MSP TSA Goons
Aug 14, 2006, 11:25 am
#31
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,198
Originally Posted by kcnwa
Too bad the majority (you know which party I'm referencing 
) don't care until it's too late. People won't feel sorry until they are directly affected.
That hair gel, or Purell bottle, yes, now are suspicious. Hiding a bottle of gatorade in your bag will get you searched.
I am glad they are in place. Give the TSA a week to adjust, things will be streamlined and people will look less like goons.
We live in a different era. Get used to it.
) don't care until it's too late. People won't feel sorry until they are directly affected. That hair gel, or Purell bottle, yes, now are suspicious. Hiding a bottle of gatorade in your bag will get you searched.
I am glad they are in place. Give the TSA a week to adjust, things will be streamlined and people will look less like goons.
We live in a different era. Get used to it.
Americans are suppose to be more resilient than this. Hiding under the bed and handing over rights and privacy every time the government flashes a colored panel in their face - just despicable.
Aug 14, 2006, 11:34 am
#32
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by davetravels
They better start NOW - building more jails to house all of the "new" criminals like that guy!!!
Aug 14, 2006, 11:34 am
#33
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by bocastephen
Time to grow some cajones! We are not in a different era, and no, I am not going to get used to it. I am going to fight it every step of the way. If that makes you feel less safe, then too bad. Get used to that.
Americans are suppose to be more resilient than this. Hiding under the bed and handing over rights and privacy every time the government flashes a colored panel in their face - just despicable.
Americans are suppose to be more resilient than this. Hiding under the bed and handing over rights and privacy every time the government flashes a colored panel in their face - just despicable.
Aug 14, 2006, 11:39 am
#34
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Right here
Posts: 2,940
Originally Posted by BigFlyer
Yes, I know one can't tell Muslims by appearance, etc. But, there are many people whom one can tell with a high degree of certainty by looking at them were not born Muslim. Is there any logic in giving those persons an extra search or extra questioning?
Aug 14, 2006, 11:39 am
#35
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Astoria, NY: LGA, JFK
Programs: Delta PM; Sheraton's Vistana BOD; SPG Gold
Posts: 2,035
Originally Posted by kcnwgold
[B]
I will never, ever get used to it!
I will never, ever get used to it!
It is also a fact of life that we, in New York City, have the biggest targets on our backs.
It may be easy for those who reside in less populous areas to moan and groan about the inconvenience of increased security.
When you are the target, however, your perspective changes!
Aug 14, 2006, 11:45 am
#36
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by dmitzel
Nice quote, for those of us in need of a history lesson. 
However, we are talking about the here-and-now, not the pass. I guess I could quote "Those that fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it" as my contribution. Has it been that long since 9-11?
However, we are talking about the here-and-now, not the pass. I guess I could quote "Those that fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it" as my contribution. Has it been that long since 9-11?
. The problem is the sheeple forget current and past history (They know every lame person on American Idol but have no idea what happened in the world last week let alone last year). Those in power remember it very well so as to use what works to maintain power for themselves. A government attacking rheir own people and blaming it on others is a proven way to restrict the population and institute total control in the name of safety.If you want to be "safe" then move to China or some othe country where people are restricted and watched, just stop allowing our rights to be taken away.
Aug 14, 2006, 11:59 am
#37
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: FNT, Michigan
Programs: DL DM (PMNW), occasional AMTK, National Exec Elite and IHG Spire
Posts: 751
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Profiling practiced by human beings en masse will be racist profiling (including tribalist profiling).
Common sense says that those who support racist/tribalist profiling are betraying not only American principles but also betraying the nation they claim to defend by ignoring the long-term, dangerous consequences of such attitudes (i.e., belief in racism/tribalism) in practice.
And cold-blooded murders operating out their political fanatacism in response to grievances, personal or otherwise, real or merely perceived/imagined, can often keep their cool. Any racist/tribalist "behavioral" profiling effort we get will have more false-positives than actual "catches". And such efforts create much bigger haystacks in the near-term; and those much bigger haystacks will mean that more terrorists will get through as a false-negative.
Common sense says that those who support racist/tribalist profiling are betraying not only American principles but also betraying the nation they claim to defend by ignoring the long-term, dangerous consequences of such attitudes (i.e., belief in racism/tribalism) in practice.
And cold-blooded murders operating out their political fanatacism in response to grievances, personal or otherwise, real or merely perceived/imagined, can often keep their cool. Any racist/tribalist "behavioral" profiling effort we get will have more false-positives than actual "catches". And such efforts create much bigger haystacks in the near-term; and those much bigger haystacks will mean that more terrorists will get through as a false-negative.
For those more enlightened, check out today's WSJ and WP for stories on what we are doing to better monitor suspicious behavior. Nothing mentioned in them about this having to do with race, class, tribe, etc.
Aug 14, 2006, 12:01 pm
#38
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by yogimax
By choice, I live in New York City. I do not think I have to remind everyone where the terrorists struck.
It is also a fact of life that we, in New York City, have the biggest targets on our backs.
It may be easy for those who reside in less populous areas to moan and groan about the inconvenience of increased security.
When you are the target, however, your perspective changes!
