SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Better Safe Than Sorry: Airport Security and Global Climate Change
Dec 13, 2005
Earlier this month a US air marshal shot and killed a disturbed man aboard an American Airlines plane in Miami. The victim was carrying no explosives. Suffering from bipolar disorder and off his medication, he had issued threats. Taking no chances, the air marshal shot and killed him. The event led Boston Globe columnist James Carroll to wonder if we have not become a hair-trigger nation so obsessed with risks that we have turned our guardians into our potential killers. Carroll also asked if the Miami incident "isn't the domestic equivalent of this nation's hair-trigger foreign policy?"
Americans are fond of the phrase better safe than sorry. Some suggest it was far better to shoot this threatening character than to allow him to blow up a planeload of innocent passengers. One hopes that more details will emerge, but in a longer-term perspective, I think we are dangerously selective in our choice of risks. We are also too easily allow fear of mysterious dangers to morph into fear of all forms of difference. In the process, freedoms are diminished and the quality of life undermined. Paradoxically, the world itself becomes more dangerous.
The Miami airport story resonates with me. I find airports to be creepy places. Since 9/11, I have taken eight round-trip flights, four to Arizona for a vacation and four to eastern cities for political science conventions. On six of those eight flights, I have been the only passenger in a relatively long line to be singled out for an intensive search of my body and clothes. On my last trip, to Washington DC, I was intensively searched both in Bangor and at Reagan National.
I do not ask what triggers these searches. I am sure "security reasons" would preclude agents' revealing this information. I also fear agents might take such a question as resistance or provocation. I am not so enamored of my work as to suspect any Federal officials have read it and classed me as a threat. Nonetheless, in my worst moments, I have visions of being carted off somewhere and subject to interrogation without being able to contact friends or attorneys. My late senior colleague at The Progressive, Erwin Knoll, had a huge FBI file obtained through Freedom of Information litigation. That file included extensive clippings from his columns. Most interestingly, the FBI had redacted large sections of these articles and editorials even though any of these columns could be located in newspaper archives. My experience looking over his files has left lingering concerns even as to the intelligence or training of the security bureaucrats.
Just a few days before the Federal air marshal gunned down his man in Miami, the Bush Administration was trying to scuttle Montreal initiatives on climate change. The Administration no longer denies global warming. Instead, it maintains that predictions as to the extent and speed of the process are indeterminate. Thus, any actions taken to mitigate global warming must not damage our economy. It seems that better safe than sorry extends only so far. A number of prominent European leaders in both the scientific and environmental community consider climate change a threat at least on par with so-called Islamic terrorism. A study by the Pentagon during President Bush's first term raised similar alarms. Most interestingly, the Pentagon predicted vast population migrations in response to natural disasters. Is New Orleans a precursor?
At the start of the twenty-first century, Americans experience the "outsourcing" of many of our best jobs, the collapse of pension systems, a mass culture continually reshaped by international media conglomerates, and diseases that travel at the speed of a bird or a plane. In response, many citizens fall back on the tried and true, a faith in the nation, literal interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution, corporate markets and economic growth. These ideals are increasingly coupled with growing hatred of those who cannot endorse or live these norms. If half the predictions regarding global warming are true and our quality of life and physical infrastructure deteriorate further, resistance to and hatred of those who are different may intensify. Such was the experience of medieval society during the great plagues.
For my money, better safe than sorry translates into accepting and even taking delight in a world where nature, including human nature, is never fully orderly or predictable. Our best bets lie in remaining attentive to the downsides of any technology. In the social realm, we must periodically negotiate and revise, both among ourselves and with other nations, procedures and policy agendas that will allow increasingly blended, polyglot, and evolving cultures to live and thrive together. We may need guards on our planes, but if they and the rest of us turn all difference into a threat, our world may become both duller and more dangerous.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
John Buell
John Buell, a long-time Common Dreams contributor and supporter, died unexpectedly on November 4th, 2021. John had a PhD in political science, taught for 10 years at College of the Atlantic, and was an Associate Editor of The Progressive Magazine for ten years. John lived in Southwest Harbor, Maine and wrote on labor and environmental issues. His most recent book, published by Palgrave in August 2011, is "Politics, Religion, and Culture in an Anxious Age."
