Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 83

Thread: Example of too much freedom of the press

  1. #1
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,873
    Post Thanks / Like

    Example of too much freedom of the press

    I'm all for it, but this is just idiotic.

    Why doesn't the media just build the bombs for terrorists, and detonate them as well. Would save all that hassle trying to smuggle the bombs in and all that illegal immigration stuff.



    Report: NYC rail tunnels vulnerable

    NEW YORK - The explosion from a small bomb could flood commuter train tunnels between New York and New Jersey in a matter of hours, according to a new government analysis that suggests the PATH rail system is more vulnerable than initially thought.

    The draft analysis, obtained by The New York Times, shows that the PATH system's four tunnels are structurally fragile enough that the damage from a bomb small enough to be carried onto a train could allow 1.2 million gallons of water per minute to gush into a tunnel and flood the system.

    About 230,000 people use the PATH system each weekday.

    The analysis is characterized as preliminary and continuing. It was based on work by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy. The Times obtained it from a government official it did not identify. According to the paper, the official felt there had been a lack of response to the analysis, which the official said the Port Authority got about three weeks ago.

    A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the PATH system, defended the system's safety.

    "If we believed in any way that passengers were in danger, we'd close the system," spokesman Marc La Vorgna said. "That would happen immediately."

    He said Port Authority police recently increased patrols and bag searches in the PATH system, and the agency's board voted last week to spend $180 million to boost security on the rail line.

    Aides to New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine and New York Gov. George Pataki would not say whether the governors had seen the new analysis. A spokesman for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg declined to comment.

    A spokesman for the federal Department of Homeland Security said he was unable to determine whether that agency had been notified, the Times reported.

    Concerns have long been raised about potential terrorist attacks on tunnels connecting to New York City. In July, authorities said they had thwarted a suicide-bomb plot involving the PATH tunnels.

    The new analysis was based on both computer models and physical tests on cast iron from the tunnels, the Times reported. It describes several steps to lessen the effect of any explosions, including installing floodgates and fortifying critical parts of the tunnels, according to The Times.

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=CanadaSteve]I'm all for it, but this is just idiotic.

    Why doesn't the media just build the bombs for terrorists, and detonate them as well. Would save all that hassle trying to smuggle the bombs in and all that illegal immigration stuff.



    Report: NYC rail tunnels vulnerable

    NEW YORK - The explosion from a small bomb could flood commuter train tunnels between New York and New Jersey in a matter of hours, according to a new government analysis that suggests the PATH rail system is more vulnerable than initially thought.

    The draft analysis, obtained by The New York Times, shows that the PATH system's four tunnels are structurally fragile enough that the damage from a bomb small enough to be carried onto a train could allow 1.2 million gallons of water per minute to gush into a tunnel and flood the system.

    About 230,000 people use the PATH system each weekday.

    The analysis is characterized as preliminary and continuing. It was based on work by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy. The Times obtained it from a government official it did not identify. According to the paper, the official felt there had been a lack of response to the analysis, which the official said the Port Authority got about three weeks ago.

    A spokesman for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which runs the PATH system, defended the system's safety.

    "If we believed in any way that passengers were in danger, we'd close the system," spokesman Marc La Vorgna said. "That would happen immediately."

    He said Port Authority police recently increased patrols and bag searches in the PATH system, and the agency's board voted last week to spend $180 million to boost security on the rail line.

    Aides to New Jersey Gov. Jon S. Corzine and New York Gov. George Pataki would not say whether the governors had seen the new analysis. A spokesman for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg declined to comment.

    A spokesman for the federal Department of Homeland Security said he was unable to determine whether that agency had been notified, the Times reported.

    Concerns have long been raised about potential terrorist attacks on tunnels connecting to New York City. In July, authorities said they had thwarted a suicide-bomb plot involving the PATH tunnels.

    The new analysis was based on both computer models and physical tests on cast iron from the tunnels, the Times reported. It describes several steps to lessen the effect of any explosions, including installing floodgates and fortifying critical parts of the tunnels, according to The Times.[/QUOTE]

    The real question is why does the Bush administration continue to spend money fighting a war in Iraq when we need to shore up our seaports/railways/truckstops/airports with threat detection equipment?

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]The real question is why does the Bush administration continue to spend money fighting a war in Iraq when we need to shore up our seaports/railways/truckstops/airports with threat detection equipment?[/QUOTE]


    alot of people have been dogging Jetdawg lately but this is an excellent question...

