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.
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.
This will be interesting to see how long Kip Hawley can prop himself up with his continuous specious reasoning.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
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.
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).
