ever-escalating levels of governmental clumsiness and general harm (was: Re: [thechat] US criticised over Muslim checks)

Hugh Blair hblair at hotfootmail.com
Wed Oct 2 13:15:00 CDT 2002

> -----Original Message-----
> On Behalf Of Joe Crawford
> Hugh Blair wrote:
> > 3 - "On 16 September, Dr Mahathir's deputy Ahmad
> > Abdullah Badawi was asked to remove his belt and
> > shoes at Los Angeles airport before being allowed
> > to fly on to New York."
> >
> > Well, big deal. Suck it up and get over it. I've
> > had that happen to me more than once since 9/11.
> > If he's offended by that treatment, then just don't
> > come here. Simple. Sheesh.
> Suck it up?
> Suck it up?
> No. Way.
> That humiliation buys us what, exactly, in additional security?

Nothing. But to use this Dr's example of discrimination against
Moslems is just wrong. My only point (sorry I wasn't too clear
here) was that his experience wasn't an example of *him* being
singled out because he was a Moslem. It was bad journalism to use
this as part of the story.

> Where are the cockpit doors which would be expensive but would have
> actually PREVENTED a 9.11? Oh, right, too expensive. Instead we get...

Well, those doors were not in place because nobody had considered
the need for this protection. Was that wrong? Maybe. Nobody does
everything 'right' the first time. Those doors are there now. I'm
sure you've seen them.

> "If you've been in airports recently, I believe you are
> seeing a pretty apt, early version of Terrorspace.


Yep, and most of it *is* stupid. but Bruce's opinion is just that,
his opinion. Others may have different opinions.


> If security has a silly season, we're in it. After September 11,
> every two-bit peddler of security technology crawled out of the
> woodwork with new claims about how his product can make us all
> safe again.


And we should all take their claims with great skepticism.

> "1) What problem does it solve?
A few. Most harmful items are now being screened out better
than they were before.

> 2) How well does it solve the problem?
Not perfect, but better than nothing with little harm.

> 3) What new problems does it add?
Slower travel, higher cost, and insulted citizensare a few.

> 4) What are the economic and social costs?

> 5) Given the above, is it worth the costs?"
For now? Probably. Got a better answer?

> I'll suck up what I have to to provide security.


> But I'm not sucking up just anything goddammit.

Good. I resist (when possible) against stupid rules and regulations
too. But I was addressing the "suck it up" to the fine Dr and his
complaint that he was singled out by their actions. He got the
same (stupid) treatment we citizens do on a daily basis.

So *he* can suck it up.


More information about the thechat mailing list