"Leave All Blades Behind"
This is, without a doubt, the most gratingly stupid name for a law I’ve ever seen in my life.
A Democratic Party lawmaker says a U.S. government decision to end a ban on scissors and certain other sharp objects airline passengers are permitted to take on aircraft would encourage terrorists. Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey is vowing to fight the relaxation of restrictions that went into effect following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, while another lawmaker agrees with the plan, which is due to be announced Friday.
…
Congressman Markey says he will introduce legislation, which he calls the “Leave All Blades Behind Act” if the government does not reverse its decision.
Obviously, Congressman Markey needs to hire someone with an imagination to come up wihtbetter names for his proposals. This one didn’t make me want to rush out and support it. It made me want to call Ed Markey a knucklehead and write the derisive blog post.
But aside from the name of the Act, it’s purpose is likewise laughable. Apparently, Markey’s one of those folks who believes that nothing changed at all in this country after 9/11. He honestly believes that a couple terrorists with scirroes would be able to overcome a planeload of Americans, some of whom would be carrying scissors themselves.
See, Congressman Markey, unless the terrorists outnumber the passengers, the chances are slim to none that they will have an insurmountable “small blade gap”. It is far more likely that, armed with their own small blades, the passengers will overwhelm the would-be hijackers and beat them to paste.
That is, unless the Congressman continues to treat US air passengers like helpless children incapable of defending themselves with even the most unweidly weapon. He prefers to remember American i the days when we were all commanded to let hijackers do whatever they wanted insted of rising up and fighting back, even if that meant driving the plane into the ground.
Hopefully we’ll all look past the silly name to the silly and patronizing heart of Markey’s proposal and demand that he treat us like adults.
Related posts:
- Leading Dem Says "Blackhawk Down" Caused by Global Warming, Forgets that Whole War Thing
- "Flight 93" – Live-Blogged as Far as I Can Go
- One Racist Enters, Two Jews Leave.
- It's Easier to Tax the Rich When They Can't Leave
Category: Fighting the Islamists
About the Author (Author Profile)
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
I enjoyed reading your article that took issue with the title of an Act and it being the "most gratingly stupid name for a law I’ve ever seen in my life", considering you did not even take the time to review your spelling. You can find the errors on your own. So hopefully we'll (if I had placed the word "all" here as you did above, it would have been redundant considering you already wrote "we") ignore your grammatical errors.
So, until you can begin to take the time to write like an adult, I have no problem with the Congressman or any other politician, assume the masses are anything less than adults, for they (you and even myself at times) obviously can not even follow the most basic rules in writing.
I do, in fact, write like an adult – just one with spelling skills that have never been very good. Your are, of course, welcome to your criticisms though I believe that a simple and polite note might have served your purpose better.
That is, assuming your purpose was to be constructive. Otherwise, you simply chose to focus on the style of my writing and not its substance. I'd be willing to wager that you're a fan of Markey and his law. Not surprisingly, Markey's law and your comment share the same sort of arrogance.
Okay, now I just feel like I am going in circles here. I was being constructive, telling you that people will not continue to read something if the author has obviously not at least re-read through it once. If that had happened in the first place I would have felt compelled to respond to the content.
Here is the "substance" that I see now.
First there was this sentence:
"It made me want to call Ed Markey a knucklehead and write the derisive blog post."
and then there was this sentence:
"Your are, of course, welcome to your criticisms though I believe that a simple and polite note might have served your purpose better."
Might I ask the same then about your ciriticism of the congressman? Was your purpose to be constructive? If you wanted to follow your original content idea, then you should have also immediately included a better and not so "gratingly" sounding title. But as you said, you hoped that you could look past the title and that was achieved.
Also, I had never heard of Markey until your post. I guess that's how greatly liberals pay attention to the ultra-liberal state of Massachusetts.
Also, I would say that his Act did not sound "silly" because he is discussing the safety of people's lives. You felt as though he was treating you like a child. After I first read the article, I felt not like a child, but that my government was doing what it believes to be done in order to secure mine, yours and everyone's safety in this post 9/11 world.
Lastly, as for my "arrogance", I believe every American is arrogant. For example; You have the arrogance to believe that in every possible situation of terrorists on a plane with "small-knives" that the people would be able to fend off an attack?! Talk about American arrogance!
Look, the congressman is saying that if the government feels that they should lessen the restrictions of sharp objects on planes, to the new guidelines stated, and if he feels that will put into question the overall security of a plane and its people, than he feels it is his duty to propose an Act to just go ahead and ban all sharp objects in order to scare the other side form accpeting the new guidelines. It's government politics at work.
-Carl
Carl, if your intent was to be constructive, you sure do have a funny way of being so. I'm not sure most folks would accept as anything but insulting the suggestion that they do not "follow the most basic rules in writing" or that they do not "write like an adult".
As to my comments, well, guess what? I don't have to be constructive in all my posts. It's my blog. As it happens, I feel no particular complusion to be constructive toward a law I believe is condescending and useless as its name. As I said, Markey appears to proceed on the assumption that we continue to be placid sheep, even knowing very well what that pacifism cost the passengers of three of the four planes on 9/11.
I could suggest that Markey look to the "Shoebomber" trial for a more instructive example of what passengers are likely to do. For him to get all atwitter because the TSA has decided that explosives are a greater threat than a tiny pair of scissors or a nail-cutter is just flat silly. As you say, government at work.
