Log in

No account? Create an account
..:: .::: .:: .::.::.:.: .. ..:: .::: .:: ....

May 2011
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31

Ys [userpic]

Can I just say that this was pretty much my first thought too?

Current Mood: discontentdisgusted but unsurprised

Why is everyone always so cinical? If they hadn't announced it at all, then the complaints that government doesn't actually have any terrorist plots to foil would just keep going. "We haven't been attacked since 9/11, what are they wasting all their time for?" "They're doing too much, they haven't stopped anything anyway?" Whether they're open or they're secret about it, they get bitched about.

(That's cynical.)


I appologize for small misspelling of a single word in a 64 word posting. My copy editor card should be taken away and burnt in symbolic offering to the grammar gods.

Woot burning copy editor cards!

Sacrifices to the grammar gods are always good.

Heh, you know, I actually read the comment as "You are being cynical while complaining that others are cynical," and didn't even catch the spelling correction until I read your comment back. I thought they had a point. :)

I can sum this up fairly succinctly:

Even assuming that the people caught were indeed a threat...they were caught by months of detective work, not by airline "security" measures.

TSA's measures don't do squat to actually make anyone safe. It's just not that hard to get a wide variety of weapons through even now. But people don't want to think about that.

I doubt the hightened measures will last long, though, because they'll cut into the airlines' revenues and Bushco's support for big business will win out over the "provide the illusion of safety and a big dose of fear fear fear" thing.

Might I suggest human sized ziploc bags keeping each person fresh and immobile during their flight.

Nowhere in any of the stories today did they mention that the plot was foiled by TSA employees. Although, implementing additional measures should help to reduce the possibility of an attack using those methods.

None of the new measures will last long as humans are too impatient to be troubled with things like security. As for the support of big business, I suggest you try to come up with a better and cheaper method to move thousands of people quickly around the globe daily.

Get our scientists on the tube technology immediately!

*nods sagely*

Tube technology? That's what the intraweb is made out of!! :)

Oh I like you, even if you don't understand us cynical old people. *grins* (I'm only 26 but I've been told I'm one of those cynical old people, just a little early in my life.)

Thanks! I try to understand, but not everything is a conspiracy. If Bush could actually pull off all the things that people accuse him of, we'd all be in much better hands. :)

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetance."

I won't argue that point. I will note that I don't believe most of it is Bush, btw. Bush himself doesn't scare me in the slightest. It's the folks who are the actual power behind that, folks who signed the New American Century, who are not hiding anything about what they're doing...those are the ones who scare me these days.

I've tried to believe in a One World Order, but the more I follow politics, the more I have to believe that none of them could get along well enough to pull it off. There's too much in-fighting for anything to ever be accomplished.

I'm not talking about One World Order.

I'm talking about a very small group of men who are very buddy-buddy and have been for some time, and who have an inordinate amount of power at the moment, and who have been doing everything they can to gather more power and to remove the checks and balances that the U.S. has had for two centuries now to prevent exactly that sort of power gathering.

BTW, if you actually read what I linked to and the variety of things he linked to...this is as much or more Blair than Bushco. It's convenient timing for folks here in the U.S., but it was critical timing for Blair.

I would be fine, personally, with being "troubled by security" if we had any actual security. Since we don't, it's just fearmongering, and inconveniencing fearmongering at that.

I'm not sure where the 'better and cheaper method' thing came from. I personally think the airlines do a pretty good job of that. It wasn't a slam on the airlines, it was a slam on the current administration.

I just wish the TSA and the gov't would stop with the FEAR FEAR FEAR bullshit and use the (very few) methods that do any good at all, and stop with the rest of them.

There's a reason that "unreasonable search and seizure" is a long-established legal concept, and so on.

There is a major difference between the police coming to your home and wanting to seach and being searched at an airport. When you go to an airport and choose to buy a ticket, you are consenting to a search of your person if you wish to use their services. If you do not consent to the search, you are perfectly free to turn around and walk away. You won't be getting on a plane, but that's your choice.
A series of safeguards need to be in place to keep weapons off of airliners. Perhaps they're not going about it in the most efficient manner, but it has to be done. In previous years the threat of hijacking was lower so fewer safeguards had to be in place.

Other than you agreeing that security has to be in place to protect passengers when they fly, i'm unclear as to what the rest of the problem is. What sort of "FEAR FEAR" bullshit are you referring to? The raising of the threat level? The beefed up checks at the airport? The actual acknowledgement that something was averted? I'm a bit lost because in this instance it would actually seem that they did something good.