Earlier this month a US air marshal shot and killed a disturbed man aboard an American Airlines plane in Miami. The victim was carrying no explosives. Suffering from bipolar disorder and off his medication, he had issued threats. Taking no chances, the air marshal shot and killed him. The event led Boston Globe columnist James Carroll to wonder if we have not become a hair-trigger nation so obsessed with risks that we have turned our guardians into our potential killers. Carroll also asked if the Miami incident "isn't the domestic equivalent of this nation's hair-trigger foreign policy?"
Americans are fond of the phrase better safe than sorry. Some suggest it was far better to shoot this threatening character than to allow him to blow up a planeload of innocent passengers. One hopes that more details will emerge, but in a longer-term perspective, I think we are dangerously selective in our choice of risks. We are also too easily allow fear of mysterious dangers to morph into fear of all forms of difference. In the process, freedoms are diminished and the quality of life undermined. Paradoxically, the world itself becomes more dangerous.
The Miami airport story resonates with me. I find airports to be creepy places. Since 9/11, I have taken eight round-trip flights, four to Arizona for a vacation and four to eastern cities for political science conventions. On six of those eight flights, I have been the only passenger in a relatively long line to be singled out for an intensive search of my body and clothes. On my last trip, to Washington DC, I was intensively searched both in Bangor and at Reagan National.
I do not ask what triggers these searches. I am sure "security reasons" would preclude agents' revealing this information. I also fear agents might take such a question as resistance or provocation. I am not so enamored of my work as to suspect any Federal officials have read it and classed me as a threat. Nonetheless, in my worst moments, I have visions of being carted off somewhere and subject to interrogation without being able to contact friends or attorneys. My late senior colleague at The Progressive, Erwin Knoll, had a huge FBI file obtained through Freedom of Information litigation. That file included extensive clippings from his columns. Most interestingly, the FBI had redacted large sections of these articles and editorials even though any of these columns could be located in newspaper archives. My experience looking over his files has left lingering concerns even as to the intelligence or training of the security bureaucrats.
Just a few days before the Federal air marshal gunned down his man in Miami, the Bush Administration was trying to scuttle Montreal initiatives on climate change. The Administration no longer denies global warming. Instead, it maintains that predictions as to the extent and speed of the process are indeterminate. Thus, any actions taken to mitigate global warming must not damage our economy. It seems that better safe than sorry extends only so far. A number of prominent European leaders in both the scientific and environmental community consider climate change a threat at least on par with so-called Islamic terrorism. A study by the Pentagon during President Bush's first term raised similar alarms. Most interestingly, the Pentagon predicted vast population migrations in response to natural disasters. Is New Orleans a precursor?
At the start of the twenty-first century, Americans experience the "outsourcing" of many of our best jobs, the collapse of pension systems, a mass culture continually reshaped by international media conglomerates, and diseases that travel at the speed of a bird or a plane. In response, many citizens fall back on the tried and true, a faith in the nation, literal interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution, corporate markets and economic growth. These ideals are increasingly coupled with growing hatred of those who cannot endorse or live these norms. If half the predictions regarding global warming are true and our quality of life and physical infrastructure deteriorate further, resistance to and hatred of those who are different may intensify. Such was the experience of medieval society during the great plagues.
For my money, better safe than sorry translates into accepting and even taking delight in a world where nature, including human nature, is never fully orderly or predictable. Our best bets lie in remaining attentive to the downsides of any technology. In the social realm, we must periodically negotiate and revise, both among ourselves and with other nations, procedures and policy agendas that will allow increasingly blended, polyglot, and evolving cultures to live and thrive together. We may need guards on our planes, but if they and the rest of us turn all difference into a threat, our world may become both duller and more dangerous.
