Hi, Amy - Happy new year and congratulations again on your book! Sorry to hear of your return ordeal. I usually like your headlines. ;(

A guy I worked with explained why he as a moderate Muslim didn't speak out. He figured people would be prejudice if they knew his beliefs. Instead they just figured he was African-American (he was actually an African here as a H1B).

It just shows what kind of idiots we have allowed to take over our government. Instead of mature voices of reason, we have the frightened squeeks of lemmings.

What a huge win for the terrorists! Convince one young idiot to wear explosive underwear, and cost your enemy billions of dollars and billions of hours of productive time.

The answer to this situation ought to be: nothing. The total lives lost in the West to terrorism are less than a month's traffic fatalities.

If you want to increase security against bombs, get "sniffer" machines that work unobtrusively in the background. If you want to increase the security against hijacking, give with a concealed-carry permit 10% off their ticket price if they take their gun onto the aircraft.

Meanwhile, leave security to the airlines - they at least have an interest in keeping their planes in the air without pissing off their customers.

Love the way you write these diatribes...

found a dangerously bright pink lipstick

I think I know that colour. Can take out a man's vision at 50 paces.

Then, it was time to feel me up. I asked her if I could just lift up my shirt and show her my boobs.

To be honest (and vulgar), that would be a very difficult decision...I'm not entirely sure which I'd go with...

The whole process sounds ridiculous though - as far as I can tell the panty bomber had the explosive hidden where Christopher Walken hid the watch in Pulp Fiction - so unless they start cavity searching every passenger (I shouldn't even suggest it, it might come to that) what's the point?

If you want to increase the security against hijacking, give with a concealed-carry permit 10% off their ticket price if they take their gun onto the aircraft.

I may have misread this, but did you just advocate increasing in-flight security by allowing everyone to carry a gun on board?

Jeepers.

Are you serious?!

Half serious. This would at least get discussions going in the right direction, namely, the government makes a poor nanny. Who stopped the shoe bomber? Who kept the panty bomber from trying to fix his screwup? The passengers.

Right... but, a bunch of jittery Americans on a plane together with handguns...?

Good idea? I think no.

Let's not forget that the terrorists - assuming they're on board - are aiming to crash the plane, rather than capture it.

Does it help to have a hundred random gun-toting folks with little-to-no comprehension of the physics involved in, say, blowing a window out of the side of a flying plane?

I propose not.

I do think that the problem with terrorism is a very recent thing that has not coincidentally advented alongside 24-hour media and news coverage. Most of the problems in modern society can be linked almost directly to the media and its scaremongering.

Heck, even the American fear of Obama can be linked back to the media shit storm that flew across your country a while back screaming "communism = bad! communism = bad! socialism = communism = BAD!!" In fact - or, rather, in my opinion - socialism != communism = bad. The important detail, though, is that socialism != communism.

So many people are jumping on Obama's back - from what I can gather here on my little island across the pond - and shouting him down as some kind of communist. He ain't. He's a socialist. Big difference.

The solution to so many problems is for the global media to realise their power and, so, their responsibility. Terrorism holds no power if we're not face-fucked with it by the media. As noted above, the actual number of casualties caused by terrorism is minute. If we were to stop going over and over and over it, the power would wane.

I remember reading an article which looked at a psychologist's response to the high-school shootings in Germany a few months back. He essentially said "ignore it". Don't give it global coverage. Don't rush in with sirens blazing. Don't show the shooter's face in the media.

I think that a lot of the media around the world would do well to take that approach to oh-so-many things that are happening.

Sorry. Horrible, horrible post. Totally no kind of thread of thought in that. It's gone a bit kind of... manic....

>>>Heck, even the American fear of Obama can be linked back to the media shit storm that flew across your country

You mentioned your not from the U.S. and that must be the case. I assure you that "fear of Obama" is not due to American "media". The American media is one of Obama's biggest cheerleaders.

Most people's fear of Obama is likely due to the following: Government management of too many things equals too many things being GROSSLY mismanaged. Obama's policies equal government management of too many things.

"If you want to increase security against bombs, get "sniffer" machines that work unobtrusively in the background."

I just read a story about one of those sniffer machines being set off by two jars of honey. The guy was a gardener and they think some fertilizer remains on the jars might have set it off.

The best explanation I've ever heard about Muslims not coming out against other Muslims is that they're not allowed to. The Koran basically says that you're not supposed to criticize other Muslims (this is, of course, why the Sunni and Shi'ites have been killing each other all these years)

Of course, the second question is why SHOULD they have to stage these massive "That's not us" protests? Do we ask Black people to constantly complain for the crimes committed by black people?

The many Muslims who have never read the Koran are just like the Christians who haven't cracked open the bible in years. Indeed, it's when you start reading (and god help us, memorizing) the promary text of your religion that you start getting more fundamental.

Hi Amy, I saw you on Canada AM and thought you were delightful. I immediately started following you on twitter. I love the premise of your book and can't wait to read it.

I'm travelling to the US with my two children in March, and I certainly hope some of the crazy security restrictions will be lifted by then, because flying with kids is already challenging enough without trying to fit everything they need in a 12 inch purse. Thanks for the funny account of your flight - I think you're right on.

If you want to increase the security against hijacking

...take guys seriously when they report to you that their sons are dangerous potential terrorists.

Most of the problems in modern society can be linked almost directly to the media and its scaremongering.

Uh, in the U.S. I think it has something to do with the two giant skyscrapers that fell into a pile of rubble, killing 3,000 people, on the same day that the headquarters of our defense department was attacked. No, this is not the only terrible thing that has happened to people of the world in the history of time. But it's arguably the most macabrely spectacular single such event in modern history. It didn't need "the media" to blow it up.

