| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 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 or no threat whatever in order to be a bit less
> PC to people that fit the threat profile more closely?
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 dismissed by simply finding some 75-year-old who once tried to
blow up an airplane. We are talking about likelihood. "
Okay, how likely is it that any random Arab is going to blow up a plane? Not
much greater than the likelihood that any random 75-year-old is going to try,
I'll bet. Yet Buckley is satisfied to call for strict review of Arab,
Arab-looking, and Arab-name-sounding passengers simply because 19 Arabs hijacked
four planes and because 21 men on a list of 22 bad men have olive skin.
He's actually calling for a national database, isn't he? He proposes that job
history, employment, family status, and police record be reviewed and profiled;
is it your desire that this information be subject to unaccountable review?
> 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.
I'm afraid I need to dismiss "mystified" as a subjective term that Buckley
apparently applied during his analysis of Ms. Coulter's description of the
conversation to which she was not a witness. That's several times removed from
the event, and it's filtered through at least two people who probably aren't
going out of their to maintain objectivity on the subject. So at most we're
left with something like "Mr. Mineta didn't did not support a plan to screen
people based upon their names." There may certainly be more to Mr. Mineta's
response than that, but I don't see it in the text at hand and therefore can't
comment on it. And, honestly, neither can anyone else who only read Buckley's
account of Coulter's account of Kroft's account of it.
Your argument that closer attention should be paid to more likely candidates
isn't necessarily wrong, but the methodology has to be a little more stringent
than, for example, relying on a cop's "blue sense."
> 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)
I've elsewhere endorsed the "fly naked" protocol, under which weapon concealment
becomes a somewhat lessened (though not eliminated, I grant you) risk.
But all kidding aside, how long is it before passengers are subjected to
full-cavity searches prior to boarding? Is it inconceivable that someone,
somewhere might try to smuggle some kind of device aboard internally? If so,
then the TSA *must* implement a BCS policy to be consistent with its current "a
woman in Russia might have smuggled a bomb aboard, so we have to grope every
woman boarding a US flight."
> 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.
I don't oppose risk assessment, but I *do* oppose the bogus methodology
currently employed in the form of racial profiling, and in any case your example
isn't really applicable. Sure, a paper-cut takes a lower priority than a
sucking chest wound, but there are tangible elements to be assessed in that
case, aren't there? Where is the tangible equivalent in assessing a man's
likelihood to blow up a plane?
> 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.
Hey, over-written prose *is* one of Buckley's hallmarks, after all, and I don't
think he'd even argue that it isn't!
> 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.
It's a toilet-paper roll, right? You stuff your cocktail peanuts in one end and
blow really hard in the other, producing a deadly and delicious shotgun effect.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Just say no
|
| (...) Which is what I favor. And what I think Buckley favors too, although it would surely be harder to convince you of that than me. He's a knee jerk old school conservative but even stopped clocks are right twice a day (well, once a day if they're (...) (20 years ago, 17-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Just say no
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
