While visiting the New Jersey Aquarium yesterday I saw something interesting. A mother who was walking around enjoying the exhibits with her young daughter-pretty mundane, except the daughter was being walked around on a leash! The child, who was about 4yrs old, was tethered to her mother by a blue nylon, full-on chest harness that looked like it was suited to be worn by a team of Huskies mushing over the tundra. I had seen several other children, over the years, with various iterations of parental belay-on; most looked like coiled phone cord and were attached to the kid at the wrist and others were merely strings tied onto the strollers that the children held on to as they walked. But this was different. It looked something like this:
It was painful for me to watch. The little girl was very excited and trying to hurry between displays. Every few steps the line would pull taught and she would strain against her reigns as if she were an ox pulling a loaded cart. She was visibly frustrated and I wondered about the potential for injury as she would run full-force only to be clotheslined back by her leash. It was quite sad. What ever happened to holding your kid's hand? What's next, strap little Timmy up and don a pair of roller blades and head to the grocery store-mush you little bastard, mush! Hey, it would reduce our carbon footprint!
These uber-parent types crack me up! The show up with their backpacks, sippy-cups, and enough snacks provisions to last in case a nuclear winter should befall them on the way home from the park. Everything is neatly sealed in color coordinated zip-lock baggies with Justin, Connor, Madison, and Zachary's name written on the labels in perfect calligraphy. Armed with instant sanitizer and a first aid kit that would rival many trauma centers, they set off chauffeuring the kids between "play-dates", soccer practice, arts and crafts, story-time at the library and violin lessons- all before lunch! Their afternoons are filled with more of the same; and finally there is time to stop at the psychologist's office for the weekly visit because the child isn't paper trained socializing well with the other kids.
TAKE OFF THE LEASH! THEY ARE CHILDREN, NOT DOGS!
World renowned child-rearing expert, comedian, and pimp, Kat Williams weighs in on the issue below:
No longer an intern (The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/6/13)
10 years ago
47 Comments:
Amateurs!
That is why the electric fence collar is so much more humane. They wander too far from the owner and ZAP. The smart ones learn early to be good little rodents.
Alternatively, you might attach a leash to one of the carpet shark's fins, so that when she wanders too far, she performs a lovely face plant. Spare the LeFort fracture spoil the child.
Should both of these methods fail, the harpoon with a line attached, to reel in the disobedient little future president, works just fine, but requires good aim and a steady hand.
"A noble craft, but somehow a most melancholy! All noble things are touched with that."
-Herman Melville Moby Dick
Methinks he was referring to child-rearing.
I Like the fence collar idea only I would modify a bark collar into a "whine" collar.
"Daddy, can I...." ZZZAAAAPPP! whimper whimper whimper
Ah, at last, Pacem et Silentium.
the zap collar...you must be tlaking about Kait. she's the only one who acts like that. By the way, Daddy, can I have a pony :-)
ZZZAAAPPP!
Well, that's the price you pay for living in a left wing, pinko, permissive, sick society. No rules, no standards of conduct, and little punishment for aberrant behavior. Most of these parents don't want to put their kids on a leash, but they have no alternative. Take your eyes off a kid for a second today and some soulless coc*su*k#r will snatch him up, brutalize him, and then kill him. The media will immediately paint the perp as a victim, and decry the cops as being insensitive. These parents are trying to protect their kids, and they should be lauded for their actions. I am a stranger in a strange land !!!
Any questions ---- watch 'Suspect Zero'.
Kudos for the Melville quote !!!!
Lou, I understand the motivations the parents have; I just question their methods. Being more vigilant is what is called for, not strapping on a leash- in my opinion. One could make the argument that the false sense of security a parent could get while their kid is "safely" in tow would lead to a lack of awareness and invite trouble.
Besides, I am not entirely convinced that safety is the #1 reason for their use. It is too hard to sip your double soy low-fat latte and chat on the cell phone while trying to keep an eye on junior as you stroll around the mall. Leash = problem solved.
