If the media loves Santorum shouldn't that be a strong warning that he's probably not the right guy to bean Obama?
Sometimes I feel like an article I'm writing is based on an idea so obvious that I'll just be wasting my time telling people something they already know. This is one of those times, but based on the palpitating hearts and trembling knees of a lot of Republicans, I've hit on a simple fact that they ought to see, but are somehow blind to.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - roger nowosielski
A misanthrope, if I may venture.
BTW, Clav, I don't think you've even been one, in spite of all your protestations,
27 - zingzing
i've only been close enough to the top to see what goes on at the executive level of one company, but it was pretty fucked up. at the founder's previous company (he was ceo), stocks had been grossly inflated and it became a posterchild for the reasons behind the dot com bubble. at the company i worked for, there was some incredibly shady marketing practices and trojan horse add ons that opened up customers' personal financial info to company scrutiny. (this beyond the fact that it was a public records company, a shady enough line of business... they would also sell your private records behind your back.) it actually got pretty messed up, and when my sorta boss spoke up about the shit the company was up to, but only in private, she was fired. the marketing director was cowed into stuff she knew to be false, misleading and dangerous, so she eventually quit and was made to sign what she described as an "incredibly draconian" confidentiality agreement. i was kinda left out in the cold by those two departures and had quite a few meetings with executives where veiled threats were covered up with smiles. the atmosphere around there got so poisoness that i had to get out. i did so nice and quiet so as not to anger anyone.
28 - Irene Athena
The right to be armed with unbearable puns. (#23)
29 - Igor
Not at all. I had the benefit of having seen enough as a young independent to not be fooled by the dreams of corporate drones, and not to openly express skepticism. I remember sitting, as a 23 yr. old, listening to the most fantastic imaginings of future pension benefits by men twice my age who were obviously naive but well indoctrinated into company narrative, even though nothing made any sense. I kept my own counsel, said nothing to my associates, and made my own plans.
I'd say I won in about half of my endeavors, which included about 6 startups, one of which went really big. I avoided disappointment by never really swallowing the line while appearing to be cooperative.
Most of what you hear about striving and achievement in business is pure BS. For example, you hear all these stories about people working long hours in the startup business, in Silicon Valley in the 60s, 70s and 80s, but I can tell you that we built all those businesses on 40 hour workweeks. 9 to 5. We were all in promptly at 9AM, took 1 to 1.5 hours for lunch and left at 5PM. NOBODY worked those weird hours you hear about. We would have thought he was nuts and bound to be error-prone. SOMETIMES a guy would put in a lot of extra effort and time to get something ready for a show or meet some other deadline, as necessary.
I don't hate business people, but I have a proper skepticism about them. I don't even hate the ones that cheated me: it's just business, as they say. I was careless.
I don't even hate my old buddy Pete, who I first worked with in the 60s, bailed him out of the drunk tank one weekend, he became a rather famous entrepeneur (and professor at Stanford!). 30 years later I clued him in to a good looking startup I'd done some consulting for, that was desperate for financing. But I didn't have a good brokerage contract with anyone, depending on, you know, Fair Play and Fellowship, so he joined with the founders and drove me out (although I'd warned him that their credentials were fraudulent). But in about a year they went bankrupt and Pete lost $2million (his first startup loss ever). Too bad. But it's just business.
It's just business, boys and girls. Just business.
But one thing that always impressed me was how dumb top management is in corporate America. I mean REALLY dumb. Not knowing anything about their own products, or the business, etc. My impression is that people just keep lying and demanding and hope that if THEY believe the lies and fantasies that everyone else will too! Just like the Emperors New Clothes.
30 - Jeannie Danna
Blame who? The media? Think not! It's Citicens United you should be blaming for this dismale lin-up. The aparent lack of electable canadadates is because this isn't a Republican primary, it's a billonaire fight to see who can buy America.
News for all: All the money on earth can't buy crazy.
31 - El Bicho
welcome back, jeannie
32 - Glenn Contrarian
Igor -
That's some pretty impressive testimony. I only wish the BC conservatives here would learn from it rather than dismissing it offhand since it goes contrary to dogma.
