ZIONIST1836: My point is, everyone cries about losing "freedom" and rights, I think I have the right to live and if that means that middle eastern men with arabic on their t-shirts get profiled, so be it.

You do not have the right to live. You were never guaranteed it, there are no mechanisms in the Constitution to protect it. You will eventually die, and the government is not obliged to care.

The rights that are enshrined in the Constitution trump your right to survival. Tough noogies.

Hang On Voltaire: I am flying to Atlanta this weekend. Can't wait to show off my I HAVE A BOMB IN MY CARRYON t-shirt.

If they let the airlines run airport security, instead of insisting on plunging the government's fumbling hand into the mess, I'm sure you could find an airline that would allow you on with all the other people who don't care. The paranoid individuals who would rather pay an increased amount for paranoid-level security that would keep someone from flying just because they're wearing a shirt with squiggles on it could meanwhile fly on ParanoidAir.

And then I wouldn't be forced by reasons of "security" (in response to an event that killed less people than drunk driving did in a year) to pay for billions of dollars' worth of "government intercession" in terrorism prevention (far more than is spent on stopping drunk drivers).

Funny how the Republican agenda in this is big government. I'd much prefer small government and privatization. Every time the TSA or DHS overreacts and shuts down an airport or lands a plane for no good reason it wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars in airline money. No wonder they can't turn a profit.

Hang On Voltaire: and you don't have a right to fly on an airplane or a right to wear whatever you want on an airplane.

The airline indeed has the right to deny entrance or business. When you start involving the government, however, you get into federal regulation of speech, or assembly, or whatever other rights they keep violating.

Get the government out of it, and I wouldn't care.

Kangaroo_Ralph: Just then, a middle-eastern woman came out of the bathroom and took possession of it. I eyed her warily the entire trip, as did a number of people.

You do know that Muhammad (or any of the other English transliterations) is the most common name on the planet, right? It means "praised one." It is also used for women, under the femininization "Muhammada." Which sounds very similar to Muhammad.

See? A little knowledge and the fear seems far less reasonable.

Kangaroo_Ralph: It'd be nice to think I could just look at an unclaimed bag on an airplane marked Muhammad, and then take a little nap, but I can't.

I'd be more likely to relax at an unclaimed bag marked Muhammad. Think about it: you're a terrorist, trying to get something onto a plane. You realize that Americans are currently irrationally-paranoid about anything with a Middle Eastern cultural bent. Do you put "Muhammad" on the bomb, or "Jessica Smith"?

I'm inclined to believe that, even if someone IS going to blow themselves up, they aren't quite that dumb.

Kangaroo_Ralph: Using that logic, a bomber should just write "BOMB" on their suitcases, because, if you think about it, surely he wouldn't be that stupid.

In chess or other strategy games, you have to think about what your opponent thinks you'll be doing and compensate.

Unfortunately, most people don't play strategy games and take things at absolute face value. Which is why you were paranoid about a bag marked "Muhammad" despite it being tactically ignorant to actually mark it one and you get arrested for joking about bombs at the airport no matter how silly or nonsensical the joke actually is when compared to actual explosives. A terrorist marking their bomb with "BOMB" would only work if people were actually logically considering their responses, instead of doing straight emotional herd behavior.

Kangaroo_Ralph: And I was ranked 3rd in a group of 18 playing blitz chess. I'm assuming from your responses that you like to play with no time limit (5th out of 34).

Oh, I don't play chess. I prefer Diplomacy, Settlers of Catan, and other games where manipulating the emotional state of the other players is an important aspect of strategy. I was just using it as an example that everyone is generally aware of.

The statement still applies, though. You being afraid of a bag marked Muhammad has nothing to do with rational tactical analysis, and everything to do with straight emotional response. Those who actually tactically analyze the situation would be far more concerned with bags marked with innocuous names or other cues meant to disguise the payload as something not to be concerned with. Perhaps if everyone did that then there would be a response to the analysis, a further ploy of hiding things in plain sight by making them obvious as if they were a joke, but that's overplanning when you can currently bypass peoples' suspicions just by slipping between their stereotypes. I've won more games or Risk or Settlers just by playing people off the "obvious threats" until I have the situation I need to make my subtle threat obvious.

Kangaroo_Ralph: I'll keep being wary of unclaimed bags on airplanes with Muhammad written on them, and you be wary of all the other ones, since that makes you smarter.

Actually, I don't worry about any bags at all - since the chance of me dying from the actions of a friend or family member is exponentially greater, and I don't worry about them, so worrying about something that has killed a little over 3,000 people out of the nearly three-hundred million in the United States in the past five years (making the odds of death approximately 1-in-500,000 for each year, declining as time passes) is a little silly. You're more likely to be killed by lightning, your pet, a swarm of venemous insects, an earthquake, or a plain old non-terrorist-related plane crash. If you aren't meaningfully afraid of those when slight possible indications of them come around, it makes little sense to be "terrorized" by terrorists.

I'm just saying that if you ARE afraid of rolling snake eyes on that one-in-half-a-million chance, you have more to be worried about from the things that are actually sneaky instead of blatant. Sneaky has a better chance of actually succeeding, because it takes advantage of the fact that you're all focused on the blatant when the blatant is generally just normal people doing normal things when not viewed under the supposition of stereotypes.