Aviation

[mkilly]

If we only wanted to protect everybody from death, the speed limit would be five miles per hour. We make tradeoffs so that people are as safe as we can without being unreasonable.

Terrorism works because we get spooked and radically change our way of doing things because of it.

Now, just because terrorists want something (like us to be spooked about it to the point of banning outside beverage on planes) doesn't mean we shouldn't do that. Our goal should be zero airplane attacks per year, but we should go about that goal with the most efficient way possible. Forcing passengers to dump their wine, Chanel No. 5, Coca-Cola, shaving cream, shower gel, K-Y jelly, and whatever else strikes me as unreasonable and hardly helping things. "Inconvenience or dying" is a false dichotomy: we can have inconvenience and death, and we can have convenience and life. Let's try for convenience and life, shall we?

[rogerroll]

Forcing passengers to dump their wine, Chanel No. 5, Coca-Cola, shaving cream, shower gel, K-Y jelly, and whatever else strikes me as unreasonable and hardly helping things.

This reminds me of that milk bucket we had in Elementary school, where everyone who didn't finish their milk had to dump it in the bucket and it got all gross. Did anyone else have that?

And China Air was way ahead of the game when I flew to and from Beijing this summer. They Shanghai'd me of my Chinese bottled water quite quickly.

[fodroy]

But who needs lotion, shaving cream, shower gel, etc. on a plane?

As long as they don't ban snakes... 8)

[Caravan Ray]

Call me fussy, but for trans-Pacific flights I would like toothpaste. Don't like going 16 hours without toothpaste.

[Denyer]

they don't expect us to fly without beer do they?

[roymond]

Call me fussy, but for trans-Pacific flights I would like toothpaste. Don't like going 16 hours without toothpaste.

I have an idea. Just take, oh about a tablespoon of baking soda, and carry it in one of those little ziplock bags, you know the ones about the size of a compact flash memory card? That shouldn't look suspicious.

[Plushpolly]

I like to compare the word "terrorist" now, to the world "communist" 50 years ago. The government makes a lot of money by installing new toys, and generally scaring the shit out of everyone in airports. Not to mention fear means conflict and conflict always makes money. It always boils down to the same thing

[mkilly]

http://www.slate.com/id/2147500/

here's an article on Slate about liquids and airplanes. the broad point made is that ingesting small amounts of bomb-making liquids in front of a security guard won't make one immediately vomit and expire, and an interesting P.S. is that the guys who were trying to pull the plot off in england were alleged to use gatorade bottles with false bottoms (which would defeat the purpose anyway.)

[Caravan Ray]

Call me fussy, but for trans-Pacific flights I would like toothpaste. Don't like going 16 hours without toothpaste.

I have an idea. Just take, oh about a tablespoon of baking soda, and carry it in one of those little ziplock bags, you know the ones about the size of a compact flash memory card? That shouldn't look suspicious.

That's actually a good idea. I was trying to think of some 'dry' alternative if they were really serious about taking my toothpaste - I hadn't thought of baking soda. But I wouldn't use the little bags - I'll probaby put it in a condom and insert it in my anus, which is a convenient, 'hands-free' way of carrying all sorts of things.

[mkilly]

from an article, "<a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg ... 3-5.pdf">A False Sense of Insecurity?</a>"

How much should we be willing to pay for a small reduction in probabilities that are already extremely low?

How much should we be willing to pay for actions that are primarily reassuring but do little to change the actual risk?

How can measures such as strengthening the public health system, which provide much broader benefits than those against terrorism, get the attention they deserve?

[fodroy]

How can commie bastards like mkilly finally be satisfied?

[Plushpolly]

communism is an idea

[a bebop a rebop]

so is humor

[erik]

I like to compare the word "terrorist" now, to the world "communist" 50 years ago. The government makes a lot of money by installing new toys, and generally scaring the shit out of everyone in airports. Not to mention fear means conflict and conflict always makes money. It always boils down to the same thing

Communists 50 years ago weren't blowing up buildings and people. Terrorists nowadays aren't merely people who ascribe to a certain set of beliefs about how governments should operate. You actually have to *do* something to be a terrorist.

How does the government make money from scaring the shit out of people at airports?

[mkilly]

I like to compare the word "terrorist" now, to the world "communist" 50 years ago. The government makes a lot of money by installing new toys, and generally scaring the shit out of everyone in airports. Not to mention fear means conflict and conflict always makes money. It always boils down to the same thing

Communists 50 years ago weren't blowing up buildings and people.

Not in America. They sure were in Poland, and Vietnam, and Korea, and China, etc., etc.

[rogerroll]

Hooray proxy wars!

