STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

Amen, ebrown.

0 Replies

I know, I am left feeling there is nothing left to add about profiling. Yet, I know there will be.

I wouln't know about the airport as I have never been on a plane.

I did get my liscense renewed recently and walked through medel detectors and handed my purse over to be searched for the first time in all my forty years. It was a weird experience but I didn't find it all that bothersome.

0 Replies

Drewdad, I think you have to be trying to put context into the argument that isn't there. So I won't try to reason any further, will accept that you think I'm all wet and what other characterization you wish to infer, and let's let it go at that.

Hamburger, you're right. We do get what we pay for. But sometimes we make things a lot harder and more expensive than they have to be too.

Ebrown writes

Quote:

This is un-American because in this country we are supposed to put "Liberty and Justice for All" above all else. Liberty is a risk. We could probably make ourselves more secure by taking away rights (preferable someone elses rights),

I am just as protective of my kids and agree in principle with everything you said. But from a practical point of view, if profiling in airports will better protect all the great and totally innocent dark skinned and/or Middle Eastern looking guys out there, which is most of them, right along with everybody else, then it is hardly racist or un-American or unjust to do it. And I don't know, but I would bet a buck that if somebody polled those who fly, the majority of them would probably agree.

0 Replies

Yes, I think you're all wet with the profiling thing.

Which is not to say that I'm unwilling to discuss it with you, or even change my mind.

But it's a bit hard to have a discussion when you refuse to answer the questions I've posed.

0 Replies

Drewdad writes

Quote:

But it's a bit hard to have a discussion when you refuse to answer the questions I've posed.

And it's very wearying when I have already answered the questions to the best of my ability and you ignore my observations, arguments, and answers and you just keep rewording the same questions with a suggestion of ad hominem innuendo built in. I don't expect you to agree with me. So far nobody on this thread has.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

Read your post again. It is simply ridiculous.

You are saying that a minority will vote in favor of being singled out for searches based on their skin color. I know Arab Americans, and you are dead wrong.

I seriously doubt you would subject your kids to this treatment any more than they wouild.

I would take your buck if I could.

0 Replies

I will accept that I may be wrong about whether Middle Easterners or people who look like Middle Easterners would agree. But I do give them credit for being able to analyze and see a situation for how it is. I don't know a lot of Americans of Middle Eastern descent but those I do know are very astute, intelligent, well educated people. I'm guessing I would have a pretty good chance of keeping my buck if I asked them and you would agree to abide by that small sampling. I'm not counting on having the opportunity to work the subject into a conversation anytime soon however and I don't know of any study that has been done on the subject.

0 Replies

You're already annoyed at having to go through security through no fault of your own. Now you think that others are willing to make that sacrifice just to make it easier for everyone else to go through security faster? I don't think you have a real firm grasp of human nature.

0 Replies

Well when you can find where I said anywhere that I was annoyed at having to go through security, then we might have a basis on which to discuss that.

0 Replies

Your entire first post's main point was that you was annoyed to be treated the same as potential terrorist because of political correctness.

0 Replies

Yes, I agree with Williams on that one. You have to twist that beyond recognition, however, to conclude that this extrapolates into being annoyed by airport security overall.

0 Replies

OK. I shall rephrase.

Fox, you're already annoyed at having to go through extra security through no fault of your own. Now you claim that others are willing to make that sacrifice just to make it easier for everyone else to go through security faster? I don't think you have a real firm grasp of human nature.

0 Replies

I didn't say it was fair to the honest, peaceful, loyal citizens of Middle Eastern descent. But it is the reality that terrorists are most likely to be of Middle Eastern descent. And going back to the analogy of the rapist or the red headed armed robber, or the hit and run, you look more closely for the villain among those who are most likely to be a villain.

So, given the option of being profiled or a stronger likelihood of getting on a plane with a terrorist, I just think most Middle Easterners would choose the former. I might be dead wrong. But if the profile of terrorists were people who looked like me, I think I would accept profiling if that was the best policy to protect me and everybody.

