Travel

[Leo]

A good point, but it should be considered in context. Churchill & his government introduced various arbitrary

and ineffective measures that impacted on normal life during WW2 for the sole purpose of building collective resolve. Examples include taking railings and pots and pans for "recycling" into military equipment (most was useless but people felt they were contributing), or the firing of London's anti-aircraft guns, even though they couldn't reach the altitiude of Luftwaffe planes (so people felt they were fighting back).

 

I don't really like analogies to WW2 as I'm not sure they really help. I can have a good guess though what the reaction would have been if Concertina players had complained at the time if they had been banned from taking them on the buses.....

 

 

Sooner or later - if indeed these draconian restrictions persist - I hope organisations such as the Musicians Union might be able to negotiate some kind of deal by which the special needs of instrumentalists can be accommodated....

........but I believe I'm correct in saying that the MU have been trying to get somewhere for years on this issue - long before the impact of recent security alerts. Given how successful they were in the past, I wouldn't hold your breath.

 

 

Woody:

I'm a fan of history especially airlines and aviation. But his ideas did unite. Yes, some silly ideas in hindsight, but they worked. The anti aircraft fire was to put another layer for the bombs to go through, and hopefully knock some out on the way down; not the airplanes. Our idea (collectively) is divide, and misdirect the emphasis from the really bad things. Remember the bad guys are not me and you. Unfortunately collectively and individually we (the many) are paying the price for the sins of a few bad apples with an ineffective system, and I can assure you it will get worse, as their tactics change.

 

I'm not optimistic about the MU. Politically they have to try, we can be hopeful they'll succeed for all our benefit, but it won't get anywhere. In the US, ALPA (Airline Pilots Association), and the AFA (Association of Flight Attendants) haven't gotten anywhere with that argument. The opposite has been emphasized time and again here in the US that "They" need the flight crews as a visible support only to show the general population that something (no matter how misguided) is being done. The ground personel are conspicously absent from the general screening procedures since their shift changes 3 times a day would cripple the system as they are all going to work at the same time. Don't know about the rest of the world, however that's the way it is in the US.

 

History will show the results of all our speculation; however as an educated guess: it will change and get worse.

 

I'm really trying to stay off a soapbox for the forum; however I don't seem to be succeeding. Appologies to all.

 

Cheers, (with a Yank accent) and come to think of it I'm happy to be a proud concertina geek.

Thanks

Leo

Edited August 26, 2006 by Leo

[Brian Peters]

ceemonster's choice of phrasing may be unfortunate, but is it unfair to suggest that perhaps some posts have been somewhat self-absorbed with respect to the impact of this alert? What Concertina players are experiencing is nothing new to many other musicians. Certainly I don't think ceemonster's post can be considered disrespectful to the Concertina itself, but rather to players who have a different opinion to ceemonster's - and is it disrespectful to even suggest on C.net that there might be more important things in the world than playing the Concertina - no matter how difficult that may be to believe?

The whole point of C.net is to be a forum where concertina players and enthusiasts can discuss issues relating to concertinas. Why is it self-obsession to do precisely that? I object strongly to the implication of certain posts in this thread that to express concerns about the impact of recent anti-terror measures on concertina players is to display a lack of interest in the wider political issues. I have passionate views about recent events in the Lebanon, the Middle East as a whole, and my Prime Minister's policies, but I don't bring them here because that's not what C.net is for, and in any case it would only encourage the likes of duckln to reply with opposing political messages having no connection whatever to concertinas. Another implication I object to is that those of us upset by panicky and useless safety precautions believe that there should be no safety precautions, and that concertinas are more important than people's lives.

 

When ceemonster speaks of "the petulant whines of concertina geeks" he/she most certainly displays disrespect for the instrument, because one could never conceive of an orchestral musician being described as a "violin geek" or a "cello geek". The suggestion (granted that the term 'geek' is sometimes used here in a self-deprecating way) is that the instrument is essentially silly and that people who take it seriously are eccentric. And ceemonster's remark also recalls opinions expressed in other forums about musicians' present problems with air-travel, to the effect that music itself is unimportant and frivolous in a world beset by violence and tragedy. Which in my view is the opposite of the truth.

I'm not a member, but I believe I'm correct in saying that the MU have been trying to get somewhere for years on this issue - long before the impact of recent security alerts. Given how successful they were in the past, I wouldn't hold your breath.

You may well be right, but as a member myself I will certainly be contacting the MU about it right now. And it isn't always hopeless for musicians to advance their own special case. A year or so ago the US Department of Homeland Security circulated a memo to its immigration staff acknowledging that problems with visa processing times resulting, for instance, in distinguished foreign conductors being refused entry to work with the New York Philharmonic, were looking bad in the eyes of the world, and that they should expedite musicians' applications quicker in future. And my personal experience is that that they have. So let's kick up all the fuss we can.

Brian (Concertina PLAYER - not Geek)

[m3838]

Hmm.

I think Concertina players are mostly geeks, but fail to see what's wrong with it.

I also think concertinas are not serios instruments in the eyes of other people, and I understand their opinion. We are a bit eccentric, and I fail to see why it's wrong.

If I was conducting security, I would allow the agents to ban unfamiliar objects. It's a compromise with possible chance of averting a disaster. OK with me.

 

Been realistic and seen how baby carriages, elders and couples with children are scrutinized, airplane pilots' weapons ceased and any liquid with written prescription is allowed - I believe it may get worse.

 

As a person of very mid-eastern look and demeanor I'd rather face degree of discrimination and racial profiling, I'll volunteer and cheer up any freaking agent, who will single me out for thorough check-up.

It is the only serious counter-measure, at least till the time "they" will recruit young blond muslim europeans en-masse.

 

I understand the urgent need for concert and orchestra musicians to be able to travel with instruments.

Unfortunately Concertina is not such an instrument and I will be very suprized if it would be included in the list of traveleable instruments. Imagine, you would have to open it up, unscrew all the elements, put it back and play. And those razor sharp reeds?!

 

And to everybody who objects to security measures: guys, you sound like you really know what to do.

Offer your opinions to the authorities or to the public. It's tough, even for sharp people, much tougher for mediocre beurocrats, but will any of you, sharp intelligent individuals, volunteer to work at the airport for meager salary? And where to get the money for rasing that salary? Any reasonably well to do people here on the Forum? Will you donate most of your income to the airport agents? No? Even for a chance of security? Still no?

Hmm.

[Woody]

The whole point of C.net is to be a forum where concertina players and enthusiasts can discuss issues relating to concertinas. Why is it self-obsession to do precisely that?

Surely C.net is the right place if a Concertina player wants to challenge the views of other Concertina players expressed on this site - including challenging whether some players are letting their enthusiasm for the instrument skew their perspective. At the end of the day you have to put your instrument in the hold - just like many other musicians - and perhaps posts indicating that this is a big blow to civil liberties are a tad OTT.

 

I object strongly to the implication of certain posts in this thread that to express concerns about the impact of recent anti-terror measures on concertina players is to display a lack of interest in the wider political issues.

I'm not aware that anybody has said that. I believe ceemonster was saying that complaints about issues impacting on Concertina players would appear trivial in the, hopefully hypothetical, context of a major terrorist outrage.

 

Another implication I object to is that those of us upset by panicky and useless safety precautions believe that there should be no safety precautions, and that concertinas are more important than people's lives.

That's quite an accusation. Has anybody said that?

 

When ceemonster speaks of "the petulant whines of concertina geeks" he/she most certainly displays disrespect for the instrument........The suggestion ...... is that the instrument is essentially silly........

I think the "whines" of the "geeks" referred to must surely relate to the players, not the instruments. I haven't seen any posts, by ceemonster or anybody else, implying that the Concertina is a "silly" instrument.

 

Is it a crime to "disrespect" the Concertina or imply that it is trivial or silly. Are we going to have our own Inquisition?

 

Brian (Concertina PLAYER - not Geek)

In which case ceemonster is not referring to you. I, however, am a Concertina "geek" so ceemonster must be referring to me - but I take no offence.

 

And ceemonster's remark also recalls opinions expressed in other forums about musicians' present problems with air-travel, to the effect that music itself is unimportant and frivolous in a world beset by violence and tragedy. Which in my view is the opposite of the truth.

A bit unfair to damn ceemonster for what other people have said on other forums.

 

....it would only encourage the likes of duckln to reply with opposing political messages having no connection whatever to concertinas.

You noticed that too eh?

 

I'm not a member, but I believe I'm correct in saying that the MU have been trying to get somewhere for years on this issue - long before the impact of recent security alerts. Given how successful they were in the past, I wouldn't hold your breath.

You may well be right, but as a member myself I will certainly be contacting the MU about it right now......

It's hard to see how they can change a company or government's behaviour with less than a large scale orchestrated (excuse the pun ) campaign.

 

 

- W

 

Edited by Woody to add some extra points

Edited August 26, 2006 by Woody

[Chris Timson]

In which case ceemonster is not referring to you. I, however, am a Concertina "geek" so ceemonster must be referring to me - but I take no offence.

Then perhaps you could tell me what a Concertina "geek" actually is?

 

TIA

 

Chris

[Leo]

Then perhaps you could tell me what a Concertina "geek" actually is?.........

 

Chris

 

Chris

 

Comes from 16th century saxon "geck" In English the precursor word "geck" or "gecke" was used by Shakespeare: "Why have you suffer'd me to be imprison'd, kept in a dark house, visited by the priest, and made the most notorious geck and gull That e'er invention play'd on?" (Twelfth Night, V.i)

 

Now a badge of honor in the states to denote great expertise in a very small defined area to the exclusion of other stuff. (computer geek, band geek, etc).

 

What is nice compliment in one culture may be derogatory in another. Just like Yankee Doodle at one time became a badge of honor worn by us "colonists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geek#Etymology

 

Concertina geek?

I'll wear it with honor

Thanks

Leo

Woops! Sorry Woody I think we were posting at the same time.

Edited August 26, 2006 by Leo

[Woody]

In which case ceemonster is not referring to you. I, however, am a Concertina "geek" so ceemonster must be referring to me - but I take no offence.

Then perhaps you could tell me what a Concertina "geek" actually is?

I would use it as a synonym for an enthusiast - somebody who is very interested in his/her subject regardless of whether they enjoy employment through it. (For example a computer "geek" would be somebody who enjoyed using computers regardless of whether they work in the field. Conversely you could have people working in computing who have no interest in computers except as a means to gainful employment - they would not be "geeks".) Your mileage may vary.

 

I'm not suggesting that Brian uses the same definition.

 

TIA

????

[Woody]

...Now a badge of honor in the states to denote great expertise in a very small defined area to the exclusion of other stuff. (computer geek, band geek, etc).

Under this definition I'd have to class myself as wannabe-geek

[Chris Timson]

Thanks.

 

So how would that compare with "concertina maven", which is another phrase which has also been applied to me but which I did not understand. Maven is not a word used this side of the Pond, unless Leo can find another quote from Shakespeare ...

 

Chris

[JimLucas]

So how would that compare with "concertina maven", which is another phrase which has also been applied to me but which I did not understand. Maven is not a word used this side of the Pond, unless Leo can find another quote from Shakespeare ...

Some quote from Shylock?

 

"Maven" is a Yiddish (East-European Jewish) word with connotations of both "expert" and "connoisseur". But as I've encountered its use in New York, it implies something more, a kind of top-of-the-heap superiority, what others might call an "expert among experts" or a "connoisseur's connoisseur".

 

I think "maven" also implies a certain social status associated with the expertise, whereas "geek" often implies social isolation deriving from single-mindedness.

[JimLucas]

If I was conducting security, I would allow the agents to ban unfamiliar objects.

If I were in charge of security, I would (among other things) require that the agents become familiar with all objects. Any object that is unfamiliar should be fully identified before being released, whether onto the plane or not. That would produce some individual delays, but in the long run it would increase the agents' expertise at identifying objects, resulting in greater convenience as well as greater security for travelers.

 

It's a compromise with possible chance of averting a disaster.

Is it? I think my proposal is more likely to identify any real bombs and put the bombers in custody. Yours might thwart an individual bombing, but would likely also leave the "security" folks ignorant of the fact that it had been attempted, and leave the bombers free to try again.

 

As a person of very mid-eastern look and demeanor I'd rather face degree of discrimination and racial profiling, I'll volunteer and cheer up any freaking agent, who will single me out for thorough check-up. It is the only serious counter-measure, at least till the time "they" will recruit young blond muslim europeans en-masse.

But it's not. It's not serious at all, because it ignores the possibility of folks like Timoth McVey. Sorry, but I want to be protected against all terrorists, not just those with MidEastern facial features. And I don't think that "cheering up" a security inspector by pandering to racial stereotypes will have any positive effect on security.

 

I understand the urgent need for concert and orchestra musicians to be able to travel with instruments. Unfortunately Concertina is not such an instrument and I will be very suprized if it would be included in the list of traveleable instruments. Imagine, you would have to open it up, unscrew all the elements, put it back and play. And those razor sharp reeds?!

... 1) I don't think anybody here was suggesting that concertinas be allowed and violins not. It's the general rule we find objectionable, because it's inconvenience and risk without any real increase in personal security, and a definite decrease in security for all musical instruments.

... 2) As for having to open up a concertina to demonstrate its harmlessness, I claim that any "security inspector" who can't tell from the x-rays that it's neither electronic nor more dangerous than a well-placed kick lacks the competence necessary to provide actual security.

... 3) "Razor sharp reeds"? If you meant that to be a joke, you should have used a smiley. Aside from the fact that compared to razors they're extremely blunt, I could do more damage with my teeth than I think could be done with concertina reeds. But still not enough to blow up or even divert a jumbo jet.

 

And to everybody who objects to security measures: guys, you sound like you really know what to do.

Yes, I believe I do, if security were the only criterion. Unfortunately, it would take political and social manipulation on a grand scale to get functioning security placed before favoritism and short-term profits in government priorities. I'm just not tooled up for that.

 

Offer your opinions to the authorities or to the public.

Others before me have offered some very useful and concrete suggestions, but they have been repeatedly ignored by those who currently have the power to implement them.

 

It's tough, even for sharp people, much tougher for mediocre beurocrats, but will any of you, sharp intelligent individuals, volunteer to work at the airport for meager salary?

Well, since I believe that one of the first requirements is that the salaries paid to the actual inspectors not be meager, I don't consider that to be a meaningful question. But I'll answer it, anyway, in a broader sense.

 

If I were given the power to implement truly effective security procedures -- power which would have to include authority to employ only individuals with exceptional competence and to pay them reasonably for their skill -- then yes, I would be willing to take a "meager" salary for myself. But only for myself. I would insist on paying others what they're worth... and on employing only those I would be willing to trust with my life and yours.

 

And where to get the money for rasing that salary?

To answer that question requires weighing other political/cultural values, since only the national governments and large corporations have the resources to pay adequate salaries on the necessary scale. (My own income wouldn't adequately compensate even one expert inspector, much less adequate staffs for all the US airports.) Would diverting the entire $89 billion US budget for "Education, training, employment, and social services" be enough? Or the Katrina recovery funds? What about a tax increase? Or just cancelling the recent tax cuts?

 

Actually, I'd be willing to pay more for a plane ticket if it insured the security of myself and my possessions. Unfortunately, the way the system is currently implemented, it can't.

 

Earlier in this thread I provided a link to a British news story about a 12-year-old boy who managed to actually board a plane without any staff or officials being aware that he had done so, until he was discovered by a member of the flight crew. That was during the period of the suddenly-imposed "tighter" security, and before any relaxation of the new rules. I consider the fact that he was able to do this at least as great a threat to security -- mine and everyone else's -- as the plans of the accused terrorists. But I haven't seen any announcements of an investigation into how he was able to accomplish what he did, nor of any action to ensure that it cannot happen again.

 

In my estimation, none of the new procedures implemented at the airports since the arrest of the alleged would-be bombers have increased security, only inconvenience. And I feel that my possessions are even less secure than before.

 

So I will continue to be critical of the "effort".

[Brian Peters]

Woody,

Life’s too short for me to get into some protracted nit-picking argument, so here’s my last contribution on this topic. It appears my sense that “geek” carries derogatory connotations is not universally shared, but I’m with Jim in believing that it’s commonly used to convey anti-social obsession. “Petulant whines”, however, definitely carries derogatory connotations, and I thought it might be worth checking the actual posts that had occasioned such a contemptuous remark. What I found were a number of practical suggestions regarding carrying instruments as hold baggage (entirely in keeping with the original thread topic); anecdotal evidence from people’s recent personal experiences; comments regarding the likely efficacy of the recent measures and the competence of airport security staff; political speculations about possible government conspiracies, and annoyance about foreign policies that have got us all into this mess. So where was the whining? The comment that offended ceemonster seems to have been Dirge’s “I object to being inconvenienced like this”, which in context was clearly a politically-based complaint rather than special pleading for concertina players.

 

You've twice commented on “self-interest” or “self-absorption”, ascribing these characteristics to “the majority of opinions posted in this topic”. I don’t think that’s in any way justified, having read through them again. To repeat myself, discussing the practical implications of baggage restrictions on concertina players is precisely what this forum is for. And anyone, anywhere, is going to examine developments of this kind in terms of the impact on their own life. That "self-interest" is simple human nature and doesn’t compromise a person's concern for the wider picture.

I object strongly to the implication of certain posts in this thread that to express concerns about the impact of recent anti-terror measures on concertina players is to display a lack of interest in the wider political issues.

I'm not aware that anybody has said that.

Another implication I object to is that those of us upset by panicky and useless safety precautions believe that there should be no safety precautions, and that concertinas are more important than people's lives.

That's quite an accusation. Has anybody said that?

I think you should note the difference between "said" and "implied". I still think those things were implied.

 

Is it a crime to "disrespect" the Concertina or imply that it is trivial or silly. Are we going to have our own Inquisition?

To adopt your own approach, when did I suggest any of that? The phrase I used was "I'm astonished".

 

Surely C.net is the right place if a Concertina player wants to challenge the views of other Concertina players expressed on this site

Which of course is what I am doing. I've not suggested ceemonster's posts be edited or censored - I've merely disagreed with their content and expressed distaste for the way in which they were expressed. Had the post read, "Hey folks, let's try to get this all in perspective", I doubt if I'd have remarked on it at all. We don't need bad manners and insults here, and nor do we need blanket denunciations on the basis of isolated remarks.

Brian

[JimLucas]

It appears my sense that “geek” carries derogatory connotations is not universally shared, but I’m with Jim in believing that it’s commonly used to convey anti-social obsession.

It's not uncommon for people who are disparaged to take pride in that characteristic which their critics deride. That doesn't make a term any less offensive when used deliberately as invective.

[geoffwright]

Part and parcel of the "intelligence" (sic) is who travels regularly to where, and hopefully what they take with them. It shouldn't come as a surprise to those dealing with airport security, that regular air-travellers, who are also musicians, want to take (of all things) musical instruments as cabin luggage.

Although an MU member since leaving school, of late, they seem to give the impression that, although always helpful when you need them, they don't really want to listen to members. The website forum has been defunct for some time after some members dared to criticise the union for devolving local branches, and just looking today, there is no reference whatsoever to any matters of airport security, the last press release being July.

 

Last weeks Crottyfest ended with some of the Sheffield-ites being charged extra for instruments that had been taken out of the country only days before, with my wife's lipstick being confiscated without comment, and me being told I shouldn't have packed my box, carefully cocooned, in my luggage - I should have done the same as the others and book it into the hold separately so DireAir could charge me extra to lose/damage it.

Not an ideal situation and hardly surprising that Phoney Bliar decided to wash his hands of it and stop abroard (no doubt borrowing Cliff's guitar when he wanted a strum).

[Leo]

So how would that compare with "concertina maven", which is another phrase which has also been applied to me but which I did not understand. Maven is not a word used this side of the Pond, unless Leo can find another quote from Shakespeare ...

Chris

 

Chris I just got lucky on this one. From my high school studies too long ago in Shakespeare I remember spending a lot of time with a dictionary. Chaucer was even worse. When computers became popular in the early 80's; the term crept in so I went back and realised they were almost the same term. I don't think I could duplicate that combination again in my lifetime. Just a one time. Jim is right "concertina maven" is a good thing. Although I don't know of a masculine term for "diva" unless we go to "divus" meaning divine one (on the extreme end someone to look up to). Another good thing.

 

I just realised we need 7 more posts to reach #2 in replies. I don't think it will reach #1. That's too good a topic to supercede. Methinks I talk too much.

(note different search criterion=different results, but not by much)

Thanks

Leo

Edited September 15, 2006 by Leo

[m3838]

Jim, we have a hiring pool for airport security the way it is, not the way you or me would have wanted.

I have two first hand expiriences regarding this:

1. An equaintance, brilliant mathematician and programmer, russian immigrant, due to lack of some personal skills, couldn't find work in his field for many years. Insteand he found a job at SF airport. Been a government job, it had very good medical coverage, but very small salary. Most of his work pals were poor immigrants from Asia, little English skills and almost no education. The same people are checking our laggage today.

2. When I bought a house, it had two tenants. It had three, but the top tenant, an arab from Morocco, avid collector of stereo equipment from the 80es, wanted garage space, been used by a poor chinese family, sawiing clothes in the basement. It was their only mean of survival. Collector complained to authorities, Chinese were kicked out for living in illegal appartment. The house stopped been profitable for the owner and had to be sold. I got it. But I couldn't move into it, because the freaking Moroccan wouldn't vacate.

Usual San Francisco Horror story. 4 months later, having almost lost the house, we are moving into. The arab has ruined his credit (so I'm told). He escaped, changed his phone number and gave several false names with our address, to which we still recieve large bills. He owes us $5000 in rent payments.

Next thing we know, my wife saw him checking luggage at the airport. Great!

 

On racial profiling. There is one Timothy McWay, and thousands mid-eastern wannabe-martirs.

You gotta be realistic, not fair, nor 100% successful. There's always someone unhappy against thousands safe.

It's against my political views, against my moral believes etc. But my believes were concieved during different times, and are clearly at odds with the modern necessities. Sticking to them would make me self-absorbed traitor, putting my personal convinience against people's safety.

There is russian saying: "if you spit in the face of the people, they will simply wipe. But if all the people spit in your face, you'll drown".

 

As far as the rest of your ideas, I totally agree with them with the caveat: it is impossible to get familiar with all objects, so a chance of seen unfamiliar one still persists, and it is wise to ban it.

[duckln]

 

*... but I don't bring them here because that's not what C.net is for, and in any case it would only encourage the likes of duckln to reply with opposing political messages having no connection whatever to concertinas.

 

Thank you for the invitation to respond. I do so only because of balance, but I'll be shorter, and to the point. In the States, conservatives say 'guns don't kill, people do' . What's brought onto our Airplanes

don't kill, it's the people. So far all Islamic Fascists.

 

The Israelis 'solved the problem' by 'racial profiling'. They focus on people, not technical detection

devices or 'rediculous searches'.

 

* Another implication I object to is that those of us upset by panicky and useless safety precautions believe that there should be no safety precautions, and that concertinas are more important than people's lives.

 

Odd, but you could't be more right. The right to carry concertinas and

any other legal items, is freedom, and worth fighting for. By and large, the last five years of improved

airport security was a waste. All meaningless.

 

A good read on the subject.

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=143

[JimLucas]

Jim, we have a hiring pool for airport security the way it is, not the way you or me would have wanted.

Exactly. In case you didn't notice, that's one of my primary complaints. It's one of the reasons (though hardly the only one) why "airport security" in the US is currently an oxymoron.

 

One of the advantages of living in a Western democracy is that we don't have to accept government procedures just because "that's the way it is". Paying unconscionably low wages to those to whom we're entrusting our lives is not the same sort of immutable law as gravity, and I will continue to campaign for policies that actually provide security.

 

If someone sold me a "Jeffries anglo" and delivered a cheap Chinese 'box, I would be righteously furious. Should I be pleased if I'm "sold" a "Jeffries" security system and it turns out to be a plastic toy?

 

As far as the rest of your ideas, I totally agree with them with the caveat: it is impossible to get familiar with all objects, so a chance of seen unfamiliar one still persists, and it is wise to ban it.

I didn't claim that it's possible to reach a point at which there is no such thing as an unfamiliar object. I do claim that it should be possible to develop procedures to analyze unfamiliar objects and determine their danger. I outlined a process whereby such procedures could be used not only to protect against dangerous objects, however unfamiliar, which at the same time would have the effect of extending the range of what is "familiar", increasing the security agents' ability to protect us.

 

An ability to learn from experience is essential to true security. Rejecting the chance to learn from the unfamiliar fosters insecurity.