Rocket Science in Canada

Gary Owens wrote

> But all us New Yorkers who retired to Florida brought our guns with us.

Yes you did. I'm often amazed at just how many guns my friends from New York
brought with them. Some of them, by the way, are very good pistol shots.

Ed wrote

> BTW.... Lee... why did you let your pet shark bite that kid in our
> neighborhood yesterday???

Didn't hear about it. Guess the kid wasn't an attorney, though. Otherwise,
the shark would have given him professional courtesy.

Lee

"Lee Bell" <pleebell@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:eG1Hi.35827$Y7.3446@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > Yes, and I suspect that England, having dealt with terrorism for a lot
> > longer than US, doesn't need to look to TSA for inspiration
>
> I think maybe they do. They're the folks that think the way to deal with
> violence is by completely disarming the population, making even a small
lock
> blade pocket knife an illegal weapon and going way past anything I can
> imagine in requiring victims of home invasion to literally run away from
> perpetrators.

I'm pretty sure that TSA thinks that you can't profile likely terrorists,
but have to apply the intensive searches in a random fashion, such that
grandmothers get the more focused attention, while the chap chanting
allegance to bin Laden is ignored?
TSA has pretty strict rules about guns on airplanes as well.

And there are states here that have required the same of home invasion
victims.

Dennis

On Sep 16, 3:46 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:

> I'm pretty sure that TSA thinks that you can't profile likely terrorists,
> but have to apply the intensive searches in a random fashion, such that
> grandmothers get the more focused attention, while the chap chanting
> allegance to bin Laden is ignored?

I think you're wrong.

"The TSA, sometimes criticized for implementing policies after the
fact, is moving to be more proactive. In a major shift in emphasis, it
is training its officers in "person-based screening," which focuses on
telltale actions that indicate intent. It "has to do with
involuntarily human behaviors," Hawley said.

"About 600 officers have been redeployed from behind X-ray machines to
scan the public for suspicious behaviors. The TSA hopes to take over
the checking of travel identification and boarding passes, offering an
opportunity to interact more closely with the traveling public and to
detect those who need secondary screening.

"Thus the emphasis shifts to checking people rather than things.
Terrorists "will use weapons that are created around the security
measurers that are in place," Hawley said."

http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-tr-insider9sep09

But the obvious reason for checking grandmothers is because terrorists
come in all flavors, just like drug smugglers. Plenty of grandmothers
have been found to be cocaine mules by customs inspectors savvy enough
to think to check grandmothers. It would be a shame if the plane that
brings down the Sears Tower was commandeered by 5 "grandmothers"
because Dennis said that no grandmother could ever be a terrorist
hijacker.

It makes perfect sense to me that a 90-year-old might be less
reluctant about giving up the rest of his or her own life than a 20-
year-old.

Dennis (Icarus) wrote

> I'm pretty sure that TSA thinks that you can't profile likely terrorists,
> but have to apply the intensive searches in a random fashion, such that
> grandmothers get the more focused attention, while the chap chanting
> allegance to bin Laden is ignored?

I"m sure they know the profile. Problem is, it's not politically correct to
profile by race, color, religion or national origin, so they spread the
searches around to make it look like they're not doing that. Don't you
believe it for a second.

> TSA has pretty strict rules about guns on airplanes as well.

Airplanes aren't your home.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:1189957708.107353.95890@r29g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> On Sep 16, 3:46 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I'm pretty sure that TSA thinks that you can't profile likely
terrorists,
> > but have to apply the intensive searches in a random fashion, such that
> > grandmothers get the more focused attention, while the chap chanting
> > allegance to bin Laden is ignored?
>
> I think you're wrong.

No, I'm not, otherwise they woudn't be making the change described below.

