Political & Elections

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

RE: TSA & Full body scans

poetgrl · Senior Member

justamomof4 wrote:

- just imagine what would happen it they started singling people out. That would open the flood gates for civil rights complaints.

You do see the irony in this post, I'm assuming.

[url] http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/aclu-recieves-900-complaints-tsa-screenings/

-- Edited by poetgrl on Saturday 27th of November 2010 08:12:13 PM

justamomof4 · Veteran Member

The Opt out was a non event. Turns out most travelers are not as gullible as the pundits think they are. Folks just don't like change but they deal with it.

TSA has ALWAYS treated all travelers the same. This is nothing new. I think most travelers appreciate this - just imagine what would happen it they started singling people out. That would open the flood gates for civil rights complaints.

catahoula · Guru

No scheduled court appearances that I know of so I'd say we're doing pretty swell, hayden. Nice of you to ask.

The problem I see with current TSA procedure - scanners, patdowns, and threats - is that it treats everyone, absolutely everyone, as an equal threat. While this comforts some and irritates others - otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it - it seems likely that the next successful attack (and I'll lay odds on it being perpetuated by the same easily identifiable demographic that's done the others) will result in hard questions about the effecient use of whatever resources we have.

hayden · Senior Member

Hi, Cat. Nice to see you too. Thanks for asking about our family. We could be better right now, but we're very thankful for everything we have, and thank God it has not been our cross to bear to be hungry or homeless. A family friend was a member of the Federal Reserve Board, and he used to always say the happiest years of his life were when he paid the most taxes. I can certainly see his point, since that's when people are doing the best financially. I hate seeing so many good people out of work or underemployed in this economy. Hope you and your family are happy and healthy.

On the original topic, I think it's understandable for people to get upset about the scanner's safety. The government has not always been either correct or honest about our safety, witness the huge payout from the EPA who certified Ground Zero was safe for those people who participated in the 9/11 cleanup. So I certainly take busdriver's point.

I really don't see the "nudie pictures" issue the Sean Hannity was going on and on about, though. If someone wants to compare the quasi xray pictures with skin flicks, they must get titillated a lot more quickly than I do.

My imagination does, however, extend to getting a mental picture of, in your words, Cat, a "huge wad of junk". I have to admit that made me laugh.

busdriver11 · Guru

In the parent cafe, they just shut down the second thread that had to do with this subject. What silliness is this really? Let those other mindless threads go on forever, but something that people are really concerned about, you are only allowed to talk about for so long.

catahoula · Guru

After a dozen or so bikers or the morbidly obese, I can see why they might start looking for a twenty-something with a huge chest. Or a big wad of junk, if they lean that way.

As to the uniforms vs credentials, clothes make the man or woman, I guess.

(Either that or good tailors are assumed to always be patriotic. smile

)

-- Edited by catahoula on Thursday 25th of November 2010 08:03:19 PM

busdriver11 · Guru

"“I'm just sick of all the whining. One pilot said he vomited after the pat down. If that rattled him that much, then don't fly my plane, please. ”

I didn't hear that story, but I guarantee you if a pilot at my airline said that, he'd never, ever live it down. He was probably hung over aww

. And we are waived from all that anyways now. But it would be nice if we were waived in/out of uniform, because I don't like to travel in uniform. I'm guessing (to answer Carteras question), that it's one more level of security. You'd have to steal an ID and a uniform, to slip through security. Or maybe it's just another random rule.

"I predict that in 6 months (or less) this will all die down and people will get with the program. From news reports today it looks like it has already died down - no major delays by folks "opting out".

Probably so. I would imagine they will lay off on the aggressive pat downs pretty quickly. But I would still like the hear the real risks of the backscatter machines. Are they, as TSA says, no more risk than flying an extra 5 minutes, or are they a heavy dose of radiation on the skin, as a group of physicians claims?

Cartera · Guru

Thanks Cat -

Even the TSA workers are whining about patting down obese people and people who are smelly. I saw that uniformed pilots are exempt now - why just the uniformed ones? If they have proper credentials, why not all of them?

catahoula · Guru

Its good to see you're still kicking around, hayden, and I hope lifes been good for you in the interim.

