On 8/12/2013 4:09 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Aug 2013 15:30:24 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> ... Right.. Because it was so clear this is what was being talked about.
>> Seriously though.. At the bare minimum, I would say, if you plan to not
>> put pressure on other nations to do something sane, then you need to
>> make sure you a) never have anyone sneaking in, b) your own people *are*
>> vaccinated, and c) that to even enter the country "requires" they meet
>> the same basic medical requirements to even get in.
>
> The problem here is that you're aiming for a 100% solution.  But nothing
> is ever 100% certain - that's life.
>
> As evidenced by the current state of "homeland security" in US airports.
>
Wow.. And now we have someone else telling me what I think.

And, BTW, the problem with "homeland security" period, never mind in 
airports, is that its all fucking puppet theater. We know that what 
works is watching for problem people, dealing with them in a civilized 
fashion, and only harassing the ones that actually show signs of being a 
likely problem, just like other countries, who haven't had a whole hell 
of a lot of terror attacks at their airports, do. Instead, we rely on 
machines, which are not always effective, and people keep looking for 
ways to get around, we harass "everyone" that goes through the place, 
use dogs that, in some studies, have been shown to be more likely to hit 
on things that their human partner reacts to, than actually detecting 
the things they are supposed to be looking for, and watch lists, which 
are so bloody useless they catch more people that are legitimate 
travelers than they have actual terror suspects.

If you think that I am looking for some sort of 100% solution, then what 
the frak does it say that you think we need to merely, somehow, 
"improve", with more theater, and false security, something that isn't 
even a 10% solution?

> When you get to 100% security, you have no freedom.  So you have to
> balance the two, and the debate is about finding the right balance.
>
> Jim
>

I must be talking a foreign language, because you and Shay keep reading 
things into what I am saying that have jack all to do with what I 
actually meant. Or, you are just so, stupidly, scared to death of 
anything involved in government that you can't help but imagine that 
anyone trying to fix it, instead of destroy it, wants a damned 
dictatorship, with perfect solutions. Either way... at this point you 
have both lost all respect from me on this issue, in no small part 
because you keep claiming I said things I never bloody did, because that 
is purely what **you** want to believe I meant.

Post a reply to this message