Your seeming condescension aside, the Israeli system is actually a lot more adaptable to implement then you insist. Yes we have significantly more airports to cover...but they are already staffed. It would be a matter of adding some staff and training those already in place. The cost is a factor and would have to of course be assessed...but more airports also equals more profit per airline then the Israeli's realize. I have not seen where Dix has dismissed cost and I certainly have not. In fact it is your more one dimensional view without the facts regarding the unknown cost that is perplexing. No one is asking for magic- only analysis and discussion without smug dismissal.
Listening to your overseas phone calls?- WRONG! Fondling your balls?- OKAY!
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Your seeming condescension aside, the Israeli system is actually a lot more adaptable to implement then you insist. Yes we have significantly more airports to cover...but they are already staffed. It would be a matter of adding some staff and training those already in place. The cost is a factor and would have to of course be assessed...but more airports also equals more profit per airline then the Israeli's realize. I have not seen where Dix has dismissed cost and I certainly have not. In fact it is your more one dimensional view without the facts regarding the unknown cost that is perplexing. No one is asking for magic- only analysis and discussion without smug dismissal.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You obviously don't care if they fondle your wife and kids, either.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
On the "cost factor" I'm not so convinced a more efficient privately-run security system would cost that much more. TSA workers are government employees, and members of the GEU, so they are knocking down pretty good salaries as it is. There's nothing to say that ex-military personnel or entry-level college grads would cost considerably more. The "cost prohibitive" thing is just a ruse Damo is throwing
out there without any real basis. In any event, a system which provided better security would be worth considerably more to the consumer, safety from terrorism is kind of one of those things we don't mind paying a little extra for. Bottom line, we're now paying extra, but have a joke of a system that isn't making us safer, just infringing on our liberty more. The terrorists are laughing at what we've done to ourselves.
My "seeming" condescension? I simply answered in the same "tone" as the post I quoted. A bit of introspection may be in order.
And again, by all means, analyze. If I am wrong let's implement it. I do not believe that I am wrong.
The first thing you will need to do is get Congress to stop fearing behavior profiling as the same thing as racial profiling, yes they seem to confuse the two, the second is address the costs. If it is cost effective let's implement it.
However, if I am correct, as I believe that I am, what do you plan to do? Continue talking about this as your only solution and condescending to people who see things only slightly differently than you do?
The reality is, this will be far more expensive than your dismissive magic act states. It isn't just "hiring a few more"... In one scenario, if it is the ticket counter, you have to replace all those employees with somebody who makes at least twice what they make. You have to hire far more of them enough to question everybody without degrading time, change the airport physically to spread out the crowd more, get Congress to okay (the main argument, other than efficiency I had against government takeover of this particular item is the 535 people in the CEO Share program that the government comes saddled with) changes in the law to allow for even this type of profiling (yes it is currently illegal), train each of these new college graduates now working ticket counters in the specific techniques (training costs)...
Second scenario, rinse and repeat with the screeners...
And that is just the beginning. Now rinse and repeat for every airport we have and you have a recipe for a huge ballooning TSA that already has the urge and is moving towards the TMI Bureau...
Or we can begin with my idea. Change the software to delete "human" from the image and leave behind the flotsam... Take away the major objection, then require us all to walk through. Use only the imaging machines that do not use x-rays so the pilots objection is also gone.
Then let's begin working towards changing the laws so that even if we want to spend this kind of coin on better security that looks for terrorists rather than tubes of toothpaste we can actually implement it.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Wrong about what? That it might cost more? It's probably gonna cost more, no one has said otherwise. But what the fuck does "cost prohibitive" or "cost effective" even mean, when you are talking about preventing a commercial airliner from being used as a bomb?
Radical Islamic terrorists are of a particular race, Damo. Don't know if you've noticed it or not, but most of them are middle eastern of Arab descent, and tend to be young-to-middle aged males. So how are we going to profile "behavior" if these terrorists remain calm and don't show signs of nervousness or anxiety? What we have to do, is get people's heads out of their ass when it comes to any kind of profiling that prevents a terrorist attack. Congress does what we tell congress to do, that's what elections are for. But as long as we have mealy-mouth half-liberal buttmunches running around, arguing that the TSA is just fine and dandy as it is, and we just need a few "tweaks" here and there... then we are stuck with a Congress that will remain inept and clueless, just like you, who they represent.
