Economist Debates: Airport Security

Discussion in 'Aviation Passenger Security in the USA' started by lkkinetic, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. lkkinetic

    lkkinetic Original Member

    Every couple of months the Economist magazine hosts an Oxford Union-style debate on a proposition, with a moderator, proponent, and opponent. They make opening statements and rebuttals, and the reading public can comment and can vote for or against the proposition.

    The new debate that started today is

    Airport security: This house believes that the changes made to airport security since 9/11 have done more harm than good

    The proponent supporting the measure is Bruce Schneier; the opponent is Kip Hawley. At the moment the vote is 89% for the proposal and 11% against the proposal, which is a good thing.

    Thus far the quality of the comments is reasonably good, as I would expect from the Economist readership (revealing my bias ...). The debate continues through 30 March, so I encourage you all to read their arguments and take part in the debate.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  2. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I went with the current political advice, vote early and vote often. Also left some comments.

    Looks like a slam dunk for Bruce Schneier given the make up of Economist readership.
     
    barbell and Lisa Simeone like this.
  3. N965VJ

    N965VJ Original Member

    This will be interesting to see how long Kip Hawley can prop himself up with his continuous specious reasoning.
     
    Lisa Simeone and barbell like this.
  4. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    And here's Bruce Schneier's closing statement. So very sensible. Harms of Post-9/11 Airline Security He covers it all, from stupid liquid bans, to what kinds of clothing we can wear, to losses of liberty, loss of trust, and the sowing of fear. Great closing statement.
     
  5. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Succinct ...

    Boing Boing: Bruce Schneier hands former TSA boss his (expletive deleted)

     
  6. Sunny Goth

    Sunny Goth Original Member Coach

    I'm sitting in my chair laughing - out loud, even.

    We knew this was why the TSA didn't want him there. Can you imagine the hilarity if he had been allowed to testify? I would have flown and paid admission to see it.
     
  7. lkkinetic

    lkkinetic Original Member

    Not to pat myself on the back, but to illustrate how accurate our beliefs are about the TSA's institutional venality: early last Friday I followed the link to the hearing announcement from the TUG thread. I noticed the strike through on his name and immediately thought "aaah, the TSA up to their usual evasive tricks, they already got Schneier removed!"
     
    Sunny Goth, barbell and Lisa Simeone like this.
  8. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    They're cowards. Institutional venality, institutional mendacity, and institutional cowardice.
     
    barbell likes this.
  9. CelticWhisper

    CelticWhisper Founding Member

    Now we just need Schneier to deliver round 2 of his verb-stomp (that's verbal curb-stomping, for the uninitiated) to Pistole and/or Napolitano.
     
  10. Lisa Simeone

    Lisa Simeone Original Member

    I'm sure they or their minions are aware of every word he writes/says. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. These people just double-down on the abuse they're dishing out.

    I'm sorry, I actually thought we had a chance a while back of ratcheting this back. But I no longer believe that. The abuse will only get worse, the repressive procedures more insane, the public more compliant. I just don't have any hope. I'll keep fighting, of course, and ridiculing, and pointing out the flaws in logic, etc. But it's just for my own satisfaction. I don't believe things will get better.
     
    barbell and FaustsAccountant like this.
  11. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    Bruce should be ashamed, having a battle of wits with an unarmed man...
     
    Lisa Simeone and Fisher1949 like this.
  12. Fisher1949

    Fisher1949 Original Member Coach

    I think Hawley was partially armed, he is a half wit after all.
     
    nachtnebel and Lisa Simeone like this.
  13. Frank

    Frank Original Member

    You're giving him too much credit.
     
    Lisa Simeone likes this.
  14. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Reason chimes in ...

    Reason: Friday Fun Flight Link: TSA Trashed by Bruce Schneier

     
  15. barbell

    barbell Coach Coach

    I was surprised by Hawley's opening statement in the closing argument:

    All-in-all he seems to have (finally!) started to grasp why there is such animosity towards the Terrorist Support Agency. And although his thinking, his jumps in logic, and his "solutions" continue to be flawed, he is at least far more reasonable (now that he's out of the agency) than Pistole the Pervert.

    But back to the quote above. Do you ever sit and wonder how this fracture has happened, Kippie? It's because of you, you self-aggrandizing (expletive deleted).
     
    nachtnebel and Lisa Simeone like this.
  16. nachtnebel

    nachtnebel Original Member

    a complete fracture. Couldn't have said it better myself. thanks kip. now go jump off a bridge.
     
    barbell likes this.
  17. Mike

    Mike Founding Member Coach

    Tech Dirt: How The TSA's Security Theater Harms Us All

     

Share This Page