US & Britain Ban Passengers on All Flights
Today, the Department of Homeland Security announced that until further notice, all passengers will be banned from domestic and international flights. A five week investigation led by US and British authorities uncovered that all 10 suspected terror cells planned to blow up planes using one common weapon: passengers.
In his press conference this afternoon, President Bush did not mince words, "It's clear we must stop evil-doer passengers from hurting good-doer passengers. This is difficult. We have instructated all airport personnel to separate 'passengers' from 'non-passengers'. Folks identified as non-passengers such as razor blades, shoes, iPods and liquid will be allowed to fly. Folks deemed to be passengers must be disposed of at the terminal."
John Eldridge, a senior British security official, stated that one risk remains: pilots and flight attendants. "A ban on flight crews is not completely out of the question. A suicidal pilot could endanger the lives of 436 razor blades, 211 bottles of shampoo, and 305 liters of moisturizer with one carefully placed explosive."
An anonymous security official for Israel's El-Al, widely considered the world's most secure airline, laughed at the new policy. "We just stop and search all the Arabs," he stated. "We plan to continue allowing passengers and grooming products onboard our planes."
FedEx and UPS also complained that the new policy would create unfair competition by effectively turning passenger airlines into shipping companies. In response, FedEx and UPS have decided to enter the "human transport" business, where properly packed individuals will ship for $2 to $ 4 per pound, depending on the destination.
As soon as he heard about the new service, Jack Larsen, 28, of Cleveland rushed to his local FedEx Kinko's. He hoped to ship himself to London, where his razor blades and luggage are now on vacation. As Mr. Larsen's sister packed him into his cardboard and foam-peanut cocoon, Mr. Larsen echoed the frustration of fellow travelers, "$430 to have your carry-ons fly Coach while you fly Crate is just absurd. I just hope my toiletries don't raid the hotel mini-bar before I get there."
By faktorial.com - where the truth hurts - a lot!
Labels: Fake News, Greatest Hits, Politics, Society and Culture
5 Comments:
I just experienced this first hand. I was at JFK airport ready to board a flight and they made me take off my shoes during security check ... my shoes were allowed to board but I wasn't. The worst part is that they put me through this machine that blew puffs of air... without my shoes it was an excrutiating experience as the puffs of air picked up the smell of my socks and whirled them straight into my nostrils. Is this covered under the Geneva Convention?
I pride myself in having a good sense of humor; I can dish it out and take it with the best of em. I even agree Bush is not perfect – certainly better than Kerry would have been, but certainly not perfect.
However, I’m really turned-off and offended by your latest. Maybe it’s the timing– too soon after the event – but I find it completely distasteful, and fail to see any humor in the fact that a major terror plot – similar in scale, or potentially greater than 9/11 – was successfully thwarted. Literally thousands of lives were saved. That’s not just my opinion, but fact, and that fact is concrete proof and testimony to successful intelligence and policy making. I’m not so sure such a plot would have been thwarted five years ago.
Although in the years since 9/11, I have come to expect such hypocritical, never-happy, playing-both-sides-of-the-fence, and never-seeing-the-good opinions from Left Wing Liberals like that stupid, ignorant and arrogant bastard, Michael Moore. I can only imagine how your satire would have read had the terrorists been successful.
For the record, I’d gladly trade all my carry-on luggage, not just liquids, give up some privacy and put up with additional hassles / time delays to arrive safely at my destination. My of thinking is that it is better to arrive bored, late and alive, than to never make my destination… All you Left Wing Liberals with never anything positive or even constructive to say can go live elsewhere. I mean, if it’s so bad here in the US, why are you all still here? Why don’t you go elsewhere? Please do…it’s a free World… oh wait, it’s only really a free County. But hey, maybe that’s exactly what all you Left Wingers need, some time in another country without half the freedoms we enjoy today. At the very least, the Left should research things like respect and humility.
It's funny that you think I'm a liberal. It's true that I take some extreme positions, but more as a provacateur than a liberal. In fact, as I got your note, I was in the process of writing a new faktorial on why we should start profiling - certainly not a liberal stance.
As for this latest plot being foiled, it only exemplifies how unsafe we've been all along. It should never have come to this in the first place. We should have had agents deep in those cells for the past 20 years, not all of a sudden. The other issue not being addressed is the secularization of the middle east and elimination of our dependence on oil. The warin iraq has only radicalized muslims and jeopardized that long term solution.
As for liquids, etc. Is not about liquids it's about people with bad intentions who happen to exhibit characteristics and behaviors we need to target, not inconvenience Ecuadorian grandmothers or business travelers. Just ask any El-Al security agent - if they see someone who looks and acts suspicious, the'll sit an agent right next to them on a plane. Here, we're just a bunch of politically correct cowards who are afraid of hurting people's feelings to the detriment of everyone.
No one loves this country more than me,but, part of loving this country is using our freedom of speech to keep our government from abusing the public trust and criticising it for doing the wrong things. At one time, slavery was legal, women couldn't vote and thalidamide was given to a generation of kids. All legal, but were they right? Sometimes, it is less brave to march into war than to take a stand and protest. You should be for that. Criticism is good It is the only way things get better.
I actually have to agree with much of your reply.
While sometimes unfortunate, ugly and/or abused, stereotypes often have some bases of fact at their origin. And while not politically correct and offensive to some - or many at times - selectively targeting (ok, profiling) may not be the worst idea if used in certain circumstances. (i.e. El-Al
security.) Of course that is not to say that all people of a certain origin, ethnic background, race or religion are bad, etc., etc. (There's that PC bug again...)
