More on CBP's war on US pilots traveling to Mexico

[ReverendSlappy]

Here is why "whining on a public forum" works:

A single person petitioning for a redress of grievances is good, but if he can convince others to join him, that is far more effective. Never underestimate the power of the Internet.

I like to think that the Internet takes my good ideas and runs with them, and ignores my bad ideas. (At least I hope it ignores them! :smile

There's certainly an element of that to it, absolutely.

But it should by no means be the end of the story. Nor is reductio ad Hitlerum (to borrow Richard's excellent term) and comparing the "other side" of the argument to terrorists likely to win many allies -- at least not allies of the variety that are likely to be able to see a grievance through to its resolution.

So sure, of course there's some value in rallying the troops, so to speak. But there's a difference between thumping the pulpit and taking part in a level-headed debate and participating in a political process, and I think sometimes people have the tendency to conflate the two. The problem here is that it appears that some are trying to substitute the former for the latter, and that's only going to make things worse.

 

[John Baker]

I like "whining on a public forum", it gives me a place to vent my frustrations so that I don't carry them around with me. It is great to have a place to get your thoughts out to others. It helps to see if your thinking in the right direction from the input you receive.

These forums are like a giant bull session, they're great.

John

 

[steingar]

I try not to whine so much, but I do hear what you're saying. The only reason I've contributed to political campaigns (money talks. Sorry, that's how it is) is to try and improve things vis-a-vis GA. I am dogged, tireless, and utterly ineffective. I doubt I will ever stop, though. Every victory for the alphabet soup security agencies is a victory for the damn terrorists in my book, and I can only hope that someday sanity prevails.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I like "whining on a public forum", it gives me a place to vent my frustrations so that I don't carry them around with me. It is great to have a place to get your thoughts out to others. It helps to see if your thinking in the right direction from the input you receive.

These forums are like a giant bull session, they're great.

John

Hey, don't get me wrong... I'm not saying there's a problem with that if that's the goal. It's just that I think people sometimes make the mistake of thinking bull sessions actually do something in terms of changing the things being BS'd about, and they don't. That's all I'm saying... If the goal is to change people's minds and change policies? Gotta bring your A Game.

 

[ScottM]

I forget who said something along the lines of: "A people who will trade their freedom for temporary security, deserve neither."

Ben Franklin. The actual quote is

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

It has been paraphrased a lot

We have made the trade. We should have made our voices heard when they first introduced the patriot act, but we didn't.

I went to Washington to have my voice heard I felt so strongly about this act. I met with several Congresscritters but it was a done deal. My voice was pretty lonely and people, so of which were on this board, branded me a traitor for speaking up. I also helped draft legislation that eventually died two Congresses ago. Although two important ideas survived it in an amendment to the US Patriot Act when it was renewed.

 

[John Baker]

They had their thinking hats on when they named it "The Patriot Act." It obviously made anyone who opposed it, a non-patriot, or a traitor.

John

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Affecting the kinds of positive change you claim to be interested in requires a certain perspective, a certain attitude, and a certain disposition. While I'm happy to leave it to everyone's individual judgment to determine whether or not the above and the post I initially quoted indicate the presence of that perspective, attitude, and disposition, I'm quite confident that the majority will share my view that they're entirely lacking.

Slappy,

Pick a new fight. I didn't find John's post to be "shrill, hyperbolic, hysterical" or "nonsense" at all. Sheesh.

 

[wsuffa]

They had their thinking hats on when they named it "The Patriot Act." It obviously made anyone who opposed it, a non-patriot, or a traitor.

John

According to some, the Preamble of the Constitution let's 'em do whatever they want. BOHICA

 

[ScottM]

Those who were wronged by the patriot act were mostly Muslim Americans. The patriot act did not seem to affect most of us, so why would we care?

It affected every person in this country and I would be happy to talk about it, but not here. Over in the SZ a little, but previous employment being what it was prohibits some of what I can say in public.

 

[John Baker]

It affected every person in this country and I would be happy to talk about it, but not here. Over in the SZ a little, but previous employment being what it was prohibits some of what I can say in public.

I know it affected every person in this country, and it continues to do so. The problem is, not all that many seemed to care. There was no outrage, no marches, and not enough letters to our representatives, nor our editors to make an impression. What would have been considered nonsense just a few years ago, "never happen, not in America", is now commonly accepted as the way it is.

It could also be that every person in this country cares, but feel powerless to do a thing about it. Perhaps most of us just feel overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of our many government agencies. How does one determine just who in government should be addressed with whatever complaint we might have? Even the most informed must be prepared to be shuttled from agency to agency, then through the gauntlet of the various departments within an agency, and never find one actual person who would accept responsibility.

