Verbal Remedy AKA Denise

Verbal Remedy AKA Denise
Location
Del Mar, California, The One That's In A State Of Steep Decline
Birthday
January 18
Title
Columnist, http://www.doesthismakesense.com
Company
Much preferred to the alternative.
Bio
Born. Grew up. Kept growing up. Started growing older. Still at both the growing up and growing older. Stay tuned.

MY RECENT POSTS

Verbal Remedy AKA Denise's Links

Memoir-ish stuff
Humor and Rants
No-Longer-Current Events
Food
Movies, TV and Music
OS Meta Stuff
MARCH 4, 2011 12:42AM

Scared Witless

Rate: 19 Flag

In case you haven’t noticed, the terrorists?

They’ve won.

IMG_0457Only a few hours after the recent terrorist blast at a Moscow’s airport (remember that?), a flurry of predictable stories were stampeding for linkspace on the front page of Google News.

All of them were sternly pointing out the fairly obvious: The world’s airports are... ... still not 100% secure!

We’ve taken off our shoes, stopped wearing belts and watches, resigned ourselves to flying without our favorite sunscreen, and submitted to radioactive body scans…for what? Look! We aren’t 100% safe!

 Consensus formed within the first six hours that airports need to take a hard look at the newly identified gap—Arrivals—and lock things down even tighter.

Get Real

 I'd like to suggest we do the opposite.

It would behoove the civilized majority of this species to deal with isolated acts of terror in the same way adults deal with dreaded toddler tantrums.

Ignore them. Keep ignoring them. Ignore them even more.

Sure, they may yell and scream and escalate for a while. But if during that period, if we could manage to keep ignoring them?

They'd stop eventually.


I'd humbly submit that if we stop reacting to and rewarding bad behavior, it just might end.

Some Perspective

There are, according to Airports Council International, 1,633 airports worldwide, operating in 179 countries, and 12,328,767 passengers pass through those airports every day.

Maybe that number is too easy to gloss over in numeric form. Allow me to spell it out. Twelve million, three-hundred-twenty-eight-thousand, seven-hundred sixty-seven passengers move through Earth’s airports EVERY. SINGLE. DAY.

On that Monday, one person— not even a passenger, and therefore a member of a whole different dozen-million people who go to or through airports every day without actually flying—walked a bunch of explosives into an Arrivals terminal and blew up.

That act was, without a doubt, a tragedy for the families and friends of those who were killed or injured.

But it does not represent a giant, looming, clear and present danger to each and every member of the flying public.

Can Restaurants be Safer? Are Stadiums Secure Enough?

There’s something about airports.

With every terrorist attack (or attempted attack) that targets planes or airports, we lose our collective sense of proportion. We notice and decry a "security hole" that allowed one person out of perhaps 18 million moving through airports on that day to inflict one single, solitary dose of death and destruction.

This time around, we’re noticing that the Arrivals area of an airport isn’t nearly as secure as the Departures area.

And in point of fact, no. It is not.

It isn’t supposed to be.

The Arrivals area is the place where billions of people each year gather to greet their loved ones, or to begin a travel adventure, or tend to international commerce.

It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a SuperMax prison.

When bad actors target other locations with open access—subways, restaurants, night clubs, Times Square on New Year’s Eve—we typically don’t hear calls for airtight, water-proof, flame-retardant security to be piled onto such gathering places.  Because it would be impossible to lock down those public places the way we lock down airports.


Very few would argue that we run every single person through body scanners to get into Vegas casinos, Hard Rock Cafés, university lecture halls, or train stations. And yet such targets are also full of people. They're great targets. They're wide open. And by necessity, they're much less secure than airports.

Forget high-tech, complicated terror conspiracies that take years to put together; a couple of high school drop-outs could probably come up with a dozen ideas to exploit the "lack of security" in most of our public spaces.

For the handful of people who feel the need to strap on explosives and blow themselves (and others) up, everyday gathering spots should be even more attractive targets than airports.

With every new security measure that slams into place (generally one that closes the barn door months after the horse left the building), we reinforce and nourish those who employ terror tactics.

When we sit down, shut up, and passively accept each new restriction and screening device, we show them that we are, in fact, terrified of what they can do to us.

Isn't that the wrong message?

Don’t Track, Don’t Sell

I hope within my lifetime, the media will collectively reconsider covering acts of terror with minute-by-minute blanket coverage, detailing the carnage and bloodshed, analyzing "security holes."

That's coddling the toddler.

Wouldn’t a voluntary, cooperative editorial decision to bury terrorism stories on page 10 (or run them only between the hours of midnight and 4:00 am, or not link them on the front page of news sites) do a lot more to stamp out terror than having some poor minimum-wage schmo paw through my underwear?

I also hope that within my lifetime, “security experts” will admit that the elaborate kabuki of most “airport security” is pretty much flash and special effects. It does nothing—absolutely nothing—to prevent terrorist acts.

The exception to this sweeping generalization is Israel, which unapologetically uses multiple layers of behavioral and physical profiling to identify people who seem suspicious. But they don't make every person coming into the place strip down and semi-unpack. That system makes a lot more sense to me than patting down Granny.

Active intelligence-gathering stops terror plots. Not invasive, radioactive screenings and body searches.

In light of the fact that we're finally going to be getting rid of the moronic multicolored "terror alert" system this April, I'd like to go further.

I'd like us to stop indulging the tantrum-ing terrorist toddlers, stand up straight, square our shoulders, pack as much shampoo and conditioner as we like, skip the scanners, and leave our damned shoes on as we tromp through one of those 1,633 airports.

And if by chance, as a price for such dignity, I happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when one of my fellow 12 billion annual passengers decides to have an explosive hissy fit, at least that would be an exotic way to go out.

I mean, really. It's a lot more likely that I'll hit that jackpot (1-in-83 lifetime odds) dying in a car accident. Possibly on the way home from an airport.

 

(Originally posted at www.doesthismakesense.com)

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
It's that nefarious "if" that drives me bonkers, Bonnie.

No. It patently and obviously DOESN'T make us safer.
The plain fact is that we're all a bunch of sissy fraidy-cats. We are scared to "death" that someone somewhere might want to harm us. We no longer have what it takes to face the exigencies of life as we live it. We want "cradle to grave coddling and care".

Stupidly, we've handed responsibility for this over to politicians, i.e. "government". We "demand" that they take care of us. Oh good! Now we must give them the "authority" to do anything they think will fool us into believing that they are "on the job".

As you, and others, have so capably pointed out, they CAN'T DO IT!! Even if they had some idea how to do it - which they don't, politicians have NO training in this area - they still couldn't do it. Again as you pointed out, because IT CAN'T BE DONE!!

But politicians, being politicians, will be more than happy to appoint themselves as your "guardian caretakers" in return for acquiring more and more power. We sit there and let it happen. We suffer, in the aggregate, more discomfort and difficulties than the "terrorists" cause us, by far, as politicians play at being "security conscious mandarins".

I honestly wonder sometimes, if someone doubled our collective IQ, would it reach double digits?

Good post!!!!
^R^
.
I'm tired of our so called leaders who prey on people's fears. They are no better than the terrorists.
Yes!! The Terrorists have won.
And the so called news media absolutely loves putting up color pictures sensationalizing blood and guts.
And I don't feel one bit safer.
Just violated that this is somehow supposed to make me feel that way.
gawd you're smart... which unfortunately means this will never happen.
This is far too logical to ever be sold to the American public, half of whom -- at least -- believe in Virgin Birth, Resurrection, and that Obama is a Kenyan Marxist.
Skypixie, in a perfect world, governments wouldn't respond to real death and mayhem by piling on more sets and costumes. But right now they've got to do it, because "security" is one of the venues where the theatre of politics is running. To appear to be doing "nothing" after an incredibly rare statistical event (which is the rational thing) is to invite attacks from the guy across the aisle, who'll say you're "soft on terror" or something equally idiotic. And the half-wits will believe it, and clamor about it on 24/7 screaming head shows until...the government DOES something. Vicious circle of our own making.

Tom, you're right, which is what frustrates me to no end. There was an astonishing display of kneejerk "I believe because I wanna believe" on display in a Big Salon article about birthers yesterday. Counterfactual data? Irrelevant. Logic? Irrelevant. Birth certificate showing that the president was born in Hawaii? OK, then, we'll move the goalposts and say that it's not the RIGHT birth certificate, and even if it was, his mother married somebody else in a different country who may or may not have secretly adopted him, and THAT would make him a non-citizen, right? No? Well, there's gotta be SOMETHING!!! Because it cannot possibly be true that a black man with a funny name got elected to the White House.

Sigh.

Thanks for the visits, y'all. I know I've been missing for half-a-forever and I miss you all!
nice analysis. a person who has written on this for many years but with very limited effect is Bruce Schneier. the name of the game is cost/benefit analysis, and its something that the irrational government hasnt really done for a decade, ever since 911.
of course,
1+1==3
I missed this on DTMS, so thanks for cross posting Denise.

This conjures up scenes from Minority Report, in which criminals were arrested before they committed their crimes; people were monitored as they went about their lives via embedded chips ... well, why not? I got nuthin to hide.

(she says with her tongue in her cheek)
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. - Helen Keller
Denise-I totally agree with ignoring the so-called terrorists. It doesn't make one bit of sense that the gov't has us stripping down and walking through a full body x-ray machine to see if we are indeed the enemy or the friend. And really if you talk about being safe when flying, the terrorists may be far less dangerous than these ripped tin cans in which we are flying as of late.

Sorry to ramble, but this gets my blood boiling. Good post! R
Makes perfect sense, except to the government contractors that are getting fat.r