Hotels FAQ

Question:

God gave us brains and common sense. Florida Backpackers Hostel Seems to me from what is going on, some of the airport agents did not report to Him that day for their brains and "common sense". Mary

Response:

Bill Mech For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to http://home.att.net/~wmech

> There is now considerable debate over whether or not "profiling" is > appropriate for screening airline passengers. > If/once profiling is in place and becomes well known, then terrorists will > recruit white grand mothers to do their deeds on their behalf. Or they will > recruit folks like Tim McVeigh.

Sure! There or hundreds of white grandmothers that are willing to commit suicide for a cause they don’t even understand! And Tim McVeigh’s major objective was out to punish the FBI – not the general public. How many Tim McVeighs or there anyway?

Response:

> And Tim McVeigh’s major objective was out to punish the FBI – not the > general public. How many Tim McVeighs or there anyway?

Who says Osamma’s goal was not to punish those greedy unethical new york bankers ? In both cases, the perpetrator also got innocent people such as secretaries, mailroom boys, janitors etc.

Response:

God gave us brains and common sense. Lets use our brains to save ourselves and not worry so much about being politically correct or maybe offending someone. Feelings are not as important as safety.

  Info.vcf

< 1K Download

Response:

> Terrorists and high jackers over many years have fit a pattern. They > have almost all been of Middle Eastern lineage in the age bracket of 18 > to 32 years of age.

Except for Richard Reid, the Algerians who hijacked an AF aircraft and planned to fly it on a suicide mission, the South Asian nutballs who hijacked an Indian aircraft and flew to Pakistan for no obvious reason, or the Ariana crewmembers who hijacked their own aircraft to the UK as part of an asylum bid. An attentive reader will, however, note a common thread in the above events: they were all comitted by Muslims.  That’s the key that should be used for security profiling, not arab ethnicity. — 49 Americans exposed to anthrax: U.S. considers invalidating Cipro patent to reduce costs.  36 million people with AIDS: U.S. sues governments which invalidate drug patents not to save money but so their people can live.   With policies like these, is it any wonder why the US is the most hated nation on earth? — Coridon Henshaw / http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/csbh

Response:

> There is now considerable debate over whether or not "profiling" is > appropriate for screening airline passengers.

If/once profiling is in place and becomes well known, then terrorists will recruit white grand mothers to do their deeds on their behalf. Or they will recruit folks like Tim McVeigh.

Response:

> An attentive reader will, however, note a common thread in the above > events: they were all comitted by Muslims.  That’s the key that should be > used for security profiling, not arab ethnicity.

And how , may I ask, can you spot a muslim out of a crowd of americans ? Will you stop anyone with a beard ?

Response:

  I have seen women pulled aside for these silly random checks.   …mike  (who still thinks increasing the hassle factor to simply make people feel good about flying is utter nonsense) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > ->> > ->> There is now considerable debate over whether or not "profiling" is > ->> appropriate for screening airline passengers. > -> > ->If/once profiling is in place and becomes well known, then terrorists will > ->recruit white grand mothers to do their deeds on their behalf. Or they will > ->recruit folks like Tim McVeigh. > The profiling is already obvious: the feds are interviewing 5,000 men, > but no women.  However, profiling by sex, as long as it’s against men, > is completely acceptable.

Response:

Do a search in any search engine for CAPS and profiling, you will find dozens or stories about the software domestic airlines have been using for quite a while to profile passengers, way before September.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There is now considerable debate over whether or not "profiling" is > appropriate for screening airline passengers. > It is not practical to thoroughly inspect the person and luggage of all > passengers without greatly increasing both the time and the cost for this > process. The time and expense for this screening is already at a level as to > discourage travel by air. > The alternative is to thoroughly screen a percentage of passengers and their > luggage that effectively protects everyone because potential terrorists are > not willing to risk being caught in the screening process. > The present process, which does not permit "profiling", is grossly > inefficient and seriously compromises it’s effectiveness. > Simple common sense and mathematics show that "profiling" is much more > effective than random selection. > Terrorists and high jackers over many years have fit a pattern. They have > almost all been of Middle Eastern lineage in the age bracket of 18 to 32 > years of age. > By specially screening five percent of ALL passengers we are only screening > LESS THAN 2 1/2% of the potential terrorists (5% of the total screened with > less than 5% of the population being screened being possible terrorists – > .05 x .05 = .0025) At the same time this results in over 98% of those being > screened being very UNLIKELY terrorists! > Now, by selecting only those that fit this profile, less than five percent > of passengers need be specially inspected with an almost 100% probability of > catching potential problem makers. To be extra safe throw in an extra one > percent of people of any race in the age range from 18 to 60. > From personal experience I can tell you we are presently inspecting people > in there seventies and eighties and passing up potential terrorists in their > twenties. > If the objective is to be politically correct and screen 5% of all > passengers, the present system is fine. If however, the real objective is to > improve passenger safety and eliminate terrorists, profiling is the only > effective way to accomplish this. > — > Bill Mech > For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to > http://home.att.net/~wmech

Response:

There is now considerable debate over whether or not "profiling" is appropriate for screening airline passengers. It is not practical to thoroughly inspect the person and luggage of all passengers without greatly increasing both the time and the cost for this process. The time and expense for this screening is already at a level as to discourage travel by air. The alternative is to thoroughly screen a percentage of passengers and their luggage that effectively protects everyone because potential terrorists are not willing to risk being caught in the screening process. The present process, which does not permit "profiling", is grossly inefficient and seriously compromises it’s effectiveness. Simple common sense and mathematics show that "profiling" is much more effective than random selection. Terrorists and high jackers over many years have fit a pattern. They have almost all been of Middle Eastern lineage in the age bracket of 18 to 32 years of age. By specially screening five percent of ALL passengers we are only screening LESS THAN 2 1/2% of the potential terrorists (5% of the total screened with less than 5% of the population being screened being possible terrorists – .05 x .05 = .0025) At the same time this results in over 98% of those being screened being very UNLIKELY terrorists! Now, by selecting only those that fit this profile, less than five percent of passengers need be specially inspected with an almost 100% probability of catching potential problem makers. To be extra safe throw in an extra one percent of people of any race in the age range from 18 to 60. From personal experience I can tell you we are presently inspecting people in there seventies and eighties and passing up potential terrorists in their twenties. If the objective is to be politically correct and screen 5% of all passengers, the present system is fine. If however, the real objective is to improve passenger safety and eliminate terrorists, profiling is the only effective way to accomplish this. — Bill Mech For info on politics, taxes, education etc., go to http://home.att.net/~wmech

Response: