As someone who flies a lot, I understand the need for security on airplanes but I think TSA is going overboard with the screening of passengers and personally, I don't think air travel is safer because of their procedures.

The other day, there was a guy who tried to board a plane in San Diego. Before going to the airport, he checked on-line to see if the airport had a full body scanner. The TSA website said it didn't, but once he got there, he discovered it did. He didn't want to go through so he was told that he would have to have a pat down-a quite intrusive pat down which he decided to opt out of flying. He cashed in his ticket and was heading for the exit when someone from the TSA told him that he had to FINISH his screening or be fined. WTF??!!! The guy said he was leaving but TSA STILL wanted to screen him.


http://www.passportmagazine.com/blog/index.php?/archives/1909-Man-Who-Refused-Full-Body-Scan-Faces-11K-Fine.html

TSA is such a joke. Everyone who flies knows that. We can't bring water on because ONE person tried to bring on explosives in liquid form. We have to take off our shoes because ONE person tried to put explosives in theirs. I'm surprised we don't have to take off our underwear because ONE person tried to bring explosives in theirs. But, that is why the full body scanners came into place-which is VERY intrusive not to mention could be dangerous in terms of radiation. Also, if would-be terrorists really wanted to, they could put explosives in body cavities which won't be picked up by the scanners.

TSA says that the images on the scanners are not saved yet about 100 of the images have been "leaked."

http://www.kdvr.com/news/kwgn-icafe-bodyscanleaked-txt,0,7973792.story

Yeah, you can opt out of the scanners for a pat down but even the pat downs have gotten a bit more intrusive. Even the TSA boss says so.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101117/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_airport_security

The last time we went down to Puerto Rico (in Sept.), the Burlington Airport was doing extra screening and I was chosen to be pat down. Yeah, I know. I must look like an unsavory character. I didn't find the pat down TOO intrusive-so I guess the new procedures haven't gotten to Burlington YET. (Oh, and Carlos had his hand swabbed for explosives. Yup-he must look like an unsavory character, too.)

So, the TSA is really being VERY intrusive in the screening process and in the meanwhile, the cargo goes unscreened COMPLETELY!!!! That doesn't make sense that people are subjected to all sorts of probes and perversions but yet, packages can go without any hassle.


There is now a boycott against full body scanners to take place the day before Thanksgiving (one of the busiest flying days) .

http://news.cheapflights.co.uk/2010/11/us-body-scanner-boycott-gains-momentum/


They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
                                            -Benjamin Franklin



Thoughts? Comments?


Cat

Why are the TSA people patting down 3 year old kids? I mean I saw a clip on TV and the 3 year old was crying because she was being patted down.

A woman a saw on TV said she wants to sue TSA because the woman who patted her down touched her upper body and her butt.

Airline passengers feel demoralized.  I don't blame them.  The demoralization did not start on the airlines.  It started with our hostile and suspicious attitudes towards one another.  To paraphrase Queen, "We are the terrorists, my friend."  What choice does the TSA have when the public cries out for risk-free flight?  Some say some of us can be trusted, some say none of us can be trusted, but none say all of us can be trusted.  It is safest to trust no one.  

I have not flown since 1991.  I might never fly again.  I see the hub-bub about pat-downs and shrug.  It doesn't affect me, does it?  But it does!  The suspicion at the airports is a symptom of our sickness.  Institutions public and private watch our behavior, our movements, our money, our lack of money, our health, our sickness, our employment, and our unemployment.  They track where we go online, what we say on the telephone, and who we say it to.  Free society?  Hell-no!!!

The airport is where the rubber meets the road (bad metaphor).  The airport is one of a few places where they physically touch us.  Thus, we feel the oppression in a literal and personal way.  However, make no mistake.  The same oppression by government and corporations is ALWAYS there.  

With the aid of the rich and the powerful, we decided it was a good idea to let all the power and influence in society fall into the hands of a few rich and powerful people.  Those of us who remember the way the culture changed when Reagan galloped in on his regal white steed saw it happen.  We learned to point the finger at the dispossessed and the downtrodden and not at the a-holes in charge.  The result is a demand for suspicion of all.  You can't get a job emptying garbage cans in a hospital without the hospital performing a CORI check.  If you got a DUI conviction in 1992, no job for you!  Free society?  Hell-no!!!

What do you expect from oppressors but oppression?  The problem with oppression is once human beings assume it belongs, they don't want to challenge it.  We think it protects us from the bad guys.

No need for revolution at this time.  The oppressive establishment is collapsing on itself.  

Meanwhile you might as well accept being bullied at the airport.  Pretty soon fuel will get so expensive the cost of flying will be prohibitive.  Enjoy it while you can.

resposting my thoughts/comment from a friend's FB link:

it's all a gov't racket to make more money, take more freedoms and right, and provide a false sense of safety to a vast number of Americans who do not need it. How many planes in the US have been brought down by acts of terrorism since 9/11? 0. case closed. throw this useless sheesh away.

(some person named Chirs writes something to the effect of "blah blah, you ar very opinionated, so I will keep to myself, because I cant back up my initial post of "Better to be safe than sorry.)


Yesterday at 2:57pm · Like
Jack Fletcher To whom do you write, Chris? Jeff and I are opinionated, yes, however I am always willing to hear the other side, no matter my position. Yes, I would rather be safe than sorry too, but actual safety and perceived safety are two totally different animals. Example: wearing steel toed boots on a jobsite is something that actually increases your safety. Wearing blaze orange vests inside a dimly lit building, just because highway workers get a benefit from it, is a matter of perceived safety.

On a more related note, there are some things I am willing to allow, like walking thru a metal detector on the way into a theme park or courthouse, or airport. It is prudent and imo not a violation of my rights or yours, regardless of whether or not it increases safety in any measurable way. A nationwide boycott of air travel for a week would put an end to this. Even if you are okay with it, where to then next, cavity searches? Last time I checked I was a free man, not a prisoner.

Your turn lol.
Yesterday at 3:17pm · Like

(Chris then deletes both her comments. lol)

Ant

Why are the TSA people patting down 3 year old kids?


Because they're harboring pedophiles.  Because the Rapiscan machines make money for former HomeSec secretary Chertoff.  Does it have to be an either/or thing?

I feel a rant coming on.

Once upon a time,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v16/PicsOfMax/firstsearch.jpg

...that was satire. And even the satirist had the... umm... (decency really isn't quite the right word, is it?), to say "Ages 6 and up".  But that was back in the days when Teen Sexual Abusers had white uniforms and gaudy patches sewn on as badges.  No more.  This is the age in which Touchers of Sexual Areas wear blue and have shiny badges, almost like real LEOs.

http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2010/11/500x_tsa-humor-2.jpg

Funny, we're not allowed to make jokes at the TSA checkpoints, but if the TSA making jokes about fisting your children, hey, it's all good, right?

Taking off our shoes didn't do it, freedom baggies didn't do it, but freedom fondling might just be the straw that breaks the TSA's back.

Sure, you've got the backscatter X-ray machines (aka the dick-measuring device), which are reasonably safe when used as designed, but I still opt for the pat-down because I get enough rads from flying... and because I don't trust TSA to accurately operate the equipment.


Meanwhile you might as well accept being bullied at the airport.


I'm not accepting it.  I'm embracing it.  Because it's over for me in 5 minutes and I'm willing to take one for the team.  I mean, I'm not the one who has to grope hot sweaty balls for $10/hour.  So help me Dobbs if this isn't over by next Thanksgiving I'll wear a kilt and go regimental.  (I will be sympathizing with the guy who has to fondle me - especially since I'll skip the shower that morning, because who knows how long a pat-down will take.  It won't take too long for me, because I'm not hot enough to warrant attention even if my Freedom Fondler is gay.  Plenty of hotter dudes for him to get his freak on with.)

But parents...Do you really trust that skeevy TSA guy who looks at naked kids every day to behave himself when he changes shifts to the one which he gets to grope the real thing?  Damn, I'm glad I don't have kids.  When you teach your kids about the difference between "good touch" and "bad touch", didn't you teach them that "bad touch" meant anybody?  Surely you didn't teach then "nobody can touch your private parts unless they work for the government, and then you have to let them do whatever they want", right?  Didn't we just spend 20 years going through this crap the hard way with the Catholic Church?  Do we have to do this again just to go to farking Disneyland?  

So opt out of the Rapiscan (Was it supposed to mean "rapid-scan", or was it pronounced it "rapist-scan" as an in-joke?) machine.  You're not opting out.  You're merely requesting an alternative security screening procedure.  Take one for the team.  

And when the TSA guy feels you up, sympathize.  Tell him you know he's just following orders, but ask him if he's sure that all of his co-workers aren't...

http://i.imgur.com/zB7xt.png

...you know, not like this guy or this guy.  (Boy, it's a good thing that the head TSA thug said that persons under 12 are exempt from fondling.  Your 14-year-old daughter feels safer already!)

The more seeds of doubt you can plant in the minds of the TSA workers, the more likely it is they'll demand a change.  The more seeds of doubt you can plant in the minds of your fellow travelers (seriously, can you imagine how many defrocked Catholic priests are lining up right now to work for the TSA?), the sooner even the ingoramuses in Congress will have to end this madness.  

If you're in Texas or some other Bible Belt state, you can make the same point about homosexuality instead of pedophilia.  I mean, your TSA screener is obviously a straight shooter who hates this part of the job even more than you hate getting felt up, but ask him about his co-workers.  I mean, what kind of man volunteers to handle hundreds of men's balls all day long?  (You get double bone-us points for using that line if you're traveling from the Bible Belt to somewhere like San Francisco.)

If you're not man enough to opt-out of the dick-measuring machine, bring some Viagra or just think of something suitably steamy, and enchubbinate yourself.  Wink at the guard and tell 'em 'em you're a shower, not a grower...  Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude, so  show 'em whatcha got.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/anxiety.png

...because moaning and faking like you're enjoying it could expose yourself (heh!) to the possibility of being beaten or otherwise charged with sexually assaulting the poor TSA slob who's been ordered to feel your junk.

But whatever you do, opt out.  If you don't, you're admitting the terrorists have already won.

http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/6098/panic3y.jpg

We let them get away with this.  Are we going to let them get away with abusing our children?  What happens when the next suicide bomber shows up with a bomb in his ass - a method that cannot be detected by either a Freedom Fondling or a backscatter X-Ray, which only show objects on the outside of the skin?  Will we submit to cavity searches next?

We're Americans.  For the first time in ten years, let's start acting like it.

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_g1anoS9ybVs/TOMeSeQhvyI/AAAAAAAABAg/j-ld7gYgwnQ/s400/JGasden.png

Seriously, America, has it come to this?

EightThree-year-olds, dude.

I'm glad I've never flown.

I don't really wanna fly anymore for this reason, I don't want the TSA looking at/touching my "junk". And now with these pictures ending up on the internet who can really trust these people, I don't. Pretty soon it's gonna be like drop your pants and bend over for the TSA anal probe before boarding.

I don't really wanna fly anymore for this reason, I don't want the TSA looking at/touching my "junk". And now with these pictures ending up on the internet who can really trust these people, I don't. Pretty soon it's gonna be like drop your pants and bend over for the TSA anal probe before boarding.


Neither do I.

But today on NPR, the TSA's head Freedom Fondler - John Pistole himself - all but admitted that the Dick-Measuring Device won't detect bombs in body cavities, and that he'll defend his bureaucracy (and Michael Chertoff's moneymaker) by all available means.

Most of the freedom fondlers probably aren't pedos or freaks or otherwise trying to get off on you.  Don't travel by air - but if you must, then by all means make your freedom fondler feel as uncomfortable as possible about what he's doing - because if we don't make this stop here, the anal probes are next.  

The guy in charge of Israeli air security said we're going about it entirely the wrong way.  He'd be right if it was about security rather than demoralizing the general public with a good old initiation of state force over the general public!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/ninja.gif

The guy in chair of Israeli air security said we're going about it entirely the wrong way.  He'd be right if it was about security rather than demoralizing the general public with a good old initiation of state force over the general public!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/ninja.gif



I was going to say the exact same thing.


I wish that we didn't have to fly anymore but unfortunately, yesterday I bought two tickets to Puerto Rico.  :-\\  We are flying down in January again. Hopefully things will have changed by then but I'm not counting on it. So far, both airports we go through do NOT have those full body scanners (knock on wood) and I hope they don't get them. I have already told Carlos if they do get the full body scanner-I will opt for the pat-down. At least I'm not going to get radiation from a pat-down or my x-rays won't find their way onto the internet.


Cat

I was going to say the exact same thing.


I wish that we didn't have to fly anymore but unfortunately, yesterday I bought two tickets to Puerto Rico.  :-\\  We are flying down in January again. Hopefully things will have changed by then but I'm not counting on it. So far, both airports we go through do NOT have those full body scanners (knock on wood) and I hope they don't get them. I have already told Carlos if they do get the full body scanner-I will opt for the pat-down. At least I'm not going to get radiation from a pat-down or my x-rays won't find their way onto the internet.


Cat


If you're going to PR, what's the alternative?  Are you going to drive to Miami and take a cruise ship?  That would be daft.  It would take ten times as long and cost ten times as much!  That's how they stick it to you at the airport.  No pun intended. 

Yeah, pondering what Foo said about "taking one for the team," I wouldn't care of some TSA guy touched my junk.  I wouldn't look forward to it, but I wouldn't get anxious about it either.  If my scan ended up on the Internet I wouldn't pay it much mind either.  Maybe some pervo would look at it once...but I'll bet you a nickel he wouldn't look at it twice!
;D

But I'm a middle-aged guy.  What's it to me? 

The difference is women feel much more modest about their bodies.  Not all do, but most.  Furthermore, men are much more voyeuristic than women.  Who watches "Hot College Girl Web Cams"?  Lonely middle-aged men.  Who watches "Hot College Guy Web Cams"?  Lonely middle-aged men.  I live in a hyper-politically correct town where somebody's going to get offended if you point out the differences between male and female attitudes about bodily exposure.  I'm not saying women should or should not feel more modest.  I'm just saying they do.

It's also a matter of intention.  The security check at the airport is not a pick-up joint.  If the guy sitting at the next bar stool reached for my junk, I'd say, "What the **** you doin,' Mac?  Don't even think about trying that again!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/angry7.gif ;D

If you're going to PR, what's the alternative?  Are you going to drive to Miami and take a cruise ship?  That would be daft.  It would take ten times as long and cost ten times as much!  That's how they stick it to you at the airport.  No pun intended. 

Yeah, pondering what Foo said about "taking one for the team," I wouldn't care of some TSA guy touched my junk.  I wouldn't look forward to it, but I wouldn't get anxious about it either.  If my scan ended up on the Internet I wouldn't pay it much mind either.  Maybe some pervo would look at it once...but I'll bet you a nickel he wouldn't look at it twice!
;D

But I'm a middle-aged guy.  What's it to me? 

The difference is women feel much more modest about their bodies.  Not all do, but most.  Furthermore, men are much more voyeuristic than women.  Who watches "Hot College Girl Web Cams"?  Lonely middle-aged men.  Who watches "Hot College Guy Web Cams"?  Lonely middle-aged men.  I live in a hyper-politically correct town where somebody's going to get offended if you point out the differences between male and female attitudes about bodily exposure.  I'm not saying women should or should not feel more modest.  I'm just saying they do.

It's also a matter of intention.  The security check at the airport is not a pick-up joint.  If the guy sitting at the next bar stool reached for my junk, I'd say, "What the **** you doin,' Mac?  Don't even think about trying that again!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/angry7.gif ;D



You don't have to tell me that there is no alternative way to get to PR. Believe you mean, I looked and looked and looked. We COULD do it but we would have to buy FOUR tickets on a cruise ship-instead of just two (two for the way down & two for the way home) at over $1000 a pop! That is over $4000 for just one trip.  :o :o :o  Not no, but HELL NO! So, we have to fly and subject ourselves to the mess at the airports. (Not to mention my extreme fear of flying.)


As for me, it doesn't really bother me too much about being patted down (like I experienced in Sept.) and if my x-rays showed up on the internet, who is going to know it is me? The point being is that we (the collective we as in society) really shouldn't be subjected to that when it does little good. Also, there is a health issue with the scanners. There are so many other less intrusive ways to screen passengers. Like that guy on Keith said-INTERVIEW passengers. Or why not just have a metal detector (like they have had for decades) and bomb-sniffing dogs? I would much rather have a dog sniff my crotch than someone pat it down.



Cat 

I'd feel better about somebody patting down my 'nards if at least they had a brass pole and played some cheesy '70's porno synth music whilst doing it.  ;D

The whole threat of terrorism is one of the biggest scams, the actual risk of terrorism to the average American is monumentally smaller than say getting struck by lightning. It's just a scam that the government uses as an excuse to erode our rights and the more people are ok with invasive searches and wiretaps the more the government will just keep taking away.


http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/odds-of-airborne-terror.html

I'd feel better about somebody patting down my 'nards if at least they had a brass pole and played some cheesy '70's porno synth music whilst doing it.   ;D


The TSA should pay the doctors to do it at double the Medicare reimbursement rate.  You could go through security AND get your prostate exam!  Get 'em both over with.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_thumleft.gif

I thought of a great little bit of civil disobedience to mess with the TSA creeps.

Unfortunately only men can do this, but next time you have to fly and you're standing in the security line, get on your phone, surf some porn, and conjure up the angriest, stiffest, most massive throbbing hardon you can possibly muster, and then smile coyly when one of the TSA meatgazers inspects your junk.

And then say something like, "Ooh...easy there, sailor!"  :D

I thought of a great little bit of civil disobedience to mess with the TSA creeps.

Unfortunately only men can do this, but next time you have to fly and you're standing in the security line, get on your phone, surf some porn, and conjure up the angriest, stiffest, most massive throbbing hardon you can possibly muster, and then smile coyly when one of the TSA meatgazers inspects your junk.


OK, quit braggin'...  :P

I thought of a great little bit of civil disobedience to mess with the TSA creeps.

Unfortunately only men can do this, but next time you have to fly and you're standing in the security line, get on your phone, surf some porn, and conjure up the angriest, stiffest, most massive throbbing hardon you can possibly muster, and then smile coyly when one of the TSA meatgazers inspects your junk.

And then say something like, "Ooh...easy there, sailor!"  :D


Then maybe they'll just take you into one of those little rooms for a talk...that'll curb your enthusiasm!
:o

I thought of a great little bit of civil disobedience to mess with the TSA creeps.

Unfortunately only men can do this, but next time you have to fly and you're standing in the security line, get on your phone, surf some porn, and conjure up the angriest, stiffest, most massive throbbing hardon you can possibly muster, and then smile coyly when one of the TSA meatgazers inspects your junk.

And then say something like, "Ooh...easy there, sailor!"  :D



Next Wednesday, they are trying to get guys to go through security with just a kilt ALA "The Scotsman."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65hOhj94ZGE



Cat

Next Wednesday, they are trying to get guys to go through security with just a kilt ALA "The Scotsman."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65hOhj94ZGE



Cat


Who's doing this? That's a great idea!

Who's doing this? That's a great idea!



http://current.com/news/92801054_wear-a-kilt-and-go-commando-to-protest-tsa-on-november-24-national-opt-out-day.htm



Cat

http://current.com/news/92801054_wear-a-kilt-and-go-commando-to-protest-tsa-on-november-24-national-opt-out-day.htm



Cat


Well the TSA agents wear rubber gloves anyway.

If I were a TSA agent and some dude showed up wearing a kilt... Well, let's just say his bagpipes would get a rather rough patdown and he'd never pull that stunt again.  ;D

If I were a TSA agent and some dude showed up wearing a kilt... Well, let's just say his bagpipes would get a rather rough patdown and he'd never pull that stunt again.   ;D


Like I said.  I may not have the balls to grab a weapon and stand a post in Afghanistan...

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/39244/JunkGrab.jpg

...but I'm willing to take a punch in the nuts for America.  Aren't you?

They know they're obeying orders that, while legal, are wrong.  They just don't have the balls (or ovaries) to stand up and make it stop.  Fair enough - it doesn't matter where the train goes, as long as the gold-starred sneeches get on it.  Making it stop (and if he lacks the courage to stop it here, he lacks the courage to stop it when it gets that far) isn't his job.  

As citizens, that's our job.

"Sir, I know we're just following procedure.  You're just doing your job.  It's not personal, it's not sexual.  You're just following orders.  And you probably hate this as much as I do.  Your boss told you to feel balls all day, so you do.  But if you won't draw the line here, where will you draw the line?  You've told us for nine years that policies can change.  When the policy changes next year and you have to actually fingerfark the kids, is that when you'll say 'no'?  If my boss told me to fondle a kid's nuts, I'd say 'no', not 'how hard'.  There's people from every country in the world flying through this airport.  You don't have to quit today.  You don't even have to be the one who does it.  All we're asking is that one of you guys - one out of the tens of thousands of your fellow TSOs who hate this part of the job as much as you do says 'enough', walks off the job, in front of a camera, and tells not just his boss - but the people from every country in the world you have to watch you fondling us - tell them what it means to be an American again.  You're an American, Sir, all you gotta do is start acting like one!"

And for those of you who think this is a futile gesture, it's not.  It's working.  The justified humiliation they're getting at the hands of their fellow Americans is pushing them to the breaking point.  

Y'know if one guy, just one guy, does it wearin' a kilt, they'll think he's just Scottish and they'll punch him in the nuts and let him on his way.
And if two guys hum the national anthem, in harmony, then they'll think they're both cross-dressers and they won't grope either of 'em.
And if three travelers - can you imagine three kilt-wearin' travelers walkin' through the checkpoint, hummin' a bar of the national anthem, they may think it's an organization.
And can you imagine fifty people a day, I said FIFTY PEOPLE A DAY, walkin' through the checkpoint, hummin' the national anthem while they're gettin' their balls felt up, and friends, they may think it's a movement...
The Alice's Restaurant anti-junk-touchin' movement, and all you gotta do to join is to opt out when it comes around on November 24th...

Hmm.

Thanksgiving.

That gives me an idea.

I'm not proud... or tired.

...but I'm willing to take a punch in the nuts for America.  Aren't you?



Per my siggie, I'm not willing to take in the Sachs for Goldman.*

I would have an easier time of it if I thought we were innocent victims in our national nervousness; if I believed the corporations who buy the politicians had loyalty to this country.

*Just a pun.  No anti-Semitism intended.

Actually, I don't have a problem with it at all.

Heck, for me it is an adventure every single time I fly.  I did not fly for many years, then I had to fly from Alabama to Oaklahoma to start my training in 2007.

I almost missed my flight.

This is because I found out there is a Jordanian connected with a PLO ofshoot that uses my name as an alias.  I was catching a flight with a ticket paid for by the US Army, and they did not want me to board the flight without a longer check.  The Sergeant that was sending me off spent 10 minutes explaining how I had already passed a preliminary FBI background check, and that there was no way I was a terrorist.

Then a few months later I flew to Phoenix.  I could not use the automatic check-in, and almost missed that flight because of the extra checks needed.  After that, I decided to fly everywhere in full uniform.  That tended to make the checks almost painless.  Heck, I did not even have to take off my shoes after that.

But then go ahead 2 more years.  I fly into Houston from a US military charter flight from Kuwait for my R&R leave.  I had 45 minutes to catch my connecting flight to El Paso.  But once again, *BING*, TSA flags me as a potential terrorost, and refuses to allow me to catch my connecting flight.  It took over an hour to clear that up, and I had to wait another 4 hours to catch a flight back home.

I would much rather go through a full body scan then have to go through that again.  And I just don't see the problem.  I mean, who in their right mind would worry about "porn" of their body that looks like this???

http://api.ning.com/files/LcZ2onTH*43wzVJZJMDE5exn7Ca*HeLAR4AsTDd*QLJHs5iL4udvvZMsMHeX5aFYI33YB4VqKcw9tN24uPcybe5P4SdP93f9/BodyScan.jpg

Makes me wonder what Derek Smalls would do.

http://us.ent4.yimg.com/movies.yahoo.com/images/hv/photo/movie_pix/mgm/this_is_spinal_tap/harry_shearer/spinaltap.jpg

This is because I found out there is a Jordanian connected with a PLO ofshoot that uses my name as an alias.


Dude, first off, welcome back.  Second, ouch, you poor bastard.  Your reward for fighting them over there is that you'll be on the Naughty List for the rest of your life.  Sorry for screwing up on the homefront while you were out.


I would much rather go through a full body scan then have to go through that again.  And I just don't see the problem.  I mean, who in their right mind would worry about "porn" of their body that looks like this???


1) Rule 34.  Someone, somewhere, is getting off on it.  
2) Because I don't trust TSA to adequately maintain or correctly operate its own equipment.
3) Because neither the machines nor Freedom Fondling can detect contraband inserted into a body cavity, the only beneficiary is Chertoff's OSI Systems (NASDAQ: OSIS).
4) Because the TSOs and terrists alike (I can't tell the difference anymore - both groups are using the threat of force to change the opinion of the civilian population as to what government policy should be) are also aware of points 1-3, and because if Big Sister really wants to know how big my junk is in the name of national security, then she's going to have to order a TSO to measure it by hand.
5) Because I don't have children, it's not my problem - but if my boss told me to fondle a kid, I'd quit.  If my boss told me to fondle a kid and that it was OK because it was legal, I'd tell him to (REDACTED) himself, and then quit.  

http://i566.photobucket.com/albums/ss102/anonymoususer119/TSArape.jpg

If given an order like the one that the TSA goons were given last week, where would you draw the line?  At what point do you tell your boss "Sir, I don't care how legal it is, you're going to have to find someone else for this one.  Not me.  I quit.  Non serviam."

I wonder what it looks like to the full body scanner if one wraps one's junk in tin foil?  Or shows up in line, uh, *wearing* a butt plug?

I bet those TSA guys have a million stories.

Dude, first off, welcome back.  Second, ouch, you poor bastard.  Your reward for fighting them over there is that you'll be on the Naughty List for the rest of your life.  Sorry for screwing up on the homefront while you were out.


While I was out?  Dude, I was on the list since it first came out in 2001.  I sinply had not flown since 1998, so had no idea I was on it before then.


1) Rule 34.  Someone, somewhere, is getting off on it.  
2) Because I don't trust TSA to adequately maintain or correctly operate its own equipment.


Etc, etc, etc.  I have a simple solution then, don't fly.  Drive youself there, take a bus, take a train, walk, ride a bike (Al Gore would love you if you did that).  I simply don't care all that much, and don't see a big deal.  YOu do not like the scanners, fine.  Take a pat-down.  You don't like the pat down?  Then don't fly.  The last time I looked, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects the right to fly without a check.

And personally, I value my right to fly without having to worry as much about bombs and weapons then I do about people and their BS modesty.

Personally, I would like to see a "Right To Fly" card, with a rigerous background check and pre-screening for security purposes.  Let people that agree to such a check "fly" through screenings with only a quick scan.  I would volunteer for such a card, then laugh at all the poor SOBs that are stuck spending 1+ hour going through a more rigerous check.

In fact, I just did a fast check, and found out that such a card already exists.  It costs $100 a year, and takes about a month to process.  But it drops the standard screening process to minutes instead of hours.

Then a few months later I flew to Phoenix.  I could not use the automatic check-in, and almost missed that flight because of the extra checks needed.  After that, I decided to fly everywhere in full uniform.  That tended to make the checks almost painless.  Heck, I did not even have to take off my shoes after that.

But then go ahead 2 more years.  I fly into Houston from a US military charter flight from Kuwait for my R&R leave.  I had 45 minutes to catch my connecting flight to El Paso.  But once again, *BING*, TSA flags me as a potential terrorost, and refuses to allow me to catch my connecting flight.  It took over an hour to clear that up, and I had to wait another 4 hours to catch a flight back home.


Reminds me of back in 2002 when I was doing alot of travel.  I was going through South America point-to-point-to-point.  Every time I went through security they gave me extra-special attention, in the USA, Mexico, and Brazil.  One time in Rio I walked up to the end of the waiting line for security, and immediately these two dudes escorted me to the "Special room"  :o  for a full baggage check and long discussion.

I don't know what it was that triggered them, but I was on somebody's sh*t list back then.

2) Because I don't trust TSA to adequately maintain or correctly operate its own equipment.

If given an order like the one that the TSA goons were given last week, where would you draw the line?  At what point do you tell your boss "Sir, I don't care how legal it is, you're going to have to find someone else for this one.  Not me.  I quit.  Non serviam."


This is one thing that always puzzles me.  And it is an inconsistancy that always makes me laugh.

You have a segment of the population that seems to dispise "Government Intrusion".  They do not like the idea of a "Government ID Card", they hate when they pass through an Immigration Checkpoint, they get offended if they have to go through any kind of security screening.

Yet they are often one of the first to say they want more interaction with the Government.  They want Government control of the Health system, they want total Government control of the Retirement system, they want Government to control who can buy a house, Government Controll of all aspects of the Education System from beginning (free pre-school) to end (Affirmitive Action, politically correct courses, pre-approved courses that teach the proper things, etc).  And of course they want the Government to keep them safe at all times.

They all seem to want it both ways.  And as for the "Government ID Card", everybody already has one.  So what in the heck is the big deal?  People want 100% freedom to do whatever in the heck they want, but to not want to put up with a single thing they do not want.

Sure, the screenings are a pain in the butt.  So is getting a Drivers License, or paying for Car Insurance.  The idea of being forced to pay for something that I will never use often bothers me.  And after paying for this thing for many years that I never need, only to have them make me pay more when I do finally need it bothers me even more.  But that is the law, and I accept that.

In fact, most people do not even know that you do not need to have car insurance.  In most states, a surety bond of between $35-60,000 is enough to insure yourself.

Reminds me of back in 2002 when I was doing alot of travel.  I was going through South America point-to-point-to-point.  Every time I went through security they gave me extra-special attention, in the USA, Mexico, and Brazil.  One time in Rio I walked up to the end of the waiting line for security, and immediately these two dudes escorted me to the "Special room"  :o  for a full baggage check and long discussion.

I don't know what it was that triggered them, but I was on somebody's sh*t list back then.


It could be many things.  It could be the places you visited.  It could be that you resembled a known smuggler.  Often times people with multiple passport stamps in multiple places in a relatively short time often raises red flags (contraband).  And if you are visiting places that are known to be hotbeds of illegal trade or local insurgencies, that will raise a red flag automatically.

Out of all the times I have flown since 2001, the worst experience was when I stopped in Houston on my way home.  And I know it was because the TSAs computer showed that I had flown from Kuwait to Houston.  Most times the ticket agent was able to put in that I was flying inside the US and had valid ID, so they simply let it go.  But by flying in from a Middle Eastern nation, that raised the requirement for a check even more.  And the computer which told them I needed an in-person interview with a TSA agent did not have a field to say I was in uniform, arriving on a US Military charter.

Was it a pain in the arse?  Yes.  Did I like this?  Not at all.  But I accept that it is how things are today, and their intent is to make air travel safe for everybody else.  Plus it gave me a story that looking back on, is rather funny.  All it really cost me was 3 hours sitting in the airport terminal.  Where I got to stay in the Ambassador Club, have free soda, free lunch, watch TV, and smoke in an indoor lounge while everybody else had to pay $15 for coffe and a sandwich, and leave the airport and go through security again to smoke while I could do it from behind the security area.

I was not thrown into durance vile, I was not subjected to a strip and body cavity search, and I was not handcuffed and thrown into jail.  The ticket agent cleared it up in about an hour on the phone, and no harm was done.

Etc, etc, etc.  I have a simple solution then, don't fly. 


First things first -- a hearty welcome back to you, Mr. Mushroom. 
:)

I flagged your comment for a reason I'm sure you simply overlooked.  Air travel is the only way most people who can afford to travel abroad at all can afford to travel overseas.  Otherwise, you're looking at ocean liner fare AND adding several days or weeks to your journey.  If I was going to Washington D.C. from here in Western Massachusetts, I would go by bus, train, or just drive.  Perhaps do the same for a trip to Chicago.  However, it's still too expensive and time-consuming to travel from Massachusetts to California by any other means than flight.  International travel in contiguous nations is similar.  Here to Montreal, I'd drive.  Here to Mexico city?  If I was up for an adventure, I might drive, but otherwise, forget it!

Like many have already said, Welcome back, Mushroom.



Etc, etc, etc.  I have a simple solution then, don't fly.  Drive youself there, take a bus, take a train, walk, ride a bike (Al Gore would love you if you did that).  I simply don't care all that much, and don't see a big deal.  YOu do not like the scanners, fine.  Take a pat-down.  You don't like the pat down?  Then don't fly.  The last time I looked, there is nothing in the Constitution that protects the right to fly without a check.



As I said in a previous post, we HAVE to fly to get to Puerto Rico. There really isn't any other way to get there. We don't go frequently because we HAVE to have vacations in the tropics, we HAVE to go for family obligations. Carlos' dad is 90 years old and lives with Carlos' sister (who is primary caregiver). We have to relieve her from time to time so she can get a much needed break.

There is something in the Constitution called the Fourth Amendment which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Like I have said in a previous post, I don't have a problem with security. I understand the need to walk through a metal detector. I understand the need to have your carry-on stuff go through x-ray machines. I do have a problem with the full body scanner & the pat-down without probable cause. Just because you fly doesn't make it a probably cause. And both the scanner & the pat-down would not detect what they are looking for anyway. They would not have picked up the bomb that was in that guy's underwear. The TSA is just using it to MAKE people FEEL safer when in fact, we really aren't.  And I think those scanners are a health risk-which I am NOT willing to accept as a price to fly. And besides, they don't screen cargo. Anyone can put anything in their baggage and it is not check. How safe do you feel now?



And personally, I value my right to fly without having to worry as much about bombs and weapons then I do about people and their BS modesty.

Personally, I would like to see a "Right To Fly" card, with a rigerous background check and pre-screening for security purposes.  Let people that agree to such a check "fly" through screenings with only a quick scan.  I would volunteer for such a card, then laugh at all the poor SOBs that are stuck spending 1+ hour going through a more rigerous check.

In fact, I just did a fast check, and found out that such a card already exists.  It costs $100 a year, and takes about a month to process.  But it drops the standard screening process to minutes instead of hours.



I would not have a problem with that. In fact, I think it makes air travel safer for all. This way, the TSA KNOWS who you are and why you are flying-rather then just seeing what you are carrying. I think they are more apt to catch would-be terrorists with something like this than the present screening method.


Cat

OK, now this is getting REALLY stupid.  >:( >:( >:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4

OK, now this is getting REALLY stupid.  >:( >:( >:(

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSQTz1bccL4




If I were that kid's parent, I would SUE!!!!



Cat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iDlwcc1CT8

"Who is Margaret Drabble?" will not be on the test.
8)

What really annoys me is seeing these tea party clowns complaining about the TSA now and conveniently forgetting the TSA (i.e. BIG government bureaucracy) and homeland security was created by BUSH and the "small government" GOP  ::) who also brought to you the Patriot Act and Wiretapping.

What really annoys me is seeing these tea party clowns complaining about the TSA now and conveniently forgetting the TSA (i.e. BIG government bureaucracy) and homeland security was created by BUSH and the "small government" GOP  ::) who also brought to you the Patriot Act and Wiretapping.


"Small government" has turned into a euphemism for unaccountable for-profit tyranny in private hands.  Neither the Repubs nor the Dems want "small" government.  They just want the hoi poloi to shut up and do what they're told while the super rich continue to loot the rest of the human race of what level we have left.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/disgust.gif

While I was out?  Dude, I was on the list since it first came out in 2001.  I sinply had not flown since 1998, so had no idea I was on it before then.


Naw, I just meant I hadn't seen you on the boards for a while.


Personally, I would like to see a "Right To Fly" card, with a rigerous background check and pre-screening for security purposes.  Let people that agree to such a check "fly" through screenings with only a quick scan.  I would volunteer for such a card, then laugh at all the poor SOBs that are stuck spending 1+ hour going through a more rigerous check.


Actually, that'd be a great compromise.  The real problem we have is that TSA is so bent on banning items from the aircraft, that they've forgotten the entire point of the exercise - to prevent terrorists from getting on the aircraft.  A snow-globe, a bottle of wine, a pair of nail clippers, even a tube of toothpaste aren't threats in the hands of non-terrorists.  Non-terrorist passengers "armed" with utility tools are an asset to security on an aircraft, not a liability. 

But there's a big difference between such a plan on paper and such a plan in the real world.  Here's what happened in the real world.


In fact, I just did a fast check, and found out that such a card already exists.  It costs $100 a year, and takes about a month to process.  But it drops the standard screening process to minutes instead of hours.


If you're referring to Registered Traveler programme, it wasn't widespread, it offers you no actual change in screening procedure other than going through an individual line/scanner (which is often slower than the normal-people's line, because the normal line funnels through a large bank of scanners), and (from the Wikipedia article) "Other benefits, such as allowing Registered Travelers to keep their coats and shoes on and their laptops in their bags have also been discussed"... but were never implemented.  And of course, "In order to prevent a terrorist with a clean background from compromising the system, the TSA requires that registered travelers undergo the normal TSA screening (baggage x-ray and personal metal detector), at the RT kiosk checkpoint. Additionally, Registered Travelers are not exempt from random secondary screening and may not bring prohibited items into secure areas of terminals."

And Clear then misplaced a laptop with 33000 fliers' data sitting on it.  That shouldn't have been a problem, except that Clear's own security processes were more lax than what most IT companies use on their own laptops.  (LOL, I'd forgotten about that.)

So - you pay $100, you get a background check, you get a fancy card that's only good at a few airports, and after all that...

http://min.us/iu4yM.jpeg

No wonder Clear went bankrupt last year.

If you give one group of travelers easier security clearance than another group, the terrorists are gonna figure out how to get into the easier security group.  What do you think they're going to do, walk in with a Keffiyeh, mirror shades, a silkcreened Uncle Sam target on their backs, and a briefcase handucffed to their wrists? 
:D

Since the Tea Party showed a revival of American history in action, so too will the latest TSA controversy.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs166.ash2/41589_125779247482341_4391599_n.jpg

Since the Tea Party showed a revival of American history in action, so too will the latest TSA controversy.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/hs166.ash2/41589_125779247482341_4391599_n.jpg


It's not your junk anymore.  It's the government's junk!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/09/sasmokin.gif

http://media.timesfreepress.com/img/news/tease/2010/12/28/101229_In_with_the_New.jpg



Cat

Here's the sad truth of the matter.

The current security methods were put into place to make people feel safer.  Whether or not they actually make us safer is debatable.

However, if we removed these methods, eventually some terrorist would get through, and then everyone would be on Obama's @$$ about improving airport security.

The problem is 2-fold.
1) People are extremely prone to kneejerk reactions, whether it's complaints about a lack of privacy or a lack of security.
2) People don't seem capable of accepting the simple fact that anything short of a police state will periodically allow a terrorist to get through security.

Reality dictates that, when you fly, you take on a certain amount of risk that you should accept and not bother blaming the government for.  Until the public figures that out, we'll just continue to bicker about what level of security is appropriate.

What really annoys me is seeing these tea party clowns complaining about the TSA now and conveniently forgetting the TSA (i.e. BIG government bureaucracy) and homeland security was created by BUSH and the "small government" GOP  ::) who also brought to you the Patriot Act and Wiretapping.


Oh God I know.

I remember these friends of mine, who are hard-core right-wing whinebags but still my friends, were thumping their chests while Bush was still president and saying, "I don't care if the government taps my phones! I've got nothing to hide!" I don't recall, but I think I quoted Thomas Jefferson and called him a big pussy and we about came to blows.  :D

Of course, these are the exact same people who are all paranoid about Obama.  ::)

However, if we removed these methods, eventually some terrorist would get through, and then everyone would be on Obama's @$$ about improving airport security.


But the TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist since 9/11.  And when they test themselves, their agents routinely let 70-100% of the test items through security anyways.  So another terrist will get through, and we'll be no better - and no worse - off than we would have been if they'd never existed in the first place.

The right thing for a President to do would be to tell the American people the truth from 235 years ago, when that (soft-on-terrism anti-American freak) Ben Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But instead, and in order to ensure that Chertoff (and Big Sister, who's setting herself up for her post-HomeSec career on the board of some other contractor) make their profits, we have two administrations who've ordered us to turn our property and our bodily dignity over to a bunch of thieves and ped o philes - and geez, that's just from the first couple of pages of results).

Instead of recognizing where this is going, all we do is shoot the messenger who says the Emperor has no clothes, and codify the notion that one tip is all it takes to be put on The List for life.

I love this country, but I weep for it.  "Better Dead than Red" turned into "Well, if it keeps us safe, of course, Sir, here are my papers, and yes, you can grab my balls, Sir!"

I pity anyone who has kids.  You've either gotta teach them that it's normal to have their genitals groped by anyone in uniform, or teach them about what America used to stand for and find both yourself and your kids on The List.

But the TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist since 9/11.  And when they test themselves, their agents routinely let 70-100% of the test items through security anyways.  So another terrist will get through, and we'll be no better - and no worse - off than we would have been if they'd never existed in the first place.

The right thing for a President to do would be to tell the American people the truth from 235 years ago, when that (soft-on-terrism anti-American freak) Ben Franklin said "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

But instead, and in order to ensure that Chertoff (and Big Sister, who's setting herself up for her post-HomeSec career on the board of some other contractor) make their profits, we have two administrations who've ordered us to turn our property and our bodily dignity over to a bunch of thieves and ped o philes - and geez, that's just from the first couple of pages of results).

Instead of recognizing where this is going, all we do is shoot the messenger who says the Emperor has no clothes, and codify the notion that one tip is all it takes to be put on The List for life.

I love this country, but I weep for it.  "Better Dead than Red" turned into "Well, if it keeps us safe, of course, Sir, here are my papers, and yes, you can grab my balls, Sir!"

I pity anyone who has kids.  You've either gotta teach them that it's normal to have their genitals groped by anyone in uniform, or teach them about what America used to stand for and find both yourself and your kids on The List.



http://www.thesmilies.com/smilies/happy/applause.gif




Cat

But the TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist since 9/11.  And when they test themselves, their agents routinely let 70-100% of the test items through security anyways.  So another terrist will get through, and we'll be no better - and no worse - off than we would have been if they'd never existed in the first place.
I think you're misinterpreting me.  I went back and reread what I posted, and I understand now what it probably sounded like I was saying.  I can see how you might have thought that I was implying that these procedures might provide us some safety.  They sort of do, but I was actually referring more to how the perception that would be created when a terrorist inevitably gets through after removal of these procedures would suggest on a surface level that the removal itself caused the breach.  This would most likely be a false perception on the part of the public, and then the kneejerk calls for more security would come.

This already happened about a year or so ago when Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab made it onto a plane with explosives because he wasn't on the No Fly List.  Immediately after that incident, there were several calls for increased security at airports.

So, on the one hand, I agree with you that we shouldn't sacrifice our privacy for a false security, but I also realize that the reason these procedures exist is because some people are very paranoid.  As long as a significant portion of the public is paranoid and prone to demanding more security policies whenever a terrorist gets through, we'll have to deal with the groping.  And there's probably a good chance that these same people will complain about the groping too, but that's because you just can't please some people.

To a degree, we can blame the media for widespread paranoia, but on the other hand, we can only blame ourselves for the resulting policies, because representative governments are ultimately a reflection of their public's nature.

So, on the one hand, I agree with you that we shouldn't sacrifice our privacy for a false security, but I also realize that the reason these procedures exist is because some people are very paranoid.


So why can't our elected officials educate the paranoid people and bring them back into reality?  People suck at risk analysis.  It's a curable problem, but it takes actual work.


To a degree, we can blame the media for widespread paranoia, but on the other hand, we can only blame ourselves for the resulting policies, because representative governments are ultimately a reflection of their public's nature.


If the elected officials don't like the way the citizens vote, they - through the use of the media - dissolve the citizenry and elect new ones :)

Which, I posit, they did.

We may have to agree to disagree on this point, but my answer to my own question ("Why don't governments just cure the people of their paranoia?" is "Because there's a farkton of money to be made by whipping up the paranoia!"  Every time the TSA farks up, the government gets to expand its power over the people, someone gets a contract to erect an ineffective defense against the last war, and the people get more accustomed to the arbitrary exercise of authority.  

In my parents' day, there was a rifle range in the school basement.
In my day, it was normal to bring food utensils in your brown bag for lunch, and allergy medicine and (for the women) Midol were fine.  Firearms stayed at home.
In (if I'd had any) my kids' day, a metal detector at the front gate, and suspensions/arrests under "zero tolerance" for having allergy medicine, plastic butter knives, allergy medicine, or a Midol, were normal.  Drawings of firearms were grounds for suspension.
Any child born today will grow up in a world in which getting their genitals groped is normal.

The only thing that makes me believe the terrorists are incompetent is this: if they were actually competent, they'd send a guy through with a bomb up his ass.  Since the day after Liquidbomber, Shoebomber, and triply so since Crotchbomber, it's been obvious what the only permissible reaction on the part of the TSA would be: forced anal probes for everyone, at every flight.  

To quote morons who felt that not being able to bring back a bottle of wine (without risking it being stolen by the thugs in Checked Baggage Theft department) when they visit their folks, to morons who don't mind taking off their shoes, to morons who are OK with their kids getting felt up, the refrain is always the same: "Hey, they gotta do what they gotta do if it keeps us safe, right?"

(I'm part of the problem; I was one of those morons myself way back at the Checked Baggage Theft stage, but at least I stopped falling for it there.  Hope the f*cker has since stolen enough over his career that he eventually died of cirrhosis.  Not that I'm bitter or anything :)

The only thing that makes me believe the terrorists are incompetent is this: if they were actually competent, they'd send a guy through with a bomb up his ass.  


But where would we find such a man?  He would need a man with yogic discipline and the will to kill himself and everybody else without looking like a man with a bomb up his ass..
:o

So why can't our elected officials educate the paranoid people and bring them back into reality?  People suck at risk analysis.  It's a curable problem, but it takes actual work.
You have a lot more faith in humanity than I do.  I'm still amazed we've even gotten this far.

If the elected officials don't like the way the citizens vote, they - through the use of the media - dissolve the citizenry and elect new ones :)
Which, I posit, they did.
We may have to agree to disagree on this point, but my answer to my own question ("Why don't governments just cure the people of their paranoia?" is "Because there's a farkton of money to be made by whipping up the paranoia!"  Every time the TSA farks up, the government gets to expand its power over the people, someone gets a contract to erect an ineffective defense against the last war, and the people get more accustomed to the arbitrary exercise of authority.
Hey, no argument here, but I can't really blame them for that.  If I had the power, I'd be more inclined to profit from the people's ignorance than to actually educate them.  More often than not, altruism is a thankless endeavor, and people are more inclined to like you if you appeal to their emotions and prejudices than their logic and what little intelligence they often have.  The only reason we're even seeing much resistance from the public on the recent security measures has less to do with Big Brother tendencies and more to do with not wanting their junk to be seen by random people and because there haven't been many terror incidents at airports publicized recently.  As soon as the next big breach occurs, you'll see yet another wave of calls for increased security.

In my parents' day, there was a rifle range in the school basement.
In my day, it was normal to bring food utensils in your brown bag for lunch, and allergy medicine and (for the women) Midol were fine.  Firearms stayed at home.
In (if I'd had any) my kids' day, a metal detector at the front gate, and suspensions/arrests under "zero tolerance" for having allergy medicine, plastic butter knives, allergy medicine, or a Midol, were normal.  Drawings of firearms were grounds for suspension.
Any child born today will grow up in a world in which getting their genitals groped is normal.
Well, it’s not all rosy from the past either though.  I’m guessing segregation was normal during your parents’ time, for example.

You see, I have no reverence for the past, present, or future.  I think technology changes, but people generally stay the same.
The only saving graces for humanity involve good leadership.  If the right people are in power, social progress occurs, fiscal responsibility is forwarded, and rights are respected.  Yet, very little of the credit should go to the average person for all that, since most people are only as good as their leaders.
The same people that supported the Nazi regime would have supported the American regime, and vice versa.  Most people are generally just products of their environment.  Finding true freethinkers is very difficult.
The only thing that makes me believe the terrorists are incompetent is this: if they were actually competent, they'd send a guy through with a bomb up his ass.  Since the day after Liquidbomber, Shoebomber, and triply so since Crotchbomber, it's been obvious what the only permissible reaction on the part of the TSA would be: forced anal probes for everyone, at every flight.
LOL...  No kidding.  We truly are lucky that most fanatics are even dumber than the average person.  It takes an extreme amount of mental instability and a total lack of perception to fall prey to these ridiculous ideologies, so it’s not really surprising that most terrorists are incompetent.  I guess this is what makes 9/11 all the more surprising, since those guys actually were competent.
To quote morons who felt that not being able to bring back a bottle of wine (without risking it being stolen by the thugs in Checked Baggage Theft department) when they visit their folks, to morons who don't mind taking off their shoes, to morons who are OK with their kids getting felt up, the refrain is always the same: "Hey, they gotta do what they gotta do if it keeps us safe, right?"
(I'm part of the problem; I was one of those morons myself way back at the Checked Baggage Theft stage, but at least I stopped falling for it there.  Hope the f*cker has since stolen enough over his career that he eventually died of cirrhosis.  Not that I'm bitter or anything :)

LOL...  I know what you mean.  On the flipside though, if we operated without any security protocols at all, there probably would be an increase in terror acts.  So, we basically have to figure out some compromise that doesn’t violate rights while still providing protection.
Even an educated public has limits as to what level of risk they are willing to stomach.

without looking like


The more I think about it, the more I think they're just sending these doofuses over here with the intention that they'll get caught.  We do more harm to ourselves than they ever could.

I hate to sound like the Ford Pinto lawyer, but the economic harm we've done to ourselves in overreacting to every single failed plot since 9/11 far outweighs the amount it would have cost us to simply eat the occasional loss of an aircraft.  Barricading the cockpit doors and having flight marshals on board were great ideas, and they cost next to nothing in terms of money or civilian morale.  Reincarnating Gen. Sherman for one week of bloody-minded revenge (the UN would have cringed, but they'd have gotten over it by now), and rebuilding $0.01T ($10 billion) worth of real estate in Manhattan was affordable. 

But here we are, a trillion dollars in the hole.  And all we have to show for it are fuzzy black-and-white bald X-rays of our well-fondled junk. 

Airports are getting sick of the TSA tactics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40888102/ns/travel-news/

Though, going to private security agencies may not be the answer either. Can you say, "Blackwater"?

I just think there are much better ways of handling security at airports and groping passengers is not one of them.


We are going to be subjective to TSA's intrusive ways next week. I have already told Carlos that if the airports we go through have those x-ray machines (which I don't believe they do), I am opting to be groped. I don't trust that those machines are not emitting radiation.


Cat

The more I think about it, the more I think they're just sending these doofuses over here with the intention that they'll get caught.  We do more harm to ourselves than they ever could.

I hate to sound like the Ford Pinto lawyer, but the economic harm we've done to ourselves in overreacting to every single failed plot since 9/11 far outweighs the amount it would have cost us to simply eat the occasional loss of an aircraft. 


When you're doing shoulder rolls at 700 mph on your way to the deep blue sea, I suspect your sentiments would change!
:o

When you're doing shoulder rolls at 700 mph on your way to the deep blue sea, I suspect your sentiments would change! :o


I wear a seatbelt because it provides an excellent tradeoff between crash survivability and ease-of-use.  I did not, however, modify my car to have a 5-point racing harness and a HANS device, nor do I wear a crash helmet when I drive an automobile on public highways. 

Neither, I suspect, do you.  But seeing as how tens of thousands of people are killed every year on our highways, if you really want to be sure that we've all that little bit of extra safety when you're rolling at 70 mph on your way into the guardrail... write your local representative and demand that retrofit kits be shipped to every driver, and that installation and use be mandatory, on pain of a $100 ticket.  If it saves just one life, right?  And think of the children!

(But before you do, let me know which company appoints you to their board of directors, especially if that company just happens to build safety harnesses and racing helmets :)

Tomorrow Carlos & I get a chance to get groped. Whoopee! Any advice?  :-\\



Cat

I wear a seatbelt because it provides an excellent tradeoff between crash survivability and ease-of-use.  I did not, however, modify my car to have a 5-point racing harness and a HANS device, nor do I wear a crash helmet when I drive an automobile on public highways. 

Neither, I suspect, do you.  But seeing as how tens of thousands of people are killed every year on our highways, if you really want to be sure that we've all that little bit of extra safety when you're rolling at 70 mph on your way into the guardrail... write your local representative and demand that retrofit kits be shipped to every driver, and that installation and use be mandatory, on pain of a $100 ticket.  If it saves just one life, right?  And think of the children!

(But before you do, let me know which company appoints you to their board of directors, especially if that company just happens to build safety harnesses and racing helmets :)


OMG! You're going to turn me into Rain Man if you get me thinking about the dangers of Interstate driving. 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/sad5.gif

Tomorrow Carlos & I get a chance to get groped. Whoopee! Any advice?  :-\\


90% chance you'll just get the standard metal detector screening.

If the rapiscan machines are up, you'll either get ogled or groped.  Vote your conscience.  (I go with the grope, on account of (a) I don't trust TSA drones to safely operate X-Ray equipment on humans, and (b) they hate groping passengers as much as we hate being groped by them.)

Don't resist, for the males, don't sport wood, don't sexually harass them.  Just rehearse whatever line seems most prone to screw with their teeny little brains.  ("Sorry you have to do this, sir, but as you've taught us over the past 10 years, hey, now we're both just following orders." or "So, umm, I know you're OK, but how much do you trust your co-workers?" or "Hey, I'm not judging you about the groping, but when you've had enough and you want to work for a professional security organization, just remember they're still out there and they're still hiring. And they don't make you grope kids.")

Don't resist, for the males, don't sport wood


B-b-b-but I c-c-cant help it; it's a reflex, mister!
:-[

No one wants to see a naked scan picture of my fat body.  ;D ;D

Just send in lots of ugly and then maybe TSA will change their minds about this intrusion.  8) Stop sending in hot people!!

No hott people aloud!!  :D

I work with someone who went to California on Christmas Break.

I don't know if she had to strip to her underwear.

I thought after Obama was in, he was going to cut back this...another LIE!

90% chance you'll just get the standard metal detector screening.

If the rapiscan machines are up, you'll either get ogled or groped.  Vote your conscience.  (I go with the grope, on account of (a) I don't trust TSA drones to safely operate X-Ray equipment on humans, and (b) they hate groping passengers as much as we hate being groped by them.)

Don't resist, for the males, don't sport wood, don't sexually harass them.  Just rehearse whatever line seems most prone to screw with their teeny little brains.  ("Sorry you have to do this, sir, but as you've taught us over the past 10 years, hey, now we're both just following orders." or "So, umm, I know you're OK, but how much do you trust your co-workers?" or "Hey, I'm not judging you about the groping, but when you've had enough and you want to work for a professional security organization, just remember they're still out there and they're still hiring. And they don't make you grope kids.")



Our little airport in Vermont doesn't have that x-ray machine. I have already told Carlos that if we do encounter one of those at ANY airport-I will opted to be groped and I hope Carlos will opt the same. At least I know that being groped won't cause health concerns-and with Carlos' history with cancer...

I have mentioned that the last time we flew (in Sept.) they were doing "extra screening" (I think to "practice" for the "new & improved" ways initiated in Oct. or Nov.), I was pulled aside to be groped while Carlos had his hand swabbed. This time, after our bags went through x-ray, they pulled our carry-on aside to do "extra testing." Then after we showed our boarding passes and were in the terminal on our way to actually board the plane, they pulled me aside once more to check my purse (as if they didn't catch anything after it went through the x-ray machine). I did say, "Good luck finding anything in there because I can't find anything." I swear we must really look like unsavory characters because they are ALWAYS pulling us aside-well, me in particular. When I was in the service, and if there was a "random" pee test, guess who got nabbed ALL THE TIME!!! ::) 


Cat

I work with someone who went to California on Christmas Break.

I don't know if she had to strip to her underwear.

I thought after Obama was in, he was going to cut back this...another LIE!


This is not a promise I remember, can you supply a source?

As someone who flies a lot, I understand the need for security on airplanes but I think TSA is going overboard with the screening of passengers and personally, I don't think air travel is safer because of their procedures.

Yup and its sad how many ppl are just letting them do this!!

This whole thing shows just how DUMBED DOWN this country is :(

This is not a promise I remember, can you supply a source?


Yeah, I hate to say it, but you and I agree on something.  Nowhere was there any claim that there'd be an end to TSA security theater. 

Until the pendulum of people saying "if it saves just one life" and "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" swings back to a more American point of view, to publicly advocate for an end to security theater would be viewed as being "soft on terra", and result in the loss of an election. 

Yeah, I hate to say it, but you and I agree on something.  Nowhere was there any claim that there'd be an end to TSA security theater. 

Until the pendulum of people saying "if it saves just one life" and "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" swings back to a more American point of view, to publicly advocate for an end to security theater would be viewed as being "soft on terra", and result in the loss of an election. 


Meanwhile, we let loopy 22-year-olds buy 30-clip Glocks.  The Tucson massacre wasn't at the airport, it was at the Safeway.  I say we start screening supermarket customers.  Crazy you say?  Well, if we did we could have saved six lives and Congresswoman Giffords would not have gotten that bullet through her brain.  Last time I was at the supermarket, I got real nervous around young white guys!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/icon_pale.gif

But the TSA hasn't caught a single terrorist since 9/11.  

Well, first of all you have to understand how security actually works.

Security does not work because of the people that it catches, it works because of the deterrence factor.  The simple fact that security is in place prevents a lot of things.  And when security is tightened, it deters even more.

And it is really not known how many events have been prevented since the tightening after 9/11.  If somebody tries to take a box cutter on board a plane today, they simply confiscate it, then fill out a report.  They do not arrest them for being "attempted terrorists", nor do they generally kick them from the flight (unless the report takes so long to write that they miss their flight).  Returning from Kuwait, I forgot I had my fingernail clippers (which had a small knife) in my pocket.  The TSA agent just took them, and I continued on my way.

When I was at the Talahassee airport, they actually had a display of things taken from passengers.  They had in there everything from ock hand grenades and fireworks to hedge clippers, scissors, leatherman knives, and toy pistols.  I am sure that most of the people that tried to carry those on were simply told off and nothing else.  But there is really no way to tell if one of them was planning on hijacking a plane or not.

Well, first of all you have to understand how security actually works.

Security does not work because of the people that it catches, it works because of the deterrence factor.  The simple fact that security is in place prevents a lot of things.  And when security is tightened, it deters even more.

And it is really not known how many events have been prevented since the tightening after 9/11.  If somebody tries to take a box cutter on board a plane today, they simply confiscate it, then fill out a report.  They do not arrest them for being "attempted terrorists", nor do they generally kick them from the flight (unless the report takes so long to write that they miss their flight).  Returning from Kuwait, I forgot I had my fingernail clippers (which had a small knife) in my pocket.  The TSA agent just took them, and I continued on my way.

When I was at the Talahassee airport, they actually had a display of things taken from passengers.  They had in there everything from ock hand grenades and fireworks to hedge clippers, scissors, leatherman knives, and toy pistols.  I am sure that most of the people that tried to carry those on were simply told off and nothing else.  But there is really no way to tell if one of them was planning on hijacking a plane or not.



I can totally understand TSA taking away hand grenades & fireworks but taking away little nail clippers or a nail file is a bit much. I once was going through security when the TSA took away an orange drink of the guy in front of me. I tell you I felt so much safer that the guy could not fly with an orange drink.  ::)


Cat

They took away my Blistex Lip Fusion on my flight to Jamaica >:( but let me through with a lighter and purse-size spray perfume ::)

Then, coming back, the agents in Jamaica took my lighter, but let me through with lotion in my purse ::)

They took away my Blistex Lip Fusion on my flight to Jamaica >:( but let me through with a lighter and purse-size spray perfume ::)

Then, coming back, the agents in Jamaica took my lighter, but let me through with lotion in my purse ::)



Very consistent, aren't they? Of course Jamaica isn't part of the TSA network so I think I would trust them better than the TSA.



Cat

Security does not work because of the people that it catches, it works because of the deterrence factor.  The simple fact that security is in place prevents a lot of things.  And when security is tightened, it deters even more.


So we're relying on the hope that the bad guys are going to restrict themselves to commercial passenger aircraft in flight?  I'll concede that it's worked so far because our enemy's pretty damn stupid, but relying on the stupidity of the enemy is a really bad idea over the long term. 

There's no shortage of ways to spread terra.  What happens when there's a TSA ball-fondler at every mall? At least let 'em set up a checkpoint at every 100 miles of Interstate highway, and at every city/county limit?  (I mean, most people don't have to drive more than 50 miles to get to your job, or they'd just move to a nearer town, right?)  You don't have to fly to see your Grandma, use of the roads is a privilege, not a right...


And it is really not known how many events have been prevented since the tightening after 9/11.  If somebody tries to take a box cutter on board a plane today, they simply confiscate it, then fill out a report.  They do not arrest them for being "attempted terrorists",


As well they shouldn't.  Because 100% of them to date haven't been terrists, they've been people who accidentally left something in their travel bags, and who were unlucky enough to be caught by the untrained buffoons of the TSA. 

Returning from Kuwait, I forgot I had my fingernail clippers (which had a small knife) in my pocket.  The TSA agent just took them, and I continued on my way.


Look, I'd trust you and 99.9999% of US servicepersons (I think six-nines that covers the one asshat who shot up that Army base a few years back) with both a weapon and a full magazine, but let's just ignore what an actual bad guy would do with that knowledge.  And let's just pretend that Big Brother Mike(R) and Big Sister Janet(D) cared/care more about keeping Americans safe than they did/do about how much they can make as vendors to HomeSec after their terms as HomeSecSec are over.

But as long as we're on the subject of US servicepersons and nail clippers, it's funny you should mention that.

Now here's a restaurant with an interesting (and legal - employment with the TSA is not a protected class, and owners of businesses are entitled to refuse to do business with people for any reason, so long as that reason isn't based on membership in a protected class) take on the situation: shun them.

Show up in uniform (or otherwise be known in your community) as a government-paid kid-fondler?  Sir, we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody, and in the spirit of Nuremburg, we know you're just following orders, but NO SOUP FOR YOU.

Don't like it, TSA goon?  Come back with a letter of resignation signed by your boss, and you'll be welcome here.  But if you'd rather dress like a smurf and grab balls for a living, GTFO.

Now here's a restaurant with an interesting (and legal - employment with the TSA is not a protected class, and owners of businesses are entitled to refuse to do business with people for any reason, so long as that reason isn't based on membership in a protected class) take on the situation: shun them.


And here's an even better idea, thanks to legislators elected to represent the Free State Project dudes who moved up to New Hampshire.  It's a symbolic gesture, but there's an  actual bill in the New Hampshire legislature that would make "the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault".

Attention, Lincoln, NH:

http://www.gamersanon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lincoln_awesome.jpg

If, by some miracle, this bill passes, we'll have settled the question of whether TSA workers are just doing their jobs or if they're actually a bunch of perverts.  Because if this passes, at least in New Hampshire, anyone who fondles a kid while using their uniform as an excuse for their conduct, won't merely be shunned like a sex offender, they'll actually be sex offenders.

And here's an even better idea, thanks to legislators elected to represent the Free State Project dudes who moved up to New Hampshire.  It's a symbolic gesture, but there's an  actual bill in the New Hampshire legislature that would make "the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault".

Attention, Lincoln, NH:

http://www.gamersanon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lincoln_awesome.jpg

If, by some miracle, this bill passes, we'll have settled the question of whether TSA workers are just doing their jobs or if they're actually a bunch of perverts.  Because if this passes, at least in New Hampshire, anyone who fondles a kid while using their uniform as an excuse for their conduct, won't merely be shunned like a sex offender, they'll actually be sex offenders.



Somehow I sincerely think this bill won't pass before Carlos & I have to go through airport security this afternoon.  :-\\  At least the two airports that we usually go though (Burlington & San Juan) do not have those x-ray machines-YET!!!  (Well, I was padded down at Burlington back in Sept.) We don't have to worry about Philly because we are already behind security when we get there.


Cat

Somehow I sincerely think this bill won't pass before Carlos & I have to go through airport security this afternoon.  :-\\ 


It won't pass, ever, and even if it did, it'd only apply to New Hampshire.  But I love the sentiment expressed by the bill.

As for your more immediate predicament, it would be wrong to try it this way, but one guy did.  And when life imitated xkcd, the TSA, to its credit, was uncharacteristically professional.

And here's an even better idea, thanks to legislators elected to represent the Free State Project dudes who moved up to New Hampshire.  It's a symbolic gesture, but there's an  actual bill in the New Hampshire legislature that would make "the touching or viewing with a technological device of a person’s breasts or genitals by a government security agent without probable cause a sexual assault".

Attention, Lincoln, NH:

http://www.gamersanon.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lincoln_awesome.jpg

If, by some miracle, this bill passes, we'll have settled the question of whether TSA workers are just doing their jobs or if they're actually a bunch of perverts.  Because if this passes, at least in New Hampshire, anyone who fondles a kid while using their uniform as an excuse for their conduct, won't merely be shunned like a sex offender, they'll actually be sex offenders.


There is a Lincoln, NH, but no international airport in NH.