# Bring On The Body Scanners - Fly The Friendly Skies



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Bring them on, speed up those lines

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7CX9Agzeh-c&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7CX9Agzeh-c&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

once again we surrender our rights to privacy and dignity without so much as a whimper because some deranged psychopathic religious zealots from the other side of the world are threatening our neighbours. 
tell me again how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are making great progress in bringing security, peace and democracy to the world.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

If I get to fly with somewhat more peace of mind I'm all for it, however I watched a bit on Daily Planet about them last night and they won't catch everything. They are installing 44 machinens in airports across Canada at $250,000 a pop, now where do you think THAT money is coming from?


----------



## av8tr (Mar 24, 2009)

six-string said:


> once again we surrender our rights to privacy and dignity without so much as a whimper


I believe that airline flight is not a right covered under the charter of rights and freedoms. In fact the government does not even recognize that you have a right to clean drinking water. 

As for giving up privacy, well I can't argue that one.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

now THAT'S attractive....does this gun make my a$$ look big....???...


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

and for the little travellers....


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

meh...i had a long and involved discussion about these elsewhere and i came to the conclusion that i couldn't possibly care any less about whether these scanners are installed, nor about how effective they might be.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

these machines will not making anything safer or provide any more peace of mind. 
airport security already has video surveillance, x-ray scanning, physical searches, metal detector wands, drug swabs, sniffer dogs that detect, gunpowder and/or drugs
and of course security personnel can strip search any individual or do detailed searches of all luggage and carry on bags. 
no there is no right to fly. but i don't believe these machines are anything but another hassle for travellers with no real benefit to improving airport. safety


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Having attended a presentation at CATSA headquarters on hiring, training, and optimizing baggage screeners, I think I can safely say the following.

1) *You* may be looking at bum-bums, wieners, and nay-nays, but *they're* looking for objects, the same way you scan through kijiji for gutars and completely fail to see all the drum kits, synths, and music stands for sale. The people they hire and assign for this are hired on the basis of being able to spot prohibitted objects quickly, and with minimal misses or false alarms.

2) Screeners of any type become easily fatigued and are generally rotated to other tasks a number of times throughout the working day to keep them sharp and minimize their error rate.

3) The screener is in another room, separated from the full body scanner. When you think of it, in some respects, they don't even *have* to look at every scan, since you will never know if yours is the one being looked at....or ignored.

Ideally, whatever security procedures are adopted need to maximize throughput AND comprehensiveness, since there are economic factors to consider when imposing measures that might conceivably reduce air traffic. There are also issues pertaining to air traffic control should it be the case that people paying big-ticket prices for business class are held up by security measures and flights get held in order to permit people transferring to make it to their connecting flight. You simply can't have hundreds of flights daily at any given airport taking off and landing at times that are juuuuuuuuust 10 mnutes off from their planned time, and maintain air traffic safety.

I'm not trying to scare folks. Rather, my guess is that the push by both government, the air industry, and air safety industry, is to opt for measures that provide the most screening with the least impact on throughput. If sticking most everything in regular baggage (where it gets x-ray screened by professionals), and scanning what's under your clothes gets people through faster, then safety is increased not only by virtue of reducing "the terrorist threat" (which is, realistically, minimal), but is also increased by having takeoffs and landings occur as close to their planned times as possible.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

Conspiracy theory;

The latest guy to get caught was planted by the Scanner manufacturer in order to speed up the process of getting airports to buy them. 

These scanners won't catch a guy storing a package up his rectum.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Here is the deal in my view, and my view only. There has to be airport security, I think we all would agree on that. So keeping in mind that the process has to be as quick and efficient as possible. The check-in and processing/boarding times have already gotten way out of control. I can drive to NYC from Niagara in the time it takes me to drive to the airport, park my car, get bused to the terminal, check-in at the counter (2-3 hours in adavance) get through security screening, board the plane 20 minutes late and then tak off 40 minutes late. Arrive late, get my baggage and get the hell out of the airport.

Air travel has gotten increasingly worse for the last 10 years. 

So my view is get the technology that processes the passenger the fastest. If for example you reduced the security throughput you would automatically reduce all the other areas. There would be no need to show up at the airport 3 hours in advance of an international flight. More and more people are using on-line check-in and kiosk check-in. Once we get to the point where everyone is comfortable with that process you will see much less line-ups. They still need to streamline the baggage drop off but there are some things they can do there too.

But if this machine can process a person in less than a minute then brother, get me in it. No walking around in my bare feet and my pants falling off because I have to take my belt off to get through the metal detector. Combine these operations into one walkthrough machine.

PS: I have to add one more thing. I can't recall a flight that I have taken in the past 5-6 years where there was not some person screaming and yelling about having a secondary search or a pat down. They will stand there arguing for 20 minutes, tying up personnel and wasting time. You can do all the bitching you want but you are not getting through until you submit to it. I have been pulled over a few times for something that did not look right in my carry-on and big deal, look at my camera battery and move on. You want to give me a pat down go ahead. Give me an extra squeeze over the good parts.


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

I have no problem with it either if it truly speads up the process but according to a write up in The Star, metals detectors process 500 people per hour while the MMW Scanner does 425 people an hour 

There is still the problem of checking carry on bags, which is the bulk of the slowdown.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

Doesn't matter too much to me what they do. I avoid flying at all costs. Just not something I like doing. However I have flown and will most likely fly again. Even though I'd rather buy a new guitar or amp than go to a Caribbean resort for a week or 2, my wife doesn't feel the same. 
When I do fly I am very paranoid and nervous. A few years ago when I went to the Bahamas I hadn't noticed till part way through the flight that there were 2 gentlemen of mid east decent sitting at the front of the plane. Of course my mind started getting active and I almost had a panic attack thinking they were terrorists. Of course I realize that its most likely absurd that terrorists would plot to take over a 3 hour flight to a Caribbean destination. But when I'm in a nervous situation such as flying rational thoughts tend to take a back seat. So I'd be for anything that increases security to make me feel a little more comfortable for the times when I have to fly.
Just to make matter worse concerning my Bahamas trip, on the way back we were about a second from landing on the run way when all of a sudden the plane veers directly up and takes off back in to the sky. With no word from the pilot for almost 5 minutes as we jerked suddenly skyward (and these planes feel so fast when they are doing something like this) I can't describe how much panic I was in. Silently praying. After we were up and circling for another landing the pilot came on and told us, as we were about to land a small jet that was in front of us was supposed to make a turn on to his proper runway but missed it. As soon as he realized the jet in front missed the turn he had to take the plane back up and try the landing again. I guess there was no real danger but the way that plane suddenly jerked skyward and the ascent seemed so extreme, it sure makes a nervous flyer like me crap his pants.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

if you think this new machine is going to eliminate other security measures already in place, i think you are mistaken. you will still be asked to take off your belt, empty your pockets, take off shoes, coats, jewelery etc and then go through the scanner anyway. so i doubt there will be any time savings there.

as for airline industry efficiencies...i doubt they will improve much either. i do a fair bit of airline travel and have seldom if ever, had a flight either depart or arrive "on time" in the past 5 years or more. often these delays have nothing to do with the passengers (we were sitting buckled in our seats waiting for takeoff) but rather with overcrowded runways, delays loading baggage, canteen items and...in a few cases, missing airline employees.
"good afternoon and welcome to flight 123. we will be taxi-ing for takeoff as soon as we locate the pilot and get him into the cockpit. thank you for flying Air Cannibals."


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

six-string said:


> if you think this new machine is going to eliminate other security measures already in place, i think you are mistaken. you will still be asked to take off your belt, empty your pockets, take off shoes, coats, jewelery etc and then go through the scanner anyway. so i doubt there will be any time savings there.
> 
> as for airline industry efficiencies...i doubt they will improve much either. i do a fair bit of airline travel and have seldom if ever, had a flight either depart or arrive "on time" in the past 5 years or more. often these delays have nothing to do with the passengers (we were sitting buckled in our seats waiting for takeoff) but rather with overcrowded runways, delays loading baggage, canteen items and...in a few cases, missing airline employees.
> "good afternoon and welcome to flight 123. we will be taxi-ing for takeoff as soon as we locate the pilot and get him into the cockpit. thank you for flying Air Cannibals."


You are most likely correct, today. But we have to look down the road maybe 5-10 years or whenever the technology becomes available. As dumb as the Arnold vid on my OP might seem, it is not out of the question. The thing we cannot do is keep fighting the technology and implementation under the guise of human rights or whatever you want to call it. It's not like they are asking you to have sex with anyone. I have had 100 pat downs at airports, concerts etc. Big deal. So if the technology comes around that would combine and or eliminate (and streamline) the process I am all for it. I have also watched many women getting the same treatment. They are always patted down by a female and it is done very professionally. But there will be, if not already available, some technology that will someday replace that procedure and we must embrace it and move on.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You are most likely correct, today. But we have to look down the road maybe 5-10 years or whenever the technology becomes available. As dumb as the Arnold vid on my OP might seem, it is not out of the question. The thing we cannot do is keep fighting the technology and implementation under the guise of human rights or whatever you want to call it. It's not like they are asking you to have sex with anyone. I have had 100 pat downs at airports, concerts etc. Big deal. So if the technology comes around that would combine and or eliminate (and streamline) the process I am all for it. I have also watched many women getting the same treatment. They are always patted down by a female and it is done very professionally. But there will be, if not already available, some technology that will someday replace that procedure and we must embrace it and move on.


I ahev nothing to hide, therefore I have no objection to the patdown. I think I've even been patted down by a man in Buffalo airport. I just want something to speed things up. Enough of the BS! We can see the origins of the universe with our lovely technology, we can land a rover on Mars, yet we can't find better sucurity scans at airports?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The efficiency and throughput could probably be improved by having a more strategic approach to baggage on the part of both traveller and airline. A lot of the time taken up in line-ups has to do with people bringing things on as carry-on which don't really need to be. Why are they being brought as carry-on? Because the person is unconvinced that they will make a connecting flight if they have to wait for baggage, or is unconvinced the baggage will accompany them on the flight, or simply doesn't wish to wait for baggage if they are not transferring. Alternatively, what they have to bring might be so small that they are concerned it might be lost in transit unless they have it with them. Standardized stackable secure storage bins with identification for later pickup might go a long way towards minimizing the effort expended on scanning and such.

If there was a way for people to feel confident enough to bring the absolute minimum on board, and stick the brunt of what they bring as regular baggage, then much of what people get scanned for - as individuals - could be eliminated. It might shave off a lot of time when it comes to getting off the damn plane too, since people wouldn't be futzing around so much with the overhead storage.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Well, this is going to SEVERELY impact Air Canada.

They're saying we have to get the the airport three hours before our scheduled departure?!?!


What this does is move the tipping point for the mrit of flying vs driving, a couple of more hours out.

To clarify, I used to fly to Columbus, Ohio. When security became heightened after 911, I started driving.

It's about five and a hlf hours by car. If I have to arrive three or even two hours before the flight (x 2 including the return trip), it just doesn't make sense anymore, not to mention that the cost of the flights is no longer justifiable.



As for trips I make that are still too far to drive, Buffalo is a MUCH nicer airport to fly out of and frankly when you factor in the time it takes to navigate Pearson, the extra half hour it takes me to get to the Buffalo airport is more than absorbed.

Flights are generally 50% less $ from Buffalo.


I don't like the idea of being X-rayed every time I fly.

The security is already tedious beyond reason. You have to remove your shoes, belt, coat, take your lap top and other gadgets out of their cases, put all of the above along with the change in your pockets and your watch into a series of totes and then put all of this through the x-ray. Then do everything again in reverse of course.


I say, we should listen to Archie Bunker and hand out guns to all passengers as they board.

What terrorist would try to take that sucker?


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

nkjanssen said:


> I'm concerned about the potential exploding head issue.


i totally agree.


----------



## kw_guitarguy (Apr 29, 2008)

I fly out to Miami on Saturday, so we will see how it goes!

~Andrew


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i asked a girlfriend if, next time she goes through airport security, she would prefer to be ogled, or groped. her response: "both, please."

the terrorists are having a giggle. next time they'll hide something up their butt, immediately prompting butt searches.

let the silliness continue...


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

You know, they can also quite easily have a clock-reaction liquid bomb in their blood. They will die, yea, but then, for them that is the point.

Seem to also recall someone implanting fake vains of fake blood in their arms, became a Law and Order story. Too easy to have a "pacemaker" and a set of veins filled with liquid explosives, transparent plastic wiring to wire it together, add a little altitude switch in the pacemaker and then its BOOM!

There are too many ways passengers can DO something.

Therefor, make it impossible for them to DO it. Build a better plane.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

How would you feel if they did the full body scan on you, and they all started laughing?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

it amazes me that so many people ignore the obvious facts.
they knew the guy was a terrorist.

the warning signs that were missed on the Christmas Day debacle are the exact same signs from the infamous "shoe bomber". 
How can a Muslim born in Nigeria,whose own father reported him to the US embassy, with a one way ticket to Detroit(!), paid cash, first trip to America, no luggage, no transfer after Detroit, and no winter coat...not be considered suspicious?? even our (meaning mine) government has admitted they dropped the ball. any so-called safety measures enacted since the creation of the patriot act are not intended for safety at all. instead, their purpose is to slowly acclimate us to the erosion of our freedom. think of the parable of the frog and the boiling water. sadly, this part includes you canadians, and many other countries in the world. if you look at how hitler set up his circus before ww2, it mirrors the tactics in use right now. being an american, i love my country. but it hasn't been "we the people" for a long, long time. most of my fellow country men, and much of the world's people are ignorant of this. my personal opinion is, profiling works. i've used isreal as an example before. 
this is their answer to the same problem. they have a completely unblemished safety record. you can't argue with results:

http://www.onejerusalem.org/2010/01/how-israel-screens-for-terrori.php


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> it amazes me that so many people ignore the obvious facts.
> they knew the guy was a terrorist.
> http://www.onejerusalem.org/2010/01/how-israel-screens-for-terrori.php


Yeah it gets even more ridiculous


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

Starbuck said:


> Yeah it gets even more ridiculous



and that my dears, is my point.
why should we relatively law-abiding and relatively peaceful folks be required to pay millions of tax dollars and be treated like cattle and delayed further in our travels because of a few other people's nonsense which could have been avoided, using measures already in place.

and yes it bothers me that these machines are being imposed on us without discussion or debate by our politicians or any public consultation with regard to any health, safety or cost issues. 
do these machines really work as intended?
are they they best value for taxpayer money?
are the operators properly trained and monitored?
are there safety issues?
is there any data to support using these contraptions?
why the big secrecy about the policy decision to buy and use these machines?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

six-string said:


> and that my dears, is my point.
> why should we relatively law-abiding and relatively peaceful folks be required to pay millions of tax dollars and be treated like cattle and delayed further in our travels because of a few other people's nonsense which could have been avoided, using measures already in place.
> 
> and yes it bothers me that these machines are being imposed on us without discussion or debate by our politicians or any public consultation with regard to any health, safety or cost issues.
> ...


Will they stop a 250 pound all muscle man on a rage?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> my personal opinion is, profiling works.


...you may be right.

it certainly makes a lot of white dudes happy.

but, that's not the solution.

-osama bin hidin


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

keeperofthegood said:


> Will they stop a 250 pound all muscle man on a rage?


I think the Vancouver Police have proved that Tasers do that job!


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

david henman said:


> ...you may be right.
> 
> it certainly makes a lot of white dudes happy.
> 
> ...


I don't think it is either. If you start, say, stopping everyone who has no baggage, they'll have their "instruments" for lack of a better word, start bringing baggage. I just wonder why, if this mans Dad phoned the FBI, did his name not come up on some kind of screen at the airports? That, coupled with the lack of baggage etc, may have been a stellar indication that something may be afoot?


----------



## keeperofthegood (Apr 30, 2008)

Starbuck said:


> I think the Vancouver Police have proved that Tasers do that job!


Yes, they can. In an open environment. 2 and more tasers can even kill. In the narrow confines of a plane, with limited mobility and ability to range a weapon that is not as aim-able as a gun I would argue that in this position the odds are at best or worst 50/50.

The difference being, you may stop the little old lady with her pinking shears, but no one will look twice at the 6'9" 250+ pound weight lifter that gets front row seating in the plane with a bea line to the captains controls. I pitty the "air marshal" that thinks his draw and aim and fire reflexes are faster than a steam roller punch to the head :/


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

It's always panic driven, and this is the real problem. I don't think there's anything wrong with being security minded, but training "airport staff" to spot "shady behaviour" is concerning. Not so many years ago some of the staff at Pearson were involved in smuggling drugs for the Colombian and Mexican syndicates. The danger here is to effectively "deputize" people who have no business playing detective. This is the kind of work that necessitates qualified persons. Bank tellers aren't trained to spot bank robbers. they're trained to handle a bank robbery in the safest manner possible. The police deal with the rest. This latest approach can only create an atmosphere of tension and racial profiling. Perhaps this is the new world we live in, but it doesn't *have *to be. I hope cooler heads can remember that in the face of fear and panic.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ained-to-spot-shady-behaviour/article1420465/

Shawn


----------



## butterknucket (Feb 5, 2006)

I have no problem with it. 

I never travel either.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...you may be right.
> 
> it certainly makes a lot of white dudes happy.
> 
> ...


actually, if you watched the video i posted a link to, you'd see that it really is the solution. if it wasn't, why is isreal's record *spotless*? as much as some folks want to feel warm and fuzzy about how they treat others, the truth is, when dealing with an enemy that hides behind women and children, who follows no rules of engagement, the tactics need to change. some may find it unpleasant, but i suspect they would like it even less if they were on a plane that was blown up. when you analyze it strictly by numbers, or by logic, profiling is the only sane answer. with random screening you guarantee yourself a greater percentage of effort spent looking _where you know they ain't_. it would be a far smarter thing to stop looking for weapons entirely, and look instead for terrorists.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

The modus operandi of extremists has been bait and switch. In other words, the *next* mode of delivery/attack is different. Consequently, the assumption that a simplistic "ethnic" approach to profiling will be more effective than random screeening is also naive. 

I hasten to remind folks that Islam is a "world religion", and that the Bali bombings did not involve anyone who looked "Middle eastern". If the shoe were on the other foot, and somehow Christians around the world were sick and tired of subjugation and para-colonization by Muslim nations, Muslim multi-nationals and puppet governments set up by Muslim superpowers, exactly which "ethnic groups" would airport security staff look for to keep out "Christian extremists"? Americans? Canadians? British? French? Anyone who looks vaguely European or South American? Would Chinese nationals be "safe" to let through? So, um, just exactly what proportion of the population has to be non-Muslim for a country of origin to be left off the magic list?

To be fair, "profiling" takes many forms, and *does* represent a sensible strategy for narrowing down what is a very large search-space. But the "profile" has to pertain to behaviour, and not something you would see on a head and shoulders photo (excluding a "Death to America!" headband). Comments arising for the Christmas episode indicate that there were a numkber of behavioural traits which should have flagged the guy, quite apart from his country of origin and religion.

On this morning's news, I heard a passing remark while preparing my lunch, that the "intelligence failure" which led to the "underpants bomber" slipping through may well have arisen from the overabundance of information and intelligence, rather than from the lack of it. Cogent point IMHO. The more information one has to work with, and the more participants are involved, the harder it becomes to coordinate that information such that it gets to the right people at the right time in the right form. That's not just a contemporary problem for security agencies; it's a perennial problem for ALL organizations. Interesting.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Perhaps a quick and effiecient lie-detector setup that drops from the overhead compartment is the answer.

"Please put on your electrodes". "Now, does anybody here want to blow up themselves and the plane with them?"

Is it really so hard to profile someone who wishes to die and kill everyone around them at the same time?


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> On this morning's news, I heard a passing remark while preparing my lunch, that the "intelligence failure" which led to the "underpants bomber" slipping through may well have arisen from the overabundance of information and intelligence, rather than from the lack of it. Cogent point IMHO. The more information one has to work with, and the more participants are involved, the harder it becomes to coordinate that information such that it gets to the right people at the right time in the right form. That's not just a contemporary problem for security agencies; it's a perennial problem for ALL organizations. Interesting.



My point precisely! The rush to get *everyone* looking for terrorists is a terrible idea. The mayhem that will ensue is fairly predictable, and seems to be at odds with good, sound intelligence gathering. The unfortunate truth is, we can't secure everyone, everywhere, all the time. I think most reasonable people understand this. I cannot think of a single time when Presidents Clinton, Bush or Obama said anything to that effect. This sets the stage for a public that views any possible attack as a complete failure of their country's security systems and protocols. By this kind of panicky rationale, scanners, thermal imaging, pat-downs, interrogations and all manner of snooping are becoming entirely acceptable. If health care costs due to dementia and type 2 diabetes doesn't eventually bankrupt North America, perhaps our burgeoning addiction to security will.

Shawn


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...you live in a strange world, dude.

i'd love to respond to this, but it is already way too political.

let me just say that i have come to realize that the real world is far removed from the "warm and fuzzy" comic book/hollywood movie/walt disney/american/fairy tale land of good guys and bad guys, good vs evil storybook stuff that we all grew up with.

-eric o'shay





cheezyridr said:


> actually, if you watched the video i posted a link to, you'd see that it really is the solution. if it wasn't, why is isreal's record *spotless*? as much as some folks want to feel warm and fuzzy about how they treat others, the truth is, when dealing with an enemy that hides behind women and children, who follows no rules of engagement, the tactics need to change. some may find it unpleasant, but i suspect they would like it even less if they were on a plane that was blown up. when you analyze it strictly by numbers, or by logic, profiling is the only sane answer. with random screening you guarantee yourself a greater percentage of effort spent looking _where you know they ain't_. it would be a far smarter thing to stop looking for weapons entirely, and look instead for terrorists.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> as much as some folks want to feel warm and fuzzy about how they treat others.


...that is so cute.

-vox pamplemousse


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i disagree with that as well. i think there is such a thing as clearly good or evil. i think things are right or wrong. i do not believe in shades of grey. 
ok, so you do not agree. that's fine, _for you_. to me, part of what enables me to see issues as definitely one way or the other is because i believe that to vacillate because of semantics can only lead to hesitation and failure. that goes for any decision i ever make. _for me,_ to be decisive, to have conviction, and to follow through are important parts of who i am.

in regards to the general topic of this thread, we will eventually see the path we are on in hindsight, and then we'll know if it worked or not.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...sure, whatever. 

besides, thinking things through only leads to silly crap like wisdom, knowledge, understanding and, you know, similar shades of grey.

-red ryder




cheezyridr said:


> i disagree with that as well. i think there is such a thing as clearly good or evil. i think things are right or wrong. i do not believe in shades of grey.
> ok, so you do not agree. that's fine, _for you_. to me, part of what enables me to see issues as definitely one way or the other is because i believe that to vacillate because of semantics can only lead to hesitation and failure. that goes for any decision i ever make. _for me,_ to be decisive, to have conviction, and to follow through are important parts of who i am.
> 
> in regards to the general topic of this thread, we will eventually see the path we are on in hindsight, and then we'll know if it worked or not.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i think it's easy to feel that way when you live a comfortable life, untouched by that sort of thing. i suspect your sympathy for the terrorist will vaporize if one of you loved ones becomes a victim.


----------



## Cort Strummer (Feb 16, 2009)

Great more problems for me next time I fly some where, I have 2 steel plates in my left elbow which I am sure will cause a commotion now a body scanner.

Time for lead or tinfoil underwear ha ha, I dont need to be recruited by Ron Jeremy.... kkjuw

I wonder if they would find it funny if you spelled out "boom" in duct tape on your chest\stomach?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Cort Strummer said:


> Great more problems for me next time I fly some where, I have 2 steel plates in my left elbow which I am sure will cause a commotion now a body scanner.


i have some stainless hardware holding my leg together. i also wondered how that might work out.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Cort Strummer said:


> Great more problems for me next time I fly some where, I have 2 steel plates in my left elbow which I am sure will cause a commotion now a body scanner.


The folks who do baggage screening are hired for their ability to detect prohibitted objects, even when seen at unusual angles. Authorities maintain image banks of tens of thousands of pictures of the whole gamut of objects for screeners to study, in context (i.e., x-rays of stuff shoved under or between other stuff). So pocket knives at this angle and that angle, parts that can be assembled into firearms, bomb fuses, cameras that aren't really cameras. Even weird stuff like ninja throwing stars. The last time I touched base with this 5 years ago, there was an image bank of 35k pictures to study. I can't imagine that bank has not been added to in the interim.

Will a wand scan result in you being "re-examined" for caution's sake? Most likely, since the wand merely detects metal in a general zone. Will a trained professional see your body scan and think you have weapons hidden inside your elbow? I doubt it.

Anecdote: On a recent trip, I brought my meagre sports bag to the airport with a few days' clothing. It caught the eye of the screener. "Sir, do you have anything like a watch in your bag?" "No, I don't think so. I don't wear a watch." After a bit of rifling around, it turns out that my late father-in-law's pocket watch (old style, but no chain attached) had been stuck in one of the corners of the bag out of sight when we packed up my wife's family home after his passing. Not knowing the watch was there, I never looked to remove it. The baggage screener had been able to tell that this round thing was a pocket watch.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

nkjanssen said:


> And if we don't address the underlying causes, the world will just keep getting more and more dangerous.


Understanding them and addressing them may be two different things entirely. First you must understand the motivation. Why would someone give up their own life to blow up a plane? Must be pretty motivated right? I cant think of any reason I would ever do it. But to your typical extremist/terrorist they have been brainwashed into believing that what they are about to do is going to be rewarded in death as it could never be in life. You want to address that you need to eliminate that kind of thinking, that kind of teaching to the young and impressionable. 

How can this be accomplished? That is a mission that has been ongoing for as long as human beings have been walking the earth. 

The use of the terms good and evil can be used by both teams. To them, we are "evil" and to us they are "evil". Who is to say who is right?

But as long as their is belief and a fanatical side to it, there will be acts of violence committed in the name of ? whichever one that may be. So we live in a world where we need to screen everyones arse hole to try and prevent the next act of brutality. Once you understand that to the terrorist, they are doing their masters work then you understand everything else. Keeping people afraid of their own shadows is a very powerful political weapon as well as an extremely expensive process.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

I have been travelling with only carrry on luggage for a while now and it has saved me many hours in airports...  

I was once made to squeeze out toothpaste into a smaller container because it was more than the 100ml allowed for a carry on. If it had been explosive toothpaste, it probably still would have been enough to take down the little 36 seater on its way to Calgary 

thinking more security measures reduces the incidence of terrorist activity is statistically false - more people are killed by terrorists in Israel than anywhere else, they just find other ways to do it. 

If I were a greedy ruthless buisness made who made s-ray machines, or parts for them, I would pay good money to get a wacko to pull off a stunt like that... just sayin'

I don't want to be x-rayed every time I travel either.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

bluesmostly said:


> thinking more security measures reduces the incidence of terrorist activity is statistically false - more people are killed by terrorists in Israel than anywhere else, they just find other ways to do it.


that kinda makes my point. terrorists ain't blowin up planes in isreal.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> that kinda makes my point. terrorists ain't blowin up planes in isreal.


really? I thought it effectively makes yours a moot point


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

ummmm....no:wave:


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)




----------



## Cort Strummer (Feb 16, 2009)

jimihendrix said:


>


:bow: :thanks5qx:


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

LOL, good one Jimi!:banana:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

cheezyridr and bluesmostly,
If the point is that terrorist actions on airlines are not the only source of threat to one's life, then it is true that increased airport security is, if not moot, then at least certainly not a panacea.

On the other hand, if one's point is to focus specifically on airplane/airport security, then whatever Israeli authorities are doing is either VERY very lucky, or very appropos.

So I don't think you disagree with each other, you're just adopting different reference points.

bluesmostly,

The "headcount" of terrorism-related deaths is a complex thing to tabulate. There are those deaths resulting from deliberate direct violent actions of extremist groups. There are deaths which are accidental. There are civilian deaths occurring as collateral damage of anti-terrorist attacks. Here is one webpage I found which links one to assorted information sources (whose reliability or accuracy I cannot vouch for, because I simply do not know enough): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Terrorism_deaths_by_country

I suspect if one were to add up all the pertinent numbers, Israel would actually be way way down the list in terms of deaths, in comparison to a place like Pakistan, Iraq, and especially the Democratic Republic of Congo or Sudan. In terms of deaths per capita, they might move up the list a bit, though since there aren't that many inhabitants.

Tabulating "terrorism-related deaths" is also a politically tricky. and VERY sensitive matter, that can implicate ruling powers, something which I do not wish to get into. Nonetheless, there are legitimate concerns about nations like Sri Lanka, Turkmenistan, Sudan, Chechnya, and Zimbabwe, where force has been used against the population by groups loyal to, or acting on behalf of, the government. If it's the government, and not a group pursuing insurrection, is that "terrorism"? Depends on your approach.

In any event, the kerfuffle over airline security is prompted by two things: American fear and anxiety about a repeat of 9/11, and economic concerns. The economic concerns are on several levels. One is certainly the economic repercussions of 9/11, which were severe. Another is that so much of the economy depends on continuing demand for, and use of, air travel. Finally, the vitality of the airlines and air transport industry is of every bit of importance to the economy of many major industrial as the auto industry is. So, even if things like full body scans do not significantly increment the *actual* safety, they increment the _perceived_ safety (at least for the time being), which is enough to get grumbling people on the airplanes and off to business meetings or tourist destinations.

If you wanted a truly jaundiced opinion, and asked me for it, I'd say that if there is any place for a paranoid conspiracy theory it is one focussed on airport caterers and food suppliers. With 3hr waits at airports, these are the folks who will continue to benefit financially, long after the $250k cost of the scanner has been amortized over over the hundreds of thousands of people who pass through Pearson or any other similarly equipped airport.

How's *that* for cynical?:wave:


----------



## Sneaky (Feb 14, 2006)

jimihendrix said:


>


There are normally very few people on an airplane that I would like to see naked.


----------



## Cort Strummer (Feb 16, 2009)

Sneaky said:


> There are normally very few people on an airplane that I would like to see naked.


you just need to be a little more open minded... kkjuw


----------



## ajcoholic (Feb 5, 2006)

Cort Strummer said:


> you just need to be a little more open minded... kkjuw


For sure, no one wants to see ME sitting on a plane without my clothes...

kqoct

AJC


----------



## Cort Strummer (Feb 16, 2009)

you never know, you might make grandma randy... ha ha


----------



## gearalley (Oct 23, 2009)

I remember flying out of Berlin back in the 90's and being 'patted down' (groped) by 2 security guards. I felt pretty dirty for a while after that...

I am flying to Los Angeles this week and I am not looking forward to going through this. Maybe I'll do a little crotch-stuffing to give the person monitoring a little thrill? kkjuw


----------



## Cort Strummer (Feb 16, 2009)

gearalley said:


> Maybe I'll do a little crotch-stuffing to give the person monitoring a little thrill? kkjuw


ha ha, I dont think a tube sock will help because I think the scanner can see through all cloths...

Here is something that I dont think anyone brought up yet. They were talking about X-Ray machines at air ports a long time ago but it didnt go through because of the harm the radiation would do....

do these full body scanners have any radiation? how are they able to see through clothing and not skin?


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

they should just supply the security force with these...


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

mhammer said:


> cheezyridr and bluesmostly,
> If the point is that terrorist actions on airlines are not the only source of threat to one's life, then it is true that increased airport security is, if not moot, then at least certainly not a panacea.
> 
> On the other hand, if one's point is to focus specifically on airplane/airport security, then whatever Israeli authorities are doing is either VERY very lucky, or very appropos.
> ...


Yeah, I agree, it is just a difference of reference points. No argument that the Isreali airport security is effective, but how comforting is that when you know that they will just find another way to blow you up (ie. moot). you plug a leak and it springs up somewhere else - how about changing the bucket is my point.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

i certainly won't argue with that. imo that's really the sanest solution to any problem. don't treat the symptom so much as treat the disease. i must have been a little dense at that moment and didn't realize that was what was being inferred. considering the particular disease we are currently inflicted with this time, (metaphorically speaking, of course) that's going to be a tricky proposition.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> i think it's easy to feel that way when you live a comfortable life, untouched by that sort of thing. i suspect your sympathy for the terrorist will vaporize if one of you loved ones becomes a victim.


...sympathy for the terrorist?

dude, its getting very difficult to take you seriously.

-sent from my raspberry


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

David,

A great many of us will pass through our lives totally unaffected by one source of tragedy or another. We may have all the empathy in the world for the victims of those tragedies, shake our heads and murmur "tsk, tsk" at the right times, and with sincerety, but our individual sense of urgency or outrage is not the same. It could be medical malpractice, abuse by an authority figure, a family member killed by an impaired driver, a victim bankrupted by identity theft or a market collapse. The list of misery goes on and on.

Mr. Ridr has acknowledged his American roots previously. While I don't think that serves as a free pass to garner the sympathy of others for _everything_ (or a reason to dismiss _any_ sentiments expressed), I think the fact remains that for all the shock and horror that people around the world felt seeing the Twin Towers collapse, again and again and again, phenomenologically it was a different experience for a great many Americans. For some, it was phenomenologically different because they were personally connected to it through a lost loved one (as were a number of Canadians), through the destruction of their city, through their efforts to remove the debris or search for people, for their personal connection to individuals directly involved (somewhat similar to children of Holocaust survivors are a little...different). I cite the example of Steve Daniels, the proprietor of one of our favourite parts distributors for pedals, Small Bear Electronics. His wife had a business meeting that very morning and was slated to pass through the towers on the way to the meeting at the pivotal time. No one died in his case, since she decided not to attend at the last moment, but he almost lost his world, and watched the dust cloud from the collapse from his vantage point in Brooklyn.

Again, I don't necessarily agree to the world view adopted by a great many Americans since that time, but I understand that their view is almost necessarily different. That view is expressed by many as a deep and profound division in the world between "them" and "us". Like many, I feel that entrenching that view simply makes matters worse and more intractable, but I *understand* how folks can feel it, and respect their feelings. Whether their anger is productive is another matter, but it is an anger that comes reflexively, from the gut, in an honest and authentic way.

Of course, some would say that even as much as many who view themselves on the other side are simply criminals exploiting political motives as justification for criminal activity, there ARE some who feel a comparable anger that comes just as honestly and authentically, from the gut, for reasons that we cannot grasp with the same sense of outrage and urgency.

Naturally, sympathy for the emotions felt is entirely separate from any approval or acceptance of what people do about/with those feelings.

I hope this is civil enough to keep the padlock off the thread.

In the meantime, did any of you tune in to Cross Country Checkup yesterday regarding the subject matter of this very thread? You can hear a podcast at: http://cbc.ca/checkup


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

david henman said:


> dude, its getting very difficult to take you seriously.



Now thats funny.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

mhammer said:


> David,
> Again, I don't necessarily agree to the world view adopted by a great many Americans since that time, but I understand that their view is almost necessarily different. That view is expressed by many as a deep and profound division in the world between "them" and "us". Like many, I feel that entrenching that view simply makes matters worse and more intractable, but I *understand* how folks can feel it, and respect their feelings. Whether their anger is productive is another matter, but it is an anger that comes reflexively, from the gut, in an honest and authentic way.


...and that is, in my humble opinion, a very significant part of the problem.

-_people are always calling me a hypochondriac and let me tell you ...it just makes me sick. _


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

mhammer said:


> In the meantime, did any of you tune in to Cross Country Checkup yesterday regarding the subject matter of this very thread? You can hear a podcast at: http://cbc.ca/checkup


Yeah, I listened to the program, and thought it was very interesting. I'm always interested in issues that manage to polarize people, even though the end goal of all people involved is identical.

Usually, intelligent rational people who want the same thing should also be in agreement about how to go about it. If they're not, it must be because they're misinformed about the various methods of achieving the end, or there's something else confusing or blurring the issue.

In this particular case, everyone wants safer flights. That really is not what's at issue. What's at issue, is whether or not these security measures will achieve that. If intelligent, rational people can't agree on which methods will work, then I submit that both sides are not being intelligent and rational.

I think this issue has people so scared, that some people are just not being rational. Fear is the destroyer of good decision-making, and that's why terrorism is so effective. In any conflict, if you can make your opponent fearful, they are almost certain to make bad decisions. 

We face threats every day, that statistically are more common or likely than bombing an aircraft. Yet, as a society, we've learned to deal with those threats in a responsible and balanced way. 

We occasionally have a shooting in a public place, where innocent bystanders are injured. We do not search every person that walks down the street for weapons.

We occasionally have bank robberies. We do not xray every person that walks into a bank (although in some countries they have metal detectors).

Armed sexual assaults happen with astonishing regularity in most cities in the country. We don't search regular people for weapons as they're walking down the street.

Drugs are smuggled across the border every day. We still don't xray or search every vehicle.

We have a measured, rational response, to all of the threats we face every day, and we need the same thing here. The argument that we should "search every one, on every flight", is a fallacy. This assumes that searches are effective, and also assumes it feasible to perform this effective search on every passenger. Those are two big assumptions.

It seems to me that expecting to stop terrorism at the airport is a ridiculous notion. It's like trying to stop a school shooting when the shooters are already on school grounds. It's a knee-jerk concept, it seems like the fastest, most direct way to stop the crime. But it doesn`t work, because you're trying to stop a crime that is already underway. The fact is, you haven't stopped the crime from being committed, you've only interrupted it in progress. Rational, intelligent people must agree, that is really the second-worst outcome. The worst, of course, being to not stop the crime at all.

Doesn't it make more sense to step back from the airport, from the scene of the crime, and work backwards in the chain? These are events that take a lot of planning. There is recruiting, training, funding, procurement of material, preparation of material, purchase of tickets, obtaining of passports, etc.

If we're going to spend resources, shouldn't it be with a view to interrupting this chain of planning, as opposed to waiting for the crime to happen, and then hoping we interrupt it in progress? That seems more rational and intelligent to me.

Otherwise, we can put a police officer on every corner, in every home, school, and public place, and we can xray/scan every person that comes in and out of every one of those checkpoints, without regard to who they are or where they came from. We'll stop a lot of crimes that way, certainly. But is that really the best way to approach the problem?

--- D


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...sympathy for the terrorist?
> 
> dude, its getting very difficult to take you seriously.
> 
> -sent from my raspberry


it would be a big surprise to me if you (specifically) took me seriously in the slightest way. and that's cool too, because i know not everyone's gonna luv me. (although truly, to know me is to love me :wave
when i said that, i was referring to your earlier statement suggesting that the reason behind the terrorist's actions had some significance. as if it were some issue that could be dealt with in some rational way. that, is sympathy.
it is sympathy because informed, right-minded (this is not a backhanded comment on you)  individuals know that the terror war is, _by their own declaration_ a global jihad. this is not my opinion, it's established fact. 5 minutes of google will bear this out. there's nothing rational about global conquest, regardless of the rational you stick to it. it wasn't rational when japan tried it, or germany, or france, or england, or rome either. i realize i'm not real clear with my intent sometimes. i'll try to improve and be less assumptive in the future.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I think you make some fair points.

What is different here is that 9/11 changed the public's view about airplanes. In the 60's and 70's, we had hijackings, and had attacks on the passengers in events like the Entebbe Airport attack. With 9/11 came the realization that the airplane *itself* could be a weapon, and that the goal was not just to keep the _passengers_ safe, but also those not even connected with the flight. Very much a game changer.

The other thing, which I've noted earlier, is that air safety is something that authorities see as critical to the long-term economic viability of the air industry and everything connected to it. At this point, anything that makes large numbers of people say "Fuggedaboudit! I'd rather drive, or not vacation at all." stands to have the same financial impact as the collapse of the Detroit automakers, and I don't think anyone can afford that at all. It's not just the profits of Westjet, United, or Lufthansa that we're worried about here, either. It is the livelihood of everyone who builds the damn planes in Montreal, Seattle or wherever, the travel agents, the airport hotels, et al., the same way that the auto industry affected the livelihoods of all those folks working in dealerships and beyond.

The big question is what sort of security measures will strike that balance between providing the degree of confidence that passengers, public safety officials, and legislators want, with the degree of palatability, convenience, and affordability that those very same stakeholders want. Can an industry that demands arrival at the airport 3hrs early survive? Will airlines that have never had cause to worry quite so much about security be willing to continue going over US airspace, or will they avoid it, just so they can have more efficient and convenient travel and maintain a competitive edge? And if they did, would that fragment intelligence gathering so as to make it impossible to even have the pieces to put together for those who really really need them?

