Sunday, December 27, 2009

I'm Just Sayin'.......

If all this liberal, politically correct, non-racial-profiling garbage keeps up, they may very well get us all to stop flying.......

You know how after Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, attempted to blow up a plane, security regulations were revised and now everybody has to remove their shoes at airport security checkpoints worldwide?

Well, as you probably know there was a new terror attempt aboard an airplane this weekend. The terrorist smuggled the explosives on board by having them sewn into is underwear. I'm not sure what this means for the future of airline screening procedures...... I'm not sure I want to know.......

15 comments:

Staying Afloat said...

Seriously. Also, the not getting up thing. And no blankets, or anything in your lap. I cannot imagine flying with my children now.

ProfK said...

Staying Afloat,
What not getting up thing? Does this mean no trips to the bathroom? No more blankets? So we can't cover ourselves with our jackets if we're cold? And I can't put my purse in my lap now? Where was this stated please?

I'm assuming we can still wear underwear, but then again....

Staying Afloat said...

You have to stay seated with nothing in your lap for the last 60 minutes of your flight, and if it's a 90 minute flight, you sit the whole time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/us/27security.html

Fun fun fun.

tnspr569 said...

How exactly are we supposed to remain sufficiently hydrated and yet not use the restroom for the last hour of the flight? Given that reaching a bathroom can take quite some time once the plane has landed (taxiing, waiting to exit the plane, finding the nearest restroom in the airport), this restriction seems particularly ludicrous and inhumane.

I'm dreading my next flight...

G6 said...

I just love the way the airlines think!

Who is to say that the terrorist - knowing these rules - won't do something, Oh, say...sixty-FIVE minutes prior to landing?

How about a little PROFILING for a change to really improve security? You know, those Muslim males between the ages of 14-40, who paid for their one-way ticket in cash, are travelling alone, originating from a largely Islamic country? I'd say that THEY are a better bet than Staying Afloat here trying to keep the child on her lap from crying because the iPod is no longer allowed on the plane and they inspected the poor kid's underwear......

ProfK said...

Thanks Staying Afloat--darned depressing article. G6, you are so right about the profiling. Our most recent terrorist took a trip half way around the world with no checked luggage--I guess you don't need any luggage if you're planning on being dead--and this raised no eyebrows anywhere? We're getting on a plane in two weeks--maybe we should all just carry portapotties with us.

Mikeinmidwood said...

You know you can swallow a time bomb, so are they going to make us go to the bathroom before going on the plane?

tesyaa said...

I heard on WCBS this morning that the newest restrictions are only for flights originating outside the US and landing in the US, not domestic flights.

efrex said...

Unfortunately,our current security protocols are far more concerned with appearances than reality. Making flying more restrictive doesn't make it any safer, and any halfwit can prove it 100 times over.

The only reason why I'm against profiling is that our security apparatus has routinely shown that it mistakes the tool for the product: yes, many terrorists are young males buying one-way tickets with cash; however, many males who buy one-way tickets with cash are not terrorists. Minimum-wage security personnel are not going to get the training to properly handle the delicate maneuverings needed to avoid major errors, so it's much easier to make everybody obey silly rules even if they don't provide an iota of further safety.

You don't have to go to the airports to see this either: look at the lunacy of the random searches carried out on the subways. A 15-year-old could work his way around this system, let alone committed terrorists.

FBB said...

I agree with Efrex.

When my grandmother died we were in Detroit, and the only way to get back on time was to buy new tickets. We went to the airport (early sunday morning, July 4 weekend, not busy at all, empty even) and bought 7 one way tickets, an hour or so before the flight.

We were singled out for screening because of it, but luckily the agents refused to "screen" my 5 kids ages 10, through 10 months old.

According to protocol they were supposed to.

G6 said...

So fine, efrex and FBB,

when you do in fact exhibit questionable behavior, you will be singled out for questioning. That's what makes profiling FAIR, don't you see?

FBB said...

That's not what profiling means.

Profiling means that just by being Muslim/black/Jewish (if flying to Japan)you are singled out, it has nothing to do with exhibiting behaviors.

If you are saying that we are too politically correct, and therefore when a suspect group exhibits suspect behavior we do not act for fear of the appearance racial insensitivity, then I agree with you.

The real issue is that the TSA is a government agency and subject to the incompetence herein. If it was privatized, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see pat downs for tubes of toothpaste inadvertently left in carry on

G6 said...

FBB -

You are quite mistaken. Profiling is much MORE than identifying a particular race (note that I didn't limit my comments to racial profiling alone).

Profiling encompasses a broader range of criteria and behaviors, all of which combined, give a clearer picture of whom to single out for further questioning.

Race is only one, albeit significant aspect of it.

efrex said...

Profiling encompasses a broader range of criteria and behaviors, all of which combined, give a clearer picture of whom to single out for further questioning.

Even with all that, the vast majority of the people pulled for further questioning will be completely innocent. This means that the people who do the questioning need to have the sechel to make good judgement calls. Such people cost money to employ, and unfortunately, that is not the way the airline industry currently works. Why should an individual airline (unless you're El Al which runs a much more high-risk operation) invest in competent security personnel, when the odds of a terrorist attack are so low? Doing so simply adds to your overhead and makes you less competitive.

It's much easier to institute silly across-the-board rules that accomplish nothing but provide the illusion of doing something.

The terrifying reality is that there is no easy way to completely prevent reasonably intelligent and sufficiently determined people from bringing harmful items onto public tranportation, while maintaining a system that is functional. Baruch Hashem, such people are a very tiny percentage of the general population, and there are some appropriate "behind-the-scenes" actions being taken.

Yehudah said...

efrex,

Isn't it better that a select innocent portion of the population (say 10-20 percent) suffer than having everyone suffer?