Where I do disagree with you is in seeing a similarity between these measures and the Patriot Act. Everyone has a body, and everyone has private parts. No one can put you in prison or fire you from a job from having "junk". Listening in on your political opinions and private thoughts is not at all the same thing as checking to see if you're packing a bomb.
It was basically an observation as to what outrages different groups. Myself, I find the government doing the patdown on.. what, an eight year old child?... as not only offensive but the abolute height of insipid stupidity. If that's what it takes to make some of us feel safe, I'll respectfully decline.

I'm just sick of all the whining. One pilot said he vomited after the pat down. If that rattled him that much, then don't fly my plane, please.
I can't see what patting down the queasy pilot accomplishes, cartera, other than letting 50,000 or so union employees appear both impartial and irrelevant.

(And its good to see you too, cartera - sorry for not replying when you said the same.)

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Welcome, loveday. Nice to see you posting here.

poetgrl · Senior Member

Woodwork wrote:

The system will adjust in time.

Obviously, most people would prefer to feel safe even if it means giving up some token of personal liberty -- on issues of security the right and the left in this country have always come together…I think.

yes. It is also important, in this country, for people to push back against every loss of liberty. It means it has to be questioned and weighed and that those who have the authority to impose the rules have to have explanations and cannot just say, "Because I said so."

If people do not push back? It is easy to lose our way.

It is easy to underestimate how fragile our freedoms really are in the face of growing government involvement in our personal lives. JMO

Woodwork · Senior Member

The system will adjust in time.

Obviously, most people would prefer to feel safe even if it means giving up some token of personal liberty --as long as those liberties do not involve, as in the Patriot Act, knowing what book you might have perused in the library, but being wedged through a naked body scanner should be fine for even those that, understandably, felt a bit squeamish over exposed library cards even if not over exposing their genitals…or as they say, junk.

There may be normal ideological differences, but on issues of security the right and the left in this country have always come together…I think.

BigG · Guru

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1332307/Now-abused-TSA-staff-vent-anger-security-patdown-searches.html

Perhaps the "rank and file" will whine their management into reasonableness,

justamomof4 · Veteran Member

hayden - cute story about your parents!!

Risk - this all changed after 9/11. Then there was the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber.
Security keeps evolving who knows where it will end?
I am sure, though, that if a plane does blow up or purposefully crash - heads will roll. Who wants to take the blame for that?
After 9/11 we did not say - look 3,000 Americans lost their lives and we are sorry but this won't change a thing. Nope. We adapted and changed security. It's not all about 'catching' them but deterring them too.

I predict that in 6 months (or less) this will all die down and people will get with the program. From news reports today it looks like it has already died down - no major delays by folks "opting out".

Cartera · Guru

I'm just sick of all the whining. One pilot said he vomited after the pat down. If that rattled him that much, then don't fly my plane, please.

I think much of what we do with regard to security is a waste of money. Looking at it in relation to how much damage can be done by a plane compared to what can be shipped into a port, it is wildly over the top. We have gone from Bin Laden announcing he planned to hijack plans, yet doing nothing, to doing things that seem absurd at this point.

loveday · In exile

Bullet wrote:
The answer is quite simple: we stop letting fear run our lives (which is EXACTLY what the Islamic Extremists want), and we use some common sense on the "risk vs. benefits" model.
[snip]

I agree with Bullet, and note that fear is just a tool, (and a very effective one) to control thought and behavior. BTW, hello... this is my first post to this forum. I was invited by another member after my post to a CC thread on this same topic "disappeared." hmm

IMO, random bombings are not the goal of religious extremist terrorists, rather are merely among several insidiously effective means towards a greater end -- i.e., demonstrating that the U.S. is not "special" or "chosen," and that her citizens are not and cannot be free because (in their view) secular government is not legitimate and does not hold the power to grant freedom. (It's worth noting that Islam is not the only "flavor" of religion with extremists who reject the legitimacy of secular government.)

The characteristics of religious extremism have remained essentially the same throughout history, even though specific dogmas vary. "Political" extremism isn't much different, but in general, religious extremism tends to hold a more effective "trump card."

