to hear something else that's dumb? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, whereas in the past, a family of British tourists to the US would have a couple of adult passports and one or two for the older kids, with the younger kids and the new baby travelling on one of their parent's passports, they now have to all have their own individual passports and all be photographed and fingerprinted on entry.
Now can someone please tell me how requiring babies to have their own passports adds to the security of the US? All this is doing (together with the treating visitors to the US like criminals before they've even set foot on US soil) is giving people every incentive to spend their holidays anywhere but the US. Watch whilst the US tourist industry takes a dive because of this bureaucratic stupidity.
Have we lost our common sense when it comes to... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure other threads will bring this up, but Bruce Schneier has a great term for this: he calls it "security theater".
Fortunately terrorism isn't a threat in the US. The chances of dying of terrorism here are less than the chances of being killed by lightening or many other things. We shouldn't worry about it.
Ok, here's a link about responsibility and human rights [a-human-right.com].
Re:Have we lost our common sense when it comes to. (Score:4, Insightful)
He hit the nail right on the head; that's exactly what it is.
Fortunately terrorism isn't a threat in the US. The chances of dying of terrorism here are less than the chances of being killed by lightening or many other things. We shouldn't worry about it.
Shhh -- you're not supposed to say that, no matter how true it is.
But no matter how true that is, it is not what the general population believes. And when you think about it, you can't blame them too much.
When night after night the news talks about terrorism and our vulnerabilities, it sinks into people. It should, it's supposed to. It's just like crime -- if you overreport crime enough people will lock their doors, feel frightened of blacks, and support ever-increasing police budgets and prison populations.
It's simple propaganda.
TSA Response... (Score:5, Insightful)
On another, related subject...
The worst part of the black-list that Senator Kennedy was complaining about? The committee he was talking to is not thinking about getting rid of the list, but rather moving it from airline control, as it is currently, to government controlled.
While I think that the airlines have bungled things up royally with it, am I really going to trust the *government* to do things better?
Of course Senator Kennedy was not able get anywhere talking to the airline. The airline checks its manifest with the government. The government says "This person cannot fly. It is your responsibility to deal with that." What can the airline do?
Getting a new driver's license takes me an entire afternoon. What makes me think that the government is going to make it easier to get off the black-list?
The problem with these lists (and the reason people are suing so they do not have to show ID at the security checkpoint) is that *we do not have a list of terrorists*.
I mean, Senator Kennedy was kept off the plane, but he was not arrested. The FBI did not come talk to him. Rather, he was put through more rigorous screening.
What does that mean? It means that the government realizes it will get innocent people with similar names, and that it is fine with that. It has no motivation for getting people off that list. Delaying people at the airport does not cost the government one cent. Indeed, they can use it as "proof" that they are doing something about terrorism.
So instead of using "T. Kennedy", Senator Kennedy uses "Edward Kennedy" and gets on the plane without problem. Yeah, the terrorists will NEVER think of that.
It is like the "Free Speech Zones" that Bush erects whenever he speaks somewhere. The reasoning? Protesters can cause problems, and we want to avoid those security and safety concerns.
Yeah, since people that want to cause trouble (be they protesters or terrorists) are not smart enough to realize they can get a lot closer without an anti-Bush sign.
No, as a frequent airline traveler, I can tell you that most of what the government and airlines have done since Sept. 11th. is "feel good security", designed to make it look safer, but really not improve things too much.
I have argued with a TSA employee [slashdot.org] at a security checkpoint when he overstepped his bounds. Have you?
We need to start speaking up, even if we worry we might not make our planes.
This is the REAL front for the war on terror (Score:5, Insightful)
The real war front is not in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is in our own societies: at the airport check in, the railway station, the stadium, anywhere we have to trust other people. If we lose on this front, we lose the power to even demand a stop to the violence in Iraq.
Such 'security' diminishes us as human beings. Why can't our leaders see that the terrorists WANT draconian security inside their targets. Our leaders are doing the terrorist's work for them. Distrust and alienation is fuel for terrorism, not a solution.