And you might want to learn a little bit more about how the U.S. works before you start spouting off theories. Obama was, as others have said, wildly popular in the media at large. People aren't "scared" of him the way they're scared of, say, bin Laden. They're just not crazy about his policies. Just the way that many people weren't crazy about the policies of George W. Bush. I note that no one went around from 2001-2008 saying that people must have been brainwashed into being "scared" of the President because they disagreed with his policies.

But hey, if you want to believe that terrorism is a false issue manufactured by the media, go right ahead. That sounds very comforting. Wish I could go along with that. My multiple visits to Ground Zero in NYC has made that impossible, but YMMV.

An Indian woman (also very nice and apologetic) again pawed through everything in my purse. Then, it was time to feel me up. I asked her if I could just lift up my shirt and show her my boobs. I'd rather expose myself than get felt up by a security worker at the airport. No go, apparently. She did apologize that I couldn't just expose myself.
=======================================
Funny, Almost spit out my coffee. This is how ridiculous this situation is getting. It's getting to be like the Keystone cops.

Come now Amy, the delays for getting onto the flights are long enough. If you whipped the girls out, it would turn into absolute pandemonium. I mean, even I'd be shoving for a look :) and I'm straight.

"Does it help to have a hundred random gun-toting folks with little-to-no comprehension of the physics involved in, say, blowing a window out of the side of a flying plane?"

Wow, what irony. You've identified yourself!

First: No commercial aircraft has ever been downed by small-arms fire to the airframe. That link takes a while to read, but it will also show you that several planes have also survived bombs and missiles.

You have bought a movie scene or two as reality. Oops.

Look around. You're not in Hollywood. Most of the places you can point a pistol in a jet's cabin won't even be penetrated by a pistol bullet.

Do the physics. Estimate the cabin volume, pressure differential to the outside air and window area, and you can show the time it takes to reach equilibrium (depressurize). Some of the tools you can use are at engineeringtoolbox.com. While you're at it, try to notice that the plane doesn't depend on being pressurized for any airframe strength.

Second: concealed-carry permit holders have identified themselves far more completely than the bulk of the public - and, if you think for a minute, more thoroughly than some pilots. You can be a felon and still fly a plane. The real hassle here is that a pistol can be taken from you, permit holder or not, and that identifying the first shooter is extremely difficult.

By the way - the point is not "bringing the plane down". There are better ways to do that than to carry something on board. The point is to be identified as a religious zealot who brought the plane down. Inherent in this is the religion followed. Guess which?

So you have hoplophobia. It's more common than it should be, and it's contagious. It makes people approve of confiscating an airline pilot's butter knife, because that could be used to take over the plane...

Wow. Your story makes me truly never, ever want to fly again. The hassle of it all!

I was really saddened when my 12 year old casually mentioned that she didn't want to fly again--because of all the terrorists.

>>The real hassle here is that a pistol can be taken from you, permit holder or not, and that identifying the first shooter is extremely difficult.

Exactly, Radwaste.

Everyone - including Cool Hand Crid - thinks they'll heroically save the day with their OWN pocket knife or pistol on a plane. But chances are you'll end up arming the wannabe Chuck Norris in the next seat!

Radwaste is absolutely correct. It is a very small, and selective group of the population who has a concealed carry permit and there is rather extensive screening and training involved. My husband has gone through it and I plan to in the future. In any given plane-load of passengers, maybe one or two actually has a permit.

> Everyone - including Cool Hand Crid -

Don't be bitter, I don't like you, either.

Besides, the point, which no one wants to take, is that these procedures aren't doing any good. A lefty fear of things rather than people is being creepingly and creepily institutionalized. Raddy's given us an important new word.

Jody - the "wannabe Chuck Norris" still won't be the problem. He's not a concealed-carry holder, as demonstrated by real incidents, where permit holders taking action regularly show their caution. The zealot, convinced she has nothing to lose, is still the threat.

I suggest you have some strange ideas about gun use and possession - unrelated to Crid or airline "security" (in quotes because nobody seems to know what it means).

Guns aren't anywhere near as magical as the fanciful ideas people have about them.

Oh damn Amy, now I'm freaking out about this summer. My 19 year old is going to Europe and my 15 year old and I are going to Costa Rica. My 19 year old has never been outside the country on her own and I'll already be in Costa Rica when she leaves for Europe. Well maybe I'll be in Costa Rica if I can get passed security!

>>A lefty fear of things rather than people is being creepingly and creepily institutionalized. Raddy's given us an important new word.

My fear, Crid, is - and has always been - firearms in the wrong hands.

You demonstrated the problem perfectly the other day with your mock-operatic TSA rant: ["Fuck them for the buck teeth of their younger staffers.
Fuck the way this multi-chinned cunt (Ok, multi-chinned female TSA agent) calls out to queue members (lost in their annoyance) with the cloying tones of a kindergarten teacher."]

Even days after your spot of bother at an airport - when calm might have prevailed - you proved totally useless at picking the correct targets for your verbal fusillades.

Didn't Mythbusters bust the decompression myth?
Ah, I found it at Annotated Mythbusters.

Jody — You know who gets hurt when you fill your heart with anger? That's right.... Yourself. Your secret pain and simmering resentments seem to have made you all twitchy and blind.

My comments about the illiterate, theatrically clumsy "safety" personal were precisely on point. Their were no "firearms in the wrong hands." Our flight was not threatened from anyone else: They alone conspired to ruin my trip. And they spent my tax money doing it.

I think Kopple nailed it:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/world_news_america/8447399.stm

>>Jody - the "wannabe Chuck Norris" still won't be the problem.

Radwaste,

I agree with many of your points about so-called airline "security". (I fly a great deal and I've just ditched plans for a non-essential transatlantic flight for March. The hassle is becoming unbearable.)

I agree concealed-carry permit holders tend to be far more responsible than most mortals.

I was addressing just one part of your earlier point - this bit: "The real hassle here is that a pistol can be taken from you, permit holder or not, and that identifying the first shooter is extremely difficult."

>>My comments about the illiterate, theatrically clumsy "safety" personal were precisely on point. Their were no "firearms in the wrong hands." Our flight was not threatened from anyone else: They alone conspired to ruin my trip. And they spent my tax money doing it.

AND one of the woman was a "multi-chinned cunt" -amirite, Crid?

Of course, the second question is why SHOULD they have to stage these massive "That's not us" protests? Do we ask Black people to constantly complain for the crimes committed by black people?

The difference, of course, is that blacks who commit crimes do not do so in the name of their race. Muslim terrorists, by contrast, do commit their crimes in the name of their religion. Which is why it behooves their co-religionists who deplore their crimes (if their are any) to speak up. But you knew that, Vinnie.

The new phony security measures, although in no way increasing security, most certainly will bankrupt the airlines rather efficiently. Bailout, anyone?

The real hassle here is that a pistol can be taken from you, permit holder or not....

Having armed passengers (even certified ones) doesn't mean the folks carrying guns are trained in threat assessment and/or combat shooting in close quarters.

Keep in mind that bullets that miss the terrorist have to go somewhere, whether it's into a bulkhead, out the window, or into another passenger.

And if the terrorist turns out to be a passenger reaching for the booze he concealed in his carry-on shampoo bottle or just adjusting himself, the bullet won't say "oops" and go back into the gun.

Glad you enjoyed your trip to us in the frozen North. Your airline experience could have been worse, sad to say. My friend was flying out of Toronto to St. Louis and got stuck in a security line for 5.5 hours...which resulted in him missing his plane...and the next plane was cancelled by snow. 20 hours after he got to Pearson, he finally got out.

Rex Murphy, a commentator on CBC up here, had a really good piece on last night's news suggesting if this might be the "little bit too much" that turns people away from non-essential airline travel.

http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/rexmurphy/story/2010/01/07/national-rexmurphy-010710.html

"We were having a very civil chat, and eventually, I asked him, with sincere curiosity, why you don't hear "moderate Muslims" speaking up, and he couldn't answer. Nobody's ever given me an answer on that. Anybody got any ideas?"

Fear of sudden violent death?

"We were having a very civil chat, and eventually, I asked him, with sincere curiosity, why you don't hear "moderate Muslims" speaking up, and he couldn't answer. Nobody's ever given me an answer on that. Anybody got any ideas?"

Fear of sudden violent death?

Posted by: Steve Daniels at January 8, 2010 10:17 AM

That would be my guess, Steve Daniels!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at January 8, 2010 10:28 AM
===================================

Kinda like the Mafia.

Last week, my husband and I talked with an Iranian-American, and my husband asked him why more Muslims don't speak out against terrorism.

He replied that in his case it is fear for his relatives in Iran. He does not want to go public with his thoughts about either terrorism or the Iranian government, because he knows his parents in Iran would suffer and die because of it.

It is not the first time a Muslim has mentioned fear of other Muslims in my presence. I think this is a significant reason for the silence of most Muslims living in the US. Other of course side with the terrorists.

From the Schneier post I linked to yesterday, why all the nonsense being implemented in the wake of the pantybomber's failure is a waste of time and money.

It's magical thinking: If we defend against what the terrorists did last time, we'll somehow defend against what they do one time. Of course this doesn't work. We take away guns and bombs, so the terrorists use box cutters. We take away box cutters and corkscrews, and the terrorists hide explosives in their shoes. We screen shoes, they use liquids. We limit liquids, they sew PETN into their underwear. We implement full-body scanners, and they're going to do something else. This is a stupid game; we should stop playing it.

We should keep in mind the Tehran has been under riot conditions for months now, with many brave and well educated Iranians demanding an end to the corrupt theocratic system. I scratch my head as to Obama's silence in this matter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-wcWxxIjiU

Whatever, the really sad and double-plus-ironically-ungood part of this whole thing is that, as Amy has pointed out, the newly introduced security measures would not have stopped the Pantybomber. So we're not even defending against what the terrorists did last time. In fact, this whole thing -- the inter-agency communications breakdown that allowed the thing to happen -- gives the very strong impression that our entire security apparatus didn't learn a darn thing from 9/11.

Regarding the "security measures" at airports in North America, there's a big elephant (read "truth") in the room that no one with the power to change things wants to address.

Put simply, if the entire process of getting a passenger from the front doors of the airport through to sitting down in their seat on an airplane had been thought through, designed by, and enforced by security PROFESSIONALS then we would have an efficient system that makes sense to everyone. Each step in the process would have a specific purpose and would be integrated with all the other steps.

But that's not what we have today, is it? Instead, we're burdened with a highly inefficient mishmash of separate processes, none of which seem to be integrated with each other. Anecdotal evidence suggests that what occurs at these airports was designed by committee; more likely by a series of different committees, all of whom don't communicate with each other effectively, if at all.

Rather than integrated, professional security, instead we have an overwhelming number of low wage staffers whose duties have been piled on top of one another in the hopes of providing a deterrence or more likely the appearance of deterrence.

This incredible incompetence is killing the productivity of travelers and ultimately is going to allow more than a few people to be killed. :-(

Wow, what irony. You've identified yourself!

First: No commercial aircraft has ever been downed by small-arms fire to the airframe. That link takes a while to read, but it will also show you that several planes have also survived bombs and missiles.

You have bought a movie scene or two as reality. Oops.

Look around. You're not in Hollywood. Most of the places you can point a pistol in a jet's cabin won't even be penetrated by a pistol bullet.

Do the physics. Estimate the cabin volume, pressure differential to the outside air and window area, and you can show the time it takes to reach equilibrium (depressurize). Some of the tools you can use are at engineeringtoolbox.com. While you're at it, try to notice that the plane doesn't depend on being pressurized for any airframe strength.

I specified, very carefully, a blown window. I specified it for exactly the reasons you mention.

There's another link above to the mythbusters who showed that blowing a window out would cause everything and everyone to be sucked out the plane - now, my understanding is that they did that by "pressurising" the cabin. I'd be curious to know how to varying pressures outside the cabin were taken into account - the difference in pressure between ground level and several thousand feet in the air.

No matter, though, it doesn't make a huge amount of difference.

What was interesting is that they also found, if a window is blown out of a plane, some serious damage is going to happen: ok, it might only be someone's arm being ripped off, so I guess that doesn't matter so much.

Also, I don't think I have hoplophobia. I haven't had any experience of serious firearms, but I have played around with a small-calibre air rifle as a youngster. My fear isn't of guns - my fear is of the damn idiots that carry them. I definitely have a fear of a society that encourages people actively to carry something like a gun around with them. Similarly with knives.

So far as media-love-ins with Obama go, the problem isn't the media now, but rather the media who did such a spectacular job of propagandising communism as bad and then persuading the general ignorant public that socialism is the same as communism. The damage was done decades ago. That's what I think Obama's fighting against - institutionalised distrust of socialism. It doesn't have to have happened in the last year or two to still have a serious impact.

Sorry, typo in my last post:

"There's another link above to the mythbusters who showed that blowing a window out would NOT cause everything and everyone to be sucked out the plane..."

And once again, I'd like to put my name forward for some sort of prize for the least coherent post in the thread. Damn, my head's not working properly at the moment. Sorry.

Incidentally, this is a quote ascribed to the bloke who coined the phrase 'hoplophobia':

"the most common manifestation of hoplophobia is the idea that instruments possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user."

As I say, I don't have this thought. My problem is exactly that instruments do NOT possess a will of their own, apart from that of their user.

THAT is what scares me.

If you were "The Donald" you could blame it on that symbiotic thing living on your head.

> AND one of the woman was a "multi-chinned
> cunt" -amirite

Technically, that's correct, but there was actually more than one of them. There almost always is.

>>Technically, that's correct, but there was actually more than one of them. There almost always is.

I'll raise you a TWO letter blunder you made earlier, Crid.

"Their were no "firearms in the wrong hands.""

"gives the very strong impression that our entire security apparatus didn't learn a darn thing from 9/11."

If I recall correctly, no one got fired over the 9/11 attacks. There's no lesson for the "security apparatus" to learn.

Robert W - all true about TSA incompetence. It's costing billions of dollars in lost economic output plus who knows what frustrations that lead to health problems for the travelers. When will the American people rise up and say ENOUGH.

True that Islam is partly to blame, but I would actually heap most of the blame for the idiocy on all the 'whatever keeps us safe' morons who cry out for these measures because it 'makes them feel safe' and who accept and vote in public figures who respond so stupidly.

Muslims may have forced us to act, but they never forced us to act stupid.

"Does it help to have a hundred random gun-toting folks with little-to-no comprehension of the physics involved in, say, blowing a window out of the side of a flying plane?"

Apparently your erroneous 'comprehension' of the physics is based on movies rather than reality.

As has been shown time and again, guns aren't even necessary to stop a would-be terrorist.

We should immediately stop this security theatre and just allow people on planes. If we're going to screen at all, it should be behavioral screening and profiling.

Prior to 9/11, the reality was a hijacker wanted to live, and cooperating with him meant everybody lived. From 9/11 onward, the reality is the hijacker wants to die, and he wants to take everyone on the plane with him.

So we've gone from "Cooperate and live" to "Fuck me? No, fuck YOU.

At this point, any place that is less than an 8-10 hour drive is not worth flying to.

I say this entire charade is working out beautifully when influential opinion columnists like Amy "blame the muslims."

Follow the money.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/01/02/group_slams_chertoff_on_scanner_promotion/

This kid is nothing more than a dupe, purposely brainwashed/threatened or somehow pushed into creating this incident, providing the perfect means to justify the Government spending massive amounts of tax dollars to a corporation selling these machines in the name of "security."

"Raddy's given us an important new word."

Credit where credit is due: the word was coined by Jeff Cooper, a man energized by both the possibilities and the evils of men.

Not politically correct, not deluded about life, and quite vocal about assorted idiocies. Read his commentaries, and you can get a sense of how far into fantasies you might be.

Well, I am the one who said we should mostly ignore terrorists, except for search-and-destroy missions, and locked pilot cabin doors.
I like the new body scanners. Supposedly. women get the creeps that someone might view an revealing outline of their bodies for a passing moment. Men don't care. (Of course, you want to know what really, really bothers women? Everything, including this joke.)
So, the terrorists take down a few planes. I don't care that much. With locked cabin doors, all they can do is possibly crash the airplane. It does not become a missile-bomb.
The number of people who die every year in U.S. auto accidents and plain-vanilla gunshots (40,000 and 12,000) dwarfs the "threat" posed by terrorists. I do not favor gun control. Just pointing out the facts.
The R-Party went hysterical over one foiled plot, by one loser.
Americans have no ability to gauge relative threats.
You might die in an auto accident, though unlikely. Your spouse might shoot you dead with the household gun, unlikely, and even less likely that a stranger will. You actually might die from cancer.
Terrorists are waaaayyy down the list.

>> You see the Quakers blowing up a lot of planes?

How about Amish drive by's?

@Magog,

One person did lose his job over 9/11: Bill Maher. He said how bad our response to 9/11 was, and they cancelled his show. :-p

"The real hassle here is that a pistol can be taken from you, permit holder or not....

Having armed passengers (even certified ones) doesn't mean the folks carrying guns are trained in threat assessment and/or combat shooting in close quarters.

Keep in mind that bullets that miss the terrorist have to go somewhere, whether it's into a bulkhead, out the window, or into another passenger.

And if the terrorist turns out to be a passenger reaching for the booze he concealed in his carry-on shampoo bottle or just adjusting himself, the bullet won't say "oops" and go back into the gun."

You know in the aftermath of 911 a lot of pilots asked the airlines to ok them carrying sidearms on the flights. The airlines nixed that because of (probably) liability concerns. It sure would have solved part of the problem though. The air marshall program is too small for them to be on more than about 1 percent of the flights per day and it costa a great deal of money. Most of the commercial pilots in the US are military veterans, primarily Air Force and Navy, who probably have the skills or can acquire the traning to be competent with a firearm. Having an armed flight crew would not eliminate all potential terrorism but it would not hurt. Isabel

Mr. BW, please learn about fallacies and so forth.

Comparing crime to accidents - or even one risk to another, when they have different drivers and solutions - makes you instant prey for any high-school debater.

-----

For those of you who "like" scanners: Now that you're accepting this merely because you wish to travel by air, you should have no trouble with having your person searched at your home. Homes contain nearly 100% of all violent criminals and dangerous materials.

Don't read the Constitution. That's only for radical right-wing extremists.

> a TWO letter blunder

It's important that you watch me closely, Jody.

If the problem is weaponry in the wrong hands, but anyone who'd think of resisting an assault in the sky is a "wannabe Chuck Norris", then I don't think you've yet sorted out this whole citizen responsibility thing we've got cooking over here in the 'States.

Having an armed flight crew would not eliminate all potential terrorism but it would not hurt. Isabel

You're right about where we get our pilots and their likely aptitude for combat training. But if they were armed, I don't think it would make a lick of difference. They're not going to open that armored cockpit door unless they are morons. In a terrorist/hijacking situation, the flight attendants are on their own.

Well, if Amy will really rip off her clothes, then I will wear my fireman outfit.

then I will wear my fireman outfit.

to make up for a lack of hose, no doubt.

Well, Amy, you can blame Islam, or you can blame the American reaction to it, which is more and more pervasive government intervention at the airport, rather than allowing people to carry weapons, including firearms, on board to counter crazed lunatics with box cutters or pyrotechnic underpants. Meanwhile, Islamic immigration into America and, presumably, Canada continue unabated.

With guns on board, we might have had a crazed Nigerian with a hole in his head instead of a crazed Nigerian pleading "Not Guilty" at a federal courthouse in Detroit and wasting our taxpayer dollars. And there would be an outside chance that the World Trade Towers would still be standing.

If the problem is weaponry in the wrong hands, but anyone who'd think of resisting an assault in the sky is a "wannabe Chuck Norris", then I don't think you've yet sorted out this whole citizen responsibility thing we've got cooking over here in the 'States.

The hidden point here being that Norris is a weapon.

There are pussies in America who believe that if someone possesses a weapon, they must intent to use that weapon in an offensive capacity. We call them Democrats. Their defining characteristic is projection. They want to disarm people because they are pathetic little pussies who would escalate every little argument into WWIII just to say they won, and since they fear themselves, they fear everyone else.

Let's not forget that the terrorists - assuming they're on board - are aiming to crash the plane, rather than capture it.

And so, do you think the passengers should be helpless to stop these people (I use the term "people" charitably), should they successfully smuggle their own weapons on the plane? And it wouldn't be difficult to smuggle them, since our TSA seems incapable of stopping said smuggling, even when it is done as a test. Furthermore, in addition to this brazen incompetence, the TSA has made it almost impossible for fully competent American pilots to qualify to bring handguns on board to defend the cockpit.

well said brian

Also, for those worried about incompetent shooters on board planes, one power held by Congress, as specified by the Constitution, is the power to arm and discipline the militia (a.k.a., the people) or at least to help do so. If Congress would have tended to this duty all these years, for those willing to bear arms, instead of turning the U.S. into a torture-machine welfare state, then perhaps we wouldn't need to worry about people shooting poorly on board airplanes.

"Having armed passengers (even certified ones) doesn't mean the folks carrying guns are trained in threat assessment and/or combat shooting in close quarters."

You should resist using this argument.

It enables others to turn it on you: "Since you aren't trained in threat assessment and/or combat shooting in close quarters, you should not have a gun."

Even though you would have to have the gun to get this training.

Even though police, per Warren v. DC, have no actionable obligation to protect your person.

Even though others cannot assess your threats for you.

Even though police, supposedly with the benefit of this training, shoot far more innocent bystanders than private citizens do.

Gun bans do not address training, because the argument is about power, not crime.

Go Raddy, Go Raddy.

