For the sake of national security, I will happily take my trousers off before getting on a plane. Pants? That's a bit much!
PANTS. OFF. NOW!
I got it.
What the hell? Are you high?What, are you going commando?
Lieutenant Commander of the Lesbian Love Brigade
There can only be one, like in that foreign movie where there could only be one, and in the end there is only one dude left, because that was the point.
I hear you Fox, but two things... First, members of those "safe" groups are usually not inclined to blow themsleves to mushy bits for others' misguided beliefs, and second, I don't believe anyone would suggest we ignore everyone else.
Do I really need to mention Oaklahoma City? You think there aren't enough white-folk who won't pose a threat if pushed far enough? Profiling on skin colour, national origin or religion is as much a panacea as putting everyone's luggage through an x-ray machine.
What they should be doing is having properly trained people doing the security questions at check-in and put a stop to the whole "speedy check" nonsense. Having some clerk ask me if my bags were out of my control without making eye contact is UTTERLY WORTHLESS. I don't even understand what the hell the point is of doing that. The entire airline security system hinges upon metal detectors and people looking at little screens trying to decide if the latest portable DVD player is some kind of triggering mechanism. The no-fly lists are far more effective than this, though there have been a number of false IDs from that and those are only people we already know about.
The Detroit fiasco is all about the fundamental lack of any trained security people being involved in the check-in process who would have asked "why are you travelling on a ticket paid for with cash?" "Why don't you have any luggage?" and so on.
Before boarding a plane going to Israel you get properly questioned; if there's a doubt you're opening your bags right there in the check-in line. It adds an extra hour-plus to the proceedings, but I'll take that and a feeling that the job's being done right, over running a security gauntlet that feels completely pointless as demonstrated last week.
I hear you Fox, but two things... First, members of those "safe" groups are usually not inclined to blow themsleves to mushy bits for others' misguided beliefs, and second, I don't believe anyone would suggest we ignore everyone else.
Do I really need to mention Oaklahoma City? You think there aren't enough white-folk who won't pose a threat if pushed far enough? Profiling on skin colour, national origin or religion is as much a panacea as putting everyone's luggage through an x-ray machine.
What they should be doing is having properly trained people doing the security questions at check-in and put a stop to the whole "speedy check" nonsense. Having some clerk ask me if my bags were out of my control without making eye contact is UTTERLY WORTHLESS. I don't even understand what the hell the point is of doing that. The entire airline security system hinges upon metal detectors and people looking at little screens trying to decide if the latest portable DVD player is some kind of triggering mechanism. The no-fly lists are far more effective than this, though there have been a number of false IDs from that and those are only people we already know about.
The Detroit fiasco is all about the fundamental lack of any trained security people being involved in the check-in process who would have asked "why are you travelling on a ticket paid for with cash?" "Why don't you have any luggage?" and so on.
Before boarding a plane going to Israel you get properly questioned; if there's a doubt you're opening your bags right there in the check-in line. It adds an extra hour-plus to the proceedings, but I'll take that and a feeling that the job's being done right, over running a security gauntlet that feels completely pointless as demonstrated last week.
5x5 Sean, but again, OK City wasn't a suicide bomber, which is what you're almost assuredly gonna be when you blow yourself up in a plane - those mushy bits. And certain people and their beliefs are more predisposed to doing so than others. This is historical fact, not speculation, and to ignore it is to leave an extremely effective tool in the shed for the sake of political correctness. And I feel strongly that this is a wrong decision.
I've been that guy at the airport - single, male, potentially of middle-eastern descent judging by features (dark hair, dark eyes, tan, tall and slenderish) and literally had my luggage taken apart down to the wheels at Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv. And this was off of NOTHING but appearance. And you know what? I didn't mind one bit. I feel safer with an excess of false positives being examined, even if I am among them, than I would with the alternative: letting an actual threat slip through the cracks for fear of hurting his feelings.
