Flight Sent Back on Terror Fear, U.S. Officials Say (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/national/01TERR.html?ex=1073538000&en=7499af64460bcaf0&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE) (no reg!)
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">WASHINGTON, Dec. 31 — The American authorities in the last week ordered a United States-bound flight from Mexico to turn around in midair and imposed extraordinary security measures on at least six other incoming flights because of terrorist concerns, federal officials said Wednesday.
Officials were so concerned about possible attacks on at least five foreign flights that landed in the United States, including one on Wednesday at Dulles International Airport outside Washington, that they moved the planes away from the main terminals and rescreened the passengers.
The security moves, along with the cancellation of several flights on Dec. 24 by Air France to Los Angeles, reflect an aggressive new approach toward guarding United States airspace because of concerns that terrorists may seek to hijack an international flight. The strategy is an outgrowth of the "high risk" terrorist alert status initiated 11 days ago.</font>
NoStressHere
Dec 31, 03, 10:34 pm
How long before a few countries with a backbone stand up to these people and tell them to get a life.
Of someone that is terribly inconvienced finds a way to sue them?
NickP 1K
Jan 1, 04, 1:42 pm
I would love it if some countries asked US aircraft to turn around as they are "worried" about the "dog and pony" of a security screening process we have.
You'll rarely/never hear about successes, but every failure will be on the front page.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
It's not the critic who counts - not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood. Who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause ...
Who, at the least knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while doing greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.
Theodore Roosevelt</font>
I suspect many of you will never have any freakin' clue of what this quote really means.
0 and 0. There is no proof whatsoever that any of this crap has deterred or foiled a terrorist any more than my magic, anti-terrorist rock.
My rock is a lot cheaper and it respects people's civil liberties.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
MIKESILV
Jan 1, 04, 3:11 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
I suspect many of you will never have any freakin' clue of what this quote really means.
</font>
Do you?
Any idiot can quote someone elses words.
Even Ronald Reagan had a speech writer.
mike.
[This message has been edited by MIKESILV (edited Jan 01, 2004).]
H2O_Goalie
Jan 1, 04, 3:14 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
0 and 0. There is no proof whatsoever that any of this crap has deterred or foiled a terrorist any more than my magic, anti-terrorist rock.
My rock is a lot cheaper and it respects people's civil liberties.
</font>
If something doesn't take place...how do you prove it was going to?
For example...let's say you were about to kill your SO. You notice a police car down the block though, so you don't. Now...how do I prove you were going to kill?
GUWonder
Jan 1, 04, 3:23 pm
You will always hear about the "successes". Ashcroft & Co. will brag about whatever can be packaged temporarily as a success. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
Spiff
Jan 1, 04, 3:25 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
If something doesn't take place...how do you prove it was going to?
For example...let's say you were about to kill your SO. You notice a police car down the block though, so you don't. Now...how do I prove you were going to kill?</font>
That's my point exactly!!
Anything could be called a deterrent. I expect clear results with level of harassment and paranoia or I expect it to stop immediately. I will not be fooled by vague claims that "we probably prevented something."
SHOW ME THE MONEY! (terrorists) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited Jan 01, 2004).]
H2O_Goalie
Jan 1, 04, 3:33 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
That's my point exactly!!
Anything could be called a deterrent. I expect clear results with level of harassment and paranoia or I expect it to stop immediately. I will not be fooled by vague claims that "we probably prevented something."
SHOW ME THE MONEY! (terrorists) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
</font>
Spiff, clearly you realize that the flip side of the coin is that you can't stand around saying "see, we don't need all this security" just because nothing has happened. You can't give clear, demonstrable proof that without this level of security nothing would be happening.
H2O_Goalie
Jan 1, 04, 3:35 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by MIKESILV:
Do you?
Any idiot can quote someone elses words.
Even Ronald Reagan had a speech writer.
mike.
[This message has been edited by MIKESILV (edited Jan 01, 2004).]</font>
Yes, I know quite well what it means. And at least I have the intelligence required to go out and find something that relates to my position.
Forgive me for not being at Teddy's level, few are...of course, I'm sure there are pages of remarkable quotes from you in Bartlett's.
Perhaps: "Woman, get me another beer and a fresh wife-beater off the clothesline."
JeremyZ
Jan 1, 04, 3:58 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
That's my point exactly!!