Yes, Damo, we are all aware that you believe you are right and only someone with your intellect and brain could have the best possible solution to ANY problem... we should all genuflect toward you daily and pay homage! We're just not worthy to even discuss such things with a man of your stature, being we are just ignorant little proles who don't know what we're talking about. You wanted to know where ID got "condescension" from? Maybe it's phrases like "dismissive magic act" above?
You've not given ANY evidence to support your claim that it would be markedly more expensive to implement a better system. Not one fucking thing, Damo! You've just PROCLAIMED that to be the case, and insisted you are right and we are wrong! It's typical of your behavior here, you proclaim things to be Damo's way, and by god, that's all there is to it! You don't have to provide proof, you don't have to give evidence, you just have to proclaim it, and so shall it fucking be!
You don't know how much ANYBODY makes, we don't have this system in place, we don't currently train people to do this job because it doesn't exist! You're SPECULATING that it would cost more, but you don't KNOW it would! The "ticket counters" are the same in Israel as here, they are NOT the security personnel. We already have TSA security personnel outside every airport, they are there to keep people moving at the drop-off points. In Israel, that security person stops you just like they do in America, for the same amount of time, but they look into your eyes and ask you a couple of quick questions. In America, they don't do that. So, the "new" system would involve training the security officer to ask two questions! Lots of "cost" there Damo, really!
Bullshit and Bullshit! The personnel are already there! People don't need to be "spread out more" for ANY fucking reason! That just doesn't even make sense, if you are trying to maintain security! The more "spread out" the people are, the better the chance of someone slipping through security! I am beginning to wonder if you have the slightest clue of what you're talking about... oh, but, you're Damo! Of course you do! You fucking know everything, you goddamn genius!
People "get Congress" to do things by proactively demanding things be done! Not by coming up with all kinds of inane reasoning for NOT doing things, which is what you seem to be hellbent on doing!
Rinse and repeat stupidity? Why? How about we teach the first checkpoint security personnel to look people in the eye and ask two questions? Then how about we hire trained professionals to work the screenings, who will take a more rigorous approach at spotting potential terrorists? And how about we get rid of the TSA altogether, and allow the airlines and airports to provide private sector security companies, who are already highly trained to do security screenings? This takes care of 98% of your issues.
The machines do not detect plastic and liquid explosives hidden in the anal cavity of a terrorist. The machines can't tell if a breast implant contains silicon or PETN. The machines don't look into the eye of the person and ascertain if they are nervous, being forthright and honest, or seem agitated or anxious. In short, a machine is not going to stop a terrorist.
That starts with YOU! First, you have to realize that, regardless of the cost, if it saves a planeload of American lives, it's worth whatever the cost! There is no "cost effective" price you can put on that, Damo! What we have now, is a fucking joke, not security! But before we can get to implementing ANYTHING, we have to get people like you to stop arguing that it's not possible, not feasible, not "cost effective" to do it... and we should all just sit down and shut up, and put up with TSA doing what they are doing!
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
And what they are currently doing now, is not only illegal sexual assault, but a flagrant violation of your 4th Amendment rights. BUT THEY ARE DOING IT ANYWAY!
WhiteAsBirdShit
Ain't I a cutie? HEHE
-_-
Because the Congress passed laws requiring it. My friend at the TSA spoke with me about this last night. They know they are ineffective, yet have to do them per laws passed by Congress. Which is why I mentioned that if the airport chooses to hire a private firm to do the screening, these will continue because the new firm would be required to follow the same procedure. Sick it is...
Seriously, the problem is far deeper than the TSA dude. They are bound by the stupid laws Congress continues to pass to keep you "safe"...
Do you think the R majority in one House will change anything?
We'll have to take this in stages to fix GWB's idiot mistake Federalizing the TSA.
Step one, get Congress to pass laws that are worth something rather than these feel good measures meant to give a false sense of security that even screeners say are ineffective.
Step two, get the government out of running the show.
Step three, implement what we can of the best programs from areas who deal with terrorism regularly. I don't think we'll wind up with the exact same program as Israel has because of the cost, but we can definitely begin to start looking for terrorists rather than toothpaste.
