Lost Mobility — Lost Freedom
October 6th, 2008 Posted in
By James Baxter, NMA President
Two Wall Street Journal articles over the past week brought home how much our freedom to travel has been diminished in the pursuit of absolute security.
First was an editorial by Peggy Noonan that clearly described the degrading, inconvenient, and humiliating experience called “commercial air travel.” She provides a crystal clear image of the plodding lines of airline passengers, shuffling along shoeless, and dreading the possibility that they will be chosen for extra attention by TSA personnel.
Second was a book review of “The Closing of the American Border” by Edward Alden. Mr. Alden describes the practical, economic, and psychological effects of treating everyone who enters the U.S. as a potential criminal or terrorist. Lost jobs, lost income, wasted tax dollars, diminished international reputation, and the simple wasting of human time. “Waste” is the operative word because finding any benefit is worse than elusive, it is non-existent.
I can already hear the shrill cry “our national security demands these measures.” Or the more populist “How would you like it if you or your loved ones were on a plane that some terrorist took over or blew up?”
I’d like to take my chances, I’d like my freedom back.
Along with abolishing the TSA and thereby regaining a little national sanity how about allowing airline passengers a choice? They can fly under the current system that involves invasive searching, interrogation, and arbitrary command and control regimentation, or they can choose an airline that sells them a ticket, they get on the plane and they fly to their destination.
If you want the illusion of perfect security you can select the first option, take your shoes off and get in line. If you’re willing to take your chances and fly with the rest of us on the “No Fly List” you can opt for “buy your ticket and get on the plane.” With the money saved from not strip searching old ladies or lathering the floors with fungicide, an armed marshal could be assigned to every flight, and/or the training and arming of flight crew personnel, if deemed necessary.
Back at the border; how about we cut a deal with the Canadians and the Mexicans, we’ll take down our customs stations if they take down theirs’. I mean, who’s kidding who here? Twelve million illegal immigrants suggests the current system isn’t exactly bullet proof! And, most of these people did not hoof it on foot through the desert. They came in planes trains, busses cars and trucks, right through those border crossings.
Why not make it easy for them to go back and forth so they don’t feel obligated to set up camp here, for fear of not being able to get back? Think of the millions of gallons of gasoline that would be saved by the Canadians not having to make multiple crossings to do their shopping in the border states.
OK, I admit there might be a few downsides; more US sold leeches and night crawlers would make it into Canada, but hey that’s where they came from in the first place. Then, there’s the lost Canadian taxes from U.S. Citizens buying gifts for Canadian friends. However, revenue from the oil sands projects should help to offset these losses.
The current immigration and customs laws do a pretty good job of discouraging tourism, preventing skilled professionals from moving to the US, and confounding commerce. But, preventing terrorists from entering the country; not a chance.
Other Related Articles
31 Responses to “Lost Mobility — Lost Freedom”
By Schwinn on Oct 21, 2008
Fine, you can put me in charge, but I am no expert. Why don’t we let the true security experts tell us how to do it right, and for once, actually listen to them?
I nominate Schneier for the position, as he has already told us how to fix the idiocy.
Our government is well known for asking for real scientific or expert evidence, then completely ignoring and hiding it. What makes you think security is any different?
By Randy on Oct 20, 2008
The only thing we need to do then is to put Schwinn in charge and you can correct security so nothing gets through. Good luck in your new job.
By the way how many armed men are you going to have to hire to put 2 or 3 men on each plane to guard everyone?
By Schwinn on Oct 20, 2008
I don’t believe I ever said NO security is a good thing. The article doesn’t even say that, as they say there should be armed people on the plane to address such situations.
My problem is that the current direction of “improved” security has nothing to do with real security. Spotchecking is pointless, because if you dont spot-check the RIGHT person, you’ll let them through. You must check EVERYONE for the usual threats (just like we used to before 9/11) like guns and such. But the rest of the nonsense is… well, nonsense. A truly determined attacker will simply find a way around your checks (whether it’s matches, shoe-bombs, or whatever) and use an alternative that you aren’t looking for. So, ANY reactive, specific screening is useless.