Lou,
Why stop there. Surely adults are not to be trusted just because they have survived to adulthood, especially when you do such a good job of protecting them from facing consequences as children. The only ethical solution is to confine them for their entire lives.
Suspect Zero is an entertaining movie. Ben Kingsley is worth watching in anything he does.
The psychic thing is silly.
Confining children out of fear of tiny risks is teaching a poor understanding of risk management.
Such as the TSA screening of airline passengers. The people who drive, in order to avoid the delays, increase the number of highway fatalities beyond any possible protection of the public from terrorism.
We have become a nation of whiny sniveling cowards afraid of our own shadows.
Please take my freedom, but I'll have an Grande False Sense of Security, preferably with enhanced corruption.
Let us protect people from guns and other animate objects, just waiting for us to relax, so they can kill us. The way they take over our minds and direct our actions only amplifies the evil these monstrosities are capable of.
These idiots, who cannot keep track of their kids, in spite of their unwarranted fear of abduction, are the problem with America.
Save us from ourselves, take everything except our binkies.
I'm not giving up my binkie till they pry it out of my cold dead fingers! ;)
Most folks expect others to watch out for their kids ---- that whole 'it takes a village crap' --- I get a warm and fuzzy anytime I see someone trying to take 'personal responsibility' for their POCs.
Tools are great things ---- any can be abused ------ but we would not be any better than the apes without them.
My personal favorites (tools) tend toward the offensive sort ;)
Tim,
Did they put nitrous (N2O) back on the medic units??
Back in the day, before the 'through the looking glass' society came into being, criminals were in the jails and the good folks were on the streets. Today everything is reversed: criminals are on the streets (and in public office), the boy scouts are bad and the sexual perverts are good, illegal immigrants vote in larger numbers than citizens, law abiding citizens must wait 2 weeks to purchase a gun while criminals have no such restrictions, etc. Contrary to what the pinkos tell you there is real danger out there.
'Confining children out of fear of tiny risks is teaching a poor understanding of risk management.'
Tiny risk?? ---- you are not paying attention!!!! Jessica Lunsford, Adam Walsh, yada, yada, yada. Does the size of the risk matter if your child is taken?
'Such as the TSA screening of airline passengers. The people who drive, in order to avoid the delays, increase the number of highway fatalities beyond any possible protection of the public from terrorism.'
So in Tim's insane world there would be no screening of airline passengers?? Did you sleep through 911??
The use of child leashes is a rational response to an irrational world. The lethality of evildoers today is remarkably high --- there is no margin for error ---- that's why we deposed Saddam, and that's why parents need to tether themselves to their children.
"Back in the day, before the 'through the looking glass' society came into being, . . . ."
Makes for a nice T-shirt, but if you believe "the good old days" were real, you are mistaken.
"Tiny risk?? ---- you are not paying attention!!!! Jessica Lunsford, Adam Walsh, yada, yada, yada. Does the size of the risk matter if your child is taken?"
Now if you just keep on using liberal logic, you are going to confuse me. The risk is tiny compared to other risks to children. Almost all abductions are by "family."
Your ability to name these kids that are abducted by non-family members is just a demonstration of this. If this were common, there would be so many we wouldn't remember the names.
Yes, a bad outcome of any kind in a child is a tragedy, but lets focus on the real ones and not repeat these fantasies. Anything is bad if it happens to you, or yours, so picking this rare example is very poor logic.
"Did you sleep through 911??"
I woke up after the first plane and before the second. I didn't have to go to work that day. So, yes and no.
The TSA is a joke. They are there to make you feel good. But I think I understand your Hillary-speak. We must have the government control all aspects of our lives, to protect us from ourselves.
We can have the government protect you from all of those gun carrying nuts, as well. Think of the risk. Does the size of the risk matter when your child is shot?
"The lethality of evildoers today is remarkably high ---"
No, just more efficient due to improved technology, but they do get better publicity.
Apparently, you are buying what they are selling. This magical amulet can protect you from paranoias A and B for only a small amount when you think about how bad it would be if something bad happened. BAD. And I really mean bad. BAD, BAD, BAD!