Anything could be called a deterrent. I expect clear results with level of harassment and paranoia or I expect it to stop immediately. I will not be fooled by vague claims that "we probably prevented something."
SHOW ME THE MONEY! (terrorists) http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
</font>
That's an oversimplification.
For example, checked luggage screening is undoubtedly a deterrent to people who would want to send a large bomb on a plane in their checked luggage. It is much more of a deterrent than a "magic rock."
There are clearly levels of effectiveness of the various security methods, but suggesting that the overall effort is completely ineffective is enormously stupid.
Spiff, if you'd further characterize what you mean by "this crap" being a non-deterrent, it might make a finer (or actual?) point for your argument.
If you're simply speaking about the cancellation of a half-dozen or so flights out of millions (?) since 9/11, I'm not sure that's such a big freakin' deal.
In 2003, there were probably about the same number of flights cancelled due to these warnings as there were due to "drunk pilot" concerns. Yet, there's no "proof" that these pilots would have crashed their planes. So is keeping wasted pilots out of the air pointless?
Cygnus X-1
Jan 1, 04, 4:06 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Felix Unger:
People killed: 0. </font>
Actually People killed: 1. One was in the wheel.
sbrower
Jan 1, 04, 4:14 pm
These posts are interesting. I personally feel that: 1) the current level of security is annoying and unnecessary; 2) but some level of security is appropriate.
For example, I suspect that there are actually valid reasons for the recent attention to flights from France and UK being affected. They may not result in finding anything, but they aren't just because someone tried to get past security with a nail clipper. BUT, even if they actually find a terrorist on one of those flights, that won't persuade me that we need the current level of passenger annoyance security that we have now.
Worldwide, almost as many passengers have been killed by *intentional* acts by flight crew as by terrorists. But we have a much higher level of attention on terrorists.
Felix Unger
Jan 1, 04, 4:31 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by sbrower:
These posts are interesting. I personally feel that: 1) the current level of security is annoying and unnecessary; 2) but some level of security is appropriate.
For example, I suspect that there are actually valid reasons for the recent attention to flights from France and UK being affected. They may not result in finding anything, but they aren't just because someone tried to get past security with a nail clipper. BUT, even if they actually find a terrorist on one of those flights, that won't persuade me that we need the current level of passenger annoyance security that we have now.
Worldwide, almost as many passengers have been killed by *intentional* acts by flight crew as by terrorists. But we have a much higher level of attention on terrorists. </font>
This is a pretty good level of reasoning. I tend to agree that some of the elements of physical security seem excessive and annoying. I would think that by now they could do better, especially with the low level stuff that wouldn't have much impact on safety.
We pay so much attention to terrorism because a terrorist incident has a worldwide economic and social impact that vastly, vastly exceeds accidental crashes, whether based on pilot error or mechanical failures.
slippahs
Jan 1, 04, 4:36 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Cygnus X-1:
Actually People killed: 1. One was in the wheel.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by H2O_Goalie:
Spiff, clearly you realize that the flip side of the coin is that you can't stand around saying "see, we don't need all this security" just because nothing has happened. You can't give clear, demonstrable proof that without this level of security nothing would be happening.
</font>
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
I want proof that the recent escalation of this nonsense has prevented even one hijacking. Show me one captured terrorist. Show me a bomb. Show me something. Don't blow smoke up my ... with statements like "a plane of interest" or "suspicious passengers".
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
Spiff
Jan 1, 04, 7:18 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JeremyZ:
That's an oversimplification.
For example, checked luggage screening is undoubtedly a deterrent to people who would want to send a large bomb on a plane in their checked luggage. It is much more of a deterrent than a "magic rock."
There are clearly levels of effectiveness of the various security methods, but suggesting that the overall effort is completely ineffective is enormously stupid.
Spiff, if you'd further characterize what you mean by "this crap" being a non-deterrent, it might make a finer (or actual?) point for your argument.
If you're simply speaking about the cancellation of a half-dozen or so flights out of millions (?) since 9/11, I'm not sure that's such a big freakin' deal.
In 2003, there were probably about the same number of flights cancelled due to these warnings as there were due to "drunk pilot" concerns. Yet, there's no "proof" that these pilots would have crashed their planes. So is keeping wasted pilots out of the air pointless?[/B]</font>
You've no concrete proof of your first statement. And arbitrarily canceled flights are a big freakin' deal. It may be my flight that is arbitrarily canceled. Canceling flights on a whim: 1)Unnecessarily terrorizes the passengers on them or who were considering taking similar flights, 2)wastes the airlines' and the travelers' time and money, and 3)is of great concern to those of us who value our civil liberties and do not want random security harassment.
