Thank YOU for your reply. I admit I will be rereading it to make sure that I get the benefit of the full value of your points.
My immediate reaction, besides thanking you for the response, is to ask you where the TSA failed in permitting the PETN components onto the plane. I thought that he originally boarded in Lagos, then transferred to the Northwest Airline flight in Amsterdam. Wouldn’t it have been up to the Dutch authorities to screen for bomb-making components?
I admire your work teaching math and logic to young minds. A sound foundation in logic, as well as the ability to do one’s one research and examine the claims or various ources, is probably the intellectual preparation our nation would profit from most. Sometimes I think that we should all get back to the trivium. The teaching of rhetoric surely would improve our national discourse - although it would probably put a great many of our most highly paid pundits out of work immediately!
Two comments on your post:
First, you make a very good point by noting that it was not TSA but Holland who was responsible for the screening of passengers. I suspect Holland is as adamant about not using profiling as we in America. (At least the PC majority). Alas, the point you make actually bolsters my argument for the airlines being responsible for more security (as I point out it is their employees on the flight, and their airplane). They were in Holland, and are every other place that they take on passengers. They are also major stakeholders in security. So let them do what they believe will stop terror.
Of course there is the other aspect that TSA, FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, Customs… all have input into the process. If the watch list was correct, and the no-fly list current – I suspect the Dutch would have kept our PETN laden character off the flight. They also probably would have released him, as they would not have found any explosives Etc. Thus I still maintain we can do better. It remains to be seen how the current administration will achieve a higher standard. Screen everyone? How many body scanners do we need? (And on this topic, I am not worried about a privacy violation using these devices. I would in fact use them clandestinely in places with large crowds. But I would safeguard the images and make certain that people with integrity were involved at every stage.)
Finally, you comment that profiling is deficient because once known the profile can be defeated. Certainly, I would agree that there are radicals of every makeup you can identify but this is still not a sufficient argument against profiling. One would have to show that profiling results in the same result as not profiling at all, or if you prefer economics one would have to show that the cost benefit of using profiling was negative. A good profiling system would eliminate many of the terrorists that are in the pipeline today and force their leadership to seek fringe radicals who might also be double agents. Both results oriented profile analysis and cost benefit analysis would be extremely likely today to show a benefit to some aspects of profiling, (belief in radical Islam, visit to a terror training locale, being reported by a member of your own religion or family, could be considered invariants in the fight against terror. Yes, this is only an assertion, but one I believe could be confirmed at the present time.
And finally, yes to improving education and returning to basic knowledge. How refreshing that would be in the current climate. BTW, teaching is the best job I have ever had.