  4. #4
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=bitonti]alot of people have been dogging Jetdawg lately but this is an excellent question...[/QUOTE]

    He's being dogged because he takes positions that are
    equal to, and often more indefensible then yours.

    I know its hard to believe but true.

    2nd, none of you lib pukes want to profile anyone, or anything,
    so spare the rest of us the false concern.

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]He's being dogged because he takes positions that are
    equal to, and often more indefensible then yours.

    I know its hard to believe but true.

    2nd, none of you lib pukes want to profile anyone, or anything,
    so spare the rest of us the false concern.[/QUOTE]

    With the arguements that you have posted on the boards, I would think that you are a defender of slavery.

    I would never defend it.

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]The real question is why does the Bush administration continue to spend money fighting a war in Iraq when we need to shore up our seaports/railways/truckstops/airports with threat detection equipment?[/QUOTE]


    they have- but sc*mbag leftist groups such as the ACLU has deemed many of these detection methods as racist or a threat to civil liberties...

  7. #7
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]they have- but sc*mbag leftist groups such as the ACLU has deemed many of these detection methods as racist or a threat to civil liberties...[/QUOTE]

    Profiling people at airports does not stop bombs. Threat detection can be better accomplished with techology that the Bush administration has only provided to airports etc on a piloted basis.

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Profiling people at airports does not stop bombs. Threat detection can be better accomplished with techology that the Bush administration has only provided to airports etc on a piloted basis.[/QUOTE]

    Why are technology and profiling mutually exclusive? They both work. To NOT profile is absurd.

    All sorts of profiling occurs every day. Black folks are far more likely to have heart disease than the general population, for example. Certain indian tribes are far more likely than the general population to have diabetes. So their doctors likely order more frequent screenings for them and are generally more conservative with their treatment...this is racial profiling but no reasonable person thinks it sholdn't be done.

    Whether we like it to not, young muslim men are far more likely than the general population to be terrorists and thus profiling of them is necessary because of that fact. When you see a bunch of young arab men with no luggage buying one-way plane tickets with cash...it probably makes sense to treat that as more of a potential threat than a nun who has tons of luggage and has travelled to Disneyworld every year a decade, no? I mean, let's be honest here.

    You're right, however, about the need for greater protection. It falls on Bush in some ways, sure, but the NYC subway and rail systems aren't really a federal concern. Each state is supposed to appropriate funds as they see fit for these and it's not Bush job to make sure the tunnels that people in NYC use to commute in are up to code, it's Pataki's job. It's a breakdown at all levels of government, including Bush. However, this is a separate issue from the merits of the NYT reporting things like this. You wouldn't expect the NYT to publish explicit ways for people to break into their own headquarters, right? Or, let's say the NY Post conducted a study and found out how unsecured the NYT building is and published an article detailing exactly where the soft spots were and what methods of attack could be the most devastating? Should the NY Post publish that? And would the "real" question the NYT's mistake of having an inadequate security system in place or would the real question be "why the hell did the NY Post publish that?"

    In other words, is there anything in your view that shouldn't be published by a newspaper?

  9. #9
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]With the arguements that you have posted on the boards, I would think that you are a defender of slavery.

    I would never defend it.[/QUOTE]

    You would think stupidly, and wrong in that case.

    Find 1 statement where I have defended slavery.

    You can't because I never have and never will.

    ****

    You must enjoy being clowned, because it happens
    every thread you particpate in.
    Last edited by flushingjet; 12-22-2006 at 04:01 PM.

  10. #10
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Why are technology and profiling mutually exclusive? They both work. To NOT profile is absurd.

    All sorts of profiling occurs every day. Black folks are far more likely to have heart disease than the general population, for example. Certain indian tribes are far more likely than the general population to have diabetes. So their doctors likely order more frequent screenings for them and are generally more conservative with their treatment...this is racial profiling but no reasonable person thinks it sholdn't be done.

    Whether we like it to not, young muslim men are far more likely than the general population to be terrorists and thus profiling of them is necessary because of that fact. When you see a bunch of young arab men with no luggage buying one-way plane tickets with cash...it probably makes sense to treat that as more of a potential threat than a nun who has tons of luggage and has travelled to Disneyworld every year a decade, no? I mean, let's be honest here.

