Thursday, January 28, 2010

Terrorizing Our Way Out of the Recession

If you think terror or the war on it isn't about the almighty dollar, then you have another thing coming. Psychologists have long studied fear and determined it to be a powerful motivator. People try harder fearing failure, stay in unhappy marriages fearing loneliness, fear challenging superiors for losing opportunities for advancement, fear rabid animals for preservation of life...and so on and so forth. Some fear is primal, part of evolution, necessary for survival and in those cases fear can be good and necessary for survival. However, in many more instances, fear is not a good thing for in psychology it does not fall upon the list of motivators, rather the list of barriers. Fear discourages. Fear deters. Fear ultimately prohibits, functioning according to its nature as a barrier.

During a recent trip, while waiting in a very long line awaiting the ever so delightful transportation security administration screening, I noticed an advertisement in the bottom of one of the screening bins--yes an advertisement. Now isn't that something? These bins are supposed to be used to assist in the screening process. Specifically, these bins are supposed to enable screeners to determine whether a passenger has contraband within his or her carry on luggage. Why are they now also being used to advertise products and services?

Please don't think the bins are the first or the last airline travel related items to receive a "boost" from terrorism. Airport restaurants and other vendors certainly received a boost from the asinine "no liquids beyond security checkpoints" rule. Every time a true or would be terrorist does anything, there is a knee jerk reaction to prohibit that thing from air travel in an effort to give the allusion of safety. More often than not, these efforts and allusions men money for some entity, rest assured. If you recall, a year or so ago, most people were averse to full body scanners for fear of privacy. Then comes along the would be "fruit of kaboom" underwear bomber (have to give credit to Rush for that phrase). Recent polls indicate the majority of Americans now favor those same full body scanners. Surprise surprise. As usual, people fell for everything hook, line and sinker. During some international flights, passengers had to raise their hands above their heads and were prohibited from going to the restroom just prior to landing. Now to the average and below average minds, this seemed appropriate--even the right thing to do for our "safety". Really? Why then, do we pay billions of dollars for intelligence? Is that not for our safety? Why should my comfort and rights be compromised and outright denied because intelligence failed? Why are we doing the same things over and over that continue to fail?

Each full body scanner costs $170k and several will be coming to an airport near you. So will the failing intelligence budget be reduced by that same amount multiplied by the number of scanners purchased and installed in airports? Well, ration would assume it should be if this in fact is designed to work.

What is really sad is that the same people who favor this and any new invasion of privacy and denial of rights with regard to air travel, are the same people who would protest the denial of any amendment guaranteed rights related to any other area of life. The point I wish to make is that we continue to exist as drones and are hoodwinked daily into frivolous government spending. Yet, some would have you believe that insurance reform, welfare, or educational investment are what really erode federal and state finances and corrupt government. Really? Oh well, if Tom Brokaw still reported the evening news, this would be a feature on The Fleecing of America.

2 comments:

"streetlights" said...

It is about time somebody speaks out about our corrupt airport regulation process. I am so irritated by the so called "security" act. I was traveling through the Atlanta airport a few weeks ago and was all but harassed at the security checkpoint. It seems like every time I decide to get on a plane it costs me extra time and money. For example, I had a rather medium sized bottle of lotion and an unopened container of hair moisturizer. Tell me why the security team just took my products and basically told me that if I wanted them back I would have to check my bag and pay a $25 fee? So what they were really saying was, "it is not about the liquid content or a threat to human life; you can pay a fee and be on your merry way." What a load of crap! It should also be known that the hair moisturizer and lotion containers were below the approved liquid requirement. What a joke! Thank you for posting this wonderful article and allowing me to comment. Hopefully President Obama will be searching the web and come across this fantastic point of view.

afvet said...

As a former intelligence official, I feel the need to speak up on this one. The "no liquid beyond the checkpoint" rule is a valid prevention mechanism in response to a specific threat. Whether the airport benefits financially from that is really not my concern - if it's what it takes to prevent another 9/11 than I'm willing to spend $4.00 for a bottle of water (it's not like most of us don't already spend that on a daily basis to buy a Starbucks, anyway). To "streetlights" - follow the rules and TSA won't take your stuff, it's that simple. These rules have been in place since 2006 - long enough for everyone to know that items must be less than 3 oz each and that they must be in a separate plastic bag for scanning. Please don't blame TSA for your failure to follow the safety precautions that are put in place to safeguard your life. That's like blaming a cop for pulling you over when you were driving drunk.