| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Or, what do common sense and US government policy have in common?
> >
> > http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucwb/20041129/cm_ucwb/justsayno&e=5
> >
> > Answer? very little!
>
> Not sure what Buckley's driving at, honestly.
Seems pretty clear to me (1). He's asking why make things easier for the hordes
of people that clearly are little no threat whatever in order to be a bit less
PC to people that fit the threat profile more closely?
Quoting from the part you dismissed:
"The secretary of transportation said, 'No.' In fact, Mineta was mystified by
Kroft's question"
Precisely. Mystified by it.
Mystified by the very *concept* that maybe there are higher and lower risk
groups and that it's appropriate to give higher risk groups more scrutiny
(without giving everyone else a free pass mind you, just devoting less resources
proportionately). Mystified by the very concept of threat assessment as a way of
increasing the probability of stopping things. NOTHING can prevent everything
but if you have a fixed amount of resource, use it where probabalistically it
will do you the most good, instead of being PC for the sake of being PC and
giving the frail little old ladies from Pasadena the same amount of scrutiny
that you give the big beefy guys in prime health from Syria.
The jackbooted thugs(2) that run TSA keep promising that we frequent travellers
can sign over our privacy, get background checked, and then we'll be able to
avoid some indignities some of the time, but even that doesn't seem to come to
pass.
TSA is massively broken. It should be abolished, and the job given back to the
airlines (after removing their liability shield). It inconveniences the innocent
but does not usefully prevent anything, in fact it has a terrible track record
of not stopping weapons introductions when tested.
Stopping weapons introduction is in itself a flawed idea since short of forcing
everyone to fly naked, or strapped into seats that one cannot get unstrapped
from until after landing, there is no way to prevent a passenger from contriving
a threat with material that is routinely passed. (3)
Better to encourage passengers to be ready to take matters into their own hands
if necessary than to encourage them to be docile sheep. And make no mistake,
that is precisely the mentality TSA cultivates. Smile, nod, answer all their
questions, show no sign of any emotion or that you know the process, or else get
reamed while being unlawfully threatened with arrest for voicing your opinion.
If, by the way, you feel that there is no point in using risk assessment or
other measures of predicting outcomes when deciding how to allocate scarce
resources, then I suggest that you are confused, and you likely oppose
battlefield triage as well.
++Lar
1 - well, as clear as anything Buckley writes ever is, I wish he wouldn't feel
it necessary to show off his erudition by using opaque language constructs and
uncommon words, but hey.
2 - I know that will get me on whatever lists (as you refer to) that might be
compiled but hey, I calls them as I sees them.
3 - I won't go into detail(4) but I know at least one lethal and easy to use
weapon I can quickly manufacture in the lavatory with stuff that always gets
passed through security, and I wasn't even trying to think of it when it came to
me.
4 - Don't ask, because I won't tell you what it is.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Just say no
|
| (...) As long as the threat profile is reasonably specific and based on sound policy, rather than "I think that guy looks Arabish/let's frisk him," which is what Buckley's describing. Here's the part where he plays his hand: "The point is not (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Just say no
|
| (...) Not sure what Buckley's driving at, honestly. Any article that cites anything "wonderful" about an Ann Coulter book surely qualifies as delusional from the get-go, but of course I'm not one to dismiss an argument simply because its proponent (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
