Wil B.'s Comments
Page 1 of 309  first | prev | next 
Dec 26, 2009 | recommended: 7 | comments: 78
in reply to a comment by Timothy V.
Wil B. Jan 2, 2010, 1:10am EST
I think the ACLU's response, "ACLU Opposes Body Cavity Searches For All Airline Passengers", was pretty spot-on.

William Saletan's Slate article, "Show Some Balls: Want to Get On an Airplane? Let's See Your Scrotum" was pretty good, too.
Dec 26, 2009 | recommended: 7 | comments: 78
in reply to a comment by Timothy V.
Wil B. Jan 2, 2010, 12:55am EST
That's an excellent article, Tim. And what those people are saying makes a lot more sense to me than Clark Kent Ervin's recommendation that we somehow "identify all the vulnerabilities and then address each one before terrorists strike again".
Dec 26, 2009 | recommended: 7 | comments: 78
in reply to a comment by Timothy V.
Wil B. Jan 2, 2010, 12:41am EST
And if it doesn't, that won't matter since they'll be able to use their scanners to see through our pants, anyway.
Dec 26, 2009 | recommended: 7 | comments: 78
in reply to a comment by Robert F. protectionist
Wil B. Jan 2, 2010, 12:20am EST
"Now why is this the case? It's because they don't like white people. In short, they are racists..plain and simple."

I'm sure some of them don't like white people, but do you really think you're being fair assuming that everybody who lives in those neighborhoods is a racist, and that the reason they live there is because they're racist? You say that you live in an all-white neighborhood. Is that because you and the other white people who live there are all racists who don't like non-white people?

There are lots of reasons why those sorts of little ethnic and/or racial neighborhoods/enclaves get started, and then persist.

"They stick with people either from their own country or Americans with descent from their country of origin."

I get what you're saying, Tim. I've seen some of that sort of thing, too. But on the other hand, I've seen plenty of examples where that wasn't the case. A part of it is about comfort and convenience.

I've experienced a little bit of something like that since I left the U.S. when I meet other American ex-pats. A lot of them seem to think that because they're American and I'm American, we should be friendly with each other. Exchange phone numbers and email addresses, maybe get together for 4th of July or something. The thing is, I'm not going to be friends with somebody just because they're American any more than I'd refuse to be friends with somebody just because they're American.

Our neighborhood is pretty multi-ethnic/multicultural. Off the top of my head, there are Americans (me), Canadians, Australians, Chinese, Malaysian, Nigerians, and Croatians. And we all get along pretty well.
Our social life is pretty multicultural, multinational, and multiracial, too. And our kids, even more so. And it's great.

"So with all of this in mind, just why should I travel to a Country where people don't like white Americans?"

To follow your dream of seeing more of this beautiful world that we live in.
Dec 26, 2009 | recommended: 7 | comments: 78
in reply to a comment by Robert F. protectionist
Wil B. Jan 1, 2010, 9:56pm EST
"Your little coach job is new, (as far as I know)."

I guess you don't know much, then.
Dec 26, 2009 | recommended: 7 | comments: 78
in reply to a comment by Robert F. protectionist
Wil B. Jan 1, 2010, 9:56pm EST
"My comments are from the book "Open Target", written by the former Inspector General of Homeland Security, Clark Kent Ervin, and has been public knowledge for 3 years now."

Were you calling him a "coach for terrorists" three years ago?

I haven't read his book, but I've read his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Security in May, 2007. I especially liked this part:
Rather than expanding the visa waiver program, we should end it....I fully recognize that my position on this matter is controversial. I do not take this position lightly. I fully understand the benefits that it provides to our country. It serves to encourage foreigners to visit the United States, a time when I think it is more critical than ever before in our history that we be, and be seen as, a nation that is eager embrace the world. It enables our citizens to travel to these countries without our obtaining a visa from them. I travel abroad fairly regularly, and mostly to visa waiver countries. So, if enacted, my policy proposal could inconvenience me. But, the inconvenience of paying a fee and waiting some period of time to obtain a visa to visit a foreign country is, it seems to me, a small price to pay to close a gaping hole in our nation's security. And, of course, there need not be much inconvenience. If the State Department's budget were adequately increased, it could hire the requisite number of additional consular officers to ensure no material delay in the issuance of visas to a significantly greater number of applicants. As a committed internationalist, and the former Inspector General of the State Department as well as the Department of Homeland Security, I have long believed that the State Department has been shortchanged, particularly in the consular area.
It's good to see that Mr. Ervin, a committed internationalist, recognizes the benefits of the VWP. I disagree with his recommendation that it be ended, but I think it's pretty funny that even as he recommends that it be shut down, he also admits that he himself takes advantage of the convenience it offers. LOL!
Dec 29, 2009 | recommended: 6 | comments: 34
in reply to a comment by Elaine B.
Wil B. Jan 1, 2010, 9:03pm EST
I think what Ms. Walker was saying is that the search was inappropriate because it was conducted in public, and that it was ineffective because it didn't include a search of her "private parts." But I think the main thing she was saying is that the search wasn't really about determining if she was trying to sneak anything dangerous on the plane. It was about punishing her for questioning the secondary screening procedure in the first place.

