Napolitano to US: we’re “objectively safer” – Evidence? Nil
December 27, 2010
|
Posted by Michael S. Langston
Janet Napolitano - Logically Impaired Secretary of Homeland Security
On CCN’s State of the Union show, US Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano fielded questions about security in the nation’s airports and in particular the more controversial measures put into place in 2010.
In what must be an attempt to alleviate concerns from passengers and Americans to potential security threats, she let the country know (here via RealClearPolitics):
The new technology and the pat-downs are “objectively safer for our traveling public,” said Napolitano, adding she’s always looking to improve the security systems in place….
Forgetting for a second that there is evidence to the contrary (article con’t):
…Napolitano also dismissed a recent news report about major airports failing secrets tests designed to get contraband such as guns and knives past security screeners. The report said some airports had a 70 percent failure rate…
& ignoring the fact that her only argument against this evidence is that they’re doing things differently, the last excuse for those attempting to shrug off real failures, (article con’t):
…”Many of them are very old and out of date and there were all kinds of methodology issues with them. Let’s set those aside,” she said on “State of the Union” on CNN. “We pick up more contraband with the new procedures and the new machinery.”…
We can look at the pure logic of the phrase “objectively safer” and ask whether there’s any reason to be able to use it and the answer is clearly no.
Irregardless of the evidence against Ms. Napolitano, the only evidence which could possibly be used to make such a bold and strong statement would be to show a plot stopped by this method which couldn’t have been prevented by any other method in use.
A tall order to be sure and some might say impossible (technically it is impossible), but in this case there isn’t even one single incident in which they have even tried to claim that this technology prevented an attack, which otherwise would’ve been successful.
Objectively? Meh – In the immortal words Inigo Montoya:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.
Categories: Critical Thinking, Politics, Regulation/Deregulation
| 
Tags: Critical Thinking, Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, Logical Fallacy, TSA
|
Leave a reply
