Letters to the Editor
aptnro
Published Letters: 50 Editor's Choice: 9
-
He should speak like that more often...
[Read the article: The Bush gaffe heard 'round the world]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You know, at moments like this, I almost sort of like the guy. Except for virtually every major decision he's made as president, that is. When he's in folksy mode, or tell-it-like-it-is mode, I can see how people of a conservative bent would find Bush quite charming.
But really, it would be great if presidents spoke out in these terms more often - and more even-handedly, of course. Imagine if Bush, or any other president, stood up at a podium, and told Hezbollah, Hamas, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iran, and any other political entity that was engaged in violence to "stop doing this shit."
It'd be viewed as rather hypocritical in that end of the world, I'm sure, but the tone of the dialog would be refreshing.
-
assumption of risk
[Read the article: Getting beyond our airport security obsession]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read this article shortly after it first appeared, in the headline slot. I just revisited it, and read through the letters. I figured it would be amusing, in a way. It was, but I was surprised that no one addressed Mr. Smith's main point - that being, as I read it, that the risk assumed by airline passengers remains about the same, regardless of "security" measures enacted in response to the latest intelligence, or foiled plot, or actual terrorist attack.
Clamping down on tweezers and corkscrews led to an attempted shoe-bombing; shoe x-raying led to a revisitation of the old nitroglycerine-in-a-gatorade-bottle bomb. Now that we're not allowed any carry on items, the next attack, or attempted attack, will probably be vectored through checked baggage. In short, a truly determined enemy who makes it as far as the airport will most likely find a way to execute their plan.
This has always been the case. In that respect, our risk has not changed appreciably. What has changed is our perception of that risk. As long as terrorism on airlines was popularly perceived as something that mainly happened in the Mideast, and was mostly hijackings where few if any passengers were hurt, then we didn't worry about it. Now that airline-centered terrorism has come to roost in our conciousness, our government has felt it necessary to "do something." This something, namely lots of reactionary restrictions on personal items, extra checkpoints manned by newly hired $6.50/hour guards, and a few new bureaucracies, doesn't have to provide any extra security. All it has to do is
1) Have the appearance of "something is being done." and
2) Be plausible enough that it is unassailable.
and voila - your government is now being seen to be doing it's job.
I, for one, would much rather see a smoothly-functioning, customer-friendly airline industry, and assume a marginally higher risk. As a student pilot, and a skydiver, I recognize that my willingness to look at risk and accept a certain level may be different than many others. I am also aware that human beings tend to be willing to accept risk only if they have at least the illusion of control. That's why we usually feel safer driving our cars than riding in a commercial airliner, statistics be damned. Assuming risk is a tough thing for most people to stomach, especially when the situation is largely out of their control. If we're going to live with any real quality of life, though, we'll have to be willing to assume some risks, and shrug off meaningless band-aid solutions in favor of realistic efforts to address terrorism.
All our leaders have done recently is muddle around, trying to bolster our perception of safety. That's all well and good, but what we really need is for the public perception to be that flying is both safe and painless, and that the terrorists will never get as far as the airport. Otherwise, we might as well start revamping our national railway system now, and invest in tras-oceanic passenger liners.
-
To the editors...
[Read the article: King Kaufman's Sports Daily]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Wow. I bet myself at least three people would've pointed this one out by now. King, and especially the copy editors, who are supposed to have this stuff covered: it's "mnemonic," not "pneumonic."
OK, everyone, you can concentrate on the actual subject matter now.