22 November 2010

Video of the week -- airport security

Even if you don't speak Japanese, you'll get it. Found via Plead Ignorance.


Blogger Jack Jodell said...

HAAAAAAA!!! Quite deservedly, we are the laughingstock of the world!

22 November, 2010 14:08  
Blogger Nance said...

Boy, am I ambivalent on this one! I traveled right after the new rules went into effect and I was wearing a loose tunic top. I got patted down, but I was expecting it. There were some folks on the plane that I'd mentally "profiled," so I was grateful for the new scrutiny. I tend to think that, overall, we are slow to beef up security nationwide in response to threat, so I assume there were numerous provocations we don't know about to prompt these drastic measures.

And my cynical side says, "Yeah, right."

22 November, 2010 16:40  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

There's also this.

22 November, 2010 16:40  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

Heh, heh, heh, heh, heh ... I'll tell you this much ... if I fly, I will choose the pat down only until I find out if there is any validity on what several scientist's have been trying to ask TSA about, concerning the radiation output in the scanner's, beside's ... I been searched more time's than I can count. But I will also tell the fella who searches me ahead of time ... "Dont get upset homeboy, if you slide that glove along my dick and it get's hard". :)

22 November, 2010 22:47  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

I just see no reason to believe that all the airport security theater is doing anything to improve safety. As best I can recall, I've never heard of a single case of a would-be terrorist attack being prevented by it -- and if there had been, I'm sure we would have heard, since we hear about it when attacks are prevented by other means.

There's also the question of how much cost (in time, money, inconvenience, or anything else) is justified by an extremely tiny gain in security. If you put on kevlar armor and rode in an armored car every time you went one block from your house to buy a candy bar, you'd be very slightly safer than otherwise, but there are good reasons why nobody does that.

Meanwhile, more people are driving long-distance because flying is becoming so unattractive, and it's estimated that this is increasing car-crash fatalities by about 500 per year because driving is so much more dangerous than flying, given the same distance. So, arguably, security theater is actually costing us a couple of planeloads of people a year.

23 November, 2010 00:50  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Public opinion seems to be shifting rapidly against security theater.

23 November, 2010 01:03  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

Some great points Infodel, as far as the amoured vehicle and the security theatre Vs. actual safety. I actually havent flown in awhile, and really dont know much of a damn thing about this. But that is decent point that we need to look at ... cost, time, gridlock, and most importantly ... does it actually do a damn bit of good as far as obstructing terror attempt's? Reason also I wonder is because, if I was a terrorist frankly, and I knew the airport is too tight, why wouldnt I just plan some other attack, in the hope's of a probability of having more success? Example ... the Guy who followed an FBI sting in Dallas a year or so ago, attempted to blow up a 60/ 65 story bank tower in downtown Dallas. When the plan for the attack was being mapped out on option's and so forth, he declined to try to do an attack on both plan's at Lovefield Airport as well as Dallas- Fort Worth International, because he said the security was too tight, and that was before any of this screening, so I wonder too(?).

A far as what Nance said ... about "mentally profiling" ... that had me busting a gut in laughter ... geeeezzz ... we have to bloody try to profile everyone these day's. :)

23 November, 2010 05:44  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

BTW Infodel, Thanx for the Times review link's on the scanner's Vs. public opinion, etc. This has been another hilarious uproar because these opinion's can change like the bloody wind change's course.

Hey man ... I got this solution to all this shit, and it's cheap. Remember those ad article's in the back of magazine's back in the 1960/ 1970's or so .... that advertised "X- Ray Spectacle's", had an animation of some dude wearing spec's and looking at some curvy chick walking down the street with a big smile on his face and tongue hanging out like Rover? Let's buy a bunch of them, and have security wear them. :) Just kiddin Guy. :)

23 November, 2010 05:53  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Consider Israel. Their airport security really works, because it has to -- how long has it been since you heard of an Israeli airliner being hijacked or destroyed by terrorists, much as you know they'd love to get one? Israeli airport security isn't concerned with politics or theater or political correctness -- it needs to actually work to protect people. They mostly rely on profiling.

23 November, 2010 06:39  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

"X- Ray Spectacle's", had an animation of some dude wearing spec's and looking at some curvy chick walking down the street with a big smile on his face and tongue hanging out like Rover?

I think this is basically what the TSA is doing, only it costs a lot more.

23 November, 2010 07:41  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

Actually it's a "positive" I reckon that so many folk's are bitchin, moanin, and bellyachin over this ... because ... I figure if 90% of the people said they liked it, and feel extra secure ... knowing the goddamn airline's ... they would figure out a way to charge an extra $25 per scan, and about $40 buck's for the pat down ... as a service fee. Knowing some of our political rep's though, especially on the GOP side ... they would want to "privatize" the whole thing, bring in security personel contract from China, then charge us for that ... take the profit's and invest them in Pakistan! :)

23 November, 2010 09:51  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home