The revolting thing about the way Jody and Whatever talk about this is not just that their seemingly eager servility towards government.

Though there's that.

It's also this presumption that everything can be reduced to a consumer experience, where bids are made, accepted, and promptly delivered to the full factory spec upon payment, and government is just a vendor.

But not everything in life is a comfortably trivial choice as some guys go for Count Chocula, others are all about Coco Puffs. There are some meals where you have to go out and grow your own grain.

I blanched when I saw the word "power" in your comment, because that's usually a lefty fascination. But this seems to be a case where the usual chatter is (ironically) not applicable. There are people who don't want anyone around them to have any power; Chuck Norris is so intimidating they'd rather trust some faceless authority.

Gotta gota work.

Or a multi-chinned authority....

>>The revolting thing about the way Jody and Whatever talk about this is not just that their seemingly eager servility towards government.

Crid, grow up.

Chuck Norris would be ashamed of you.

You're a 50something single unaccompanied male who threw a foul-mouthed tantrum here recently (mentioning Nazis & cunts)- because you got ticked off for trying to take your pocket knife on a plane after you'd been to a Vegas wedding.

You're not Nathan Hale either.

The whole "lefty-righty" thing is sooooo boring. There are lots and lots of lefties who own guns, and would favor training so that pilots could ensure the safety of the flight crew.

But Rad, I am calling you out on the "Even though police, supposedly with the benefit of this training, shoot far more innocent bystanders than private citizens do" comment. I would be really suprised if police make up even 1% of innocent bystander shootings.

The revolting thing about the way Jody and Whatever talk about this is not just that their seemingly eager servility towards government.

I also am not opposed in any way to responsible adults owning guns. I was taught to shoot by at a young age, and am competent or better with just about gun one can purchase without a special permit in the U.S.

I'm not servile towards government. I do expect that when people are hired for a job - even a government job - they do it responsibly. It's how I've approached every job I've had, even the shitty ones, and seems a reasonable expectation of others.

Eric, I think Rad was referring to private citizens who are attempting to prevent or stop crimes. I think we can take it as a given that "private citizen" criminals shoot a lot more innocent bystanders than police do.

That said, I don't actually know the answer to Rad's question. Although there is one thing that suggests he's right. Consider: if an armed private citizen who was attempting to stop a crime shot a bystander, what do you think would happen? It would be the lead story on all of the MSN outlets, for days at a time, every time it happened. (Remember the Bernie Gatz story in New York? That went on for months, and the guys he shot weren't even innocent bystanders.) But I don't recall having seen or heard any such story recently, which suggests that it happens rarely if at all.

The risk of being killed by a terrorist is miniscule. But even if it was possible to make flying absolutely 100% safe from terrorism, the terrorists would just shift to other targets, like malls or trains - and likely have much better kill rates too. We can't make everything safe, we must get over that; a certain number of measures are acceptable, but one must weigh both the financial cost and the quality of life cost of continually living like hysterical paranoid freaks.

People here might be interested in this blog I just came across. The woman who writes it is an Australian al-Qaeda specialist. Apparently has gotten the attention of people in DOD. Don't let the production values fool you.

http://allthingsct.wordpress.com/

Hey Eric, I love the whole lefty-righty ranting!

It's hilarious to see guys who never suited up for military duty dissing those of us who actually served, do own guns, and have voted liberal more frequently than conservative.

It's like watching the unpopular child running around a schoolyard pointing out the 'faults' of his classmates in a vain attempt to shift attention off his own shortcomings.

Very entertaining! Not very useful, but sadly funny if you understand the driving force behind it.

> Chuck Norris would be ashamed of you.

I don't understand your fascination. Maybe these action dramas have made such an impression that you can't imagine a real world where unpleasant people do unpleasant things.

> a 50something single unaccompanied male who
> threw a foul-mouthed tantrum here recently
> (mentioning Nazis & cunts)- because you got
> ticked off for trying to take your pocket knife
> on a plane after you'd been to a Vegas wedding

How dare you! How dare you!... I never said anything about Nazis. You're doing a premature Godwin.

> You're not Nathan Hale either.

I don't actually know who Nathan Hale is. Was he known to put up with bullshit during air travel, either in the sky or in the terminal?

> The whole "lefty-righty" thing is sooooo boring.

We all wish it could be over, but it keeps lighting the path. Men & Women is another. Modern and Primitive is a third.

Also, Religious & Not has spent time at the top of the charts lately.

And Schooled & Not.

If you really want to see some new territory, read this.

You're not Nathan Hale either. - Jody Tressider

Wasn't it your people who hanged Nathan Hale?

"Having armed passengers (even certified ones) doesn't mean the folks carrying guns are trained in threat assessment and/or combat shooting in close quarters."

You should resist using this argument. - radwaste

My argument was directed against the simplistic assertion that armed passengers will somehow stop terrorism with no consideration of potential collateral damage.

Too many people watch movies in which rank amateurs become Deadeye Dick or Annie Oakley as soon as they pick up a gun. It rarely works that way in real life.

Keeping in mind that a person with a concealed carry permit is usually required to demonstrate proficiency with weapon and awareness of safety; nonetheless, as you pointed out, even the police make mistakes and shoot innocent bystanders...and they practice regularly with guns.

If a terrorist is going to blow up your plane and you shoot at him with your gun, killing him, you have to live with the fact that you also shot the grandmother sitting beside him. Justifiable? Yes. The entire plane would have gone down otherwise. But simple? No.

Or live with the fact that you shot a businessman reaching for the whiskey he snuck aboard in his carryon shampoo bottle.

On the other hand, Bradley does raise some interesting ideas.

