Originally Posted By Mr X DalmatiaCODE NINE! I REPEAT, CODE NINE! WE HAVE POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS CANINES CARRYING COLLARS! REPEAT: COLLARS! ALL AGENTS REPORT IN! Ladies and Gentlemen, this has been a canine security drill. Thank you! *Mr X takes a bow* Patrons applaud appreciatively. Dogs are removed and placed in holding facility for further interrogation and/or next performance. Kahlid bin Gonnabombyou, chuckling, manages to slip through security during the meaningless commotion...pets dogs appreciatively on way to target/er his flight.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***you're in the fringe on that one*** So, just because most Americans want to ignore the Constitution and surrender their rights, the rest of us should just shrug and accept it...Constitutional Protections be damned? ***The fact is we must do what we can, and screening technology represents a step toward making the process as efficient as possible, given the constraints of the task that TSA is dealt - preventing explosives from getting on aircraft*** That's a load of crap. If the truth was that we *must* do what we *can*, then mandatory cavity searches for all and flying naked (perhaps with a disposable robe provided by the TSA) SHOULD be what they do. Anything else is nothing but half-measures. Would you not agree? Also, all ground crew must be subjected to same, and report to work in their disposable robes (to be surrendered at the end of the day, as they are to be surrendered post-flight for the traveling public). THAT, along with screening all cargo (rip it open, inspect it, go through it...privacy is meaningless in this process), would take the threat down to near zero. Of course, terrorists might then delve into martial arts in an effort to take control of a plane anyway, using perhaps hot plates and coffee makers as weapons...but we can cross THAT bridge later (meaning, no more beverages or food served on any aircraft at any time, no passenger movement at any time, perhaps they can just handcuff us to our seats as a safety measure!). At what point, Gad, do you draw the line? Because the line will ALWAYS be crossed by someone, somewhere. How much crap are you willing to endure? ***it's real and it's enormous*** That's what she said! But seriously, no. It's real alright, but it's far from enormous. It's miniscule, in fact. You are being extremely irrational. And so aren't so many people who support this ridiculous invasion of privacy and dignity. ***And the response isn't "theater"*** Yes, it's very much theater. Again, do cops perform their drills by storming into a local bank full of customers? Theater...everyone applaud now! ***not is it an illusion*** Definitely not an illusion, it's all too real for the traveling public. Won't deter any terrorists, though. ***it's a practical response to quickly and efficiently screen thousands of passengers every day*** Ridiculous. If it were "practical", we'd do the cavity search/robes thing. THAT would be practical, IF you really wanted to bring the threat to near zero. Along with all the other stuff. Then again, if the U.S. Government *really* cared about our safety so much, they'd find a way to provide health care for all. And ban driving unless the driver were thoroughly trained, at least as many hours as a pilot. And boat captains. And train personnel. And cooks (I'm only guessing, but is it remotely possible that more people die from poorly cooked food than in terrorist takeovers of airplanes every year? Just a guess but I'll bet it's more on the food poisoning side)...
Originally Posted By Mr X Crap...I knew if I thought about it for a second I'd come up with something better... Kahlid bin Gonnabombyou - meh Kahlid bin Makinabomb - better
Originally Posted By Mr X ***it's real and it's enormous*** It's real alright, but it's far from enormous. It's miniscule, in fact. You are being extremely irrational. And so aren't so many people who support this ridiculous invasion of privacy and dignity. To illustrate further, I read that there have been, in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF AVIATION, somewhere around 25 hijackings or bombings. Compare that to the many THOUSANDS of planes that have crashed (perhaps even 10's of thousands, no?), and when someone tells you that a fear of flying is irrational you can reply with "I'm WAY more irrational than THAT!! "). Don't you think so? ***And the response isn't "theater"*** Yeah dude. It really is. And it's designed specifically for YOU, and folks like you who believe extreme measures should be taken to kill virtually non-existent boogymen.
Originally Posted By Mr X (sorry, the first three paragraphs should've been in quotes, elaborating on my previous comments)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Because it sucks. Life is full of risks and uncertainties. There is absolutely no way to eliminate them. How far do we let the government go to minimize risk for the populace no matter how remote that risk might be? Do we require lightening rods on every home? Do we require tornado shelters in the backyard of any home not having a basement? Yes, 3,000 people were lost on 9/11. Damned shame, that. But are we going to let that dictate our every action in the future? Did we forbid the rebuilding of Galveston after 11,000 people died in a hurricane there? Did we forbid the rebuilding of San Francisco after 3,000 died in the great quake?" It would be better for you if you could cite to something that wasn't a natural disaster. The government, however, is charged with the responsibility of protecting its citizens over things it CAN control, and so while we don't mandate lightening rods and tornado shelters (people are still pissed about seat belts and motorcycle helmets, yet they're proven to save lives), we do mandate safety before boarding airplanes now, because they're related to man-made incidents that history tells us could have been prevented. And gad, again, is right. The airport is the last line of defense. The government would be negligent in its duty if it didn't react to information it receives. What he said bears repeating: "Let's not lose sight of the big picture here - this isn't some plot to foist government control over a weak-spined populace, it's to prevent atrocities to innocent people. How can anybody be against that?" Apparently some people are. That's what's truly amazing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***The government, however, is charged with the responsibility of protecting its citizens over things it CAN control*** Where in the constitution does it say THAT? And, more importantly, within what sorts of limitations is the government REQUIRED to operate, even in fulfilling its' limited duties?