On last nights news, they had a spot about a small community in Alabama or some such southern state. The community can not get water piped into their town. They have been trying for over six years. The news team was able to find that due to the numerous water authorities within the state, it was hard to find any one of them to accept responsibility. When they finally found one that might have the responsibility, that agency denied it, then admitted that it would be too expensive to deliver water to them. So this small southern community can not expect water piped in anytime soon. The people living in the community felt that the main reason was because it is a black community. This was said on last nights evening news in San Diego.

John

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Slappy,

Pick a new fight. I didn't find John's post to be "shrill, hyperbolic, hysterical" or "nonsense" at all. Sheesh.

You're entitled to your opinion. But in my book, claiming that some do or should "fear our own government more than we fear potential terrorists" is all four of those things -- and I could come up with quite a few more words for it, too.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

According to some, the Preamble of the Constitution let's 'em do whatever they want. BOHICA

Really? Who said that?

 

[dmccormack]

You're entitled to your opinion. But in my book, claiming that some do or should "fear our own government more than we fear potential terrorists" is all four of those things -- and I could come up with quite a few more words for it, too.

..and where can one find this "book", pray tell?

 

[ScottM]

They had their thinking hats on when they named it "The Patriot Act." It obviously made anyone who opposed it, a non-patriot, or a traitor.

John

Ain't that the truth. Demonetization of the opposition is an old trick but one that works very well.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

..and where can one find this "book", pray tell?

You could start here.

 

[dmccormack]

You could start here.

bah -- a mere rhetorical flourish.

How yesterday.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

bah -- a mere rhetorical flourish.

How yesterday.

Mmmhmm.

Edit: I'd add more, but I wouldn't want to overly confuse anybody with an expression in common use.

 

[dmccormack]

Mmmhmm.

Pithy.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Pithy.

Like I said, I'd reply with more, but I'd be tempted to use an expression like "neck of the woods" or "that dog won't hunt" or something like that. And I don't want to have to waste my time pasting more links to UsingEnglish.com.

 

[dmccormack]

Like I said, I'd reply with more, but I'd be tempted to use an expression like "neck of the woods" or "that dog won't hunt" or something like that. And I don't want to have to waste my time pasting more links to UsingEnglish.com.

Waste away, I'm all ears.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Waste away, I'm all ears.

Again, I just might. Perhaps we could start an entire conversation about idioms and the uses thereof, and I could enjoy myself watching people twist themselves into logical pretzels in trying to explain how the conversation wasn't about idioms.

But that would be very "yesterday".

 

[dmccormack]

Again, I just might. Perhaps we could start an entire conversation about idioms and the uses thereof, and I could enjoy myself watching people twist themselves into logical pretzels in trying to explain how the conversation wasn't about idioms.

But that would be very "yesterday".

::YAWN::

Repetez: "Brevity is the soul of wit."

 

[ReverendSlappy]

"Brevity is the soul of wit."

Sometimes.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

You're entitled to your opinion. But in my book, claiming that some do or should "fear our own government more than we fear potential terrorists" is all four of those things -- and I could come up with quite a few more words for it, too.

Okay, let me put it in the real world for you, if you can stand the real world.

I have not been directly personally affected by terrorists - I've always been separated spatially or temporally by a pretty good margin (OKC and NYC are nowhere near me, and the Sterling Hall bombing happened before I was born). And really, I don't fear terrorists at all.

However, I *do* fear our government to the extent that they are taking freedoms away in the guise of security and operating seemingly without regard to the constitution quite often.

So yes, I do fear our government more than I fear potential terrorists. It's not hyperbole at all. Am I sitting here shaking in my boots? No, I'm not very afraid of the gov't either - But I am more afraid of them than I am of potential terrorists. Plain and simple.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Okay, let me put it in the real world for you, if you can stand the real world.

The "real world", eh? Pretty hefty claim to make right off the bat. Let's see how you fare:

I have not been directly personally affected by terrorists - I've always been separated spatially or temporally by a pretty good margin (OKC and NYC are nowhere near me, and the Sterling Hall bombing happened before I was born). And really, I don't fear terrorists at all.

However, I *do* fear our government to the extent that they are taking freedoms away in the guise of security and operating seemingly without regard to the constitution quite often.

So yes, I do fear our government more than I fear potential terrorists. It's not hyperbole at all. Am I sitting here shaking in my boots? No, I'm not very afraid of the gov't either - But I am more afraid of them than I am of potential terrorists. Plain and simple.

