Welcome to the new year of 2010, a year that finds us still not driving flying cars or enjoying real national security. Sure, we have endured a decade of posturing and chest beating by posers who would have us believe that we”ve been doing everything we could to protect this country since Sept. 11, but the simple fact is a spoiled rich kid with a bomb in his undies can still slip past our crack defenses, even after his own parents reported him to the U.S. Embassy.
After all these years we still don”t bother to inspect millions of shipping containers entering our ports and while taking off our shoes and having our baggage X-rayed makes for a great show, the fact is airport screening is a total joke; witness the recent events, as well as their dismal record, when tested by undercover agents sneaking bomb components past them.
In a recent column I called for thousands of new customs agents to address the problems of the millions of aliens still in this country with expired visas and to patrol our borders more effectively. For the past year a bill has been stalled in Congress by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-SC, that would provide for purchase of more sophisticated “puffer” scanning machines that might have detected the residue of the plastic explosives brought on board the jet bound for Detroit on Christmas Day. He has also stalled the appointment of the new proposed TSA chief because he fears that the employees might be given the right to unionize, not that this has ever been a priority of the candidate.
During the past couple of weeks much has been written about the technology of bomb detection and also of the “pat down” techniques that might be employed by airport security, both of which are not really foolproof it turns out. The “puffer” detectors are extremely expensive and are not 100 percent effective. The screeners are not allowed to touch certain areas of the person being screened and these areas are exactly where the explosives were hidden.
I wonder why we always seem to seek out the most expensive and least effective solutions to so many of our problems when simple common sense can solve the same problem for a tiny fraction of the cost with a far better result. I speak, of course, about mans” best friend, the dog. A bloodhound is much better at detecting bomb residue than a machine and while the dog requires a handler, the machine requires an operator.
Many police forces use K-9s but their dog of choice is the German Shepherd, a large and intimidating breed. Being sniffed by one could be traumatic for some people, especially children, but a bloodhound”s sense of smell is much better and a few stationed casually throughout the terminal would be very effective. For individual inspections of those on line, security could use very intelligent smaller breeds that are less intimidating, like a French poodle. One police department in Ohio even uses a Chihuahua (no joke) and she”s been very effective. For the price of one “puffer” machine we could have hundreds of dogs on duty in many airports. Sen. DeMint will be happy to know they are unlikely to unionize and require very little maintenance.
We need to begin to re-think the way we solve problems with an eye toward practical solutions that don”t take years to implement. Not just when it comes to airport security but from top to bottom. Bills that address an issue, like preventing corporations from buying the politicians that were supposed to represent the people, or providing health care for our citizens, should not be longer than the Constitution that created our entire government. If we can solve a problem in a month for $300, we shouldn”t consider spending $2 million for an inferior solution.
Lowell Grant is a weekly columnist for the Record-Bee. He can be e-mailed at c21vintage@aol.com.