33 - Cannonshop
#23 Just 'cause some Educrat has a Walter Mitty complex doesn't mean we need to be financing it with taxpayer dollars-seriously, we have the ATF, the FBI HRT, a variety of local, state, and county SWAT teams in this country, I don't see the legitimate need for a department with no toe in the violent side of Law Enforcement, to be fielding a SWAT team-much less fielding one BADLY (as has already happened in a "Sorry Wrong House" situation over...a loan default.)
Shit is SERIOUSLY out of control here, Doc-the money spent on this SHOULD have been going to customer-end programmes or internal performance audits to assure the Dept. is not wasting taxpayer dollars-or to assure that the money is, in fact, going to further actual EDUCATIONS for citizens. Fraud can be prosecuted by the DoJ, and there are a whole bundle of Agencies whose basic reason for existing is law-enforcement, including conducting "raids" and investigations, serving warrants, etc. etc.
34 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
Would you agree that it's unlikely that the ATF and the FBI are largely clueless when it comes to Wall Street finance? I think you would, for the same reason why you wouldn't ask a beat cop to conduct OSHA inspections or FAA inspections.
If a sector needs to be regulated, then the regulation needs to be conducted by people who know what the heck they're talking about.
35 - Igor
Glenn,
Most people re-direct their frustrations at other people, because it's easier than self-examination. But, contrary to what Clavos may think, I'm not mad and bitter at anyone. It's terrible to let bitterness dominate your life. I think the last professional acquaintance I was angry with was in 1969, and the last personal acquaintance was in 1978.
I've been disappointed in a few people and I've found there are some people you just can't trust, and you're the fool if you do trust them, because no amount of remonstrance and screaming is going to make up for misplaced trust.
36 - Deano
I suspect that the media ratcheting up of Santorum has less to do with any sneaky "liberal" scheme to ensure an Obama presidency and more to do with $money$. With Santorum, they are following the pattern that the entire system is based on:
1). Keep the race simple (i.e. two BIG contenders)
2). Highlight the extremism and conflict (i.e. OMG Mormon! OMG Homophobe!) to attract attention and keep the audience involved
3). Build up and exaggerate the event (Clash of civilizations! Who can save us from the socialist Obama peril!)
4). Keep the focus on the personalities and soundbites, not on policies or issues (Damnit we can't have any thinking going on here, that'll sink things for sure!)
5). Film the inevitable flameout (probably Santorum, as the GOP would have to be eight flaming balls of crazy to put him up against Obama)
6). Move to the next cycle (probably the GOP Convention - OMG who will win the votes?)
It's not a conspiracy, its not a liberal plot, it's just the 21st century media cycle and rating$.
37 - Igor
#27-ZZ: about 20 years ago I consulted for a successful software developer who was the industry leader in their software. (I knew it had a smell, so I demanded a 3 month bonus and a 3 month guarantee to take it on). The Founder had just sold the company to a conglomerate and was tied down by a 5 year standoff on the stock payoff, so he had to sweat it out. But he was now worth $150million on paper, and he knew he needed help, badly. I knew for sure it was stinko when he quickly fired his software director, who was a very good smart guy, and when he subverted me regularly, so I settled back for 3 months of my guarantee, cashed my signon bonus, and started cashing my progress payments rapido.
This guy had found a remunerative niche in the hospital business and had been making an excellent living for a few years, but the purchasing conglomerate hadn't done Due Diligence (they should have hired a guy like me, I'd done several DDs for people, and so have a lot of others, but that's high priced because of the exposure). But he was cheap and crooked. He only had one competent guy left on staff, and I found that he wouldn't pay for the kind of guys he needed. But I foraged around and found an additional software guy and an admin to deal with his problems. I think 'John' had 3million shares at $50 a share of the conglomerate, and quickly after I left the bottom went out. I don't know where it ended (these stories are so common they're easily thrown away). But John was so cheap that he wouldn't fix the virus that had infected his software. He was knowingly shipping software with that old virus that waited a few weeks and then started interjecting false keystrokes occasionally, becoming more frequent as weeks went by until the system ended in a cacophony of random keystrokes! It was pretty funny if you weren't involved. But John wouldn't spend the time or money to root it out, let alone hold up his release cycle for all the promises he'd made to customers around the country. And this damn menace was shipped out to hundreds of hospitals. Then, as if to cap his own incompetence he created a 'website' which was kind of a new thing to do and John took pride in his hacking skills, but it didn't take long for some ex-employees to hack his website and discover his entire customer list of 600 leads and customers!
I have no idea how 'John' ended because I went off to new adventures. But I was never mad at him, or even upset, because I had protected myself with $$$Money$$$ and realistic expectations.
Anyway, from what I've seen I have no admiration for bigshots and their pretensions, and incompetent management is the norm, not the exception, in corporate America.
38 - Jeannie Danna
:D Hello El. Not back just hovering.
39 - Jeannie Danna
:D Before I go, allow me to remind all of you here at BC that America is a nation not just a business.
40 - Cannonshop
#34 And where does a SWAT team fit into that, Glenn? IS there a legitimate educational purpose to kicking doors in and going guns-a-blazing (or, more to the milder "What really happened" of storming someones home, waving guns around, demanding someone who wasn't there-and hadn't been, for MONTHS prior?)
It may surprise you, Glenn, to know that the FAA doesn't maintain a dynamic entry team armed with automatic shotguns to conduct inspections at FOB locations-not even really distant ones, along known transit routes used by drug-dealers.
This is an agency stepping WAAAAAAYYYYY the hell outside their area of expertise, and developing an asset that bears zero resemblance to that agency's purported mission and reason for existence.
It makes as much sense as the FAA maintaining a small fleet of attack subs, the FBI owning/using a Space Shuttle, or HUD dabbling in nuclear weapons design and deployment.
41 - Cannonshop
#36 Deano, response to your point number 5...
The GOP (at the leadership level) has proven to be both eight shades of nuts, AND corrupt (or maybe that's just a split by board member or something)-the only "Promises" they've made any effort to KEEP in the last sixteen years were to the lunatic fringe homophobes and bible thumpers-which is how (as noted in several articles) the GOP has managed the lowest turnout in years for a primary. (believe it or not, CLINTON in '96 faced more unified opposition than Obama's facing).
I agree with your other points wrt pure tactical/commercial elements of the Press side of things. Dog-bites-man doesn't sell, it's mundane. Man-Bites-Dog sells-because it's strange and interesting. Santorum is definitely Man-bites-dog...
News is a business, which is why they're so damn reluctant to print/publish anything but disaster and woe-because those sell copy, whereas good news does not sell copy, nor does reporting what is reasonably expected.
42 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
Did you have to try that hard in order to completely miss my point? I was in essence saying that if a business sector needs regulating, then those who regulate it need to be deeply familiar with that sector, and that one shouldn't hire inspectors who have little or no real-world experience in that sector.
43 - Glenn Contrarian
Igor #35 -
I understand what you mean. I've had people go after my career on several occasions. Most of the time I was outraged...but I began to get a clue with the last one who did so. I didn't retaliate or spend my days trying to figure the guy out...and as time went on, he screwed up and cost himself his own career. His clinical narcissism was not compatible with obeying the orders of the officers.
I mention all this to say that you're quite right, that it is much better to not allow the b***ards to get you down.
44 - Clavos
Before I go, allow me to remind all of you here at BC that America is a nation...
Barely. Not much of one anymore.
45 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
That's the problem with being so cynical, always seeing the bad, the weakness, the fault - doing so is every bit as bad as being pollyannish, wearing rose-colored glasses, and denying the presence of evil in the world.
Only when you acknowledge and appreciate both the bad and the good will you see clearly. Until then, you simply cannot see things the way they really are. For all the 'coolness' and supposed respect that habitual cynicism brings, all it really does is blind you to half the world...and half of humanity.
46 - Dr Dreadful
or HUD dabbling in nuclear weapons design and deployment.
Dang! Why didn't I get some of that action when I worked on HUD programs? That would have been FUN!
47 - Jeannie Danna
Barely. Not much of one anymore.
Life is what you make of it Clavos. I've seen great forward movement in this country during my life-time and there's much more to come.
:D I'm sure of it.
48 - Cannonshop
#42 Considering that SEC's "Experts" failed in THEIR mission, and that the FBI has a whole division to pursue white-collar criminals, and as the mission of the Secret Service (aside from protecting POTUS) is mainly focused on the same from a slightly varied angle, yet we had both the S&L crisis in the 1980's and the banking mess of the last decade (including the use of financial instruments experts INSIDE the industry didn't fully understand the mechanics of) AND given that we've got Educrats with fantasies of being Elliott Ness?
I WANT my federal employees to work, Glenn, I want them to be able to do their jobs, and I want them to DO their jobs. I want agencies to stop having turf-wars, stop dropping the ball because of jurisdictional arguments (see: 9/11), I want them to do what they're SUPPOSED to do (which, for a dept. of education, is NOT fielding a SWAT team and trying to pretend they're a love child between Ness and Chuck Norris.) I want my SEC to regulate the Stock Markets and catch fraudsters, I want my FBI to handle interstate criminals of the violent sort, I want my Federal Marshalls transporting felons over state lines and applying civil law in the "Non State U.S. Territories", I want the IRS to collect revenue (Yeah, collect revenue-as in the job it was formed to do) etc.
I'm tired of embarassments like Waco, Ruby Ridge, etc. where agencies start something they shouldn't have, only to make all of America look bad because of their catastrophic blundering. I'm tired of paying for a war on drugs predicated on the idea that the government can somehow stop people from deliberately hurting themselves-you can limit accidents with rules, but it makes about as much sense as outlawing suicide, and it's cost BILLIONS for little to no real-world utility (other than creating billionaire criminals south of the border and sumping talent and resources into a kind of perpetual-motion tax consumption machine that fills prisons and generates excuses to further erode individual Liberties).
Also on the "Hire experts" front, Glenn...
Experts were saying for DECADES that the best course in a Hijacking was cooperation-that is one of the primary reasons that what AQ did in 2001 worked. The EXPERTS were wrong, and it cost a lot of lives and blood and treasure because their "expert" opinions created an environment that favoured the opportunistic human infections.
The "Experts" counselled helplessness, so their advice is, frankly, questionable at best-TSA's methods might have reduced SOME chances of SOME incidents, but fact is, it's spending a dollar to save a dime-the terrorists got what they're after, they made people afraid, and made them SO afraid they'll accept Tyranny to alleviate their fears.
I'm not sure I can accept that. In fact, I'm damn sure I don't.
49 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
"Poison the well" much?
In YOUR view, the government and the experts have almost ALWAYS been wrong. Go back to my #45 and see what's wrong with being so cynical. There's nothing wrong with being cynical, so long as one BALANCES one's cynicism about someone or something with seeing what that someone or something did that was good and RIGHT. For instance, look at your rant against TSA. Sure, TSA costs a few billion - but they're catching on average two handguns in carry-on baggage every day. And how much did 9/11 cost America?
In that view, TSA's one of the most cost-effective government organizations in human history!
So here's a project for you. Look at the people who did the things you pointed out that were wrong, and then look up the things they did that were RIGHT. And then get back to me.
50 - Christopher Rose
9/11 cost the USA everything it stood for, as it is no longer the land of the free.
As to the TSA catching 2 handguns a day? Firstly, machines could do that better and cheaper and secondly the presence of guns doesn't necessarily represent a threat.
There are far too many security services in the USA, which has become a parody of what it once stood for.
51 - Glenn Contrarian
Chris -
"Guns don't necessarily represent a threat"? All it takes is ONE idiot, guy...and FYI, it's not only guns that the TSA has to check for.
And the TSA DOES use machines - as much as we don't like the newest 'radioactive porn' machines, those machines - and the bag scanners (which I used to train others how to use) - are crucial to the success of the TSA.
Every bit as importantly, machines by themselves are quite insufficient to the task...because the TSA agents (and the air marshals on the planes) have to keep their eyeballs peeled for potential threats that machines cannot (yet) detect - eyes shifting nervously, hands fidgeting especially when being searched. Yeah, you're Absolutely Sure the TSA agents are just mindless drones bent on destroying our civil rights...but if you had the guts to join them, you'd soon discover your error.
All it would take is ONE hijacking for you and Clavos and Cannonshop to deride the TSA and claim that they're incompetent, that they don't do their job...and in the meantime you're pooh-poohing the fact that they're finding two guns a day out of fourteen thousand flights. Per day. 24/7/365.
52 - Christopher Rose
Glenn, I'd like to respond to your point but you don't have one...
53 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn, some perspective:
Most estimates I've seen say that there are some 300 million firearms in the United States.
According to the DOJ, the number of crimes involving firearms in 2006 (the most recent year for which figures are available) was around 400,000.
That means approximately 1 in every 7500 guns is used to commit a crime.
If we look at your numbers, the TSA detects, annually, 730 people trying to bring guns into the cabins of commercial passenger aircraft.
That means that it will take them, on average, over 10 years to catch one criminal passenger with a gun.
And that's assuming the crime he/she intends to commit will take place on the airplane.
It's also assuming that each gun will only be used to commit one crime.
And it's overlooking the fact that the 9/11 hijackers used not guns, but boxcutters. And that none of the attempted aviation-related terrorist attacks since 9/11 have involved guns.
I don't know about you, Glenn, but an anti-terrorism measure that screens absolutely everyone but only prevents - being generous - one terrorist attack every 10 years doesn't seem a very good investment at all to me.
54 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
Your statistical comparison is sorta like saying that the chance that the president has of being assassinated with a gun is no more than that of any other citizen being shot to death...but the job of POTUS quite literally has the highest death rate of any job in America (with the exception of our submariners during WWII - their death rate was 22%).
What you're not taking into account is that if one wants to commit a high-profile crime, one doesn't knock off a 7/11. Why do you think bin Laden chose airliners over what his predecessor used in the first attempt to blow up the WTC? Bin Laden wanted as high a profile crime for as little cost as he could get away with, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. The higher-profile the target, the more that target needs to be protected. Sorry, but that's the way it is - the way it always has been.
It should be noted that there's a verse in the Qur'an wherein the number 19 is very important, and it's seen as a prophecy of sorts - that's why there were 19 hijackers even though a 20th was available. That, and in the grand view of history, the 9/11 attack can in several ways be compared to Thermopylae.
Anyway, if you'll check the first sentence of my comment #51, you'll see that I pointed out that the threat didn't simply involve guns...and our discussion here isn't really on guns, is it? No, it's currently more about the TSA.
So let me boil it down to one question - given what bin Laden was able to do (even without guns), if you were given the choice and the responsibility for making that choice, would you really have the TSA relax their enforcement efforts? Agreed that there is always room for improvement - of course! - but should we really throw out the baby with the bath water?
55 - Dr Dreadful
Glenn, the issue with TSA security is that it's reactive.
9/11 happened and now you can't have sharp objects in your carry-on bag. Richard Read tried to blow up his shoe and now you have to take your shoes off to go through security. There was the plot to blow up transatlantic flights using explosives concealed in water bottles and now you can't bring liquids onto a flight. After Abdulmutallab's little stunt a Christmas or two back we got the full body scanners and I'm frankly surprised it isn't now illegal to wear underwear on a plane: I suspect the only reason that hasn't happened is that it's political (ahem) dynamite.
You screen for 19 things, Glenn, and your determined terrorist will find a 20th. Where does it stop?
56 - Clavos
9/11 cost the USA everything it stood for, as it is no longer the land of the free. (emphasis added)
QTF
And I reiterate my assertion in #44.
As for "forward movement," the creation of the nanny state, the Patriot Act, the creation of the Department of Education and the resulting slump in the quality of US K-12 education -- these are all decidedly backward movements and only a sampling of such at that.
57 - Clavos
Add to my #56 above, to keep it topical:
The whole TSA Shuck and Jive.
Two guns a day, indeed.
58 - Clavos
Doc, you're dead on in #55.
Where indeed...