I've been that guy at the airport - single, male, potentially of middle-eastern descent judging by features (dark hair, dark eyes, tan, tall and slenderish) and literally had my luggage taken apart down to the wheels at Ben Gurion in Tel Aviv. And this was off of NOTHING but appearance. And you know what? I didn't mind one bit. I feel safer with an excess of false positives being examined, even if I am among them, than I would with the alternative: letting an actual threat slip through the cracks for fear of hurting his feelings.
Well, I'm sure you don't know with certainty what the reason was (half the people in Israel look like that!), but more to the point I'm not so much concerned with being "politically correct" as with the possibility of engendering sympathy for radicals by accusing a broad cross-section of society of being a fifth column and thereby validating the entire "us-them" mentality that's used to justify extremist actions in the first place!
Well, I'm sure you don't know with certainty what the reason was (half the people in Israel look like that!), but more to the point I'm not so much concerned with being "politically correct" as with the possibility of engendering sympathy for radicals by accusing a broad cross-section of society of being a fifth column and thereby validating the entire "us-them" mentality that's used to justify extremist actions in the first place!
...only I'm not Israeli, was in a suit and tie, traveling on a round-trip business class ticket purchased by the Israeli company HQ'd in Tel Aviv for whom I worked, which happened to be the national pride of their booming tech sector at the time. But I do get your point, there might have been something they were noticing, like posture, mannerisms, who knows. I only mention the details to qualify my own presumption of self-innocence.
To the remainder of your post, it's kind of a quandry, isn't it? Do we mollycoddle those seemingly prone to offense (feigned or genuine, no matter) so as not to further their us v. them paranoia? Or do we profile full speed ahead, taking for granted that those with no ill intentions will see it for the greater good and the benevolent prevention of additional incidents that could further malign their perception by the rest of the world?
Given my personal experiences, I'm for the latter is all. Tough stuff though, man.
nah not really, but I can do if you want to go away :/
lol, Machu, just a bit of The World Ends With You humor. No need to take off your pants.
unless you want to-all right Im'ma just leave now...
Lieutenant Commander of the Lesbian Love Brigade
There can only be one, like in that foreign movie where there could only be one, and in the end there is only one dude left, because that was the point.
...only I'm not Israeli, was in a suit and tie, traveling on a round-trip business class ticket purchased by the Israeli company HQ'd in Tel Aviv for whom I worked, which happened to be the national pride of their booming tech sector at the time. But I do get your point, there might have been something they were noticing, like posture, mannerisms, who knows. I only mention the details to qualify my own presumption of self-innocence.
To the remainder of your post, it's kind of a quandry, isn't it? Do we mollycoddle those seemingly prone to offense (feigned or genuine, no matter) so as not to further their us v. them paranoia? Or do we profile full speed ahead, taking for granted that those with no ill intentions will see it for the greater good and the benevolent prevention of additional incidents that could further malign their perception by the rest of the world?
Given my personal experiences, I'm for the latter is all. Tough stuff though, man.
I get ya, and it's possible it was on appearance alone, but it's hard to say. I went as part of an academic year abroad and I knew the drill in advance, but some of the kids I was with didn't really get it. When asked "were you ever out of contact with your bag after it was packed" they would say stupid stuff like "well, my mom had it in the other room" and that was it: unpacking the whole bloody thing right in the queue.
On my return trip I was bringing back some art supplies for a hallmate (year abroad aborted due to Saddam's invasion of Kuwait) which I didn't really pay attention to when the box was sealed for posting on my arrival. I stayed in the airport overnight because it was an early morning flight, so I was first to check-in. The guy opens my bag and asks what the box is so I tell him. He asks if I saw it packed and I said yes, but then realised for all I know the guy could have put 100g of pot in there! I was praying he wouldn't open it and find any contraband and it was the longest minute of my life having this guy searching my face to see if I was on the level!
With regard to your last comment, I don't know that treating people like ordinary citizens qualifies as "mollycoddling," but I agree it's a quandry.
Forums
Topic: Harsher travel regulations might ban portable gaming on aircraft? (UPDATE: Safe to game again!)
Posts 41 to 51 of 51
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.