|
Patrick Smith Security Rant
How we got to this point is an interesting study in reactionary politics, fear-mongering and a disconcerting willingness of the American public to accept almost anything in the name of “security.” Conned and frightened, our nation demands not actual security, but security spectacle. And although a reasonable percentage of passengers, along with most security experts, would concur such theater serves no useful purpose, there has been surprisingly little outrage. In that regard, maybe we’ve gotten exactly the system we deserve. |
Thus, what most people fail to grasp is that the nuts and bolts of keeping terrorists away from planes is not really the job of airport security at all. Rather, it’s the job of government agencies and law enforcement. It’s not very glamorous, but the grunt work of hunting down terrorists takes place far off stage, relying on the diligent work of cops, spies and intelligence officers. Air crimes need to be stopped at the planning stages. By the time a terrorist gets to the airport, chances are it’s too late. In the end, I’m not sure which is more troubling, the inanity of the existing regulations, or the average American’s acceptance of them and willingness to be humiliated. These wasteful and tedious protocols have solidified into what appears to be indefinite policy, with little or no opposition. There ought to be a tide of protest rising up against this mania. Where is it? At its loudest, the voice of the traveling public is one of grumbled resignation. The op-ed pages are silent, the pundits have nothing meaningful to say. |
To understand what makes these measures so absurd, we first need to revisit the morning of September 11th, and grasp exactly what it was the 19 hijackers so easily took advantage of. Conventional wisdom says the terrorists exploited a weakness in airport security by smuggling aboard box-cutters. What they actually exploited was a weakness in our mindset — a set of presumptions based on the decades-long track record of hijackings. |
Incredibly good article. Loved this bit:
As for Americans themselves, I suppose that it’s less than realistic to expect street protests or airport sit-ins from citizen fliers, and maybe we shouldn’t expect too much from a press and media that have had no trouble letting countless other injustices slip to the wayside. And rather than rethink our policies, the best we’ve come up with is a way to skirt them — for a fee, naturally — via schemes like Registered Traveler. Americans can now pay to have their personal information put on file just to avoid the hassle of airport security. As cynical as George Orwell ever was, I doubt he imagined the idea of citizens offering up money for their own subjugation. |
Somebody PLEASE tell me this guy is running for president!
|
He asks a question I've been wanting to ask many on this board -- with all the complaining and often very well articulated arguments concerning how ridiculous the TSA's policies are, why is no one here willing to do something about it? Airport sit-ins may not be the way to go, but why not get a web site going, start an organisation, send a a couple dozen people to congress twice a year and put the pressure on them until they do something about it? You have an election coming up and I hear nothing about any candidates promising to address the security theatre issue -- because you haven't made it part of the dialogue. I hope this hasn't happened out of sheer laziness, but I fear it may not have happened because Americans really do no longer believe they live in a democracy.
|
I agree with you Polonius...I believe I do not live in a democracy. Simple as that.
|
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 8969692)
He asks a question I've been wanting to ask many on this board -- with all the complaining and often very well articulated arguments concerning how ridiculous the TSA's policies are, why is no one here willing to do something about it? Airport sit-ins may not be the way to go, but why not get a web site going, start an organisation, send a a couple dozen people to congress twice a year and put the pressure on them until they do something about it? You have an election coming up and I hear nothing about any candidates promising to address the security theatre issue -- because you haven't made it part of the dialogue. I hope this hasn't happened out of sheer laziness, but I fear it may not have happened because Americans really do no longer believe they live in a democracy.
Is that because the war has moved to the background in favor of economic and health care issues? I don't know, but at this point, I think airport sit-ins could be the only way to bring any attention to this problem. |
Mostly a good article. This part, however, is not in keeping with practical experience and history:
For several reasons — particularly the awareness of passengers and crew — just the opposite is true today. Any hijacker would face a planeload of angry and frightened people ready to fight back. Say what you want of terrorists, they cannot afford to waste time and resources on schemes with a high probability of failure. And thus the September 11th template is all but useless to potential hijackers. There is no hgh probability of failure. And they will hijack again, just like they have been doing for decades and decades, even after spectacular failures, much less their most impressive success. |
Patrick Smith is just another one of those "whiners," I guess.
|
This is a well written blog, I'm printing it and mail them to my conggresman & senators. I hope you guys do the same and made our Rep notice how absurd TSA is and What the public feels about them.
|
I think the column is exceptionally well-reasoned and thoughtful but as to the question of why people endure these idiotic policies? I don't think the answer is a great mystery or a conspiracy: it's because most people don't travel enough to the point where the inconvenience and stupidity of the security measures outweighs the general inertia. For the occasional traveler, yes, the security is a hassle but if you only travel a couple times a year, you endure it. It's like going to the post office or the bank; you know you're going to wait a ridiculous amount of time so you try to minimize trips and, when you do have to go, get out as soon as you can. But for most people, it's not bothersome enough that it's going to drive you to stage protest rallies outside your post office, write a letter to the bank management or move your business to another bank.
|
Smith's article could basically be applied to almost any area of federal government policy.
Fear motivates policy in many areas - just one example: fear of someone getting wrongly fired has led to rules and regulations that ensure that government workers can't be fired, allowing the bottom 50% of performers to hang around while top performers leave for better compensation and work environments. But the bottom line is that the government works for us, not the other way around. The only reason all of these lousy policies have staying power is because we allow it to happen. First, we're too lazy to hold anyone accountable. Analyzing policy in a serious manner takes serious thinking, yet the most "serious" of pundits and candidates always break complicated issues down to binary questions: do X or there will be another 9/11; so-and-so doesn't support policy X so he must hate America, etc. Uh sorry, it's more complicated than that. Second, we're too immature to take calculated risks. Something might go wrong. Unfortunately, we've "decided" that it's better to strive for the bottom rather than strive for the top, even though the risk/reward tradeoff is more favorable at the top. |
True, and those of us who do travel enough to have encountered serious inconvenience cannot take the chance of getting on some list and having our freedom to travel and carry our own property restricted even further.
The "right" to travel is easily taken away on a whim, as people saw in the 1950s before I was even born. Not being able to travel means you lose job opportunities, chances to visit family, chances to pursue your private dreams. It changes your whole life and not for the better. The people who have most reason to protest can't risk being known as protestors.
Originally Posted by ddarko
(Post 8971870)
I think the column is exceptionally well-reasoned and thoughtful but as to the question of why people endure these idiotic policies? I don't think the answer is a great mystery or a conspiracy: it's because most people don't travel ...
|
Originally Posted by polonius
(Post 8969692)
He asks a question I've been wanting to ask many on this board -- with all the complaining and often very well articulated arguments concerning how ridiculous the TSA's policies are, why is no one here willing to do something about it? Airport sit-ins may not be the way to go, but why not get a web site going, start an organisation, send a a couple dozen people to congress twice a year and put the pressure on them until they do something about it? You have an election coming up and I hear nothing about any candidates promising to address the security theatre issue -- because you haven't made it part of the dialogue. I hope this hasn't happened out of sheer laziness, but I fear it may not have happened because Americans really do no longer believe they live in a democracy.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:44 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.