The first excuse, about the shutdown, is an obvious lie, but the second part actually makes sense. Checking boarding passes prevents people from flying without paying or swapping tickets (so the airlines like it), and allows the government to track everyone's movements ('nuff said), but it does nothing for actual security.
Wouldn't it be great if this started a movement to eliminate the ID/pass requirement?
Wanted: Executives for new US-based Internet Exchange company. Competitive salary and benefits. Must be prepared to act as hostages of the US government, up to and including imprisonment for failure to obey impossible orders. Dutch holding company will not pay ransom or legal costs. Applicants with relatives in Amsterdam will not be considered.
"Pure intellectual dishonesty"? Like talking about people whose chose family over career as if they'd been unfairly terminated? Like claiming systematic disadvantage without evidence (or perhaps without standard meaning of English words)? Like labeling a link "being drummed out of the fields" when the cited material says nothing of the kind?
I asked what was wrong with letting women make their own career decisions-- decisions with consequences. If that's what you call dishonesty, then you and I are simply speaking different languages.
What specific and solid information do you think the FBI had on the 9-11 hijackers? Not just rumors of evil intent, not just hints that are ominous in hindsight, but information that would have justified arresting them at the ticket counter?
I'm really sick of arguments that boil down to "well of course they should have arrested Muslims who were going to pilot school!", or "they knew for years that Mohammed Atef was up to no good, how could they not, you know, do something?". The FBI does not have unlimited resources, the NSA does not know everything, neither organization has unlimited power, and they have different missions, procedures and charters; what I hate most about the connect-the-dots theory is that it tends to lead to arguments that we should change those things.
The feds might well lean on the person holding the switch, with either legal threats or blackmail. What we need is an anonymous Dead Man's Switch for a company:
Determine which people in the office would have to know about the arrival of a secret order, and have them draw straws with a crypto protocol to determine which of them will set up and maintain the Dead Man's Switch. Nobody knows who's sending the signals, but when the order arrives the signals stop, the switch trips, the key has ceased to exist and everyone has plausible deniability.
"Male health professionals who said they regularly skipped breakfast were 27% more likely to die during 16 years of follow-up... And those who said they ate late at night were 55% more likely to die...
...Both relationships, however, fell shy of statistical significance after further adjustment..."
In other words, nothing. This is medical journalism?
It is possible that this woman has some kind of psychiatric imbalance, e.g. bipolar disorder. I knew a man who had that one; he was a kind, gentle, generous soul who loved animals-- and threatened to kill the neighbor's dog when he went off his meds.
If it's something like that, then although this woman's act was horrifying, punishment doesn't really make any sense, and if we are civilized people we won't relish the idea of her suffering for it.