Apparently someone at work printed out and posted this blog posting from TriggerFinger on my old office door.

Anne Applebaum almost gets it right.  Right up to the very end when she should be concluding the obvious (“security screening” probably cannot ever be made to work successfully and should be abandoned) she wimps out and doesn’t face the facts she herself put forward.  But it’s close enough to get people thinking.  Here’s a taste of the good stuff:

…outside inspectors have found, over and over again, that federal screeners perform no better than the private screeners they replaced. Since they inspect only passengers and baggage, not the airport and its perimeter, they haven’t eliminated the need for other forms of law enforcement either. And even when they are doing their rather narrow job correctly, their impact is dubious.

…this mass ceremonial sacrifice of toenail clippers on the altar of security comes at an extraordinarily high price. The annual budget of the federal Transportation Security Administration hovers around $5.5 billion — just about the same price as the entire FBI — a figure that doesn’t include the cost of wasted time. De Rugy reckons that if 624 million passengers each spend two hours every year waiting in line, the annual loss to the economy comes to $32 billion.

…

But, then, this isn’t a country that has ever been good at risk analysis. If it were, we would never have invented the TSA at all. Instead, we would have taken that $5.5 billion, doubled the FBI’s budget, and set up a questioning system that identifies potentially suspicious passengers, as the Israelis do.

BINGO!!!

…

I conclude that we don’t actually want value for money. No, we want every passenger to have the chance to recite that I-packed-these-bags-myself mantra to a uniformed official before boarding an airplane. Magic words, it seems, are what make Americans feel really safe.

Yup.  You got that right.

See also my web pages on this topic.

From Schneier’s blog I found a link to a lock for your pint of Ben & Jerry’s.  Interesting enough for a blog posting all on it’s own.  But what I found even more interesting/amusing at the site was this sketch:

I’m shocked!  Is freedom making a comeback in Canada?  Does this mean we might not have to liberate them after we get done with the Mid-East?  I know–I’m getting way ahead of things here.  They still officially have their gun registration scheme and they haven’t actually reversed their downward spiral into the abyss of the most failed political system of all time, but they did have an important court ruling that may cause some serious ripples in the fabric of the ‘reality’ of socialists in both Canada and this country.  The socialists know it and even say it out loud.  Here’s the story:

In the decision of Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) that was handed down on Thursday by the Supreme Court of Canada, the court found that Quebec laws that prohibit the purchase of insurance to cover private medical treatment violated the Quebec Charter and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The majority of the court found that waiting times in the public system violated the Quebec Charter of Rights. While it was not necessary to decide, three of the justices found that the Quebec law violates section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights that guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person. The court held that delays in the public health system led to prolonged pain and suffering, deteriorating medical conditions and in some cases, death. In coming to this conclusion in what will inevitably be to the dismay of those on the political left, the Supreme Court followed its 1998 decision in R. v. Morgentaler that held that delays encountered by women seeking abortions breached section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The interesting aspect of the Chaoulli decision, and the one that most deviated from what politicians of all political parties have been spewing for years was the finding that this breach of a charter right was not reasonable. The court found that while the preservation of a publicly funded health care system was a substantive and legitimate government objective, the outright ban on private health care insurance had no rational connection to saving the public system and went further than was necessary to meet that objective. In the majority’s opinion, the government of Quebec failed to show that allowing Quebeckers to purchase insurance for private health care would destroy Canada’s public health care system. In reaching this conclusion the court examined other countries in the OECD such as Sweden and the U.K. that have strong public health care systems despite allowing private parallel health care services.

This finding is at odds with what the politicians have been saying for years; that not only will allowing private medical services destroy our health care system; it will destroy Canada as we know it. The entire fabric of our society will disappear. We are constantly being told that our health care system is what defines us as a country. Allow someone to actually pay for what is now a public service and we will be no different than the United States.

From The Salt Lake Tribune:

 A state legislator is setting up free concealed weapon classes for policy-makers and their families this summer, while at the same time formulating a proposal to make it easier for Utahns to secretly carry a firearm.
    Clearfield Republican Rep. Curtis Oda says the sessions are aimed at educating lawmakers and debunking gun-control advocates’ criticism of Utah’s gun laws.
    The first two students were Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert. Since then, 12 legislators and eight other elected officials have taken the free gun-handling classes. And Oda has another 25 legislators interested, with the next class scheduled for July.

The reporter is biased (notice the use of the word “secretly“ instead of the more common “concealed“ and the picture of the legislator is terrible) against gun ownership but still our side is on the offensive and making progress.  And of course it’s always pleasant to hear the other side whine:

    Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah board member Maura Carabello calls Oda’s classes “exposure lobbying” that gets around Utah’s lobbyist disclosure laws but still persuades lawmakers to be sympathetic to his cause.
    “I object to this being framed as merely educational, with no larger political intent,” Carabello said. “This is not government responding to the public. This is a special interest trying to affect lawmakers.”

…

     But Carabello says the free classes don’t pass the proverbial “smell test.” Oda’s classes, she says, are a subtle form of lobbying for looser laws – something Utah doesn’t need.

Since my posting nearly a week ago there has been speculation I was fired because of my blog or it’s content.  Technically I’m sure that is not true or at least it is a very small component of the official internal record.  The blog was used to find sufficient cause to investigate other things.  At least one item was ultimately found, which I knew was wrong when I did it and admitted to it when asked about it, which was sufficient cause according to company policy to terminate my employment .  That item was allowing my wife and daughter to browse the web using the company laptop.  I suspect there were other things which they believed to be wrong, but in fact were not, which were also used to justify their actions.  I probably will never know because they did not and probably will not ever allow those items to be examined and refuted.  But it doesn’t matter because it only takes one step “over the line“.

A full report from my viewpoint, about what happened, the lessons learned, and how you can protect yourself will probably be released sometime next week.  Please keep your speculation to a minimum until then.