Your tax dollars at work

HARTSFIELD ORDEAL

Our sympathies go out to anyone caught in the incredible mess at
Hartsfield International Airport on Saturday. I'm told that literally
thousands missed flights because there weren't enough TSA screeners on
duty to get the job done. Here is just one of the emails we've received
about Saturday's Hartsfield Hell:

I took my 77 year old parents to Hartsf-Jack airport Saturday. we
got there over 2 hrs. ahead of time (you know how old people have to be
early) flight was 3:20 and we arrived outside the Airtran counter at
1:20. thank goodness we were early since the cops there had traffic
blocked past the parking lots. parents picked for random screening. both
have heart problems and dad has diabetes as well as a hip problem.
screening took 1.5 hours and they missed their flight. they just got on
a flight now (11:00 pm) after 10 hours. both parents are Irish German
with an American name. not Muhammad. I am so ****ed. what are the odds
that they will come to visit my family again after this ordeal? (Donna C.)

Like the Israeli security expert said; Americans have it all wrong. We
look for terrorists. They look for weapons. There is no way these
77-year-olds should have been singled out like this, but political
correctness being the rule these TSA types can't spend their time
actually looking for those who really would present a threat.

There's another way to look at this. When a passenger walks up to an
Israeli security checkpoint the Israeli security personnel are actually
trained to observe the passenger, talk to the passenger, ask pertinent
questions and make a judgment as to whether or not this particular
person would constitute a threat. Now that I think about it, maybe were
better off with our security agents strip-searching each passenger
rather than actually trying to use their heads to make an individual
judgment.

And here is another example of your tax dollars at work....
But the good news they did detect 100 percent of all nail
clippers.


Fake Bomb Foils TSA, too
A week after French airport authorities lost track of a wad of plastic
explosives during a training exercise, TSA screeners at Newark International
Airport committed a similar flub, according to the Associated Press. Last
Tuesday a fake bomb, complete with wires, detonator and timer, but no actual
explosives, was planted in a bag for training purposes. While a baggage
scanning machine set off an alarm, TSA agents apparently lost track of the
bag and were unable to recover it before baggage handlers loaded it onto a
flight to Amsterdam. Airport officials in Amsterdam were able to snag the
fake bomb, and the TSA says no one was ever in danger. However, the Newark
Star-Ledger newspaper reported that over the summer, screeners at Newark
allegedly failed to detect a quarter of all fake explosives planted in bags
during weekly tests.



"Spockstuto" > wrote in message
...
> Your tax dollars at work
>
> HARTSFIELD ORDEAL
>
> Our sympathies go out to anyone caught in the incredible mess at
> Hartsfield International Airport on Saturday. I'm told that literally
> thousands missed flights because there weren't enough TSA screeners on
> duty to get the job done. Here is just one of the emails we've received
> about Saturday's Hartsfield Hell:
>
> I took my 77 year old parents to Hartsf-Jack airport Saturday. we got
> there over 2 hrs. ahead of time (you know how old people have to be early)
> flight was 3:20 and we arrived outside the Airtran counter at 1:20. thank
> goodness we were early since the cops there had traffic blocked past the
> parking lots. parents picked for random screening. both have heart
> problems and dad has diabetes as well as a hip problem. screening took 1.5
> hours and they missed their flight. they just got on a flight now (11:00
> pm) after 10 hours. both parents are Irish German with an American name.
> not Muhammad. I am so ****ed. what are the odds that they will come to
> visit my family again after this ordeal? (Donna C.)
>
> Like the Israeli security expert said; Americans have it all wrong. We
> look for terrorists. They look for weapons. There is no way these
> 77-year-olds should have been singled out like this, but political
> correctness being the rule these TSA types can't spend their time actually
> looking for those who really would present a threat.
>
> There's another way to look at this. When a passenger walks up to an
> Israeli security checkpoint the Israeli security personnel are actually
> trained to observe the passenger, talk to the passenger, ask pertinent
> questions and make a judgment as to whether or not this particular person
> would constitute a threat. Now that I think about it, maybe were better
> off with our security agents strip-searching each passenger rather than
> actually trying to use their heads to make an individual judgment.

Spockstuto wrote:
> Your tax dollars at work
>
(SNIP)

Now that I think about it, maybe were
> better off with our security agents strip-searching each passenger
> rather than actually trying to use their heads to make an individual
> judgment.

Unfortunately, "effective" is also known as "racial profiling". If they
singled out the following for close scruitiny, the legal system in our
country would not permit it:

Young adult and middle age adult non-resident arab appearing men with
Arabic surnames.

This is the profile of the group that committed the 9/11 atrocities and
is the target population for recruiting by terrorist causes.

I've been selected several times for "random" screening. Once was
immediately post 9/11 when they were using line guys to bolster the gate
staff. I made eye contact as he walked the line. Tag.. You're it.