59 - Glenn Contrarian
Doc -
I hate to say it, but it doesn't stop. It's just like the old firepower/armor debate. One uses arrows, the other develops armor. One develops guns, the other develops tanks. One develops anti-tank rockets, the other develops Chobham armor.
It doesn't stop. One can try to leapfrog the other, but they still have to protect against earlier threats. That's just the way it is.
60 - Glenn Contrarian
Clavos -
Yes, Doc's right that the TSA's being reactive...but they're not only being reactive.
It's really easy to sit back in your easy chair and play Monday-morning QB and say how crappy this particular organization is...but you're also assuming that they're only doing what you see them doing. You're assuming that they're doing little or nothing more. You're making the mistake of thinking that because they're government functionaries, they're plodding, unimaginative bureaucrats who are only waiting for the moment when they're off work.
But if you actually took time to work with them, I'd think you'd find - as in almost any human industry (public or private) where lots of lives are on the line every day - that they do take their job seriously. Sure, some won't. Some will screw up. Some will be really stupid. And some will be plodding, unimaginative functionaries watching the clock. But the great majority of them will be good people trying their utmost to do a good job, because they don't want the deaths of hundreds of people on their conscience.
And Clavos - I'm sure you know this already. Again, cynicism without optimism is every bit as blind as optimism without cynicism.
61 - Cannonshop
#59 and if nobody says "ENOUGH", Glenn, eventually you get to a point where "Citizen"="Prisoner" and guess what? the Criminals are still free.
The sheer man-hours in TSA's 2 guns/year makes those the most expensive firearms in history.
Honestly, you might be in favour of a life without freedom, or where your "Freedom" is tightly defined by your Federal masters, but frankly, the advice of Ben Franklin comes to mind regarding freedom and safety and what you get when you sacrifice freedom FOR "safety"-that is, the ILLUSION of Safety, of Security.
I'm not as keen as you seem to be to let some rag-ass renegades turn me into a prisoner. The most "Secure" prisons have the locks on the INSIDE of the doors, Glenn-the prisoners lock THEMSELVES up.
62 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
The sheer man-hours in TSA's 2 guns/year makes those the most expensive firearms in history.
You DO realize, of course, that the cost of even ONE 9/11 attack - just the direct loss of business to airlines (and the downstream costs of that loss of business) - is many times greater than the $6.3 billion annual TSA budget...and that's not even counting the occasional follow-on invasion like we did in Afghanistan and Iraq. IIRC, the cost estimates to our economy by 9/11 in the first year alone (not counting our invasion) was $100 billion. How many years would that fund the TSA? Hm?
But you'd rather see the TSA go away - which is the typical Republican attitude towards the government: throw the baby out with the bathwater.
All it takes is ONE extremist idiot to take over the aircraft, and voila, we might well have another 9/11 on our hands...which attack could cost us at least 15 years' worth of the TSA, just like the last one did (not counting the invasion).
63 - Cannonshop
#62 Glenn, the extremists took the aircraft OVER IN THE FIRST PLACE because the corporate and governmental 'experts' told flight crew to...cooperate, and they did it with BOX KNIVES, Glenn. BOX KNIVES.
Not guns, not assault weapons or big machetes or swords, BOX KNIVES.
Not Bruce Lee with a box-knife, either-these were schmucks, but the "Security Culture" made them the only schmucks willing to fight-do you GET that??
All TSA does, is match the prior performance (modified by SOME improved tech) of the private sector security guards who did the job before-minus the petty thievery (and institutionalized harassment) air travellers can now enjoy from their new "security blanket".
Terrorism is about creating terror, Glenn-driving a population willy-nilly into accepting tyranny is one of the primary measures to see if it's working.
Make things bad enough, and you don't need an army to topple a nation-the system will become so stifling that it will collapse ON ITS OWN.
Read up on Lenin's methods and Trotsky's advice, Glenn, look into Mao's Little Red book sometime-these are the people the Islamic Radicals studied when they were attending western universities, read some Alinsky while you're at it. We're goober-falling right into the trap they've laid in front of us, and "Security conscious" folks like you are leading the dance in.
64 - Cannonshop
Glenn, you seem to be operating under the assumption that the Terrorists are those hill-fighting goons in Afghanistan.