First step is to recognise the humanity in those around us. Next step is to break the cycle and recognise the humanity of those we share the wider world with.
why the extra security (Score:5, Insightful)
Just the facts (Score:4, Interesting)
hell, I had more trouble explaining my ZIPPO lighter than I did all the other electronic stuff I carry.
So-called "expert systems" (Score:5, Interesting)
Now you can fault the airlines or the government for having accessed all our private information just to train and calibrate the systems, but there's a more fundamental problem: they didn't usefully train or calibrate those systems at all. They just wasted time and money. And they give at least some people a false sense of security when all it really is, is mumbo-jumbo.
Searching Medal of Honor recipients (Score:5, Informative)
Chip H.
Wrong question! (Score:5, Insightful)
The question assumes the purpose of the screening is security. It is not. The purpose of the screening is to build fear in the population.
Only a fearful population will sit back and do nothing while the gov't and its neo-cons pass laws like the Patriot Act and eviscerate the Bill of Rights. The corporate media plays into this fear-mongering, with everything from shows like "Cops" to overreporting crime issues and parroting whatever the gov't says.
One example: NYC (and some other areas) are supposed to be on a "High" level of terrorism alert. That's serious, right?! Yet it was just reported that NYC has dispatched dozens and dozens of police across the country to watch American citizens who might be coming to NYC to protest the Republican convention.
Given this, obviously NYC has all of its terrorism options more than covered, right? Why else would they be wasting their police manpower to send cops around the country to do 24hr surveillance on Americans with no terrorist background?
The emperor has no clothes. This terrorism hype is just like the airport security hype. They know there's little they can do to stop terrorism, so they are instead focusing on domestic issues and creating a fearful population that can be easily manipulated after the next inevitable terrorist attack.
I am prior TSA (Score:5, Insightful)
1. There are *some* screeners with sensibility about them, but they are seemingly outnumbered by a collection of morons who seem to enjoy causing people pain and discomfort. I've seen it too many times. God help the screener who doesn't follow the rules when I go to the airport because I'll cause them a world of problems.
2. The logic behind the screening process is that "Anyone could be a terrorist." The training is very "politically correct" and does not leave much room for personal opinion or feelings to come into play. This means that even when they are following the rules, they're often duty-bound to be assholes. That said, some people still go "above and beyond" and seem to love it too much.
3. I have been to other airports and even to another country... Japan in this case. Security wasn't all that different in Japan. (I managed to breeze through without incident.) I have also heard from other travelling TSA screeners who have visited other countries because we were interested to know how it is out there. Spain, in particular, was pretty rude by comparison to the U.S. security measures. I've also heard that certain places will not allow anything on board that uses a battery. I'm not saying the TSA couldn't use improvment here, but by comparison, the U.S. airport screening process is VERY streamlined and efficient while allowing people to actually enjoy their flight once they get through.
While people sit back and judge how bad things are with the broken system, I invite anyone to consider how it could be run without violating any non-discrimination policies. I think it'd be impossible to be sensible and non-discriminatory at the same time.
In my opinion, I think all flights should have two or more armed FAMs on every flight and they should all but do away with the detailed passenger screening that is being done today. Baggage screening is pretty much on-target but should be handled with more over-sight because too many bad things go on there as well. (Things like theft, damage and laziness are a bit too common in my opinion...especially when bagage screening goes on away from public view)
Ask questions and I'll answer honestly. I might be stirring up a bit of trouble for myself, but I don't think anything I've said so far would be surprising in the least to anyone.
Possibly unconstitutional... (Score:5, Insightful)
They should get a copy of the bill of rights, and have it scratched to their cornea, so that they can have a copy within sight at all times, but that's a totally different issue.
However, in this case, if they hassle or stop the a Senator or Representative of the House, that is literally unconstitutional. Unless they are charging him with a Felony, Treason, or Breach of the Peace. He can't be stopped and questioned in any place except the House he serves in.
It's the reason why members of Congress can't get a speeding ticket in Washington D.C. If they guy was on his way to Washington D.C. he's literally got constitutional immunity from this sort of thing. I'd much rather it be fixed in the general case, but in this particular case, I'd be curious to see what happens if he challenges it on a constitional basis.
