Nice Planet 2011

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

They never blew up the Pentagon either. Not saying that every screener is behaving as they should but the schtick of every agent is awful is getting old. How many appropriate screenings occur compared to how many are bad? There are bad people in every profession. If someone dies in the hospital do we assume every Dr in there is going to have a bad outcome?

An extraordinary deviation from the topic, even by your standards. And you've lost me with your reference to the Pentagon. The point is, these screenings aren't appropriate and aren't necessary and aren't effective. And the professionalism or lack thereof by the goons administering them is irrelevant. There is no appropriate way to palpate an old lady's ostomy bag. The Israelis prove that every single day. And you didn't answer my question: is there no limit on the humiliations that government can visit on the traveling public in the name of "security?"

 

[duper]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Go into a courthouse one day, and see the difference in security procedures. In my (limited) experience, the court house personnel are faster, less embarrassing (for lack of a better word) and more professional.

OP is right. It's security theater. There is no way in hell that TSA makes us safer. In the court house, I truly believe that the people inside are noticeably safer for the security measures.

(Yes, I understand that the threat is different in court than in an airport, but I also believe the threat in a court house is more real than in an airport.)

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Go into a courthouse one day, and see the difference in security procedures. In my (limited) experience, the court house personnel are faster, less embarrassing (for lack of a better word) and more professional.

OP is right. It's security theater. There is no way in hell that TSA makes us safer. In the court house, I truly believe that the people inside are noticeably safer for the security measures.

(Yes, I understand that the threat is different in court than in an airport, but I also believe the threat in a court house is more real than in an airport.)

Remember several years ago some lunatic going through security at the House of Represenatives killed one of the screeners then ran into the building and killed a Capitol cop outside of Tom DeLay's office? The Israelis use a system involving personal contact with passengers. It starts with asking seemingly benign questions designed to catch them off guard, prevaracating or unable to provide a common sense answer. As I understand it, the system has three layers and it's next to impossible to sneak through if you've got evil intentions. And remember, they have many Arab citizens, so it can't simply be a matter of isolating and insulting Arabs. Obvously, the scale of our air transport system dwarfs theirs, but then, our population dwarfs theirs. The training and implementation for this kind of system would be very exspensive and take years. But if we're serious about actually protecting the flying public, this is the direction in which we should move. In fact, I read an article within the last month that talked about plans to introduce something similar, albeit on a much smaller scale.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

An extraordinary deviation from the topic, even by your standards. And you've lost me with your reference to the Pentagon. The point is, these screenings aren't appropriate and aren't necessary and aren't effective. And the professionalism or lack thereof by the goons administering them is irrelevant. There is no appropriate way to palpate an old lady's ostomy bag. The Israelis prove that every single day. And you didn't answer my question: is there no limit on the humiliations that government can visit on the traveling public in the name of "security?"

No- the argument that they haven't caught anyone yet implies they won't. Well, no one would have thought they needed to look prior to 2001. Searching for something isn't wrong just because you don't find it.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

No- the argument that they haven't caught anyone yet implies they won't. Well, no one would have thought they needed to look prior to 2001. Searching for something isn't wrong just because you don't find it.

Do I understand the "no" is in response to my question about any possible limits on government's efforts to provide "security" to the flying public? So you think anything any bureaucrat anywhere can think up and justify with a splash of "security" paint is acceptable? Honestly? Really? Man, I don't want to live in your country. Where Barney Fife has no limits on his efforts to "nip it in the bud." Don't take this the wrong way, but that's insane. And unconstitutional. And illegal. I would assume this "there is no limit to what they can do to protect us" attitude would logically extend far beyond airports. It would be interesting to live in your America, undifferentiated as it would be, from any totalitarian state past or present. How much easier it would be for government goons if they could discard those pesky concerns about "due process" and "probable cause."