As for pilots showing up for work drunk, that is against the law. Reserve pilots were found and the airlines whose pilots showed up smashed were forced to reaccommodate and/or compensate those affected by the pilots' decision to show up drunk. If the FBI and the TSA wants to compensate all those affected by this useless harassement, then my criticisms will decrease but not dissappear.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
richard
Jan 1, 04, 7:19 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
I want proof that the recent escalation of this nonsense has prevented even one hijacking. Show me one captured terrorist. Show me a bomb. Show me something. Don't blow smoke up my ... with statements like "a plane of interest" or "suspicious passengers".
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
</font>
you can't trust the government's explanations anyway. They are usually complete lies. So you won't "see the money" I'm afraid.
NickP 1K
Jan 1, 04, 7:23 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by richard:
you can't trust the government's explanations anyway. They are usually complete lies. So you won't "see the money" I'm afraid.</font>
Well I see the money being spent to cause panic yet I have yet to see anyone in law enforcement benefit from this. So all I see is "marketing funds" being used for a PR exercise.
Spiff
Jan 1, 04, 7:27 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
Well I see the money being spent to cause panic yet I have yet to see anyone in law enforcement benefit from this. So all I see is "marketing funds" being used for a PR exercise.</font>
Actually, this panic keeps law enforcement people employed. I bet they and the Terrorism Support Agency love the PR generated.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
tom911
Jan 1, 04, 7:31 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by NickP 1K:
People killed pre 9/11 on US domestic flights on terrorism: 0</font>
Recall the PSA flight that crashed in San Luis Obispo when the pilots were shot in 1987?
JeremyZ
Jan 1, 04, 8:40 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
[snip]
As for pilots showing up for work drunk, that is against the law. Reserve pilots were found and the airlines whose pilots showed up smashed were forced to reaccommodate and/or compensate those affected by the pilots' decision to show up drunk. If the FBI and the TSA wants to compensate all those affected by this useless harassement, then my criticisms will decrease but not dissappear.
</font>
Heh. I thought we were doin' the reasoned argument thing here.
The new security laws were created by the same Federal government that created the drunk pilot laws. You're saying that being a drunk pilot is "against the law," but, you know, the the new security laws were dreamed up by the same crew. The difference is that you don't like the new security laws http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif.
It wasn't Virgin that stopped the pilot a couple of weeks ago, it was the same gov't that de-shoes us. The flight was cancelled.
A law is a law, chester.
Federal law gives airports the power to stop all air traffic for weather, even if you or I think it's safe to fly. No compensation from the government would be given or expected. Do you stomp around then and start quoting Jefferson because the government's assessment of the weather is different than yours?
So . . . . I'm not sure I understand where exactly your "rule of thumb" comes into play. These are all laws.
If y'all want to make an argument that you have better resources, information and judgment than the government when it comes to making daily decisions on air terrorism . . . well, okay. I doubt you're right, but that's Constitutionally reasonable.
But when you start all this "keep your hands off my uterus" crap about only one specific component of a Federal air traffic system that delays and inconveniences us in various ways on a daily basis, well, that's just silly.
Spiff
Jan 1, 04, 8:51 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JeremyZ:
Heh. I thought we were doin' the reasoned argument thing here.
</font>
The pilots broke the law; there was probable cause to abort/delay the flights. Airlines compensated/reaccommodated the passengers.
Passengers on these flights harassed by the TSA/FBI did not break the law. They were not compensated for their delays.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
JeremyZ
Jan 1, 04, 11:28 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
The pilots broke the law; there was probable cause to abort/delay the flights. Airlines compensated/reaccommodated the passengers.
Passengers on these flights harassed by the TSA/FBI did not break the law. They were not compensated for their delays.
</font>
Stop. You are not making a reasoned argument.
Passengers on flights with drunk pilots or those who are held up by thunderstorms did not break the law either.
All of these flights were held because somebody with governmental authority felt it was most prudent to keep people out of harm's way based on their best information.
I agree with you that some new regulations seem unreasonable.
However, it is also unreasonable to expect that passengers be compensated by the government when diversions and cancellations take place in the name of security, but not compensated when the government shuts operations due to weather-related judgment calls, which happen much more frequently and with considerably less consideration.
GUWonder
Jan 1, 04, 11:49 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JeremyZ:
However, it is also unreasonable to expect that passengers be compensated by the government when diversions and cancellations take place in the name of security, but not compensated when the government shuts operations due to weather-related judgment calls, which happen much more frequently and with considerably less consideration.</font>
It would be more economically efficient. Having valuations placed on activities is a necessary component of risk assessment and practical risk mitigation as well. Our time does have value and we should be compensated. It would be "fair". http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 01, 2004).]
JeremyZ
Jan 2, 04, 12:23 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GUWonder:
It would be more economically efficient. Having valuations placed on activities is a necessary component of risk assessment and practical risk mitigation as well. Our time does have value and we should be compensated. It would be "fair". http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 01, 2004).]</font>
I take this in the spirit you gave it http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif, but I don't get a nuance.
In an efficient system, would a passenger whose wasted time was worth (let's say) $10,000 collect something when a flight was weather delayed because of a 20% chance of an accident?
More than likely, if permitted to leave, the plane would get there, so does the government owe because an accident was not a certainty?
Actuaries should never be allowed to access the internet. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif
Spiff
Jan 2, 04, 3:03 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JeremyZ:
Stop. You are not making a reasoned argument.
Passengers on flights with drunk pilots or those who are held up by thunderstorms did not break the law either.
All of these flights were held because somebody with governmental authority felt it was most prudent to keep people out of harm's way based on their best information.
I agree with you that some new regulations seem unreasonable.
However, it is also unreasonable to expect that passengers be compensated by the government when diversions and cancellations take place in the name of security, but not compensated when the government shuts operations due to weather-related judgment calls, which happen much more frequently and with considerably less consideration.</font>
Nonsense!!!
In the case of drunk pilots, there was sufficient, probable cause to delay/cancel the flights. The probable cause bore out when the pilots were indeed found to be drunk. The airlines accepted responsibility.
In the case of the latest BA passenger harassment scandal, there was little if any probable cause. No evidence was found to support the harassment. The TSA and the FBI should accept responsibility for detaining passengers on a whim and compensate them accordingly.
In your example of weather, there is almost always some evidence during or after the fact that can confirm the reason for the delay. No compensation is due for an act of God. I'd be pleased to see the evidence that was used on the BA and other flights. Those cancellations were certainly not acts of God.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited Jan 02, 2004).]
bdschobel
Jan 2, 04, 5:54 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JeremyZ:
Actuaries should never be allowed to access the internet. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif</font>
Hey, I resemble that remark! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif
Bruce
JeremyZ
Jan 2, 04, 8:57 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
[snip]
In your example of weather, there is almost always some evidence during or after the fact that can confirm the reason for the delay. No compensation is due for an act of God. I'd be pleased to see the evidence that was used on the BA and other flights. Those cancellations were certainly not acts of God.
</font>
Oh stop.
The argument you propose is too fluid and gray.
If some psycho was sitting outside the airport perimeter fence with an anti-aircraft missile, requiring a delay, would passengers be entitled to compensation from the government because it wasn't an "act of god?"
Would passengers to entitled to compensation if it was a guy with a really big gun? A rock? If I can't get to my office for a half hour because the streets are closed for security reasons, do I get a check?
You continue to assume that all of these command security decisions are made cavalierly with completely inaccurate information. Contrary to your opinion, I'm confident that there *is* evidence behind the decision to request cancellations or diversions. There is simply some stuff that you're not in a position to be told. I challenge you to get full technical information from an airport authority that has authorized a weather hold.
Jeez. Suck it up.
GUWonder
Jan 2, 04, 11:26 am
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JeremyZ:
I take this in the spirit you gave it http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif, but I don't get a nuance.
In an efficient system, would a passenger whose wasted time was worth (let's say) $10,000 collect something when a flight was weather delayed because of a 20% chance of an accident?
More than likely, if permitted to leave, the plane would get there, so does the government owe because an accident was not a certainty?
Actuaries should never be allowed to access the internet. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif</font>
I am not an actuary ... far from it. Bruce, however, has actuarial functions within his fiefdom. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif
JeremyZ
Jan 2, 04, 12:07 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by GUWonder:
I am not an actuary ... far from it. Bruce, however, has actuarial functions within his fiefdom. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif</font>
Some people don't like cliffhangers on tv. I'm a dork, and don't like to be left hanging with open questions about risk analysis http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif.