One of the things that was interesting on the Checkup show yesterday were some of the conflicting views abut Israeli air security. One guest noted that all of this recommendation to follow the "Israeli model" of behavioural screening would make sense if we had the same sort of traffic they did, which appears to be much less than one finds at a Dorval or Pearson or Heathrow or O'Hare. The argument was that more intensive behavioural methods only prove viable when one can afford to invest the time with highly trained staff. Other callers, however, suggested that this was a poor depiction of actual conditions at Israeli airports, and that they were really no different than here. Never having been overseas, I am in no position to comment, but it is a fair criticism that something which works well in context A may work less than optimally in context B, simply because conditions are more favourable to the particulars in A than B.

I think one of the things to remember throughout all of this is that human thinking works like so: the bigger the search space, the more superficial the search criteria. So, when trying to shrink a mountain of possibilities down to a small heap, we tend to look for stuff that is often superficial. Most folks will tell you that long-lasting marriages do not arise out of a cute ass, great hair and fashionable clothes, yet when trying to sift through the mountain of mating possibilities, we turn to dumb stuff like that. I think most folks would agree that what you got on your organic chemistry course is not predictive of your bedside manner, wisdom, and attention to patients, yet when several thousand people vie for one of 30 spots in a medical program, that's what we look for. And scrolling through a thousand Kijiji ads only becomes possible if you confine your gaze to the first 2-3 words, even if the very thing you want at the price you want is buried halfway in the paragraph. 

So, when airport security people try to take the thousands who pass through checkpoints in an airport each day, and whittle that down to a few that may need further consideration, they too are going to go for something superficial, or apply blunt instruments like body scans, just so that people can be easily placed in the "I don't have to think about them" pile.

But again, is it cutting off air travel's nose to spite its face?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> it would be a big surprise to me if you (specifically) took me seriously in the slightest way. and that's cool too, because i know not everyone's gonna luv me. (although truly, to know me is to love me :wave
> when i said that, i was referring to your earlier statement suggesting that the reason behind the terrorist's actions had some significance. as if it were some issue that could be dealt with in some rational way. that, is sympathy.
> it is sympathy because informed, right-minded (this is not a backhanded comment on you) individuals know that the terror war is, _by their own declaration_ a global jihad. this is not my opinion, it's established fact. 5 minutes of google will bear this out. there's nothing rational about global conquest, regardless of the rational you stick to it. it wasn't rational when japan tried it, or germany, or france, or england, or rome either. i realize i'm not real clear with my intent sometimes. i'll try to improve and be less assumptive in the future.




...in the old west, you shot first and asked questions later. or not. in the hope that society is capable of progressing and moving forward, i propose trying to understand "them", although i fully appreciate that the manly thing is to blow stuff up.

-mickey muse


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Duster said:


> Yeah, I listened to the program, and thought it was very interesting. I'm always interested in issues that manage to polarize people, even though the end goal of all people involved is identical.
> 
> Usually, intelligent rational people who want the same thing should also be in agreement about how to go about it. If they're not, it must be because they're misinformed about the various methods of achieving the end, or there's something else confusing or blurring the issue.
> 
> ...


Excellent post Duster, I totally agree with your thesis. I would take it one step further down the 'chain of planning" as you call it and suggest that energy should be focused more on the getting to the root of the problem. 

I would also suggest, even though it may make me seem naive or 'simple minded', that the underlying issues and solutions are not so complex as we have been led to believe.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

nkjanssen said:


> Uninformed, simple-minded (this is not a backhanded comment on you) individuals think that there is a single "terror war", that "terrorists" are a homogenous group, that all have the same goals in mind and that terrorists do what they do because they are simply born evil.


they do all have the same _ultimate_ goal. the domination of the world by islam. it's been stated publicly by the leaders of alqaida, hamas, iranian clerics, and others in pakistan, syria and lebanon etc, ad nauseum. by all means, don't take my word for it. see for yourself. for a simple explanation of what i mean, see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQcb4P8gqI

you can trip around on the web and see the hate speeches by the muslim clerics or even go to their own websites. hear how they encourage their believers to infiltrate all areas of life in the countries occupied by the infidels (that's you and me, to them) they tell them that to conquer the world for allah is their sacred duty. read the koran and see where their motivations come from. at that point, in my mind that's not a matter of good an evil. it's a matter of a bunch of people hate the way i live, and they want to kill me and end this way of life. it is my desire to resist that agenda by whatever means are the quickest and most effective. 

*******************************************************

this isn't the old west. and the terrorists are the ones who do battle without any rules of engagement. 
one of our biggest problems is that we are the only ones trying to be honorable. your analogy of the gunfighter does not apply in this case. 
not only did we not shoot first, but like i have continually pointed out, this is a war to promote the expansion of islam. if you do a little history checking, you'll see that it is not a new practice for islam.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> they do all have the same _ultimate_ goal. the domination of the world by islam. it's been stated publicly by the leaders of alqaida, hamas, iranian clerics, and others in pakistan, syria and lebanon etc, ad nauseum. by all means, don't take my word for it. see for yourself. for a simple explanation of what i mean, see this video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQcb4P8gqI
> 
> you can trip around on the web and see the hate speeches by the muslim clerics or even go to their own websites. hear how they encourage their believers to infiltrate all areas of life in the countries occupied by the infidels (that's you and me, to them) they tell them that to conquer the world for allah is their sacred duty. read the koran and see where their motivations come from. at that point, in my mind that's not a matter of good an evil. it's a matter of a bunch of people hate the way i live, and they want to kill me and end this way of life. it is my desire to resist that agenda by whatever means are the quickest and most effective.
> ...



This is just way too much Cheezyridr. A rational discusion about how heightened security will/may change how we travel and go about our daily business is one thing, this post is quite another story IMO. Outside of the fact that many here and elsewhere might agree with you, why do you have to take this thread in this direction? Your trusty internet connections should tell you that your far from being alone in your views. Why try and impress a bunch of rock n' rollers with your worldliness?


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

all i was doing was responding to what others were saying. i thought that i was staying within the scope of the original thread by discussing the cause for the need for heightened security. either way, i didn't write any of what i wrote for the purpose of tickin somebody off. truth be told, i thought i was holding my tounge while others i won't single out were deliberately being inflamatory. i thought we were having a discussion. i presented my views on the subject. i didn't start this thread. i have enjoyed it so far though. 

what is it that is "just too much" for you?


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

Rugburn said:


> This is just way too much Cheezyridr. A rational discusion about how heightened security will/may change how we travel and go about our daily business is one thing, this post is quite another story IMO. Outside of the fact that many here and elsewhere might agree with you, why do you have to take this thread in this direction? Your trusty internet connections should tell you that your far from being alone in your views. Why try and impress a bunch of rock n' rollers with your worldliness?


perhaps Cheezy knows too much? maybe he should be sent for a scan, a pat-down and if he doesn't reveal his sources, a full body cavity search. that'll learn 'im! :smile:


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...thing is, mr ridr, you can find exactly the same level of hate, and hate speech, in america, directed at muslims, islamists or, for that matter, anyone who is not white, male, heterosexual and english-speaking. you can trip around the web or, more often then not, simply open your email, to read hate propoganda by white north americans.
and can you imagine how people feel who's loved ones are slaughtered as a result of our intent to spread democracy? if you do a little checking, i think you'll see that this is not a new practice for north americans.
can you understand why "they" see westerners as evil?
the first thing we have to understand and appreciate is that "we" are not superior. to anyone.
as for me, i do get weary of all the labels that are attached to me or anyone else who suggests that war and human slaughter are part of the problem, not part of the solution, or that peace, diplomacy and dialog might be a worthy alternative to god, guns and greed.

-dh



cheezyridr said:


> they do all have the same _ultimate_ goal. the domination of the world by islam. it's been stated publicly by the leaders of alqaida, hamas, iranian clerics, and others in pakistan, syria and lebanon etc, ad nauseum. by all means, don't take my word for it. see for yourself. for a simple explanation of what i mean, see this video:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYQcb4P8gqI
> 
> you can trip around on the web and see the hate speeches by the muslim clerics or even go to their own websites. hear how they encourage their believers to infiltrate all areas of life in the countries occupied by the infidels (that's you and me, to them) they tell them that to conquer the world for allah is their sacred duty. read the koran and see where their motivations come from. at that point, in my mind that's not a matter of good an evil. it's a matter of a bunch of people hate the way i live, and they want to kill me and end this way of life. it is my desire to resist that agenda by whatever means are the quickest and most effective.
> ...


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

such a shame........a very interesting thread starting to go political........regarding the "old" system of airport security.........back about 25 years ago I was returning from Calgary to Toronto........I was involved with antiques and procurred an interestin old, elaborate brass gas light fixture that I eventually converted to electric and sold........I dissassembled the unit and carefully packed it into an empty cowboy boot box and hand carried the package through security............you can well imagine my consternation when alarms started sounding and personnel, hands at their holsters can rushing towards me in the line up........it turned out my package had the appearance of a James Bond type weapon.........after frayed nerves had settled down the airport security allowed me to view the X-ray and after the fact I had a greater sense of security because of their dilligence.........In 2006 I had my dad's ashes in my carry-on at Toronto.........(I was respecting his last wishes to be buried in Ireland)....again there was some issues at the X-ray, but the security people were able to identify the remains as such........both situations gave me great respect for the professionalism of the security personnel...........on a day trip to the US about 20 years ago I was "profiled" by these big thick necked US security people (I am caucasion) and stuck in a security room with a bunch of other passengers.......the other passengers were real scary.....I almost missed my flight.......the biggest issue with the increase security is the time factor........I am an avid smoker and, its unfortunate for me, going with out my nicotine fix for a long flight, never mind the extra delays boarding and unboarding........this self induced stress certainly can't help re: profiling.........lol....bring on the scans but speed it up


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...thing is, mr ridr, you can find exactly the same level of hate, and hate speech, in america, directed at muslims, islamists or, for that matter, anyone who is not white, male, heterosexual and english-speaking.
> 
> -dh


i'm totally not taking the bait. 










troll all you like


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Last year when flying to Cape Breton I was stopped cause I had two freezer packs, they confiscated those. No problem I had wrapped some frozen venison to bring home to Mom. Upon X-Ray they pulled me aside to swab my carry on as they detected something strange. They pulled the meat out, unwrapped it and were curious. Of course I told them what it was and they replied "what do you do with it? Eat it of course. But the entire time, I was sweating like crazy! I knew I had absolutely no contraband or hazmat yet I automatically "felt" guilty!


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

cheezyridr said:


> i'm totally not taking the bait.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Come on Guys! Behave, lets not have another intersting thread locked!:smile:


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

back to simpler times.....

In 1976, I started out an ill-fated attempt at a Masters degree at Memorial University in St, John's. Travelling from Montreal to St. John's, I packed up everything I thought I would need and shipped it, arriving at Dorval airport with my backpack and excited about the trip.

In an effort to assure I would not sleep in and miss my flight, I had set my alarm clock. The alarm clock was a non-electronic one, of the type with an alarm that consisted of two bells at the top and a hammer that rapidly bangs on them both. You know, the kind that the second day you use it, you wake up five minutes *before* the alarm was supposed to ring.

In my haste, the alarm clock was the last thing to go into the backpack. My dad drops me off at Dorval airport and I head to the ticket counter. When I go to check my backpack, a loud ticking can be heard coming from it. I blushingly recount the alarm clock, the guy opens up the top and peeks in, then clears me and sends me on my way. It was like every airplane bomber cliché rolled into one.

Try pulling THAT one off these days.


The elephant in the room, that I have to keep reminding people of, is that people who are involved in enforcement of policies, whether they are security, payroll, municipal parking, or club bouncers, enforce them *blindly*. Indeed, they are often explicitly told NOT to make judgment calls. Understandingly, they are not trained and paid as if they WILL be making judgment calls. The end result is that people and situations where the policies need not be enforced *get* enforced, like the 85 year-old granny that got "the special treatment" at Ottawa airport recently. Did she deserve that? No. Would you feel comfortable about the security staff *deciding* who deserved it and who didn't? Maybe not, because they can make mistakes, and the mistakes can go in both directions. I.E., they ignore someone who _should_ merit closer inspection, and target someone who doesn't. When the policy gets applied in a universal manner, it is a bloody nuisance, but at least one does not get branded. When a policy is applied in a selective manner, it gets hard for those who are fingered to shake the fact that they were fingered.

About 8 years ago, when I was on school council at my son's high school, they were starting to have a problem with kids showing up drunk at the door for high school dances. The principal was going to have breathalysers at the door. Initially, he was going to tell the teachers and parents acting as monitors to use the breathalyser on anyone they suspected of being intoxicated. I urged him to instead have everyone passing through the door submit to it, the idea being that no one would feel wrongly singled out, making everyone a little more compliant for the procedure, and no teachers/parents liable for false accusations. He listened, he did it, and it all went swimmingly smooth. Some, though certainlynot always, more nuisance is less nuisance.


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

*Border Line - check*

This is a good thread. In order to discuss and debate what is happening at the airports and other areas of our world that continue to see increased security the "reasons" for that happening have to come out. They have come out in this thread. I have read both sides and both sides are correct. Thats the thing we all have to remember. Who are we to say who is right. My own thoughts are this

1) There have been and always will be belief and followers of those beliefs
2) There will always be a small fraction of those that go beyond its original intent
3) Do not force your belief on other people (by any means) and that includes what we here in North Amerca seem to think is right
4) Stay in your own backyard and play there. 
5) Fix your own probelems at home and stop trying to "fix" the other guys problems (maybe they dont want the help)
6) Violence (IMO) must only be used to protect yourself and as a last resort. If there is a supreme being, no matter what team he coaches I can't beleive that he/she ever intended for us to kill and mame eachother
7) It is arrogant to think that "your way" can be the "only way". No matter what team you play for.

