Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Thanksgiving is over, the turkey is gone and the family has gone home. The airport protest that never was failed to disrupt air travel. They vow to fight on. Fight what? There were a few pranksters in speedos and bikinis as though that would prove a point. Secretary of State Clinton laughed at the security process, Rush and Beck tell you it is an invasion of your privacy. I know the Secretary of State is exempt from the security screening and I bet that Beck and Limbaugh fly in private jets and don’t go through the same security screening that the rest of us have to endure.

 A local radio host decided to comment on Sarah Palin’s Alaska playing an audio clip of the show depicting as he put it Bristol Palin clubbing a fish to death. It wasn’t important that Sarah was describing what was going on and that it was for the safety of the people on the boat.

     These are examples of how the reporter, host or journalist will and does skew the report to their own needs. Just imagine if an “evil doer” real or as a test was able to get a weapon through airport security. What would we hear? How could this happen? Where was the security we are paying millions or billions to prevent these things from happening? Should we check each other? Will you feel safe if no one goes through? If everyone goes through? I know don’t fly. If there was a real rights violation by this process wouldn’t the ACLU already have filed a law suit to stop the process? There are several legal principles including the totality of the circumstances and the public good vs. the private rights that support the large scale types of screenings that we are now seeing at the airports.

     When we allow others to make decisions for us then we face the consequences of our actions. A little less privacy for a little more security is a fair trade in my opinion. I don’t fly for business and so my experiences at the airport are limited to a few family trips now and then. The extra time and screening make me feel safe no matter who is on the plane. We should be more concerned over the extra fees for what used to be free on the plane and not how safe is safe enough. There are too many instances where “because we can” is the only reason for a company to act the way it does. Trust me if the federal government could figure out a way to save on the cost and still provide the same level of security they would.

No comments:

Post a Comment