Apparantly you love government intrusion and humiliation of travelers so much you've missed the point I've made twice, now three times, that there are far more effective methods to find "terrorists" without humilitating old ladies and terrorizing kids and unnecessarily inconveniencing the rest of us. Maybe if we can get the system changed, they'll still let you take off your shoes and drop trou.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Do I understand the "no" is in response to my question about any possible limits on government's efforts to provide "security" to the flying public? So you think anything any bureaucrat anywhere can think up and justify with a splash of "security" paint is acceptable? Honestly? Really? Man, I don't want to live in your country. Where Barney Fife has no limits on his efforts to "nip it in the bud." Don't take this the wrong way, but that's insane. And unconstitutional. And illegal. I would assume this "there is no limit to what they can do to protect us" attitude would extend far beyond airports. It would be interesting to live in your America, undifferentiated as it would be, from any totalitarian state past or present. How much easier it would be for government goons if they could discard those pesky concerns about "due process" and "probable cause."

Apparantly you love government intrusion and humiliation of travelers so much you've missed the point I've made twice, now three times, that there are far more effective methods to find "terrorists" without humilitating old ladies and terrorizing kids and unnecessarily inconveniencing the rest of us. Maybe if we can get the system changed, they'll still let you take off your shoes and drop trou.

I don't like sweeping generalizations and I refuse to condemn every person who does a search because of a few knuckleheads. However, I am glad to see you take a leap of faith in regards to what I should be saying. It is always enlightening to see what I should have said and thought. BAck on ignore. I like thinking for myself better.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I don't like sweeping generalizations and I refuse to condemn every person who does a search because of a few knuckleheads. However, I am glad to see you take a leap of faith in regards to what I should be saying. It is always enlightening to see what I should have said and thought.

Except for your sweeping generalizations about how there should be no limits on government authority or efforts to find "terrorists." It's amazing to me that your principal focus seems to be the reputations of these airport morons. What were their reputations when they were asking folks "do you want fries with that?" And who cares? There are much more important fish to fry here. And that business about me "telling you what to think" is getting a little old (here's a hint, it's a technique called "reductio ad absurdem"). You really should stop pulling that trope out of your bag every time you get lost in the deep rough of your arguments. I'm not trying to tell you what to think. I am hoping you may try thinking, just for the novelty.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

While I would prefer the Israeli way of security, it'd never pass here, because it's basically profiling. The politicians here would have a field day with it, and don't even start with the media/other assorted talking heads.

 

[duper]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

While I would prefer the Israeli way of security, it'd never pass here, because it's basically profiling. The politicians here would have a field day with it, and don't even start with the media/other assorted talking heads.

I remember the first time I visited my folks after they moved to Brownsville, TX. My dad and I took a walk down across the river into Matamoros. On the way back (you didn't need a passport yet) the guard looked at my CO driver's license, asked me some really benign question like, "how's your day?" then asked when I moved to Denver, and then where I was from. It was interesting. And pretty astute. I'm pretty sure that when I answered the benign question, he caught the Chicago in my accent, then asked a question that I would have no problem answering (and that he already knew the answer to), unless maybe I'm up to no good somehow and had to stumble for an answer. What you said about the Israeli system reminds me of that.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

While I would prefer the Israeli way of security, it'd never pass here, because it's basically profiling. The politicians here would have a field day with it, and don't even start with the media/other assorted talking heads.

It's not basically profiling. It IS profiling. It's behavior profiling. That isn't the problem. The problem is it requires highly trained, probably highly paid people to do this. Who's going to pay for it? The airlines? The government? HA!

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

It's not basically profiling. It IS profiling. It's behavior profiling. That isn't the problem. The problem is it requires highly trained, probably highly paid people to do this. Who's going to pay for it? The airlines? The government? HA!

I should have said that the politicians/media would refer to it as not "behavior profiling" but rather simply "profiling." And now watch the public protest and raise a ruckus.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I should have said that the politicians/media would refer to it as not "behavior profiling" but rather simply "profiling." And now watch the public protest and raise a ruckus.

No, they wouldn't.

This is America. It's all about $$$$.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

No, they wouldn't.

This is America. It's all about $$$$.