I think it is very plain to see the opposing views in this "war". There is no investigation required or need to understand the other side. It is very clear, has been for thousands of years. The problem is the will of both sides to force the other to either change their way of thinking/living or be eliminated. if someone backs you into a corner and your life is on the line you are going to fight back. 

These belief systems have been the cause of more death, destruction and misery on this planet than anything nature has ever come up with. We continue to create methods and measures to fortify and carry-out the "message".

The battle is between free will and free thinking vs living your life by a code. Choose your side.

That in a nutshell IMO is why we are standing in a line for 3 hrs to get on an aircraft. That is why we have had a collapse in our global financial systems, health care systems, why glimpses of nipples on tv can spark huge waves of change and control, why McDonalds is one of the most successful businesses in history, why people are starving all over the world and why my stinking Bengals got eliminated by the Jets in the first round of the play-offs. Its all connected man.

This is why on this board I have always maintained that anyone is entitled to an opinion. Simply because I have no right to say that the view is wrong or that that person should be looked down upon for making it. I may totally disagree and even say so. But they are entitled to make it.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Personally, I think it's pretty tiresome that a debate about security on airplanes comes down to a debate over religion, jihad, and "east-vs-west", or whatever we're calling the Cultural War these days.

As long as we let these issues distract us, we don't actually figure out the best way to have good security for people while maintaining the desired degree of freedom that our country is supposed to provide. Once we start talking about religion, the ability to have an intelligent and rational debate about airplane security goes out the window.

I'll quote from John Mayer, teen-idol douche and unfortunate guitar god:

"We're never gonna win the world, we're never gonna stop the war, we're never gonna beat this, if belief is what we're fighting for."

--- D


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Duster said:


> Personally, I think it's pretty tiresome that a debate about security on airplanes comes down to a debate over religion, jihad, and "east-vs-west", or whatever we're calling the Cultural War these days.
> 
> As long as we let these issues distract us, we don't actually figure out the best way to have good security for people while maintaining the desired degree of freedom that our country is supposed to provide. Once we start talking about religion, the ability to have an intelligent and rational debate about airplane security goes out the window.
> 
> ...


You are correct to a degree. But where we are going with airport security and all forms of security are a result of one thing and that is the "war" that is currently being waged. The reason you can no longer have a carry-on bag on a flight from Canada to the US is not a natural progression of airline security, It was implemented for one reason only and that was to prevent a terrorist attack. 

My suggestion that in order to debate it you had to understand the reasons for it. Those are clearly the reasons. If you did not have people intent on blowing up aircraft than we could simply go back to the 70's and 80's when not only could I arrive at the airport 20 minutes before departure, I actually got a meal on the plane as well.

Lets talk airport security, but lets not forget why it is constantly being upgraded and changed. That being understood, we can concentrate on the best methods of that security. That brings me back to one of my first posts and that was bring it on. I am for any technology that gets the job done and speeds the process up.

There is NEVER any sense in engaging in "R" discussions. They go nowhere.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Duster said:


> Personally, I think it's pretty tiresome that a debate about security on airplanes comes down to a debate over religion, jihad, and "east-vs-west", or whatever we're calling the Cultural War these days.
> 
> As long as we let these issues distract us, we don't actually figure out the best way to have good security for people while maintaining the desired degree of freedom that our country is supposed to provide. Once we start talking about religion, the ability to have an intelligent and rational debate about airplane security goes out the window.
> 
> ...


I thought of this song reading some of the posts here but I am glad I didn't bring it up because mentioning JM can be more inflammatory than politics:smile:

I do like alot of John Mayer's music and I do love this song, and the lyrics are great. "unfortunate guitar god" is the best line I have heard in reference to JM - :rockon2:


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> You are correct to a degree. But where we are going with airport security and all forms of security are a result of one thing and that is the "war" that is currently being waged. The reason you can no longer have a carry-on bag on a flight from Canada to the US is not a natural progression of airline security, It was implemented for one reason only and that was to prevent a terrorist attack.
> 
> My suggestion that in order to debate it you had to understand the reasons for it. Those are clearly the reasons. If you did not have people intent on blowing up aircraft than we could simply go back to the 70's and 80's when not only could I arrive at the airport 20 minutes before departure, I actually got a meal on the plane as well.
> 
> ...


That's why this debate gets more and more broad-ranging, and less and less productive: because we're always trying to get to the "root cause" of the problem. The assumption in that debate is that, first, we can all actually agree on what the root cause is; and second, that even if we agreed on what it is, that we could actually fix it. At some point, it becomes unproductive, and distracts from the real problem.

For example, if we have a lot of gang violence in a city, we can say "every citizen has to be searched for weapons every day when they leave their home". This is a blanket policy that takes no consideration whatsoever what the cause of the problem is.

Or we can say "the real problem is the breakdown of the nuclear family with a two-parent household". This is an approach where we try to find the "root cause" and see if we can fix it.

In the first case, we create an environment that we don't want, because we're afraid to examine the problem. In the second case, we make no progress on the issue of crime because we end up engaged in a debate about single parents, same-sex parents, etc. etc.

The trick to good decision making is knowing how to restrict the scope of your consideration to what's useful in making progress on an issue, and gathering the information required to be effective in making an improvement.

I submit that debating whether or not the doctrine of global jihad exists, or is justified, does very little to improve safety on airplanes.

I also submit that searching every single person going onto an airplane without any consideration for who those people are or what behaviours they have engaged in up to that point in time, is short sighted and lazy.

--- D


----------



## Rick31797 (Apr 20, 2007)

*scanner*

I am a bit shy, i would probably have to wrap aluminum foil around my package. >-)
Rick


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Duster said:


> That's why this debate gets more and more broad-ranging, and less and less productive: because we're always trying to get to the "root cause" of the problem. The assumption in that debate is that, first, we can all actually agree on what the root cause is; and second, that even if we agreed on what it is, that we could actually fix it. At some point, it becomes unproductive, and distracts from the real problem.
> 
> For example, if we have a lot of gang violence in a city, we can say "every citizen has to be searched for weapons every day when they leave their home". This is a blanket policy that takes no consideration whatsoever what the cause of the problem is.
> 
> ...


Fair enough and good points. I would like to concentrate right now on your last sentance. How can we do these checks? How can the point of entry (security station) be aware of this persons past behavior? In order to do that everyone must be willing to allow their lives and everything they do to be monitored and recorded in some way. It becomes a situation where the vast majority (people with clean backgrounds and no issues) have to submit to the program in order to catch the few who are suspect and have past issues. Are we willing to submit to this kind of tracking? Governments already have a huge amount of data on our personal lives. If you dont make that step, then everyone has to submit to the searches and screening. I believe there will always be a need for some kind of physical screening whether that be by some machine or person. 

I dont go for the profiling thing at all. I could go crazy tomorrow and decide to blow up a plane and I have no criminal record of any kind. Chances of me getting selected for a secondary search are very low. You need to check everyone and that includes the 90 year old grandmothers.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Fair enough and good points. I would like to concentrate right now on your last sentance. How can we do these checks? How can the point of entry (security station) be aware of this persons past behavior?


Well, that's where I have a hard time with all the proposals that have come up so far... we seem to accept that the "point of entry" is where we want to perform these checks. Maybe the approach is to step way back from the point of entry. 

I'll propose something crazy that I've been thinking of for a while. (I often think of crazy things.)

What if we had an international licensing system for air travellers? Almost everyone who gets on a plane needs to have a passport (certainly for international flights). As part of the passport process, or parallel with the passport process, there could be an "airplane permit" issued. When you apply for your passport, a simultaneous application is made to a central, third-party agency, which would likely be a cooperative of the world's major airlines. The application is run through the major databases, no-fly lists, etc. More comprehensive background checks could be done. References would be required (as they are for passports). There's a whole lot that could be done at this stage.

The "air permit" could be good for different amount of times, depending on who you are and what your risk level is. If you come from certain countries, your air permit could be good for one trip, and need to be renewed for every trip. If you have a good record of safe travel, maybe your air permit is good for a five year period.

And endorsement is then placed in your passport, so that when you go through security, you are allowed in. Normal screening would still take place, but at least you've moved a lot of the background checking and preliminary screening back, away from the point of entry.

We currently think we have a right to fly, and we have "no-fly" lists for people that are real threats. Maybe we have to adopt a model where flying is a privilege, and we have "yes-fly" lists for people that are very low threats. 

This would likely require nationalizing all major air carriers, because it would cut down on a lot of air traffic, at least initially. But I actually am beginning to think that air carriers should be nationalized, given the unintended external consequences to people and economies if there is a failure.

I know it's a crazy idea. But at least it's provocative and doesn't involve solving global jihad.

--- D


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

*"Root cause"?* Poverty, illiteracy, hunger and living in a constant state of violent conflict are excellent conditions for fertilizing hatred against those for whome none of these are an issue. The pre-occupation with a certain geographical area/zone in terms of this "war's" focus doesn't help either. This latest attempted attack was at the hands of a young Nigerian man. The next could come from Indonesia, Africa,....or here at home. How can you profile a group so visibly and geographically diverse? It's amazing what can happen to so many young, poor, angry folks when they have a full belly, a roof over their head and can read a book, a newspaper, or the internet. Especially if it's made possible by the "enemy", and not the a$$holes that are telling them to kill.

Shawn.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> *"Root cause"?* Poverty, illiteracy, hunger and living in a constant state of violent conflict are excellent conditions for fertilizing hatred against those for whome none of these are an issue. The pre-occupation with a certain geographical area/zone in terms of this "war's" focus doesn't help either. This latest attempted attack was at the hands of a young Nigerian man. The next could come from Indonesia, Africa,....or here at home. How can you profile a group so visibly and geographically diverse? It's amazing what can happen to so many young, poor, angry folks when they have a full belly, a roof over their head and can read a book, a newspaper, or the internet. Especially if it's made possible by the "enemy", and not the a$$holes that are telling them to kill.
> 
> Shawn.


So in order to make air travel safer, we're going to have to solve poverty, illiteracy, and armed conflict?

What are we going to do AFTER lunch?

--- D


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Duster said:


> Well, that's where I have a hard time with all the proposals that have come up so far... we seem to accept that the "point of entry" is where we want to perform these checks. Maybe the approach is to step way back from the point of entry.
> 
> I'll propose something crazy that I've been thinking of for a while. (I often think of crazy things.)
> 
> ...


Its not as crazy as you may think and we may very well be headed in that direction. But here is the problem with this system, as with any system that does background checks. These organizations that commit these acts of terror are not full of complete nitwits and they can read the new laws too. So they work around them. If you are "planning" a ligitimate act of terrorism you make the necessary arrangements in order to give the plan the best chance of succeeding. Your recruit must have a clean background, go through all the necessary steps of obtaining the proper documentation and paperwork. Be as clean as the driven snow. That gets you all the way to the "security checkpoint" again. Then what do we do? Over time you are going to start to see more North Americans being sent on these missions. It's only a matter of time and then you can throw out your profiling methods on the basis of race and skin color. 

You then have to consider the guy that just snaps. It happens all the time, everyday where some person with no history of violence just snaps and kills 20 people. We are far from understanding the human mind and what triggers these things. So on one hand you have the terror organizations that are in no hurry to carry out the actions. They can recruit the virgins with no background issues. On the other hand you have the random acts by a so called (normal) person.

Personally, I have nothing to hide and dont really have an issue with security background checks. But they will not eliminate the problem. There is only one sure way (today) to ensure that the plane you are about to board has no bomb and that is to screen the hell out of everything and everyone that is getting on it.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

Rugburn said:


> *"Root cause"?* Poverty, illiteracy, hunger and living in a constant state of violent conflict are excellent conditions for fertilizing hatred against those for whome none of these are an issue. The pre-occupation with a certain geographical area/zone in terms of this "war's" focus doesn't help either. This latest attempted attack was at the hands of a young Nigerian man. The next could come from Indonesia, Africa,....or here at home. How can you profile a group so visibly and geographically diverse? It's amazing what can happen to so many young, poor, angry folks when they have a full belly, a roof over their head and can read a book, a newspaper, or the internet. Especially if it's made possible by the "enemy", and not the a$$holes that are telling them to kill.
> 
> Shawn.



now you stop with that common sense young man, or someone will have to come over and slap you!:smile:


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Its not as crazy as you may think and we may very well be headed in that direction. But here is the problem with this system, as with any system that does background checks. These organizations that commit these acts of terror are not full of complete nitwits and they can read the new laws too. So they work around them. If you are "planning" a ligitimate act of terrorism you make the necessary arrangements in order to give the plan the best chance of succeeding. Your recruit must have a clean background, go through all the necessary steps of obtaining the proper documentation and paperwork. Be as clean as the driven snow. That gets you all the way to the "security checkpoint" again. Then what do we do? Over time you are going to start to see more North Americans being sent on these missions. It's only a matter of time and then you can throw out your profiling methods on the basis of race and skin color.
> 
> You then have to consider the guy that just snaps. It happens all the time, everyday where some person with no history of violence just snaps and kills 20 people. We are far from understanding the human mind and what triggers these things. So on one hand you have the terror organizations that are in no hurry to carry out the actions. They can recruit the virgins with no background issues. On the other hand you have the random acts by a so called (normal) person.
> 
> Personally, I have nothing to hide and dont really have an issue with security background checks. But they will not eliminate the problem. There is only one sure way (today) to ensure that the plane you are about to board has no bomb and that is to screen the hell out of everything and everyone that is getting on it.


