Saturday, December 28, 2013

Airport Perimeter Security Detects Anything ... Except Transvestites

As with most security systems that arose after 9/11, this one doesn't work and it's used to maintain the perimeter security around large airports.  The reason we know it doesn't work, despite the outlay of about one hundred million dollars by the Newark Airport, is that some fellow who was dressed up as a woman said he was scared of what someone in a car might do to him so he climbed over the perimeter fence at the airport and walked across some runways to one of the terminals.  A day or two later the airport security staff detected the intrusion.  (CNN: 'Inebriated' man, cross-dressed man jump airport fences in Newark, Phoenix)

The reason it didn't work is that monitoring of the security cameras is lax or nonexistent.  This is the same flaw as in the system of CCTV in Great Britain where there are cameras all over the place.  As the number of cameras increases, what in the world is going to watch them all.  As I was told by the police when my stuff was stolen in Dallas, the CCTV in the Holiday Inn parking lot would probably not have shown anything as they hardly ever work.  The cops didn't even look.  So you've got two problems:  the cameras aren't monitored and why would they be when they probably don't even work.


In other news, "Duck Dynasty" will be returning to television and those of the Tea Party will be celebrating the victory for free speech.  Of course they've forgotten how they were when the Dixie Chicks were speaking about George Bush but we'll see how they react when they're reminded that the red states are among the biggest welfare recipients in the country.  We'll see how free speech stands if A&E were to report on the details that many of the red states are taking more federal dollars than they send to Washington in income tax so they are a highly-committed piece of the socialist state they so loudly decry.


Note:  You'll see in the comments a link to a site that shows the opposite about red states.  As to which is true.  Your call.  I read another article that demonstrated the opposite.  With such varying positions, it's likely that neither is true and it's just more pundits playing number games.  Most unfortunate.  In fact, here's the link from the comments.

No comments: