I posted this in response to a thread on another board about a handicapped patient from St. Jude Hospital in Memphis who received some rough treatment by the TSA when she tried to fly home to Chattanooga, Tennessee. I have thought long and hard about these issues. Specifically I wonder why sophisticated, intelligent and busy people, whose time is valuable, don’t object to the TSA gelling up the air travel system, with little gain as to stopping terrorism. People meekly take off their shoes, since one person approximately fifteen years ago, The Shoe Bomber’s World, tried to blow up a plane with a bomb hidden in his sneaker. Presumably a similar response to the December 25, 2009Underwear bomberattack would have imposed some difficulties so nothing similar was done to require people to fully disrobe at airports.
Still, people accept these rules, which are apparently imposed without much thought, deliberation of discussion.
And here are some examples:
**Political Correctness Overrides Law Enforcement (and not only big cities)
[quote=Wyckoff, NJ Police Officer] Wyckoff Police Chief Benjamin Fox takes leave after profiling email[/quote][quote=Wyckoff, NJ Police Officer]WYCKOFF - The Wyckoff police chief is taking a temporary leave while prosecutors investigate whether he told his officers racial profiling has a place in policing.
Chief Benjamin Fox reportedly asked the town’s committee to go on administrative leave while the investigation is pending. Fox says it’s in the best interest of the police department to avoid distractions.
Acting Attorney General Robert Lougy and acting Bergen County Prosecutor Gurbir Grewal said in the statement that the email from Wyckoff Police Chief Benjamin Fox appears to be a violation of state policy prohibiting racial profiling. They say they are investigating and will take “appropriate measures.”
[**See also***2014 Wyckoff Police Memo*](http://newjersey.news12.com/news/2014-wyckoff-police-memo-1.11611288) The email says that profiling has its place in law enforcement when used correctly.
Another example concerns terror. It is obvious that most, though not all terror emanates from certain groups. In an effort to maintain a spurious “fairness” we force all people to undergo security checks when entering New York City office buildings. Clearly, almost all of those people are going about their day to day business, and having to add 15 minutes to the needed time to make a meeting is bad for productivity and society. Yet to spare the feelings of communities that more or less refuse to integrate we are inconveniencing all.
Similarly, in Brussels and Paris, as well as other European cities (and a few communities in the U.S.) there are large areas that are “off limits” to police and to majority communities. Common sense dictates that nothing good is happening in those communities. It is not as if the people in those communities are plotting out peaceful demonstrations. Nor are they working on arguments that they will ask their members of Parliament to debate. They are devising ways to hurt or kill us. And given the relative lack of employment, largely on the Government’s “dime.”
All that I ask is some common sense, not racism.
**Why So Much Overregulation?
Over recent months, there have been several seemingly unrelated and innocuous events highlighting some glaring problems, all involving over-regulation. These rules and procedures are costly, inefficient and provide few benefits.
Security desks and entrance regulations at schools – Last year I went to drop a cell phone off for my son at his high school. He had called and I said I would leave it at the principal’s office. I was greeted at the front door by a friendly and pleasant security guard. I had to leave it with him. We got to talking. I pointed out that back in the day I visited my high school alma mater and went right to teachers’ offices, and to my old club offices. Now that would be impossible. He pointed out that there used to be all kinds of entrances and exits that people could use. Now every entrance is a cluster and a delay, all because of the one-off incident in Sandy Hook. We went centuries before Sandy Hook without such rules; are there suddenly hundreds of monsters out there that would kill children? Remember most such tragedies, such as Columbine, involve current students, not outsiders.
Cell phone and texting restrictions while driving - I get that people can be distracted by such activities. But wouldn’t it be better if people could alert their destination that they were running late rather than speeding?
Security at office buildings - Right after 9/11 we began seeing almost all office buildings having restricted access for “security” reasons. Any reason a terrorist bent on making a statement couldn’t just blow himself up anywhere he sees a line, such as a theater entrance or subway station? We have made it impossible for people such as myself, for example, who are looking for jobs to simply show up, hand in a CV and demonstrate motivation and drive. Or for spouses to surprise each other at work? Or close friends similarly? How many terror attacks are really prevented this way?
Security at airports - We have made air travel cumbersome. Thus, for example, I am planning to travel to Washington, DC a few weeks from now from the New York City area. Train travel is ridiculously expensive for a trip of about 5 hours. If I take a plane, back in the day it was a shuttle that was about a one hour flight. Now, adding security time at airport, it’s 3 hours. Maybe I’ll just drive. Heck, gas is cheap these days. Imagine the financial impact this must be having on the air industry? It would make far more sense to do spot checking, behavioral profiling, and the random use of sky marshals. But hey, it’s racist to target people at war with us.
[*]Low speed limits - Where I live, the New York City area, major secondary roads have close to uniform limits of 30 mph. New York City now has a 25 mph limit.Low limits allow politicians to take credit for taking “action” on highway safety, yet are at best ineffective or at worst harmful. In Westchester, someone got killed doing 100 mph on King Street, a local road. The speed limit was reduced from 40 to 35, either shortly before or after that tragedy. Does someone taking a two-lane (one each way) road really take the speed limit into account. Same with DiBlasio’s reduction of the NYC limit from 30 to 25, in response to high-speed accidents. Motivated by stupidity? Or his thinking voters are stupid? I’m not sure. Limits should be between 40 and 50 on secondary roads, and 25 or 30 on true neighborhood streets where tricycles mix with cars.
The situation is equally absurd on highways. Back in the day, the LIE had a 60 mph limit in Nassau and 65 in Suffolk. The limits were never raised to prior limits after the “energy crisis” despite safer cars and better tires. Many roads had 60 mph limits, such as I-287 in Westchester, the Connecticut Turnpike, and similar semi-urban freeways, such as the parts of the NJ Turnpike and Garden State Parkway not at 65. Those are still stuck at 55. Back in 1995 New York, lagging almost all other states, returned to a 65 mph limit. The new limit was applied only to a few roads. After 684 went back to 65 in 2004 the progress stopped.
Limits should be increased because we’ve invested huge amounts in safer (and more expensive) cars, and better highways. The low limits are a waste. Low and arbitrary limits are only selectively enforced on a “shooting fish in a barrel” basis. They contribute nothing to safety since in general traffic flows at around 70 on highways, and 40 or 45 on most secondary roads.
All of these rules, and more that other think of, are annoying at best. At worst, they detract from productivity and waste valuable time and resources.
I really wonder why people have not really fought most of these. The closest that people have come to “fighting back” was the 55 mph national speed limit, created by executive order on or about November 10, 1973 and enacted by Congress in March 1974. In response to popular resistance it was partially repealed in stages starting in 1988 and entirely effective December 1995. Other than that people have accepted other purposeless restrictions on their lives meekly. I suspect the reason that rule was resisted was that the biggest “victims” were more liberty-minded residents of the Western states, whereas urban Northeasterners are more prone to accept regulation.
Also, absence of rules may be perceived to work well in a more homogeneous society than we have now. My preference would be to educate the more diverse population how to handle a self-regulating society, than to have a clumsy, poorly compensated array of bureaucrats running out lives.