And watch lists? Eliminate them… as the stats show, almost all terrorists are first-time offenders. What on earth are you going to possibly watch for to prove that the next person is really a terrorist? There is no way to predict this with a list, so just get rid of it. (Besides which, as the article showed, it’s EASILY bypassed anyway, because of stupidity on the TSA’s part, honestly.)
Most importantly, be intelligent about the rules. Like the article I linked says, they won’t allow 3oz of fluid, but then they will if it says “Saline Solution” on the outside. Really? Are you f-ing kidding me? This is why the current system is idiotic and totally ineffective…. so don’t even bother with it.
Sure, you have to start somewhere, and find flaws (and then FIX THEM) but we haven’t even got a good start to begin with. None of the new “improvements” are even remotely effective in reality, or in theory. So just stop it.
By Randy on Oct 18, 2008
I have a question Schwinn, are you saying we need no security or better security from what you said in your post? Your link shows what security checks are for is to determine problems and get them fixed.
By Officer Josh on Oct 18, 2008
Randy and Schwinn,
I can see both of your points and i agree with Randy that the step up in our homeland security has been amazing and is definitely preventing planning and executing of attacks daily. But I do agree with Schwinn that there will be another attack in the next 10 years or so from now. The simple fact is that you cant totally prevent everything. Even me as a police officer cant provent crimes all the time, i just have to respond to them responsibly and do the best i can with what i got.
By Schwinn on Oct 18, 2008
I’ve had enough or Randy’s nonsense, so I am not going to even bother answering any of it, since it’s totally factless.
For the rest of the readers I submit an interesting story of the failure of post-9/11 security:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2003/10/16/logan_screeners_fail_weapons_tests/
The article says that even 2 years after all the hype over higher security, the very same Logan airport STILL failed to catch basic weapons like “knives, a bomb, and a gun in carry-on baggage”.
And a second article that really made me laugh at the nonsense of the TSA:
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/airport-security
By Randy on Oct 15, 2008
Schwinn you talk about logic but you do not have any. If you like to speed would you do it where there are police every mile or two or do it more often where they are every 50 miles or so? If you were a terrorist or just someone that wants to make a name for yourself what would you want at airports and other places? During 9/11 security at airports was equivalant in my illustration to every 20 miles. I am not sure what it is today but it is better.
You and others always want proof. Sometimes you just need to use your head no matter if it is driving or wanting security. I have no proof that you would slip off the road driving at 100 mph on ice on a certain stretch of road until it happens but I would hope you would not want someone to prove it to you.
As far as security goes do you get rid of security until a few more thousand die and then bring it back? It has already been proven that poor security causes death. This has been proven hundreds of times and thousands have died. Many were preventable. There is even better security than we have at some other country airports and they have a much better record than we have. There have been hundreds of incidents on airplanes of various levels not the 4 number you are throwing out.
I have to laugh at what I read today. There is a new topic to remove drivers licenses and require drivers training for anyone that gets in an accident. At the same time other places on this site says anything goes and a few thousand deaths mean nothing and everyone needs freedom. I am not sure what is being promoted here.
By George on Oct 9, 2008
Pilots should absolutely be packing heat.
A nice (intimidating) 6″ .357 magnum with frangible (RRLP reduced ricochet limited penetration ammo), preferable just subsonic (because you are in enclose space)
It is the airlines’ prerogative to defend their planes, and defend their most important cargo-You.
Checking your guns, not carrying on would be the rule.
and require the men to wear belts. If you take off your belt, and double it over-you still have a greater reach than ‘box cutters’
or you can wrap it around you knuckles, or play Indiana Jones (bull whip), choke someone out, etc. etc.
LIHOP implies that ‘al queada’ has the physical/technical ability to commit such a spectacular act. No, but through the machinations of compartmentalization the real government does.
How many war games were in progress on 9/11?
By Schwinn on Oct 9, 2008
Randy:
Listen, I have asked you for a single element of proof, and you still haven’t provided it. It’s clear that you don’t want to have an educated discussion, and simply want to blabber forth with unsubstantiated nonsense.
