Nevertheless, every single “ridiculous rule” drawn up by some “pen-pushing lawyer” directly corresponds to at least one outrageous incident where someone was badly hurt. These rules are not arbitrary power trips, they are based on decades or centuries of bitter experience.

Every day, 1,000 Americans go to emergency rooms with dogs bites. Why haven’t we driven that species to extinction? Those furry little fuckers make terrorists look like Mother Teresa.

One of the consequences of having a fifth of the population of the USA shoved into an area about the size of Louisiana. Pretty much everyone is within a days drive of everyone else.

I would say the rulebooks themselves, due to the human error Dawkins mentioned, ought to be given as fluid an interpretation as you’d apply to any living, breathing human colleague from whom you’ve asked advice on a matter. Unfortunately, that just isn’t how the culture works right now. Because the professional world is so cutthroat, nobody wants to be responsible for anything that could potentially end their career, so they just stick to the letter of the boss’s rulebook and remain as much an unthinking functionary as possible. Given the labor market today, I understand.

Still, just as an automatic coffeemaker saves you from having to wake up earlier and wait for coffee, bureaucratic compliance saves you from having to wake up at all and approach reality from with the rational judgment of a competent adult.

Yes, our bogus airport security arrangements were hastily drafted and are knee-jerk, over-specific reactions.

Yes, our hospital administrators make rules based on fear of litigation and insurance claims.

But no, our rules of jurisprudence that have evolved over centuries to protect the individual from injustice are not the same thing at all.

Prof. Dawkins is playing with you, people.

And when I was mauled by dogs as a child, I wasn’t yet big enough to use a gun safely anyway.

And my childhood pet, which was torn to pieces in my back yard by a neighborhood dog, didn’t have a trigger finger.

And when the neighbor’s pit bull tried to attack my toddler, she wasn’t old enough to understand that the doggie wasn’t her friend.

Guns aren’t the answer to every problem, or America would be a wonderland, eh?

And the knee-jerk reactionary rules spawned out of the ‘weakest link losers’ (e.g, the shoe bomber and subsequent shoe checks) are of insane proportions. Ludicrous.

Assumptions, however, like ‘she has kids, she’d never be a terrorist’, ‘he deserves to know about his wife over the phone because surely WE KNOW it is in fact the actual husband on the line’ are loose if not sexist, if not out of tune for the need for privacy.

Reverence for anything is absurd. Religiousity surely rules, reigns and rots this world. But so does misuse of intellect. Biologist as political analysist is just kind of annoying. Especially knowing Rich’s socialist bias. It’s like when Einstein gave his view on marriage. Really?! OK.

It’s clear ppl need others to think for them. Sigh.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/

It’s the *exceptions* that make the news & history books.

Granted that there have always been overzealous enforcers and people on power trips. But the majority of enforcers (and I’m talking about everything from local cops to religious officials to justices of the peace to keepers of medical records) have historically been members of their community, with individual connections to the people in that community. This connection, along with fewer negative personal consequences for allowing rules to be bent, resulted in a greater flexibility in rule enforcement than we’re seeing today.

Yes, that flexibility also had a negative side. Sometimes fatally so. But overall, my point is that there *was* flexilbility and it *did* result in the harsh edges of the rules being softened in very many cases.

Now, that point about the scientific implausibility of generating explosives from “binary liquids” seems to be a much more promising angle for Professor Dawkins to approach this from, but that relates to the quality of the rules – a completely different issue.

On an unrelated note, I wonder why this post bears ATHEISM and RELIGION tags, unless the whole piece is intended as some sort of obscure analogy…

People were more likely to follow authority then. WWII required citizens to sacrifice, and restricted goods and commodities. Some foods and products were rationed.

Post WWII had the Cold War paranoia, and authority was comforting to a degree. With WWII you had an influx of men who were used to some degree of discipline and respect for authority. Thus you had a sort of group think with many issues, where voices of authority were trusted as truth. Thus you have the Comics Code, and McCarthy convincing America of a Commie under every bush.

