Skip to main content

View Diary: The Staggering Cost of Playing it "Safe" (196 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The 'bra' bomber only has to succeed once, the (10+ / 0-)

    extra comfy underwear bomber only has to succeed once, the wallet bomber only has to succeed once, the back pocket bomber only has to succeed once ...

    John Douglas, the renowned former FBI profiler, wrote a story about a conversation he once had with a compulsive gambler, as they rode along in a car in the rain. The gambler supposedly told him to look at two raindrops rolling down the window. He said, I bet the one on the left will reach bottom before the one on the right. His point was, no athletic contest was required to give a gambler an opportunity to gamble, and that there was nothing which could stop a committed gambler from doing so.

    I am not a huge John Douglas fan, and I don't think I even agreed with the point he was trying to make with the illustration he gave. But I do agree that gamblers can gamble anywhere, anytime, and it is beyond human power to stop it, if the gambler does not find the impetus within him or herself.

    Similarly, it isn't possible to stop every possible terrorist scenario. Never has been, never will be. All flights would have to be cancelled forever to prevent all possibilities for bringing down commercial aircraft. It's the only way. And that, thank goodness, is never going to happen. Hopefully the end of the shoe stupidity will find its end. That's what I hope, anyway, as I agree completely with Devilstower on this issue.

    "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

    by BeninSC on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 02:42:15 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You're not the one who has to deal with the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      lawsuit and the angry public. You're not the one who has to face the voters. And that's why they're not going to change that. Is it a little overboard? Maybe so, but you're not the ones who have to deal with the consequences.

      •  The consequences are no different regardless of (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        StrayCat, brein, Kanscott

        how a terrorist attack occurs. People, corporations and governments ARE going to be blamed. There is no measure possible to keep that from happening. Ratifying and maintaining the idiocy of shoe checks isn't going to provide any liability shield, and it is not and will never be possible to check for everything.

        The problem 'apologists' for shoe checks face is that an infinite number of things are just as likely as a shoe bomb. If you want to make an argument for continuing shoe checks, sadly, you have to also make an argument for why a shoe bomb is more likely  (or poses a greater danger) than any other scenario, and no such argument is going to be a reasonable, much less a plausible one.

        I may not have to deal with a lawsuit, but I could be killed in a terrorist attack on a commercial airliner, since I do fly, and I'd rather be the plaintiff in a lawsuit than a dead person, so please don't discount my argument on the basis that I don't have 'skin in the game.' I do, and I still say shoe checks are idiotic and indefensible.

        "The opposite of war isn't peace, it's CREATION." _ Jonathan Larson, RENT

        by BeninSC on Sun Jun 21, 2009 at 03:26:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site