Still, to answer your last question, “if after anti-lock breaks started coming out and if there are no accidents reported for those cars after a few months do you start taking them off of vehicles because there is nothing to show that they are doing any good?” No. Duh. If there are fewer accidents being caused, then that is proof that they are working. “Fortunately” there are enough accidents to look at, and hence you can actually see a pattern. Airline terrorism is so uncommon that it’s not possible to see any pattern of improvement without long periods of time. More importantly, since they are so rare, why are we fussing over such nonsense in the first place? The answer is, because the media, government, and other sources like to keep us scared… it’s called fear-mongering, and it’s all about being able to control the masses.
Anyway, I’m done trying to make you understand logic… if you want to return to sanity and ask logical questions, instead of hyped up nonsense, and if you actually do a LITTLE reading, I’d be happy to continue. Otherwise, continue thinking along YOUR delusional ways.
By Jeff on Oct 8, 2008
I agree. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting
9/11 was a false flag operation. Did you see the BBC reporter announcing the collapse of world trade center building 7 25 minutes BEFORE it collapsed?
By GLENNSKI on Oct 8, 2008
IF W E ALL HAD OUR TRUE 2CD AMAENDMENTS RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS BACK WE COULD ALL CARRY A GUN ON THE PLANE
IF WE WANTED AND WHOSE GONNA MESS WITH A PLANE FULL OF GUN CARRIES [[ NO TERRORIST IN HIS RIGHT MIND WOULD TRY ANYTHING ]]] AGAINST A PLANE FULLY ARMED WITH PASSENGERS THEN EVERY ONE COULD FLY IN PEACE
NUFF SAID THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN SCRAPED IN MY OPINION TIME FOR REVOLUTION
By Hubcap on Oct 8, 2008
I’m a LIHOP kind of guy. I don’t believe that the Bush administration made 9/11 happen for the simple reason that this bunch of whackjobs can’t hold a press conference and get it right.
I think they were simply too stupid to heed the warning signs and people much smarter– and yes I’ll say it: braver–took advantage of our weakness.
Al Gore said it best, “how is it that everything we have spent trillions on to prevent such a tragedy as 9/11 simultainously failed? Four times? In one day?”
For your answer all you have to do is look at the actions of the CIC on that day–staring blankly, frozen in fear.
By Randy on Oct 8, 2008
Schwinn if after anti-lock breaks started coming out and if there are no accidents reported for those cars after a few months do you start taking them off of vehicles because there is nothing to show that they are doing any good?
And George, you are delusional.
By George on Oct 8, 2008
Randy, 9/11 was an inside job, a false flag terrorist event. [pre-planted explosive implies inside job]
The liquid bomb terrorists were all released, without any charges.
The ‘war on terror’ is completely fictitious, totally fraudulent.
By Schwinn on Oct 8, 2008
Yes, I believe no one has really tried.
Put it this way, when was the last airline-related attack before 2001? I don’t see a single one here: http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html
If anything, maybe you can say one of the airline attacks OVERSEAS should be counted, but even of those 4 attacks, only 1 (PA103) could be considered under TSA rule, as it was headed to the USA (not sure if the TSA has any security dealings when looking at a flight leaving from London.
So, in other words, 1 other airline attack, since for the past 20+ years (based on the linked list). It’s been 7 years since the events of 2001… the statistics show that it’s just not that common. And, solely based on the stats, you can expect another one within the next 10+ years or so. Are you telling me we WILL NOT have one in the next 10 years? I doubt it… even with the TSA “watching”.
So, again, show me the data.
Your comment reminds me of a great scene in the Simpsons that goes like this:
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That’s specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thank you, dear.
Lisa: By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn’t work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It’s just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don’t see any tigers around, do you?
[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]
Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
By Randy on Oct 8, 2008
Schwinn if the current system is totally not working then why have there been no more terrorist caused deaths in the US or do you think no one has tried?
By Schwinn on Oct 8, 2008
Randy:
You state that you do believe “the following” is needed… but then never tell us what that “following” item is. I can only assume you mean that the existing TSA system is needed, in your opinion.
Then you go on to say “If something is not working and is proven to not work then do not do it. Not rocket science to figure that out.” Well, that contradicts your first statement. The point is, the current security nonsense is NOT working, and it’s just harassing people for no reason.
Please, do some reading on the topic, because now you’re not even making sense within a single post!
As for the 3oz of fluid nonsense, read this: http://www.schneier.com/essay-241.html
If 3oz is bad, then 6oz is even more dangerous… yet it’s just tossed in the trash, and no one bats an eye and checks him for other potentially dangerous stuff? That’s not security - it’s a waste of time, and totally ineffective against real attacks anyway!
As for your comment of “those that give up security have no freedom at all. They do not have any life.” That’s nonsense too. The implication is that zero security = death. Prove it - show me ANY data that supports this theory. My counterpoint is that there was no “crazy security everywhere” before 9/11… and we didn’t all die, did we? Heck, death rates before 9/11 were negligible, and they continue to be that afterwards (ref: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terror_rate.html). So, show me the data…
By Randy on Oct 8, 2008
shooter348 those that give up security have no freedom at all. They do not have any life.
By shooter348 on Oct 7, 2008
“Those that would give up liberty for security, deserve neither” is a quote from Ben Franklin- a smart guy and it is as true today as it was then. I had hoped when the TSA first started thier stupid invasive searches and prohibitions of toiletries others would have joined me in boycotting commercial aviation. They called it the hassle factor. Apparently most people like it or the airlines would have changed it. Sad thing is none of these intrusive freedom robbing plans will make us safe, they’ll just tighten the bonds our out of control tyrannical government has placed on us. Most rules only affect those that follow the rules. The ones that don’t follow the rules find ways around them.
By Randy on Oct 7, 2008
Schwinn yes I believe that the following is needed and more since your 3 oz of liquid can take down a plane. : “do you really think forcing people to disclose 3oz of fluid and checking shoes has anything to do with REAL security?”
I believe we need to do the most that is possible within reason. If something is not working and is proven to not work then do not do it. Not rocket science to figure that out.
By Schwinn on Oct 7, 2008
One such, simple article to get you started on thinking smart about security: http://www.schneier.com/essay-239.html
By Schwinn on Oct 7, 2008
Oh yeah, and all that data collecting for NoFly lists and other such nonsense… well the GAO found that it’s pretty useless too: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10059987-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
When the government itself can’t find these lists to be useful… how much faith can you really put into it?
By Schwinn on Oct 7, 2008
Randy: You’re right, I don’t look at the news… because it’s all doom and gloom and sensationalism.
No one is saying “let everyone board with guns” and such. However, today’s “higher security” measures are proving to be useless and ineffective. Seriously, do you really think forcing people to disclose 3oz of fluid and checking shoes has anything to do with REAL security?
No one is saying we should have ZERO effort on security… but you can never be TOTALLY secure. Just because the shoe-bomber had a neat idea, we have to take off shoes now. What happens when the next innovative terrorist comes up with another idea that we haven’t been checking for? He gets through, and you’re still screwed. Bottom line is you can’t get ALL the problems, and harassing people all the time for nonsense is ineffective against the REAL threat.
A while ago, I heard that screwdrivers shorter than 6″ was now “OK” for boarding. Seriously? Did they just magically “become safe” now somehow? Are you telling me that a 6″ screwdriver couldn’t kill a person? It’s nonsense, and that’s the point… do a few INTELLIGENT things well, and you will have far better security than going after shoes and old ladies’ knitting needles.
Seriously, read up on Schneier’s essays… some pretty intelligent solutions there…
By George on Oct 7, 2008
Randy are you a 9/11 myther?
Tim Osman (Usama bin Laden CIA alias) blew up the 1 & 2 World Trade Center, set up the charges to take down 7 WTC, shot down Flight 93, and precisely hit the section of the Pentagon that was investigating the ‘missing’ 2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld anounced the day prior.
We need to shut off the magnet that draws illegal here.
Start with the incorrect/illegal interpretation of the 14th amendment
http://www.14thamendment.us/
By Randy on Oct 7, 2008
Schwinn maybe we should not have any security and let anyone on board with guns and explosives or anything else if they want to bring down the plane. I will never fly if that becomes the standard. You must never look at the news.