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*

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.