Snake oil, conspiracy theories, charlatanism, UFOs, ghosts, John Edwards (either one), miracle healing, the second apostle from the left appearing in a tuna sandwich, . . . .
"there is no margin for error ----"
So you want the government to bring their itsy-bitsy error margin into all parts of our lives. The FBI was being warned by their own people, but administrators over-ruled the agents who were providing accurate intelligence and interpretation of that intelligence. So, more of that is obviously better.
"that's why we deposed Saddam,"
Saddam was a very bad guy, but he had nothing to do with 911. Using the logic we used to go into Iraq, we could send our military into a bunch of other places that might have weapons of mass destruction and don't like us. We just don't have the money or the manpower or the need.
Of course, if we do that to protect ourselves, we won't have much of a volunteer military left to protect us from a real threat.
Terrorism is named after the word terror, because that is what it is designed to cause - irrational fear.
"and that's why parents need to tether themselves to their children."
Your lack of feeling of safety justifies higher taxes, dead Americans in other countries, and government intrusion into areas of our lives that do not threaten the country - just so you can feel safer.
Poor baby, put on your foil hat, take some Risperdal, and vote for your friend Hillary to protect you and you may be happy.
Or you could focus on genuine risks and forget these monster-in-the-closet stories.
9/11 was a tragedy, the loss of lives to help Americans feel safe is another tragedy. The second tragedy is not justified by 9/11, by your fear, or by a rational interpretation of risk.
I just can remember Pink Floyd at the moment after reading this post....
"We don't need no education"
"Hey mother,leave your kids alone"
I wrote a little about it somedays ago..
http://designinglifenhappenings.blogspot.com/2008/01/pink-floyd-philosophy-and-peer-pressure_10.html
Terrorism is named after the word terror, because that is what it is designed to cause - irrational fear.
"and that's why parents need to tether themselves to their children."
Your lack of feeling of safety justifies higher taxes, dead Americans in other countries, and government intrusion into areas of our lives that do not threaten the country - just so you can feel safer.
Very true, its all formulation of further loot.
I always liked Reagenism and Thatcherism.
Wonder when laissez-faire system could be applied when Ludwig Von Misses and Rothbard economics can be testified.
Remembering beatles and singing "the taxman"
So, my girlfriend works at Kennedy Krieger, doing therapy for all sort of, uh, interesting (to say the least) children. While I think that your post is hilarious, as usual, she thought that people could easily be offended by it.
According to her, the harnesses that you are talking about are usually obtained by prescription for children with aspergers or various other issues that you may not be able to tell, if you didn't know. So, the parents may be offended about your post, if they're doing it for that reason. Apparently, one of her children is so bad that they hook the leash up to the child, the parent, and a dog, because the mom sometimes cannot even hold the child back if it tries to run away.
Don't shoot the messenger :)
Got the real heavy hitters out today. They regurgitated almost every talking point from move-on.org.
Children --- the world is a very dangerous place --- that is a fact. My position is that every adult should use every tool at their disposal to mitigate their risk. Leashes, handguns, rifles, neurotoxins, etc. I applaud the folks that don't rely on the government to ensure their safety. If handguns had been 'allowed' on the Virginia Tech campus maybe the death toll would have been less than 32.
Well Tim ---- I guess there were just as many homicides per capita, drive-by shootings, child abductions, etc. in the 1920s as there are today --- not !!!
'The risk is tiny compared to other risks to children.'
Like I said ---- numbers don't mean Jack if it is your kid --- hope you don't learn that the hard way.
'these fantasies'
I dare you to tell that to John Walsh (in person).
'The TSA is a joke.'
If something is not perfect then it is a joke?? I guess they haven't stopped any criminals - right? I'm confident you could develop a better system - your just holding back because you're afraid that the masses couldn't comprehend your flawless logic?
'The psychic thing is silly.'
If your pea brain can't understand something then its silly? Remote viewing is being used today by folks w/ a heck of a lot of smarts.
