Saturday February 6, 2016
Jump to content
A letter to the editor says:
Our combined voices, along with members of Congress, have brought about the Keep Knives out of our Skies Act.”
TSA nixed the plan to allow small knives and other previously banned carry-ons ... which is no small victory for the traveling public. Our voices were heard.
• Who is "our" in "our combined voices?"
• Which "members of Congress?"
• Victory for "the traveling public?" Was "the traveling public" asked about it?
• Does the additional time and money spent checking for even the tiniest bit of metal, and confiscating, without return, anything some TSA inspector thinks you shouldn't have--such as Trim Trio pocket key holder--really make flying any safer?
Here's what I read about who is pushing this law written by two New York and New Jersey Senators:
From CBS News:
"The Coalition of Flight Attendant Unions, which represents some 90,000 flight attendants, is handing out leaflets at airports across the country, encouraging passengers to sign a “No Knives on Planes” petition on the White House website."
That's "our" combined voices?
My question about this is simple and logical:
9/11 was made possible by the fact that we lived in a normal world where it was not necessary to harden the cockpit doors of our aircraft against some nut who wants to do harm. In those days anyone could just open the doors and walk in.
The ban against items which could be used threaten the cockpit crew was partly temporary. It included items which in no way could get through a hardened door, and which were normally carried by people in their pockets or purses. An example is the little Trim Trio used as a keychain holder; it has a tiny nail file, screwdriver tip, and nail paring knife in it. Another example would be the small nail file found in almost any woman's purse.
Once we followed what the Israeli's had long since done, and had made the cockpit door an impassible barrier to anyone without a prybar--or perhaps a gun to fire through the door--we were able to change the list of banned items, eliminating small, basically harmless items.
The gain was, of course, in cost, time, and convenience for the passengers, and a reduction in our taxes, which pay for the screening personnel.
Look at what happened. Has it helped us or hurt us?
People who are willing to give up even a small amount of their freedoms, for some semblance of security, deserve neither.
Passengers were searched and screened long before 911.
My daughter flew to Kansas City in 1972 or 73. She set off an alarm when she went thru the arch.
She took off her belt buckle, rang again, took off watch band, earrings and bracelet. Then she had to take off her boots. She was going to the FFA National convention. They finally gave up and let her board the plane. The same thing happened in Kansas City when she came home. No one ever figured out what was setting off the alarm.
My son and husband went hunting in Colo. and my son set off the alarm. Same thing, took off belt buckle, boots, turned pockets wrong side out took his money and still the alarm went off. Finally figured out it was his 4 packs of cigarettes he had in his pocket.
Seems after this long they could get a screening system that would do some good.
These stories remind me of a time long ago, before 9/11. We had been invited to an out of town wedding. For various reasons, I could not go. However, I purchased a pair of crystal candle holders, and wrapped them up very nicely. If I remember correctly, in addition to the bow I tied on a pair of white wedding bells. I insisted that my husband take it as a carry on so that the wrapping would not be ruined. Well, as my husband went through security, security personnel became very curious about what was in this very nicely wrapped package. They were about to open it up, when my husband said, "My wife will kill me if I bring an opened package to the wedding." After much discussion and explanation about candlestick holders my husband was allowed to go through security with the unopened package. P.S. I wouldn't have killed him because he probably wouldn't tell me if the package had been opened. :-)
We ended "profiling" as an way to screen terrorists. Now the metal detectors are one of the tools remaining legal. I feel that we should use profiling globally. Then perhaps the inconvenience of strip searches, metal detectors, etc. could be very limited.
"They finally gave up and let her board the plane."
No doubt a magnetic personality. :-)
"I wouldn't have killed him because he probably wouldn't tell me if the package had been opened."
I see you married one of the three wise men.
Fred, you are dead right. "Profiling," about which I just bought two books I am looking forward to reading, is not guesswork or prejudice, it is science. In reading a book about the FBI I read a couple of things about how to tell when someone is telling the truth. Just for the halibut I tried them out. They were absolutely spang on.
If you are looking for an Islamic terrorist and it doesn't make good sense to take a little harder look at someone who speaks with an Arabic accent, has a beard and an olive complexion, is carrying a copy of the Koran, and wearing an armband that says, "Hate America!" I'd like to know what does. Profiling is nothing more than being aware of facts that can point toward the need to do your job more thoroughly at times. Sometimes the facts are very minor, but VERY significant. As long as we don't unnecessarily treat honest people in a bad way we are okay.
Posting comments requires a free account