[j$]

Hey I was meant to be flying on holiday today. We arrived, went to check in, there were no BA staff at all anywhere to be seen, just around 1,000 confused looking would be travellers. Eventually one poor lady with a megaphone go us all to stand outside the terminal (in the pouring rain) for an hour or so before we heard by rumour that they had cancelled our flight. Same poor lady still couldn't tell us whether or not this was true - the board was saying our flight was boarding. Except that there was no-one to take our luggage. Eventualy, yes, our flight was cancelled. They said we could try and get on a later flight but there was no guarantee, so we turned round and went home. Maybe we'll try and fly tomorrow, maybe we'll just stay home instead.

I don't have any animosity towards the airport staff, but the fact was the flight was there, and ready to go, and sheer numbers of people who had turned up nice 'n' early as requested, had caused the check-in procedure to collapse. Didn't even get to shoe-removing security checks.

I guess my point is not whether this is terrorism working or not. It's how easy (one rather draconian secuity measure) it is to bring an entire infra-structure grinding to a halt.

j$

[Plushpolly]

Erik & mk: I meant that to mean the way the government focuses on one group to instill fear in the American people. 50 years ago it was the communists, now it's the terrorists. Historically, the USA have been the biggest perpetrators of terrorism throughout the world. If they're adding security to airports all over the country they're paying them and a good chunk of their pay is going right back to the gov. (to name one example of how they're making money off of it) The actual threat of communism to the US gov. is that countries where we get our raw matierials, cheap labor etc might actually take control of their governments and put American investors at risk of losing money. Yes the terrorists are more lethal today but all the more reason to ask our beloved government, "Why have you sent them weapons?" Do you really think the USA accidently let 9/11 happen? There is plently of money and power at stake in the middle east right now. . .

[mc3p0]

Forcing passengers to dump their wine, Chanel No. 5, Coca-Cola, shaving cream, shower gel, K-Y jelly, and whatever else strikes me as unreasonable and hardly helping things.

Escpecially galling when cargo shipping uses the completely ineffectual "random" testing to "secure America's ports". This entire "fluid explosive" scare is manufactured, is tied to the group who brought us 7/7 and 9/11.

I predict that those 23 Brittish citizens will be released before the 28-day cap. It's also ironic that these "terrorists" were immediately being tied with members of Parliment.

[a bebop a rebop]

I will freely admit that I'm mostly ignorant of the entire situation, but I don't understand how anything you just said was related to each other, or what it means for the most part. Please, cite sources, and more importantly don't assume that everyone else shares your conspiracy-centric worldview. I'm interested in what you have to say, I just don't understand what cargo shipping has to do with it, or what "group who brought us 7/7 and 9/11" you're talking about, or how these citizens who are being held are tied to members of Parliament.

[mc3p0]

Canadian American Strategic Review provides some clarification:

Since the attacks of 9/11, ships bound for the United States, regardless of their registry, face a multi-layered, interagency security screening that extends well beyond the enforcement of traditional safety, environmental, and operational standards. Each incoming vessel must now provide a 96-hour advance notice of arrival to the Coast Guard's National Vessel Movement Center. Crew and passenger information, cargo details, and voyage history all must be reported.

Highly trained and specially equipped Maritime Safety and Security Teams [MSSTs] add an extra layer of security and quick-response capabilities in key US ports. An expanded Sea Marshal program and random boardings also improve security and help us to retain the initiative and element of surprise.

The current Container Security Initiative In Brief:

CBP’s goal is to have 50 operational CSI ports by the end of fiscal year 2006. At that time, approximately 90 percent of all transatlantic and transpacific cargo imported into the United States will be subjected to prescreening.

House Passes $7.4 Billion Port Security Bill shows us some money changing hands, but with some difficulty:

But House Republicans blocked consideration of a Democratic amendment that would have required that all cargo be screened before it leaves foreign ports for the United States. The Senate Homeland Security Committee, in drafting its companion bill earlier this week, added a pilot program at three foreign ports to test the feasibility of 100 percent screening.

House GOP leaders called Democratic push unreasonable.

"One hundred percent screening of every container will shut down worldwide shipping overnight," said House Majority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). He added that a House-passed feasibility study is a "practical, common-sense approach to the issue."

Imo, there are many more opportunities to "terrorize" where resources aren't currently focused. Makes some sense?

Regarding my "conspiracy-centric worldview", simply type "911 conspiracy" into Google and git'r'dun..

Or, you could please provide proof of three thingies that I cannot seem to locate regarding Flight77's Pentagon wreckage:
1. bodies or pieces thereof.
2. luggage or personal effects.
3. 757 airframe pieces.

We could also continue this into the relm of the physics involved for a non-vacuum implosion vs. what happened to WTC1, 2 & 7. This is just the first thing I selected from research assistant McGoogle.

There is also the matter of examining sulfur residue on the pre-cleanup molten WTC2. I suppose this could be useful.

Regarding 7/7, if you aren't aware of the timeline, the police statements and the Kingstar van, I recommend: linky.

The Retort blogs sometimes has interesting data somewhat pre-correlated, argued and refined.

[Plushpolly]

my kinda conspiracy nut. . .