|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:49 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Have you noticed that they've cut way back on the free booze on flights?
One answer would be to strip everyone naked before boarding.
Everyone on the plane would be nude except for the flight attendants who would be dressed in sexy under wear. Just to be inclusive the male gay flight attendants (on Air Canada that's all of them) would dress the same.
Then give the passengers free, condoms, booze and good eats--lots of oysters and fresh figs. Sounds like a terror proof plan to me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ytuque wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
The problem with these scanners - in light of the attempt by the Detroit bomber - is that they highlight a common fallacy in the bureaucratic security industry mindset: the idea that a technological fix is the quick solution to a security problem, whatever its effect on civil rights.
The air security agencies (read: bureaucracies) had all the information they needed to know this guy was a bomb threat and to catch him well before he ever got on a plane. But they just didn't have their act together. Obama himself has pointed this out.
So why go for the technological quick-fix? So bureaucracies don't have to change. To prevent Congress or Parliament or the general public from shining a very bright light up their orifice to see what they are doing wrong. |
Would you rather trust your life to a technological solution or to a government organization run by a political appointee with rather questionable qualifications?
Even after 9/11 and Katrina, vital US government organizations are still poorly managed as the attempted underpants bombing highlights.
In your dealings with airport security personnel, did you find them to be security professionals or McSecurity, one step removed from working a counter at McDonalds? |
That's my point. There is no attempt made to make these intelligence-gathering agencies better...or at least, the attempts made to date still don't seem to be adequate. So people - at least some people - think that a technological quick-fix is the solution to the problem.
Problem is...technological fixes are only as good as the bureaucracies and agencies that use them. And in many cases they are simply a substitute for careful thinking and planning. As Obama pointed out, there was more than enough information to red flag the underwear bomber and prevent him from ever getting on a plane, let alone letting him get anywere near a body scanner or a metal detector.
Scanning, frisking, and inconviencing millions of air travellers is simply a poor substitute for good intelligence work. And part of that work means good intelligence coordination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Emark wrote: |
Using the airlines can be a free legal common law right to travel. INSIDE the country that you call home would be the easiest place to begin to exercise one's free legal common law right right to travel.
Everything is contact and contract is everything. To begin understanding the laws, simply replace the word law with the word contract. Laws only have power when you consent to them. They are just contracts.
Maintaining your rights, means limiting the contracts that apply and adhere to you. The more contracts that you "submit', "apply", and register" for the less and less liberty, freedom and "rights" you have.
Every person is so tightly wrapped up in adhesion contracts that they cannot actually flex their rights. When you purchase a ticket to fly on whatever airline, you have consented to an adhesion contract, thus surrendering many of your rights, freedoms, and liberty. Your D.L is a good example of an adhesion contract. Bu agreeing and signing to the license, you agree to do follow everything in the legislated laws. ... with out ever reading such laws. Hahaha! They gotcha! Purchasing the airplane ticket is much the same way. Unless you know how to stand up and demand that you will be retaining your rights and liberty while simply exercising your common law right to travel, you will be forced to adhere to the adhesion contract you made and be strip searched and raped if those are the rules.
99% of people in the countries of Canada, Austrailia, N.Z., G.B., America and others, do not understand their countries laws, or their rights, and especially how to make these things work and do what they want them to.
For more information, I challenge you to search out and listen to these people:
George Gordon (dot org)
Brandon Adams & Gordon Hall (creditors in commerce)
Robert Menard (thinkfree dot ca)
For a good read, d/l the book by Mary Elisabeth Croft : "How I Clobbered Every Cash Confiscatory .... Know To Man" |
I have to say, this shows a remarkable ignorance of how laws work in reality. |
Emark's point is that the reason laws work that way in reality for the "99%" he mentioned is that people do not demand their rights. Some rights need to be asserted to be preserved at each and every step of a proceeding.
This is not something to expect an average citizen to do, but asserting one's common-law rights has worked for determined, litigious types.
Like me. Once in New York, I went on food stamps. They wanted a photo for my ID card, but I insisted on my right to have an ID without a photo. It was not easy and it had to go through a bunch of people, but eventually I got my photoless ID. In the space for the photo, it said "Photograph not required."
Around that time I had read stories of people getting driver's licenses without a photo, signature, or SSN! So it can be done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| beck's wrote: |
Have you noticed that they've cut way back on the free booze on flights?
|
Yes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Emark wrote: |
Using the airlines can be a free legal common law right to travel. INSIDE the country that you call home would be the easiest place to begin to exercise one's free legal common law right right to travel.
Everything is contact and contract is everything. To begin understanding the laws, simply replace the word law with the word contract. Laws only have power when you consent to them. They are just contracts.
Maintaining your rights, means limiting the contracts that apply and adhere to you. The more contracts that you "submit', "apply", and register" for the less and less liberty, freedom and "rights" you have.
Every person is so tightly wrapped up in adhesion contracts that they cannot actually flex their rights. When you purchase a ticket to fly on whatever airline, you have consented to an adhesion contract, thus surrendering many of your rights, freedoms, and liberty. Your D.L is a good example of an adhesion contract. Bu agreeing and signing to the license, you agree to do follow everything in the legislated laws. ... with out ever reading such laws. Hahaha! They gotcha! Purchasing the airplane ticket is much the same way. Unless you know how to stand up and demand that you will be retaining your rights and liberty while simply exercising your common law right to travel, you will be forced to adhere to the adhesion contract you made and be strip searched and raped if those are the rules.
99% of people in the countries of Canada, Austrailia, N.Z., G.B., America and others, do not understand their countries laws, or their rights, and especially how to make these things work and do what they want them to.