Armed passengers could reduce the number of planes hijacked and used as missiles. On the other hand, hijackers could apply for concealed carry permits or just blow the plane up outright.

Letting airlines handle security could result in shorter lines and easier boarding procedures...until they're sued by someone for profiling or discrimination.

Crid- I think I can see a little Nathan Hale, in you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P-y7-OBst8

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/8/823224/-Top-Muslim-clerics-issue-Fatwa-denouncing-terror-attacks-on-Canada-and-U.S.

I remember reading somewhere, probably in a piece of JPFO literature, that the police shoot innocent people about 11 percent of the time, while ordinary gun-owners shoot innocent people about 2 percent of the time.

Also, calling someone a "50something single unaccompanied male" is kind of weird.

A little more on bystanders shot by police vs. by private citizens. I can't find any definitive statistics on either one. However, it appears that both must be very uncommon. Here's why: I'm looking at a CDC table of deaths, tabulated by mechanism and intent, for the year 2006, the most recent year for which fully compiled data is available. (Data is ; it's table 18.) The table says that there were 30,896 total firearms-related death in the U.S. that year. Of those, over half (16,883) were suicides, and most of the other half (12,791) were homicides. There are three other categories, "unintentional", "legal intervention/war", and "undetermined". The definition of "legal intervention" appears to include people accidentally shot by police officers, but also some other things. The number there is 360.

I'm not sure where people accidentally shot by a civilian trying to prevent/stop a crime would be included. Probably in the "unintentional" cateogory, but this category would also include things like inadvertent firearm discharge (e.g., the proverbial gun-cleaning accident), and hunting accidents. This number is given as 640. So both categories appear to be very small in number. If you add the total of these two categories plus the "undetermined" category, as a worst-case assumption, you get 1222, which is 4% of all firearms deaths that year.

To get a real handle on the cost/benefit, we'd have to have some stats on crimes stopped or prevented by the threatened or actual use of a firearm by a civilian. I'm doubting that anyone collects that data in a systematic manner.

Drat. My apologies for the screwed up HTML.

Erie — That movie reminds me of this one.

Fuckers. I've wanted to have sex with Jill Clayburgh ever since the bicentennial... Great score on that thing, I can still hear the theme for them chugging through the Rockies... La da da da DAH DAH duh duh...

>>Also, calling someone a "50something single unaccompanied male" is kind of weird.

Crid,
Not at all.

That info simply shows you're old enough to grasp the unambiguous rules about pocket knives in your carry-on; you weren't distracted by trying to keep your kiddies calm nor were you otherwise busy attending to an elderly companion in need in special assistance; and you weren't, say, pregnant with pressing bladder concerns due to the long lines at the airport.

You were simply a middle-aged pompous bloke on his way back to LA from a Vegas wedding.

>>How dare you! How dare you!... I never said anything about Nazis. You're doing a premature Godwin.

Oh. I misread your rant references to Auschwitz then:

Fuck them for carrying themselves as if this was all some burden for which they shouldn't be held accountable; as if we'd agree that a working stiff has to do what he's told, no matter how odious the assignment.... That was the excuse offered by the monsters who released the Zyklon-B gas at Auschwitz, for fuck's sake. You are never, ever excused by saying "I'm just doing my job." Ever. FUCKING EVER.

Crid,
Just to add; I mentioned the pregnant bladder distress bit because I once got into a spot of bother with airline security by taking a large saw in my hand luggage out of a Tennessee airport.

I'd been interviewing Dolly Parton, was 7 months pregnant & was so worried about finding a bathroom that it slipped my mind that the gift I'd purchased for my husband as rural American folk art (it was charmingly painted) would show up as a dangerous object in the X-ray machine.

Those were more innocent flying times, so all the officials had a good laugh with me!

>>I don't think you've yet sorted out this whole citizen responsibility thing we've got cooking over here in the 'States.

And while I remember, Crid.

It's plain silly to patronize immigrants like me for apparently failing to grasp the American way of life when you then promptly flaunt your own ignorance of elementary-level US history.

Crid: "I don't actually know who Nathan Hale is. Was he known to put up with bullshit during air travel, either in the sky or in the terminal?"

> you're old enough to grasp the unambiguous
> rules about pocket knives

Oh. You coulda said it plainly like that. To cluck about "knowing the rules" begs the question. The point of that comment –though I'm glad it had the garlic to sink so deeply into your thinking, as your reviews of its implications continue– is that the "unambiguous rules" are shit, are doing nothing to protect, and are a detriment to our well-being by putting tragic weenie-peeps in positions that mock the meaning of genuine transportation authority. With badges. And uniforms.

(In one of the [perhaps apocryphal] narratives about Sully on the Hudson, there was a moment while the passengers were clambering from the wings onto rescue craft as a younger person, maybe a crewmember, offered to do one last sweep of the flooded cabin for remaining passengers, and the older man replied "Get off my airplane". Even if it's a story, it speaks to the ancient customs that make travel work. Sea captains of antiquity may have had entirely conscripted crews, but they knew there was a place where responsibility stopped. The Squeaking Chin Women of Vegas are not part of that tradition.)

> I misread your rant references
> to Auschwitz

Ah, right. I forgot about that. That's the hazard, ain't it? Germany's so HANDY. (I meant it, though... The TSA agent has no excuse for earning a living that way. It's a shitty enterprise.)

> you then promptly flaunt your own
> ignorance of elementary-level US history.