The other times were the result of same day, one way, cash tickets (air
ambulance crew riding commercial home after repositioning). I was
wearing my uniform and had my Part 135 operation's ID badge on. I also
was the only one out of my crew who was thanked by the screeners for not
giving them a hard time.

I'm not defending the TSA. However, the same legal system that we look
towards for "fair" treatment also looks dimly on some of our most
effective methods for ensuring security.

Dave

>
> Unfortunately, "effective" is also known as "racial profiling".

Another case where political correctness has subverted simple logic.

Even children don't go fishing in areas where there are no fish because it's a
waste of time and money.

However, to be "PC," it is national policy that we waste huge amounts of time
and money searching people who have a negligible chance of being hijackers.
Which, of course, reduces the time and money available to actually work on
catching potential highjackers. Net result: Less safety, higher cost.

Dave S wrote:

> Spockstuto wrote:
> > Your tax dollars at work
> >
> (SNIP)
>
> Now that I think about it, maybe were
> > better off with our security agents strip-searching each passenger
> > rather than actually trying to use their heads to make an individual
> > judgment.
>
> Unfortunately, "effective" is also known as "racial profiling". If they
> singled out the following for close scruitiny, the legal system in our
> country would not permit it:

Bin laden counts on our legal system not permitting such common sense
precautions.

wrote:

> depends on whose ox is being gored.
>
> I suspect there would have been a hue and cry from young white
> christians if we had singled them out as terror suspects after McVeigh
> and Nichols bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.

"White" is a racial group. "Christian" is not.

> wrote in message
...
>
> So?
>
> I think the profiling advocates favor the singling out of young Arab
> Muslims, because they once acted as terrorists.
>
> So why not young white christians when they do the same?
>

How do you identify a Christian?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
>
> How do you identify a Christian?

From the National ID cards we'll be required to carry.

In article t>,
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > So?
> >
> > I think the profiling advocates favor the singling out of young Arab
> > Muslims, because they once acted as terrorists.
> >
> > So why not young white christians when they do the same?
> >
>
> How do you identify a Christian?

One of the mantas of security is that you can identify somebody by
"Something they have, something they know, something they are". As for
the latter, when only Jews were circumcised, identifying the Christians
was easy. Think about that the next time you object to being patted
down :-)

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message
...
>
> One of the mantas of security is that you can identify somebody by
> "Something they have, something they know, something they are". As for
> the latter, when only Jews were circumcised, identifying the Christians
> was easy.
>

That assumes one is either Jew or Christian.

"Roy Smith" > wrote in message =
...
>=20
> One of the mantas of security is that you can identify somebody by=20
> "Something they have, something they know, something they are". As =
for=20
> the latter, when only Jews were circumcised, identifying the =
Christians=20
> was easy. Think about that the next time you object to being patted=20
> down :-)

Roy, man, you made me fall off my chair!
(BTW, a manta is a devilfish. Appropriate for security personnel?)

> wrote in message
...
>>
>>How do you identify a Christian?
>>
>
> The same way you identify a Muslim.
>

How is that done?

Asking them who they voted for? Should produce no worse than does the
hit rate that the current method of detecting anything else ;)

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Asking them who they voted for?
>

What response would indicate they're Christian?

With a ham sandwich.

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>How do you identify a Christian?
> >>
> >
> > The same way you identify a Muslim.
> >
>
> How is that done?
>
>

C Kingsbury wrote:
> With a ham sandwich.

LOL

"Spockstuto" > wrote in message
...
> Your tax dollars at work
>

Objectively speaking, the #1 job of the TSA is to prevent another 9/11-style
hijacking. While we can argue that Thousands Standing Around is at turns
rude, inefficient, and as kafkaesque as every other bureaucracy, we have not
had another 9/11. I've traveled ~300k miles commercial since 9/11 so I know
what a pain it is. Perhaps the TSA has nothing to do with the fact that we
haven't seen another suicide hijacking here.

Also, it's worth keeping in mind that Muslim does not always equal Arab.
Leaving aside the one-off nutcases like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, or that
jackass kid from Marin, some of the most violent terrorists in the world
today can be found in the archipelagoes of Southeast Asia.

-cwk.

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:24:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>How do you identify a Christian?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The same way you identify a Muslim.
>>>
>>
>>How is that done?
>>
>
>
> Now you're catching on.
>

No, I'm teaching.

> wrote in message
...
>
> "Bush, praise Jesus"
>

What would a response of "Kerry" indicate?

> wrote in message
...
>
> Above average intelligence?
>

The opposite, actually.

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spockstuto" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Your tax dollars at work
>>
>
> Objectively speaking, the #1 job of the TSA is to prevent another
> 9/11-style
> hijacking. While we can argue that Thousands Standing Around is at turns
> rude, inefficient, and as kafkaesque as every other bureaucracy, we have
> not
> had another 9/11. I've traveled ~300k miles commercial since 9/11 so I
> know
> what a pain it is. Perhaps the TSA has nothing to do with the fact that we
> haven't seen another suicide hijacking here.
>
> Also, it's worth keeping in mind that Muslim does not always equal Arab.
> Leaving aside the one-off nutcases like Richard Reid, Jose Padilla, or
> that
> jackass kid from Marin, some of the most violent terrorists in the world
> today can be found in the archipelagoes of Southeast Asia.

Some of them were Irish too mainly funded through US organisations. A case
of double standards

> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 19:05:30 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> Above average intelligence?
>>>
>>
>>The opposite, actually.
>>
> Your evidence is...???
>

Kerry's statements.

> wrote in message
...
>
> Am I to assume that you are below evidence intelligence based on the
> statements you have made here?
>

No.

> wrote in message
...
>>>
>>Am I to assume that you are below evidence intelligence based on the
>>statements you have made here?
> Typo here.
>
> Change "evidence" to "average".
>

I assumed that's what you meant.

You gotta be kidding....


> wrote in message
...
> Am I to assume that you are below evidence intelligence based on the
> statements you have made here?

In article >,
wrote:

> >Kerry's statements.
> >
> Am I to assume that you are below evidence intelligence based on the
> statements you have made here?

<chuckle>

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Spockstuto" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Your tax dollars at work
> >
>
> Objectively speaking, the #1 job of the TSA is to prevent another
9/11-style
> hijacking. While we can argue that Thousands Standing Around is at turns
> rude, inefficient, and as kafkaesque as every other bureaucracy, we have
not
> had another 9/11. I've traveled ~300k miles commercial since 9/11 so I
know
> what a pain it is. Perhaps the TSA has nothing to do with the fact that we
> haven't seen another suicide hijacking here.

Also the law of unintended consequences applies. Every time I pull out my
laptop, remove my belt and take off my shoes while juggling my wallet and
coat and am in other ways inconvenienced (arrive 90-120 mins before flight)
I am forcible reminded of the actions of the enemies of America which have
made this necessary. Hard to imagine much better propaganda for our side.
These new systems and regulations are so powerful in that way that I imagine
this will be a "forever war".

Howard


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.818 / Virus Database: 556 - Release Date: 12/17/2004

Howard Nelson > wrote:

> Also the law of unintended consequences applies. Every time I pull out my
> laptop, remove my belt and take off my shoes while juggling my wallet and
> coat and am in other ways inconvenienced (arrive 90-120 mins before flight)
> I am forcible reminded of the actions of the enemies of America which have
> made this necessary.

Personally, in such sitations I'm forciably reminded of how much I prefer
to take my own plane.

--
Frank Stutzman (who never much cared for the airlines before 9/11)
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

"Dave S" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Unfortunately, "effective" is also known as "racial profiling". If they
> singled out the following for close scruitiny, the legal system in our
> country would not permit it:

I should hope not. It's much easier to decide it's worth it for millions of
innocent people to suffer indignities and loss of freedom if *you're*
assured not to be among them. If you have to share the burden, you're more
likely to protest against excessive intrusions.

> Young adult and middle age adult non-resident arab appearing men with
> Arabic surnames.

Then your profiling will miss Richard Reid (for example), a British citizen
of white and Jamaican descent with a non-Arab surname. (Some people think he
has an "Arab appearance", but if so it's coincidental, as that is not his
heritage.)

> This is the profile of the group that committed the 9/11 atrocities and is
> the target population for recruiting by terrorist causes.

Pilots also figure prominently among the group that committed the 9/11
atrocities. In fact, the percentage of pilots in the US who carried out the
9/11 attacks is greater than the percentage of Muslims in the US who carried
out the attacks. So if you were to have selected a pilot at random for
screening (without regard to religion or ethnicity), you'd be more likely to
have selected a 9/11 hijacker than you'd be if instead you were to have
selected a Muslim at random for screening (without regard to pilot status).

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> Pilots also figure prominently among the group that committed the 9/11
> atrocities. In fact, the percentage of pilots in the US who carried out
> the
> 9/11 attacks is greater than the percentage of Muslims in the US who
> carried
> out the attacks. So if you were to have selected a pilot at random for
> screening (without regard to religion or ethnicity), you'd be more likely
> to
> have selected a 9/11 hijacker than you'd be if instead you were to have
> selected a Muslim at random for screening (without regard to pilot
> status).
>

Were the perpetrators of the 9/11 atrocities pilots, or were they terrorists
that had received sufficient flight training for that specific operation?

In article >,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

> Pilots also figure prominently among the group that committed the 9/11
> atrocities. In fact, the percentage of pilots in the US who carried out the
> 9/11 attacks is greater than the percentage of Muslims in the US who carried
> out the attacks. So if you were to have selected a pilot at random for
> screening (without regard to religion or ethnicity), you'd be more likely to
> have selected a 9/11 hijacker than you'd be if instead you were to have
> selected a Muslim at random for screening (without regard to pilot status).

how many of the 9/11 pondscum were pilots?

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
>
> how many of the 9/11 pondscum were pilots?
>

Ohh!! Ohh!! I think I know this one! NONE!

wrote:

> On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:03:39 -0800, wrote:
>
> >
> >
> wrote:
> >
> >> depends on whose ox is being gored.
> >>
> >> I suspect there would have been a hue and cry from young white
> >> christians if we had singled them out as terror suspects after McVeigh
> >> and Nichols bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.
> >
> >"White" is a racial group. "Christian" is not.
> >
>
> So?
>
> I think the profiling advocates favor the singling out of young Arab
> Muslims, because they once acted as terrorists.

Once? I guess so in this country if you discount the 1193 attempt to bring
down the WTC. Otherwise, they are known to as a group (not all by any means)
to be Hell-bent on following the creed of Bin laden.

>
>
> So why not young white christians when they do the same?

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

> No, I'm teaching.

Steve,

It must be really cold in Green Bay now, because you are here more.
Have you gotten the snow plow and shovels out to take care of first
things first, and thus keep the wife happy?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> how many of the 9/11 pondscum were pilots?
>>
>
> Ohh!! Ohh!! I think I know this one! NONE!

"FAA records show that four of the 19 hijackers-one aboard each
flight-possessed FAA certificates as qualified pilots."
--9/11 Commission
(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf)

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>
> "FAA records show that four of the 19 hijackers-one aboard each
> flight-possessed FAA certificates as qualified pilots."
> --9/11 Commission
> (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf)
>

FAA records indicate that none of the hijackers were qualified in the
aircraft they were flying.

> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>> how many of the 9/11 pondscum were pilots?
>>>
>>> Ohh!! Ohh!! I think I know this one! NONE!
>>
>> "FAA records show that four of the 19 hijackers-one aboard each
>> flight-possessed FAA certificates as qualified pilots."
>> --9/11 Commission
>> (http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf)
>
> FAA records indicate that none of the hijackers were qualified in the
> aircraft they were flying.

Nor were they astronauts, or neurosurgeons. I merely noted that several of
them were pilots; you mistakenly asserted above that "NONE!" were pilots.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> FAA records indicate that none of the hijackers were qualified in the
>> aircraft they were flying.
>>
>
> Nor were they astronauts, or neurosurgeons. I merely noted that several of
> them were pilots; you mistakenly asserted above that "NONE!" were pilots.
>

They weren't engaged in space travel or performing neurosurgery. They were
flying 757/767s, none of them were 757/767 pilots.

"C Kingsbury" > writes:
> Objectively speaking, the #1 job of the TSA is to prevent another 9/11-style
> hijacking. While we can argue that Thousands Standing Around is at turns
> rude, inefficient, and as kafkaesque as every other bureaucracy, we have not
> had another 9/11. I've traveled ~300k miles commercial since 9/11 so I know
> what a pain it is. Perhaps the TSA has nothing to do with the fact that we
> haven't seen another suicide hijacking here.

There haven't been any elephant stampedes in Central Park,
either...

> wrote in message
...

>
> Irrelevant.
>

Actually, it's completely relevant.


>
> His point was that if you profiled pilots instead of Arabs, you would
> have had a greater proablility of a hit on a 9/11 hijacker.
>

Would we? What fraction of worldwide terrorism is perpetrated by Arabs and
what fraction is perpetrated by pilots?

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> His point was that if you profiled pilots instead of Arabs, you would
>> have had a greater proablility of a hit on a 9/11 hijacker.
>
> Would we? What fraction of worldwide terrorism is perpetrated by Arabs
> and what fraction is perpetrated by pilots?

You've got the statistics backwards. The probability of a hit on a hijacker
if you profile trait X depends on the fraction of X's that are hijackers,
not the fraction of hijackers that are X's.

And as I mentioned earlier, the fraction of pilots in the US who were among
the 9/11 hijackers is larger than the fraction of Muslims in the US who were
among the 9/11 hijackers. (Both fractions, of course, are miniscule.)

You replied, first, that none of the 9/11 hijackers were pilots. When I
documented the falsehood of that reply, you retorted that none of the
hijackers were 757/767 pilots.

The only apparent reason for you to segue to that non sequitur was to avoid
acknowledging that your first reply (which was at least germane) was
factually mistaken.

--Gary

> wrote in message
...
>>
>>Would we? What fraction of worldwide terrorism is perpetrated by Arabs
>>and
>>what fraction is perpetrated by pilots?
>>
>
> Wrong question.
>

There's nothing wrong with the question.


>
> The point is, a greater percentage of the U.S. registered pilot
> universe have committred terrorism against the United States, than
> have the percentage of the Arab uninverse.
>

Show your figures.


>
> Therefore you would have been more likely to get a terrorist hit by
> sampling the American pilot universe than by sampling the Arab
> universe.
>
> The fact that more terrorism is perpetrated by Arabs than pilots is
> irrelevant.
>

Actually, it's completely relevant.

wrote:

> On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:15:53 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"FAA records show that four of the 19 hijackers-one aboard each
>>>flight-possessed FAA certificates as qualified pilots."
>>>--9/11 Commission
>>>(http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_4.pdf)
>>>
>>
>>FAA records indicate that none of the hijackers were qualified in the
>>aircraft they were flying.
>>
>
>
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> His point was that if you profiled pilots instead of Arabs, you would
> have had a greater proablility of a hit on a 9/11 hijacker.
>
>

And if you had profiled Muslims, you'd have had virtually a 1.0 probability.

Matt

On 12/20/04 3:47 PM, wrote the following:
> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:26:33 GMT, Mitty > wrote:
>
>
>>>Unfortunately, "effective" is also known as "racial profiling".
>>
>>Another case where political correctness has subverted simple logic.
>>
>>Even children don't go fishing in areas where there are no fish because it's a
>>waste of time and money.
>>
>>However, to be "PC," it is national policy that we waste huge amounts of time
>>and money searching people who have a negligible chance of being hijackers.
>>Which, of course, reduces the time and money available to actually work on
>>catching potential highjackers. Net result: Less safety, higher cost.
>
>
>
> depends on whose ox is being gored.
>
> I suspect there would have been a hue and cry from young white
> christians if we had singled them out as terror suspects after McVeigh
> and Nichols bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.
>
>
The point is that (1) if you have a valid way to subset your population that (2)
gives you a significantly increased probability of finding the bad guy because
you can afford to expend more screening effort on the subset -- then (3) you
should do it.

Said less abstractly: If there are places in the lake where fishing effort has
a significantly higher probability of producing fish, then those are the places
to go fishing.

To your point: Assuming the selection of the subset is valid from a statistical
standpoint, it is irrelevant whether the members of the subset "raise a hue and
cry" or not.

To your implication that selecting young white Christians is logical: A single
crime committed by two members of a huge class is probably not a valid reason to
select the class for extra screening.

The arguments in the posts below, especially those about screening young Muslim
males versus screening pilots, all implicitly accept the idea that we should be
trying to fish where the fish are. It can also be true that it is difficult to
figure out where they are. That does not make it any less desirable to do so.

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>> His point was that if you profiled pilots instead of Arabs, you would
>> have had a greater proablility of a hit on a 9/11 hijacker.
>>
>
> And if you had profiled Muslims, you'd have had virtually a 1.0
> probability.

No, you're addressing a different probability. CFII and I were talking about
the probability that a given passenger screened for trait X would turn out
to be one of the 9/11 hijackers. That probability is higher for X=pilot than
for X=Muslim (though miniscule in both cases).

You're addressing instead the probability that one of the 9/11 hijackers
exhibits trait X. That probability indeed equals 1.0 for X=Muslim, or
X=male, or X=non-Asian, and many more. Obviously, then, that probability is
not the right criterion for identifying an effective profiling trait.

--Gary

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
> On 12/20/04 3:47 PM, wrote the following:
>> On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:26:33 GMT, Mitty > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Unfortunately, "effective" is also known as "racial profiling".
>>>
>>>Another case where political correctness has subverted simple logic.
>>>
>>>Even children don't go fishing in areas where there are no fish because
>>>it's a waste of time and money.
>>>
>>>However, to be "PC," it is national policy that we waste huge amounts of
>>>time and money searching people who have a negligible chance of being
>>>hijackers. Which, of course, reduces the time and money available to
>>>actually work on catching potential highjackers. Net result: Less
>>>safety, higher cost.
>>
>>
>>
>> depends on whose ox is being gored.
>>
>> I suspect there would have been a hue and cry from young white
>> christians if we had singled them out as terror suspects after McVeigh
>> and Nichols bombed the federal building in Oklahoma City.
>>
>>
> The point is that (1) if you have a valid way to subset your population
> that (2) gives you a significantly increased probability of finding the
> bad guy because you can afford to expend more screening effort on the
> subset -- then (3) you should do it.
>
> Said less abstractly: If there are places in the lake where fishing
> effort has a significantly higher probability of producing fish, then
> those are the places to go fishing.
>
> To your point: Assuming the selection of the subset is valid from a
> statistical standpoint, it is irrelevant whether the members of the subset
> "raise a hue and cry" or not.
>
> To your implication that selecting young white Christians is logical: A
> single crime committed by two members of a huge class is probably not a
> valid reason to select the class for extra screening.
>
> The arguments in the posts below, especially those about screening young
> Muslim males versus screening pilots, all implicitly accept the idea that
> we should be trying to fish where the fish are. It can also be true that
> it is difficult to figure out where they are. That does not make it any
> less desirable to do so.

so profile towards Muslim pilots its not a case of either / or

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>His point was that if you profiled pilots instead of Arabs, you would
>>>have had a greater proablility of a hit on a 9/11 hijacker.
>>>
>>
>>And if you had profiled Muslims, you'd have had virtually a 1.0
>>probability.
>
>
> No, you're addressing a different probability. CFII and I were talking about
> the probability that a given passenger screened for trait X would turn out
> to be one of the 9/11 hijackers. That probability is higher for X=pilot than
> for X=Muslim (though miniscule in both cases).

I have no problem with airports screening pilots more severely than
other passengers in the wake of 9/11. I don't know that the probability
is higher for pilots than for Muslims, however, I'll bet that the
probability of male Muslim pilots is much higher than for any other
demographic and thus worthy of being singled out for much greater
scrutiny at airport security screenings.


Matt

> so profile towards Muslim pilots its not a case of either / or

Not at all either/or.

There should be and probably are a number of methods ("profiles") for picking a
subset for more intensive review. Some are publicized, like buyers of one-way
tickets bought at the last minute. The point is that if Muslims or Muslim
pilots are logically determined to merit extra attention then it is stupid
political correctness to use the pejorative "racial profiling" and argue that it
should not be done. "Racial profiling" may be just as valuable as "type of
ticket buyer profiling."

You can also profile for groups which merit minimal attention. For example,
"Chinese grandmothers" would be a good candidate group where screening effort
could be minimized. This, too, is sensible "racial profiling." Personally, I
would argue that "fat old white guys" is another "racial profile" where
screening could logically be minimized. Then I could get through airports
faster. :-)

There are lots of reasons to use "racial profiling." In medical research, for
example, it is logical to use race when studying sickle cell anemia (blacks),
cystic fibrosis (northern Europeans), and Tay-Sachs disease (Jews).

It is unfortunate that the "political correctness police" have hijacked a
perfectly innocent phrase and made it pejorative.

On 12/22/04 7:16 PM, wrote the following:
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 00:43:10 GMT, Mitty > wrote:
>
>
>>It is unfortunate that the "political correctness police" have hijacked a
>>perfectly innocent phrase and made it pejorative.
>
>
>
> It is always "perfectly innocent" when it is not your ox being gored.
>
> It might seriously affect your point of view if you are the one who
> gets subjected to a patdown, strip search, detailed luggage
> examination and other interminable delays every time you travel, while
> your fellow citizens pass freely through the gates, simply because of
> the color of your skin. You would soon join the "politically
> correct", I am sure.
>
IMHO you need to take some courses that teach logical thinking. It makes
absolutely no difference what the members of the selected subset think about the
screening if the selection criteria meaningfully increase the probability of
catching bad guys. If they do not, that is a different matter.

And, BTW, nowhere have I suggested or seen suggested that "skin color" is a good
screening criterion. It almost certainly is not. "Young Muslim males" may well
be, however.

> For now, no doubt, you would be happy to see the metal detectors
> labeled "dark-skinned" and "light-skinned", and we could all line up
> at our respective stations, and those of us lucky enough to be
> "light-skinned" beings could enjoy the express service.
>
Those lucky enough to be in low risk groups certainly will enjoy the express
service. People objectively concerned about safety should be pleased that
resources are not wasted on screening low risk groups just to be PC. For
example, I would be very pleased to see Chinese grandmothers passed with minimal
screening.

> I am always amused by how one's view of "political correctness"
> changes in direct proportion with the direction in which the dirty
> end of the "political correctness" stick points.

I am glad that you find your own strawmen to be amusing.

This thread is waay too OT. I'm outa here.

"Mitty" > wrote in message
...
>
> There are lots of reasons to use "racial profiling." In medical research,
> for example, it is logical to use race when studying sickle cell anemia
> (blacks), cystic fibrosis (northern Europeans), and Tay-Sachs disease
> (Jews).
and bull****itus (N Americans)

> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 02:39:06 GMT, Mitty > wrote:
>
>>Those lucky enough to be in low risk groups certainly will enjoy the
>>express
>>service. People objectively concerned about safety should be pleased that
>>resources are not wasted on screening low risk groups just to be PC. For
>>example, I would be very pleased to see Chinese grandmothers passed with
>>minimal
>>screening.
>
>
> It's interesting that you use this example.
>
> Not too many years ago, the white citizens in this country rounded up
> a large group of yellow citzens, grandmothers and all, and placed
> them in internment camps because of what some other yellow people from
> halfway around the world had done.