John Buell
John Buell, a long-time Common Dreams contributor and supporter, died unexpectedly on November 4th, 2021. John had a PhD in political science, taught for 10 years at College of the Atlantic, and was an Associate Editor of The Progressive Magazine for ten years. John lived in Southwest Harbor, Maine and wrote on labor and environmental issues. His most recent book, published by Palgrave in August 2011, is "Politics, Religion, and Culture in an Anxious Age."
Earlier this month a US air marshal shot and killed a disturbed man aboard an American Airlines plane in Miami. The victim was carrying no explosives. Suffering from bipolar disorder and off his medication, he had issued threats. Taking no chances, the air marshal shot and killed him. The event led Boston Globe columnist James Carroll to wonder if we have not become a hair-trigger nation so obsessed with risks that we have turned our guardians into our potential killers. Carroll also asked if the Miami incident "isn't the domestic equivalent of this nation's hair-trigger foreign policy?"
Americans are fond of the phrase better safe than sorry. Some suggest it was far better to shoot this threatening character than to allow him to blow up a planeload of innocent passengers. One hopes that more details will emerge, but in a longer-term perspective, I think we are dangerously selective in our choice of risks. We are also too easily allow fear of mysterious dangers to morph into fear of all forms of difference. In the process, freedoms are diminished and the quality of life undermined. Paradoxically, the world itself becomes more dangerous.
The Miami airport story resonates with me. I find airports to be creepy places. Since 9/11, I have taken eight round-trip flights, four to Arizona for a vacation and four to eastern cities for political science conventions. On six of those eight flights, I have been the only passenger in a relatively long line to be singled out for an intensive search of my body and clothes. On my last trip, to Washington DC, I was intensively searched both in Bangor and at Reagan National.
I do not ask what triggers these searches. I am sure "security reasons" would preclude agents' revealing this information. I also fear agents might take such a question as resistance or provocation. I am not so enamored of my work as to suspect any Federal officials have read it and classed me as a threat. Nonetheless, in my worst moments, I have visions of being carted off somewhere and subject to interrogation without being able to contact friends or attorneys. My late senior colleague at The Progressive, Erwin Knoll, had a huge FBI file obtained through Freedom of Information litigation. That file included extensive clippings from his columns. Most interestingly, the FBI had redacted large sections of these articles and editorials even though any of these columns could be located in newspaper archives. My experience looking over his files has left lingering concerns even as to the intelligence or training of the security bureaucrats.
Just a few days before the Federal air marshal gunned down his man in Miami, the Bush Administration was trying to scuttle Montreal initiatives on climate change. The Administration no longer denies global warming. Instead, it maintains that predictions as to the extent and speed of the process are indeterminate. Thus, any actions taken to mitigate global warming must not damage our economy. It seems that better safe than sorry extends only so far. A number of prominent European leaders in both the scientific and environmental community consider climate change a threat at least on par with so-called Islamic terrorism. A study by the Pentagon during President Bush's first term raised similar alarms. Most interestingly, the Pentagon predicted vast population migrations in response to natural disasters. Is New Orleans a precursor?
At the start of the twenty-first century, Americans experience the "outsourcing" of many of our best jobs, the collapse of pension systems, a mass culture continually reshaped by international media conglomerates, and diseases that travel at the speed of a bird or a plane. In response, many citizens fall back on the tried and true, a faith in the nation, literal interpretations of the Bible and the Constitution, corporate markets and economic growth. These ideals are increasingly coupled with growing hatred of those who cannot endorse or live these norms. If half the predictions regarding global warming are true and our quality of life and physical infrastructure deteriorate further, resistance to and hatred of those who are different may intensify. Such was the experience of medieval society during the great plagues.
For my money, better safe than sorry translates into accepting and even taking delight in a world where nature, including human nature, is never fully orderly or predictable. Our best bets lie in remaining attentive to the downsides of any technology. In the social realm, we must periodically negotiate and revise, both among ourselves and with other nations, procedures and policy agendas that will allow increasingly blended, polyglot, and evolving cultures to live and thrive together. We may need guards on our planes, but if they and the rest of us turn all difference into a threat, our world may become both duller and more dangerous.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.