finally… it has happened to me… blah blah blah
The evils of soft rock/disco. Imagine the scenario, I work in an office smaller then my apartment and it has the above choices of music acting as a medium for my worktime experience. Its annoying…
Tonight D- is coming over with his brother and his brother’s girlfriend to play poker. It should be fun. Don’t think its going to be for real money though, which is good i guess.
I went to see the puppet opera, that was kewl.
Ok here i go, the real topic i want to discuss are the recent rash of bombings. Apparently london has been struck twice, and egypt has also been struck. It is not looking good. They now have places setup near subways that allow police to check baggages before getting on subways. If you don’t let them check the bags you can’t get on the subway.
Pros: We are safer…….. right? I mean if they check the backpacks before getting on the subway, then terrorists won’t bring bombs onto the trains right? But what if the terrorist didn’t know about the bomb screening brings the bomb and activates it at the bomb screening part? always wondered about that. Is the bomb screening part of the subway bomb proof? or will people still be killed? because i’ve seen the airport screening parts and if someone were to bring a bomb there and activate it, the lives lost would be pretty devastating.
Cons: We lose our right to privacy right? Well lets think about this, have we really ever had a right to privacy? Does such a right even exist? I mean we allow people, in most part, the right to think as they want, but in the streets you lose pretty much any right to privacy. You cannot carry concieled fire-arms, etc. What about unlawful search and seizure? well what exactly is unlawful? i mean the word law references a body of rules and regulations that is mobile and maleable. In other words, Laws change. It is unlawful to commit sodomy in the state of louisiana to this day, but we all understand that sodomy occurs in new orleans on a daily basis. It was unlawful to sneeze on the streets of new york, but it is not unlawful now. The beauty of laws is that they change over time, but it is also the negative side. See we appeal to moral standards that are understood as unchanging in order to bolster the laws we create for society. My point is that i am not sure there is a moral law that states you have the right to walk around the streets with bags that are not able to be checked.
BUT
major but… there is not a moral code/law/understanding that i know of that dictates one individual (call him/her a policeman/woman if you want) the right to examine every single object and pass judgement on the person they examine. Point in fact, the movie Crash gives a damn good example of this. Police are humans also, and as such they fall under specific human flaws. It is all about being human. I am not sure i agree with giving one human the right of power over another human just because they demonstrate the ability to go to school for a couple months and learn the memoranda necessary. I don’t have the answer. I just have this testimonial:
I woke up one morning and walked out of my house and entered the path train and like usual i met the path train guards and nodded, smiled and said good morning. The following morning i walked out of my house and into the path train and the same guard i had nodded to and smiled to was holding an automatic rifle. Behind him was his partner with the same plastic strap hung around his neck. They didn’t do anything else except that one modication. The whole situation was changed. I never smiled and nodded at him again.
The absurdity of the situation struck me. What the hell was the mandate for the automatic rifle to be present between me and this officer? What could they possibly have hoped to accomplish other then a show of force. I’ve gone back to my smile and nod as time has progressed, but every-so-often they don the rifle again. As time passes i’m reminded again and again exactly why the prisoners never rebel against the prison guards, and time again it strikes me that the prison guards don’t even understand the parameters of the prison they also find themselves within.
July 23rd, 2005 at 8:07 pm
a couple points to add to your interesting discussion… oddly, i haven’t noticed anything different about the subway or path systems since the london bombing, but then again, i can be pretty oblivious… nevertheless, i found your examination of this issue interesting, (a) because i can’t believe i missed automatic rifles – what stunning ignorance! and (b) because i came away from your post reminded that changes in security rarely solve anything. first, there’s the point you made about a suicide bomber’s ability to set a bomb off at the security checkpoint. as such, the automatic rifles are ridiculous. what good will they do against a suicide bomber? if you see the guard reaching for his gun, you just pull out the pin… second, there’s another possibility that occurred to me, which would be available for the more individualistic less martyr-prone booksack bomber: if you are asked what is in your bag, turn around and walk away. come back another time, leave it then. no reason to be scared of random checkpoints. it’s not like they’re going to detain you if you say no. this is america. that’s unlawful search and seizure. (note: despite my sarcasm, i agree with this law. i’d rather keep my privacy intact than pass a law destroying it, only to add yet another silly rule that terrorists will no doubt find a way around – remember, these are the people who [i:fbbade8a3a]flew airplanes into buildings.[/i:fbbade8a3a] there’s no way to stay totally safe. they are desperate and creative and we are mortal.) if there’s anything working for a defense contractor in emergency management taught me, it’s this: emergency management and security isn’t about keeping people safe. it’s about making people [i:fbbade8a3a]think[/i:fbbade8a3a] they are.
July 23rd, 2005 at 8:14 pm
yeah, baby!
July 23rd, 2005 at 10:20 pm
heard the mayor state they would be searching randomnly searching passengers of the subways and trains and … insert subject. When we were there in June/July, I passed a group of about 10 officers surrounding a vehicle at an intersection near the university. They were all carrying assault rifles. I realize then I wasnt in the same America. You realize they carry assault rifles in Brazil everywhere. People who shoplift are killed on site. Yet, shoplifting and thievery are a part of life in the capital of Brazil. The rich ride in armor plated limosines or fly in helicopters to avoid the “chaos” below. Yet, people kill other people and people steal from other people. Just now the cops are included in the killing (and probably the stealing, bribes and such). Boy those guns stop the citizens from commiting crimes. When the guns become common place their presence becomes insignificant to the point of fading into the uniform. Ive seen people start fights with cops and wondered, “Did they now see the uniform or the gun?” People who are willing to die for their struggle are probably happy the cops have assault rifles. makes it a war. makes the sacrafice tempting. makes the enemy real and present. makes the citizens tense and fragile. makes them not forget the events. makes the “terrorists” jobs easier. Thank god, the cops have assault rifles. Wilbur (who waits patiently for the nsa to come and seize his possesions and claim he’s an enemy combatant.)
July 24th, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Did you hear about the innocent man that was shot by London police? You can read about it [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=2&u=/nm/20050724/ts_nm/security_britain_dc]here[/url]. Scary when police in London, which in my understanding is a fairly lliberal-leaning city, are told to shoot to kill [i:1c624e1978]suspects[/i:1c624e1978]. Not people who have done anything, mind you, just [i:1c624e1978]suspects[/i:1c624e1978]. And the first person to fall victim to this new policy is totally innocent. What is going on in the minds of the architects of this policy? I imagine their logic works something like this: We need to make the population as safe as possible from terrorist attack. So, we need to kill the terrorists [i:1c624e1978]before[/i:1c624e1978] they do anything. So, [i:1c624e1978]after[/i:1c624e1978] these recent terrorist attacks, we need to be extremely alert to anyone who might be a terrorist, and shoot them. Even though some of the people we shoot will be innocent, this will make all the other innocent people feel safer. Which is what we want, because the goal of terrorism is to get us to feel unsafe. And it’s our job to thwart the terrorists at all costs, even if that means some people will feel unsafe what with us going around shooting innocent people. Gotta love freedom! – The freedom of police to use deadly force against suspects.
July 25th, 2005 at 10:22 pm
“The evils of soft rock/disco.” Think about it…it could be country! Thanks snaars for the link about the man shot. I had thought at the time it was rather overboard for the police to shoot someone after catching and holding him down. Big brother is getting bigger everywhere.