I liked the comment from one of the talking heads (went something like this) "No one expects a small child or an elderly white woman to do a terrorist deed, so why should they search them?".

He answered his own question right there, and he doesn't even realize it, as a terrorist is only effective if no one suspects him/her of being one so they can do what it is they do... Ergo it is a good thing to search everyone, I mean I could exchange some poor (white) kids backpack filled with comic books and toys with one filled with a pound or two of C4 and some money and s/he would then be able to walk right through all of the controls and not be checked because s/he is a kid and kids aren't terrorists, right?. And don't forget that all kids are also immune to brainwashing too so they can't do stuff like that. It's not like there are thousands of child soldiers in the world shooting, raping and pillaging right now... or?

Poor talking head can't see the forest because of all those darn trees.

I rather be a bit annoyed and a bit late than dead. I have one life and I kinda enjoy it.

>> ^LarsaruS:
I rather be a bit annoyed and a bit late than dead.


I agree with the overall thrust of your comment (racial profiling is not just immoral, but it also presents a weakness to be exploited), but I should mention that I don't think current airline security policy is really saving lives, nor do I think its only cost is inconvenience.

We're skirting along the lines of surrendering our 4th amendment rights with what we're doing now. Just imagine if there's some big attack on malls, and the reaction is to have the TSA do security for every shopping mall in the country.

I feel like the right answer is for us to deal with terrorism like any other murder -- don't start infringing the freedom of everyone in the name of security, just go after the people who pose the threat, and let people live their lives without having intrusive security measures inflicted on them.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^LarsaruS:
I rather be a bit annoyed and a bit late than dead.

I agree with the overall thrust of your comment (racial profiling is not just immoral, but it also presents a weakness to be exploited), but I should mention that I don't think current airline security policy is really saving lives, nor do I think its only cost is inconvenience.
We're skirting along the lines of surrendering our 4th amendment rights with what we're doing now. Just imagine if there's some big attack on malls, and the reaction is to have the TSA do security for every shopping mall in the country.
I feel like the right answer is for us to deal with terrorism like any other murder -- don't start infringing the freedom of everyone in the name of security, just go after the people who pose the threat, and let people live their lives without having intrusive security measures inflicted on them.


Point taken. You are correct and I agree with you to some extent, the not saving lives bit, as it is impossible to stop a truly dedicated attack on anything really. I haven't flown in the US, only in Europe, so I don't know how bad/intrusive the checks are over there therefore I can't agree or disagree about that point, I have no data to support either view. However over here it has mostly been a bit of an inconvenience: take of your shoes, in England, and not being allowed to bring any fluids aboard, everywhere I have been (like I am going to hijack a plane with a bottle of coke, I mean seriously WTF!, My house keys are a better weapon than that and they suck as a weapon.)

@LarsaruS, I guess I also view what we're doing more as an inconvenience rather than something bluntly unconstitutional, I just think the way we're going about this problem is fundamentally broken, and puts us on a bad path.

The process goes something like this:

1. Terrorists successfully penetrate security
   
2. The media hyperventilates about it
   
3. Congressmen leap into action so they can make a show of responding to the threat by ordering a new layer of security
   
4. Wait for #1 to happen again
   

@NetRunner I completely agree with all of your points here.
It seems to be well thought out and quite reasonable so I guess that is why it wont happen any time soon.
Politicians rarely seem to make well thought out things happen when they are needed.

*edit
I just remembered a quote from Civilization that fits here if you paraphrase it a bit.
"The bureaucracy is expanding to make room for the ever expanding bureaucracy" (might be a bit different but whatever) --->
"The security measures are expanding to make room for the ever expanding security measures".

Western Culture has never healed from 9/11.

So out here in California SF Bay Area, there is a movement afoot to literally boycott all business in or from Arizona as a result of this Papers Please law... so that includes all tourism, travel, import, or export from the state, and all attendance at any professional sporting event, be it at home or away.

..and after the Arizona economy tanks, taking much of its contingent economies with it, what will have changed?

Nada.

Check your government -- it's at the source of worse crimes than any corporation has ever even imagined doing...

@Trancecoach, I'm feeling a little lazy at the moment, so I'll give you a prepackaged argument in favor of the boycott:

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/boycott/

I can't think of any part of that post that I have even the slightest disagreement with.