For more information, I challenge you to search out and listen to these people:
George Gordon (dot org)
Brandon Adams & Gordon Hall (creditors in commerce)
Robert Menard (thinkfree dot ca)
For a good read, d/l the book by Mary Elisabeth Croft : "How I Clobbered Every Cash Confiscatory .... Know To Man" |
I have to say, this shows a remarkable ignorance of how laws work in reality. |
Emark's point is that the reason laws work that way in reality for the "99%" he mentioned is that people do not demand their rights. Some rights need to be asserted to be preserved at each and every step of a proceeding. |
The point you are making is valid, but it's not the point he's making if you read him carefully. For example, he says this:
| Emark wrote: |
| Your D.L is a good example of an adhesion contract. Bu agreeing and signing to the license, you agree to do follow everything in the legislated laws. ... with out ever reading such laws. Hahaha! They gotcha! |
This implies that, if only you didn't actually register for a driver's license and sign it, you wouldn't have to follow the laws related to it. Which is patently retarded; try driving without a license and see what happens. "I never agreed to it," is no defense against the law.
Your point about having to stand up for your rights in order to maintain them is a good one. His point about laws only having power if you consent to them is not.
| bacasper wrote: |
| Like me. Once in New York, I went on food stamps. They wanted a photo for my ID card, but I insisted on my right to have an ID without a photo. It was not easy and it had to go through a bunch of people, but eventually I got my photoless ID. In the space for the photo, it said "Photograph not required." |
Yes, but this isn't what Emark is talking about. You demanded something that was uncommon, but legal. Emark is talking about outright defying the law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Like me. Once in New York, I went on food stamps. They wanted a photo for my ID card, but I insisted on my right to have an ID without a photo. It was not easy and it had to go through a bunch of people, but eventually I got my photoless ID. In the space for the photo, it said "Photograph not required." |
Yes, but this isn't what Emark is talking about. You demanded something that was uncommon, but legal. Emark is talking about outright defying the law. |
If by "defiance" you mean "breaking" the law, I don't believe he is talking about that but rather about asserting rights and not submitting to laws which restrict our freedoms.
Let's ask him. Emark, are you talking about assertion of rights or defiance of law? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 17, 2010 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| Like me. Once in New York, I went on food stamps. They wanted a photo for my ID card, but I insisted on my right to have an ID without a photo. It was not easy and it had to go through a bunch of people, but eventually I got my photoless ID. In the space for the photo, it said "Photograph not required." |
Yes, but this isn't what Emark is talking about. You demanded something that was uncommon, but legal. Emark is talking about outright defying the law. |
If by "defiance" you mean "breaking" the law, I don't believe he is talking about that but rather about asserting rights and not submitting to laws which restrict our freedoms.
Let's ask him. Emark, are you talking about assertion of rights or defiance of law? |
Driving without a driver's license is illegal. He seemed to be saying that the applicable laws only truly apply if you "agree" to them by accepting a license (and then they've "got you" once you do). If he's really just talking about standing up for rights, I'd like him to explain the driver's license section of his post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
beck's
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is interesting to note that airplanes are the epitome of the nanny state. In an aircraft and in airports you are completely under the control of the government and of government regulations. You are lulled into the feeling that big government will look after you.
On an airplane you can't have liquids, sharp objects etc. You can't express anger. You can't smoke. You can't even go to the toilet without permission and only at certain times, according to the latest regulations. Big government is in full force.
Even so the jihad boys with a couple of hardware store box cutters and some explosives took over three planes on 911 and one on Christmas Day.
The planes that they didn't take down were the flight over Pennsylvania and the one over Detroit where the passangers, free citizens who did not respect any federal guidelines, overpowered the jihad boys and saved possibly thousands of lives.
Free citizens, acting on their own, can be a force for good. Those who give up their survival instincts to the government are doomed on aircraft and in society in general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ytuque
Joined: 29 Jan 2008
Location: I drink therefore I am!
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| ytuque wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
The problem with these scanners - in light of the attempt by the Detroit bomber - is that they highlight a common fallacy in the bureaucratic security industry mindset: the idea that a technological fix is the quick solution to a security problem, whatever its effect on civil rights.
The air security agencies (read: bureaucracies) had all the information they needed to know this guy was a bomb threat and to catch him well before he ever got on a plane. But they just didn't have their act together. Obama himself has pointed this out.
So why go for the technological quick-fix? So bureaucracies don't have to change. To prevent Congress or Parliament or the general public from shining a very bright light up their orifice to see what they are doing wrong. |
Would you rather trust your life to a technological solution or to a government organization run by a political appointee with rather questionable qualifications?
Even after 9/11 and Katrina, vital US government organizations are still poorly managed as the attempted underpants bombing highlights.
In your dealings with airport security personnel, did you find them to be security professionals or McSecurity, one step removed from working a counter at McDonalds? |
That's my point. There is no attempt made to make these intelligence-gathering agencies better...or at least, the attempts made to date still don't seem to be adequate. So people - at least some people - think that a technological quick-fix is the solution to the problem.
Problem is...technological fixes are only as good as the bureaucracies and agencies that use them. And in many cases they are simply a substitute for careful thinking and planning. As Obama pointed out, there was more than enough information to red flag the underwear bomber and prevent him from ever getting on a plane, let alone letting him get anywere near a body scanner or a metal detector.
Scanning, frisking, and inconviencing millions of air travellers is simply a poor substitute for good intelligence work. And part of that work means good intelligence coordination. |
Do you really expect that politicians and bureaucrats in the US will do the right thing? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 1:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
They won't if nobody calls them on it.
And in any case, that's still not justification for the technological quick-fix. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
