Security? It is, at best, an illusion!

[MindandSoul]

With all the hype and the billions being spent on
"airline/airport security," I am still convinced
that there is NO WAY on earth to ASSURE the security of our
citizens, or of anybody on earth!

It doesn't matter how much money we spend and all the
discussion about whether it is "obscene" to spend
that money on full scanner machine because of the cost. . .or
because the "imaging" would be revealing of our most
intimate parts!

If it makes people feel "more secure" to have me
and billions of other traveler reveal my "intimate
parts," go for it. . .just don't ask me to pay for it
and fill the pocket of the "defense" industry!!!

Last night, like so many of us, I watched the ball drop on
Time Square. . .and the 1/2 million people crowded in the
cold to see it happen live.
I also saw the same ritual repeated ALL OVER the world. .
.from Sidney, to South Africa, to Paris, to Brazil. . .

I couldn't help to notice that. . .there was NO WAY that, if
the "terrorists" had wanted to make a point, they
could have been stopped! Yes, maybe a few might have been
found out and arrested before a bombing attempt. . .but
multiply that by 10. . . by 100! Imagine how many bombs of a
similar type to the one smuggled on the Amsterdam/Detroit
flight could have been hidden under the clothes of dozens of
terrorists. . .all over the world!

Yet, NOTHING happened!. . .this seems to me like the best
indication that. . .yes, there are crazy, desperate people in
this world. . .and there will always be!
But if a large terrorist organization had really been behind
that crazy attempt on the Christmas flight to Detroit. .
.they would probably have waited one more week, and send that
same guy in the middle of Time Square. . .maybe even right in
London. . .or in Amsterdam, or in New York, or in Sidney!
And the damage (not only from the bomb, but from the major
panic that would have followed) would probably killed more
people than a successful attempt on that Christmas flight
would have!. . .

There is NO WAY to avoid terrorists. . .because they are
willing to die for it, or they can find enough people stupid
enough to die for their cause.
So. . .we need to accept that BEING ALIVE is taking a risk!.
. .That we are ALL BORN TO DIE. . .and that we can live our
life to its fullest. . .or we can be paralyzed by fear, every
day of our life, and let "big business" and
"political interests" control every day of our
life!

I, for one, will do my best to live each day as if it could
be my last, and thus, live it fully, fearlessly, and tell
everyone I love that I love them. I will control the
"risks" in my life and the life of those I love to
the best of my abilities, but I will willingly accept the
risks I cannot control and . . .live with it!

Have a happy new year!

[ZombieHorde]

1. I agree to some extent. People can take measures to increase their safety to some degree.

I agree we can never be completely safe, but if we buy a car with some nice safety features, such as seat belts and air bags, we will be a little bit safer while driving in our car.

I agree with the spirit of your OP and I recommended it.

[PDJane]

2. The fear of the unknown unmans most people........

and it's the most useless fear we can have.

You are quite right.....so let's just get on with living, do the things that will make the most sense for the most people, and try to live with the world and its finite resources. The faster we manage to learn to live with what is and control our greed, the more likely we are to live longer.

[Arrowhead2k1]

3. K&R! nt

[azurnoir]

4. Agreed +110%

it comes down to question of how much we're willing to give up to "feel" safe

[fasttense]

5. I notice our founding fathers didn't put in the oath of allegiance

to protect the "people" of the United States, but to protect the "Constitution." I think our founding fathers expected the "people" to protect themselves for the most part.

[stray cat]

6. Even with police crime still occurs; even with social services parents kill their kids

We can't stop crimes against persons or child abuse completely - should we save money by not trying to prevent them?

[JoeyT]

7. Saving money would be a nice side benefit, but it's not the main reason.

You're correct that parents sometimes kill and abuse their children despite the best efforts of social services.
If we had the "Keep us safe!!!!!!111" reaction to that information, we'd either immediately revoke parental rights and all children would become wards of the state, or all parents would be forced by law to keep a camera strapped to their heads 24 hours a day.
Neither would have the effect we wanted them to have, and both would violate every civil liberty imaginable.
Just like the War on Terror and the constant demands for our government to keep us safe from every threat imaginable.

[MindandSoul]

8. Absolutely not! You are demonstrating either poor comprehension or bad will!

And I believe you know very well that this is NOT what I met!
In fact, I would be perfectly happy if instead of spending hundreds of millions of dollars on "assuring our security on airlines" (thus "maybe" saving another 780 people over the next 10 years. . -), we applied even half of those economic resources to the prevention of child abuse! But. . .let's face it. . .we probably have as many or more "security personel" in airports (and they are probably better paid) than we have social workers working for child protective services!
And we spend more money on "security equipment" at these airports than we do on providing computer equipment to schools, and helping families in need!
In fact, I would be happier if the other half of the money spent on "airline security" was used to improve our highways, our traffic signals, and our emergency services (paramedic) vehicles to prevent the 187,000 fatalities due to car accidents to re-occur over the next 5 years!!!!

[centristgrandpa]

9. everyday is a new day, live with it... n/t