It had nothing to do with "White" people.


> No one was really made safer, but it made all the white folks feel
> better, and they had the power to do it, and so it was done.

Everyone in the US was safer, and many live today because of that action.

>
> I have a feeling their rationale at the time was not all that far from
> what yours is today, and just as meaningful

We should do the same today.
>
> Just about everybody today ( with the possible exception of
> conservative kook Michelle Malkin) believes that it was a shameful
> episode of American history, and our government eventually apologized
> to the victims and paid reparations.
>
> And like the old saying goes, those who refuse to learn from history
> are doomed to repeat it.

Your problem is you are unable to learn, leftist brainwashing.


The US broke the Japanese secret code very early in the war. Because of that
it was known that there were many Japanese spies were in the US.

It would have been impossible to round up just the spies, without giving up
the secret that we knew the code. Thus they were all interred. No other way
to do it.

The US won it's first comeback at Midway, early in the war (June 42')
largely because of the code breaking.

Anyone who questions my motives here should be aware that my family (US
citizens) was also rounded up and confined away from the Pacific coast.

KG

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 18:46:50 GMT, wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 17:24:37 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
> wrote:
>
>>
> wrote in message
...
>>>>
>>>>How do you identify a Christian?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The same way you identify a Muslim.
>>>
>>
>>How is that done?
>>
>
>
>Now you're catching on.

I'm not Muslim, Christian, or Jewish and I don't like Ham.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

kage > wrote:

> The US broke the Japanese secret code very early in the war. Because of that
> it was known that there were many Japanese spies were in the US.

> It would have been impossible to round up just the spies, without giving up
> the secret that we knew the code. Thus they were all interred. No other way
> to do it.

You're pretty unfamilar with the tenants of counter-intelligence, arn't
you?

Identified spies are very rarely 'rounded up'. They are allowed to
operate, but it is insured that the information that they are transmitting
is bogus. Giving the enemy bad information is better than giving them no
information at all.

Pretty much been that way since Alexander the Great.

--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

"kage" > wrote in message
...
> The US broke the Japanese secret code very early in the war. Because of
> that it was known that there were many Japanese spies were in the US.
>
> It would have been impossible to round up just the spies, without giving
> up the secret that we knew the code. Thus they were all interred. No other
> way to do it.

1) What evidence do you have that cracked Japanese codes revealed the
identities of spies? 2) If their identities were known, wouldn't standard
practice have been to feed false information to some, while capturing others
(without disclosing the grounds for suspicion), depending on which approach
was more advantageous in particular instances? 3) If their identities were
known, why were they not captured in the course of the supposedly
obfuscatory internment? No one else would know that they weren't just
interned in some other camp. 4) If their identities were known, why were
they not prosecuted after the war? 5) Even in retrospect, is there any
documentation of espionage or sabotage by specific Japanese Americans? 5) It
is axiomatic that there will be some spies, including people who just
sympathize with the enemy's cause. Why not intern Americans of German or
Italian ancestry too? Their heritage may not be as physically conspicuous,
but it would be possible to identify many nonetheless--so why not, by your
reasoning, intern those whose German or Italian ancestry was known, or
suspected? At least some of them would probably be spies.

>> I have a feeling their rationale at the time was not all that far from
>> what yours is today, and just as meaningful
>
> We should do the same today.

So you're openly advocating that we start rounding up and interning millions
of Americans of certain religious or ethnic groups today. (This time, the
internment would presumably be permanent, since the "war on terror" will not
end in just a few years.) Just out of curiosity, would the resulting civil
war really make you feel safer? (You do realize that a huge portion of our
population would take up arms if necessary to defend our Constitution
against such an odious subversion, right?) Or are you one of those people
who actually try to promote an apocalypse, hoping to be rewarded in an
afterlife?

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "kage" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The US broke the Japanese secret code very early in the war. Because of
>> that it was known that there were many Japanese spies were in the US.
>>
>> It would have been impossible to round up just the spies, without giving
>> up the secret that we knew the code. Thus they were all interred. No
>> other way to do it.
>
> 1) What evidence do you have that cracked Japanese codes revealed the
> identities of spies? 2) If their identities were known, wouldn't standard
> practice have been to feed false information to some, while capturing
> others (without disclosing the grounds for suspicion), depending on which
> approach was more advantageous in particular instances?

That, in a nutshell, is how they knew for sure they'd broken the code(s).

The US let it be known (in what circles, I'm not sure...probably feeding bad
info to spies...) that Midway was running out of water. Say the Japanese
codeword for water was Alligator and the word for Midway was Lotus.

The US identified a message saying that Lotus was running out of Alligator
so we're going to attack Lotus...BINGO! We knew they were coming.

At least that's the way I've read it was done.

But, I believe the OP is correct in stating that they put a major iron lid
on the fact that we were listening "outside Yamamoto's door."

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Frank Stutzman" > wrote in message
...
> kage > wrote:
>
>> The US broke the Japanese secret code very early in the war. Because of
>> that
>> it was known that there were many Japanese spies were in the US.
>
>> It would have been impossible to round up just the spies, without giving
>> up
>> the secret that we knew the code. Thus they were all interred. No other
>> way
>> to do it.
>
> You're pretty unfamilar with the tenants of counter-intelligence, arn't
> you?
>
> Identified spies are very rarely 'rounded up'. They are allowed to
> operate, but it is insured that the information that they are transmitting
> is bogus. Giving the enemy bad information is better than giving them no
> information at all.
>
> Pretty much been that way since Alexander the Great.
>
> --
> Frank Stutzman
> Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
> Hood River, OR

You assume a lot, Frank.

How do you assume the US knew ALL the spies?

Many, many lives were saved by the interment. Just like the millions of
lives saved by the atom bomb being dropped.

Frank, you really should go to New York and check out ground zero, instead
of hanging out in the last bastion of the hippies, Oregon!

Karl
>

"kage" > wrote in message
...
> How do you assume the US knew ALL the spies?

First, you proposed that the internment of all Japanese Americans was
justified because the government supposedly knew which few of them were
spies (though you provided no evidence for that assertion).

Then, when it was pointed out that that would not have been a sensible
response to knowing the identities of some spies, you decided instead that
the justification for the internment was that the government *didn't* know
who some of the spies were. Are you making this up as you go along?

And what about the unknown spies among Americans of German or Italian
descent? Shouldn't anyone who was known (or suspected) to be of such descent
have been interned too, by your rationale?

> Many, many lives were saved by the interment.

How? Please be specific. What is your evidence? Which internees were
revealed after the war to have been spies, and what life-threatening
information were they privy to that they couldn't have been kept from except
by interning all Japanese Americans?

I'm sure you'd agree that it would be unspeakably irresponsible to represent
idle speculation as fact in order to rationalize the imprisonment of
millions of innocent people based on their race (and in order to have it
done again, as you have advocated). So then what is the factual basis for
your assertion that "many, many" lives were saved by the internment?

--Gary

kage > wrote:

> You assume a lot, Frank.

> How do you assume the US knew ALL the spies?

They didn't. And putting the Japanese-americans into camps did nothing
(or at least very little) to catch the spies. There were several native
born americans spying for the Japanese.

I refer you to "Shadows Dancing: Japanese Espionage Against the West,
1939-1945" by Tony Matthews. There is an example of what I'm refering to
in a on-line review of this book at
http://vikingphoenix.com/public/JapanIncorporated/1895-1945/brshadnc.htm


> Many, many lives were saved by the interment. Just like the millions of
> lives saved by the atom bomb being dropped.

Maybe, maybe not. Such arguements are difficult to prove and I won't
attempt to debate it. My only point is that 'rounding up' a whole ethic
class to catch a few potential spies is counter productive from an
intelligence stand point.

> Frank, you really should go to New York and check out ground zero, instead
> of hanging out in the last bastion of the hippies, Oregon!

I've been to ground zero. I lost aquaintances on 9/11. Your ad homin
point is not well received and I think my involvement in this thread is
over.


--
Frank Stutzman
Bonanza N494B "Hula Girl"
Hood River, OR

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 13:55:13 -0700, "Jay Beckman" >
wrote:

>That, in a nutshell, is how they knew for sure they'd broken the code(s).
>
>The US let it be known (in what circles, I'm not sure...probably feeding bad
>info to spies...) that Midway was running out of water.

> Say the Japanese
>codeword for water was Alligator and the word for Midway was Lotus.
>
>The US identified a message saying that Lotus was running out of Alligator
>so we're going to attack Lotus...BINGO! We knew they were coming.

American Intelligence had been picking up traffic accasionally
referring to "AF", which Cmdr Joseph Rochefort, who was head of
intelligence in Hawaii, thought was Midway.

He convinced Nimitz to have Midway broadcast a message, in the clear,
so that Japanese listening stations would be sure to hear it, that
their water distillation plant was out of order, and they were running
out of water.

When Rochefort's people picked up a Japanese massage saying that "AF"
was out of water, it confirmed his suspicions.

Even so, a lot of Navy bigwigs still thought it was a Japanese ruse.,
and that the real target of the Japanese was the west coast.

>
>At least that's the way I've read it was done.
>
>But, I believe the OP is correct in stating that they put a major iron lid
>on the fact that we were listening "outside Yamamoto's door."
>
>Jay Beckman
>PP-ASEL
>Chandler, AZ