A few days ago, I wrote about eroding civil liberties in order to increase security. As I wrote, then, that scares me. However, what really irritates me is when I have to pay for something of little or no value. For instance, advocates of global warming propose joining the Kyoto treaty, an act that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and will have almost no effect on CO2 levels. Similarly, after 9/11 we had a large number of changes to the process of air travel... with little or no value.
What was the cost? Inconvenience, for one. Inconvenience is largely a petty cost, a few minutes here, a few dollars there. Actually, it was more like a few hundred dollars here, a few hours there, as security lines blossomed, the security forces were nationalized and air travel prices increased. Regardless, spread that out over the millions of passengers and in short order, you are talking about real money. Ask anyone in the semiconductor industry what is the value of removing a penny from the manufacturing cost of a single chip. When you multiple that penny by millions of chips, well, you get the picture.
And what were we getting for our money? Nail clippers confiscated by obviously un-reasoning personnel. Our loved ones could no longer accompany us into the waiting area or meet us at the gate, sharing time precious to those of us who travel. Random searches applied to wheelchair bound grannies and children as much as Muslims in robes. Not that they were really random. In the first year after 9/11, I was searched 7 out of 8 flights. The only thing I can attribute that to is that I wear a full face beard. Later on, the rules were upgraded to make it so we couldn't carry on trivial amounts of liquids. Amounts too small to be of any practical purpose in taking control of a plane. There were so many ridiculous acts by self-important officials blindly following poorly though out rules that I could not begin to list them all in a reasonable amount of time. None of this made me feel safer. In fact, the demonstration of ignorance made me feel less safe.
These are not just the irritated grumblings of a frequent flyer, either. In my travels I had the opportunity to sit next to many different people. On one international flight, in particular, I had the opportunity to sit next to a security and ethics agent from the FBI on his way to teach a foreign police force. We had quite a long conversation in which we discussed these very issues. He shared that it was well understood in the bureau that these measures were primarily to instill a "feeling" of security in the population and that they had little to no real effect.
This is not to say that my feelings of security in air travel lessened after 9/11. They increased, but in no way due to the costly and misdirected efforts of the TSA. They increased due to my understanding of the events that unfolded on Flight 93. I knew that, from that day forward, Americans would never sit by and allow hijackers to take a plane. Many incidents since then have confirmed that opinion for me.
Yesterday, Michelle Malkin penned a manifesto that captures the primary reason why I feel more safe since 9/11. I share the link to it here. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yesterday, Michelle Malkin penned a manifesto that captures the primary reason why I feel more safe since 9/11.
Let me get this straight... you feel MORE safe because the world is full of a bunch of racist, trigger-happy, paranoid, fear-mongering, wanna-be heroes?
That's exactly why I feel LESS safe.
The attitudes 'puked' forth in the "John Doe Manifesto" are nothing short of an endorsement for racial profiling based on cultural stereotypes. It's an invitation for mob mentality and preemptive vigilantism...
The "suspicious behavior" the Muslim clerics were guilty of??? Regular evening prayers in the terminal!
What good is it to keep our bodies safe if our values are not?
Yep, that's exactly why I feel safe. Ultimately, I have a lot of confidence in the American people. I lived in Arizona where I was continually surrounded by people carrying firearms on their person. Seeing a biker with a silenced Sub-machinegun slung on his back riding down Scottsdale road on a Harley made me think, "I bet no one cuts HIM off!" rather than "Run for the hills."
What the Muslim clerics did showed lack of judgment in the current political climate. You may be completely in your rights to poke a bear with a stick, but you should not be surprised at the consequences. I suggest that, while I agree that ideally they should not have to, the reality today is that they should have chosen to be more discreet.
As for racial profiling, exactly what characteristics do those who are conducting these various acts of terrorism have in common? If we don't look in their direction, then there is a much greater chance we will be looking the wrong way at a crucial moment.
One of the very values that this country was founded on was that it would have a government of by and for the people. Included in that ideal is that the people, not the government, have the final responsibility for security. Along with the freedoms that citizens enjoy, come a set of responsibilities. This last point was blatantly self evident 230 years ago, but today, people need to be reminded.
The heroes of flight 93 knew this or were reminded and thereby averted a much greater calamity. I believe this ability remains inside all Americans and those who believe in all the American values, not just the ones that directly provide benefits.
What the Muslim clerics did showed lack of judgment in the current political climate.
Would you say the same of several Catholic priests that decided to pray in public?
As for racial profiling, exactly what characteristics do those who are conducting these various acts of terrorism have in common?
So, unlike everyone else in this country, Muslims are presumed guilty?
I would say that of Catholic Priests choosing to do so in a country that practices sharia, yes. In this country it is drastically less provocative.
Muslims are not proven guilty. However, because of their social ties to a not insubstantial group of people who openly profess to be this country's enemies, they are burdened with additional suspicion.
A few years back I had an opportunity to develop an acquaintance with a Moroccan Muslim who had emigrated, with his family, to the U.S. He had, to almost all visible respects, integrated with American society. Over time, we allowed our conversation to venture into the very sensitive area of 9/11 and the political circumstances at that time (this was around 2003.)
I was shocked to learn that, as invested as he was in America, he considered the conspirators of 9/11 to be martyrs. Given the meaning of martyr in Islam, and this person did not equivocate that he had any other meaning, in my opinion, that statement was openly seditious.
