View Single Post
Old 11-18-2010, 01:24 AM   #2
Samuel Dravis
 
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,973
Frankly, I don't see why it's acceptable to be molested by poorly paid TSA agents when you don't have to endure that kind of treatment simply getting into your own car, which is a bit more dangerous than flying on an airplane, even considering terrorism. I'm not traveling by air in the near future, nor do I plan to. I've recently traveled by rail, though, which was very pleasant. If one were really concerned about people getting killed by terrorists, one would petition the government to prevent all mass gatherings, protests, or any other activity in which it is easy to kill many people. However, that is not done. As such, I believe that the TSA's job is simply "security theater" -- in which the appearance of security is given, but where one's actual safety on a personal basis is not really affected.

To be honest, I think that terrorism hysteria has reached such extremes that is no longer relevant to the real world. Such measures that the TSA says are "necessary" are not even required by Israel, which is a far more common target of terrorism than the US. To be afraid of air travel by terrorism you must also be (rather more) afraid of the simple act of getting into a car -- and I'm not sure that's a real consideration by anyone. The TSA simply produces these procedures in a CYA maneuver. Personally, I will not use air travel until the TSA becomes significantly more reasonable in its restrictions.

Pilots being terrorists? Seriously? If they're in control, there's nothing that can be done to stop them from crashing the plane. Honestly, what is the purpose of screening them for explosives every time they get on a plane when their position makes such possession of such explosives superfluous?

3 year olds being having concealed explosives on their persons? Sure, it is possible: but fantastic reasons can be invented for any scenario, no matter how extreme. Even if this has happened before (which it has, I might add), there is simply no accounting for crazies. Which is what terrorists are. Crazies. One shouldn't account for them as a credible threat against anything. If they do happen to attack something successfully, it should be taken note of-- but people should not be molested to accommodate a marginal increase in the threat of terrorists taking over a plane. Hardened cockpit doors seem to have taken care of most of the threat in this regard.

Of course, I understand why this is happening-- like I said, it is a CYA maneuver -- but I don't see why government agents should be responsible for the unforseeable (which is, after all, crazies). So anyone holding the government responsible for people who are insane and do insane things should be treated as they really are-- people with ridiculously unreasonable expectations of air travel and the government. As soon as "victory against terrorism" is defined as "0 people killed by terrorism", the terrorists really have won. There is danger in everything; it is the mark of the mature person to put it into perspective. I think our government is failing in its duty to do so... and citizens who expect such a track record are simply the victims of fearmongering.


"Words are deeds." - Wittgenstein
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: quote & reply,