They're not.
most of them are highly educated men, many have degrees from good universities-remember that the 9/11 hijackers were here on what, class?
Student Visas. Their leaders are highly educated men, these are not stupid people you can 'scare' into compliance with cavity-searches and scanning machines. This is not a war just of blood and bullets, explosives and aircraft, Glenn, it's a war of the MIND, Terrorism is a MIND GAME, the more you fear them, the more power they have over you, and the objective is such a simple one...
Break your enemy by breaking his ability to function-not just mere material functions like power generation or trade, but FUNCTION. Make your target so 'security conscious' that he can't govern, fears to leave the house, etc.
When you, as an AMERICAN give your freedom up, give up your dignity, the Terrorist wins another victory-because he has made you weaker, less capable of dealing with his NEXT attack, less capable of overcoming adversity.
It's about FEAR, Glenn, and they've made a lot of people VERY afraid...
65 - Glenn Contrarian
Cannonshop -
There's a BIG difference between fear...and caution. I KNOW they used box knives - and if you'll check back in my comment #51, I pointed out that guns weren't the only threat. Thankfully, with the awareness we have now - for which we (and the regular people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and (to a much lesser extent, Pakistan) paid dearly - box cutters won't cut it anymore. Anytime someone has something that even looks like a threat threat, they've got every red-blooded male on that plane suddenly on top of him beating him down.
And the terrorists know this, too. They know that simple little crap won't work anymore.
9/11 did occur with mostly educated individuals. The shoe-bomber and the underwear-bomber weren't so educated. Problem is, we have to guard against BOTH. AND we still have to watch for those lousy little frickin' boxcutters on the off chance that some idiot will take a stewardess hostage and force the plane to land somewhere else. He wouldn't be able to take over the plane, but he could make things a real pain in the but for a lot of people, and cost the airlines beaucoup bucks.
In other words, Cannonshop, it's NOT fear. It's CAUTION. If you want fearmongering, all you need do is turn on Fox News and hear how Obama's got a deep-seated hatred of white people, how liberals are destroying the sanctity of marriage (just ask Newt), how if Obama's elected, Iran WILL use their nukes (Romney just said that yesterday).
THAT, Cannonshop, is fear-mongering. The TSA, on the other hand, would be at the height of irresponsibility if it did not at least try to protect against threats that have ALREADY OCCURRED!
You cannot be so naive about security that you can't grasp that ANY organization tasked with protecting the lives of others must do two things: secondly, try to prepare against unknown or unforeseen threats, but FIRSTLY, to prepare against KNOWN threats.
Firearms, Cannonshop, are a KNOWN threat. So are boxcutters and C-4 and liquid explosives. And having thorough inspections for them is NOT fear - it is CAUTION and it is RESPONSIBILITY and it is DUTY.
And the day when - WHEN - somebody finally sneaks a gun through security and gets it on a plane and bad things happen, YOU are going to be among the first on BC to say, "See? Those lazy good-for-nothing TSA bums let that one through! They're worthless!"
If they do their job, you despise them. If they don't do their job, you despise them. Give me a break, Cannonshop!
So what's your grand solution? How are we supposed to ensure the safety not only of the plane and passengers, but also the financial well-being of the industry as a whole that takes a big hit whenever a plane goes down? What's your solution? I really want to hear it!
P.S. If I wanted to fear-monger, I'd say I'm not worried at all about guns and boxcutters anymore, thanks to the TSA, and not worried that much about liquid binary explosives (that TSA knows about and would probably not detect). What I am more worried about is (1) idiots with a SAM left over from our illegal and unnecessary wars, and (2) the idiots in charge of the airlines who are too cheap to put countermeasures on their planes even though they know damn well that the first time a plane is shot down, the industry will lose FAR more money than it would have cost to put countermeasures on board every single one of their aircraft!
66 - Clavos
Good points all, Glenn.
Our response to 9/11 should have been totally proactive instead of the weaselly hunkering down we actually fell into.