Kirby
You know what? I've got solutions for this. (Score:5, Funny)
Then we can return to our regularly scheduled NOT BEING SO FUCKING AFRAID OF EVERYTHING.
New 9/11 Report Blasts Customs Service (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/3672459/detail
The report, compiled by the commission's staff, says 13 of the 19 hijackers applying for visas presented passports that were less than three weeks old, yet their visa applications were met with no increased scrutiny.
Two of the hijackers, the report said, lied on their applications "in detectable ways" but were not questioned about those lies. And all 19 of the hijackers' applications had data fields left blank, or were incomplete in some other way.
Three of the hijackers were carrying Saudi passports "containing a possible extremist indicator" present in the passports of many al-Qaida members, the report said. While it's not clear what that indicator was, the report added that it had not been analyzed by the CIA, FBI or border authorities for its significance.
The report is one of two staff addenda to the commission's final report, which was released last month.
The other report released Saturday analyzed the hijackers' financing.
It concluded:
- There is no evidence that anyone in the United States, or any other country, provided substantial funding to the hijackers. Most of the money came from al-Qaida.
- Gaps remain in the intelligence community's understanding of how the terrorist network moves its money. "Because of the complexity and variety of ways to collect and move small amounts of money in a vast worldwide financial system, gathering intelligence on al Qaeda financial flows will remain a hard target for the foreseeable future," the report said.
The commission officially disbanded Saturday, when its congressional mandate expired. The commissioners had not approved the final text of the reports.Americans dont care anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
While in other countries I noticed regardless of position the person doing it knew checking the papers was something that was of utmost importance and it was their job.
The passport checker would take my papers look them over for about 3-7 minutes and then allow me to move forward, or in some instances ask a gentleman to the side for some sort of re-verification with someone else. People gathering luggage carts did it speedily and was smart enough to see that when someone needed one take it out if their train and give it to the weary traveler.
Upon arrival at LAX I noticed people asked to see various forms of ID while traveling through the terminals about 4 times before luggage claim, with each time no one even glancing at the paper they are asking for, but simply taking it and handing it back. As if passing time till next pay day. Cart gatherers would take carts and if someone needed one direct them to where they should get them, with a life sucks type attitude. No one around to provide information to foreigners on where to get a taxi or even where to proceed next.
Ever since the boomer generation and subsequent generations it seems no one cares one way or another about much of anything, Im beginning to believe my grandparents stories on how they had a work ethic over us. What we need is people taking pride back in whatever it is they do and I would say almost all the things that frustrate us daily would disappear.
They have bigger problems than old folks (Score:5, Informative)
Eventually they sort out the problem, and my wife and I board the plane. We find our seats and get comfortable (well, as comfortable as one can be with 19 inches of leg room). A few minutes later a women stops at our row, and claims we are sitting in her seats. I profer my boarding pass, which shows me in the proper seat, she looks at hers - it has my name on it!
Now think about this. We were stopped and our IDs compared to our boarding passes at no less than 3 check points in the airport. This woman managed to get on the airplane with a boarding pass that not only didn't have her name on it, it had an obviously male name on it. She was quite obviously not male.
The entire system is badly broken. In my situation at least three different employees utterly failed to perform the most basic component of their job - validating ID. I have absolutely no confidence in our airline security systems. If they ever catch someone in the act, it will be purely accidental. My sole consolation is that, as others in the thread have noted, the 'evil-doers' of the world have most likely abandonned hijacking as means to whatever nefarious ends they seek, as the passengers are no longer likely to be so compliant as they were pre-9/11.
-josh
The Amusing Thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about the stupid programming!
All a terrorist has to do is add something to his name and he drops off the list!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Your tax dollars at work!
If this doesn't prove that the whole thing is purely a) for show and b) to increase the government's ability to harass the citizenry for no reason at all except to prove they can, I don't know what does.
And, yes, some morons say some of the 9/11 terrorists used their own names when they traveled. What does this tell you? They weren't terrorists, that's what. Either that or the names they used weren't actually theirs and the FBI/CIA is too stupid to determine their real names.