Originally Posted By disneydad109 some of you folks need to get out of your mom's basement , take off those dirty sweatpants , shower & shave and learn to enjoy life. The best part is never knowning where life will take you. It's never what you expected , it's better !
Originally Posted By Mr X ***we do mandate safety before boarding airplanes now*** There is no *safety*, there is only relative risk management. Airlines and manufacturers of planes ROUTINELY allow dangerous situations to remain, so long as the bottom line (aka percentage of risk, and how many can sue later) is maintained. If the government is under such a serious mandate, why don't they put a stop to THAT!? Such practices kill FAR more passengers than terrorists could ever hope to. But, of course, that would mean putting the screws to corporations, but no worries, the Supreme Court is in the process of protecting THEM as we speak (see Citizens United for starters, and the upcoming AT&T case for the finishing touches). ***because they're related to man-made incidents that history tells us could have been prevented*** MOST aviation deaths could have, and probably should have, been prevented. The following is a partial list of factors that have lead to deaths in aviation... decent and landing accidents aborted landings defective landing gear taxi and takeoff accidents preflight accidents climbout accidents mechanical failures electrical malfunctions engine failure defective landing gear defective rudder defective instruments pilot negligence faulty flight maneuvers pilot death/incapacitation pilot intoxication fuel leak fuel mismanagement wrong fuel usage fuel pump malfunction severe weather lightening wind and wind shear birds mid-air collisions air traffic control errors structural defects counterfeit spare parts lack of maintenance Whew! (and yes I did consult the web to come up with this list for the most part but I was aware of most of these proven to be deadly issues) So, tell me again why someone needs to touch Grandma's crotch and Little Mary's breasts in order to *insure* our supposed "safety"? Like Maw said a LONG while back, we are not insured our safety. Flying is a risk. So isn't almost everything else. And no, the government is NOT working hard to make sure all that other stuff won't kill us, either.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 Mr X,Don't you think that we would miss a lot of what life has to offer if we just did the "safe " thing ?It would make for a life not worth living.Embrace the fear and beat it back to where it belongs .
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Mr X,Don't you think that we would miss a lot of what life has to offer if we just did the "safe " thing ?It would make for a life not worth living.Embrace the fear and beat it back to where it belongs*** I think you might have missed the fact that that's EXACTLY what I'm saying.
Originally Posted By disneydad109 I got you and I think you missed the point that I was saying that you are correct
Originally Posted By Labuda X said: Sure, but that fat, dumb and blind cat sure plays a mean Pinball! And I say: LOL! Love it! Then he said: Both pilot error and equipment failure are much more likely to bring down a plane than a terrorist, too. But ask any of these safety cheerleaders what their biggest flying fear is. And to that I say: Yeah, my biggest fear is takeoff and/or landing not going well. Terrorist attack is down at the bottom of the list.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder It's hard to debate people who don't listen closely. I heard this summed up nicely this morning: There is no right to fly. None. There are no rights being violated here. Why? Because no court has said so. This type of thing has yet to be addressed. So no matter what anyone says or feels about the new search policies, it isn't legally accurate. And it won't be. No court, anywhere, ever, will say that with national security at stake, and that's what the government would surely argue, searches and pat downs as seen here are unreasonable. Remember, the key question is what's reasonable. And if phrased in a national security context, courts will certainly say it's reasonable. So call them names, call them "cheerleaders", call it "theater", it's all just wasted energy and effort. People talk about the economy and the "new normal". The economy went through its own 9/11. The actual 9/11 has brought about a new normal for flying. Period.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I never made any claim that the security procedures are illegal, immoral or unconstitutional. Just that they are stupid and a waste of time and money. And they are... no legal based argument can change that.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Yes, it's all very stupid until another plane goes down.>> And that is the problem. Another plane WILL go down... with or without the screening procedures.
Originally Posted By barboy2 ///I never made any claim that the security procedures are illegal, immoral or unconstitutional. Just that they are stupid and a waste of time and money./// I would say that wasting resoures(money)most definitely is immoral----especially in the wake of this colossal tidal wave of public debt we have to service.
Originally Posted By gadzuux What do you suppose would be the effect to the nation's economy if there's another successful attack against us using airplanes?