Lets just look at what you claim....
"Illegal sexual assult"
Its not illegal, its specifically legal based on rules and laws passed by congress.
Its not sexual, its specifically for a secutity purpose, not for a sexual purpose. Is taking a piss sexual, simply because it involves a sex organ?
Its not assult, its not done in any attempt to cause harm or injury. When a police officer handcuffs someone, is that assault?
Dixie many of the things you claim are incredable idiotic to an intelegent reader.
Congress passed laws that force the TSA to continue to do these ineffective, yet invasive, searches. One side seems to say, "We don't care if they are ineffective, so long as it makes me feel safe I'm willing to give up any form of privacy to Big Brother!"
The other side seems to say, "Um.. Even if they are effective they are the wrong way to go about this and are too intrusive. It isn't the government's right to assume guilt and force you to prove innocence for interstate travel, they need to seek other means to keep us safe that doesn't violate the fourth amendment and the government needs to keep itself within the due bounds of reason."
The other side seems to say, "Um.. Even if they are effective they are the wrong way to go about this and are too intrusive. It isn't the government's right to assume guilt and force you to prove innocence for interstate travel, they need to seek other means to keep us safe that doesn't violate the fourth amendment and the government needs to keep itself within the due bounds of reason."
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so congress can pass a law that makes an illegal act, legal? like redefining waterboarding as enhanced interrogation?????
Congress did not redefine waterboarding as enhanced interrogation, the president and his administration tried to....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
So if a rapist is only attacking a woman because they need to feel power and control, the rape is not a sexual assault? If a child molester is only fondling children because they have deep-seated psychological issues which cause them to do that, it's not sexual assault? If I just go up and grab some woman's tits because I want to see if they are soft or hard, that's not sexual assault? ...Nice to know that, Jarhead!
No new law has passed that I am aware that "forced" TSA to adopt these new policies. It's my understanding that TSA simply implemented new screening procedures.
The trouble is that no one wants to be the one "responsible" for the next attack so the people in charge implement all sorts of insane and ridiculous policies so that no one can say that they should have done more. It's all so incredibly stupid.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Well you seem to have changed your tune since you talked with your friend, Damo. Yesterday, you didn't have these same three steps, you wanted to 'fix' the machines, tweak the system... now you're talking more along the lines of me and ID, about changing the system... getting rid of TSA... I guess it's progress.
On the "cost factor" again, you've not demonstrated how it would necessarily cost more per passenger than Israel pays. Even though I never said we should implement a system "just like" theirs, you continue to want that to be what I said, and argue against it with logic that isn't supported by fact. You seem to want to think Israel can do this because they have fewer airports and airplanes, but they also have considerably fewer passengers bearing the burden of the cost. More airports and airplanes only means more passengers to help cover the cost, Damo. So yeah, it would cost us more overall, but how do you keep getting that the cost per passenger would be too much? It might cost us $20 per passenger above what we currently pay, but so what? If it's a system that effectively works to stop terrorists and keep the people safe from terror attacks, it's worth an extra few bucks, at least, it would be to me.
It's insanity, Dix. $20 more for what exactly? I don't really see airplanes as really big targets for terrorists except on international flights into the United States. If a terrorist is inside the United States and has a bomb there's a whole lot of destruction he could do a whole hell of a lot easier without getting onto a plane.
According to my friend at TSA they are required by law and cannot shut down this specific screening process. I'll get more information from him (I'm not kidding, he'll call later today about something else) and report back. If I'm wrong about that I'll happily report that I am, but I am solely using a source and reporting what they've told me.
And I agree with your last two sentences.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
$20 more for a system similar to what Israel has, which has resulted in NO hijackings since it was implemented in 1969. On the bombs, I guess you missed the shoe bomber and underwear bomber, both of whom made it past the TSA screening and boarded a plane with explosives. To explode a commercial airliner over a major US city, would cause quite a bit of destruction.
No, I've been talking that the whole time and you've got lost in minutiae. I've simply decided not to play that game any longer. Fix the machines, that's something we can implement now while we wait for the first step to magically be within our grasp. Until that first step happens all the other conversation on implementing "illegal profiling" (yes, Congress fails to differentiate between profiling by action and profiling by 'race') is worthless.