Keep up the Pressure on Patdowns

My advice with the "pat downs" is keep up the pressure. The actual benefit of this new fiasco is that it is calling into question the entire process our government has chosen to deal with the threat of terrorism in the air. The current approach is expensive, inefficient, and too invasive, and socially destructive. The better approach is obvious, but TSA refuses to discuss it or look into the  possible solution of profiling.

We all profile anyway. It's called, "making a judgment based on appearance." Doesn't "first impressions make a difference" apply anymore? Have mothers stopped teaching that these days?

To get right to the point, so you don't waist too much time reading this article, we need to profile. A recent discussion by the ex-chief of El Al air lines claims that we should know who is suspect before they even arrive at the airport. There is more information available than any of us know about, but narrowing the search to the "right people" would save us billions and make the airways safer. It goes without saying that searching a two year old boy  or an 85 year old grandmother to demonstrate to the world how "fair" we are with all people, is not helping anyone. It is helping our deluded sense of priorities.

Apparently, our TSA is now flirting with the labor unions. What a fiasco that will be. Threatening a strike would shut down the the entire nation, and that is not something we need.  Why not put bids out for private contractors to do the job, it will probably be more efficient, and less expensive in the long run. This entire aspect of air travel has gotten out of control and is heading into more trouble.

Finally, there is the singular idea of the invasive nature of this new development. It is unacceptable to have a total stranger fingering our "junk." In a larger sense it is moving the American public further towards the safety side of the "liberty vs. safety" debate that I discussed in my 4/9/09 blog,  "Liberty versus Safety, Always Competing." This illustrates the  tendency of our government to mold the public into a subservient and pliable mass. That is certainly not the basis of our original constitutional principles which strove to create an independent, creative population. I guess we may need to "accept" government force when the Obama health care law grinds into full gear.

My suggestion is to keep up the pressure by discussion and behavior. Refuse these procedures as much as you can, and we will force enough debate that we may get our government to abandon this intrusive and rapacious procedure.

Be Careful with What You Say

I read in the paper this morning that the athletic director from Cedar Ridge High School was suspended pending the outcome of an investigation. He is accused of making a racial slur to a 15 year old student. As the story goes from the Durham Herald-Sun newspaper, the student was hanging from a bar to stretch out his shoulder and commenting how difficult is seemed, when the athletic director walked by and commented that it would be better to be "hanging from a bar than hanging from a tree." There is some dispute about the "tree" word, and maybe he might have said "noose."

Either way, there is an investigation. Now this teacher has been at the school for nine years. He is the basketball coach, and a physical education teacher. All his activities have been suspended during the investigation. He is accused of violating someone's sensitivities by using a "racial slur."

All of us clearly understand that lynching history in this country is a despicable episode that raises disgusting images and distressing feelings in all of us. That's a given.  But this incident again raises the issue of each of our unique sensitivities, and the grand social effort to protect all of them.

It seems that anyone who offends anyone's sensitivities is at risk of interventions that have the potential to interfere with the freedoms we all deserve. My guess is that this comment was an innocent remark that is now being magnified into a major episode. Granted, the reference was ill used, but did it hurt someone's sensitivities so much to cause all kinds of retaliation? I understand that the father of this young person said, "forget suspension, I want his job."  Now that would hurt someone's sensitivities.

A recent episode in California occurred when a grade school student rode his bicycle to school and placed an American flag on it to honor America. He was told he must take it off because it might cause conflict by hurting someone's sensitivities. (I wonder whose?)

Finally, James Jones in Orlando, entered a school bus and berated some students because they had assaulted his handicapped 10 year old daughter. As far as I can tell from the video on the bus, he did not touch the "offenders" but he was charged with disorderly conduct and required to give  hours of community service, $1000 fine, and to take anger management classes. My guess is that every parent sympathizes with his "attack" of these bullies, and his direct confrontation. I wonder if he hurt the sensitivities of the bullies? I think Mr. Jones managed his anger extremely well. He didn't injure anyone, and he made his point,"don't  fool with my daughter."

We are such a divided nation, and we all seem to have our unique "sensitivities" which no one is allowed to bruise. I believe there is some truth to all this regulation, but I sometimes think we are taking it too far and dividing our nation and inhibiting our freedoms of speech and actions.

What about the American flag incident? It's clear the school over stepped it's bounds. Mr. Jones was, no doubt, given  too much punishment.  Finally, the athletic director, time will tell, but I think they should let him go, and I hope the "investigation" reveals how contrite and kind of a person he really is.

There was an event I attended last night that made me feel very comfortable with this conflict of sensitivities to our racial, ethnic, or religious conflict, because if doesn't apply under these special circumstances. I went to a high school playoff football game.

During the game, the black quarterback gave the ball to the white halfback, without conflict. Then he might have passed it to the black end, or the other Asian end. Maybe the quarterback would hand it off to the Jewish halfback who would pass it to the gay end. The point was they were a team, and they had a common opponent. They were doing a job, and all these differences which are the source of our unique "sensitivities"  didn't matter.

Do we really have time to go after the athletic director for an innocent comment? Probably not, but we are divided now, and that incident magnifies our division. It would be best if we took a step back and reevaluated this one. He didn't mean to hurt anyone, and he feels sorry for it.

Finally, it makes me think about all the ***-American types we are these days. I might try saying I am a "Euro-American" sometime, but that kind of talk only continues to divide us further. We need unity, don't we? E pluribus unum forever!

I hope I didn't offend anyone.

Our New Government. What Shall We Do?

Now that the Republicans (Teaparty) have (has)  won a decisive victory against the Democrats in our last election the question becomes; what directions will we go? Will the winners answer the cries of the plaintiffs in this ideological struggle? Or will it be one and the same of the last two years of bickering and gridlock?

For one thing it's clear  that Obama does not seem to see the problem. In his news conference on Wednesday, he blamed the economy foremost. Does he see it? I'm not certain. Only the weeks ahead will tell. Will he compromise? Not certain?

Our Government was designed to encourage gridlock. Governments can do foolish things that cause ripple effects that effect everyone. That's why the founding fathers made it so difficult to get anything done. Witness the recent infusion of billions of dollars into the economy by the Fed. Will that cause later inflation, and the devaluing of all of our property? Most certainly. Should we buy gold? Not certain.

The Republicans are boasting how they are going to repeal "ObamaCare." Big mistake. As I see it, the public approval rating is about 50% now, and let's face it, we need to do SOMETHING! The best approach would be to modify  it. There are some provisions in this law that look reasonable like stopping insurance companies from denying "preexisting" conditions. Of course, it will cost us something, and we need to pay for that.

The recent comments by the Deficit Reduction Commission were genuinely frightening. Not the report itself, but the public's response to it.  Every suggestion was criticized by the faction being cited for cutbacks. I'm not certain we have the will in this country to face the necessity for fiscal restraint.
If we don't, we are all in for uncontrolled financial misery. Can you imaging paying $15 for a Big Mac? I fear we are headed for inflation.

I think the most important response to this recent election is for the public to try to realize that we need to stay in touch with our Congressmen and women. Don't crawl back into our caves, and watch more TV.  Call them, write them, email them to keep them aware of our thoughts.

Finally, the Congress people must LISTEN! They didn't listen when they passed the "unread" health care law, and that is unacceptable to their constituents.  The electorate won't stand for so much arrogance. I think we all did a splendid job in demonstrating that in the last election.