It is also a fact of life that we, in New York City, have the biggest targets on our backs.
It may be easy for those who reside in less populous areas to moan and groan about the inconvenience of increased security.
When you are the target, however, your perspective changes!
.You said it yourself "By choice, I live in New York City" You are free to move or stay. It is your choice. Taking away my rights because of your choice is not ok.
Aug 14, 2006, 12:02 pm
#39
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by yogimax
By choice, I live in New York City. I do not think I have to remind everyone where the terrorists struck.
It is also a fact of life that we, in New York City, have the biggest targets on our backs.
It may be easy for those who reside in less populous areas to moan and groan about the inconvenience of increased security.
When you are the target, however, your perspective changes!
It is also a fact of life that we, in New York City, have the biggest targets on our backs.
It may be easy for those who reside in less populous areas to moan and groan about the inconvenience of increased security.
When you are the target, however, your perspective changes!
And trying to one-up others by your living in NYC by choice (even on 9/11) .... well, it won't work with me. Something more substantive would definitely be more convincing than a sympathy play.
Aug 14, 2006, 12:07 pm
#40
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by dmitzel
Ahh... never mind. Seems a few on this thread have already received graduate training at their PC re-education camp of choice. That, and all of us "evil Americans" deserve 9-11 as we're "little Eichmann's" via the guilt-by-association clause of their Politburo book.
For those more enlightened, check out today's WSJ and WP for stories on what we are doing to better monitor suspicious behavior. Nothing mentioned in them about this having to do with race, class, tribe, etc.
For those more enlightened, check out today's WSJ and WP for stories on what we are doing to better monitor suspicious behavior. Nothing mentioned in them about this having to do with race, class, tribe, etc.
.... and I've already been over today's WSJ including the "monitor suspicious behavior"-type pieces.
(And the problems with those items raised in the WSJ, including some of the technology mentioned, I've already covered in my prior posts.)The new PC run amok in America: "Don't bother me, just go after 'them'; I don't look like a terrorist, 'they' do."
Aug 14, 2006, 12:23 pm
#41
Join Date: May 2004
Location: LAX
Programs: CO Platinum HHonors Diamond Avis President's Club
Posts: 2,312
Originally Posted by BigFlyer
It certainly does not make sense to single out someone because of their ethnicity. While it may be true that all terrorists of the type that blow up planes (as opposed to the type that bomb Lebanese civilians from the air) are Muslims, all Muslims are not terrorists.
But how about the converse? If the point of the stepped up security is to find these terrorists, and virtually all terrorists are Muslims (and not blond converts), why subject the blonds to strict scrutiny? Does it make logical sense to exclude certain people from extra scrutiny, because of their ethnicity, rather than to subject certain people to extra scrutiny because of theirs?
By the way, I'm far from blond myself, and look more like a Muslim than a blond.
Yes, I know one can't tell Muslims by appearance, etc. But, there are many people whom one can tell with a high degree of certainty by looking at them were not born Muslim. Is there any logic in giving those persons an extra search or extra questioning?
I suppose the analogy would be if the police are searching for members of a white supremacist group that just robbed a liquor store (or bombed a black church), do you stop Blacks and Asians on suspicion? While you don't stop all white people, you can reasonably exclude Blacks and Asians from scrutiny.
I think the problem with the discussion about profiling is that it fails to recognize there are (at least) two distinct questions:
The First - is profiling effective or efficient.
The Second - if it is effective or efficient, are there good social/public policy reasons out there to not do it anyway?
It seems to me that in the discussion on the profiling subject, there is a tendency for those who answer the second question with "no" to then behave as if the answer to the first question is also "no", without doing the analysis. This despite the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to reach the conclusion that while ethnic profiling might be effective, for public policy reasons we should not engage in it.
But how about the converse? If the point of the stepped up security is to find these terrorists, and virtually all terrorists are Muslims (and not blond converts), why subject the blonds to strict scrutiny? Does it make logical sense to exclude certain people from extra scrutiny, because of their ethnicity, rather than to subject certain people to extra scrutiny because of theirs?
By the way, I'm far from blond myself, and look more like a Muslim than a blond.
Yes, I know one can't tell Muslims by appearance, etc. But, there are many people whom one can tell with a high degree of certainty by looking at them were not born Muslim. Is there any logic in giving those persons an extra search or extra questioning?
I suppose the analogy would be if the police are searching for members of a white supremacist group that just robbed a liquor store (or bombed a black church), do you stop Blacks and Asians on suspicion? While you don't stop all white people, you can reasonably exclude Blacks and Asians from scrutiny.
I think the problem with the discussion about profiling is that it fails to recognize there are (at least) two distinct questions:
The First - is profiling effective or efficient.
The Second - if it is effective or efficient, are there good social/public policy reasons out there to not do it anyway?
It seems to me that in the discussion on the profiling subject, there is a tendency for those who answer the second question with "no" to then behave as if the answer to the first question is also "no", without doing the analysis. This despite the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to reach the conclusion that while ethnic profiling might be effective, for public policy reasons we should not engage in it.