All that Williams was asking in his piece was that it make sense. That's all I ask.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes, I agree with Williams on that one. You have to twist that beyond recognition, however, to conclude that this extrapolates into being annoyed by airport security overall.

foxfrye, reread my sentence, maybe slower this time.

revel wrote

Quote:

Your entire first post's main point was that you was annoyed to be treated the same as potential terrorist because of political correctness

.

I did not say you was annoyed with security overall. I said you was annoyed with being treated the same as potential terrorist at airport security screening.

I assume you don't like it because it is embarrassing and makes people think you might be a terrorist?

If so, imagine you had to live that on a daily basis just because you resemble a middle eastern person (man or woman) or have a Muslim/Arabic sounding name.

They may not mind it so much, I wouldn't know. I know to be safe I don't think it would all that bad for little old ladies or anyone else to be going through the airport securities.

It would be stupid on our part to ignore other avenues that terrorist might use which might include using little old ladies as pack mules. Not all little old ladies are as innocent as they look. It has nothing to do with political correctness.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

All that Williams was asking in his piece was that it make sense. That's all I ask.

Is profiling the only way it would make sense to you?

Again, I will state that you are mixing up two separate issues.

From what I can tell, here are the two issues you are concerned about:

1. You believe that the current airline security procedures inconvenience too many people for too little benefit.
2. You believe that security should be preferentially targeted at men who appear to be of Middle Eastern descent.

I agree with you on the first point.

I strongly disagree with you on the second point.

But your second option is not the only way to fight stupid airport security. In fact, I think it hampers any serious discussion of the subject.

0 Replies

The second option is the one that you on the left keep bringing the discussion back to. It was only one issue among several offered in Williams' piece. I tried valiantly to discuss tweezers and only Walter, who is not a rabidly partisan type, recognized that and attempted to discuss it.'

But if you think that there can be no discussion of anything if profiling is included, then yes, any serious discussion of the subject is definitely hampered.

(Somebody did mention the new ban on butane lighters. I'm not sure what threat triggered that. It wasn't the presence of fire because passengers can carry up to four books of matches on their persons, just not any lighters fueled by fluids or gas.)

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The [profiling] option is the one that you on the left keep bringing the discussion back to.

Fox, you're the one that keeps bringing up profiling.

Foxfyre wrote:

But short of strip searching every passenger, how do you propose that we catch the nutjobs who fit no profile? Is normal security enough? You can't profile for the nutjobs because there is no profile. You can profile the group that has pledged to destroy us.

Foxfyre wrote:

Better x-ray equipment and allowing no carry on luggage other than normal accessories such as purses would speed things up while all baggage going onto the cargo bin was x-rayed.

And lets get past political correctness and allow profiling for purposes of extra scrutiny.

I've tried to drop the subject several times. And I have suggested needed changes.

Let's discuss some of the options I suggested here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1297962#1297962

And the issues I brought up at the end of my post here: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1303060#1303060

0 Replies

Okay, I'll concede your point on that one Drewdad. In my eagerness to make my point on profiling as that particular issue is the most annoying to me, I have focused on it more than the other issues. I do think it the most important of any single issue.

Your other comments were posed as mostly questions and you didn't answer my question as to why tweezers are somehow more dangerous than a ballpoint pen. Any thought on that?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Your other comments were posed as mostly questions and you didn't answer my question as to why tweezers are somehow more dangerous than a ballpoint pen. Any thought on that?

I think it's assinine. Prison inmates regularly make improvised weapons from ball point pens, safety razors, etc. (And they use matches to melt the plastic. Rolling Eyes

) Safety razors can be purchased within the security areas of many airports!

Which goes back to my contention that the "new" airport security is designed to:
A) Make people feel safer. It doesn't actually make people safer.
B) Employ large numbers of people.

There used to be a website on the stupid policies... seems to be "under construction" right now.... Shocked

One incident mentioned was National Guardsmen taking a commercial flight. They were allowed to take their weapons on board... but only after said weapons had gone through the X-ray machine. Gee. This M16 isn't enough of a weapon, let me pack it full of explosives....

I've also previously stated the need to positively track baggage with the passenger that checks it.

0 Replies

Your last point is intriguing. I'm not sure what you mean about positively tracking baggage with the passenger that checks it. Could you elaborate?

0 Replies

STUPID AIRPORT SECURITY

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know