Note: You can usually open the interesting advertisement/sponsor links in a new window/tab by RIGHT CLICKING the Ad-Link
then selecting 'Open in New Window' or 'Open in New Tab' from the drop down box. (depending on ad type)





What Do You Think? Forum Index What Do You Think?
A discussion board of different ideas and topics.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
TRoach.Net
r_frame.gif TRoach.Org

Why the TSA is wasting their time, & the American travel

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    What Do You Think? Forum Index -> General Discussion Topics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Jojoking
member


Joined: 17 Jan 2010
Posts: 70
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:26 pm    Post subject: Why the TSA is wasting their time, & the American travel Reply with quote

This article says pretty much what every level-headed American is thinking while being patted down and scanned while muslim passengers are passed over, thanks to political correctness.


Copied from:
http://infidelsarecool.com/2010/11/26/why-the-tsa-is-wasting-their-time-and-the-american-travelers/
also at
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-airline-security-doesnt-work.html

Why the TSA is wasting their time, and the American travelers’

by Kal El on November 26, 2010·

Why Airline Security Doesn’t Work

Three men go on a camping trip. On the way there they’re told by a park ranger to be careful because their campsite is located near some dangerous animals. What dangerous animals? The park ranger won’t say, because that would be profiling. “Just keep in mind”, he tells them, “that people who camped there in the past never made it back alive.”

As the sun goes down, they pick up their hunting rifles and stand watch for dangerous animals. But they don’t know what dangerous animals, they’re watching out for. And they don’t want to profile. So they keep watch for crickets as much as for bears, and for deer as much as for mountain lions. A rabbit, an owl or a bullfrog all equally frighten them out of their wits. They open fire on mosquitoes and stand watch against monstrous raccoons. By the end of the night, they can hardly see anything or react to danger. That morning, a pair of mountain lions stroll lazily into their camp and find them snoring away.

This little story illustrates why we can’t do things this way. Because it’s stupid and it’s suicidal. Human survival is based on recognizing threats, not on reacting to all stimuli because one of them might be threatening, but we don’t want to single it out and make it feel bad. If we actually did things that way, we’d all be dead by now.

There are three stages to coping with a threat. First you have to recognize the threat. Second, you have to formulate a plan for dealing with the threat. Third, you have to implement the plan.

So far we haven’t even made to the first stage. We haven’t recognized the threat. At the airline security level, we insist that the threat is completely random. Anyone at all could be a terrorist. There’s no specific ideology or countries that are sources of terrorism. Instead terrorism is like some sort of disease. Anyone at all could be a carrier. And so we have to watch out for everyone. All the time. And like those hunters, we’re either on alert all the time or we’re completely apathetic. We’re either security manic or security depressive. We go from letting everyone pass to strip searching everybody. There’s no rational approach to danger, because we don’t have a rational plan. We just go from 0 to 60 every time there’s a new threat.

Since we failed the first stage, we can’t move on to the second stage. We can’t recognize the threat, so every plan we formulate to deal with is doomed from the start. Instead of addressing a known threat, we go down a lot of blind alleys. Technology keeps getting abused as a shortcut in another episode of security theater, as new machines are bought and installed. But technology is ‘dumb’. Machines are a tool, not a plan. Like any tool, they can let us do more. But like all tools, they’re only as smart as the people using them. And the people using them are trained to be dumb.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
loosebelly
member


Joined: 06 Dec 2009
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2010 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But technology is ‘dumb’. Machines are a tool, not a plan. Like any tool, they can let us do more. But like all tools, they’re only as smart as the people using them. And the people using them are trained to be dumb.


There may be more truth to that statement than most people think.

How many people remember this news from several years ago?
Does anyone really think it has gotten better?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E5D7103CF93AA2575AC0A96F958260

September 19, 1999
Ideas & Trends; Help Wanted Invoking the Not-Too-High-IQ Test
By MIKE ALLEN

NEW LONDON, Conn.— WANTED: a few not-so-bright cops.

That is the official hiring policy in this former whaling village, where Police Department officials refused to grant Robert J. Jordan a job interview because they considered him to be too smart, then waged a three-year court fight to protect their right to favor mediocre applicants.

And won.

The City of New London contends that applicants who score too high on a pre-employment test are likely to become bored in patrol jobs, and leave the force soon after the city has paid to train them. Similar cutoffs, it turns out, are frequently used by employers when they are looking for workers who must follow rigid procedures, including bank tellers, customer service representatives and security guards.

In 1996 Mr. Jordan scored 33 out of 50 on the exam, which is used by 40,000 employers across the country, including National Football League teams for potential draft choices. That was 6 points too high to qualify for an interview with the New London police.

When Mr. Jordan heard about other people being hired even though he hadn't been called, he went to the Police Department to protest that he felt sure he must have passed. He says he was curtly informed that he did not ''fit the profile,'' which litigation revealed was a score of 20 to 27.

''Bob Jordan is exactly the type of guy we would want to screen out,'' said William C. Gavitt, the deputy police chief, who interviews candidates. ''Police work is kind of mundane. We don't deal in gunfights every night. There's a personality that can take that.''

This month, a Federal judge in New Haven has ruled that the practice was constitutional since the city treats all smart would-be officers the same, and thus did not discriminate against Mr. Jordan. ''Plaintiff may have been disqualified unwisely but he was not denied equal protection,'' Judge Peter C. Dorsey of the United States District Court wrote.

Mr. Jordan, 48, is a life-insurance salesman who had dreamed of a second career protecting and serving, with an eye on the pension. He said he was astounded that he could be shut out on the basis of brain power, but not gender, sexual orientation or race.

''Being reasonably intelligent does not make you part of a protected class,'' he said, chuckling at his new command of legalese. For a certified wise man, Mr. Jordan is remarkably modest about his academic achievements, volunteering that it took him 26 years to get a bachelor's degree in literature from Charter Oak State College in New Britain, Conn. ''I'm eminently trainable,'' he said. ''I'm not up there with Mozart.''

At first the decision was greeted as a great punch line in New London, a city of 27,000. But as the news sunk in, many people said the rule was insulting to their police force, and nonsensical at a time when law-enforcement officers must deal with complicated social problems.

''Your average dunderhead is not the person you want to try to solve a fight between a man and his wife at 2 A.M.,'' said Nick Checker, 35, a local playwright. ''I'd rather have them hire the right man or woman for the job and keep replacing them than have the same moron for 20 years.'' Millie McLaughlin, 82, the lunch lady at Harbor Elementary School, worries that pupils will think that ''if they study too hard, they won't get a job.''

And Gilbert G. Gallegos, the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, said that besides reinforcing keystone Kop stereotypes, the city's stance was self-defeating. ''The better the caliber of the police officer, the fewer problems you have in the community.''

Mr. Jordan had run afoul of turnover rates, which have been the subject of decades of study by management theorists. The publisher of the test, Wonderlic Inc. of Libertyville, Ill., has a section in its ''User's Manual'' warning clients about the cost of replacing workers who quit because they become dissatisfied with repetitive work. ''Simply hiring the highest scoring employee can be self-defeating,'' the manual says.

Wonderlic's president, Charles F. Wonderlic Jr., said variations of the 12-minute test used in New London have been given to 125 million people since his grandfather founded the company in 1937. Mr. Wonderlic said hundreds of employers have used his suggested maximum scores to exclude overly qualified applicants for positions where creativity could be a detriment. ''You can't decide not to read someone their Miranda rights because you felt it would be more efficient, or you thought they knew them already,'' Mr. Wonderlic said.

On the other hand, an expert witness for Mr. Jordan was paid $350 an hour for his conclusion that patrol work is ''cognitively complex and intellectually demanding.'' The expert, Frank J. Landy, a psychologist in Walnut Creek, Calif., pointed to the demands of such modern practices as community-oriented policing as an indication of ''the range and challenge of tasks performed by a typical patrol officer.''

MR. Jordan said he would appeal the ruling if his lawyers are willing to continue the case now that he has used up his savings. In the meantime, he is supplementing his insurance business by working for $26,000 a year -- $15,000 less than he would make as a New London patrolman -- as a state prison guard. ''In those dormitories, there's 110 inmates and one of you,'' he said. ''Your mouth better be connected to your brain.''

While those with badges and guns are called New York's finest, they will continue to be New London's fair to middling: New London officials say they plan to keep using the test to fend off smarty-pants.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    What Do You Think? Forum Index -> General Discussion Topics All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group