Are you *really* committed to our fight against the TSA? (Probably not...)
Jul 30, 2011, 12:45 am
#61
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
Cloud Cruiser apparently doesn't know of all the warnings which, if heeded, would have easily prevented the hijackings. If the wakeup call worked, if we're now wide awake and listening rather than "having other priorities" (as Condoleeza Rice claimed at the time) we probably don't need any of this. Of course, if the government incessantly tries to spook travelers, then no solution will make people "comfortable". So the key to a solution is stop trying to spook people. Do the intelligence work, shut down cells that you find (Atta's cell was known in 2001), and leave off all these theatrics and the billions that we can't afford to support them.
Jul 30, 2011, 1:08 am
#62
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PDX,PHX,LON
Programs: too many of the few that are left
Posts: 627
On the ground, people all around you carry pocket knives, hunting knives, boxcutters, pepper spray, even firearms. Does it bother you then?
About the ONLY thing all these survivors have in common is agreeing our current security theater is a useless and dangerous farce.
Another survivor I've met says her anger at the terrorists is exceeded only by her contempt for people who use others' losses on 9/11 to make their own lives feel more exciting and glamorous.
I admit, the pat downs on children are hard to stomach, but for those sick minded people that think they are going to be a hero by taking down innocent people in a plane, they are watching and waiting to figure out which "innocent" looking people are allowed through without being checked. That will become the next method they try.
How far back? To work weeks of six 12-hour days? "No Irish Need Apply?" The Salem witch trials? The horse and buggy era was fine as long as you had the right ancestors, social influence, and enough money, just like now. Most of the population didn't, just like now. I confess I've often wished to be able to visit earlier centuries if only I could update my shots first
, but never under any illusion it would safer than living in the U.S. before the DHS. 
Jul 30, 2011, 1:09 am
#63
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PDX,PHX,LON
Programs: too many of the few that are left
Posts: 627
Cloud Cruiser apparently doesn't know of all the warnings which, if heeded, would have easily prevented the hijackings. If the wakeup call worked, if we're now wide awake and listening rather than "having other priorities" (as Condoleeza Rice claimed at the time) we probably don't need any of this. Of course, if the government incessantly tries to spook travelers, then no solution will make people "comfortable". So the key to a solution is stop trying to spook people. Do the intelligence work, shut down cells that you find (Atta's cell was known in 2001), and leave off all these theatrics and the billions that we can't afford to support them.
Jul 30, 2011, 4:53 am
#64
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold MM
Posts: 146
I'd be interested in a study - has an internet discussion board ever changed anyone's mind?
Last edited by coyote; Jul 30, 2011 at 4:59 am
Jul 30, 2011, 6:27 am
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Security methods should be designed based on rational thinking and careful cost-benefit analysis, not emotion. What is the point of your question? Is the opinion of someone who lost a family member on 9/11 more valid somehow than that of a member of the general population?
Your implication seems to be that someone who lost a family member would be inclined to agree with the current security regime. Let's assume for argument's sake that this is correct: so what? This is an emotional reaction. Public policy should not be decided this way. For one thing, there is the big question as to whether the current security methods provide a real benefit commensurate with their cost (in dollars and in human degradation) or even any benefit at all. Even if the new procedures provide some marginal improvement in security (and I think that this is a generous assumption), why should millions of travelers be degraded because three thousand people were killed ten years ago?
While some people like you don't seem to mind the new security procedures very much, many of us find them absolutely degrading and contrary to long-standing social mores.
And sorry, I don't buy into this bizarre idea that the modern world is somehow more dangerous than the "horse and buggy" era. This stems from a very solipsistic worldview. Life has always been fraught with danger, no more so now than in times past. In fact, I think that modern life is less dangerous than in the past, not more. I'll take my chances, thank you very much.
Your implication seems to be that someone who lost a family member would be inclined to agree with the current security regime. Let's assume for argument's sake that this is correct: so what? This is an emotional reaction. Public policy should not be decided this way. For one thing, there is the big question as to whether the current security methods provide a real benefit commensurate with their cost (in dollars and in human degradation) or even any benefit at all. Even if the new procedures provide some marginal improvement in security (and I think that this is a generous assumption), why should millions of travelers be degraded because three thousand people were killed ten years ago?
While some people like you don't seem to mind the new security procedures very much, many of us find them absolutely degrading and contrary to long-standing social mores.
And sorry, I don't buy into this bizarre idea that the modern world is somehow more dangerous than the "horse and buggy" era. This stems from a very solipsistic worldview. Life has always been fraught with danger, no more so now than in times past. In fact, I think that modern life is less dangerous than in the past, not more. I'll take my chances, thank you very much.
The same principle applies to air-travel security. People who die as a result of plane crashes don't get to decide how to make air travel safer in the future. Experts do. Thank goodness for that. "The families" might decide to just ground all the planes. Can't be too safe, right?