Who wouldn't what?

If the FAA came out with this plan, I guarantee the politicians would go ballistic about this "profiling," twisting the actual facts about it. And the public would eat it up. And then it wouldn't happen.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

It's not basically profiling. It IS profiling. It's behavior profiling. That isn't the problem. The problem is it requires highly trained, probably highly paid people to do this. Who's going to pay for it? The airlines? The government? HA!

Who pays for all those dimwits in the airports, and their equipment, and their benefits? That would be a place to start. A cost benefit analysis could reveal an Israeli type system would be cheaper overall, since you wouldn't necessarily be inconveniencing everyone. Training would be a problem. As would recruiting and hiring the right kind of people. However, this is do-able. Israel is doing it. It's at least worth exploring.

It's certainly true that irresponsible people would try to make this an issue of "racial profiling," and therefore objectionable (if you close your eyes, you can hear "the reverands" now). But I think millions of Americans are persuadable that taking off their shoes, having their children, and wives, daughters and grandmothers fondled by guys with bad breath and lascivious thoughts, posing for nearly nude pictures and all the rest can be replaced. Especially since these actions are calculated to give them the appearance of security, rather than the real thing.

Just remember, Senorita Incompetance of TSA pronounced the panty bomber incident an example of the "system working." Of course, but only because of the brave passengers sitting next to him and the fact that he was too stupid to actually detonate the device. We can't risk too many more "successes" like that.

 

[MinnesotaNorthStar]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Who wouldn't what?

If the FAA came out with this plan, I guarantee the politicians would go ballistic about this "profiling," twisting the actual facts about it. And the public would eat it up. And then it wouldn't happen.

This wouldn't be the FAA's deal. It'd be TSA, most likely. And which politicians would go ballistic? I'm not talking about "the reverends", I'm talking about actual politicians. You would have to be a moron to equate behavior profiling with racial profiling.

OP: Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it implemented in the US. I think it would work really well. I just think that the reason it wouldn't be is money and not the "p-word"

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

This wouldn't be the FAA's deal. It'd be TSA, most likely. And which politicians would go ballistic? I'm not talking about "the reverends", I'm talking about actual politicians. You would have to be a moron to equate behavior profiling with racial profiling.

OP: Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it implemented in the US. I think it would work really well. I just think that the reason it wouldn't be is money and not the "p-word"

Understand. What I have in mind is a pilot program. And glowing testimonials from passengers. Possibly an apprehension of a real terrorist (or maybe a seriously deranged person). As opposed to a Fuller Brush man with more than 2oz. of Rogaine in his carryon. And a constituency developing. And a national discussion about changing the model. And then somebody making it an issue in a presidential race. Probably a Republican because all those clods at airports either are or will soon be unionized.

Although not a TSA triumph, remember the time "security" folks stopped an old man by the name of Joe Foss at an airport because of a "suspicious" item he had in his brief case? Foss had been governor of South (?) Dakota and the first commissioner of the AFL. He was also a fighter ace from WWII, and the "suspicious" item was his Medal of Honor! You just can't be too careful with octogenarian MOH winners, know what I mean?

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

Who wouldn't what?

If the FAA came out with this plan, I guarantee the politicians would go ballistic about this "profiling," twisting the actual facts about it. And the public would eat it up. And then it wouldn't happen.

That is profiling, and that is wrong.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

One thing I have always wondered, why don't they have bomb sniffing dogs at all security checkpoints? Those dogs are generally very good at detecting what they are trained to detect.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

One thing I have always wondered, why don't they have bomb sniffing dogs at all security checkpoints? Those dogs are generally very good at detecting what they are trained to detect.

I'm guessing expense. It takes quite a bit of money to properly train a police dog, much less a dog specifically trained to sniff out bombs.

 

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: Nice Planet 2011

I'm guessing expense. It takes quite a bit of money to properly train a police dog, much less a dog specifically trained to sniff out bombs.

Would also have no effect on attacks coming in from outside the US, where the dogs would most likely not be standard.