Scissors, lighters, bottles of hand lotion, the Costitution of the United States...

[Kuciwalker]

This is worrying, MtG. You're becoming nearly as dull as Oerdin.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


How many lives have been saved, and how many terrist acts have been prevented, because of our policy of random selection of 70 year old white people? If we didn't randomly select some 70 year old white people, it'd be a victory for the terrists. After all, they hate us for our freedom...

And only a non-veteran (zit-popping doesn't count) tool wouldn't understand the point about being a decorated vet.

It may well be that random selection doesnt pass cost-benefit muster. But that hardly means its a threat to the first amendment, which the profs letter seems to imply his treatment was.

It might be possible to retain random selection, but excluded certain individuals. I think if you recommened including race as a criterion for that youd run into some difficulties.

Age? Maybe, but I could see problems with that.
Veteran status? I dunno, unless hes got an ID of some kind, or they tie in a database of all decorated veterans.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's funny that you keep typing up these responses that have nothing to do with the posts they quote.

hint: I never spoke to the utility of random searches.

hint: "Add self-important prof decides that he's clearly above random selection"

If deciding one was above random selection, when one is a 70-something whitey, contributes to being "self-important" (if not, why refer to it in the same sentence?), then that would perhaps be implicitly connected to the "self-important prof" not quite realizing the utility of said random selection...

[Kuciwalker]

Everyone also knows that veterans have a sparkling record of mental stability. And it's not like they know anything about explosives. It is absolutely inconceivable that a veteran could ever decide to commit a terrorist act.

xpost

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This is worrying, MtG. You're becoming nearly as dull as Oerdin.

This is worrying, Kuci. You seem to think my job here is to entertain you, rather than entertain myself.

Nice job of responding to the trolls, though.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
hint: "Add self-important prof decides that he's clearly above random selection"

That doesn't speak to the utility of random selection.

If deciding one was above random selection, when one is a 70-something whitey, contributes to being "self-important" (if not, why refer to it in the same sentence?), then that would perhaps be implicitly connected to the "self-important prof" not quite realizing the utility of said random selection...

It's not that he's a 70-something whitey. It's that he was very visibly a distinguished legal scholar and decorated veteran, and the security people ought to have noticed. But it's okay if the little people are randomly selected.

[Dinner]

Something does need to be improved with the terrorism watch list. Specifically how people's names get put on there and how they can get their names off of the list. With sevral U.S. Congressmen being put on the watch list and being unable to remove their names for months on end something needs to change.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
This is worrying, Kuci. You seem to think my job here is to entertain you, rather than entertain myself.

It's still a bit sad to be the only one chuckling at your own jokes.

Nice job of responding to the trolls, though.

Ah, the eternal cop-out.

[Kuciwalker]

I support having Congressmen on the watch list it ought to help deflate their egos.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Consider: why the hell would they actually add Bush-detractors on the watch list? What does it gain them?

I'm not sure how people get on the watch list but it does seem to be a big mystery. One thing is certain though and that is the list is hugely flawed so flawed its making people wonder if it is much use at all.

[Kuciwalker]

Oh it's flawed all right. Just bureaucratic-****up flawed, not 1984 flawed.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


It may well be that random selection doesnt pass cost-benefit muster. But that hardly means its a threat to the first amendment, which the profs letter seems to imply his treatment was.

It might be possible to retain random selection, but excluded certain individuals. I think if you recommened including race as a criterion for that youd run into some difficulties.

Age? Maybe, but I could see problems with that.
Veteran status? I dunno, unless hes got an ID of some kind, or they tie in a database of all decorated veterans.

That's the whole problem - do what we can say "looks good" or "feels good" but which isn't cost-benefit effective in providing real security.

With items which can now pass hand inspection, I could easily assemble a device which would bring down a commercial airliner in flight.

The identified, known threat is from a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic males with an obsession for attacks on commercial flights. Whether people think it's PC or not, it's a lot more security effective to increase the "random" inspection of 18-45 year old male travelers of certain ethnic backgrounds, and decrease the "random" inspection of US-born citizens above 50-60 years old, to say, somewhere around zero. If we find evidence of a terrorist cell amongst a local whitebread homeowner's association or the local version of Sun City bridge club set, then we can reassess the security value of how we profile random searches.

Any suggestion that "random" searches are meaningful from a security aspect are just ridiculous. They have to be profiled to be effective - we don't have a "random" threat, we have a narrow one, with no evidence beyond one easily trackable moron (Padilla) of expansion of that threat beyond its original demographic.

Meanwhile, we play with taking shoes off, lipstick, and where you get your bottle of water or your Starbucks, and ignore quite a large number of potentially real threats in terms of items which could be used to create an on-board explosive device.

[Dinner]

With items which can now pass hand inspection, I could easily assemble a device which would bring down a commercial airliner in flight.

What are you McGuyver?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I support having Congressmen on the watch list it ought to help deflate their egos.

Well one of them is a murderer, so it would only be natural for additional scrutiny to be paid.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
hint: "Add self-important prof decides that he's clearly above random selection"

That doesn't speak to the utility of random selection.

It implies he fails to realize that utility, else he would submit without getting uppity and "self-important."

Since one can't generally be faulted for failing to realize that which does not exist, the implication is that there must be some level of utility above zero, instead of the real level of utility, which is less than zero.

It's not that he's a 70-something whitey. It's that he was very visibly a distinguished legal scholar and decorated veteran, and the security people ought to have noticed. But it's okay if the little people are randomly selected.

As long as they're little and brown and have funny names, yes, let's "randomly" select about 90% of them, instead of wasting time with old whiteys, whether it's to prove we're PC and really random, or Nixonian paranoia, or bureaucratic incompetence.