'"The lethality of evildoers today is remarkably high ---"
No, just more efficient due to improved technology'
Evildoers are not more lethal today ? Of course they are, in large measure due to technological advancement.
I was really on the fence about UFOs, but if Tim says that they don't exist, then sh*t ne*@o, they must not.
unpretentious_diva -- Right, you need about five years of depth psychotherapy based on that name alone!
Listen sweet cheeks, what are you -- about 17 ?? Probably never set foot outside of the ivory towers of academe.
'Your lack of feeling of safety justifies higher taxes, dead Americans in other countries, and government intrusion into areas of our lives that do not threaten the country - just so you can feel safer.'
Yes-exactly. The reason that I don't feel safe is because on 911 a small group of rag-headed coc*suc*ers killed over 3000 of my countrymen. I would have preferred that we destroyed every rag-head population center on the face of the earth, but the fuc*ing libs would not have gone for it.
Wow, leave it to me to stir up a whole hornet's nest worth of shit over a silly little post- not my original intent.
Scott, while I usually give less than a thimble-full of shit about offending someone with my inane bloggery, you may tell your girlfriend that indeed, I had NOT considered the possibility of the leash being therapeutic - color me insensitive. Mea big fat cuplpa.
Gentlemen, what is with all the invective and ad-hominem attacks?
Lou,
I must agree with Timmy about the TSA, not because I don't understand it, but because it IS a joke. A joke because they make more of an effort to put on a good show and make everyone FEEL safe but do not seem dedicated to truly doing everything they can to ensure that they ARE safe. e.g. not all luggage is screened.
Well, if you are going to insist on the what if it's your kid approach, what are you doing to protect them from meteors - it could happen. If it is your kid, you wouldn't be smug about disregarding this ominous threat.
On the remote viewing, is there any evidence that it works? Perhaps they would like to collect that $1,000,000 that the Randi Foundation is offering for anyone who can show that any psychic abilities exist. In a choice between science and emotion, you may have the emotion - you seem to have more than enough for the two of us. I'll stick with science.
Why aren't you concerned about the evils of those darned gun nuts? They are surely extremely hazardous and need to be controlled - what if it were your child shot with a gun?
The liberal paranoias don't appeal to you, but the equally paranoid opposite position is just right for you?
The concerns about the abuses of the patriot act would bother me, but then I realize that it is just the government watching everything - not anyone who has a clue.
Scott,
Good point. I had not thought of that. My apologies.
couldn't you have just blogged about the hippos? haha
Yeah, really! :-)
Don't get me started on Hippos.
I'm sure Lou is just one big hippo lover!
TSA
Interesting article --- esp. in light of its source -- ABC news ---- hardly a government cheering section ;)
Read the article and now I am all warm and fuzzy, thanks.
Are you kidding me?
"Aww shucks, ma'am nobody's perfect we're doing the best we can"
"If we make it 100% ...the terrorists will win"
Puuuuhleaassse!
Is this the attitude that the Secret Service has for the protection of 1 man? What about NORAD, is their security 98%? Come on.
"It wasn't designed to catch EVERY terrorist trying to kill thousands, just MOST."
Well several thousand people would argue with that (if they could).
If we are going to have a system with gaping holes in it then lets just say screw it, and allow anyone who wants to to carry firearms on to a plane. A much cheaper solution to be sure! Just stop the dog and pony show, and placating to our fears.
I am glad that security is now uniform (uniformly inadequate but uniform nonetheless) and the employees are trained better etc etc etc.
BUT
My point is that for the Billions we spend on Homeland Security and the TSA it is mostly a sham. Designed to make us feel all safe and secure; also to justify the inconveniences and invasion of privacy we allow in the post 9-11 world. We don't need to go all Israeli up in here with interviews and the like. Let's just start with screening say, all the luggage.
