| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
> > 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."
>
> Sure. But what I get from the TSA rank and file (and this ISN'T hearsay, it's
> direct personal testimony) is "we have no way whatever to decide if anyone is
> more or less of a risk than anyone else, and have no plans to introduce any such
> way, or interest in doing so". Bullfeathers. Jack booted thugs.
Okay, now that *is* pretty ridiculous, and they're succumbing in real,
large-scale terms to the false dichotomy you identified.
Outside of your direct experience, most of what I've heard has defaulted to "we
have rules that apply to everyone equally, so everyone is under equal scrutiny."
If we were able to implement some kind of non-invasive, split-second searches
and security checks, then I'm not sure that this would be a terrible thing, but
when a search takes real time and causes real inconvenience, then it seems
imperative to refocus our resources with greater precision. If it can truly be
shown that we are justified in singling out Arab men rather than Caucasian
grandmothers, then we should do so, but I’m not certain that we've reliably
justified racial profiling of airline passengers.
Shame on the TSA for using such a blunt instrument in any case.
> OR, INSTEAD, change their current policy to be consistent with reality, taking
> threat assessment into account. Which I vastly prefer to full body cavity
> searches, but of course I can't speak for you on that matter, maybe you don't
> feel the same way.
Well, I hope they'd buy me dinner first, at the very least.
> > 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.
>
> When I said "lethal" I wasn't referring to "dying laughing" but I'm not going to
> play 20 questions about it, so maybe that actually IS the weapon I had in mind.
To be honest, I wasn't really looking to weasel it out of you--I take it as
given that you're not going to reveal it, so I figured an obviously false (or is
it?) example would be safe enough.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
