|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 20, 2010 8:12:47 GMT
If you have a better way of deterring that, then step up with it and get it implemented. How about strong cockpit doors with locks and guns in the cockpit? That seems like a much more effective way than sticking their hands down someones pants or or forcing the undignified removal of prosthetic. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 20, 2010 8:36:38 GMT
If you have a better way of deterring that, then step up with it and get it implemented. How about strong cockpit doors with locks and guns in the cockpit? That seems like a much more effective way than sticking their hands down someones pants or or forcing the undignified removal of prosthetic. Will do nothing for explosives. Explosives are what brought down the plane over Lockerbie, although in that case, it was in the luggage. It really doesn't take much in the way of explosives to bring a plane down, and even if it doesn't come down, a lot of people are killed or severely injured in an enclosed location with explosives. Strong cockpit doors are only PART of a solution. Multi-layered solutions are better by far IMO. That principle is followed in the military, in computing, in home security, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 20, 2010 8:44:20 GMT
I also have the choice of getting rid of a government that has overstepped its constitutional bounds. The "rights" the government has are rights I have but have transferred to the government. If I don't have the right to feel someones crotch or stick my hands down their pants then the government does not have that right. People really need to go back over the concept of sovereignty. Maggie, I think you and I are close to the same age. When I was growing up, we had two axioms that I think apply here: 1. With rights come responsibilities. and 2. Your freedom ends where someone else's nose begins. Do those sound familiar? I think this discussion comes down to the interpretation of those two principles - the second one in particular. There are other lives involved on a plane. It is silly, IMO, to think that one person's insistence on a particular freedom from inconvenience be allowed to compromise security for others on that plane who are depending on that security. (I realize you can turn that back and say where your nose begins in such a way that makes the searches violate that principle, but I'm saying I disagree with that interpretation. I think the security of the many on that plane, and those on the ground who may be jeopardized takes precedence over the convenience of the individual). Putting that another way: If you do not want the security there, then I do not want you on the plane with me. Multiply that by 1000 if my family is on that plane. Nothing against you personally, but I think those steps are necessary and reasonable right now, and if you want to fly and are insisting otherwise, then that may jeapordize the security. Edit: I recognize that there could come a point where the screening goes too far. I'm saying that it's not there right now. Mostly, what is circulating right now is a lot of hyperventilation and sensationalization. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 20, 2010 8:47:59 GMT
I also have the choice of getting rid of a government that has overstepped its constitutional bounds. The "rights" the government has are rights I have but have transferred to the government. If I don't have the right to feel someones crotch or stick my hands down their pants then the government does not have that right. People really need to go back over the concept of sovereignty. If I may say so, (and you probably will find it offensive, but I am not trying to offend) you may have a better chance of getting rid of a government that has overstepped its constitutional bounds if you would stop looking for puppet masters and bildebergers, take a better look at the choices you have, and vote the reasonable choices. I distrust politics as much as anyone, but I make it a point to find the positions and voting history, and vote accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 20, 2010 13:34:56 GMT
slh1234, I'll admit that my analogy is imprecise for the reasons you gave, however my intent was to show that sampling in any manner is ineffective in terms of the stated TSA goal. Even more so when the items (people) in this case have a will of their own as you describe.
I'm sure you will agree however that sampling, by definition, will never yield complete information.
That said, I see three possible paths. 1. We live with the threat, and the social, political, and economic problems that it engenders, and take our chances. 2. We surrender to the desires of "radical" Islam ( and yes I know there would be others to take their place). 3. We eliminate the threat at it's source ( same as #2).
Each of the above would be objectionable to someone.
We all want peace, love and harmony. But the reality is that there is no such thing. The poem by the late Gen. Patton "Through a Glass, Darkly", describes the reality of human existence. "We used teeth, before the sword".
|
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 20, 2010 17:41:15 GMT
slh1234, I'll admit that my analogy is imprecise for the reasons you gave, however my intent was to show that sampling in any manner is ineffective in terms of the stated TSA goal. Even more so when the items (people) in this case have a will of their own as you describe. I'm sure you will agree however that sampling, by definition, will never yield complete information. That said, I see three possible paths. 1. We live with the threat, and the social, political, and economic problems that it engenders, and take our chances. 2. We surrender to the desires of "radical" Islam ( and yes I know there would be others to take their place). 3. We eliminate the threat at it's source ( same as #2). Each of the above would be objectionable to someone. We all want peace, love and harmony. But the reality is that there is no such thing. The poem by the late Gen. Patton "Through a Glass, Darkly", describes the reality of human existence. "We used teeth, before the sword". I think that's one of the most realistic analysis I've heard. However; Most of us are not willing to do #1 without any additional measures. I don't think the current airport security measures are #2, but since we don't want #2, we can minimize the threat with deterrent measures. We do not have the political will or endurance for #3, and even if we did, there would be a time of reduced freedom during the execution. (I'm not really sure #3 is possible.) So I'd add #4, and that is to minimize the threat the best we can and deal with the inconvenience of minimizing that threat. There will be many debates on the subject of what is reasonable on both sides. I don't mind the debates, but I want them to be realistic, and since people are just going to mix emotions and political slants into the debate, we have to go through a great deal of effort to separate the reality from the BS and exaggerations. Every one of us is going to have a little different opinion on how to go about that separation, and I think our political positions will affect what we're willing to accept as fact. For my part, I have not observed anything as drastic as what is being circulated. The nature of the people working in TSA that I have observed is not consistent with the nature of TSA as circulated in the articles I've read, but I can definitely see the nature of many passengers in the articles. I don't see anything I think is unreasonable in the current TSA procedures at the gate, and I'm glad they are there doing their jobs the best they can. If someone has a realistic idea to improve what is done, then I'm sure it would be welcomingly considered. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 20, 2010 18:19:00 GMT
I also have the choice of getting rid of a government that has overstepped its constitutional bounds. The "rights" the government has are rights I have but have transferred to the government. If I don't have the right to feel someones crotch or stick my hands down their pants then the government does not have that right. People really need to go back over the concept of sovereignty. If I may say so, (and you probably will find it offensive, but I am not trying to offend) you may have a better chance of getting rid of a government that has overstepped its constitutional bounds if you would stop looking for puppet masters and bildebergers, take a better look at the choices you have, and vote the reasonable choices. I distrust politics as much as anyone, but I make it a point to find the positions and voting history, and vote accordingly. The only thing I find insulting is your assumptions. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 20, 2010 18:21:51 GMT
I also have the choice of getting rid of a government that has overstepped its constitutional bounds. The "rights" the government has are rights I have but have transferred to the government. If I don't have the right to feel someones crotch or stick my hands down their pants then the government does not have that right. People really need to go back over the concept of sovereignty. Maggie, I think you and I are close to the same age. When I was growing up, we had two axioms that I think apply here: 1. With rights come responsibilities. and 2. Your freedom ends where someone else's nose begins. Do those sound familiar? I think this discussion comes down to the interpretation of those two principles - the second one in particular. There are other lives involved on a plane. It is silly, IMO, to think that one person's insistence on a particular freedom from inconvenience be allowed to compromise security for others on that plane who are depending on that security. (I realize you can turn that back and say where your nose begins in such a way that makes the searches violate that principle, but I'm saying I disagree with that interpretation. I think the security of the many on that plane, and those on the ground who may be jeopardized takes precedence over the convenience of the individual). Putting that another way: If you do not want the security there, then I do not want you on the plane with me. Multiply that by 1000 if my family is on that plane. Nothing against you personally, but I think those steps are necessary and reasonable right now, and if you want to fly and are insisting otherwise, then that may jeapordize the security. Edit: I recognize that there could come a point where the screening goes too far. I'm saying that it's not there right now. Mostly, what is circulating right now is a lot of hyperventilation and sensationalization. yes you and I have different ways of looking at the government and its role. You seem ok with the incremental erosion of our rights for a false sense of security. I am not. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 20, 2010 19:21:44 GMT
slh1234, I'll admit that my analogy is imprecise for the reasons you gave, however my intent was to show that sampling in any manner is ineffective in terms of the stated TSA goal. Even more so when the items (people) in this case have a will of their own as you describe. I'm sure you will agree however that sampling, by definition, will never yield complete information. That said, I see three possible paths. 1. We live with the threat, and the social, political, and economic problems that it engenders, and take our chances. 2. We surrender to the desires of "radical" Islam ( and yes I know there would be others to take their place). 3. We eliminate the threat at it's source ( same as #2). Each of the above would be objectionable to someone. We all want peace, love and harmony. But the reality is that there is no such thing. The poem by the late Gen. Patton "Through a Glass, Darkly", describes the reality of human existence. "We used teeth, before the sword". I think that's one of the most realistic analysis I've heard. However; Most of us are not willing to do #1 without any additional measures. I don't think the current airport security measures are #2, but since we don't want #2, we can minimize the threat with deterrent measures. We do not have the political will or endurance for #3, and even if we did, there would be a time of reduced freedom during the execution. (I'm not really sure #3 is possible.) So I'd add #4, and that is to minimize the threat the best we can and deal with the inconvenience of minimizing that threat. There will be many debates on the subject of what is reasonable on both sides. I don't mind the debates, but I want them to be realistic, and since people are just going to mix emotions and political slants into the debate, we have to go through a great deal of effort to separate the reality from the BS and exaggerations. Every one of us is going to have a little different opinion on how to go about that separation, and I think our political positions will affect what we're willing to accept as fact. For my part, I have not observed anything as drastic as what is being circulated. The nature of the people working in TSA that I have observed is not consistent with the nature of TSA as circulated in the articles I've read, but I can definitely see the nature of many passengers in the articles. I don't see anything I think is unreasonable in the current TSA procedures at the gate, and I'm glad they are there doing their jobs the best they can. If someone has a realistic idea to improve what is done, then I'm sure it would be welcomingly considered. My Option #1 was intended to be inclusive of your #4. Sorry I wasn't clear about that. At the moment there does not seem to be the "right" balance relative to security v. personal freedoms. I don't blame the front line employees for this, but I do blame the policy makers and those who profit ( in the broadest sense of the word ) from exploitation of public fears (whether real or imagined) - regardless of what those fears may be. In the last few years we've been deluged with everything from "peak oil" and economic collapse to rising sea levels and overpopulation. This issue with airplane security is only one of many that seem to be driving this country towards a place I (for one) don't want to go. I was a combat Marine for over 20 years, sworn to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I took lives, saved lives, and shed blood in the pursuit of that goal and I will not stand idly by while there are those who would destroy what I and millions of others fought for. I'm an old man now and missing most of my teeth, but I am not toothless. |
|
|
|
Post by slh1234 on Nov 20, 2010 23:16:40 GMT
I agree with the fear mongering for the most part, Curious. I hate that as well. I'm a combat vet as well, but maybe not as old as you. In times of national crisis in prior times in our history, drastic things have been done. One example is Abraham Lincoln suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus: usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm. We normally think of Abe as a great leader, now, though. I don't think we're anywhere near that drastic at this point in our history ... but the threat is not as dire as it was in Abe's day, either. I think the challenge is to not swing the pendulum too far in reacting to what we see out of those you point out who exploit public fears. From my first day on this site I've pointed out how all my life fears have been used for political gain (global warming just being one example). It's always been that way. |
|
|
|
Post by curiousgeorge on Nov 20, 2010 23:58:31 GMT
I agree with the fear mongering for the most part, Curious. I hate that as well. I'm a combat vet as well, but maybe not as old as you. In times of national crisis in prior times in our history, drastic things have been done. One example is Abraham Lincoln suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus: usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm. We normally think of Abe as a great leader, now, though. I don't think we're anywhere near that drastic at this point in our history ... but the threat is not as dire as it was in Abe's day, either. I think the challenge is to not swing the pendulum too far in reacting to what we see out of those you point out who exploit public fears. From my first day on this site I've pointed out how all my life fears have been used for political gain (global warming just being one example). It's always been that way. Pleased to meet you brother.  There are many who are good at enjoying freedom, but not many who are good at protecting it. The former are usually the ones to demand revolution for "frivolous" reasons, I think because they do not know what it means, nor the real and personal consequences of it. The country has many enemies these days, far more than in the past, both external and internal, and many masquerade as friends, or seek to convince the unwary that the "new" way is better, or for the good of the nation. It is for these reasons that I doubt the leadership capability of the current administration to competently address the problems we are faced with. As is said; "The road to hell is paved with the bricks of good intentions". Unfortunately, those same bricks are often painted with the blood of patriots. Semper Fidelis |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 21, 2010 2:40:03 GMT
I agree with the fear mongering for the most part, Curious. I hate that as well. I'm a combat vet as well, but maybe not as old as you. In times of national crisis in prior times in our history, drastic things have been done. One example is Abraham Lincoln suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus: usgovinfo.about.com/od/historicdocuments/a/lincolnhabeas.htm. We normally think of Abe as a great leader, now, though. I don't think we're anywhere near that drastic at this point in our history ... but the threat is not as dire as it was in Abe's day, either. I think the challenge is to not swing the pendulum too far in reacting to what we see out of those you point out who exploit public fears. From my first day on this site I've pointed out how all my life fears have been used for political gain (global warming just being one example). It's always been that way. Bush did away with habeas corpus by presidential fiat. usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/habeuscorpus.htm |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 21, 2010 4:12:01 GMT
www.vagabondish.com/tsa-rifle-bearing-soldiers-relinquish-nail-clippers/TSA Forces Assault Rifle-Bearing Soldier to Relinquish Nail Clippersby Mike Richard Just another in a long line of TSA outrages … BoingBoing points us to this unintentionally hilarious account from a U.S. soldier returning home from Afghanistan: How can the TSA drones not see how ridiculous their policies are? How?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Nov 21, 2010 7:22:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by byz on Nov 21, 2010 8:39:53 GMT
Mmm,
Note to self don't visit the US for another couple of years ;D
|
|