Well at least you've got an explanation, after a fashion. It's not an especially good one, however, and consequently, it doesn't change my opinion.

From my perspective, it's well past absurd to believe that the government is anywhere near comparable to a group of people who subscribe to an ideology that actively seeks -- and has caused thousands of instances of -- the deaths of innocent people for political effect. To claim that onerous security policies are similar to -- or, much more laughably in your example, worse than -- terrorist aims to tear down our entire society (government included, BTW) through killing innocent people for political effect is entirely baseless in fact, completely detached from simple reality, and fundamentally skewed. The word I keep wanting to use is "bent". It's... It's delusional.

What's more, to compare what one would consider to be an unreasonable search to an act of terrorism is patently ridiculous. One is designed to kill people and have a broad political effect. The other -- at the absolute worst -- causes some property damage. That's not even the same league, let alone the same ballgame. Hell, it's not even the same sport.

More than even that, while you have virtually no mechanism by which to personally prevent a terror attack, our system of government provides you with ample opportunity to engage the government and prevent whatever it is you feel warrants more fear than the ideology of killing innocent people for political effect.
Put those three things...

• comparing government overreaching to advocating killing innocent people for political effect
• comparing what you believe to be an unreasonable search to an act of terrorism
• comparing something you have no control over to something that your authority is at the legal center and philosophical heart of

... together with the "Me GOOOOD! Them EEEEEEEEVIL!" attitude that is for some reason so prevalent in these kinds of issues, and I'm entirely comfortable drawing the conclusion that I have: That the comparison is made for the purposes of rhetorical and egotistical ease, and little more. Put another way, I don't really believe that if you think about it you actually believe the government to be more fearsome "directly personally" than terrorists. One means to kill you. The other happens to anger you. GMAFB.

Of course you're entitled to fear whatever you'd like to fear. That doesn't mean it makes any sense, and it doesn't mean that in choosing to do so you have taken into account the real world aims of the two things you're comparing. And in my book, comparing unnecessarily onerous security measures to -- please, for God's sake stop and think about it for a second -- killing innocent people for political effect is well outside anything even remotely resembling "sense".

And that's how it is here in what I believe is pretty clear to most everybody reading this to be the real "real world."

Edit: And just so I don't come off as saying something I'm not... You're certainly entitled to stand by the assertion that Americans should be more afraid of their own government than they should be of people whose sole aim is to kill them. But I'm also entitled to call that what I'm absolutely convinced that it is: Shrill, hyperbolic, hysterical nonsense.

 

[Palmpilot]

It's just that I think people sometimes make the mistake of thinking bull sessions actually do something in terms of changing the things being BS'd about, and they don't.

I applaud your calls to action. However if you want to change the way government operates, you need allies, and plenty of them. That's what spreading the word on Internet forums accomplishes. It's not enough to be outraged by government misbehavior. You need to get a lot of other people outraged about it too.

It's not an either-or situation. Complaining to government and complaining to each other BOTH serve a purpose.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

I applaud your calls to action. However if you want to change the way government operates, you need allies, and plenty of them. That's what spreading the word on Internet forums accomplishes. It's not enough to be outraged by government misbehavior. You need to get a lot of other people outraged about it too.

It's not an either-or situation. Complaining to government and complaining to each other BOTH serve a purpose.

I wholeheartedly agree, and if I'm mistaking the one for the other, that's my bad.

But I don't think I am: The OP is a letter to officials at CBP and DHS, and it engages in some (albeit just a little) of the kind of stuff I'm talking about when it claims that "the US has adopted Gestapo tactics". That's the kind of thing that -- while perhaps effective in the "winning allies" arena -- is counterproductive in the "We're going to convince you of the validity of our complaint" area and is discrediting. That's really all I'm saying.

 

[alaskaflyer]

The OP is a letter to officials at CBP and DHS, and it engages in some (albeit just a little) of the kind of stuff I'm talking about when it claims that "the US has adopted Gestapo tactics". That's the kind of thing that -- while perhaps effective in the "winning allies" arena -- is counterproductive in the "We're going to convince you of the validity of our complaint" area and is discrediting.

This.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Put another way, I don't really believe that if you think about it you actually believe the government to be more fearsome "directly personally" than terrorists. One means to kill you. The other happens to anger you. GMAFB.

Edit: And just so I don't come off as saying something I'm not... You're certainly entitled to stand by the assertion that Americans should be more afraid of their own government than they should be of people whose sole aim is to kill them. But I'm also entitled to call that what I'm absolutely convinced that it is: Shrill, hyperbolic, hysterical nonsense.