I'll concede the War has to some degree further radicalized the Mid-East.
However, I think we'd be ignorant to think that some factions of the Mid-East weren't breeding "American Hate" even before the war. (Remember the attacks of 93?) How do you reason with people who don't know any better, because they have nothing, they're government feeds them propaganda, and they are willing to send themselves, their sons, daughters, brothers and sisters to be suicide bombers?
I'll even go one further to say that I believe we're doing a lot of good in the region, and that part of the secularization - if there is such a word - is because some factions are happy with the New Iraq, what we are trying to implement and want our continued support. Although definitely biased, you can even find some stories of good in the mass / major media.
With regard to the old Chinese grandmothers and business travelers:
Provocative statement, but really think about it...when some of the would-be suicide bombers are pregnant women and mothers of six month old infants, can you effectively profile just on appearance? Plus you said it yourself; the country would be in an uproar if such profiling were done. (You'd have TONS to write about then.) So the answer, because these people don't where "terrorist uniforms or badges" and so that you don't spark a major discrimination issue that would lead to MILLIOINS of [age, gender, color, race, religion, insert-your-own-here] bias lawsuits (that by the way you and I pay by for in what would then become GAZILLIOINS of wasted tax monies) is unfortunately to implement policy that applies to everyone uniformly. Not perfect, but a start, and you need to start somewhere. If Granny needs something bad enough, it should be in a prescription bottle with her name on it and she should call the airline ahead of time - or she shouldn't fly. (I mean, everyone knows, "If she can't be flown, she must be driven....") :-) (A little "Cannonball Run" reference for ya...) Really though, what's your solution?
As for the business traveler; has Corporate America really gotten THAT greedy? Are things SO important that we can't wait a few hours? I'm humble enough to admit that my work isn't as important as my life... I can live without my laptop, iPod, camera, etc. on the plane for a few hours. I'd also argue that unless you are saving lives, literally putting out fires, keeping real bad-guys off the streets or fighting terrorism, your job isn't as important as your life either... (Sorry to hurt some egos out there.)
The reason I took offense to your latest piece is that it came across as so negative and critical of the current Administration. While not the be-all, end-all of terrorism, this recent bust is a start, and again, you have to start somewhere. I also believe in giving credit where credit is due, and I think the good guys deserve the credit for this one. (If you're always damned if you do and damned if you don't, then why keep trying? Wouldn't you eventually just give up?)
Plus, as you said yourself, we should have had agents in those cells for the past 20 years. Bush has only been in office for almost six years, and has been pushing the anti-terrorism agenda and trying to ramp up intelligence for all six of those years. Clinton was in office for the prior eight years. Combined, that's 14 of the past 20 years, a majority of which where under Clinton's control. I don't think there is anyone who would argue that Bush is doing more to eradicate terrorism and ramp-up intelligence.
So why does ALL the blame always seem to fall on G.W.? How come Slick Willy seems to elude any and all blame or mention of fault when he was in office for longer, and arguably, during the more crucial years? Was his pussy response to the 93 WTC, later 98 Embassy and then the 2000 USS COLE bombings better than what Bush is doing? Clinton casually lobbed a couple bombs and let it go... (Did he even a respond to the USS Cole bombing??) Hey, if the Liberals were right that we should be cowards and that our war is causing the hatred, how do you explain those earlier attacks? Certainly 9/11 wasn't hatched, plotted, and planned if the short few months since GW was inaugurated. ..And what about that time Clinton could have taken-out bin Laden? You hardly ever hear about that? Maybe he was too busy getting blown (ironically, that's IMHO the coolest thing he did during both his terms, and I probably would have admired him for it - except that he was married at the time.... Plus I would have chosen a much hotter woman, I mean, you're THE President for Christ Sake!!) Maybe the media should have worried less about the blue dress and more about the terrorists then?
Unfortunately, I don't believe there to be an easy answer to this problem.
However, I do know that constantly finding fault with every single thing the administration tries to and/or does implement - as the Liberals do - isn't making us any safer either.
In order for us to win, we have to be right every single time. We can't be wrong once, or miss one attack. The terrorists only have to be right once, or pull off one attack to be successful. That's a difficult game to play - especially when we play by the rules and the terrorists don't.
You also said, "Criticism is good". I don't agree with that. If you had said, "Constructive Criticism is good", then I definitely would have agreed with you - 100%. Without being constructive, criticism is simply non-value-added negativity. In fact, it can sometimes go beyond just being non-value-added to have the opposite effect of tuning people out - don't just bring problems - bring solutions, and give credit where credit is due.
Honestly, no hard feelings at all. It has actually been a good and enjoyable debate. I definitely get the point of stirring the pot more than expressing your own opinions - surprisingly some of which I probably agree with. I would just take a different road to the same destination.
Good luck with everything
Comments about this current administration that don't admit what a corrupt, special-interest serving scum bag George Bush are so indicative of how sad we are as a nation. This president is completely devisive, way off base and only tryting to serve the agenda of a small minority - and he's twisting the minds and souls the less aware to achieve whatever ends he and his cronies desire.
As a card carrying blue-blood, republican, I find him to be an absolute disgrace adn his behavior reprehensible.
Post a Comment
<< Home