In any case, reacting to any type of extremism in a knee-jerk, extremist manner, IMO, isn't the wisest course of action. Better to turn off the panic button and respond rationally.

Tatin · In exile

hayden: Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, was flying to Florida with no luggage, on a one-way ticket, purchased with cash and the people in the Paris airport said he was acting strangely. Those things alone should have subjected him to much more searching than the routine traveler. Instead, he was allowed to fly.

I'd rather they stopped people by profiling. The Israelis ask every passenger questions while they are standing in line with their luggage. They do profile. If you have a passport from an unfriendly country you get more scrutiny. If you have traveled to unfriendly countries, you get more scrutiny. And if you don't have logical answers to questions about where and when you bought your ticket, why you are flying, etc. etc. you get pulled out of line for more questioning.

Yes, we have far more planes and more flyers than Israel. But with the millions spent on these body scanners which haven't yet caught a terrorist, more people could have been hired and trained for Israeli style security.

hayden · Senior Member

You're right, Bullit. I do put seat belts and metal detectors in the same category. I guess it comes down to what level of risk you want to accept. You are willing to accept more risk than I am. I don't fly as much as pizzagirl or busdriver, but I put in just over 60,000 miles in 12 months, and I do not want to flip a coin on who's in the seat next to me. Perhaps I'm just a scaredcat, I don't know. The fact is that when I, or a family member, get on a plane, I want us to land right side up, and I don't object to going through the scanner to help that cause.

Just as you said earlier, I agree that these are not facts to compare and contrast, but rather deal with personal approaches to risk. Each person has his/her own level. Mine is pretty low, which is why I'd never have had the guts to be in the army, as you were. (As a side note, bullit, I'll bet not too many people have my family's record. Everyone in my immediate family served in the armed forces, my mother, father and sibling. I was the only one who didn't. When I was in grade school, I remember some kid using that old line about "bet your mother has combat boots", and I didn't understand it was an insult, because she did ! She said she had to marry my father, because he told her to, and he outranked her.)

Bullet · Senior Member

Bullet, a lot of what you say is true, but on the other hand, we don't just accept the risk of driving - at least, not without expensive precautions. I only buy cars with air bags, ABS brakes, obviously we all buy cars with seat belts. These are expensive but many, perhaps most, of us are willing to pay that price. Would you send a family member to the store in a car without seat belts? I wouldn't.

Hayden, what you mention as safety precautions are ALL mechanical features that we accept as logical and unobtrusive. In fact, there are MORE mechanical safety features in a commercial aircraft than what would be cost beneficial in a private automobile. Some of the technologies we take for granted today in our cars started in the air-travel industry, and were added when the price for the technology came down to acceptable levels.

What I am talking about is risks to safety due to the human element. Do we become as obtrusive with our driving habits as we are with our passenger security just so we can reduce that human element? And regardless how you feel about the statistics, you can't argue that we all face the greater risk on our highways than we do when we travel by commercial air plane.

hayden · Senior Member

PS to my last post (as if it weren't already long enough!), BCeagle, I neglected to comment on your background screening. Can you imagine requiring everyone who flies to "cough up a few thousand dollars" ? That would not be acceptable at all to the majority of people - we fly into a rage at paying a couple of hundred ollars more in taxes!

hayden · Senior Member

Bullet, a lot of what you say is true, but on the other hand, we don't just accept the risk of driving - at least, not without expensive precautions. I only buy cars with air bags, ABS brakes, obviously we all buy cars with seat belts. These are expensive but many, perhaps most, of us are willing to pay that price. Would you send a family member to the store in a car without seat belts? I wouldn't.

Not to mention that I've always had an issue with the analogies to car accidents. The statistics people use normally include all deaths related to car accidents. But if you took out the people who died because they themselves were driving erratically, drinking, or because they voluntarily got into a car with someone who was drinking, and you only counted the innocents who died in accidents, the statistics would look a lot different.

BCeagle, you also raise good points. But you have to deal with the time frames between now and when everyone could apply for and get clearance. Plus, who would decide who could fly? I imagine most of you read the same things I did about the 911 attackers. They weren't just Muslims, and they weren't just radicals - they were emotionally unhinged. The letter that Atta left was, according to Muslims who commented on it, very far from the Islamic religion. He went so far as to include instructions on how his body should be handled when it was recovered from the wreckage. Really? he was going to drive a commercial airliner into the 84th floor of a building, and there would be a body? He was clearly insane.

If you screen someone and they have severe emotional problems such that they constitute a "danger to themselves or to others", will they be okay to get on planes? Would a psychologist who happens to be a Muslim, but a member of the active US armed forces be allowed on? Would a native-born English man by the last name of Reid, with no prior brushes with the law, be allowed on?

Having raised all those questions, I do agree with you that we might be able to come up with some sort of background screening. We have to be mindful that it won't work perfectly any more than anything else. After all, lawyers go through a very invasive and exhaustive "character and fitness" review which is even more thorough than a low level security clearance. Yet I think we would all agree that there are a few lawyers who aren't fit and don't have much of a character.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

Have security clearances for fliers as we do in the defense companies. You pay a few thousand for a background check and you get a pass on airport checkins outside of a metal-detector scan.

Bullet · Senior Member

But what is the answer? How do we keep people safe from attacks on planes? After the underwear bomber, I remember an outcry about why we couldn't detect this bomb before the guy got on the plane.

The answer is quite simple: we stop letting fear run our lives (which is EXACTLY what the Islamic Extremists want), and we use some common sense on the "risk vs. benefits" model.

Let's face it, the Islamic Extremists CAN'T WIN in a war against us. They can hurt is, particularly if they get some WMDs (which won't be stopped by pat-downs at JFK), but ultimatley they can't beat us in the short term. So, how CAN they beat us in the long term? Well, I've used this analogy before, the fly and the tiger. How can a fly beat a tiger? By making the tiger scared to be bitten once, so much so that the tiger continually chases it own tail to the point it collapses in exhaustion. And the fly wins.

Look, how many people a day die on our highways either by drunk-driving or through distractions like cell phones and coffee? But we don't see anyone calling for a cop at the entrance to EVERY HIGHWAY, stopping EVERY vehicle and searching it for alcohol, I-phones, or cups of Joe. Why is that? Every American has a significantly greater risk of dying on the highway due to these than of getting on a plane with a guy with C-4 in his Fruit-of-the-Looms. It's a risk vs. benefit argument; we have learned to accept the risk rather than accept draconian measures to avoid it. We can do the same in regards to this threat.

Right now, guys living in caves and stuck in the 4th Century in their mentality are LAUGHING at how easy it is to wind us up into hysterics. It's time to ignore them, go back to being Americans, and ACCEPT THE RISKS. Stop leting this fly drive us to the point of collapse. Stop living in fear.

Go back to the methods we used pre-9/11; metal detectors and screening of bags. Add some searches of suspicious characters; if it makes a fellow angry that he is profiled becuase he looks like hwe may be from Yemen? Well, sorry; that's just the world we live in now.

hayden · Senior Member

All of these concerns - privacy, personal belongings, dignity - are very valid, and I think most people would prefer a world where none of these invasive measures has to be used.

But what is the answer? How do we keep people safe from attacks on planes? After the underwear bomber, I remember an outcry about why we couldn't detect this bomb before the guy got on the plane. Now we have detectors, and we're upset about them.

Where I do disagree with you is in seeing a similarity between these measures and the Patriot Act. Everyone has a body, and everyone has private parts. No one can put you in prison or fire you from a job from having "junk". Listening in on your political opinions and private thoughts is not at all the same thing as checking to see if you're packing a bomb.

So what do we do to keep ourselves safe? I don't think the Israeli response works for us, since they are monitoring about 2 airports, with a total of about 40 planes. We've got single states who have significantly more exposure than that. Logistically there is no comparison at all.

As for profiling, we actually do profile, it's just that the TSA can't talk about it. [I don't know this for a fact myself, it's just what I've heard from people in the SS and FBI.] It's based on a combination of things, including whether you're a single passenger, your demeanor, your looks, nationality, etc. They have to disguise it for both legal and practical reasons. The practical reasons are simply that if we said we'd pay attention to middle eastern men and give a pass to everyone else, the muslims would recruit someone who looked like Cat Stevens. If we are too predictable about who we pull out of line, then we open ourselves up immensely.

