The Israelis just give everyone the third degree, check everyone's backgrounds who fly, and carefully screen all luggage, and have armed troops at every station. This process obviously takes hours, and the American airlines cry that this would affect their bottom lines, which are in so much trouble already. So they cut corners, and they try to come down hard when they do find something. It's uneven, and terrorists can play their chances. It really just isn't very rigorous or safe compared El-Al.
I think that the angle of the argument. It would be ridiculous to say that the administration is "doing too much" now with regard to flights. If flight cancellations are necessary to check or thwart these sorts of things, sobeit. But people might wonder if the process that decides this is meticulous enough to make that decision reliably.
That's a fair question. So, let's continue to improve the process...but when there is credible chance of a problem, better to act on the side of question.
The Israelis criticize how we look for bombs and search people, etc. The point is that you can't search everyone enough to find everything (iron fist.) That is, you can't search for all the bombs and expect to find them. Instead El-Al looks for people most likely willing to do something like carry a bomb. That's more effective.
We were lucky the shoe bomb didn't work. That's the point. We never thought about that so we weren't searching for it and it got through. We can never search for everything unless we know in advance what they're going to bring. We'll never anticipate everything so we're vulnerable. Instead we need to find the people likely to do it.
It's just a different perspective. Our attitude now is kind of childish. It assumes we have more control of the situation than we actually do. This brute force method can't work long term.
ASIDE: Scott, it's hilarious that you'll criticize me when I criticize the Israelis because you say I'm anti-semetic, but you'll still criticize me when I support the Israelis. Maybe one day you'll realize what that means about you. Maybe.
El Al singles out anyone that doesn´t look like an orthodox jew. Been there done that (twice). Nothing wrong with that. Next time I fly El Al I will keep my eyes on everyone with a black kippah and long beard all the way. I would be the easiest way for terrorists to do their "job" disguised that way.
Here's an idea -- an "outside the box" way of dealing with the terrorists. I say we knowingly let them get on a plane. What they don't know is that the rest of the passengers are convicted criminals on death row. We let the plane take off (the pilots would be trained death row inmates) and whenever we feel like it, blow the whole plane out of the sky. Terrorists go bye bye, death row inmates are off our hands. It's a perfect idea!
i am sorry SDW but the systematic removal of the legal rights of the "foreign combatants", and furthermore the selective registration of immigrant arab-american under the Bush administration constitutes more than just an assault on civil liberties. It sets a precedent for an assault on a more general population.
Isreal wasnt being attacked by Irish nationals, and further has done a horrible job at containing their own national terrorist, so its fair to say that they really could care less about those people who are not muslim, say.
While Isreal can focus on muslim/arab terrorist, a realistic american program cannot be so limited.
That is all I was saying.
Rational programs for reduction of terrorism wouldn't follow a somewhat random ceasing of international flights (there was some indication that some of the canceled flights earlier this week were due to a 5 year old who was thought to be a terrorist), and hence this method is retarded. It doesnt mean it wont work, it just isnt efficient.
The Israelis criticize how we look for bombs and search people, etc. The point is that you can't search everyone enough to find everything (iron fist.) That is, you can't search for all the bombs and expect to find them. Instead El-Al looks for people most likely willing to do something like carry a bomb. That's more effective.
This sounds an awful lot like profiling, likely racial profiling which I am pretty sure you have spoken against.
This sounds an awful lot like profiling, likely racial profiling which I am pretty sure you have spoken against.
Nick
i dont think the isreali's are apologetic about their use of racial profiling, but they are the same "race" as their terrorist predominantly, so it is probably more ethnic profiling, which bunge may never have spoken to.
Who can blame us for getting suspicious? At best, the whole episode points out how utterly useless the "watch lists" are. The French government said afterwards that there were no suspicious people on the canceled Paris-LA flights, just a bunch whose names were close to those on the list. Unfortunately, the list had only names, not ages or descriptions: so one of the potential terrorists turned out to be a young girl, another an elderly man, etc. The Brits were probably just too polite to say anything similar.
At worst...well, al-Qaeda has never shown a penchant for attacking at holidays, and to the best of our knowledge all of these would-be terror flights were false alarms. But it sure got people a little nervous, thinking about terror again, and thinking that we're doing something about terror. Nice reminder in a election year, especially right before the Democratic primaries kick off. I realize this is an impolite accusation, but has Karl Rove ever hesitated to turn any other issue to political advantage? Even our miltary is a campaign tool. Why not the war on terror? Look for somthing similar to happen around July 4 and Halloween.
Meanwhile, we're still not spending nearly enough money on the nuts-and-bolts of security. All those nuclear plants (inlcuding the one in VT) are still not secure. Nor are we helping out those cities and states (um, NYC anyone?) whose budgets are bursting due to the costs of protecting their citizens on the ground.
Who can blame us for getting suspicious? At best, the whole episode points out how utterly useless the "watch lists" are. The French government said afterwards that there were no suspicious people on the canceled Paris-LA flights, just a bunch whose names were close to those on the list. Unfortunately, the list had only names, not ages or descriptions: so one of the potential terrorists turned out to be a young girl, another an elderly man, etc. The Brits were probably just too polite to say anything similar.
At worst...well, al-Qaeda has never shown a penchant for attacking at holidays, and to the best of our knowledge all of these would-be terror flights were false alarms. But it sure got people a little nervous, thinking about terror again, and thinking that we're doing something about terror. Nice reminder in a election year, especially right before the Democratic primaries kick off. I realize this is an impolite accusation, but has Karl Rove ever hesitated to turn any other issue to political advantage? Even our miltary is a campaign tool. Why not the war on terror? Look for somthing similar to happen around July 4 and Halloween.
Meanwhile, we're still not spending nearly enough money on the nuts-and-bolts of security. All those nuclear plants (inlcuding the one in VT) are still not secure. Nor are we helping out those cities and states (um, NYC anyone?) whose budgets are bursting due to the costs of protecting their citizens on the ground.
Right...it's all a nicely timed political stunt....11 months before an election. Okay then. And perhaps the watch lists should be improved, but when there's a possibility of a match, precautions must be taken.
i am sorry SDW but the systematic removal of the legal rights of the "foreign combatants", and furthermore the selective registration of immigrant arab-american under the Bush administration constitutes more than just an assault on civil liberties. It sets a precedent for an assault on a more general population.
Isreal wasnt being attacked by Irish nationals, and further has done a horrible job at containing their own national terrorist, so its fair to say that they really could care less about those people who are not muslim, say.
While Isreal can focus on muslim/arab terrorist, a realistic american program cannot be so limited.
That is all I was saying.
Rational programs for reduction of terrorism wouldn't follow a somewhat random ceasing of international flights (there was some indication that some of the canceled flights earlier this week were due to a 5 year old who was thought to be a terrorist), and hence this method is retarded. It doesnt mean it wont work, it just isnt efficient.
Civil rights: My position is that US citizens should get fair trials. I disagreed, in particular, with the Jose Padilla thing. However, the Material Witness provision has been legally invoked...and it's not a law Bush sought to pass. As far as the larger issue of civil liberties, it's nothing more than political fodder. There has been no loss of general civil rights...it's just untrue.
As far as international flights, it's not "random" as you put it. You can't label it "retarded" because of a mistake involving a 5 year old. It was a name similarity problem. Personally, I don't want to be on a flight with someone who has a name very similar to a terrorist. Everything must be done to prevent another 9/11, and that includes grounding suspicious flights.
Oh, and one more thing: As usual, you speak in broad terms, like "reasonable terror reduction strategies", and define them by what they are not. Why don't you and every other critic of current homeland security procedures explain to us what you think ought to be done?
i dont think the isreali's are apologetic about their use of racial profiling, but they are the same "race" as their terrorist predominantly, so it is probably more ethnic profiling, which bunge may never have spoken to.
From what I gather it's more like the Q&A in BLADE RUNNER. It's like a psychological exam. Ask certain questions and let the conversation lead you where it may. It's not based on ethnicity, although I'm not going to pretend that they do that as well.
Ultimately they people that want to blow up an El-Al plane look a hell of a lot like the Israelis that want to fly on an El-Al plane. A simple fake passport means that ethnic profiling can't really be at the source of their success. I think most people in the states don't realize that they probably couldn't accurately pick out an average Israeli from an average Palestinian. It's a bit like choosing an Irishman from Northern vs. Southern Ireland.
But the main point is that a brute force search is ultimately going to fail much sooner than other methods.
Here's an idea -- an "outside the box" way of dealing with the terrorists. I say we knowingly let them get on a plane. What they don't know is that the rest of the passengers are convicted criminals on death row. We let the plane take off (the pilots would be trained death row inmates) and whenever we feel like it, blow the whole plane out of the sky. Terrorists go bye bye, death row inmates are off our hands. It's a perfect idea!
Oh, and one more thing: As usual, you speak in broad terms, like "reasonable terror reduction strategies", and define them by what they are not. Why don't you and every other critic of current homeland security procedures explain to us what you think ought to be done?
I will go along with this completely and add when you suggest solutions think about trying to sell that to a virtuality 50/50 congress. You will need to sell it to your political opposites. That is the wall that every poitician runs into including GWB.
Here's an idea -- an "outside the box" way of dealing with the terrorists. I say we knowingly let them get on a plane. What they don't know is that the rest of the passengers are convicted criminals on death row. We let the plane take off (the pilots would be trained death row inmates) and whenever we feel like it, blow the whole plane out of the sky. Terrorists go bye bye, death row inmates are off our hands. It's a perfect idea!
Maybe we should crash the planes into terrorist training camps. <Runs for flak suit.>
here's my take on the situation. see if you see the parallels:
at my old job, we did a lot of work for one particular client, running print jobs in the millions, multiple languages and the like. needless to say, for the jobs to work, everything has to click, checklists checked, approvals, reviews, proofreading... otherwise, one error in the legal text can cause major liability issues.
but the primary problem was that the client was utterly unpredictable, sometimes coming with changes to text when the files were at the press, and translation had already been fit to the page. so we'd try to "stop the presses," make the changes, get review approval from their editorial and legal teams, etc.
until one day, you guessed it, they did it so many times, an error -- a BIG error -- slipped through. rather than recognize that there was no way one could assume that the system could be bulletproofed with as many changes as they insisted (i'm talking fromt he smallest stuff to rearragment of pages up to press time). of course, since they were such a major part of the bottom line, and the executive branch didn't want to tell them that it was bound to happen, a manager got axed and plenty of other people got reamed out behind closed doors (thankfully, not me).
but that's not the whole story. the problem was, it was such a black eye, such a loss of profit, that the entire process went to a level of proofreading that can only be labeled "blackwatch plaid" (harvey birdman fans will recognize that reference, though they stole it from others). in essence, every minute detail was scrutinized so many times, and every press run was signed off so many times that the system ground to a halt. the people in charge of proofreading were so overtaxed that proof numbers actually TRIPLED in time and cost... and errors. the company thinking was, "we can't afford another screw up like that, so let's just be extra careful on everything from here on out."
take it from me, it was an insane climate to work under. everyone became skittish at every point, and confused as to how many people had to lay eyes on a piece before it could actually go out the door. when really, no one stopped the problem at its source, because it wasn't feasible (the client was worth too much, and they would never change... unless they were fired, which we hoped for constantly. in fact, we started sending some problematic clients job info at other companies just so they would hopefully jump ship and we wouldn't have to deal with them anymore....)
so what am i saying? you can get all el-al paranoid if you want, but you had better be willing to shell out a lot of money to do so, be willing to stop the system for a bit to implement it (we just keep trying to bandage the huge machine of air transit, rather than take a week and just shut down regional airports in sequence and do it right to begin with).
anyway, there's my ten cents, the two cents are free.
here's my take on the situation. see if you see the parallels:
at my old job, we did a lot of work for one particular client, running print jobs in the millions, multiple languages and the like. needless to say, for the jobs to work, everything has to click, checklists checked, approvals, reviews, proofreading... otherwise, one error in the legal text can cause major liability issues.