I think it's ducky that immigrants are expected to do some reading before they're given citizenship. But the things I like about American character aren't forged in booklearnin': The "American way of life" doesn't come from reading elementary-level, or even post-graduate level, US history. In fact, almost nothing I like about people comes from their having read anything special. Maybe this is part of your Euro thing, where something from your personal past, some regal breeding or heritable elegance, makes you into a special person who need not be constrained like commonfolk. You want to test out of some concerns, if only by saying Listen, I've READ about this...

Well, I haven't. My mother was history librarian, but some fascinations just aren't genetic; Nonetheless, she recently sent a little volume, sitting in front of me now, that I've enjoyed a great deal. This pocket diary of 1863 was owned by my great-great grandfather (given name Royal), and briskly records a year spent in Tennessee fighting the Civil War.

The penmanship is schoolboy-formal, as if he didn't use it much and the sting of the schoolmarm's ruler on his knuckles still drives his nib, even in his forties. Mostly it's about hunger, and the terror of being "shelled by Rebs", and bad weather, and burying the dead, and more hunger, relieved by the occasional hike over Smokies or a quiet day in camp. Baths were a big event, and clean clothes are infrequently recorded. Favorite entries concern leading sixty troops, building friendships, and hearing news of events two weeks earlier and being grateful for fresh word. One page describes chasing down free-roaming chickens with his friend La Brock for a Negro woman, presumably in exchange for the meat of one... Many more pages describe short rations.

Nice to have some of this in family, but it's more about ancestors than anything personal. I'm certain that many, many immigrants in the intervening century and a half have come to America to embrace our greater opportunities and responsibilities with more fervor than I have, no matter how much part my family has taken in The Miracle, and no matter how much we've read about it. (I'm going to give the diary to my nephew's child, born on the last day of last year, the great-great-great-great-grandson. Royal survived the war to return to Illinois, where his work in banking and merchandising helped make Mason City into the expansive metropolis we all know today... Many years later he died when thrown from a colt he was training.)

So you never got back to me on how Nathan Hale felt about the TSA. I don't know that any of the heroes from Flight 93, or the ones who subdued Richard Reid or Abdulmutallab or any of the other miscreants were students of American history either. But even if they were, I'd bet that wasn't the source of their response. They say the guy who stepped up during the Christmas Day crisis wasn't even American.... Imagine!

Would you be upset if he didn't first return his tray table to the upright and locked position? "unambiguous rules" are rules, and we wouldn't want him getting all macho 'n reckless like that wicked Chuck Norris of yours... Are you really asking that we submit patiently to rules, or is your irritation entirely personal?

Downtown, where all the lights are bright.

Sorry about your relative and the horse thing, Crid.
Bummer.

He was old, and they say it only took a mile or so. Your great-great-grandfather's dead now, too... Or were you making a point? Do you ache for the Chin Women, or for someone else?

"Most of the commercial pilots in the US are military veterans, primarily Air Force and Navy, who probably have the skills or can acquire the traning to be competent with a firearm. Having an armed flight crew would not eliminate all potential terrorism but it would not hurt."

I wouldn't want to bet on the shooting abilities of Navy/Air force pilots. Past basic training, the people who need the guns get and use them, and the other 90ish% rarely see them again. Who you are and what you get paid to do don't matter much. Whether you've been trained, and have some basic raw talent, does. I am a SAHM with a lib arts degree, but I can outshoot most people. Because I have A) apparent inborn eye/hand coordination and steady hands and B) used guns. A lot.

Which is not to say pilots shouldn't be armed. Heck, let's make small-arms training a flight crew requirement, and let all the stewardesses pack some heat too. Might improve in-air passenger behavior a bit!

M4, you may already know this, but not so long ago it was a requirement that the pilot of any airplane on which U.S. Mail was conveyed was required to be armed. Earnest Gann wrote about how back in the inter-war years, when a lot of WWI veteran pilots were flying airmail, none of them ever really know what they were supposed to do with their Post Office-issued revolvers. Mostly they just tried to stash them somewhere out of the way. Gann said he never heard of a mail pilot actually doing anything with their weapons.

I politely explained that "the Verse of the Sword" abrogates the verses before it, and then, when I mentioned that many Muslims had never read the Quran, he said he actually never had.

It seems to me that "Islam" as an actual religion is not "whatever the Quran says and however the Imams interpret it", but "whatever actual Muslims practice".

If, as a thought experiment, something like 99.9% of Muslims believed Islam to be a religion of peace and either didn't know or didn't care about the Verse of the Sword, its existence would be an intellectual curiosity and nothing more.

If one prefers, one could call the religion they practiced Islam', as distinguished from Islam (with no '), which would be Perfect Implementation Or Belief In The Actual Text Of the Koran.

But if they don't read it and don't actually follow it directly and literally, it doesn't much matter.

(I have no dog in the fight, and am for proactively killing people who want to kill us regardless of this technical matter; I just think that the difference between Islam-as-practiced and Islam-in-theory is important, as it is with every other religion or dogma, even the non-religious ones.)

> It seems to me that "Islam" as an
> actual religion is not "whatever the Quran
> says and however the Imams interpret it",
> but "whatever actual Muslims practice".

I couldn't disagree with you more.

But Crid, wait!, I hear you cry... Do you have a youtube clip from a famously entertaining intellectual explaining precisely WHY the 'unimprovable' text of a religion needs to be taken into account as we judge its relative tolerability? A clip recorded, perhaps, during an appearance by this author at a book festival in your own city in recent years? A clip that you've perhaps offered here before, yet which I might enjoy reviewing again?

Why, yes, I do!

Go here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DKfJfKb5y0#t=2m00s

You can start at two minutes, or just kick off your shoes and enjoy the whole thing.