Thanfully, not all of us accept that "government at work" need be what we will tolerate.
Okay, I'm back. Sorry, I am having to work on an essay at the sametime. Anyway, I first want to say rather repeat something that I said earlier and that is that I really do enjoy this back and forth. It gives my brain a mental work out and that is always a good thing. I hope that you will agree as well.
1) You're right! I never even had to guess! You don't have to be constructive at all! That is your choice. In my opinion maybe not the most intelligent/wise decision but if you feel fine with that then no one is gonna stop you.
2) I still can't seem to grasp your problem with the name of this act. As for the suggestion of finding a better "spin doctor" to change the name, I don't see how that would change or even begin to alter someone's opinion of the content. But if you think he really should hire someone with an "imagination" than you might want to refer him to ask around and which "spin-doctor" came up with the title "Mission Accomplished" because that took one LARGE "imagination" to think up that one.
3)"As I said, Markey appears to proceed on the assumption that we continue to be placid sheep, even knowing very well what that pacifism cost the passengers of three of the four planes on 9/11." Firstly, friends of mine had family members in the planes and the towers and to call the people in "three of the four planes" and to blame them with being pacifists is simply disgusting and wrong. "Pacifism" did not "cost the passengers of three of the four planes on 9/11" for the very fact that ALL four planes crashed killing everyone on board. If I continue to follow your logic correctly, then I assume that you would next call the passengers, on the airplane that crashed in rural Pennsylvania, courageous. And if you were going to say that, how does it add up that you then can say "pacifism cost the passengers" their lives on three of the planes when the people on the plane that were courageous all died as well? That doesn't make sense. I also believe that you can not call the people on three of the four planes "pacifists" because if you recall urgent cell phone calls were being made by flight attendants to air controllers on the ground as well as to family members etc. That is the extreme opposite of being "pacifistic". The people on those flights were not the cause of of their own deaths. They were the cause of hijackers senselessly wanting to kill Americans and they succeeded.
4) You "could suggest" that he look at the "Shoebomber" case involving Richard Reid but the problem with that example is the very fact that the passengers on the plane who ended up detaining him, and that was only admittedly accomplished by the presense of two doctors who HAPPENED to have had sedatives that they were able to inject into his body. The curious part is this though, he had been rejected from flying on that same flight the day before by the flight crew. So again, innocent lives were put in unecessary risk, and it all would have never happened if the screening process had been done better like the way we are about to change it here in America…Oh wait. We forgot one thing though…The flight originated in France. So, then how will even changing our airport security process protect our citizens? The possibilities are boundless. Als, think back, what would have happened if he had made the flight the day prior? No doctors would have been present to sedate almost immediately. That's what you are placing your bet on? Again, American Arrogance.
Lastly, what is the reason/need for people to carry any kind of sharp object onto a plane? I have never found a need for something like that. All I need is a book, some food, a soda etc. Everyone should just put it in their suitcases and they will get it, whatever sharp/object it may be, after the flight.
One more thing. In the article, provided above about the Act, it states "He [Congressman Markey] says unions and associations representing flight attendants and air marshals oppose the TSA plan because they know the dangers that would result from lifting the four-year-old ban. One of those, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, says doing so would pose a threat to the safety of passengers as well as the air marshals trying to ensure passengers' safety." The air marshals and flight attendants don't agree with it?! Well, what do they know about being on airplanes anyway?
Jimmie,
A few things. One, the name is perfect…a play on Bush's idiotic "Leave no child behind" program which basically exists to ensure the military recruits every child for cannon fodder in Bush's endless war for oil interests.
Two, you obviously haven't bothered to learn the details of either the Bush administration's loosening of the safety standards or Markey's law to make sure we stay safe. The Bush administration has loosened measures to ensure that explosives are checked for in the belly of the plane. That's how much they are worried about explosives…now terrorists don't even need to board if they can get a suitcase of explosives checked onto the plane.
Smells to me like the swiftly sinking Bush administration is desperate for another attack to happen, so they can play cowboys again, with cowboys like you who think we ought to revert to the wild west with all sorts of loons like you taking the law into their own hands.
Finally, it looks like you could not even bother to respond to Carl's points that the air marshals and flight attendants are against loosening safety measures.
Talk about shooting from the hip. But it takes a moron to support a moron so I guess that's the best you can do once you've surrendered whatever passes as thought process to your elite masters. Tool.
R – There, there. There's a good moonbat.
A couple points. First, "No Child Left Behind" wasn't only the President's initiative. It was pushed by the President and Senator Ted Kennedy, who immediately walked away from it the second it became law. I don't like it, but I at least admire the President for sticking with a law he believes in, instead of getting it passed, then using it as a political football, like the Senior Non-Swimming Senator from Masachusetts did.
Second, though I put some credence in what air marshals and flight attendants say, I do not allow them to form my whole opinion. It's also true that police officers favor tight gun restrictions and looser search requirements, but that does not mean that either of those things are better for all of us. They merely make it easier for officers to do their jobs. In the same fashion, keping the same silly restrictions in place would make the jobs of those folks easier, but wouldn't necessarily be better for everyone involved.
I did read both pieces of legislation. I believe your interpretation of what each does is deficient, but that does not surprise me inasfar as you seem to think that I'd welcome 3000 more dead Americans here. I find your comment reprehensible and were you not using "internet courage" by speaking from a keyboard isntead of to my face, I would have called yuo an idiot right up close where you could see it.