People like to romanticize the past, but they quickly forget the complexities and contradictions.

IMO, the “why” behind this is historical: Through most of history, there *was* a lot of discretion allowed in the enforcement of rules. This allowed the rule makers to be hardasses and allowed the enforcers to be merciful.

Now, with lawsuits-a-plenty (or lack of reelection, or public vilification) waiting for anyone who can’t document that they did everything “by the book”, there’s no more room for merciful enforcers. Unfortunately, hardassed rulemakers haven’t changed things to accomodate this, so we’re left with a society full of “I’d like to help you, but…” rules that leave ointments in airport trash bins and minor drug offenders in years-long prison sentences.

We either need to restore the discretion to the enforcers or, better yet, force the rulemakers to confront the fact that their rules are going to be absolutely enforced.

He is obviously stating why different types of people would/wouldn’t fear this woman and her ointment.

Rational person: “99.999999% of women aren’t going to sacrifice their child unnecessarily while blowing up an airplane.”

Somewhat misguided Uhmurrrricuhn type person (Heathrow, i know): “Well, she’s not Muslin, nuthin’ tuh see hurrr.”

Scientist with applicable explosives knowledge: “If you think that could in any way down an airplane, you’re frackin’ NUTS”

POINT: “No sane person, witnessing that scene at the airport, seriously feared that this woman was planning to blow herself up on a plane.”

….or maybe Richard Dawkins is an unapologetic racist

He is obviously stating why different types of people would/wouldn’t fear this woman and her ointment.

He is. At the same time, it gives a good example of how discretion can fail: a somewhat misguided Uhmurrrrican type person would wave this woman through at the expense of every single person after her with a Middle Eastern sounding name. We want them following the rules, just not stupid rules.

Banning fluids on airplanes and its regulatory ilk is just cargo cult security and silly law. Ridicule away.

And about those dog bites… http://www.animallaw.info/articles/qvusdogbiteslstatutes.htm

Is Dawkins an undercover agent for the Daily Mail now? Is this a test of our ability to notice misleading arguments that subtly lead us to facism?

I do wonder if the subtext of your argument isn’t that because you have given examples of bad rules, overenthusiastically enforced — we are supposed to decry all rigid rules?

As others have pointed out, there are circumstances where rigid rules are needed. Is the problem here that there are rules that are being enforced too literally, or that the rules themselves are silly? I would suggest the latter.

http://xkcd.com/651/

There must be ways to re-introduce intelligent discretion and overthrow the unbending tyranny of going-by-the-book, without opening the door to abuse. We should make it our business to find them.

There is one: we kill all the lawyers. And insurance men. And lobbyists. And gesture threateningly at the handful of politicians left to go about their business.

The discretion of the Magistrate is the short route to tyranny.

Legalize marijuana completely: and you’ll see much more respect for the remaining Laws amongst a wide segment of the population.

The mechanical application of unjust laws and the infliction of excessive punishments for petty matters, while great frauds go unpunished and un-investigated is a time-tested path to civil unrest and unhappiness.

Why are the leaders of the USA apparently so intent on following it?

Who benefits?

That’s generally how laws work. Either you are in compliance or you are not. Sometimes judges need to interpret them. The problem (in the United States, at least, and I believe our airline security policy is influential in the EU), is that airport security polices are not law. Policies are left up to entry-level government staff to apply, and sometimes to create, as they see fit.

We’ve put these security guards in charge of the deciding who will be allowed to travel via commercial air — which in the United States is a right not a privilege — and who will be barred from flying. When we request the policies that guide the actions of these public employees, TSA tell us that they are secret and we cannot read them.

If we need to keep water bottles out of airport terminals, then let’s make it unlawful to bring them in, and prosecute those who seem to have done so.

When I go to the airport, I want to know what is required of me, and I want agents of my government to leave me alone unless it seems that I’ve violated the law.