Ok sure, but the guys who just snaps, usually does it with a gun of some sort. The fact remains that the FBI was notified that the latest terrorist in question _by his father no less_ was unstable and should be feared. Just like they "allegedly" had some prior information preceding the 9/11 attackes. I just don't want to fly anymore. Honestly it's making me nervous. I'll vacay in Canada thanks!


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Starbuck said:


> Ok sure, but the guys who just snaps, usually does it with a gun of some sort. The fact remains that the FBI was notified that the latest terrorist in question _by his father no less_ was unstable and should be feared. Just like they "allegedly" had some prior information preceding the 9/11 attackes. I just don't want to fly anymore. Honestly it's making me nervous. I'll vacay in Canada thanks!


Very true. Most of the random acts occur locally and are usually ill planned as well. But for me, I feel way better knowing the plane I am going on has been screened thouroghly. I just wish they could come up with a system that makes it fast. 

But I would not be afraid at all to travel via air. It is still one of the safest modes of transportation out there and the chances of running into a terrorist attack are about as remote as winning the Lotto. In fact the odds of winning the lotto are even better. These organizations work on fear more than the actual act. They want to cripple you by keeping you afraid and at the same time killing the whole economy by keeping people hiding under their beds and not traveling. Get out there and enjoy life.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

There is also something to be said for individual personalities and their accompanying social cognition. Some folks have a delusional attribution system whereby others get the blame for everything bad (or everything less than perfect) that happens to them. 

I draw your attention to the tragedy at Concordia University in 1992 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concordia_University_massacre ) in which faculty member Valery Fabrikant grew increasingly hostile against other faculty members there, depicting them as obstacles to his ascendance to greatness. he had a history of being argumentative, suspicious and resentful against people he worked with. Fabrikant entered the school armed and murdered 4 profs. Pictures of him being taken out of the building by police appear to show him smirking.

One certainly CAN and SHOULD attempt to resolve issues of power, poverty, etc in those places where extremist groups arise. But a perfect world is hard to achieve, and while the world remains imperfect, there are those, much like Fabrikant, who will weave a narrative for themselves where some identifiable group, like coworkers, blacks, women, Jews, "the West", "big business", commies, or whomever, will be viewed as the only plausible reason for whatever it is that is lacking in the person's life. That delusional system will remain relatively impervious to rational debate, and the individual will pursue violent means to address their resentment against those imagined oppressors. If they happen to be charismatic in any way, they can easily co-opt others who may be lost in their own lives and find that person's blame-narrative a simple and cohesive explanation that gives them a sense of meaning and forward motion in an otherwise adrift life. "Destroying the enemy" becomes something to live for...and die for.

Clearly, if everyone's life was paradise, them such blame-narratives would not arise, so there is every reason to want to address things like despotic regimes around the world, or at least remove our support for despotic regimes. But unless those daily experiences are replaced with paradise, there is still fuel for the blame-narrative, and one has to be on the lookout for it.

Regardless of what you may think of him as a politician and leader, Michael Ignatieff is a solid thinker when it comes to political philosophy. In his book "The Lesser Evil" ( http://www.amazon.ca/Lesser-Evil-Michael-Ignatieff/dp/0143054643 ), and the series of lectures that arose from it (or in preparation for it), he makes some interesting points about threads which run through contemporary groups that employ terrorism as a strategy. One of those is that the contemporary terrorist group wishes to demonstrate the futility of negotiating with the other side. So, the closer one gets to pursuing a peaceful agreement with the perceived oppressor, the greater the likelihood that some member of the group will carry out an attack which is designed to deliberately provoke aggression from the other side; indeed *extreme* aggression. The implicit purpose, Ignatieff holds, is to be able to say "You see? I *told* you they can't be trusted." 

In a sense, the blame narrative becomes so precious to such individuals, that nothing can be permitted to force them to abandon it, not even achieving the original objectives. Now, it is one thing to have a lousy breakup and wallow in "That bitch/bastard ruined my life" for years afterwards, and quite another to live in a universe permeated by great satans and such that are so deserving of extermination that any collateral damage, including oneself, is justifiable. That person could be Valery Fabrikant, they could be Marc Lepine, they could be Timothy Mcvey, and they could be Mullah Omar or Osama Bin Laden.

The long and the short of it is that doing the right is the right thing to do, and one shouldn't let one's apprehension about nutbars prevent you from taking the high road at every opportunity presented, but nutbars exist. Sometimes, they are simply a reason to ask to be put on a different work shift. Sometimes, they are a reason to leave a relationship. Sometimes they result in a beating. Sometimes in a couple of deaths. And sometimes, if such individuals fall in with the wrong folks and have access to the wrong materials, they result in hundreds of deaths. 

And that's why you have the prospect of body scanners.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Duster said:


> So in order to make air travel safer, we're going to have to solve poverty, illiteracy, and armed conflict?
> 
> What are we going to do AFTER lunch?
> 
> --- D


I propose that all of these things may have a root cause, and that it would not be to hard to agree on the answers if we ask the right q's. 

your suggestion to have everyone screened and given 'fly permits' is incredibly complicated and expensive, though I agree is makes more sense in alot of ways than anything that is being implimented so far. but then you would have to create a similar program for train travel, bus travel, driving any sort of vehicle, walking the streets and entering buildings, and so on. There is no end to it because the terrorists will simply find another way to attack. 

If people keep hitting you on the head you can wear a helmet, then they hit you in the leg instead, and this goes on and on. so you kill the person to solve the problem, and they are simply replaced by another and another after that. or come up with elaborate methods of screening everyone who approaches you. I would be inclined to ask: "why are you hitting me?" "how can we fix this?"


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

GuitarsCanada said:


> Its not as crazy as you may think and we may very well be headed in that direction. But here is the problem with this system, as with any system that does background checks. These organizations that commit these acts of terror are not full of complete nitwits and they can read the new laws too. So they work around them. If you are "planning" a ligitimate act of terrorism you make the necessary arrangements in order to give the plan the best chance of succeeding. Your recruit must have a clean background, go through all the necessary steps of obtaining the proper documentation and paperwork. Be as clean as the driven snow. That gets you all the way to the "security checkpoint" again. Then what do we do? Over time you are going to start to see more North Americans being sent on these missions. It's only a matter of time and then you can throw out your profiling methods on the basis of race and skin color.
> 
> You then have to consider the guy that just snaps. It happens all the time, everyday where some person with no history of violence just snaps and kills 20 people. We are far from understanding the human mind and what triggers these things. So on one hand you have the terror organizations that are in no hurry to carry out the actions. They can recruit the virgins with no background issues. On the other hand you have the random acts by a so called (normal) person.
> 
> Personally, I have nothing to hide and dont really have an issue with security background checks. But they will not eliminate the problem. There is only one sure way (today) to ensure that the plane you are about to board has no bomb and that is to screen the hell out of everything and everyone that is getting on it.


The guy that did the Christmas Day attack wasn't clean as the driven snow, and a simple background check... actually, just a phone call to his dad... actually, just a quick check of readily available intelligence.

He also didn't snap, this was some time in coming. Same thing for most of the people who just "snap", whether it be the guys at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, or the Greyhound to Winnipeg. These people almost always have warning signs, a history of psychiatric problems, etc., And they don't plan airplane bombings, in any case.

I'm not suggesting that we dismantle security checkpoints at airports. I'm only suggesting that we don't rely on them or hope to make them 100% effective in stopping terrorist acts on airplanes.

It would be like not bothering to have driver's licences or driver's training, but instead just blanket the highways with police to stop dangerous drivers. This reliance on 100% inspection of everyone doesn't seem to be an option for all the other crimes we encounter in the world - why is it such a popular option for airline travel?

--- D


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

bluesmostly said:


> I propose that all of these things may have a root cause, and that it would not be to hard to agree on the answers if we ask the right q's.
> 
> your suggestion to have everyone screened and given 'fly permits' is incredibly complicated and expensive, though I agree is makes more sense in alot of ways than anything that is being implimented so far. but then you would have to create a similar program for train travel, bus travel, driving any sort of vehicle, walking the streets and entering buildings, and so on. There is no end to it because the terrorists will simply find another way to attack.
> 
> If people keep hitting you on the head you can wear a helmet, then they hit you in the leg instead, and this goes on and on. so you kill the person to solve the problem, and they are simply replaced by another and another after that. or come up with elaborate methods of screening everyone who approaches you. I would be inclined to ask: "why are you hitting me?" "how can we fix this?"


You make a very good point, that the same thing could be extended to train travel, etc. But it would still be better than the current "100%" strategy, as I like to call it, which also will be extended to trains, busses, etc. eventually, for the same reason you state.

I like your analogy of the helmet. However, I liken the "screen every person" strategy to "wearing a helmet". It's the "last line of defense" strategy. My idea is to move away from the last line of defense, at least one step closer to the source of the pain. Using your analogy, I would like a strategy that takes away the bat from the person hitting me. They'll still try to hurt me, and they'll still be as angry as they were before, but at least now there's an opportunity to start finding out why. I emphasize "start", because I'm not sure you'll ever find out exactly why.

--- D


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Duster said:


> So in order to make air travel safer, we're going to have to solve poverty, illiteracy, and armed conflict?
> 
> What are we going to do AFTER lunch?
> 
> --- D



Who said solve? Maybe, just put some of the trillions that have been spent on "the mission" for helping some of those poor folks out.

Shawn.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> Who said solve? Maybe, just put some of the trillions that have been spent on "the mission" for helping some of those poor folks out.
> 
> Shawn.


Sorry, I was being flippant. You're right that we should be doing more on that front.

My only point is that spending a few million, or even trillions of dollars on that problem isn't going to make airplanes any safer, at least not in the short term.

I think a change in foreign policy could make airplanes, and the world, safer, over time, but it would take years, and more likely, decades, to make a noticeable improvement.

--- D


----------



## GuitarsCanada (Dec 30, 2005)

Duster said:


> *The guy that did the Christmas Day attack wasn't clean as the driven snow, and a simple background check... actually, just a phone call to his dad... actually, just a quick check of readily available intelligence.*
> 
> He also didn't snap, this was some time in coming. Same thing for most of the people who just "snap", whether it be the guys at Columbine, Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, or the Greyhound to Winnipeg. These people almost always have warning signs, a history of psychiatric problems, etc., And they don't plan airplane bombings, in any case.
> 
> ...


That proves my point 100%

You can do all the checking and reporting you want. I want the plane and people getting on it screened. If not for the luck of that nitwit not knowing how to set off his bomb properly 400 people would have died (or whatever the number is). I want that godamn plane screened and everything including the pretzles examined.


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

well internet music forums seldom have all the answers to life the universe and everything...but you guys and gals get points for trying. and yes politics and religion are probably the two subjects that create the most friction in any social setting. some forums ban the discussion of such topics because of the controversy, so hat's off to GC for having faith in its members to carry on a discussion without going over the top.

nothing in life is guaranteed and there is no perfect security system. for example, more folks die in automobile accidents than in terror attacks. yet our primary concern with automobile design is making them more fuel efficient, not safer for the occupants. 

air travel as anything else in life, should include a certain level of 'risk management'. i can live with that. we all want to feel assured that we are gonna get from home to grandma's house without running into the big bad wolf. but i don't think we need a cop stopping us for inspection every step along the way.

"Hey Little Red Riding Hood, what have you got in that basket?" You better open it up slowly and remember, no liquids or gels or powders, no sharp metal objects, no flammable materials...)

if we want to claim we live in a society that is free and just then we can't start with the assumption that everyone passing through our airports (or any public place) are potential criminals with homicidal intentions. if that's what it comes down to, then our society becomes nothing better than a police state full of rules and regulations and the bad guys win, because we live in fear not freedom.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

six-string said:


> well internet music forums seldom have all the answers to life the universe and everything...but you guys and gals get points for trying. and yes politics and religion are probably the two subjects that create the most friction in any social setting. some forums ban the discussion of such topics because of the controversy, so hat's off to GC for having faith in its members to carry on a discussion without going over the top.
> 
> nothing in life is guaranteed and there is no perfect security system. for example, more folks die in automobile accidents than in terror attacks. yet our primary concern with automobile design is making them more fuel efficient, not safer for the occupants.
> 
> ...


Great points. It reminds me of a stat I read once that showed that it was more likely for children to be killed by having a swimming pool at home than a gun. Risk perception is a very interesting thing, there are no end of studies looking at how we evaluate and measure risk. Usually, of course, badly. 

A wise boss once told me that there are three things that you never discuss with clients (and by extension, any polite company that you don't want to offend). Those three things are Sex, Religion, and Politics. With one wrong word on those subjects, you can ruin a relationship. Just not worth it.

I have since added "Nickelback" to that list. 

--- D


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

six-string said:


> if we want to claim we live in a society that is free and just then we can't start with the assumption that everyone passing through our airports (or any public place) are potential criminals with homicidal intentions. if that's what it comes down to, then our society becomes nothing better than a police state full of rules and regulations and the bad guys win, because we live in fear not freedom.


Yeah but you know, on second thought I'll take it, at least I can wear shorts skirts and go out in public without fear of being stoned to death, I can work and I'm free to make my own choices, so all in all. WE ARE FREE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> Yeah but you know, on second thought I'll take it, at least I can wear shorts skirts and go out in public without fear of being stoned to death, I can work and I'm free to make my own choices, so all in all. WE ARE FREE!!!!!!!!!