Mainstream Christians (the vast majority) do not generally advocate the taking of innocent lives to promote their favor with God. This continued tendency of the Muslim faith is troubling and, in my opinion, draws suspicion to any person who professes to follow that faith.
john wrote:
So despite Joey's feeling, the fact that so many flier would willingly stand up against a hijacking does make us much safer.
You misheard what I said. I said I don't think the attitudes promoting suspicion based on racial or cultural biases make our country any safer.
I agree 100% with what you said. What makes us safer is the understanding from the public that the rules of engagement have changed. People no longer accept that the safest course of action is inaction.
john also wrote:
I think you are a racist. To prove this, I will suggest an experiment.
Once again, you are confused. Any reluctance I might have to your experiment would not be motivated by race, it would be motivated by the social-economic sub-culture of that environment. I would feel the same level of concern if I conducted the same experiment in a predominantly white section of Queens for exactly the same reason.
humble wrote:
I was shocked to learn that, as invested as he was in America, he considered the conspirators of 9/11 to be martyrs.
Well, I don't know what your friend was thinking, but those conspirators WERE martyrs in the eyes of SOME people. Not everyone agrees on the conditions of martyrdom... that's a fundamental principle of martyrdom. Perhaps your friend recognized that some people perceived the conspirators to be martyrs while he might not necessarily sympathize with their cause himself...
humble also wrote:
Mainstream Christians (the vast majority) do not generally advocate the taking of innocent lives to promote their favor with God.
Firstly, I assume you are speaking of "modern" mainstream Christians, since history tells us otherwise.
Secondly, your implication is that mainstream Muslims "generally advocate the taking of innocent lives to promote their favor with God". However, nothing could be further from the truth. Mainstream Muslims condem terrorism and violence. It is patently contrary to their faith.
Thirdly, the people who are responsible for these terrorist acts are not motivated by their God, they're motivated by their politics.
Which brings us back around to good Christians who no longer kill innocent people in the name of God, but don't think twice about collateral damage in the name of their politics...
I was pretty clear is saying that he thought they were martyrs, not that he thought other people thought they were martyrs. He made this and what it meant clear to me.
First. Of course I mean modern Christians. Do you really think it reasonable to accept responsibilities for 500 year old acts? If so, I'll point you to my early posts on the Barbary wars. Muslim countries were first to act against this country, not the other way around.
Secondly, I rarely hear Muslim advocacy groups condemning these acts. I can point to many prominent cases of Muslims in great numbers promoting violence. My particular favorite is when President Ahmadinejad leads his countrymen in chants of "Death to the U.S." And, yes, I do take him literally. So do the Israelis.
Thirdly, so what. The common thread is still that the acts are mostly committed by Muslims and many other Muslims lend moral and financial support to these acts.
And lastly, this country thinks twice, three times, ten, a hundred times about collateral damage. The U.S. has some of the most restrictive rules of engagement and invests more than any other country in the world, all in trying to reduce collateral damage.
And lastly, this country thinks twice, three times, ten, a hundred times about collateral damage.
More than 100,000 Muslim civilians have been killed in the current war... just what is it we're fighting for? Weapons of mass destruction? Umm... no, that didn't work out to be right. Prevention of terrorists activities? Umm.. no, probably not that either... Why did we kill all those innocent people again???
Thirdly, so what.
The point is you're attributing the actions of a relatively small faction to the ideology of an entire culture.
Secondly, I rarely hear Muslim advocacy groups condemning these acts.
Then you're not looking that hard. Also, if you want to know what a Muslim thinks, you should talk to one. I have several Muslim friends and they all tell me that the terrrorists actions are contrary to their faith and that the terrorists are considered heretics.
First. [snip] Muslim countries were first to act against this country, not the other way around.
Not Muslim countries, people FROM Muslim countries... There are many, many other people FROM Muslim countries who are apparently guilty by association.
Felt like reversing the order...
Buzz, Wrong. It was the Barbary states who acted first against this country, not just Muslim individuals. They stole our trade goods and ships and impressed our sailors into slavery.
There is so much evidence for counter argument to the peaceful faith position that it doesn't make sense to address this in a comment. I'll assume that either you don't pay attention to this or you intentionally dismiss it.
I didn't say I don't hear Muslims groups condemning terrorist acts. I said I rarely hear it. I should not have to look hard at all to see CAIR screaming loud and long against the aggressive acts of some of their fellow Muslims. I should hear about it on the news every time such an act happens. Instead, when CAIR appears on the news, they are typically saying things like (paraphasing), "Muslims aren't like this. We are afraid that this act will bring repercussions against Muslim-Americans."
"relatively small" isn't. Please be more specific with your casualty numbers. I think you should investigate: 1) How much of that was caused by American fire, 2) How much of that was, in fact innocent civilians.
The reasons for the war were several. You might go back and read the Congressional authorization for war to find out what they were.
1) How much of that was caused by American fire
I'll ask a different question? How many of those lives would have been lost had America not put troops in their country? There's more than one way to be responsible for the deaths of innocent people.
2) How much of that was, in fact innocent civilians.
If you're questing the civilian count, it's based on a published article from the British Medical Journal Lancet. If you're questioning whether those civilians were innocent... no one can answer that.
Since it is impossible for either you or I to know what the majority of Muslims truely believe, we have a couple of options:
(1) We can choose to believe what we read on the internet or hear in the news.
or
(2) We can listen to what the Muslims themselves and experts on religion of Islam have to say.
All sources are biased...
Post a Comment