Posts
Though many variations find their way into our conversations (especially since 9/11), Franklin once wrote in quotes in his notes for a proposition at the Pennsylvania Assembly, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
A paraphrased version inevitably pops up in virtually every conversation involving airport security crackdowns. I find this a misuse of the phrase. Often when it’s applied, the user is really complaining about inconvenience rather than poetically citing an unjust sacrifice of Essential Liberty.
When you strap on your seat belt, what Essential Liberty is being taken from you? Driving isn’t a right to begin with. You are still free to choose whether or not to buckle up or whether to drive in the first place. I say it’s an inconvenience worth the sacrifice.
What about Child-Proof caps and safety seals on meds? Is this a sacrifice of Essential Liberty or an inconvenience that saves lives from being taken by those with sinister minds?
Sure an all-out ban on guns would suit Franklin's terminology. But, when we talk about full-body scanners (The most recent heat applied to the topic of Airport Security), we talk about inconvenience not Essential Liberty. What freedom is one sacrificing to wait an extra hour to board a trans-Atlantic flight? How much time would it have taken Franklin to cross an ocean? I fear he would not sympathize for or empathize with those using his immortal phrase to justify disdain for inconvenience.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Powell Mystery Overshadows Latest Discovery
The Nation is following a story involving a missing-Utahn named Susan Powell. Today a body was found near Wendover. Another story worthy of Nationwide scrutiny is that of a Utah cop who was shot and killed during a traffic stop in Millard County.
Today was the day of Josie Fox's Memorial Service and shortly thereafter (if not during) all relevant media providers scrambled for the even-further, west desert to capture a scoop. A body had been discovered wrapped in plastic and duct tape. After MANY reports anticipating a BREAK in an ongoing story, hours of 'feeling the story out' dealt a mustached, 'Hispanic' male cadaver.
Still, pieces reported moved to more speculation on the missing Mrs. Powell without the slightest consideration for who this dead man might be.
Beyond that, left behind is a current mystery involving unfolding details of Fox's case including her own brother's involvement in the alleged transaction that lead to her being ordered to make a stop on her executioner.
What gives? The scoop or what is actually going on? Do we consumers of media demand this sort of hype?
Invasion of the Body Scanners
I’m not convinced pride is the best argument against using full Body Scanners at airport security check points, though I understand why passengers sporting colostomy appliances, catheter tubes, penile implants or evidence of mastectomies might strongly support alternative measures (arguments the ACLU has made).
My concerns stem from ignorance more than anything. First I wonder to what extent this type of radiation might prove less than healthy in the long-run for frequent fliers. Second, I wonder if a device like this would even detect explosives such as those sewn into the underwear of our latest would-be mass murderer. Even if it would, do we know it will make apparent EVERY explosive that can be made into clothing?
Are we just chasing our own tails with this stuff? What are the unintended consequences associated with total reliance on this type of expenditure? When ‘The Club’ came out as an anti-theft device, car-thieves became car-jackers, a far more sinister plot.
Those who intend to harm us will find another way. They will adapt even evolve like the Swine Flu. They are not going to make attempts they know will fail which might explain why we don’t hear too many (if any) stories of airport security foiling a terror plot.
Alternatives? Do we even need any? Any alternative will be met with the evolution of our enemies. I’m not suggesting we make it easier for terrorists to bring down an airliner, but it seems airport security is doing fairly well given the history of flight into and out of the USA. I fear a full body scan might actually do harm by leading to complacency and a very narrow focus on only things the eye can see with the aid of scanner technology.
My concerns stem from ignorance more than anything. First I wonder to what extent this type of radiation might prove less than healthy in the long-run for frequent fliers. Second, I wonder if a device like this would even detect explosives such as those sewn into the underwear of our latest would-be mass murderer. Even if it would, do we know it will make apparent EVERY explosive that can be made into clothing?
Are we just chasing our own tails with this stuff? What are the unintended consequences associated with total reliance on this type of expenditure? When ‘The Club’ came out as an anti-theft device, car-thieves became car-jackers, a far more sinister plot.
Those who intend to harm us will find another way. They will adapt even evolve like the Swine Flu. They are not going to make attempts they know will fail which might explain why we don’t hear too many (if any) stories of airport security foiling a terror plot.
Alternatives? Do we even need any? Any alternative will be met with the evolution of our enemies. I’m not suggesting we make it easier for terrorists to bring down an airliner, but it seems airport security is doing fairly well given the history of flight into and out of the USA. I fear a full body scan might actually do harm by leading to complacency and a very narrow focus on only things the eye can see with the aid of scanner technology.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)