Racial/ethnic/religious profiling is ineffective and a waste of time and resources because it is easily defeated. There is no benefit to that type of profiling if you're trying to stop someone from bringing a bomb onto a plane. If everyone knows that you're going to focus your efforts on searching Middle Eastern males, then a terrorist group can and will recruit someone who isn't to bring the bomb on board. Random checks, or checking everyone that comes through, are the two best ways to set up security checkpoints. This has been proven time and time again in repeated studies and in our own experience in the war on drugs. Profiling that we implemented for drug smugglers gave the smugglers an easy way to make it less likely to be stopped, resulting in fewer arrests than a delibrately random pattern of searching.
Oh, and good luck with profiling people for being "Muslim". Fully 25%+ of the world's population is Muslim and come from every racial adn ethnic group you can think of. You either have to search everyone, or risk missing a smartly-recruited paleface terrorist in a business suit because you're busy hassling some Sikh guy.
As to your "blond" comment:
"On the morning of April 17 at Heathrow Airport in London, Israeli security guards outside of El Al airlines found semtex explosives in a bag of Anne Murphy, a pregnant Irishwoman attempting to fly with 375 fellow passengers to Tel Aviv. In addition, a functioning calculator in the bag was found to be a timed triggering device. She was apparently unaware of the contents, and had been given the bag by her fiancé Nizar Hindawi, a Jordanian. He had sent her on the flight for the purpose of meeting his parents before marriage. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_Affair
Not to mention that Richard Reid himself wouldn't fit the profile you described. Or Jose Padilla for that matter.
Racial/ethnic/religious/etc profiling doesn't work and it makes us less safe -- not more safe. Law enforcement and academia has come to the same conclusion time and time again. Most people advocating for it aren't informed about the tactical fallacies, but are just scared and think it's a simple solution.
Now for the second question:
The good social/public policy reason is that by instituting racial/ethnic/religious profiling we implicitly and explicitly blame and indict a minority, increase hatred and hate crimes, foster racism, polarize our society, etc, etc. No social good has ever come of racism, discrimination, or prejudice and public policy suffers when real threats aren't addressed and prevented through truly proven and effective strategy and tactics.
peace,
~Ben~
Aug 14, 2006, 12:23 pm
#42
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Astoria, NY: LGA, JFK
Programs: Delta PM; Sheraton's Vistana BOD; SPG Gold
Posts: 2,035
Originally Posted by rc408
A government attacking rheir own people and blaming it on others is a proven way to restrict the population and institute total control in the name of safety.
...How is the American government attacking its own people and blaming it on others?
...You seriously believe that not allowing liquids on airplanes is a governmental move to "institute total control"?
Aug 14, 2006, 12:28 pm
#43
Join Date: May 2004
Location: LAX
Programs: CO Platinum HHonors Diamond Avis President's Club
Posts: 2,312
Originally Posted by yogimax
By choice, I live in New York City. I do not think I have to remind everyone where the terrorists struck.
It is also a fact of life that we, in New York City, have the biggest targets on our backs.
It may be easy for those who reside in less populous areas to moan and groan about the inconvenience of increased security.
When you are the target, however, your perspective changes!
It is also a fact of life that we, in New York City, have the biggest targets on our backs.
It may be easy for those who reside in less populous areas to moan and groan about the inconvenience of increased security.
When you are the target, however, your perspective changes!
It may be easy for some people to sacrifice their civil liberties and lay their freedom and rights as a human being and a citizen of this country on the altar of security, but I think we better honor those that died by fighting for our freedoms.
peace,
~Ben~
Aug 14, 2006, 12:33 pm
#44
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Watchlisted by the prejudiced, en route to purgatory
Programs: Just Say No to Fleecing and Blacklisting
Posts: 102,095
Originally Posted by yogimax
...You seriously believe that not allowing liquids on airplanes is a governmental move to "institute total control"?
"leaders" increases.
Aug 14, 2006, 12:53 pm
#45
Join Date: Dec 2005
Programs: DL Diamond. LT SkyClub, AGR, passport
Posts: 742
Originally Posted by seoulmanjr
By choice, I live in New York City. I do not think I have to remind everyone where the terrorists struck.
It may be easy for some people to sacrifice their civil liberties and lay their freedom and rights as a human being and a citizen of this country on the altar of security, but I think we better honor those that died by fighting for our freedoms.
peace,
~Ben~
It may be easy for some people to sacrifice their civil liberties and lay their freedom and rights as a human being and a citizen of this country on the altar of security, but I think we better honor those that died by fighting for our freedoms.
peace,
~Ben~
I always thought that the glass beer bottle that I was allowed to bring on the plane was a dangerous weapon, however no one paid any attention to it (ever see how sharp a broken beer bottle can be?.) While the TSA finally took care of my concern in a roundabout way with the no liquids issue. I guess I'll just have to make sure it is a empty beer bottle now!
There are so dam many things that can be used as a weapon, if someone is dead set on doing something, they will find a way. Our security is at best a lotto. Based on the TSA searches to date....how many terrorist have we caught? Could the total cost ($$$, time, effort, hassle) been invested better?
I am just glad that the OP didn't say they came back off the plane with the guy. I am sure he got the **** frighten out of him!