Anyone that's flying on Wednesday.

[Disco Pickle]

I'm leaning towards flying kilted.  

that beats my suggestion all to hell.  fuck that's the best idea ever.

[AFK]

I get that.

But unless you're saying that those people are actually RIGHT, it actually DOES matter what the statistical probability is.

For one thing, it matters, because it is the TRUTH. And the tRUTH doesn't care about the public opinion.

I'm not arguing, I'm just stating the facts.

Well of course they're not right.  And sure, it matters in figuring out who is right and who is wrong.  But agendas and policies are not set in America totally on the basis of what is right and wrong.  It is set based upon what the people want, whether it is right or wrong.  Again, I point to health care reform.  So much of what happened, or didn't happen to HCR, was based upon misinformation.  The Death Panel BS helped to derail it.  It helped to remove the public option.  The Obama Administration tried combating it with the truth and facts and look where that got them.  That's all that I'm pointing out here.  That when you are faced with the stiff headwinds of ignorant policy making, the facts don't make a difference.  

And you do realize that your reply just pretty much placed you in the category of "people not willing to listen to <statistics>", right? Maybe it's for a different reason, but it's still the same.

Nowhere did I say that I'm not willing to listen to statistics.  I mean, I am a professional evaluator.  I understand completely the statistics.  I also understand completely the lay of the land right now and that the statistics don't matter.  That doesn't mean you discount them or get rid of them.  It just means you have to think of different ways to get at the masses to effect change.  

Look at what you were saying in the post I replied to (damnit for the nested quotes being gone), you were saying the terrorists are going to find ways around it, talking about "protecting us from harm", etc. YOU actually said you don't think it's possible to be both free and secure.

When I said that I was talking about America, not me as an individual.  It is not possible to with 100% certainty and success, protect America from another terrorist attack.  It WILL happen again.  Now, on an individual level, that next terrorist attack is very unlikely to happen in Maine.  So, sure, I'm pretty safe.  Though, that doesn't mean the ripple effects won't get to me.  (economy, Patriot Act, etc.)  

And you said it in the context of terrorist threats. The statistics I quoted directly contradict that:

For the individual, yes.  I'm not arguing that.  

As far as terrorist threats go, you're already as secure as you're going to be when you compare it to every-day risks. For freedom, just subtract the absurd TSA crap.

And I'm not arguing against subtracting the TSA crap.  But we still have other items like the Patriot Act, wiretapping, etc., intact.  So it's more freedom, but it isn't Freedom.  

Sure that's not going to happen, but for a moment it seemed you were actually buying into their bull, acknowledging it. It wasn't "the people" ignoring the statistical facts, in this case it was you. And as far as problem solving goes, that's not very useful.

I think I was pretty clear with what I was arguing and I think I was pretty clear I wasn't arguing against the statistics.  I was simply pointing out the utility of those statistics in the face of an ignorant public who don't give a fuck about facts and figures these days.  And those idiots are voting and effecting policy.  Statistics won't help, no matter how true they are.  

[Enrico Salazar]

Enrico does not understand all the outrage... x-rays see through clothes and enforce groping?  Sign Enrico up!


Where the Generalissimo can find TSA peoples to set up in basement apartment?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Enrico does not understand all the outrage... x-rays see through clothes and enforce groping?  Sign Enrico up!


Where the Generalissimo can find TSA peoples to set up in basement apartment?

Once again, Generalissimo Salazar points to the obvious solution.

Why haven't we given this guy Napalitano's job, yet?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

If that's all it was, I'd agree.

But it isn't.  It's the not-so-thin edge of the wedge.  They're busy seeing just exactly what we'll put up with.

YEP. This.

[hooplala]

Ok, fair warning, I am a fucking nutjob.

Having said that, here is my humble solution:  take away ALL security measures in airports, and on the back of each seat of the airplane is a smallish baton, something like what an average police officer would carry.  It would usually sit slipped into a little holder, and every single passenger on the plane would have access to one.

If someone tried something crazy on the plane, each passenger would have a potential weapon to use on the terrorist.  Certainly, he might be able to get a few of them, but not most.  I think almost all terrorists could be neutralized in this manner.

Thoughts?

[LMNO]

Combine this with endless amounts of free scotch, and you've got a deal.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ok, fair warning, I am a fucking nutjob.

Having said that, here is my humble solution:  take away ALL security measures in airports, and on the back of each seat of the airplane is a smallish baton, something like what an average police officer would carry.  It would usually sit slipped into a little holder, and every single passenger on the plane would have access to one.

If someone tried something crazy on the plane, each passenger would have a potential weapon to use on the terrorist.  Certainly, he might be able to get a few of them, but not most.  I think almost all terrorists could be neutralized in this manner.

Thoughts?

Oh, I absolutely think this would ALMOST work. It would completely eliminate hijack attempts. It wouldn't work on suicide bombers, but then the most damage a suicide bomber could do was blow up a plane over a major city or when it was coming in for a landing.

[hooplala]

Oh, I absolutely think this would ALMOST work. It would completely eliminate hijack attempts. It wouldn't work on suicide bombers, but then the most damage a suicide bomber could do was blow up a plane over a major city or when it was coming in for a landing.

Very true, if a guy was just sitting quietly with a bomb strapped to his chest, my method would be pointless.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And seriously, how fucking likely is that, anyway? Less likely than the fucking thing crashing from a malfunction.

[hooplala]

Combine this with endless amounts of free scotch, and you've got a deal.

God, you're good.

[hooplala]

And seriously, how fucking likely is that, anyway? Less likely than the fucking thing crashing from a malfunction.

Exactly.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's impossible to protect against EVERY POSSIBLE CONTINGENCY. We should be taking REASONABLE precautions, not spending billions and making people miserable to MAYBE BUT NOT REALLY prevent something that's less likely than the wings icing up. FFS.

[Richter]

In the spirit of being responsible for myself, my safety, and being competent with a baton, I see nothing wrong with Hoopla's idea.

LMNO: I support this.  A tumbler full of whiskey, a stick raised in anger, and a rousing chorus of "William Zanzinger" with my fellow fliers after we senselessly beat anyone doing odd things with their shoes.

To play the jerk card, would this extend only to passenger body screening?  Would luggage / carry one still be scanned?

[Richter]

It's impossible to protect against EVERY POSSIBLE CONTINGENCY. We should be taking REASONABLE precautions, not spending billions and making people miserable to MAYBE BUT NOT REALLY prevent something that's less likely than the wings icing up. FFS.

Spot on Nigel.  We're terrorizing ourselves to protect ourselves from terrorism.