In her article, Ms. Walker explains that in the last few months before she wrote it, she suddenly began to be "randomly selected" for additional screening more often than she had before. She claims that she was selected about fifty percent of the time, and that she believes that the reason she was selected so often wasn't because she looked like a terrorist, but because she looked "like someone who will readily comply."
Dec 26, 2009 | recommended: 7 | comments: 78
in reply to a comment by Robert F. protectionist
Wil B. Jan 1, 2010, 7:14pm EST
"We seem to have settled that the visa waiver program is bad for US national security, but good for travelers who want the world to be their playground."

I thought we'd settled that living in a free and open society poses inherent risks for national security, but is good for anybody who'd rather not live in a totalitarian police-state.

"The Bilderbugs are "an unofficial, annual, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of great influence in the fields of politics, business, banking, and media. Each conference is under intense secrecy and security."

OMG, what kind of insane countries allow rich people to meet privately? There ought to be a law! LMAO!
Dec 26, 2009 | recommended: 7 | comments: 78
in reply to a comment by Timothy V.
Wil B. Jan 1, 2010, 6:39pm EST
I suspect the views had more to do with your article being in the moderated Gather News Essential and Gather Politics Essential groups. But it could be the dragons, too. LOL.
Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 4 | comments: 26
in reply to a comment by Joe T.
Wil B. Dec 31, 2009, 11:02pm EST
"I am at a loss as to why this article accuses the left of blaming Bush for it. No one on the left of note has done anything of the kind."

Because straw men are such easy targets?
Dec 31, 2009 | recommended: 1 | comments: 4
Wil B. Dec 31, 2009, 10:59pm EST
"I don't think the government should force a person to continue suffering if they don't want to. Do you?"

No, I don't.

"The conservative Montana Family Foundation bemoaned the court's opinion that found the practice legal on statutory grounds. The assisted suicide opponents promised to take the fight to the Legislature."

So much for conservative principles of promoting individual liberty and personal responsibility and limiting the power of government. Here they are clearly doing the exact opposite. But then the Montana Family Foundation isn't really a conservative organization. They're a religious organization, serving as the Montana affiliate of Focus on the Family. At best, I suppose they could be called fundamentalist theoconservatives, or theocons.
Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 19
in reply to a comment by Dale Coparanis
Wil B. Dec 31, 2009, 9:33pm EST
So the ones with Arabic-sounding names are terrorists, but not the others?

Hasan Karim Akbar, who was born Mark Fidel Kools, was convicted by a military court of two counts of premeditated murder and 3 counts of attempted premeditated murder. Premeditated murder. That's what they call it when a killer plans and executes their murderous criminal actions with precision. Premeditated murder is a crime, and the people found guilty of it are considered criminals, not terrorists.
Dec 29, 2009 | recommended: 6 | comments: 34
in reply to a comment by Richard Frisbie
Wil B. Dec 31, 2009, 9:58am EST
Generally speaking, airport security in Australia isn't nearly as nuts as in the U.S., but on one flight from Sydney, security confiscated the scissors from my sons school backpack (we'd picked them up from school and headed straight to the airport on a surprise trip). Round-tipped "safety scissors". And made a point of giving him a little lecture while his mother was stuck trying to get through the metal detector (I forget what kept setting it off), and I was trying to get my belt and shoes back on, and my laptop back in its bag.

We were seriously pissed off at the time, but had a good laugh on the plane when we realized that, for all the worry over the boy's school scissors, my wife had gone through with her little travel kit that included a nail file, tweezers, etc.
Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 19
in reply to a comment by Dale Coparanis
Wil B. Dec 31, 2009, 9:41am EST
"What MAJ Hassan and this Nigerean did were acts of war, not crimes. This means it was terrorism."