Bruce
Jul 30, 2011, 6:32 am
#66
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Winter Garden, FL
Programs: Delta DM-3MM United Gold-MM Marriott Lifetime Titanium Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 13,498
Jul 30, 2011, 6:52 am
#67
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 8,389
Is the "Movement" unraveling already?
Jul 30, 2011, 8:31 am
#68
Join Date: May 2010
Location: HOU, occasional IAH
Programs: WN A+ CP, IHG Status-of-the-Day, Avis First. **Freedom fighter: One grope at a time.**
Posts: 392
Cloud Cruiser apparently doesn't know of all the warnings which, if heeded, would have easily prevented the hijackings. If the wakeup call worked, if we're now wide awake and listening rather than "having other priorities" (as Condoleeza Rice claimed at the time) we probably don't need any of this. Of course, if the government incessantly tries to spook travelers, then no solution will make people "comfortable". So the key to a solution is stop trying to spook people. Do the intelligence work, shut down cells that you find (Atta's cell was known in 2001), and leave off all these theatrics and the billions that we can't afford to support them.
Jul 30, 2011, 8:34 am
#69
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Anchorage, half the time.
Programs: Yes
Posts: 13
So it boils down to deciding whether I feel safer with the added security measures (intrusive or not) verses hoping that another government agency will stop a plot before it happens. So far, I opt for the security. I do have an idea for handling youth checks but don't have the time this morning to type it in.
As far as a forum changing someone's mind, it can happen and just did. I formally rescind my wish to go back to horse an buggy days. At least until I find out what 'solipsistic' means...
I can just as easily claim the current rules were created using logic verses emotion. It makes logical sense to increase security measures based on past events in an effort to prevent them again. The discussion of why laws, rules, policies, etc are created using emotion or logic is similar to the 'which came first - the chicken or the egg' question. Things done for emotion at not always wrong, and things done for logic are not always right.
Gotta run for now.
Let's be careful out there,
CloudCruiser
As far as a forum changing someone's mind, it can happen and just did. I formally rescind my wish to go back to horse an buggy days. At least until I find out what 'solipsistic' means...
I can just as easily claim the current rules were created using logic verses emotion. It makes logical sense to increase security measures based on past events in an effort to prevent them again. The discussion of why laws, rules, policies, etc are created using emotion or logic is similar to the 'which came first - the chicken or the egg' question. Things done for emotion at not always wrong, and things done for logic are not always right.
Gotta run for now.
Let's be careful out there,
CloudCruiser
Jul 30, 2011, 8:39 am
#70
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,051
Another win for the Scare The Public campaign. I hope there are enough people who still value their freedom to stand up to the scare tactics.
Jul 30, 2011, 9:04 am
#71
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Salish Sea
Programs: DL,AC,HH,PC
Posts: 8,974
Smart decision.
At noon on September 16, 1920, a horse drawn buggy loaded with 100 pounds of dynamite and 500 pounds of cast- iron slugs exploded across the street from the J.P. Morgan bank headquarters in downtown Manhattan, New York. The explosion blew out windows for blocks around, killed 30 immediately, injured hundreds of others and completely destroyed the interior of the Morgan building.. Those responsible were never found, but evidence—in the form of a warning note received at a nearby office building—suggested anarchists.
Jul 30, 2011, 9:23 am
#72
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 733
Well, it has often been said that current security procedures are in place to make stupid people feel safer.
It's nice to know that they've met their goal.
It's nice to know that they've met their goal.
Jul 30, 2011, 5:03 pm
#74
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Anchorage, half the time.
Programs: Yes
Posts: 13
Maybe if I knew what that big college word was in a previous post, I wouldn't be on your "this guy doesn't deserve to live" list.
Regardless of how you feel about me, I still want you to be careful out there,
CloudCruiser
Jul 30, 2011, 5:18 pm
#75
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,967
As I said, I am not intending to change anyone's mind. I am stating my opinion on the topics of this thread. Maybe the security methods aren't the best, but what is your alternative? What method do you suggest that would make people feel comfortable that the person sitting next to them isn't hiding some type of weapon in their shoe, or underwear, or wherever?
If you had a family member on one of the planes that went down in 2001 which started all this, would you disagree with the current security methods? I admit, the pat downs on children are hard to stomach, but for those sick minded people that think they are going to be a hero by taking down innocent people in a plane, they are watching and waiting to figure out which "innocent" looking people are allowed through without being checked. That will become the next method they try.
I would love to go back to a horse and buggy society. The world would be much quieter...
Let's be careful out there,
CloudCruiser
If you had a family member on one of the planes that went down in 2001 which started all this, would you disagree with the current security methods? I admit, the pat downs on children are hard to stomach, but for those sick minded people that think they are going to be a hero by taking down innocent people in a plane, they are watching and waiting to figure out which "innocent" looking people are allowed through without being checked. That will become the next method they try.
I would love to go back to a horse and buggy society. The world would be much quieter...
Let's be careful out there,
CloudCruiser