    You're right, however, about the need for greater protection. It falls on Bush in some ways, sure, but the NYC subway and rail systems aren't really a federal concern. Each state is supposed to appropriate funds as they see fit for these and it's not Bush job to make sure the tunnels that people in NYC use to commute in are up to code, it's Pataki's job. It's a breakdown at all levels of government, including Bush. However, this is a separate issue from the merits of the NYT reporting things like this. You wouldn't expect the NYT to publish explicit ways for people to break into their own headquarters, right? Or, let's say the NY Post conducted a study and found out how unsecured the NYT building is and published an article detailing exactly where the soft spots were and what methods of attack could be the most devastating? Should the NY Post publish that? And would the "real" question the NYT's mistake of having an inadequate security system in place or would the real question be "why the hell did the NY Post publish that?"

    In other words, is there anything in your view that shouldn't be published by a newspaper?[/QUOTE]

    Well to be honest with you here, the publishing of that story was probably a plant. The dems want to support these threat detection devices. That is why they want to end the war.

    These are the democratic scare tactics. The duopoly rules guy. They are both backed by different corporations with the same agenda. "Push my business forward".

    Profiling in some instances is the right thing to do as you stated, however, I have been profiled by NYC police because of the car I was driving at the time.
    No other reason to stop me at all. I can't always think that if I see a few young men of Arabic descent that they are Muslim.

    I thought that we were at war with Iraq not Islam?

    I don't rally sectionalize the gov't. It is the gov't's job to protect the citizens. They all fell down on this one.

    Again, this is a democratic scare tactic to push it's agenda for it's own purposes.

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]You would think stupidly, and wrong in that case.

    Find 1 statement where I have defended slavery.

    You can't because I never have and never will.

    ****

    You must enjoy being clowned, because it happens
    every thread you particpate in.[/QUOTE]

    I said the arguments you have posted may me think that way. I would like you to prove me wrong though.

  12. #12
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Well to be honest with you here, the publishing of that story was probably a plant. The dems want to support these threat detection devices. That is why they want to end the war.

    These are the democratic scare tactics. The duopoly rules guy. They are both backed by different corporations with the same agenda. "Push my business forward".

    Profiling in some instances is the right thing to do as you stated, however, I have been profiled by NYC police because of the car I was driving at the time.
    No other reason to stop me at all. I can't always think that if I see a few young men of Arabic descent that they are Muslim.

    I thought that we were at war with Iraq not Islam?

    I don't rally sectionalize the gov't. It is the gov't's job to protect the citizens. They all fell down on this one.

    Again, this is a democratic scare tactic to push it's agenda for it's own purposes.[/QUOTE]


    I don't doubt that they are scare tactics. That's part of it. The article is also a way to score points against Bush politically, as your initial reaction and Bitonti's attaboy to you is exactly how the NYT hopes its readers would react.

    We are not at war with only Iraq. We are also not at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists and the regimes that support them and the overwhelming majority of these terrorists are arab muslim men. Who said we were at war with Islam? Obviously not all muslim men are terrorists...most are not. But most terrorists are muslim men. Surely you see the difference.

    Also, whether you like it or not, black men are more likely than the general population to engage in criminal activity. That is simply a statistical fact. We can argue over the reasons for this I am sure, but the existence of this fact cannot be debated. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that black men get stopped or pulled over or monitored by police. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't cops who are racists or that law-abiding black men aren't suffering from harassment they don't deserve...the point is merely illustrated to demonstrate that there is a reason behind the greater frequency. So, your contention that there is no other reason is not entirely true...the higher incidence of crime among black men is the reason and part of the reason why good people like you get stopped more than people like me is because of this. It happens all the time. Young drivers get in more accidents than older drivers do. Thus young drivers as a whole pay higher insurance rates, even though the many of those drivers are just as safe (or safer) than older drivers. Asians play back loans better than other races, including whites, and so they tend to get approved for loans at far higher rates, even over whites. It is discrimination or racism against whites that explains this fact? Is discrimination against young drivers to blame for their high rates? Should a young driver blame the insurance company for his high rates or blame his fellow youngsters for their horrible driving? Everyone is judged, fairly or unfairly, in some respects by the group of which they are a member. The reason for this is that no one has perfect information and gathering information costs time and money. There is a difference between discriminating and being a bigot or racist. If it sounds unfair, I would suggest trying to start an insurance company that doesn't discriminate againt young drivers and see how your profits go. I would suggest approving all races for loans at the same rate (and at the same price), regardless of the liklihood of default and I'd also suggest being a police chief and doing something similar.

    It's an unfair world. But the biggest reason why some young arab muslim men are getting stopped abd searched is not racism, but merely a reasonable reaction to current curcimstances. Ditto for black people getting stopped in cars more frequently. If it were Irish women who perpetrated 9-11, I am sure you'd see a higher incidence of them being stopped and searched. If black males were far LESS likely to engage in criminal activity, I am sure you'd see the same thing. I am not trying to say whether or not this is "fair" or "just" or the way it "should" be and I am also not suggesting that racism isn't a factor or that racism isn't even a factor in the higher incidence of criminal activity among black men...I am simply exlpaining things the way they are (as I see them).
    Last edited by jets5ever; 12-22-2006 at 04:46 PM.

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]I don't doubt that they are scare tactics. That's part of it. The article is also a way to score points against Bush politically, as your initial reaction and Bitonti's attaboy to you is exactly how the NYT hopes its readers would react.

    We are not at war with only Iraq. We are also not at war with Islam. We are fighting terrorists and the regimes that support them and the overwhelming majority of these terrorists are arab muslim men. Who said we were at war with Islam? Obviously not all muslim men are terrorists...most are not. But most terrorists are muslim men. Surely you see the difference.

    Also, whether you like it or not, black men are more likely than the general population to engage in criminal activity. That is simply a statistical fact. We can argue over the reasons for this I am sure, but the existence of this fact cannot be debated. Thus, it is reasonable to expect that black men get stopped or pulled over or monitored by police. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't cops who are racists or that law-abiding black men aren't suffering from harassment they don't deserve...the point is merely illustrated to demonstrate that there is a reason behind the greater frequency. So, your contention that there is no other reason is not entirely true...the higher incidence of crime among black men is the reason and part of the reason why good people like you get stopped more than people like me is because of this. It happens all the time. Young drivers get in more accidents than older drivers do. Thus young drivers as a whole pay higher insurance rates, even though the many of those drivers are just as safe (or safer) than older drivers. Asians play back loans better than other races, including whites, and so they tend to get approved for loans at far higher rates, even over whites. It is discrimination or racism against whites that explains this fact? Is discrimination against young drivers to blame for their high rates? Should a young driver blame the insurance company for his high rates or blame his fellow youngsters for their horrible driving? Everyone is judged, fairly or unfairly, in some respects by the group of which they are a member. The reason for this is that no one has perfect information and gathering information costs time and money. There is a difference between discriminating and being a bigot or racist. If it sounds unfair, I would suggest trying to start an insurance company that doesn't discriminate againt young drivers and see how your profits go. I would suggest approving all races for loans at the same rate (and at the same price), regardless of the liklihood of default and I'd also suggest being a police chief and doing something similar.

    It's an unfair world. But the biggest reason why some young arab muslim men are getting stopped abd searched is not racism, but merely a reasonable reaction to current curcimstances. Ditto for black people getting stopped in cars more frequently. If it were Irish women who perpetrated 9-11, I am sure you'd see a higher incidence of them being stopped and searched. If black males were far LESS likely to engage in criminal activity, I am sure you'd see the same thing. I am not trying to say whether or not this is "fair" or "just" or the way it "should" be and I am also not suggesting that racism isn't a factor or that racism isn't even a factor in the higher incidence of criminal activity among black men...I am simply exlpaining things the way they are (as I see them).[/QUOTE]

    I agree with a lot of your text here. The next time I commit a crime will be my first however. I also don't like the fact that my two sons may have to go thru this trauma.

    The world is not fair, but that is what makes it fair to all.

    True that the NYT wants to slap Bush. The New DHS lead in the Senate is Lieberman. So the funds will be coming to him. The dems will appease him in every way possible.

    Rangel is now the head of the Ways and Means in congress. So this looks more like a plant to me than ever.

    I do see the difference in what you stated. It still does not make it right for those who are not terrorists.

  14. #14
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    2,880
    Post Thanks / Like
    Bold Idea: What say we save money on expensive surveillance systems and instead buy cheap bullets. Then put the cheap bullets into cheap guns and empty the guns into the heads of ALL Islamic terrorists.

    Then let the maggots do the rest. Am I the only JETS fan on this board that's thinking right? :cool3:

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I agree with a lot of your text here. The next time I commit a crime will be my first however. I also don't like the fact that my two sons may have to go thru this trauma.