I thought that people who committed acts of war were called warriors. Or soldiers. People who commit acts of terrorism may be referred to as terrorists, although there doesn't seem to be a lot of agreement on the definition of terrorism.

Why should Maj. Hassan (who is charged with killing 13 fellow soldiers) be considered a terrorist), but not Sgt. John M. Russell's (charged with killing 5 fellow soldiers) isn't?

Why should Major Hassan be considered a terrorist, but not Staff Sergeant Alberto B. Martinez (who was charged and acquitted of killing 2 fellow soldiers)?

Why should Major Hassan be considered a terrorist, but not Sergeant Hasan Karim Akbar, who was charged, convicted, and sentenced to die for the killing of 2 fellow soldiers?

Why should Major Hassan be considered a terrorist, but not Louis Bressler, Kenneth Eastridge, and Bruce Bastien Jr. (who've all been charged with the murder of fellow soldier Kevin Shields, while Bressler and Bastien have also been charged with the murder of another soldier Pfc. Robert James)?
Dec 30, 2009 | recommended: 5 | comments: 19
Wil B. Dec 30, 2009, 8:40pm EST
But Julie, if we call them criminals instead of terrorists, then we can't torture them and stuff.

We can't lock them up in prison forever without charging them with anything.

We can't retaliate against their actions by killing their whole family, blowing up their village, invading their country, etc.
Dec 29, 2009 | recommended: 6 | comments: 34
in reply to a comment by EM JAY (Gather Director of Chaos & Uprisings) W.
Wil B. Dec 30, 2009, 8:32pm EST
"How are TSA agents trained? How much are they paid? Are they people who are truly interested in law enforcement or just people who want a secure job and will do the minimum to keep it?"

Good questions, EM JAY. I don't know all the answers, but some of them can be found at USAJOBS in this ad for a TSO.

"There doesn't seem to be much common sense applied to the procedures designed to keep people safe."

Definitely not. And I think the same can be said of the whole "war on terror." As Bob Ellis said in the article I linked to earlier, "We are fighting an idea, and you do not fight an idea by blowing up the neighbourhoods of its true believers....You fight an idea by winning converts to your idea."
Dec 29, 2009 | recommended: 6 | comments: 34
in reply to a comment by Aniko  
Wil B. Dec 30, 2009, 8:16pm EST
Thanks, Aniko!
Dec 29, 2009 | recommended: 6 | comments: 34
in reply to a comment by Timothy V.
Wil B. Dec 30, 2009, 8:16pm EST
Thanks, Tim.

I think there are a lot of reasons, and I'm not at all confident that things are going to change any time soon. Unfortunately, I suspect that things will get worse before they get better.

Looking soft on national security generally doesn't work out well these days. Got to keep the voters happy, and as you've seen from some of the responses in your article, there are plenty of people who buy into the whole false sense of security provided by security theater. Got to keep the military-industrial complex happy, too. It's always a good idea to look where the money's going.
Mar 22, 2009 | comments: 206
in reply to a comment by Robert F. protectionist
Wil B. Dec 30, 2009, 7:04pm EST
"Right after I just proved this wrong, by listing no less than 27 sources of information posted by me within the past 2 weeks."

Yeah, 27 sources within the past two weeks, and yet I've had no trouble picking out instances (right here in this thread) where you've made claims with no evidence to back them up, and when evidence has shown that your claims are untrue.

So I guess you didn't prove that my statement was wrong, did you? Nope.

"Your sources may be credible."

They are, and on many occasions they've shown that what you've said is untrue.
Mar 22, 2009 | comments: 206
in reply to a comment by Robert F. protectionist
Wil B. Dec 30, 2009, 6:50pm EST
"People" (you're so concerned about) won't fall prey to your schemes of villainizing and portraying me, or anyone else, as ignorant."

Well that's good, Robert F. Protectionist. Since I'm not scheming anything, there's no reason for any "people" to fall prey to them.

"That's because what I say makes sense."

Not when you say things that aren't true. Like that stuff about public libraries not having foreign language collections 50 years ago, that stuff about immigrants being primarily in New York City between 1880 and 1930, etc. And etc. And etc. LOL!

"As for being "full of shit", might" people" decide that you are that ? Not might. They decided that long ago, What In The World Wil."

Maybe, maybe not. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know what other people have decided.
Page 1 of 309  first | prev | next 
 
Wil B.
Canberra, ACT
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.