Wrong.

By the way, I did not make a presumption that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people. The data suggested that law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest, especially about the stopping of innocent people. I said what I said; and I did not say that which you claim I said as evidence of "bias".

Where did you read the unwritten and arrive at the idea that I think that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people? Did I write that LE/security types are more often than not dishonest when stopping people? No. I suggest being careful about putting words in the mouths of others or imagining what they presumed/assumed when one hasn't even correctly read what they wrote.

The truth is that the sets of data we went through indicated that law enforcement/security types were not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.

I do have a bias -- and a strong one at that -- for data-based analysis, especially when it comes to matters of security and government relations.

Where in this thread did I talk about profiling examples, related to "prohibition", which you claim were/are anomalies? Please do share and/or address the right persons.

Am I to presume that those "profiling examples" which you claim are "anomalies" are fully to your satisfaction? [I wouldn't presume such. However, if you care to share how the "profiling examples" were/are "anomalies" and whether those "anomalies" are to your satisfaction it could be amusing.]

That which people claim are anomalies are often not anomalies; it just requires drilling down into the data and classifying and qualifying items more fully. But careful reading and analysis of data is not everyone's cup of tea.

Did I say: "LE/security "types" are more often than not dishonest when stopping people"? No, no, no.

Dude, conclude what you wish with respect to the size or efficacy of the FAM program. Open discourse is good, but your allusions to FAMs selling their souls for some snack mix and a paycheck is lame and offensive.

Some FAMs are working for free, without food and a paycheck? If so, then we will be more price competitive; after all, free labor is competitive with China and India.

While the proposed Airport Snoop Squads might provide an entertaining acronym, I will agree that it's a little too Orwellian for my taste. I also have to say that while the danger of an attack is the agenda justification du-jour, the reality and seriousness of the threat can't be overstated. Consider the following, and tell us if your individual will to maintain your way of life makes any difference to a whack-job bent on martyrdom:

"The real matter is the extinction of America, and God willing, it will fall to the ground."
�Mullah Mohammed Omar, Taliban leader

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
�Hussein Massawi, former Hezbollah leader

Yes, the overwhelming odds are that you will not have to encounter a nut case like these guys, but you can be certain they want to encounter you.

The real issue should be how to confront these "whack-job[s] bent on martyrdom" without infringing the rights of Americans. IMHO, if we could distinguish Muslims from Christian American-Arabs, we have quite a track record to pay more attention to Muslims than others, both with respect to aviation and other settings. Sorry, if CAIR wanted better treatment for Muslims, it could start by denouncing statements such as the ones quoted above. I realize this post is rather off-thread, and is OMNI territory, but this matter of hassling Americans because of Islamofascists is important.

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

How do you know it hasn't? From what I recall, they have made statements from 9/11 on wards that clearly denounce violent extremism.

Of course, when the largest muslim organizations in the world denounce terrorism and say that extremists and their violence are heretics, it gets no note in most of the "mainstream" media in the US.

How many Arab-Americans that are muslim have killed Americans? Would you be surprised if white supremacists have killed more Americans over the years? I wouldn't be surprised.

Let's see, Khobar Towers; Achille Lauro; Marine barracks in Beirut; Robert Stethem (TWA flight - I do not recall the number); U.S.S. Cole; 9/11. The perps were not American Muslims, and if you would re-read my posts, I have never advocated violating the rights of Arab-Americans the way that TSA violatesall of our rights. I merely think we need to pay closer attention to some groups than to others. We should pay the most attention to Muslims from the Mid-East. If authorities had paid more attention to Muslim foreign nationals carrying boxcutters on September 11, 2001, we would not be having this discussion.

As far as I know, I don't know the "trigger-man" in any of the instances you've noted above as being Arab-Americans, muslim or not. Thank you for confirming that.

Yes, you can make that presumption freely in this case. Firstly, I did not make the distinction between guilt or innocence because the proper criterion used to make a stop or inquiry is independent of it. Secondly, the subject matter, population, data sets, sampling methodology, surveying technique, data collection, subjective analysis, etc., can all be cooked...what flavor would you like? It's a non-binary gig,...if 60 Minutes wants a study and some data which will suggest that Hispanic males with Broward County plates are being unjustly profiled on I-75, I can get it done.

There may be "lies, damned lies and statistics", but not all stats are lies. Of course those who fear data-based conclusions which do not feed their love will bring up that "books are cooked". Regardless of what some may say, sometimes a cigar is a cigar and 1+1 = 2.

Um,...I don't think so. I would prefer if we pay attention to those individuals who have been educated in madrassas funded by terrorists, attended training camps run by Al Qaeda, talk on cell phones with known terrorists, etc.

... yes and for that, we need lots of help from Arab-Americans (and others, incl. muslim Americans).

I agree, I happen to be a big fan of math and science, just not statistics. I entrust my life and safety to math and science on a regular basis. I can calculate the fuel requirements, weight and balance of my plane, take off into the clouds and safely navigate to my destination based on math and science, I trust it. If the government or a news agency conducts a study or survey and releases the results, I immediately consider it to be propoganda and I don't trust it until I see the raw data.

If I were to create a statistical survey to determine the legitimacy that pi=3.1415..., I could poll 3,000 fundamental Christians who believe the biblical interpretation that the diameter of a circle is exactly 1/3 it's circumference, I may very well be able to release the shocking results and revelation that pi=3 instead of 3.1415...., thereby discrediting every seventh grade geometry teacher from Maine to Monterey. 1+1 indeed.

Obviously, no.

I was unawareof TSA's influence on private pilots' licenses and hazmat certificates until you brought it up. I agree that this seems to violate due process standards. However, as I am similarly unprepared to discuss national security issues that I don't know much about, I can't suggest a ready solution. I'm also not real sure what this has to do with a FAM getting an FC seat.
BA Biology, San Jose State University, 1976; MS Criminal Justice, The University of Alabama, 1986. Roll Tide.

1+1 = 2 indeed. Of course, taking an example akin to yours, a survey foolishly relied upon by having law enforcement/security types self-report/self-classify based on their own opinions about stopping and harassing innocent persons is not going to be reliable. And given that "self-reporting" clearly wasn't reliable in at least one analysis, that gave even further evidence that law enforcement/security types were not always or even often honest, especially about the stopping of innocent people. 1+1 = 2 indeed.