Believe it or not, your ability to wear short skirts without being stoned to death is actually inextricably tied up with your freedom to not be treated like a criminal and searched indiscriminately.

The idea that you would be willing to give up one freedom under the impression that it would protect the other will eventually prove to be false.

We'll discuss this again when a correlation is shown between short skirts, loose morals, and sexual assaults, so that short skirts get banned. For your own safety, of course. You never know what criminal could be watching you run around in a short skirt. There's no way to screen for them.

--- D


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> Who said solve? Maybe, just put some of the trillions that have been spent on "the mission" for helping some of those poor folks out.
> 
> Shawn.


Part of the problem is that regimes propped up by the foreign aid that fuels corruption are very fertile breeding grounds for extremist groups. Consider how many African nations have been recipients of aid and turned into epicentres of corruption. Yemen is not exactly the birthplace of democracy, and neither is Somalia or Ethiopia or Sudan. We are throwing billions at Afghanistan, and some of it is going to the right places, but not all of it is. And I'm sure many will remember the missing pallets of money in Iraq.

I'm not arguing for abandoning such nations. Rather, throwing money in indiscriminate fashion is often no better than throwing military support in indiscriminate fashion; they both end up entrenching those in power.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> Part of the problem is that regimes propped up by the foreign aid that fuels corruption are very fertile breeding grounds for extremist groups. Consider how many African nations have been recipients of aid and turned into epicentres of corruption. Yemen is not exactly the birthplace of democracy, and neither is Somalia or Ethiopia or Sudan. We are throwing billions at Afghanistan, and some of it is going to the right places, but not all of it is. And I'm sure many will remember the missing pallets of money in Iraq.
> 
> I'm not arguing for abandoning such nations. Rather, throwing money in indiscriminate fashion is often no better than throwing military support in indiscriminate fashion; they both end up entrenching those in power.


At no point did I say "throw money". There's more than enough evidence to suggest that doing so is not money well spent. I felt our initial efforts in Afghanistan were a "more Canadian" approach. When we were building roads and schools, supplying clean water and food, more of our soldiers were coming home alive. I would also argue we were making a stronger more respectful impression on those we need to reach most: the folks caught in the middle. However, I digress, I'm obviously not an expert on any of these matters. I do stand by my earlier statement though, that we don't have to live like this. It takes two to Tango, good or bad.

Shawn


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Duster said:


> Believe it or not, your ability to wear short skirts without being stoned to death is actually inextricably tied up with your freedom to not be treated like a criminal and searched indiscriminately.
> 
> The idea that you would be willing to give up one freedom under the impression that it would protect the other will eventually prove to be false.
> 
> ...



What is the difference? I have to be patted down and open my purse to attend some concerts. Under your assumtion, isn't THAT being treated like a criminal? Believe me, I do NOT look the part.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I meant to extrapolate on what you said, not rebut it. Sorry for conveying the wrong gist. :bow:

I think we're in agreement on the substance of the matter. When one intervenes anywhere, one needs to have a deep understanding of the local culture, its history, its needs, its division, and its motives. Sadly, that takes time and extensive knowledge sharing amongst participants in order to have a coordinated and appropriate effect. Those are the details that tend to get lost.

And yes, people forget that Canada's original involvement in Afghanistan was principally military engineers and folks to work on infrastructure. What happened over time was that insurgents viewed western efforts to rebuild as a "cultural invasion" and neo-colonial domination, and started attacking our rebuilders. Bit by bit, our mission changed from being mostly rebuilding with a bit of policing to being half building and half self-defense, to being principally military intervention. It wasn't of our choosing, though. We got sucked into it.

But we're off topic now. Stop *doing* that, Shawn! You're screwing me up!


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

cheezyridr said:


> i'm totally not taking the bait.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


...this kind of labelling and name calling is exactly what i was referring to so, in a sense, you did, to use your words, "take the bait". 

no more questions, your honour.

-whoever said nothing is impossible never tried slamming a revolving door....


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)




----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

six-string said:


> well internet music forums seldom have all the answers to life the universe and everything...but you guys and gals get points for trying. and yes politics and religion are probably the two subjects that create the most friction in any social setting. some forums ban the discussion of such topics because of the controversy, so hat's off to GC for having faith in its members to carry on a discussion without going over the top.
> 
> nothing in life is guaranteed and there is no perfect security system. for example, more folks die in automobile accidents than in terror attacks. yet our primary concern with automobile design is making them more fuel efficient, not safer for the occupants.
> 
> ...


great post six-string. 

I find it interesting that irrational fear can be used so effectively to control human behavior. somewhere around 35 thousand people a year a killed by alcohol related driving accidents in the US. If the true goal was to prevent senseless killing and naming of citizens, this would be much easier to manage.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Rugburn said:


> At no point did I say "throw money". There's more than enough evidence to suggest that doing so is not money well spent. I felt our initial efforts in Afghanistan were a "more Canadian" approach. When we were building roads and schools, supplying clean water and food, more of our soldiers were coming home alive. I would also argue we were making a stronger more respectful impression on those we need to reach most: the folks caught in the middle. However, I digress, I'm obviously not an expert on any of these matters. I do stand by my earlier statement though, that we don't have to live like this. It takes two to Tango, good or bad.
> 
> Shawn


uh huh, i find it ironic to recall that the americans boycotted the olympics to protest over the soviet unions presence in afghanistan? the obama administration recently announced the largest military budget in history to deal with the problem so we can all feel safe.


----------



## guitarman2 (Aug 25, 2006)

bluesmostly said:


> uh huh, i find it ironic to recall that the americans boycotted the olympics to protest over the soviet unions presence in afghanistan? the obama administration recently announced the largest military budget in history to deal with the problem so we can all feel safe.



Yeah and didn't he just win the Nobel Peace Prize?


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

bluesmostly said:


> great post six-string.
> 
> I find it interesting that irrational fear can be used so effectively to control human behavior. somewhere around 35 thousand people a year a killed by alcohol related driving accidents in the US. If the true goal was to prevent senseless killing and naming of citizens, this would be much easier to manage.


There's a theory that says all of our decisions are dependent on either fear or greed. Something about the un-evolved reptilian brain, or something like that.

I like to think we're smarter than that, but a lot of days, I'm not so sure.

When I was going through training for my pilot's license, my instructor gave me some great advice that became a major life lesson for me. Essentially, he said that fear will never help you to make a correct decision, and will only cloud your judgement and contribute to making wrong decisions. If you are afraid, you have to get your fear under control, before you make any real decisions. 

You can get an entire population under your control by making them fearful, so that they will be incapable of making good decisions. In retrospect, when the fear has subsided, the decisions we made (or allowed to be made) in the midst of panic will seem ridiculous.

--- D


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

Duster said:


> You can get an entire population under your control by making them fearful, so that they will be incapable of making good decisions. In retrospect, when the fear has subsided, the decisions we made (or allowed to be made) in the midst of panic will seem ridiculous.
> 
> --- D



Unfortunately some of these decisions become legislation.....and once in place it becomes difficult to remove these bills, laws, or acts. Sometimes it's simply a nuisance. Other times it's more concerning; Patriot Act/Patriot Act II. There's no question that fear of percieved vs. real risk is something that should be taught in school, like math or science. My mother-in-law once mused that kids should be taught basic home and personal financial management in high school. I think it's a great idea. Perhaps including such classes in the typical high school curriculum might just make for sounder future economies and more reasoned law-making. Perhaps...........


Shawn


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It is difficult to know where the intentions of government end and the consequences of media saturation begin. The 24-hr news cycle ends up making the tales of the underpants bomber on the minds of many. And of course hearing about it constantly only serves to milk the "availability heuristic" for all its worth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic

Naturally, the public and pundits and newspaper letter-writers start asking "Well what are you folks going to do about it?". Then the pollsters hop on board and start plumbing the public consciousness to see how much it matters to them, and because it is so recent and omnipresent, it comes up as a pressing concern for the public.

Then, the folks in the policy shops get asked to put in overtime, and they whip up something for the minister/secretary. That gets run by the lawyers PDQ, and lo and behold, before anyone has any perspective on the matter, it's a law, or at least a directive.

There are so many ways in which public policy is a bit like a ouija board where the players will swear on a stack of bibles that they are simply doing what the situation calls for, all the while creating the very situation through means they are unaware of. You think you're being pulled, but really you're pushing.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> Unfortunately some of these decisions become legislation.....and once in place it becomes difficult to remove these bills, laws, or acts. Sometimes it's simply a nuisance. Other times it's more concerning; Patriot Act/Patriot Act II. There's no question that fear of percieved vs. real risk is something that should be taught in school, like math or science. My mother-in-law once mused that kids should be taught basic home and personal financial management in high school. I think it's a great idea. Perhaps including such classes in the typical high school curriculum might just make for sounder future economies and more reasoned law-making. Perhaps...........
> 
> 
> Shawn


I think that the high school curriculum should have an entire component called "Critical Thinking". This should span every subject matter, be it science, english, math, social studies, and art/music.

It should consist of applying sound logical principles to everything presented to them, and encourage kids to question the common wisdom or the obvious answer.

I had a great economics teacher in high school that convinced us he was a die-hard red communist for half the year, then spent the other half of the year convincing us he was a rabid, tree-burning, child-killing conservative. He challenged us from one side, then the other, and asked us to do the same. 

I want to teach a course in high school where every day a student picks a newspaper article from that day, and describes for the class how the article is essentially an advertisement, what product/service/organization it is advertising, who is paying for the advertising, and who is benefitting from it.

--- D


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

For a long time, I was a staunch advocate that probably the most important course one could take at university or college was a course in probability and statistics, since so many things people tended to embark on, or avoid, were predicated on some intuitive (and in need of honing) notion of relative probability. It could be insurance, it could be lotteries, or gambling, or sending out applications for school or work, or what programs to enroll in. Somewhere in there is a crude probability model, and actions are taken, or not, based on assumptions about probability.

But the more I think of it, the more I realize that such a course would really only cover the mathematics of it, and that's just not enough. What is equally, or perhaps more, important is the reasoning and referrent. So, "How safe is air travel, and what will increase my personal safety in some reliably detectable fashion?" Fair question, but safe compared to *what*? Identifying the appropriate baseline and point of comparison is essential to being able to derive any probability model, and basis for detecting conspicuous improvements, or the absence of such.

In the case of air travel, my model might have to include, a referent, or point of comparison that included every manner of potential deaths related to air travel. So, mid-air explosions resulting from pilot error or malfunction, collisions arising from poor traffic control, thrombosis from sitting still too long or being away from medication too long, vehicular fatalities on the way to or from the airport, crashing into Canada geese, electrical storms, Gimli-like fuel over-estimates, and a long list of other things. Then I would have to separate all air travel-related deaths connected with other sorts of aircraft than the ones most favoured by terrorists.

But is that enough? Should I include or exclude nations that have never had anyflight-related deaths on airliners? Should my model include only those destinations, or category of destinations, known to have been targets of terrorism? And so on and so on. The math behind it does not tell us what to include or exclude. It only tells us what to do once we have constructed our model.

Same thing when people talk about cancer. Cancer rates have been steadily increasing, and for some this is a surefire sign that our environment has gone to hell in a handbasket. They forget that you have to die of *something*, and that as other health issues are successfully addressed, the "something" left over to die from is cancer. If we ever managed to conquer the more prevalent forms of cancer, believe me, death from Alzheimer's disease would skyrocket. In short, the probability and incidence of various health problems is a function of what else is out there on the market. It's a constantly moving target, and any probability models have to adapt.

So, I think Duster's comment about training in critical thinking, as opposed to a more math-oriented approach, is apt. It's applying math to the big picture that is crucial, rather than statistical/probability chops applied in a decontextualized way.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

mhammer said:


> For a long time, I was a staunch advocate that probably the most important course one could take at university or college was a course in probability and statistics, since so many things people tended to embark on, or avoid, were predicated on some intuitive (and in need of honing) notion of relative probability. It could be insurance, it could be lotteries, or gambling, or sending out applications for school or work, or what programs to enroll in. Somewhere in there is a crude probability model, and actions are taken, or not, based on assumptions about probability.
> 
> But the more I think of it, the more I realize that such a course would really only cover the mathematics of it, and that's just not enough. What is equally, or perhaps more, important is the reasoning and referrent. So, "How safe is air travel, and what will increase my personal safety in some reliably detectable fashion?" Fair question, but safe compared to *what*? Identifying the appropriate baseline and point of comparison is essential to being able to derive any probability model, and basis for detecting conspicuous improvements, or the absence of such.
> 
> ...


+1. Some of the most uncritical thinkers I know are math experts. Because of their belief that math and data don't lie, they place blind faith in their analysis. I work with a lot of engineers, and their intolerance for ambiguity, subtlety, and interpretation is sometimes surprising. I don't mean to malign all engineers, just giving an example.

I think statistics is important because it teaches you about the concept of correlation. However, it doesn't tell you WHY correlation is important. One of the things I see very often, when reading about issues or statistics, or debating something with someone, is that many people don't see that correlation and causation are very different things. Many people see correlation, and assume causation. When you point out to them the difference, they think you're being cute, smart, or too technical, instead of just seeing the obvious. If it was something people were introduced to early in life, it would improve critical thinking, because it forces people to ask the question "Why?". And that's the most important question in the world.

There's a book called "Freakonomics" that did a great job bringing the concept to millions of people, because it was such a bestseller. In the book, an economist looks at a range of different, common issues in the world, and digs into the data to see if the "common wisdom" is actually accurate. By looking deeper, he uncovers different ways of looking at things and seeing connections between things. And that's critical thinking. It's a great read, and there's now a sequel out as well.

