Travelers, Let's Get Real

Hearing the discourse on the quasi-terrorist of Christmas Day is saddening. I find myself wishing that people would hunger for reality -- a kind that would make them assess the effectiveness of our government and the realistic chances of attacks if we keep our free society as free as it is now.

Early in my banking days, the fellow who headed the retail bank commented that the only reason that banks did not experience more robberies is that so few people tried. The analogy holds true for counter-terrorist efforts. We either surrender some of our civil liberties or we take the risks inherent in the freedoms that we enjoy. The cost of a fail-proof system is more than we are willing to pay, yet people talk as if there is a way to detect/prevent/anticipate determined suicidists.

Computer security companies hire notorious hackers to gain their knowledge of software vulnerabilities. The TSA should do the same: offer rewards to citizens that can effectively defeat the system. They would be flooded with ideas because every traveler could probably offer an idea on how to penetrate security (and especialy now that the TSA inadvertently published their screening procedures on the Internet.)

Example: two years ago, my family attended a cooking school in Sienna, Italy. When we asked why the teacher used a kitchen implement made of a certain material, she explained that the implement could be hidden in carry-on luggage for air travel. Lo and behold, she was right.

Example: ICE (successor to INS) agents work very hard to prevent suspicious people from entering the United States. Our borders are so porous that bumbling amateurs could sneak in. On successive canoe trips on the northern US border, both of my sons observed that there was no scrutiny at all when they paddled from Canada into the US.

We could all add examples to the list. The point is that we are only minimizing risk by our security procedures and surely not eliminating it. Just because we have car insurance, we are not justified in believing we are safer from accidents. What progress it would be if we acknowledged the risks of a free society, and asked how much risk reduction we get for a given expenditure or system.

We cannot anticipate every method that would-be terrorists might employ. If we think that profiling will solve everything, we are naive. How many authentic-looking Americans were spies for the USSR? Why not hire a terminally ill non-Arab person to commit the terror event and compensate his family? Why not recruit disaffected non-Arabs to Al Qaeda and persuade them to become martyrs for the cause? We did not anticipate jumbo jets as guided missles, shoes as weapons, or powdered explosives with plastic and liquid detonators.

Furthermore, no matter how well-designed the system, the quality of the execution will vary given that we have to depend on humans to implement the plan.

Pardon me, but this is one of several moments when we see the weaknesses of our political system. Elected representatives see the issue as a headline-grabber to exploit for personal gain, not as an urgent national priority that deserves clear-headed thought. If we want our government to serve us, we need term limits. Otherwise, the pols will serve themselves regardless of how urgent the issue. If we want the government to be responsive to genuine needs, we need campaign finance reform. Otherwise, the legislative process will be purchased by the highest bidder.

Plain and simple, a democracy takes a long time to solve a problem, and a big democracy takes a longer time. Sadly, too much of the commentary in on-line media has been silly partisan yammering. During the last presidential election, one of my friends said she wanted a president who could unite the country. That would require some issue, any issue that we could rally around, and people just are not in the mood to form a concensus. The antipathy between left and right is so great that I wonder if anything or anyone could unite us. Maybe we should amend the Constitution to change our name. Perhaps the Cynical States, the Suspicious States, the Zero-Sum States, or the Internecine States?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." We are so divided as a nation that I suspect we could not get a majority of both houses of Congress to ratify this statement again.

What a mess we are. Here is a real problem that needs our best thinking, and the loudest response so far is partisan yammering. Enough already. Is there a way to unearth detached, disinterested discourse that moves toward reality? Funny.....I read that Cal Tech (in Pasadena) is apolitical because the people there are so intently grounded in science. Could science help us? A democracy is not a function of science, ruefully. It is a function of emotion and opinion, which require knowledge and self discipline to be useful guides to our prosperity. That "consent of the governed" thing can be a two-edged sword.