Conspiracy theory (Score:4, Interesting)
If you flew back in the sixties (yes, I am old enough to be authoritative about this) you were fed decent meals and lavished with extreme courtesy by very well turned out flight attendants. Just generally you were dealing with a high end, high cost transport method and that's how you were treated. It was fun and it was interesting and it wasn't all that expensive, though I can't say it felt cheap. Throw in a limo at both ends and we're talking something to truly look forward to.
Sadly, today we're dealing with a low end, cut-rate, cattle-call transport method and that's how you're treated. Aside from some extremely misguided women's liberation / political correctness bonehead moves attempting to reject and/or hide femininity, most of this is IMHO due to government interference with the airlines. Deregulation on the one hand, and over regulation on the other.
So some of the makings of a decent conspiracy theory seem to be there.
However, after quite a bit of consideration, I've decided that it is probably stupidity on the part of the government, rather than any organized attempt to destroy the industry. Mainly, this is because I can't figure out why they would be trying to do so - no matter how clear it is that they are doing so.
But I'm not closed minded about it. Not everyone in government is an idiot, clearly, so maybe there is a conspiracy. Anyone have any wild ideas to flesh this out? The government might want to destroy the airline industry because... ???
As an aside, mainly because of what a lousy experience flying is these days, I don't take planes any longer; I drive. I've renewed an interest in high performance cars and added fun gadgets (like street-level mapping GPS, XM Radio, scanners, ham radio, radar and laser detectors, some pretty extreme car audio) and turned my steadily more-and-more annoying business travel back into a perk. Now all I have to do is avoid speeding tickets, which so far I've managed to do. :)
It's actually good (Score:5, Funny)
If brains were dynamite, no one in Washington could blow their nose.
Re:Oxygen you say? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Conspiracy Theory of the Week (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oddly, the solution is racial profiling (Score:5, Insightful)
No. All you do is create a false sense of security, because the terrorists will recruit and use people who don't fit your profile. (And you can't keep a profile secret, since if it works, you're hassling exactly the people you're trying to keep it secret from.) Then the guards wave through some elderly woman who happens to be carrying a bomb.
The falseness of your analogy is this: The prostrate cancer isn't watching the medical profession and designing ways to compromise its diagnoses. Evolution happens a lot faster in the human world.
Re:Oddly, the solution is racial profiling (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Not all terrorists are Muslims. Timothy McVeigh wasn't. The Unabomber wasn't. So assuming the threat comes from only Muslims is just as short-sighted.
Frankly, the odds of a September 11th-type terrorist attack happening again are a million to one. The rulebook on what to do if you're on a hijacked aircraft have totally gone out the window. Whereas hijackers could expect cooperation from passengers and crew, nowadays they can only expect suicidal resistance. The fate of the fourth aircraft hijacked on September 11th showed that.
The bottom line is this: hijacking a plane and flying it into a building is virtually guaranteed never to happen again but assuming that any other type of terrorist attack will only be perpetrated by dark-skinned Muslim men is the kind of dumb, short-sighted and frankly moronic thinking that had the CIA "100 percent certain" that Saddam Hussein was sitting on a large stockpile of WMDs that were in the field and ready to be used.
Re:Oddly, the solution is racial profiling (Score:5, Insightful)
Point A: what percentage of Muslim males are terrorists? Remember, that's more than half a billion people you're talking about.
Point B: John Walker Lindh and Richard Reid would have sailed past racial profiling, and you can bet our enemies can figure that out and recruit Caucasian people for the next hijacking.
Point C: if you don't search little kids, a well-organized terrorist group could teach one to carry a dangerous object on board and hand it to his big brother.
>Doctors usually check black men for prostate cancer because they are 100% more likely to get it than white men. Is that racism?
Point D: a doctor who doesn't check a white man of a certain age for prostate cancer is committing malpractice.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
I would hope that the Democrats start looking into this and do more than their standard "launch an investigation", because I would suspect this problem is a little more intractable because of the fairly strong partisanship in the US right now.