Skip to main content

national insecurity

i'm just thrilled to learn that air travel, thanks to new security regulations, will now mean longer line-ups than ever (arrive three hours in advance? what if i have an early morning flight? the damn counters aren't even open before 5:30), less chance of having luggage space to carry on books, music and anything else that might make a long flight bearable (i guess i'm supposed to succumb to the dubious charms of the in-flight entertainment) and being felt up before entering the plane by someone who likely flunked out of the police academy.

i've spent most of the holidays hearing about the nigerian student who allegedly attempted to blow up a northwest airlines flight. i've heard all about his family relations. i've even been subjected to pictures of his underpants (i really hope those brown stains are burn marks, i really, really do). and as if days of hysteria and hyperbole weren't dispiriting enough, the last few shreds of tolerability have now been stripped away from air travel.

people better versed in terrorism than i are already insisting that none of these tactics work. and their logic makes sense: nothing creates a panic faster than leaders who seem to be panicking themselves. furthermore, not one of these restrictions actually addresses the serious security failures at issue in this particular incident- that the person responsible managed to get on board with items that were already contraband and that a young man whose name was on a terrorist watch list was granted a visa to the united states.

governments in north america have been trying to convince potential terrorists and their own citizens that they know how to handle these sorts of situations. they don't. and if they want to learn, they should start by listening to people who do have experience.

unfortunately, the sort of chest-beating and sabre-rattling that keeps some world leaders from looking into the reasons why violent fringe groups are able to recruit across a broad spectrum of nations and cultures also keeps them from admitting what they don't know and seeking the counsel of those who would be able to offer meaningful help.

i think i'll just stay home.

Comments

Martin Rouge said…
All of those magical measures have all but one aim: public relations. As other commentators have pointed out, the US have been beating their chests about not being subjected to terrorist attacks since 9-11, but seriously, terrorists have a fairly heavy competition due to the home grown wackjobs who shoot cops and coworkers for less than religious reasons on a semi-regular basis, without having to be put through any sort of ideological conditioning.

Putting up new, more invasive security theater in force has only one real target, and that's the viewing public. It looks like that the government is in charge and doing something... that the National Guards patrolling the airports post 9-11 couldn't actually stop suicide idiots once that place was in the air has no consequence; the traveling public en route to Disney could feel save that there were people that looked like they could stop bad guys like they did in the movies.

Using watchlists has stopped no one (except Cat Stevens) from flying, but it has gotten toddlers body searches by minimum wage subcontractors aplenty. Contraband keeps on passing through, jackasses keep on going on and about and all the virulent rhetorics keep on being spewed on AM radio.

The US have 14 spy agencies supposedly supposed to keep the nation safe; the only problem is that they are all in competition with each other, just like the various levels of police agencies, all gunning for the same targets, all vying to be the ones to brag at the news conference. All that the inquiries and other bureaucratic circus shows have demonstrated is that more agencies are needed to do the same amount of work, but that the rules for cooperation are still the same old territorial bullshit and pissing contests, equally pathetic to the agents on the ground as it is to their self-serving political masters.

I guess I felt like ranting a little there...
flora_mundi said…
rant all you want.

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …