On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 10:26:05 GMT, wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 21:31:46 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

.... snip
Well, assuming that the folks doing the profiling are somewhat smarter
than cherrystone clams, they should be able to distinguish between those
who at least partially fit the profile vs. graying grandmothers,
middle-aged, balding caucasian males, or old guys in walkers.

At which point the terrorists start using graying grandmothers,
middle-aged balding causasian males (hint: What country is right next
door to the Caucasus?) etc.

I repeat. We need to use a sense of proportion in profiling.


While I agree that we need a sense of proportion, I ask what is
"proportionate" about spending the bulk of their time screening people who
"may" someday be used "if" they were being more heavily screened vs. the
absolutely silly way-disproportionate screening of those who obviously
aren't a threat now, while barely even sampling those who most closely fit
the profile of those who have been committing these acts? Does it make you
feel safer knowing that TSA is screening a huge number of people who are
obviously no threat and only a small sampling of people who are more likely
to be terrorists?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+