Slap,

Terrorists managed to kill 3,000 people. One in a million.

Our government got us in a war that has killed MORE Americans than the terrorists.

For the rest of us, well - Gov't policies affect ALL of us. If I get killed, well, so be it. I've had a pretty good run. But the chances of that are small enough I can live with them. However, the chance of the government's policies applying to me is 100%. So yes, I am more afraid of the government than I am of terrorists. One has demonstrated very little capability - The other continues to demonstrate that they will stop at nothing in the name of "security." And it's only a matter of time before stunts like the CBP has been pulling kill someone too, if they keep doing it with guns out.

 

[dmccormack]

Slap,

Terrorists managed to kill 3,000 people. One in a million.

Our government got us in a war that has killed MORE Americans than the terrorists.

For the rest of us, well - Gov't policies affect ALL of us. If I get killed, well, so be it. I've had a pretty good run. But the chances of that are small enough I can live with them. However, the chance of the government's policies applying to me is 100%. So yes, I am more afraid of the government than I am of terrorists. One has demonstrated very little capability - The other continues to demonstrate that they will stop at nothing in the name of "security." And it's only a matter of time before stunts like the CBP has been pulling kill someone too, if they keep doing it with guns out.

More people were killed on US roads in one year that killed by terrorists and killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan combined.

The DOT’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated that 37, 313 people were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2008. NTSB

So are you now "more afraid" of roads than government?

You're dealing in hyperbole. I'm in agreement with RevSlap's post in response to your expression of "fear."

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Slap,

Terrorists managed to kill 3,000 people. One in a million.

Our government got us in a war that has killed MORE Americans than the terrorists.

For the rest of us, well - Gov't policies affect ALL of us. If I get killed, well, so be it. I've had a pretty good run. But the chances of that are small enough I can live with them. However, the chance of the government's policies applying to me is 100%. So yes, I am more afraid of the government than I am of terrorists. One has demonstrated very little capability - The other continues to demonstrate that they will stop at nothing in the name of "security." And it's only a matter of time before stunts like the CBP has been pulling kill someone too, if they keep doing it with guns out.

Yes, "the chance of government's policies applying to you is 100%". Which of those policies, exactly, was crafted for the express purpose of killing you for political effect?

Please, go ahead and point one out, and then you'll be comparing apples to apples. In the meantime (and I'm not holding my breath), it's still my view that the comparison is what I said it is: Shrill, hyperbolic, hysterical nonsense.

Edit: I forgot to add... You're absolutely entitled to hold that view. I think it's way off the deep end, but that's just me. And if you really do feel that way, it's fine to say so in BS sessions and gripe fests... No harm in that. But that doesn't mean that saying so in a letter to government officials is a legitimate or effective means by which to communicate your problem to DHS/CBP/whomever and convince them to take you seriously. I mean if I -- somebody who's generally on your side with this issue -- think it's out of left field, imagine what they think of it. That's my point: Those kinds of considerations are important.

 

[SCCutler]

Also (and I hesitate to jump in here, and hesitate even more to agree with Kent, whose shrill hysteria borders on 16-year-old-girlishness), let us bear in mind that, while the government and its limitless bureaucracies may not want to kill us (as the terrorists do), there is a vast continuum of abuse they can, in the name of security and order, heap upon us. And this, they are doing.

At what point in the spectrum of denial of rights does government cross the line from benevolent to malicious, from beneficial to harmful? I'd imagine it varies by reference to the person making the call- but it can and, inevitably, will happen. That's just the nature of government.

Note well: congress passes laws, and the federal government's bureaucracies implement them, but very rarely do the laws which they pass and enforce materially affect *them*.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Okay, let me put it in the real world for you, if you can stand the real world.

I have not been directly personally affected by terrorists - I've always been separated spatially or temporally by a pretty good margin (OKC and NYC are nowhere near me, and the Sterling Hall bombing happened before I was born). And really, I don't fear terrorists at all.

However, I *do* fear our government to the extent that they are taking freedoms away in the guise of security and operating seemingly without regard to the constitution quite often.

So yes, I do fear our government more than I fear potential terrorists. It's not hyperbole at all. Am I sitting here shaking in my boots? No, I'm not very afraid of the gov't either - But I am more afraid of them than I am of potential terrorists. Plain and simple.

What freedoms?

 

[SCCutler]

What freedoms?

There goes David, getting all Socratic on us.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

There goes David, getting all Socratic on us.

