(function() { var a=window;function e(b){this.t={};this.tick=function(c,h,d){d=d?d:(new Date).getTime();this.t[c]=[d,h]};this.tick("start",null,b)}var f=new e;a.jstiming={Timer:e,load:f};try{a.jstiming.pt=a.gtbExternal&&a.gtbExternal.pageT()||a.external&&a.external.pageT}catch(g){};a.tickAboveFold=function(b){b=b;var c=0;if(b.offsetParent){do c+=b.offsetTop;while(b=b.offsetParent)}b=c;b<=750&&a.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var i=false;function j(){if(!i){i=true;a.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime")}}a.addEventListener?a.addEventListener("scroll",j,false):a.attachEvent("onscroll",j); })();
We are looking for answers to some hard questions as we dig deep inside and explore our own core values and how that guides not just our own lives but the very world that we live in. These questions will be asked to a group of high school students but we would also like to hear from the world at large. While we hope to keep this forum wide open we do reserve the right to delete responses that we find to be offensive or combative in nature. Thank you for participating with us.
4 Comments:
It would seem to me that the security restrictions are more invasive than effective. As one who has travelled across the USA a lot since 9/11, and overseas to the UK and Australia, I see the whole idea and the execution of the idea as an invasion of privacy. What worries me more is that this will be extended at some time in the future - certainly if Newt Gingrich has his way - to vetting our dinner guests, our phone calls, and our mail! To say nothing of logging all our internet activities!
First I would caution against lumping all increases in security into the same category as the largely symbolic changes mentioned. But the examples given are trying to solve yesterday's problems while failing to address tomorrow's. I believe the only real way to prevent terrorists from wreaking havok on planes is to prevent terrorists from getting on planes.
As to whether the restrictions on what can be carried on a plane infringe on basic rights or freedoms, I don't believe so. Some seem to think that they have the "right" to not be inconvenienced, this is not so. Could airline security still be increased without as much inconvenience? Certainly, which is why I was disappointed that the congress insisted that it be handled directly by the government instead of the private sector.
It is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens.
I believe it's worth the hassle if I were a passenger. I could be saving my own life by sacrificing a few minutes of travel time.
Dead people don't have rights. So, I'd rather be alive than dead.
I can relate to the thoughts of the first three posts. I've mixed feelings on the matter of heightened security, and to date, have not come to decisive conclusion in my own mind.
Post a Comment
<< Home