>
> "The TSA, sometimes criticized for implementing policies after the
> fact, is moving to be more proactive. In a major shift in emphasis, it
> is training its officers in "person-based screening," which focuses on
> telltale actions that indicate intent. It "has to do with
> involuntarily human behaviors," Hawley said.
>
> "About 600 officers have been redeployed from behind X-ray machines to
> scan the public for suspicious behaviors. The TSA hopes to take over
> the checking of travel identification and boarding passes, offering an
> opportunity to interact more closely with the traveling public and to
> detect those who need secondary screening.
>
> "Thus the emphasis shifts to checking people rather than things.
> Terrorists "will use weapons that are created around the security
> measurers that are in place," Hawley said."
>
> http://travel.latimes.com/articles/la-tr-insider9sep09
>
> But the obvious reason for checking grandmothers is because terrorists
> come in all flavors, just like drug smugglers. Plenty of grandmothers
> have been found to be cocaine mules by customs inspectors savvy enough
> to think to check grandmothers. It would be a shame if the plane that
> brings down the Sears Tower was commandeered by 5 "grandmothers"
> because Dennis said that no grandmother could ever be a terrorist
> hijacker.
>
> It makes perfect sense to me that a 90-year-old might be less
> reluctant about giving up the rest of his or her own life than a 20-
> year-old.
>

So....6 years after 9/11, after folks criticizing 'em for random searches,
finally they're making the move to looking at people.
Good deal.

Dennis

On Sep 16, 2:04 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
wrote:

> > "Thus the emphasis shifts to checking people rather than things.
> > Terrorists "will use weapons that are created around the security
> > measurers that are in place," Hawley said."

> So....6 years after 9/11, after folks criticizing 'em for random searches,
> finally they're making the move to looking at people.
> Good deal.

I thought some people here commend your ability to translate English
into English. How does "the emphasis shifts" turn into "making the
move"? They've always done some sort of profiling, that just hasn't
been the emphasis. Now the emphasis is shifting, but it doesn't mean
that they've never looked at people before.

"Greg Mossman" <mossman@qnet.com> wrote in message
news:1189979620.480765.79280@22g2000hsm.googlegrou ps.com...
> On Sep 16, 2:04 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > > "Thus the emphasis shifts to checking people rather than things.
> > > Terrorists "will use weapons that are created around the security
> > > measurers that are in place," Hawley said."
>
> > So....6 years after 9/11, after folks criticizing 'em for random
searches,
> > finally they're making the move to looking at people.
> > Good deal.
>
> I thought some people here commend your ability to translate English
> into English. How does "the emphasis shifts" turn into "making the
> move"? They've always done some sort of profiling, that just hasn't
> been the emphasis. Now the emphasis is shifting, but it doesn't mean
> that they've never looked at people before.
>

Because shifting the emphasis towards people, means that they're "making the
move" towards looking at people.
In other words, llooking at peoople was not emphasised before, but now
they're moving towards doing that.

Dennis

> Because shifting the emphasis towards people, means that they're "making
> the move" towards looking at people. In other words,
> llooking at peoople was not emphasised before, but now they're moving
> towards doing that.

It's still called profiling. They're just trying to add some behavioral
factors to their list of suspicious indicators.

When's the last time anyone heard of a white, Christian, great grandmother
blowing up a plane full of innocent civilians . . . or Ann Coulter.

Lee

On Sep 16, 8:12 pm, "Lee Bell" <pleeb...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Because shifting the emphasis towards people, means that they're "making
> > the move" towards looking at people. In other words,
> > llooking at peoople was not emphasised before, but now they're moving
> > towards doing that.
>
> It's still called profiling. They're just trying to add some behavioral
> factors to their list of suspicious indicators.
>
> When's the last time anyone heard of a white, Christian, great grandmother
> blowing up a plane full of innocent civilians . . . or Ann Coulter.

Blowing up a plane full of Ann Coulter? That's not terrorism, it's a
boon to society.

But aside from your extremely bigoted and incorrect implication that
only non-white people or non-Christians could ever be terrorists,
history gives us plenty of examples of the unexpected causing havoc.
Just because you haven't seen a white Christian great-grandmother blow
up a plane yet doesn't mean it won't or can't happen. It would be
stupid to automatically ignore all white Christian great-grandmothers
for exactly the reason that it creates an easy-to-exploit loophole in
security. I figured you'd understand that, but I guess you don't.

Russia has already had a problem with female terrorists bringing down
their planes. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/09/01/
russia.widows/)

It can't be much of stretch to start convincing a few of them to dress
more appropriately for undercover terrorism, to abandon the head-to-
toe black "uniform" for a T-shirt, jeans, and a nice pretty cross
around the neck. A little bleach for the trashy fake blonde look and
they might even come out looking just like your beloved Ann Coulter.
With nitroglycerin breast implants, all she has to do once on the
plane is give her knockers a hard knock and boom, thar she blows.