    The world is not fair, but that is what makes it fair to all.

    True that the NYT wants to slap Bush. The New DHS lead in the Senate is Lieberman. So the funds will be coming to him. The dems will appease him in every way possible.

    Rangel is now the head of the Ways and Means in congress. So this looks more like a plant to me than ever.

    I do see the difference in what you stated. It still does not make it right for those who are not terrorists.[/QUOTE]


    I agree that it's not fair to those muslims that aren't terrorists. 100% I agree. However, the [I][B]reason [/B] [/I] it isn't fair is because of muslims who ARE terrorists, not the US authorities. Much like it is not "fair" that young drivers pay more in car insurance...the [B]reason[/B] it isn't fair is because the other young people drive recklessly, not because the insurance companies are to blame.

    So yes, it [B]IS [/B] unfair that your sons have to deal with hieghtened police scrutiny.. it truly is and I truly have sympathy for them and you. But a large part of the reason why they do experience these things is because black males commit a high degree of crimes relative to the population as a whole. I mean, that's mostly the reason. In all honesty, you should blame [I]other black males [/I] for this, not anyone else. If black males didn't commit crimes at a high rate, your sons and you wouldn't suffer as many indignities as you do, period. I don't mean to be harsh, but that's just the way it is. I agree, it [B]IS [/B] unfair...but the reasons why it is unfair are different than the current PC Police say.... Do you agree at all?
    Last edited by jets5ever; 12-22-2006 at 08:45 PM.

  16. #16
    flushingjet
    Guest
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]I do see the difference in what you stated. It still does not make it right for those who are not terrorists.[/QUOTE]

    In the topsy-turvy lib world....

    Non-Slave Traders Paying Reparations = Fair

    Profiling Terrorists = Unfair

    tell that to all the grannies and blind people cavity searched
    at airports in the sense of fairness
    Last edited by flushingjet; 12-22-2006 at 09:07 PM.

  17. #17
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Roslyn
    Posts
    6,862
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]I agree that it's not fair to those muslims that aren't terrorists. 100% I agree. However, the [I][B]reason [/B] [/I] it isn't fair is because of muslims who ARE terrorists, not the US authorities. Much like it is not "fair" that young drivers pay more in car insurance...the [B]reason[/B] it isn't fair is because the other young people drive recklessly, not because the insurance companies are to blame.

    So yes, it [B]IS [/B] unfair that your sons have to deal with hieghtened police scrutiny.. it truly is and I truly have sympathy for them and you. But a large part of the reason why they do experience these things is because black males commit a high degree of crimes relative to the population as a whole. I mean, that's mostly the reason. In all honesty, you should blame [I]other black males [/I] for this, not anyone else. If black males didn't commit crimes at a high rate, your sons and you wouldn't suffer as many indignities as you do, period. I don't mean to be harsh, but that's just the way it is. I agree, it [B]IS [/B] unfair...but the reasons why it is unfair are different than the current PC Police say.... Do you agree at all?[/QUOTE]
    5ever you are absolutely right in the reasons you describe about why we need to profile and I believe that we do. These reasons however only work in a perfect world without racism. To think that [I]some [/I] white law enforcement or security people are not overzealous in this regard would be naive.

    The real question is how do we profile while at the same time guard against the overzealousness? I don't know the answer to that question.

  18. #18
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan]5ever you are absolutely right in the reasons you describe about why we need to profile and I believe that we do. These reasons however only work in a perfect world without racism. To think that [I]some [/I] white law enforcement or security people are not overzealous in this regard would be naive.

    The real question is how do we profile while at the same time guard against the overzealousness? I don't know the answer to that question.[/QUOTE]


    Good point, I agree. Racism and overzealousness occur, no doubt. A solution...who knows? I certainly don't.

  19. #19
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=flushingjet]In the topsy-turvy lib world....

    Non-Slave Traders Paying Reparations = Fair

    Profiling Terrorists = Unfair

    tell that to all the grannies and blind people cavity searched
    at airports in the sense of fairness[/QUOTE]

    Only you can come up with such a thought. These subjects are very different.

  20. #20
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,381
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]Good point, I agree. Racism and overzealousness occur, no doubt. A solution...who knows? I certainly don't.[/QUOTE]

    What is the profile of an Arab looking terrorist anyway?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us