Pickles- I understand the point you are trying to make- and I don't think you are 100% wrong. However, I think there are a couple flaws inherent in your arguement.

First of all, to say that we aren't really worth much and everyone is expendable is gross denigration of our existence and a sweeping dismissal of our potential as humans- it reduces us to "ant colony" status. And in as much as I know some would jump on that and try to argue the validity of that correlation- its simply not so.

However- I believe this where our opinions start to converge. We, as Americans, live in a twisted society where we allow our political leaders, by virtue of their desire to attain power, to appeal to our basic and innate need to be self-important- and thereby bypass the efficient and optimal running of our country. TSA shouldn't have to be "inane"- we simply won't allow them to operate without their hands tied behind their backs.

Case in point: El Al. They are not trying to step on your rights- they're just making sure someone on your flight is not of the proclivity to to hasten his/her own departure from Earth here to check out the fabled 72 virgins- and forcibly invite you and 200 other guests along for the ride. You can thank them later.

They often enough don't care about Rights either and occassionally don't mind stepping on them either.

[Sidebar: the above-mentioned "fabled 72 virgins" is fictional fable; but "boy, does it sound good" in the press and propaganda.]

and on the "No Fly" list------J/K

^^ ROTFLOL

Do you really believe this helps contribute to the discussion? It is, by the way, a blanket judgment.

El Al:
Reliance on the expertise, intelligence and judgement of individuals "on the front line" of the screening process. I would bet the manual for their job description is relatively brief, but there is extensive training, apprenticeship, and "lore." Sure, some people may be put out, and some rights may be infringed upon. If a terrorist did get through and do something horrible, I bet that the Israeli populous would have a supportive attitude toward the people who missed it, they would learn from it, and they would end up with a better system.

TSA:
Reliance on rules and mechanization. Probably view the "front line" as fully interchageable cogs (both machines and people). The manual is, I would be certain, insanely long, and it represents the "consensus of committee" in the worst way. Obviously, there is little left to common sense. When a terrorist gets through and does something horrible, the US populous/media will skewer the people who missed it. Everyone knows this, and because of it, the whole system is set up so that everyone covers their a$$e$. Nothing worthwhile will ever be learned, and an equally, if not more, ridiculous system will come out of it. Not only that, but they have to have their a$$e$ covered with regards to individual rights and affronts as well.

Of course it contributes to the discussion; it's a fact.

... and by the way, it's anything but a blanket judgment. Note the words I am hereby underlining for emphasis:

No "blanket judgment" there. Simply a fact.

semantics.

You claimed "blanket judgment". And I proved my statement was anything but a "blanket judgment". Certainly that is not semantics either.

Would you like me to concede that if you got five English teachers together to analyze your statement they would side with you? Fine. Uncle.

The posts you've made, however, paint a bigger picture that suggests a tremendous amount of contempt.

I wouldn't jump to such a blanket judgment/"conclusion" .... not in this case either.

When Rights are trampled on -- even occassionally -- in the name of security -- by anyone -- what's your preference: servile fawning or "contempt" for such trampling over Rights?

I'd edge a bit (and then some) toward the latter preference in the face of such poor behavior -- including at airports.

I believe that when you purchase a ticket to travel on an airliner, you relinquish a certain subset of your "rights." It's the same as not having the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

wrt semantics, the 11:11 AM poster is correct.

Commercial transactions don't necessarily strip people from Rights; nor should they. And "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater" is not a relevant example for several reasons.

It's the considerable "and then some" of which I take particular note. And I don't sense simple contempt for the trampling over rights, but rather contempt for everything TLV or EL AL security related.

If that's not your intent, fine. That's just how it comes across.

I don't prefer "servile fawning" or "contempt". I don't believe either is very constructive.