You know, I really probably should be a law school professor...you don't really have to teach anything, just tell your students to read some cases, and then ask them to explain it, and make fun of them when they can't.

 

[ScottM]

I missed being blown up in Beriut by a couple of weeks, I missed being blown up by the IRA by a few hundred yards, and I have been up close and personal with terrorists on several occasions in the middle-east. But I am not afraid of them. Nor am I afraid of my government.

I am, however, afraid of politicians.

For politicians will do whatever they feel will keep them in power and are more than willing to sell you and I down the river for a few pennies if that means they get to keep what they have given themselves.

I am not afraid of government because it has allowed me the tools to make sure I can keep the politicians in check. I am actively involved in politic. For more than just chat board whining, more than letter writing. I know my representatives, I talk to them, I travel to them, and the ones that I like get money for their campaigns either directly or through PACs I support.

 

[SCCutler]

You know, I really probably should be a law school professor...you don't really have to teach anything, just tell your students to read some cases, and then ask them to explain it, and make fun of them when they can't.

...he shoots, he scores.

---

I had a prof in my first year (Torts), spent all session every session talking about policy and social engineering stuff. Imagine my shock and dismay when his exam turned out to be pure, black-letter, hornbook law. First semester was a dismal grade (earned), second, did pretty well. Could have probably done better if I had simply skipped class and just read the restatement.

He was also notorious for dating blond-headed, good-lookin' students (female, I should add). Encountered him in the grocery store during 2L year, he actually hit on my wife.

Arrogance is a beautiful thing to watch in action.

 

[ReverendSlappy]

Also (and I hesitate to jump in here, and hesitate even more to agree with Kent, whose shrill hysteria borders on 16-year-old-girlishness), let us bear in mind that, while the government and its limitless bureaucracies may not want to kill us (as the terrorists do), there is a vast continuum of abuse they can, in the name of security and order, heap upon us. And this, they are doing.

At what point in the spectrum of denial of rights does government cross the line from benevolent to malicious, from beneficial to harmful? I'd imagine it varies by reference to the person making the call- but it can and, inevitably, will happen. That's just the nature of government.

Note well: congress passes laws, and the federal government's bureaucracies implement them, but very rarely do the laws which they pass and enforce materially affect *them*.

I absolutely agree. Should we be vigilant in controlling government's power? Absolutely. Should we do all we can to prevent abuse? You bet. Should we cast a suspicious eye on measures supposedly meant to "protect" us? Without a doubt. And should we voice our opposition when we feel those measures have gone too far and take action to change those measures via the ample means available to us to do so? That's our duty.

But in my view, to presuppose that our government (which is, after all, comprised of fellow citizens) is acting out of any malicious intent with regard to these security policies -- let alone that its malevolence rises to a level that meets or exceeds that of terrorists, for God's sake -- isn't a responsible exercise in any of the above. Nor is it, IMO, a rational view of the simple reality of the matter. I'm even more certain that relaying that presupposition of malevolence in communicating opposition to these measures is counterproductive, and serves only to discredit those who are lodging otherwise legitimate, important criticisms.

 

[John Baker]

What freedoms?

Remember how easy it used to be to re-enter the U.S. from Canada or Mexico. You did not need anything, you just came home. Now, if your papers are not in perfect order, see how easy it is.

Have you ever walked across the boarder from the U.S. into Mexico, then walked back? It's like leaving a high security prison, iron bars, razor wire, armed guards, cameras, x-ray machines, and so on. You had better have your passport and drivers license with you. When I was a kid, everyone just walked back and forth between the two countries. Yup, I feel like some freedom is missing.

This whole thread was originally about pilots attempting to fly across the U.S./Mexico border. It seems several are being encountered by armed, aggressive agents from our government. Some are having weapons pointed at them, their aircraft searched. These are not Americans trying to re-enter the U.S. they were Americans trying to leave. Somehow, I'll bet they probably felt some of their freedoms have been lost.

How about the Muslim Americans that have been subjected to wire taps, endless repetitive questioning, being held indefinitely with no charges filed against them. I wonder if they feel that some of their freedoms have been lost?

It occurs to me that Americans who have undergone strip searches in our own domestic airports while trying to travel unimpeded between the states, they probably felt some of their freedoms have been lost, don't you think?

Is everything OK with America as long as those things just happen to people other than ourselves? Are we a free people because we have the freedom to look the other way?

John

 

[ScottM]

John just to travel between states now in a commercial airline you have to show a government issued photo idea and the name on it has to match your ticket perfectly. "papers please" is the new TSA phrase that pays.