--- D


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

nkjanssen said:


> Math doesn't lie. It can be applied improperly, though.


Fair enough. I should have phrased it that way.

--- D


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

There's math, and there are inferences. Math *can* lead to inferences, but it takes math and sound reasoning to come to the *correct* ones.


----------



## bluesmostly (Feb 10, 2006)

Duster said:


> +1. Some of the most uncritical thinkers I know are math experts. Because of their belief that math and data don't lie, they place blind faith in their analysis. I work with a lot of engineers, and their intolerance for ambiguity, subtlety, and interpretation is sometimes surprising. I don't mean to malign all engineers, just giving an example.
> 
> I think statistics is important because it teaches you about the concept of correlation. However, it doesn't tell you WHY correlation is important. One of the things I see very often, when reading about issues or statistics, or debating something with someone, is that many people don't see that correlation and causation are very different things. Many people see correlation, and assume causation. When you point out to them the difference, they think you're being cute, smart, or too technical, instead of just seeing the obvious. If it was something people were introduced to early in life, it would improve critical thinking, because it forces people to ask the question "Why?". And that's the most important question in the world.
> 
> ...


good points Hammer and Duster. 

75 % of golfers have gray hair = correlation between golf and incidents of gray hair.

golf causes gray hair = causation 

coming to that seemingly obvious but false conclusion of causation is 
unfortunately the kind of quick and simple leap from correlation to causation that is made by many with something to sell (media, corps, gov). 

Freakonomics is a fun book. I love the chapter on real estate agents.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Duster said:


> +1. Some of the most uncritical thinkers I know are math experts. Because of their belief that math and data don't lie, they place blind faith in their analysis. I work with a lot of engineers, and their intolerance for ambiguity, subtlety, and interpretation is sometimes surprising. I don't mean to malign all engineers, just giving an example.
> 
> I think statistics is important because it teaches you about the concept of correlation. However, it doesn't tell you WHY correlation is important. One of the things I see very often, when reading about issues or statistics, or debating something with someone, is that many people don't see that correlation and causation are very different things. Many people see correlation, and assume causation. When you point out to them the difference, they think you're being cute, smart, or too technical, instead of just seeing the obvious. If it was something people were introduced to early in life, it would improve critical thinking, because it forces people to ask the question "Why?". And that's the most important question in the world.
> 
> ...


My wife and I have an acronym we use to refer to many of the people we work for or with: MANGs. A MANG is a middle-aged numbers guy. Could be an economist or a statistician or an accountant or a computer or physics type. Lotsa quantitative chops, but very little sense of the human sphere that math plugs into. When I went to federal language training, it felt like the hallways were littered with MANGs. They had a hard enough time expressing themselves in one language, let alone learning to make fluent conversation in a second one.

The correlation-does-not-equal-causation is what you get at the intro stats level. Once you get into path analysis and structural equation modelling, that maxim starts to crumble when you realize you can predict theory-driven networks of correlations that could only be true if your causal model was also true (i.e., empirically supportable). So correlation - if specific enough - CAN be causation. If there is a necessary serial order of two things, then correlation can also imply causation. The problem crops up when there is no necessary serial or causal order, and you're staring at a relationship that could go either way, or be driven by a third variable.

My favourite example of misuse of correlation=causation comes in the form of what management folks like to call "best practices". Personally I find there is nothing which will shake your confidence in management faster than looking through the management section at Chapters and seeing what it is they're reading these days ("be nice to people", "think ahead"; Man why didn't I *think* of that!). But setting that aside, pick up any of these books and they will be replete with case studies of places that adopt practice X. Because that company is on the Fortune 100 or 500 list, it is assumed that whatever it is they do *must* be a commendable practice that others should emulate if they desire the same success. I mean, after all, doing that, and being on the top 100 go hand in hand right? I remind people that Nortel, Enron, AIG, GM, and a number of other companies that have come to our attention for all the wrong reasons were *also* on the Fortune 100, and what they did was being pedalled as a "best practice". So, exactly how long do you need to have been on that list, and how long do you have to have used that practice, in order for the simple assumption that your success comes from that practice can be taken at face value? Nobody knows. And I mean NOBODY.

What stands tall amidst all the arguments about stats and probability is figuring out how to know when you have an outcome that is conspicuous. When I used to teach stats, I would always have a number of female students that were terrified of taking it. They had enrolled in psychology, thinking they were "safe" from math and biology. Surprise! I would assuage their fears by describing a card trick in which they pick and replace a card at random from a deck, and I pull out one card after another asking "Was this your card?". After having shown 6 cards before I found "their" card, I ask "Was this a good magic trick?". They generally say no. "Why?", I ask. "Because you were bound to find it soon anyways", they say. "Aha!" I say "You just compared an objective outcome with a known probability model of how a deck of cards behaves, and determined that, according to the probability model, the observed result was not conspicuous. And THAT is what stats is about....something you already know how to do. All we're going to do is stick some Greek letters on it, and formalize it a bit more."

The heart of it is having a solid, and comprehensive probability model, that reflects a thorough understanding of the phenomenon under consideration. There's math in there, but like I say, a whole lot more.


----------



## jimihendrix (Jun 27, 2009)

whoa...sorry i'm late for the mensa meeting...


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

I don't know about the critical thinking course, But I wish there were points scored for common sense. Seems to be lacking these days. I know may "brilliant" minds that haven't one iota of common sense.


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> I don't know about the critical thinking course, But I wish there were points scored for common sense. Seems to be lacking these days. I know may "brilliant" minds that haven't one iota of common sense.


Unfortunately, the thing about common sense, is that it isn't so common. 

However, I'm always careful about common sense, because sometimes things that seem obvious, turn out to be not so obvious once you look into it a bit deeper. For example, I have a friend of mine that wants to get a shotgun for his house, because he says it will make him and his family safer. Many people think having a weapon makes them safer because they're better able to defend themselves. I'm not going to get into the whole gun debate, but even proponents of gun ownership will say that gun ownership, without training and practice, does not make you better able to defend yourself. And even then, the issue is debatable.

But "common sense" would tell you, having a weapon gives you some kind of security. I'm just not sure it's true.

To come full circle on this thread (and hopefully back on topic), common sense tells us that having more security at airports will make airplanes more secure. I'm not sure that it's actually true.

--- D


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Duster said:


> Unfortunately, the thing about common sense, is that it isn't so common.
> 
> However, I'm always careful about common sense, because sometimes things that seem obvious, turn out to be not so obvious once you look into it a bit deeper. For example, I have a friend of mine that wants to get a shotgun for his house, because he says it will make him and his family safer. Many people think having a weapon makes them safer because they're better able to defend themselves. I'm not going to get into the whole gun debate, but even proponents of gun ownership will say that gun ownership, without training and practice, does not make you better able to defend yourself. And even then, the issue is debatable.
> 
> ...


Tell you're friend that's fine if he wants to be secure, BUT you still have to take a safety course AND it HAS to be locked up at all times. He would be better served to keep a golf club or baseball bat next to his bed.


----------



## Rugburn (Jan 14, 2009)

What was this thread about again?...........




Shawn :smile:


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> What was this thread about again?...........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Safety! didn't meant to derail the thread!!! As you were....


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Rugburn said:


> What was this thread about again?...........
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey, come on, I brought it back on topic with my last post! 

--- D


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

Starbuck said:


> Tell you're friend that's fine if he wants to be secure, BUT you still have to take a safety course AND it HAS to be locked up at all times. He would be better served to keep a golf club or baseball bat next to his bed.


I tell him that a course and a locked up gun aren't going to help him shoot two or three experienced, armed criminals when they do a home-invasion and try to murder him and violate his wife. Especially at 3am when he rolls out of bed without his contact lenses in. (That's his created "scenario" that he wants to protect himself from.)

I told him to get a bigger dog, it would do him a lot more good.

--- D


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

Duster said:


> I tell him that a course and a locked up gun aren't going to help him shoot two or three experienced, armed criminals when they do a home-invasion and try to murder him and violate his wife. Especially at 3am when he rolls out of bed without his contact lenses in. (That's his created "scenario" that he wants to protect himself from.)
> 
> I told him to get a bigger dog, it would do him a lot more good.
> 
> --- D


better yet, tell him to try living in a community where there aren't 2-3 armed criminals looking to do a home-invasion and try to murder him and violate his wife!
hate to say it but that sort of paranoid scenario sounds like your buddy has been watching too many Death Wish movies. and buying a gun is just buying into that Hollywood macho hero crap too. real life is seldom if ever like it is in the movies.
what does your law of probabilities say are the likelihood of that scene happening?
probably very very slim.
yeah get a dog if you want. get to know your neighbours. look out for them and they will look out for you.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

the thing is, i don't know if it's even _possible_ to have too much chocolate pudding. i can't ever remember once saying to myself "that was enough, i'm glad i don't have anymore" and meaning it. 
i mean c'mon, it's chocolate, and it's pudding. 
at the same time.
in the same place. 
what more could anyone ask for?


----------



## six-string (Oct 7, 2009)

cheezyridr said:


> the thing is, i don't know if it's even _possible_ to have too much chocolate pudding. i can't ever remember once saying to myself "that was enough, i'm glad i don't have anymore" and meaning it.
> i mean c'mon, it's chocolate, and it's pudding.
> at the same time.
> in the same place.
> what more could anyone ask for?


well that's different...if someone is trying to break in and violate your chocolate pudding, i say- show no mercy!


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

six-string said:


> well that's different...if someone is trying to break in and violate your chocolate pudding, i say- show no mercy!


That may be my friend's real fear. Having his chocolate pudding violated.

But it looks like they'll start doing that at airports soon anyway.

--- D


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

violated pudding...the horror!!!!!!!


----------



## ne1roc (Mar 4, 2006)

This is perfect!

[YOUTUBE]yZfbTlYpKYo[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Breaking news:
>
> The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist
> threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." a
> Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or
> even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the
> blitz in 1940 when tea supplies all but ran out.
>
> Terrorists have been re-categorised from "Tiresome" to a "Bloody Nuisance."
>
> The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was
> during the great fire of 1666.
>
> The Scots raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the
> Bastards" They don't have any other levels.
>
> This is the reason they have been used on the front line in the British
> army for the last 300 years.
>
> The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror
> alert level from "Run" to "Hide". The only two higher levels in France
> are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent
> fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing
> the country's military capability.
>
> It's not only the French who are on a heightened level of alert. Italy
> has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to
> "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective
> Combat Operations"
>
> and "Change Sides."
>
> The Germans also increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance"
> to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher
>
> levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose".
>
> Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual, and the only
> threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels .
>
> The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy.
>
> These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish
> navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
>
> Americans meanwhile are carrying out pre-emptive strikes on all of their
> allies, just in case.
>
> New Zealand has also raised its security levels - from "baaa" to "BAAAA!".
>
> Due to continuing defence cutbacks (the air force being a squadron of
> spotty teenagers flying paper aeroplanes and the navy some toy boats in
> the Prime Minister's bath), New Zealand only has one more level of
> escalation, which is "Sh!t, I hope Australia will come and rescue us".
>
> Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries"
> to "She'll be alright, mate". Three more escalation levels remain,
> "Crikey!', "I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend" and
> "The barbie is cancelled". So far no situation has ever warranted use of
> the final escalation level.


----------



## Starbuck (Jun 15, 2007)

They Forgot one:

Canada in the meantime is standing by for cleanup!!!!!




cheezyridr said:


> Breaking news:
> >
> > The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist
> > threats and have raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." a
> ...


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

I'm not a terrorist (in the conventional sense), but I am looking forward to having a whole new audience (airport security) forced to look at my wang. As I travel fairly frequently, I may begin to position it more lewdly prior to arriving at the airport.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

Diablo said:


> I'm not a terrorist (in the conventional sense), but I am looking forward to having a whole new audience (airport security) forced to look at my wang. As I travel fairly frequently, I may begin to position it more lewdly prior to arriving at the airport.


i'm getting this image in my mind of derek smalls from spinal tap pulling a cucumber wrapped in aluminum foil from his drawers. hahahaha


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

> The rise was precipitated by a recent
> > fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralysing
> > the country's military capability.


Coffee just came out my nose!!!!!!!!
>


> These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish
> > navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.


I'm ok - I just snorted it back in lofu


----------



## RIFF WRATH (Jan 22, 2007)

just read an artical on the dude from "Blackstone".............they were active in Iraq and Afganistan and Syria............allegedly with CIA santion and US gov't approval.............(currently in deep kaka)...............anyway dude say's somthing to the effect that the terrorists are really making our lives uncomfortable and scary.........but we are doing nothing to make them uncomfortable................still thinking on that one..............and BTW I consider myself somewhat of a pacifist.............(unless personally threatened in my own yard).................


----------



## Duster (Dec 28, 2007)

I think they're called Blackwater... the private security force, right?

Those dudes are all ex-military, ex-special forces. I respect the work they've done, but I don't necessarily trust their opinion on foreign affairs. I think they've likely got enough members with PTSD to make for a statistically significant clinical trial. 

Have you ever heard the expression, "When all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail?"

--- D



RIFF WRATH said:


> just read an artical on the dude from "Blackstone".............they were active in Iraq and Afganistan and Syria............allegedly with CIA santion and US gov't approval.............(currently in deep kaka)...............anyway dude say's somthing to the effect that the terrorists are really making our lives uncomfortable and scary.........but we are doing nothing to make them uncomfortable................still thinking on that one..............and BTW I consider myself somewhat of a pacifist.............(unless personally threatened in my own yard).................


----------