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

At this point in the game, I see the outrage being less of a partisan nature, and more of a personal nature.

If you are bothered by the idea of the TSA feeling you up or taking an xray naked scan of you, it may not be a result of how you vote, but the concern for the big picture and how this new hassle is an assault on your personal liberties.

I see several issues that worry me, in no particular order:

1) I have doubts that this particular method will catch everything there is to catch for a passenger boarding a plane.

2) the random nature of the screenings may serve more as a deterrent to others considering the crime. Or not, depending upon the nature of the intended crime.

3) the training/professionalism of the TSA personnel seems to vary according to the airport.

4) being pulled for a private screening may take you out of eye contact with those fellow travelling companions and other passengers, as well as your valuables.

5) the false sense of security that each new step is actually making our skies safer just boggles my mind. Did you see Adam from Mythbusters allegedly made it through the airport screening with two 12 inch long razor blades? Here is a link to the video - skip to 1:05 to avoid the clapping:

http://current.com/entertainment/comedy/92817995_adam-savage-boards-plane-with-12-inch-razor-blades.htm

BTW, isn't it fun to post links to video?

6) the slippery slope. What new assault on our freedom is coming? People bitched and moaned about the Patriot Act...sorry, but this is...worse. Listen to my phone conversations, scrutinize my bank statements, whatever, but hopefully there is probable cause that I am doing something untoward, before abusing my civil liberties.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Tuesday 23rd of November 2010 09:49:50 PM

longprime · Guru

Love that nose.

We had a dog (neighbor's lab) on our farm that greeted us the dog's way. She always greeted us that way, you'd think that she would know even after being slapped away. It was futile, until she got to goose you. evileye

catahoula · Guru

What? Are you serious? Every single liberal/progressive I know, or have read, is up in arms about this.
The scanners or the crotch search? Both?

edited to add:

I can't say what the NYT's editorial position on the subject is, since I didn't read it, but I did catch Eugene Robinson's piece,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/23/why_granny_gets_searched_108042.html
and he seems okay with it.

-- Edited by catahoula on Tuesday 23rd of November 2010 09:29:44 PM

catahoula · Guru

Holder? I figured he was simply on standby, waiting for the New Black Panthers to get into the screening game.

Napolitano, oth, is an enterprising little bee these days:
"I think the tighter we get on aviation, we have to also be thinking now about going on to mass transit or to trains or maritime. So, what do we need to be doing to strengthen our protections there?"

Napolitano’s comments, made a day before one of the nation’s busiest travel days, come in the wake of a public outcry over newly implemented airport screening measures that have been criticized for being too invasive.

The secretary has defended the new screening methods, which include advanced imaging systems and pat-downs, as necessary to stopping terrorists. During the interview with Rose, Napolitano said her agency is now looking into ways to make other popular means of travel safer for passengers and commuters.

She shines brightest though, when she expounds on the underlying reasons why we body search nuns:

“The long-term [question] is, how do we get out of this having to have an ever-increasing security apparatus because of terrorists and a terrorist attack?” she said. “I think having a better understanding of what causes someone to become a terrorist will be helpful."

DHS and intelligence officials are not as far along in understanding that process as they would like, Napolitano said, adding that until that goal is reached, steps need to be put in place to ensure the public’s safety.

“We don’t know much,” she said. “If you were to try and devise a template about what connects this terrorist to this terrorist and how they were raised and what schools they went to and their socioeconomic status, or this or that, it’s all over the map.

I think the lesson here is, that if you pick good people and stand by them while they try to puzzle out those perplexing things, you pretty much deserve what you get.

DonnaL · Senior Member

catahoula wrote:

other than the fact it isn't Dick sliding his hand up their crotch -- this looks pretty much like what they predicted and it seems to be A-OK with them.

What? Are you serious? Every single liberal/progressive I know, or have read, is up in arms about this. You know, civil liberties? Not to mention the rights of the disabled, women's rights, LGBT rights (especially the T), and so on ad infinitum. It isn't A-OK with anyone.

longprime · Guru

Once we started down the path of Darkness, it takes a tremendous force to not only stop the momemtum but also to change its course.

Remember the Patriot Act and its Renewal were both passed with little controversy and near unanimous Congressional approvals.

poetgrl · Senior Member

I find napalitano and holder to be particularly feckless and irritating, personally.

catahoula · Guru

Its appears partisan to the extent that the administration, the arbiter of airport screening protocol, owes its existence to support from those bitter complainers -- the ones that moaned about Cheney building a new fascist state and all the freedoms we were losing. And the odd thing is -- other than the fact it isn't Dick sliding his hand up their crotch -- this looks pretty much like what they predicted and it seems to be A-OK with them.

Whats that saying about "always fighting the last war", and how its a sure prescription for losing? The administration, as politically correct and clueless as it is, seems to have taken it to heart: in spite of the fact no elderly or pre-pubescent hijackers have yet struck, they're determined to root the potential ones out, no matter that it makes the public contempous of the whole thing.

Obama ought to do a little of the old "declaring victory and going home", sometime soon on the issue. Show Pistole - or better yet, Napolitano - the tire tread and move them off the stage.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

poetgrl wrote:

I just can't see how this is a "partisan" issue, frankly, but maybe it is.

I'm just not comfortable with these particular people having this type of unlimited power which even the police and FBI don't have. I mean, I guess, at this point, we are saying that buying a plane ticket and showing up at the airport is probable cause for what is basically a strip search for anybody over the age of 12.

I think we are losing sight of our rights and our freedoms.

I agree with you 100%. I am one of those "libs" who is not OK with this new "technique" of searching people. It's more because I think it will clog up the airports and create more problems that way (cranky people) than it will help. If there was a more private way or safer way, I would not really be opposed to the full-body scans. Right now though, too many kinks.

Now... whoever made the suggestion about knocking everyone out before the flight... can't say I'm against that. Think of how much happier the skies would be. No more crying babies, no more guys next to you that ramble on and on, no more cranky flight attendants. Sounds like a dream

poetgrl · Senior Member

I just can't see how this is a "partisan" issue, frankly, but maybe it is.

I'm just not comfortable with these particular people having this type of unlimited power which even the police and FBI don't have. I mean, I guess, at this point, we are saying that buying a plane ticket and showing up at the airport is probable cause for what is basically a strip search for anybody over the age of 12.

I think we are losing sight of our rights and our freedoms.

romanigypsyeyes · Guru

geeps20 wrote:

ironic how the libs are on board with the pat downs..while they opposed all Bush's anti terror tactics. Funny how the libs mind set changes depending on who is on the oval office.

What anti-terror tactics? Going into an unnecessary war and illegally torturing people? Illegally wire-tapping phones? Not really the same as a pat-down. Which "tactics" are you referring to?

And I know a LOT of libs who are NOT ok with the pat-downs. In fact, it seems to me that more conservatives are OK with this than libs, but I haven't been following this TOO closely.

longprime · Guru

Bullet, did you have to give up your private transportation?

I really like that suit.

longprime · Guru

Its really an automobile conspiracy.

Less people travelling on mass transit-means they travel in private vehicles, which our good Government owns a good portion either directly or indirectly. evileye

geeps20 · Senior Member

ironic how the libs are on board with the pat downs..while they opposed all Bush's anti terror tactics. Funny how the libs mind set changes depending on who is on the oval office.

DonnaL · Senior Member

Do you really trust the TSA to do a decent job of profiling, and base it -- like the Israelis do -- on actual behavioral signals rather than ethnicity? Given what they pay, and how much the training would cost, how in the world are they going to find enough agents who would be qualified to do that? I've read that there are more passengers going through an airport like DFW every single day than there are in every airport in Israel put together.

We'll all be undergoing public body cavity searches before they manage to implement a system like Israel's in any effective way.

Tatin · In exile

I saw Hillary on television saying that she wouldn't submit to a body pat down. I wonder if Michelle Obama and her girls would.

The American public wants the TSA to profile. It makes no sense to pat down children and old people, the infirm, those with ostomies, and just normal folks.

People whose travel history shows trips to Pakistan, Yemen and other yes Muslim countries should get lots of extra screening.

Young men with the above travel or residence history should get even more screening that that.

I think those two qualifiers alone would have caught all the airline terrorists in the last ten years.

pima · Guru

Today on Morning Joe ---without Joe, they showed horror stories.

A man who is a bladder cancer survivor actually had urinated on his clothing due to the pat down.

I see the TSA like the public school system with ZERO tolerance. Common sense goes out the flipping door because a reg is a reg!

Artemis · Senior Member

I've gone through the airport scanners, because at least it feels impersonal. I am a bit concerned about my husband because he goes through them sometimes a few times a week. I'm just not confident that the radiation exposure is being accurately measured.

-- Edited by Artemis on Tuesday 23rd of November 2010 09:17:43 AM

archiemom · In exile

http://my.earthlink.net/article/str?guid=20101121%2Ff4e8164e-facf-470c-a38e-ac4e0d4dd7fe

CHRISTMAS PRESENTS!!!!!!!!!

pima · Guru

Yesterday I had to do a 9 hr car trip to pick up DD from college so I had a lot of time to listen to talk radio. I heard some amazing stories from callers, here were just the OMG ones:

1. Couple with 7 yr old go through and for whatever reason they decided the DD needed to get a further inspection. They refused to allow the Mother to hold her hand as they patted her down.

Point: We teach our kids that no adult should touch you and yet that occurred as a parent was let helpless to watch. A 7 yo!

2. A Boston TSA employee has a criminal record for sexually molesting a 14 yo, but is working at our airports.

Point: Where is the security for us? How did he get this job as a convicted molester?

3. A divorced Mom who had to hand off her child last week for an early T-DAY was not allowed to walk her child to the gate, she later found out her child was put through the full body scanner after talking to her ex.

Point: see no 2

4. A lesbian caller was placed through the pat down and stated the female TSA employee had reached into her pants to the underwear band, and then came back up through the legs and buttocks

Point: Imagine the sexual lawsuits. Do passengers now have to answer their sexuality so no lawsuits come up. Sir/Madam are you homosexual or heterosexual?

The best was when an "expert" was on and he stated that he had met the equivalent of Homeland Security from Israel at a convention/seminar and he said the problem with America is you are refusing to profile. We have been successful because we profile.

On one of the shows they had me in hysterics because they played a clip of Archie Bunker when he did a pro/con tv show. The part was about skyjackings as he called it. He had a solution. As everyone gets on the plane hand them a gun, when they get off collect the gun and then the problem would be solved! You know we do that in a way at our schools, enter the classroom and the math teacher gives you a calculator, before the end of class they collect them again.

Not saying that is the solution, but you have to admit if you can remember Archie, it would make you laugh because that was classic Archie.

-- Edited by pima on Saturday 20th of November 2010 09:47:34 AM

-- Edited by pima on Saturday 20th of November 2010 09:49:39 AM

poetgrl · Senior Member

Was talking to daughter on the phone this morning. She is flying home for break tomorrow afternoon.

I recommended she go through the scanners.

The concept of somebody groping on my 19 year old daughter is really gross. JMO

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I think I would go with the scanner at this point, but if I were a frequent traveller, I am not sure. I know they say it is low risk, but half the radiation we get in our lifetime is from medical scans and sometimes operators and machines have made mistakes.

archiemom · In exile

My son is flying cross-country for Thanksgiving and he has hinted that (the atheist anarchist that he is) he will "test" the system. Great. Just hope he lets me know how it turns out before I head for the airport at 11pm Tues night.

I myself am trying to decide between the scanner and the pat-down. I do not want to be a sheep and just blindly accept every further erosion of our freedoms. But of course I also do not want to be too inconvenienced. It may be out of my hands, though, as we are beginning our Christmas trip at a regional airport that likely doesn't even have the scanners in place yet. Return trip starts in Detroit, where we have always been subjected to extra checks. I don't think my older son has flown once since 2001 without being pulled aside for a custom search.

jazzy · Senior Member

Okay, so that's the good news. Go ahead and tell me what it's going to cost me.

That was wicked. Needs one of these

Tom1944 · Senior Member

Maybe we should subcontract out the function of the TSA to Israel. They seem to have the process down.