11-23-2010, 06:16 AM
Maybe more consistency from all agents should be required.
Agreed, Dennis, as long as the consistent response is a rational procedure which does not force a law-abiding citizen to be irradiated by machines about which there are genuine health concerns. Seems like consistent rational response would be a standard expectation of an effective system, yet it is certainly lacking. One of my kids has an artificial leg yet --despite advising the TSA beforehand and having affidavit documentation ready in hand-- still receives everything from being waved through with nothing more than a bored yawn to a burst of sudden excited crackling walkie-talkie traffic calling a squad over to hover while the third degree treatment ensues. Totally inconsistent.
A little suspicious are we?
Yes, absolutely, though I was not born this way: with each successive instance of learning about Chertoff-Rapisan-TSA-$160 million tax dollar deals and the like I have become more and more suspicious about following the money to discover unrevealed (indeed, concealed) motivations for behavior. Thanks for sharing that your son is a pilot, peteadams; this clarifies the come-from your perspective tremendously.
Unless the situation has changed significantly since my last conversation on the topic with a person who would certainly know, then there are not currently federal air marshals present on every flight (not even close) though this would be ideal.
Several issues are becoming mixed together in all this and I think the lumping is absolutely deliberate on the part of cynical Chertoff-types who personally benefit from the concentration of power and wealth into their hands. Personally, I do not care whether anyone looks at me naked or paws my genitals to see whether that is a pistol in my pocket or if I am just glad to see them. By sharp contrast, subjecting millions of people to doses of radiation when the machines do not even reveal hidden high-explosives anyway (see http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/11/23...nt-work%29 among other stories on this aspect) is a big gamble with public health for no other purpose than enriching people like Chertoff while keeping the herd of sheep scared and obedient. It also diverts resources and manpower away from doing some genuinely useful work.
The truth is anyone who wanted to do so could wheel a cart loaded with a massive home-made low explosive bomb (filled with metal nuts and bolts for shrapnel) right up to the screening area in any airport, detonate it, and disrupt everything far more than if they detonated the same exact device aboard a jet. Commercial passenger jets cannot now be taken over by terrorists for use as guided missiles; that is not even remotely likely. So the most which could be done is to blow the jet up in flight- which is tragic but a relatively minor disruption in the overall scheme of things. By contrast, blowing up an entire gate area in a major airport creates a huge clog for days or weeks with subsequent disruption cascading throughout the entire air travel system. Not to mention sporting events and other places where hundreds of thousands are gathered, bridges and similar infrastructural chokepoints, water reservoirs for cities, and so on. So which targets are more likely to be hit if terrorists really want to monkey-wrench the USA, a jet in flight or the latter? Meanwhile we sink billions of dollars of resources and huge manpower into ineffective security theater directed at traveling Americans boarding jets? Bad idea -and who does it serve?
In his farewell speech to the American public as he left office the five-star general in charge of US military operations in Europe during WWII who then became a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower, warned us about the dangerous collusion between industry and militarism. He said "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children." The Founding Fathers would be appalled at how Americans are surrendering liberty for an illusion of security, and Dwight D. Eisenhower would have no difficulty figuring out that investing poorly in $160 million worth of ineffective backscatter radiation devices makes America more vulnerable, not stronger, even if these machines do not cause more than a few hundred cases of cancer instead of thousands.
I'd like to focus on having a nice day but I honestly do not think losing our sense of outrage and --stemming directly from this sense of outrage-- speaking up, making a fuss, and demanding huge changes (actual effective security instead of security theater) is going to accomplish that end. Feel the outrage! Give it voice! Take effective action!
Outraged action is the only way, realistically, this venal grab for money and control can be stopped and corrected. If anyone knows how else this situation can be improved more effectively then please do speak up and educate me. I am glad to be wrong if a better alternative is presented.
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
Baby Hummingbird
http://wimp.com/babyhummingbird
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
Astonishing skill! This archer is a real-life Legolas and then some!
http://geekologie.com/2013/11/real-life-...rs-anc.php
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
Astonishing skill! This archer is a real-life Legolas and then some!
http://geekologie.com/2013/11/real-life-...rs-anc.php
)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(