67 - Christopher Rose
Setting aside the fact that Glenn's view is excessively fearful and cautious, despite how much he tries to posture as reasonable, Clavos, so you consider two wars, numerous other "police" campaigns and actions, the arrest or death of most senior Al Qaeda personnel, the passing of several new state security bills and the formation of several new state security bodies is hunkering down?
What would you call being proactive then?
68 - zingzing
"nuke em from orbit! blooooood! kill em all!" if clavos says anything different...
anyway, the tsa is annoying. it's a complete hassle. but gimme a break on the more ridiculous rhetoric around here. i wish they could do their job without being so invasive, and they probably can, but if one person dies because of lax security, then you can tell them about how lucky they were to have their freedom when you meet up with them again.
but for god's sake, if we can't bring water in, have reasonably priced water available on the other side of security. dammit.
69 - roger nowosielski
@69
I, too, am rather surprised by Clavos's response. Must have been overwhelmed, methinks, by the aura of reasonableness.
I didn't think you were such a hawk, Clav. What changed?
70 - Clavos
Oops!!! #66 was addressed to Cannonshop, not Glenn.
Me culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Agnus Dei...
71 - Cannonshop
#70: ERm...."Forgiven!!". (that's how it works, right?)
Honestly, I think the "Proactive" course would've been to require, then fund, training for aircrew and stewards, including the issuing of stun guns, handcuffs, and tasers. (bullets in an aircraft get messy quick).
Glenn's 2 handguns/year is a telling stat-it means nobody but the really dumb/forgetful are trying to carry onto the plane, not that the apparatus is working as designed. Most of the "Terrorists" caught ON the plane (shoe bomber boy, Underpants bomber boy) weren't even caught inside the U.S.-they boarded overseas, and had they finished their missions, wouldn't have landed here (except as metallic confetti).
72 - zingzing
the word you're looking for is "day," cannonshop, not "year." (and actually, as of 2010 it was four per day, many of them loaded.) the first time you said "year" instead of day, it looked like simple mistake. but now... are you really basing your pov on such a faulty statistic?
and maybe terrorists know it's pretty hard to get on a flight in the us with that kind of shit on you. who knows. security has gone up to the point that it's unimaginable that terrorists could pull of 9/11 again. but i guess that would be unimaginative. and it doesn't pay to underestimate a terrorist.
73 - zingzing
"Glenn's 2 handguns/year is a telling stat-it means nobody but the really dumb/forgetful are trying to carry onto the plane..."
assuming you meant "day," how did you get from point a (the "telling stat,") to point b (what "it means")? i see nothing in that that should automatically lead one to that conclusion.
74 - zingzing
cannonshop: even you agree that guns are a bad idea on a plane. and the tsa stopped 1,238 from being brought on in carrier on bags in 2010 (reuters report).
does this information change anything for you? the tsa does sometimes overstep reasonable boundaries. but... damn, man, come on.
75 - Dr Dreadful
I think both Glenn and Cannon have good points. Glenn is right that it is worth spending money to protect one's assets. The question is, when does it become excessive, and as far as air travel is concerned I see no limit being designated to the increasingly draconian measures being put in place.
If being proactive means strip-searching Granny, then I'll pass, thanks.
Airplanes are favorite targets for terrorists because of the spectacularness, but they're by no means the only targets. And the security measures have had so much money thrown at them because it's easy to score a high success rate when you're screening people as they shuffle into a small metal tube which is then sealed at point A and not unsealed again until it reaches point B.
Contrast that with other forms of public transport. Billions of people around the world use trains and buses every day... and typically undergo NO security screening (except perhaps for walking past a few CCTV cameras). Yet these forms of transit are also top terrorist targets, as witness the Madrid bombings, the London bombings, the frequent suicide bus attacks in Jerusalem and other Israeli cities, the bombing of the Moscow-St Petersburg express, attacks on trains in India etc.
The number of rail passengers who reach their destinations safely and without incident far exceeds those who experience terrorist attacks, even though the vast majority of them board their trains without hindrance or molestation. There's no reason to think the same wouldn't be true even if airports used no security screening whatsoever.
As I said, airports are singled out for screening because it's easy, and the high visibility and success rate are really just the feel-good factor.