Gimme more color about your thoughts regarding relative compensation for weather. It was an interesting start.
Spiff
Jan 2, 04, 12:20 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JeremyZ:
You continue to assume that all of these command security decisions are made cavalierly with completely inaccurate information. Contrary to your opinion, I'm confident that there *is* evidence behind the decision to request cancellations or diversions. There is simply some stuff that you're not in a position to be told. I challenge you to get full technical information from an airport authority that has authorized a weather hold.
Jeez. Suck it up.</font>
I guess that the main point we disagree on. You think there was credible proof of a threat. I think they acted on a whim. I think they should have to show proof of why they did what they did. In every example you've given - rock, gun, wacko by fence, weather, whatever - there is something you can take a picture of, draw a white arrow around it and say "there is the cause of the delay/harassment."
I do not have the same trust of these people that you do and I will definitely not suck it up. Wanna be a lemming? Be my guest.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
The Unknown Screener
Jan 2, 04, 12:33 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
I guess that the main point we disagree on. You think there was credible proof of a threat. I think they acted on a whim. I think they should have to show proof of why they did what they did. In every example you've given - rock, gun, wacko by fence, weather, whatever - there is something you can take a picture of, draw a white arrow around it and say "there is the cause of the delay/harassment."
I do not have the same trust of these people that you do and I will definitely not suck it up. Wanna be a lemming? Be my guest.</font>
Maybe by giving out that information they might tip their hand and an informant gets caught and we lose a source. Why you seem to think that you have a right to know about every detail is beyond me. This is a serious game we find ourselves playing and you seem to want us to hold our cards face out for some reason. You sound much like the anti-nuclear forces in Europe in the 80's. "Lets get rid of all the nukes and we will start with the democracies first!"
------------------
Don't take life too seriously, afterall, you won't get out alive.
JeremyZ
Jan 2, 04, 12:37 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
I guess that the main point we disagree on. You think there was credible proof of a threat. I think they acted on a whim. I think they should have to show proof of why they did what they did. In every example you've given - rock, gun, wacko by fence, weather, whatever - there is something you can take a picture of, draw a white arrow around it and say "there is the cause of the delay/harassment."
I do not have the same trust of these people that you do and I will definitely not suck it up. Wanna be a lemming? Be my guest.
</font>
Okay - that's fair.
I just don't have the time in my life, or need the stress to question every tax dollar, bridge closing or security camera. Hell, I wrote an email to my Senator (Nighthorse, remember him?) opposing Patriot II, but I think it's appropriate to take some governmental decisions on faith, and the level of disclosure to date related to airline diversions/cancellations I feel is adequate.
While I'm still not comfortable as to the logic of your theory of the government compensating passengers delayed for questionable security and not for questionable weather, at least I see why you have your perspective.
Spiff
Jan 2, 04, 12:51 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by The Unknown Screener:
Maybe by giving out that information they might tip their hand and an informant gets caught and we lose a source. Why you seem to think that you have a right to know about every detail is beyond me. This is a serious game we find ourselves playing and you seem to want us to hold our cards face out for some reason. You sound much like the anti-nuclear forces in Europe in the 80's. "Lets get rid of all the nukes and we will start with the democracies first!"
</font>
Ya know, if these were rare, isolated events, I might agree with you. However, hardly a day goes by without some false report of terrorism and some idiotic government agency response. I'm tired of this crap and I don't want my own time wasted on the extremely remote chance of the nebulous "unspecific threat".
I believe most, if not all of the "responses to terrorism" post 9/11 have been because of some nervous idiot or idiots pressing the panic button. My patience is long since over. I no longer give the government any credibility unless they provide proof.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
GUWonder
Jan 2, 04, 1:46 pm
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by JeremyZ:
Some people don't like cliffhangers on tv. I'm a dork, and don't like to be left hanging with open questions about risk analysis http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif.
Gimme more color about your thoughts regarding relative compensation for weather. It was an interesting start.</font>
Want to discuss this over dinner? Invite some cute girls for the discussion, and maybe I will join in to more fully develop the concept. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif [Compensation for choices is more appropriate for inclusion in efficiency matters than compensation for random variables. Encouraging a lottery mentality is not rational. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif ]