Opinion: New federal agency is doing a poor job of making flying safer
Nov 5, 2002, 8:19 am
#16
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
Absolutely right. People believe all kinds of things. As just one example, a surprisingly high percentage of the population believes that the moon landings -- all six of them -- were faked. Their belief, no matter how strongly held, does not make it true.
Similarly, a large percentage of the (generally) non-flying public may believe that the TSA has implemented wonderfully effective procedures that make the world safe for everybody, but that doesn't make it true. We frequent flyers realize how silly most airport-security procedures really are. And we realize that passengers are not the threat, so all of the searching is a waste of time -- our time!
Bruce
Similarly, a large percentage of the (generally) non-flying public may believe that the TSA has implemented wonderfully effective procedures that make the world safe for everybody, but that doesn't make it true. We frequent flyers realize how silly most airport-security procedures really are. And we realize that passengers are not the threat, so all of the searching is a waste of time -- our time!
Bruce
Nov 5, 2002, 9:06 am
#17
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M
Original Poster
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 57,953
Plato90s, if it had been up to people like you, our nation would never have been founded. We'd still be affixing stamps to our goods imported from England and no one would have had the "burden" of needing to vote on this day because the nice folks in England would still be calling all the shots for us, possibly to your delight.
You're so eager to embrace the perception of safety given by these new "random security" measures that you've forgotten what makes this nation what it is. People like you go about spouting "Comrade Napolean is always right!" and accepting whatever knee-jerk solution is implemented as the best.
Our nation has evolved over the past 200 years and will continue to do so. However, the changes of late are actually examples of de-evolution - we definitely are not embracing liberty and freedom when we implement them just for the sake of some possible additional safety. Moreover, some of these methods like the bomb-detection machines DO NOT WORK. Implementing bad security instead of no security borders on the criminal.
I accept that I'm not going to always get my way for this is a democracy (republic). But there's no way I'm just going to keep quiet about things that I feel contradict the principles upon which this nation was founded. As more and more Americans wake up and notice that the 'TSA wears no clothes' you're going to see fewer of your fellow syncophants agreeing with your 'safety at any cost' ideology.
------------------
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 11-05-2002).]
You're so eager to embrace the perception of safety given by these new "random security" measures that you've forgotten what makes this nation what it is. People like you go about spouting "Comrade Napolean is always right!" and accepting whatever knee-jerk solution is implemented as the best.
Our nation has evolved over the past 200 years and will continue to do so. However, the changes of late are actually examples of de-evolution - we definitely are not embracing liberty and freedom when we implement them just for the sake of some possible additional safety. Moreover, some of these methods like the bomb-detection machines DO NOT WORK. Implementing bad security instead of no security borders on the criminal.
I accept that I'm not going to always get my way for this is a democracy (republic). But there's no way I'm just going to keep quiet about things that I feel contradict the principles upon which this nation was founded. As more and more Americans wake up and notice that the 'TSA wears no clothes' you're going to see fewer of your fellow syncophants agreeing with your 'safety at any cost' ideology.
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
What a wonderfully self-centered answer.
Just because we're Americans, what the rest of the world does won't change how we do things. Does that about sum it up?
But we don't live in isolation and the actions of people outside the borders of the USA can and does change the way we live. The country adapts. We are not the same Americans we were 2 years ago or a century ago. Things change, Spiff, even if you don't want them to.
Let's call it like it is. It's not the "American way of life" you're protecting. It's your way of life. You don't like it that the government no longer does things the way you want them to do it. You're the minority opinion. The marginalized voice.
And it's darn annoying to be subject to the majority opinion, so you throw around labels like thugs and terms like "gate rape".
It's not some mythical 'them' doing these things. It's us. The majority of American approve and support these changes. It's shown in poll after poll. Much as I dislike Bush and think he's an idiot, Bush enjoys the support of a majority of Americans despite doing all those things you despise.
Bottom line: life isn't always how YOU want it to be. </font>
What a wonderfully self-centered answer.
Just because we're Americans, what the rest of the world does won't change how we do things. Does that about sum it up?
But we don't live in isolation and the actions of people outside the borders of the USA can and does change the way we live. The country adapts. We are not the same Americans we were 2 years ago or a century ago. Things change, Spiff, even if you don't want them to.
Let's call it like it is. It's not the "American way of life" you're protecting. It's your way of life. You don't like it that the government no longer does things the way you want them to do it. You're the minority opinion. The marginalized voice.
And it's darn annoying to be subject to the majority opinion, so you throw around labels like thugs and terms like "gate rape".
It's not some mythical 'them' doing these things. It's us. The majority of American approve and support these changes. It's shown in poll after poll. Much as I dislike Bush and think he's an idiot, Bush enjoys the support of a majority of Americans despite doing all those things you despise.
Bottom line: life isn't always how YOU want it to be. </font>
"Give me Liberty or give me Death." - Patrick Henry
[This message has been edited by Spiff (edited 11-05-2002).]
Nov 5, 2002, 9:26 am
#18
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,633
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Spiff:
Plato90s, if it had been up to people like you, our nation would never have been founded. We'd still be affixing stamps to our goods imported from England and no one would have had the "burden" of needing to vote on this day because the nice folks in England would still be calling all the shots for us, possibly to your delight.
You're so eager to embrace the perception of safety given by these new "random security" measures that you've forgotten what makes this nation what it is. People like you go about spouting "Comrade Napolean is always right!" and accepting whatever knee-jerk solution is implemented as the best.
Our nation has evolved over the past 200 years and will continue to do so. However, the changes of late are actually examples of de-evolution - we definitely are not embracing liberty and freedom when we implement them just for the sake of some possible additional safety. Moreover, some of these methods like the bomb-detection machines DO NOT WORK. Implementing bad security instead of no security borders on the criminal.
I accept that I'm not going to always get my way for this is a democracy (republic). But there's no way I'm just going to keep quiet about things that I feel contradict the principles upon which this nation was founded. As more and more Americans wake up and notice that the 'TSA wears no clothes' you're going to see fewer of your fellow syncophants agreeing with your 'safety at any cost' ideology. </font>
Plato90s, if it had been up to people like you, our nation would never have been founded. We'd still be affixing stamps to our goods imported from England and no one would have had the "burden" of needing to vote on this day because the nice folks in England would still be calling all the shots for us, possibly to your delight.
You're so eager to embrace the perception of safety given by these new "random security" measures that you've forgotten what makes this nation what it is. People like you go about spouting "Comrade Napolean is always right!" and accepting whatever knee-jerk solution is implemented as the best.
Our nation has evolved over the past 200 years and will continue to do so. However, the changes of late are actually examples of de-evolution - we definitely are not embracing liberty and freedom when we implement them just for the sake of some possible additional safety. Moreover, some of these methods like the bomb-detection machines DO NOT WORK. Implementing bad security instead of no security borders on the criminal.
I accept that I'm not going to always get my way for this is a democracy (republic). But there's no way I'm just going to keep quiet about things that I feel contradict the principles upon which this nation was founded. As more and more Americans wake up and notice that the 'TSA wears no clothes' you're going to see fewer of your fellow syncophants agreeing with your 'safety at any cost' ideology. </font>
What does any of this have to do with the fact that your position appear to be self-serving rather than reflecting the principles you have claimed to support?
I never questioned the fact that you should feel free to mark your opposition. I just think your opposition isn't based on any principle other than self-interest and personal gall. I don't use personally derogative terms like "sycophant" and "thug" which you liberally sprinkle into your responses.
Nobody told you to keep silent. I'm just telling you that your diatribes make no logical sense and is laughable in the extremes you take to "prove" a point which appear to have only a tenuous connection to reality.
It's hardly surprising that you've twisted my words into an attempt to silence you, given that taking things out of proportion has been your tactic thus far. Again, I know you won't be silenced, and I'm not trying to silence you - merely to point out how ridiculous your rants are.
Nov 5, 2002, 9:37 am
#19
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 63,633
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by bdschobel:
Absolutely right. People believe all kinds of things. As just one example, a surprisingly high percentage of the population believes that the moon landings -- all six of them -- were faked. Their belief, no matter how strongly held, does not make it true.
Similarly, a large percentage of the (generally) non-flying public may believe that the TSA has implemented wonderfully effective procedures that make the world safe for everybody, but that doesn't make it true. We frequent flyers realize how silly most airport-security procedures really are. And we realize that passengers are not the threat, so all of the searching is a waste of time -- our time!
Bruce</font>
Absolutely right. People believe all kinds of things. As just one example, a surprisingly high percentage of the population believes that the moon landings -- all six of them -- were faked. Their belief, no matter how strongly held, does not make it true.
Similarly, a large percentage of the (generally) non-flying public may believe that the TSA has implemented wonderfully effective procedures that make the world safe for everybody, but that doesn't make it true. We frequent flyers realize how silly most airport-security procedures really are. And we realize that passengers are not the threat, so all of the searching is a waste of time -- our time!
Bruce</font>
The reality, however, is that you oppose ALL security measures, including ones proven to work. For example, an air marshal is a security measure proven to work to stop hijackings. Yet you oppose the program.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...ML/005133.html
So tell me, Bruce. Exactly what security measure do your support?
I would venture to guess your answer is similar to Spiff's.
"Go back to pre-11 Sept. security."
Nov 5, 2002, 10:05 am
#20
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: IL
Posts: 123
It was written:
You don't like it that the government no longer does things the way you want them to do it. You're the minority opinion. The marginalized voice.
My reply:
Gee, I guess I am part of the marginalized-minority opinion too. But then again I like the company. Re:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
TFB
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers"
You don't like it that the government no longer does things the way you want them to do it. You're the minority opinion. The marginalized voice.
My reply:
Gee, I guess I am part of the marginalized-minority opinion too. But then again I like the company. Re:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.
--Benjamin Franklin
TFB
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large numbers"
Nov 5, 2002, 10:27 am
#21
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
<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Plato90s:
Like Spiff, you claim to be against "ineffective security measures" but not against security in general. So tell me, Bruce. Exactly what security measures do you support?</font>
Like Spiff, you claim to be against "ineffective security measures" but not against security in general. So tell me, Bruce. Exactly what security measures do you support?</font>
I have always supported reinforced cockpit doors and arming pilots. You can find a whole string of posts to that effect back to 9/11/01 (and maybe even before!). I also support careful checking of airport and airline employees, so that "sleeper" terrorists cannot easily infiltrate those groups.
On the other hand, I believe that passengers -- 99.99999% of whom are perfectly law-abiding -- should largely be left alone, other than having to go through pre-9/11 style security. We don't want guns in the cockpit, but I'm perfectly comfortable with pool cues and even small knives. The fact of the matter is that nobody is going to hijack a plane with such devices today, and you know it as well as I do.
What passengers are forced to endure at airports today is making people reluctant to fly and ultimately will kill the airlines. That bothers me a lot!
Bruce