Vince-
The government is a big bloated pig, and it can't do anything quickly. Major changes in infrastructure, policies, and procedures take years to implement. It took 4 years to modify a DoD medical form !! I agree that we should expect better performance for the dollar, and I don't appreciate the 'lag time' either, but even Obama couldn't make the wheels of government turn faster. The TSA's accomplishments to date are consistent with a 'government shop'. Is the TSA any different from most public health systems, big city police depts, or the IRS?
Every government agency could use improvement, but lets not throw out the baby with the bath water.
A question:
I am sure you will agree that since Gulf War 2:
1. more people in the world hate the US.
2. US influence in the mideast (the 'reason' for the 911 attacks) has increased.
3. Global communications, weapons sales, and rag-head recruitment have all increased.
If the TSA is so bad, why the heck haven't there been more 911 style incidents (or exploding planes)?
Please don't tell me that we have been lucky.
'We don't need to go all Israeli up in here with interviews and the like.'
Antecedent probability (if you believe in probabilities) informs me that we will get the most bang for the buck (and quickly) from precisely this tactic.
Start removing threads from a tapestry and all you will have is threads.
Oh, I understand that the TSA is far far better than the non-security we used to have. I just don't think that for all the $$ we spend on it is justified- especially since we aren't committed to 100% security. I understand no system is 100% in practice, but why is that not our goal?
To say that there have been a dearth of terroristic events since the establishment of the TSA is not exactly water-tight logic.
Since the release of 50 Cent's debut album there has been no major terrorist attacks in the US. Is this cause-effect? ;)
I'm sure that increased security has staved off some attempts no doubt. I don't think it is correct to give all the credit to the TSA. It is certainly possible that there are other factors involved, luck notwithstanding.
I don't want to throw the baby or the bath water out. I just want some logical management of resources. If we ain't safe then let's say we ain't safe. It's time we start acting like adults and stop lying to ourselves. Especially while we are spending...well-OUR money!
'I just want some logical management of resources. If we ain't safe then let's say we ain't safe. It's time we start acting like adults and stop lying to ourselves. Especially while we are spending...well-OUR money!'
Couldn't agree more !!!!!! Don't have a clue how to get there though ;(
In my humble opinion, the success that we have enjoyed, in eliminating 911 style attacks since 911, is a product of layered security:
1. Keeping the rag-heads occupied in the Stans and Iraq.
2. The NSA ( the agency that all the lefties cry about) is intercepting a host of actionable intel.
3. FBI / CIA act on NSA's intel
4. We are keeping the bad guys that we find in jail - (in Cuba).
5. Vastly improved (but not perfect) coordination / cooperation between federal / state / and local agencies.
We are getting there. Not as fast as I would like, but you must give credit where credit is due.
I wonder what I could post about that would NOT degenerate into a political/philosophical debate.
I have a working list:
The Importance of rolling the toothpaste tube from the bottom up
Navel Lint- the untold story
Why do men have nipples?
Any suggestions?
HEHEHEHEHEHEHE
'Navel Lint- the untold story'
The others are far too controversial ;)
Lou,
I agree with you that 100% is not possible and is not a reasonable goal.
But in the article they wrote "According to the report, the TSA screeners at Newark Liberty International Airport failed to detect contraband items 20 out of 22 times".
Stuff, like knives and guns.
While 20 out of 22 times is over 90% - this is their failure rate.
I think I could come close to that level of security for a lot less money, with a lot less disruption by using my remote viewing skills. Show me the money.
Are the workers smarter?
Over a 90% failure rate!
We sure are closing in on that 100% number, but in the wrong direction.
Vince,
You know that I have very strong beliefs about all of those topics. Why do you mock me?
Navel lintology is one of RM's many interest!
Tim, I disagree. If we are going to spend zillions on security then 100% MUST be our GOAL. Sure it may be unattainable but where do you set "acceptable" failure rates 10%, 5%, 1!
It only takes one right?
'Is this the attitude that the Secret Service has for the protection of 1 man? What about NORAD, is their security 98%?'
Man ---- I totally missed this. The answer is a resounding YES!!!
Lets see Kennedy, Reagan, and Ford --- they all were in the crosshairs (Clinton too if you count the plane).
If the SS had its way POTUS would live in an underground bunker, and only be seen on TV --- that might yield 98%. They realize that given the 'balance' (a leader must be accessible to the people) there is no way that the presidential detail can be 100% effective.
NORAD?- come on. They tell us straight up that we have no defense against a massive ballistic missile attack. We are only now trying to develop a limited shield.
'I agree with you that 100% is not possible and is not a reasonable goal.'
Be still my heart !!!
The gun / knife miss rate does not bother me all that much --- I don't believe that they would have the same efficacy today.
I agree with Vince that detecting explosives is the #1 priority.
'It only takes one right?'
Right !!! Now apply that same reasoning to geopolitics, and the rationale for Iraq will become clear. It is the same reason that we need to take out the stinky, dirty pajama wearing, periodontal disease having, rag heads in Iran :) Lets not put off for tomorrow what we should do today -- I hope Bush has the nuts to do it !!!
Navel lint is serious stuff.
You can take my navel lint when you pry it from my cold dead navel.
First of all, my apologies to Lou, as several of his comments did not come through. I have comment moderation enabled and I was not notified of his posting comments. For this reason and as a matter of principle, I am DISABLING the comment moderation.
The comments in question have been posted and put in chronological order.
On to my response, re: the SS and NORAD: My point is that the GOAL of these organizations is not to stop MOST threats to POTUS and our airspace, respectively. Their goal is 100% protection.
I admit this is impossible but the mission of agencies remains committed to 100%.
The SS does not start off the day saying, "Ok gentlemen, lets stop at least 97% of the imminent threats to POTUS' life today"
I only hear 100% bandied about in the ivory towers and in church.
100% implies a level of control / understanding that we just don't have.
All professionals start the day with the commitment to give (effort) 100% and to use 100% of what they know to achieve the mission objectives. The pragmatist strives to give (the best they got) 100%, but realizes that 100% success is impractical and impossible.
What would happen to an ER doc who strove for a 100% save rate? Burnout! Most (hyper)religious people are usually depressed and angry because they are constantly trying to be as good as Jesus (100%) and they never succeed !!!
The SS is big on math --- they inform their charges of the risk involved -- ex: 90% probability that X activity will go off without a hitch.
The US is currently building a missile defense system that we know will not be 100% effective !!!! We are spending billions to get partial coverage. Why? Because some is better than none ;)
But Lou -- we 'know enough' to be able to 'produce' a better missile shield --- if we are truly professionals why are we not doing more ??
Well, why not have a separate ER doc for every patient in the ER --- why not have every sub-specialty known to man in every ER on a 24 hr basis ---- why not have a separate nurse for every med/surg patient?
Cost / diminishing returns / unintended consequences (new problems) / etc.
Lou you make my point for me:
All professionals start the day with the commitment to give (effort) 100% and to use 100% of what they know to achieve the mission objectives. The pragmatist strives to give (the best they got) 100%, but realizes that 100% success is impractical and impossible.
Exactly, professionals do wake up with that goal in mind(my point). Alas, since the TSA doesn't SCREEN EVERY PIECE OF LUGGAGE the how can you in good conscience say that the "goal" is anything but ABSURD!
I certainly understand that things are seldom, if ever, 100% effective. My single point is that if we want to actually get into the business of being safe ( the message the government has marketed to us) then we need to do more than the superficial machinations of "security". Now if you want to debate whether or not this is prudent given the probable risk vs. expenditure then that is a different argument altogether.
Oh, I almost let this one slip by.
ER docs DO strive for 100% save rate. There are, as you know, many, many times they will fail.
But can you imagine a doc saying to himself, I am only gonna try to save 90% of the people tonight.
Someone once told me that "Words matter".
Indeed they do.
A slight, but albeit important distinction: (because words do matter)
I believe that there is a difference between giving your all with the knowledge that perfection can never be achieved, and striving to be perfect. The former sets you up for success (allows you to win), while the latter will only result in failure and the need for psychotropic medication.
