Time was in this country when if you wanted an "enhanced pat-down", there was naught for it but $25 dollars and a shadowy venue on a side street. Now, it's the cost of a plane ticket, some obstinacy, a well-lit room, and an underpaid federal goon of the same sex. [I might digress here into how I can't reconcile this latter requirement with our Cultural Overlords' ever-engaged project of eliminating gender difference and identity. Perhaps soon an amended procedure will include a coin-toss as some point....]
Yes, I'm on about the recent media kerfuffle about the TSA's sexy new procedures. The "hand-sliding" methodology of the new technique has some passengers crying foul. As if naked body imaging weren't a privacy violation enough.
Now, on the surface of it, this is just another personal liberties hysteria, isn't it? I mean, we all want to be safe, don't we? We should all be expected to pay some price for our liberty.
Perhaps it's because I savor satire, but I must concede to appreciating a sort of irony in this whole situation. Because, back in the days of the Patriot Act, it seems that much of the same crowd that is now so up-in-arms was making just that argument that they're now rejecting as lunacy. And part of the argumentative strain, that this kind of search shouldn't be allowed without suspicion, of course begs the question of what engenders such suspicion. I can't help but wonder if, for many of these folks, that question isn't too easy to answer...
Nevertheless, the current protests have plenty of good arguments to go on. And I'm sure among the protesters are many who, like myself, have consistently rejected the whole mania of "added security measures" our country has been putting in place for fear that they might lead to profiling or, well, things like this.
The best arguments are just common sense. A recent editorialist in The Guardian put it nicely:
Listen to this: "My freely chosen bedmates and doctors are the only ones allowed to see my naked body or touch my genitalia." For a sane person in a sane country that's the ultimate in "no shit, Sherlock" statement. But not where I live.I would wholeheartedly agree if "freely chosen bedmates" were switched to the more sane "spouse," but for the time being I'll give due credit to the sanity which is there, rather than fixate upon the (significant) bit which is lacking.
Not the United States of America.
The canard of "protection" that keeps getting trotted out is a laughable attempt at justification. What the above author calls "pointlessly superstitious security theatre," I call a childish sleight-of-hand - so much smoke and mirrors. If it comes right down to it, I'd rather take my chances with less draconian measures which leave the off-chance of a violation of my safety rather than the sure violation of my privacy which the current measures represent. I feel not at all assured that these new measures will likely ensnare a determined terrorist; rather, I see the likelihood of their being abuses as a much more real exigency. But these are trusted government employees! They're screened and undergo psychological batteries! Yes, like the military personnel at Abu Ghraib? Or - to anticipate the insensitive smart ass who would seek to strike the low blow against my argument - what about the priest pedophiles who abused children? It doesn't deflate my point - it proves it: screening processes fail. And I'll gladly admit that the problem in the Church evinces a similar social phenomenon as that in the military, i.e. that bureaucratic structures can easily become breeding grounds for corruption without the necessary balances of transparency and accountability - and virtue. (I also would add, though it is not essential to my point: at least with the Church the scandal stands against real motives of credibility that urge me to keep trusting Her divine constitution in spite of human failures; where are the proofs that would impel me to a similar fealty toward the government, I ask?)
It is simply too great a price to pay for liberty to subject to pornographic exploitation and what would, in any other context, more than meet the base definition of sexual harassment.
But, what else can they do? I mean, they have to do something! They can't just do nothing! Yes. Yes they can. I'm not being insensitive to the tragedy and travesty of 9/11 in saying this. But we're not honoring those folks' memories who were murdered that day by invading people's personal space in this way; actually, we're dishonoring them. We're giving those who would attack us a small victory in allowing one more invasion into the life we love.
Yes, we have a right to feel safe and to not have to fear when we travel, or simply when we get out of bed to go to work in the morning. The attack in 2001 violated this right and shook us into the understanding that we weren't so safe as we supposed. We have something to fear, it is true. It is not entirely irrelevant (and not the least irreverent, to my mind) to point out that we now can have some solidarity with the people who live, say, in Israel or in Iraq. Yes, we deserve better than to have to fear - so do they. But we're robbed of that, as they are. It sucks, no bones about it. But some factors are simply beyond our control: we only have certain choices left to us. And it is those choices about which we must be careful and considerate. It seems we're destined, at least for a time, to live in fear - it's not an unknown condition for a people. But I would much rather live in fear of a wily and unscrupulous (but thankfully limitedly capable) enemy than to live in fear of my own government...
Wouldn't you?
"But, what else can they do? I mean, they have to do something! They can't just do nothing! Yes. Yes they can."
ReplyDeleteExcept, it's not a question of naked picture machine/cop-a-feel versus let any Tom, Dick, or Harry onto the plane. Because, well, we do lots of other stuff. No fly lists, multiple checks of identity, metal detectors, air marshals, cameras in more places than you can count, et cetera. This is not a do this or do nothing situation, and we can't give in to the idea that it is.
"We have something to fear, it is true."
Yes, we do. But we also need to put that fear into its proper perspective. In the past decade, a little over 3,000 Americans died in terrorist attacks on US soil. In that same time, about 200,000 people died of the flu in America and over 400,000 died in car accidents. This is NOT to play down terrorism. But, we have to put it in perspective. The security precautions that have been in place for 20 years and heightened this last decade have been enough to make terrorist attacks in the US extremely rare. I am not willing to watch the country become a police state where the rights of individuals are tossed out the window so that we can go from extremely rare to a little more extremely rare.
Should people be vigilant? Yes. Should the government investigate credible threats? Of course. Should a certain level of security measures remain in place? No doubt. Should we write the government a blank check to "do whatever it takes" without regard to rights or human dignity? Hell no.
Agreed, Leo. When I said we could afford to do nothing, I meant really no more than we had been doing (actually, really, we could afford maybe a bit less).
ReplyDeleteWe have an odd tendency in this country for always wanting closure. Something happens - say a leak of info in an office of government or military, or a bridge collapse, or even a natural disaster - any time calamity strikes, we go investigation crazy. How many millions of dollars and beaurocratic time do we spend on these kinds of things? And I really wonder how much of it does any good.
I know this is in a provocative line but I can't help thinking it. How often does a poor FEMA response spur a long and harrying inquiry? And really, that there is a FEMA at all is just something we take for granted. Do we save money next time by having these fix-up phases? It never seems so. We just pour money into the process of investigation - money that might have been spent, you know, on relieving the disaster.
I just feel like the hard pill is that the world ain't perfect and we should count our blessings. This still isn't Belfast or Gaza, ya know? Not to say we should just abandon the efforts altogether, but moderate them and save resources and time that could be better spent on the more immediate and constant problems we have to deal with, as you point out. All about perspective.
The TSA has implied, if not directly stated, that people with loose/baggy clothing, including skirts and dresses are selected for sexual assault due to the fact that pornotron has a hard time peeping through such clothes (yet another reason why modest clothing is superior?). So, the message of the government to women: cross dress or dress provocatively or we'll sexually assault you. Not to mention the even more direct assault that skirts and dresses would open women up to.
ReplyDeleteIt's a disgusting mess. What is the choice? Have a naked picture taken of your wife/girlfriend/mother/sister/daughter/friend or have them groped! The State is Evil!