Flying home and TSA today

Charles White put up on Facebook a link to a picture of a screened actor (one presumes) demonstrating what the new TSA airport security scanners might reveal.   The young lady (who we can confirm is female) is carrying a weapon or two.

In the hue and cry over this technology, I have to pause and reflect on what on Earth is going on here. Exactly what is the threat all this stuff is supposed to prevent or deter, and, how come the Israeli's don't use it, aren't having planes blown up,  and claim it's worthless?

The only reason I can see that terrorists or wannabe-terrorists attack airplanes,  now that the cockpits are sealed and they can't be used as guided-missiles,   is that they get a lot of press coverage -- way more than the 50,000 people who die each year of auto accidents, or the 5 million who die each year worldwide from smoking-related causes [World Health Organization statistics].

So, my humble proposal would be to nip these in the bud and simply have the FCC,which reports to the President,  issue a statement banning Fox News and other news channels from carrying any news,  MORE THAN ONCE, about attacks on airplanes.   This costs taxpayers way less than hundreds of quarter-million dollar scanners plus all the people to run them. It can be done in one afternoon. It doesn't even require "an act of Congress."  Obama picks up the phone, calls the FCC, and say "send this memo."   Life can go back to normal for the rest of us humans and business travelers.

Without the tremendous amplifying effect of Fox News echoing a crash over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over for years,   a plane crash and a few hundred people is no more exciting than the same number of people who die in hospitals from infections daily.   Yawn.  "What else is on another channel?"

Now, of course there is the issue of violation of sacred rights that make America great!

Two things on that.  First,   the TSA already said, go take your rights and stuff them where the sun don't shine, this is protecting America we're talking about.   So,  I guess, their opinion not mine, rights don't count.

Second,  I would suggest that, if rights DO have to be violated, that the so-called rights of pseudo-humans ( Fox News) should go on the chopping block BEFORE the actual rights of actual human beings (the rest of us.)  And before the rights of pseudo-humans (businesses) that actually hire real people to do real work, and want those people travel on airplanes to meet other people.

The only point of terrorism, by definition, is wide-spread fear, panic, and blowing a small event totally out of proportion.    Otherwise, it's just sabotage or vandalism.   In my mind, amplifying fear and panic is what Fox News OVER-reporting does in a big way, and the guy with bomb in his pants is small-change.

So,  in deference to the people's right to know -- let Fox News, and the others, break the news of any airplane explosions -- exactly ONCE.   After that,  people have been INFORMED,  there's no need to add panic with a gazillion replays.  And many reasons not to, if we don't want to be doing the hard part of terrorists for them,  getting them a billion dollars worth of free publicity for the price of a handgun.

AND,  we can free up airports so that human beings, and business, can go about their productive lives without playing peep-show cause no one ever looked at how illogical this whole thing is.

In the meantime, though, now that we, you know, HAVE all these pictures of naked potential terrorists, maybe those should be broadcast, live, over FOX web-TV, in real time,  so that everyone in America can help the TSA spotters look for dangerous thingies, and point at them with their mouse cursors and call attention to them to help the spotters out.    ... :)    You know ... to defray the costs of securing our borders.  And rights.  And values.  [ note to foreigners -- this paragraph is "satire".]

Seriously though ... there is an accident involving nuclear weapons every 6 months or so, by best estimates I've seen.    Here's a list of older ones.     Why is it that an attack on an airplane of several hundred people gets more press coverage than an oopise of almost detonating a nuclear "device" over South Carolina?   There are rational reasons why press coverage of nuclear accidents is kept to a tight minimum. I agree with those reasons.  I just think America's war against being led around by the nose by terrorizers  would be better served by having the same semi-blackout apply to aircraft accidents.

RWS