It's, specifically, the timing of the announcement. This was announced the way it was, and when it was, purely for political gain, and millions of people are suffering for it. The "beefed up checks" aren't going to do anything but cause human suffering &em; they aren't going to help anything at all. That's what my original link was about.

The stupidity of the handling of the "beefed up checks" (see, for example, this commentary) is really just salt in the wound.

However, a fearful populace is an easily controlled populace. A fearful populace might not question things like this, you know.

As far as search and seizure, your assertion that they are different is only valid if airline travel is truly a luxury, and not a necessity. For many Americans these days, it is a necessity (though I think it probably shouldn't be). If you're a professional, travel may be part of what you have to do in order to put food on your table and keep a roof over your head, and you don't have a choice about submitting yourself to what is, at this point, a public humiliation rather than anything even vaguely useful.

I do not in the slightest believe that the thread of hijacking was lower in the past, by the way. That is, IMNSHO, propaganda.

The pouring of the liquids into common containers was just retarded from the start. Never underestimate government employees when it comes to carrying out a task. The behavior you saw today was a knee-jerk reaction to an immediate change in the procedure. No new instructions were issued on the actual screener level. The procedure, if maintained, will be changed once someone realizes how stupidly it was implemented. Considering the time frame it was put in place though, it's to be expected.

The threat of hijackings of domestic US flights was indeed lower in the past. The ideology threatening us was focused previously on a more confined area, the middle east. Influence, communications and trade are now more
global than they've ever been spreading local issues around the globe.

I'm concerned about some of the policies that the administration is putting into place. There is an election coming up at the end of the year and the people supporting these policies can be replaced. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people from both parties that support these. I'd suggest a term limit on congress members to limit the amount of influence corporations and private individuals can have over congress.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people from both parties that support these,

I could not agree more with this statement.

…I should maybe mention that I'm registered Republican, since I see several assumptions throughout this conversation. *grin*

Republican or Democrat, there's so much hatred being tossed Bush's way that doesn't seem to be completely deserved. It very much just seems to be the popular thing to do. In political discussions at work I try not to participate since when people find out i'm not a Democrat they just start bitching. I try very much to stay out of them on LJ as well, but sometimes it seems like a fun thing to do :) *yawn* But now it's time for bed.

You'll notice I didn't say anything about Bush. I mentioned "Bushco", by which I mean the folks around him, not Bush himself. And I specifically pointed out that the current round of BS is more Blair than Bush anyway…

I think Bush is incompetant and (mostly) a figurehead. I think he's a vicious asshole as a person, but that's less relevant. I don't want to encourage people to focus on Bush when that lets the real culprits off.

Well, as somebody who does fly back and forth to England* at times -- I'd rather travel without a water bottle until I was certain that every member of the current cabal were under arrest. Though I'd expect things to get back to normal very soon after that. The UK does tend to be less hysterical than the US in these things, despite having been a far more frequent target of terrorism in various guises. Hmm. Or perhaps because of it.

*Flying between Norway and the UK, that is :)

No personal electronics? Won't last long, with as many businesspeople who need their laptops during flights and as many whiny kids who want their iPods. Putting people on a plane with a bunch of bored 12-year-olds is an act of psychological warfare in my book.

I really, *really* hope that the restrictions are lifted before I fly to England in September. I am not at all excited about the prospect of 36 hours of travel relying on erratic cabin service (I always bring my own water because they never bring enough around) with nothing more interesting to read than my passport.

If the dems don't hit back on this - hard - then the Reps will be convinced that this is a valid tactic and do it again.

Even if they have to fabricate it out of whole cloth.

That article kind of overstates the point. Blair wasn't going to loose his job over Israel/Lebanon. Sure if 150 MPs try to recall Parliment, that would be irritating for Blair. But it was unlikely Straw would have agreed to the recall. And even if he had, there was no way Blair was going to choose to resign (or be forced into a leadership challenge).

All that would have happened would have been a bit of a debate. Blair would have said he's already spending all his time in diplomatic efforts to get a peace, as are large chunks of the Cabinet. Everyone would go home. If it really came to a vote, the Tories have already said they want Blair to continue doing what he's doing in diplomacy and see how it turns out. So even with large backbench revolts, Blair couldn't be defeated (much like at the start of Iraq).

Of course The Scotsman is going to see the resignation of a Scottish MP as being hugely significant and important. No-one else noticed.

Having said that, I do think Blair made sure the current situation developed into the chaos it did just to stress to everyone "look, there's still lots of terrorism and we're still doing our job defending you".

The whole time it was on the news I was arguing, "They never said HOW they caught them or WHY or WHO!" And this was for DAYS. Like, I knew it wasn't at the airport because the news only said terrorists were captured. Not how.

But I'm not sure how American news went.