If the ER doc says to his team "our goal is to save every patient" his staff will be demoralized in short order. If the doc says "we are going to give every patient the best care possible" the team wins even when they loose (and they will have the desire to fight on !!!)
'ER docs DO strive for 100% save rate.'
No. They strive to deliver the standard of care.
If they did strive for a 100% save rate they wouldn't last a week in a city ER.
As far as the TSA goes --- there is no single element in any system that can produce even 95% security. The key is layering !!!! The TSA baggage guys don't have to be 100% because there is a multi-layer defense strategy in place. The TSA does need to strive to do the best it can --- it does need to do better --- but by design (due to certain limitations / constraints) it is not expected to ever be 100%. The idea is to create a matrix of countermeasures ---- each component may only be 70% effective on its own ---- but the combined result (synergy) is 98.666%.
Would it be accurate to judge computer network security solely on the basis of the firewall's performance? No. The security policy, intrusion detection / prevention systems, and malware detectors are just a few of the other features that combine to provide the security level.
You must evaluate the whole nut -- not just the TSA --- to get an accurate interpretation of the airline security status.
NSA
FBI
CIA
DOD
POLICE
CITIZENS
AIRLINE STAFF
PRIVATE SECURITY
etc
So, with the TSA at less than 10% success, according to their own evaluation, everybody else has so much more to do to make up for their Chuck Barris act?
With your view of psychology, there does not appear to be a way to maintain sanity unless everyone does things your way. Poor Sisyphus.
Tim-
I think that navel lint is actually matter left over from the BIG BANG ;)
So, let's save ourselves a few tens of billions of dollars. Can the TSA. Offer ticket holders a free round trip ticket to anywhere in the world if they point out a suspicious fellow traveler to authorities that turns out to be attempting to board a plane with a taboo item. To prevent a rash of finger-pointing, charge $20 for each tip that is only refunded if there is an actual threat. Even an idea as far out as this one has got to more successful than the 9.1% rate the TSA is scoring. Throw it into the security matrix and we are safer than ever.
I agree no one is ever going to hijack a plane with a couple box cutters again Lou(do NOT feel the same about a couple guns), but that supports the position that the TSA screening is pointless.
And you can get to 100%, there would just have to be far, far fewer flights.
Art-
I want a 100% system. I'm ready for it. I will pay more and even give up some 'rights' for it (rigths aren't worth much if you are dead). If I were king the system would look like this:
1. Only 1 carry on item allowed
2. Full interview and strip search.
3. No luggage. Mail your shit ahead if need be.
4. Class 1 hardened cockpit doors.
5. 4 Delta force members - 2 fore - 2 aft - with machine guns on each flight -- with orders to terminate anyone who presents a threat to the mission.
6. etc
The left would never allow it. The pinkos cry because the NSA reads their email!! Do you think that they would support the type of measures necessary to get close to 100%? The answer is NO! They will not even let you profile!!! The big guns need to be 'stealth' / behind the scenes.
Lets consider battlefield kinetics / geometry. The worst case senario is to intradict, arrest, or take down terrorists at the airport. A good system (the NSA working full bore) would enable the appropriate teams to snuff the bads guys out (or if you insist - arrest them) as soon as they think about doing an evil act; take them out in a more controlled environment.
If you want EL AL's level of success you have to be ready to embrace ALL their methods. Unfortunately, we are not there yet.
A whole bunch of people, who likely considered themselves conservative while they were still alive, would disagree that rights are not worth anything if your dead.
I will once again climb up on my very tall steed and say that:
If we give up our rights as a people to protect the nation, then what we are protecting isn't our nation anymore- rather an Orwellian perversion of it.
Now I shall dismount my high horse (Ol' Paint can take it anymore- I need to drop a few lbs!)
Art-
I understand that ---- they may well be right --- there has to be a balance ---- its difficult to determine.
I used to fear flying when I only had to worry about stoned pilots, incompetent mechanics, and overworked controllers --- now I have to add hodgies trying to blow me up or shoot me down --- there is not enough valium in the world !!
Post a Comment