We are now told that flying is a privilege, and that if we don't like the feds' "security measures" we can bloody well walk.
I'm gonna assume that if long-distance walking - or maybe biking - actually started being seen as a viable option by large numbers of people, using the shoulder of public roads for any sort of locomotion would quickly morph into a "privilege."
Trains? Buses? I dunno: I haven't traveled by train or bus since the seventies and eighties respectively. But passenger train has been a government monopoly for as long as I remember, and I've a feeling that if TSA gropers start showing up at bus stations Greyhound isn't going to make much of a fuss.
On reflection, it's kind of a shame that telecommuting never really caught on with businesses because at this rate it won't be long before it'll be impossible for people who insist on some modicum of freedom to legally leave their houses. Ironic, no?
There's a horrible sort of logic behind it all. Like "gun control," which wasn't about guns but about control, it all seems at bottom a way to normalize herding behavior. I'm frankly surprised nobody's trotted out implantable inventory control devices lately - I've said for a decade it was only a matter of time, and they keep disappointing me.
I try to look for the humor in these things, twisted or otherwise. But the arguments in favor are so damned lame, it just isn't funny. I give you:
I’d rather go through a pat-down than to sit on a plane and watch a terrorist slice a passenger’s throat.To which I can only reply - and very seriously - You'd really just sit there and watch? Then why should I care what you think about anything?
4 comments:
The question is do you want to go through a pat down and it has no effect on the ability of a terrorist to bring down a plane? I agree this technology would probably deter a terrorist from hiding a bomb or a waepon on their body. I believe that 99% of packages carried by planes is still not inspected. That leaves a gaping hole in security. Most airlines get a substantial part of their profit from carrying cargo and mail. How long will it take for the terrorists to bypass this incredibly oppressive body search? What comes next?
I have seen no evidence of large numbers of people who have any desire whatsoever to blow up anybody on domestic flights. Those such as the "underwear" bomber were either incredibly stupid or gov. plants.. oh, probably both. There has been NO credible threat.
That's part of the myth that is used by the controllers to get us to agree to the molestation, etc.
But, in the event that a real threat should materialize, the TSA isn't going to have any part of preventing it. That has to be done by those of us willing to do more than "watch."
TSA? Security by luggage/cargo search ? No sale.
It's becoming apparent that these sexual assaults at many airports are the US government's Fort Sumter.
There are folks planning lots of different responses; from airline boycotts to acts of which I cannot speak. Here's but one example of direct action. If enough of these arseholes get their clocks cleaned, they'll begin to quit.
This is going to escalate, no question.
"You'd really just sit there and watch? Then why should I care what you think about anything?"
Word. And I think this really gets at the working reason we have arrived at this sorry pass, too. Plain and simple, "we" accept it.
Anon asks "What comes next?" and the worst part about that is that there is always--always--an answer to that question.
MamaLiberty notes "That's part of the myth that is used by the controllers to get us to agree to the molestation, etc." This is standard protection-racket strategy, and the state is the world's oldest and most archetypical protection racket.
It is completely irrelevant whether or not technology X could detect weapon Y or whether party Z might be restrained by threat of same. Absolutely of no relevance whatever. Because, as Anon notices, there are always plenty of alternative means of attack, of suborning whatever impotent system is put up by the protection racketeers. After all, those same have no--no--incentive to actually protect people.
A protection racket doesn't exist to protect people. It exists to sell protection that it never actually intends to provide--lest it kill its own golden goose.
Jeff Cooper was right. The only protection you can really count on is yourself.
Which brings us right back to Joel's point.
Post a Comment