but the primary problem was that the client was utterly unpredictable, sometimes coming with changes to text when the files were at the press, and translation had already been fit to the page. so we'd try to "stop the presses," make the changes, get review approval from their editorial and legal teams, etc.
until one day, you guessed it, they did it so many times, an error -- a BIG error -- slipped through. rather than recognize that there was no way one could assume that the system could be bulletproofed with as many changes as they insisted (i'm talking fromt he smallest stuff to rearragment of pages up to press time). of course, since they were such a major part of the bottom line, and the executive branch didn't want to tell them that it was bound to happen, a manager got axed and plenty of other people got reamed out behind closed doors (thankfully, not me).
but that's not the whole story. the problem was, it was such a black eye, such a loss of profit, that the entire process went to a level of proofreading that can only be labeled "blackwatch plaid" (harvey birdman fans will recognize that reference, though they stole it from others). in essence, every minute detail was scrutinized so many times, and every press run was signed off so many times that the system ground to a halt. the people in charge of proofreading were so overtaxed that proof numbers actually TRIPLED in time and cost... and errors. the company thinking was, "we can't afford another screw up like that, so let's just be extra careful on everything from here on out."
take it from me, it was an insane climate to work under. everyone became skittish at every point, and confused as to how many people had to lay eyes on a piece before it could actually go out the door. when really, no one stopped the problem at its source, because it wasn't feasible (the client was worth too much, and they would never change... unless they were fired, which we hoped for constantly. in fact, we started sending some problematic clients job info at other companies just so they would hopefully jump ship and we wouldn't have to deal with them anymore....)
so what am i saying? you can get all el-al paranoid if you want, but you had better be willing to shell out a lot of money to do so, be willing to stop the system for a bit to implement it (we just keep trying to bandage the huge machine of air transit, rather than take a week and just shut down regional airports in sequence and do it right to begin with).
anyway, there's my ten cents, the two cents are free.
yeah sounds familiar.
But as you know, in this country, you can't do anything without someone claiming some kind of conspiracy. If Bush decided it was time to "do it right" he would be blamed for the plight of the airline industry. i think they are trying to pin it on him now, aren't they?
But as you know, in this country, you can't do anything without someone claiming some kind of conspiracy. If Bush decided it was time to "do it right" he would be blamed for the plight of the airline industry. i think they are trying to pin it on him now, aren't they?
Comments
Originally posted by BuonRotto
The Israelis just give everyone the third degree, check everyone's backgrounds who fly, and carefully screen all luggage, and have armed troops at every station. This process obviously takes hours, and the American airlines cry that this would affect their bottom lines, which are in so much trouble already. So they cut corners, and they try to come down hard when they do find something. It's uneven, and terrorists can play their chances. It really just isn't very rigorous or safe compared El-Al.
I think that the angle of the argument. It would be ridiculous to say that the administration is "doing too much" now with regard to flights. If flight cancellations are necessary to check or thwart these sorts of things, sobeit. But people might wonder if the process that decides this is meticulous enough to make that decision reliably.
That's a fair question. So, let's continue to improve the process...but when there is credible chance of a problem, better to act on the side of question.
We were lucky the shoe bomb didn't work. That's the point. We never thought about that so we weren't searching for it and it got through. We can never search for everything unless we know in advance what they're going to bring. We'll never anticipate everything so we're vulnerable. Instead we need to find the people likely to do it.
It's just a different perspective. Our attitude now is kind of childish. It assumes we have more control of the situation than we actually do. This brute force method can't work long term.
ASIDE: Scott, it's hilarious that you'll criticize me when I criticize the Israelis because you say I'm anti-semetic, but you'll still criticize me when I support the Israelis. Maybe one day you'll realize what that means about you. Maybe.
Isreal wasnt being attacked by Irish nationals, and further has done a horrible job at containing their own national terrorist, so its fair to say that they really could care less about those people who are not muslim, say.
While Isreal can focus on muslim/arab terrorist, a realistic american program cannot be so limited.
That is all I was saying.
Rational programs for reduction of terrorism wouldn't follow a somewhat random ceasing of international flights (there was some indication that some of the canceled flights earlier this week were due to a 5 year old who was thought to be a terrorist), and hence this method is retarded. It doesnt mean it wont work, it just isnt efficient.
Originally posted by bunge
The Israelis criticize how we look for bombs and search people, etc. The point is that you can't search everyone enough to find everything (iron fist.) That is, you can't search for all the bombs and expect to find them. Instead El-Al looks for people most likely willing to do something like carry a bomb. That's more effective.
This sounds an awful lot like profiling, likely racial profiling which I am pretty sure you have spoken against.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
This sounds an awful lot like profiling, likely racial profiling which I am pretty sure you have spoken against.
Nick
i dont think the isreali's are apologetic about their use of racial profiling, but they are the same "race" as their terrorist predominantly, so it is probably more ethnic profiling, which bunge may never have spoken to.
Originally posted by Anders
El Al singles out anyone that doesn´t look like an orthodox jew. Been there done that (twice).
That was my understanding. In effect, they check out all passengers.
At worst...well, al-Qaeda has never shown a penchant for attacking at holidays, and to the best of our knowledge all of these would-be terror flights were false alarms. But it sure got people a little nervous, thinking about terror again, and thinking that we're doing something about terror. Nice reminder in a election year, especially right before the Democratic primaries kick off. I realize this is an impolite accusation, but has Karl Rove ever hesitated to turn any other issue to political advantage? Even our miltary is a campaign tool. Why not the war on terror? Look for somthing similar to happen around July 4 and Halloween.
Meanwhile, we're still not spending nearly enough money on the nuts-and-bolts of security. All those nuclear plants (inlcuding the one in VT) are still not secure. Nor are we helping out those cities and states (um, NYC anyone?) whose budgets are bursting due to the costs of protecting their citizens on the ground.
Originally posted by Towel
Who can blame us for getting suspicious? At best, the whole episode points out how utterly useless the "watch lists" are. The French government said afterwards that there were no suspicious people on the canceled Paris-LA flights, just a bunch whose names were close to those on the list. Unfortunately, the list had only names, not ages or descriptions: so one of the potential terrorists turned out to be a young girl, another an elderly man, etc. The Brits were probably just too polite to say anything similar.
At worst...well, al-Qaeda has never shown a penchant for attacking at holidays, and to the best of our knowledge all of these would-be terror flights were false alarms. But it sure got people a little nervous, thinking about terror again, and thinking that we're doing something about terror. Nice reminder in a election year, especially right before the Democratic primaries kick off. I realize this is an impolite accusation, but has Karl Rove ever hesitated to turn any other issue to political advantage? Even our miltary is a campaign tool. Why not the war on terror? Look for somthing similar to happen around July 4 and Halloween.
Meanwhile, we're still not spending nearly enough money on the nuts-and-bolts of security. All those nuclear plants (inlcuding the one in VT) are still not secure. Nor are we helping out those cities and states (um, NYC anyone?) whose budgets are bursting due to the costs of protecting their citizens on the ground.
Right...it's all a nicely timed political stunt....11 months before an election. Okay then. And perhaps the watch lists should be improved, but when there's a possibility of a match, precautions must be taken.
Originally posted by billybobsky
i am sorry SDW but the systematic removal of the legal rights of the "foreign combatants", and furthermore the selective registration of immigrant arab-american under the Bush administration constitutes more than just an assault on civil liberties. It sets a precedent for an assault on a more general population.
Isreal wasnt being attacked by Irish nationals, and further has done a horrible job at containing their own national terrorist, so its fair to say that they really could care less about those people who are not muslim, say.
While Isreal can focus on muslim/arab terrorist, a realistic american program cannot be so limited.
That is all I was saying.
Rational programs for reduction of terrorism wouldn't follow a somewhat random ceasing of international flights (there was some indication that some of the canceled flights earlier this week were due to a 5 year old who was thought to be a terrorist), and hence this method is retarded. It doesnt mean it wont work, it just isnt efficient.
Civil rights: My position is that US citizens should get fair trials. I disagreed, in particular, with the Jose Padilla thing. However, the Material Witness provision has been legally invoked...and it's not a law Bush sought to pass. As far as the larger issue of civil liberties, it's nothing more than political fodder. There has been no loss of general civil rights...it's just untrue.
As far as international flights, it's not "random" as you put it. You can't label it "retarded" because of a mistake involving a 5 year old. It was a name similarity problem. Personally, I don't want to be on a flight with someone who has a name very similar to a terrorist. Everything must be done to prevent another 9/11, and that includes grounding suspicious flights.
Oh, and one more thing: As usual, you speak in broad terms, like "reasonable terror reduction strategies", and define them by what they are not. Why don't you and every other critic of current homeland security procedures explain to us what you think ought to be done?
Originally posted by billybobsky
i dont think the isreali's are apologetic about their use of racial profiling, but they are the same "race" as their terrorist predominantly, so it is probably more ethnic profiling, which bunge may never have spoken to.
From what I gather it's more like the Q&A in BLADE RUNNER. It's like a psychological exam. Ask certain questions and let the conversation lead you where it may. It's not based on ethnicity, although I'm not going to pretend that they do that as well.
Ultimately they people that want to blow up an El-Al plane look a hell of a lot like the Israelis that want to fly on an El-Al plane. A simple fake passport means that ethnic profiling can't really be at the source of their success. I think most people in the states don't realize that they probably couldn't accurately pick out an average Israeli from an average Palestinian. It's a bit like choosing an Irishman from Northern vs. Southern Ireland.
But the main point is that a brute force search is ultimately going to fail much sooner than other methods.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Here's an idea -- an "outside the box" way of dealing with the terrorists. I say we knowingly let them get on a plane. What they don't know is that the rest of the passengers are convicted criminals on death row. We let the plane take off (the pilots would be trained death row inmates) and whenever we feel like it, blow the whole plane out of the sky. Terrorists go bye bye, death row inmates are off our hands. It's a perfect idea!
A new twist to that movie "CONAIR"
Ha
Originally posted by SDW2001
Oh, and one more thing: As usual, you speak in broad terms, like "reasonable terror reduction strategies", and define them by what they are not. Why don't you and every other critic of current homeland security procedures explain to us what you think ought to be done?
I will go along with this completely and add when you suggest solutions think about trying to sell that to a virtuality 50/50 congress. You will need to sell it to your political opposites. That is the wall that every poitician runs into including GWB.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Here's an idea -- an "outside the box" way of dealing with the terrorists. I say we knowingly let them get on a plane. What they don't know is that the rest of the passengers are convicted criminals on death row. We let the plane take off (the pilots would be trained death row inmates) and whenever we feel like it, blow the whole plane out of the sky. Terrorists go bye bye, death row inmates are off our hands. It's a perfect idea!
Maybe we should crash the planes into terrorist training camps. <Runs for flak suit.>
Originally posted by Whisper
Maybe we should crash the planes into terrorist training camps. <Runs for flak suit.>
Thats so simple, it just might work!
at my old job, we did a lot of work for one particular client, running print jobs in the millions, multiple languages and the like. needless to say, for the jobs to work, everything has to click, checklists checked, approvals, reviews, proofreading... otherwise, one error in the legal text can cause major liability issues.
but the primary problem was that the client was utterly unpredictable, sometimes coming with changes to text when the files were at the press, and translation had already been fit to the page. so we'd try to "stop the presses," make the changes, get review approval from their editorial and legal teams, etc.
until one day, you guessed it, they did it so many times, an error -- a BIG error -- slipped through. rather than recognize that there was no way one could assume that the system could be bulletproofed with as many changes as they insisted (i'm talking fromt he smallest stuff to rearragment of pages up to press time). of course, since they were such a major part of the bottom line, and the executive branch didn't want to tell them that it was bound to happen, a manager got axed and plenty of other people got reamed out behind closed doors (thankfully, not me).
but that's not the whole story. the problem was, it was such a black eye, such a loss of profit, that the entire process went to a level of proofreading that can only be labeled "blackwatch plaid" (harvey birdman fans will recognize that reference, though they stole it from others). in essence, every minute detail was scrutinized so many times, and every press run was signed off so many times that the system ground to a halt. the people in charge of proofreading were so overtaxed that proof numbers actually TRIPLED in time and cost... and errors. the company thinking was, "we can't afford another screw up like that, so let's just be extra careful on everything from here on out."
take it from me, it was an insane climate to work under. everyone became skittish at every point, and confused as to how many people had to lay eyes on a piece before it could actually go out the door. when really, no one stopped the problem at its source, because it wasn't feasible (the client was worth too much, and they would never change... unless they were fired, which we hoped for constantly. in fact, we started sending some problematic clients job info at other companies just so they would hopefully jump ship and we wouldn't have to deal with them anymore....)
so what am i saying? you can get all el-al paranoid if you want, but you had better be willing to shell out a lot of money to do so, be willing to stop the system for a bit to implement it (we just keep trying to bandage the huge machine of air transit, rather than take a week and just shut down regional airports in sequence and do it right to begin with).
anyway, there's my ten cents, the two cents are free.
Originally posted by rok
here's my take on the situation. see if you see the parallels:
at my old job, we did a lot of work for one particular client, running print jobs in the millions, multiple languages and the like. needless to say, for the jobs to work, everything has to click, checklists checked, approvals, reviews, proofreading... otherwise, one error in the legal text can cause major liability issues.
but the primary problem was that the client was utterly unpredictable, sometimes coming with changes to text when the files were at the press, and translation had already been fit to the page. so we'd try to "stop the presses," make the changes, get review approval from their editorial and legal teams, etc.
until one day, you guessed it, they did it so many times, an error -- a BIG error -- slipped through. rather than recognize that there was no way one could assume that the system could be bulletproofed with as many changes as they insisted (i'm talking fromt he smallest stuff to rearragment of pages up to press time). of course, since they were such a major part of the bottom line, and the executive branch didn't want to tell them that it was bound to happen, a manager got axed and plenty of other people got reamed out behind closed doors (thankfully, not me).
but that's not the whole story. the problem was, it was such a black eye, such a loss of profit, that the entire process went to a level of proofreading that can only be labeled "blackwatch plaid" (harvey birdman fans will recognize that reference, though they stole it from others). in essence, every minute detail was scrutinized so many times, and every press run was signed off so many times that the system ground to a halt. the people in charge of proofreading were so overtaxed that proof numbers actually TRIPLED in time and cost... and errors. the company thinking was, "we can't afford another screw up like that, so let's just be extra careful on everything from here on out."
take it from me, it was an insane climate to work under. everyone became skittish at every point, and confused as to how many people had to lay eyes on a piece before it could actually go out the door. when really, no one stopped the problem at its source, because it wasn't feasible (the client was worth too much, and they would never change... unless they were fired, which we hoped for constantly. in fact, we started sending some problematic clients job info at other companies just so they would hopefully jump ship and we wouldn't have to deal with them anymore....)
so what am i saying? you can get all el-al paranoid if you want, but you had better be willing to shell out a lot of money to do so, be willing to stop the system for a bit to implement it (we just keep trying to bandage the huge machine of air transit, rather than take a week and just shut down regional airports in sequence and do it right to begin with).
anyway, there's my ten cents, the two cents are free.
yeah sounds familiar.
But as you know, in this country, you can't do anything without someone claiming some kind of conspiracy. If Bush decided it was time to "do it right" he would be blamed for the plight of the airline industry. i think they are trying to pin it on him now, aren't they?
Originally posted by NaplesX
yeah sounds familiar.
But as you know, in this country, you can't do anything without someone claiming some kind of conspiracy. If Bush decided it was time to "do it right" he would be blamed for the plight of the airline industry. i think they are trying to pin it on him now, aren't they?
God I hope so!