No Titty Grab, Thanks
Gregg said it best when he e-mailed me the link:
I feel safer because a rape victim with a pacemaker was dragged off by the cops, don't you?
A woman was arrested at the Austin airport after refusing to let the TSA workers grope her breasts in the name of security. From KVUE.com, Jim Bergamo writes:
Hirschkind said because of the device in her body, she was led to a female TSA employee and three Austin police officers. She says she was told she was going to be patted down."I turned to the police officer and said, 'I have given no due cause to give up my constitutional rights. You can wand me,'" and they said, 'No, you have to do this,'" she said.
Hirschkind agreed to the pat down, but on one condition.
"I told them, 'No, I'm not going to have my breasts felt,' and she said, 'Yes, you are,'" said Hirschkind.
When Hirschkind refused, she says that "the police actually pushed me to the floor, (and) handcuffed me. I was crying by then. They drug me 25 yards across the floor in front of the whole security."
An ABIA spokesman says it is TSA policy that anyone activating a security alarm has two options. One is to opt out and not fly, and the other option is to subject themselves to an enhanced pat down. Hirschkind refused both and was arrested.
Other travelers KVUE talked to say they empathize with Hirschkind, but the law is the law.
"I understand her side of it, and their side as well, but it is for our protection so I have no problems with it," said Gwen Washington, who lives in Killeen.
"It's unfortunate that that happened and she didn't get to fly home, but it makes me feel a little safer," said Emily Protine.
In other words, what Emily and Gwen were saying is "Baaa...baaaa..baaaa."
Ladies, you aren't safer, just more likely to give up more of your freedoms without a peep.
Here's the video:
Here's another woman who did get sexually violated at the airport:
The Rutherford Institute has filed suit against the TSA, insisting that Americans do not shed their privacy rights when entering an airport or boarding a plane:
"No American should be forced to undergo a virtual strip search or subjected to such excessive groping of the body as a matter of course in reporting to work or boarding an airplane when there is no suspicion of wrongdoing," said John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "To do so violates human dignity and the U.S. Constitution, and goes against every good and decent principle this country was founded upon."
Details of the travelers on whose behalf they're bringing the suit at the above link.
FYI, The Rutherford Institute is a civil liberties organization that provides free legal services to people who have had their constitutional and/or human rights violated.
Finally, a guy e-mailed me this -- an account of how you can supposedly file sexual assault charges against TSA screeners. Any lawyers want to weigh in?
Let me get this straight.You have the option of 1)x-rays that may or may not cause life threatening illnesses. 2) Sexual assault. or 3) Arrest.
If you are chosen for this "enhanced" screening process, these are your "options". No "let me turn around and leave because I am not letting your perverty agents feel me up" or "Why don't you arrest Muhamed and his wives, their camel looks like it is carrying a heavy load of tnt".
I weep for this country.
Kat at December 27, 2010 12:54 AM
Ok.. Let me get this right. You have the right to request a private room for them to molest you.. Thats just sick. No way I want these people touching my bits in full view of everyone else. Nor do I want them to do it in private where they could get away with just about anything..
They need to end this crap. No searches without a warrant. And no "Due cause" either. If you suspect something.. hold them and get a warrant. Or at least consent.
JosephineMO7 at December 27, 2010 3:03 AM
Where the hell is the ACLU? Why aren't lawyers suing to get this unconstitutional practice stopped?
Patrick at December 27, 2010 4:36 AM
If our Congressional overlords and the first family were subjected to this, it would end.
I'm betting some smart politicians are going to take notice.
MarkD at December 27, 2010 5:17 AM
I've done the pat down. It's not that awful. I don't know if it was the "enhanced" pat down, but I booked a flt to Washington, DC the nt before, and because my name arguably sounds sort of middle eastern (Tanya) I apparently got put on some security list.
It was a female agent, and done in that clear booth off to the side. Pat, pat, pat. She briefly hit on my breasts and between my legs, but I didn't feel violated.
Flying is a privilege, not a right. I certainly don't think anyone should be molested, or humiliated, but I also want to know that there's enough deterence that someone won't bring a weapon on board.
Of course, we know who those are likely to be...but what if we didn't? Would there be as much outrage about these searches if our terrorists could look like your average housewife?
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 5:42 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1809547">comment from lovelysoulFlying is a privilege, not a right. I certainly don't think anyone should be molested, or humiliated, but I also want to know that there's enough deterence that someone won't bring a weapon on board.
Flying has become an ordinary way to get around and do business. Should Gregg hitchhike from LA to Detroit? What of all the people who fly much more often for their job? Should they have their balls or breasts felt daily by strangers?
"I also want to know that there's enough deterence that someone won't bring a weapon on board"
The Israelis look for terrorists, not tweezers. There are numerous examples of people getting through with weapons -- sometimes, after being groped by the TSA. And what of airport workers and food service people? Are they X-raying every ham sandwich that comes on?
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 5:47 AM
The whole thing has gotten WAY out of control - I'm not flying until this shit stops. It's insane, and only serves to encourage the real terrorists to find new ways to terrorize us. That the TSA is doing these searches just indicates that the terrorists have already won, to an extent. Instead of ferretiing out the real terrorists, all the TSA is doing is terrorizing US citizens. Which is so very wrong on so very many levels. We didn't blow up any damn planes.
Flynne at December 27, 2010 6:10 AM
I know. Somebody left a boxcutter on a plane the other day - an airline worker cleaning the plane, I guess. Weapons still get through, and that is scary. Our security in the air is mainly due to the fact that most people don't want to take down an airplane.
But some do, and I wish we had the sense to concentrate on those who are most likley to be threats, even though it's profiling. The Israelis probably don't care about profiling.
My point is that the outrage is as much because of the silliness of searching some grandma, who is obviously not a threat. Average Americans are getting angry because THEY have to be searched...which, in our situation, is valid. But what if it wasn't? What if we began having terrorist threats from people who were not from one particular ethnic group?
If there was a realistic chance that the ordinary housewife was packing a bomb in her bra, I don't care if she doesn't want to be patted down. In fact, if she refused, she'd seem more guilty. I don't want her on a plane with me.
But a pat down is not a grope down. It shouldn't feel that violating.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 6:13 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1809584">comment from lovelysoulIf there was a realistic chance that the ordinary housewife was packing a bomb in her bra,
She could be packing a bomb up her ass. Are you in favor of pre-boarding rectal exams?
I read something about Al Qaeda possibly having bombs surgically implanted in the dupes they recruit to blow themselves up for Allah. Are you in favor of exploratory surgery as a condition of flying?
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 6:22 AM
"I read something about Al Qaeda possibly having bombs surgically implanted in the dupes they recruit to blow themselves up for Allah. Are you in favor of exploratory surgery as a condition of flying?"
No, of course not. And it probably will happen. But that doesn't make the effort to deter anything BUT (or butt) that event fruitless. Do you honestly not care if Gregg is on a plane with a terrorist with a knife or bomb in his underwear?
Look, this is not an ACLU type violation. None of us have to fly, although it's certainly a convenience. But it won't be convenient if planes keep being used as weapons. They are heavily loaded with fuel and make excellent bombs, as we learned on 9/11.
However, being groped is a problem...if that's truly what's happening. When the agent put her hand between my legs she wasn't diddling me. She didn't linger over my boobs. I can deal with a pat. I think most people can, in the name of safety.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 6:32 AM
Thank you for posting these videos. It has inspired me to compose this letter to Jim Compton, CMO for Continental:
December 27, 2010
Jim Compton
PO Box 4607
Houston, TX 72210
Dear Mr. Compton,
I am writing this letter to express concern for the future of Continental Airlines as a competitive business force in the airline industry. I will honestly state that my preference for Continental outweighs all of your competitors that I have had traveled with, and planned to continue to do so in the future as my traveling schedule increases.
My concern deals with the abusive and sexually harassing policies of the TSA during their security “pat downs” before boarding one of your planes. In fact, I have chosen means of travel other than flight, recently, to avoid this blatant abuse of power by the TSA, which seems to have little to do with traveler safety and more about humiliating and assaulting an already docile population. I will continue to avoid purchasing any tickets from Continental until the TSA is abolished.
This seems like a radical notion, but I truly believe that yourself, Mr. Compton, as Executive Vice President in charge of marketing and revenue, have much more of a vested interest in protecting your customer base and billions of dollars in inventory than does the TSA. Surely, in this case, Continental would never authorize molestation of their customers before boarding one of their planes, as this would shrink the customer base to virtually nothing. And, since TSA has admitted that some of their current procedures had already been formulated before the 9/11 tragedy, I find it highly suspect this “agency” is competent enough to keep improving their “procedures” to protect, well, anybody. I am sure you will agree with my assessment.
Until then, I do wish Continental well, and should the TSA be just another bad memory from the violence-state and abolished out of existence, I then look forward to becoming a customer again and utilizing only Continental for all of my traveling needs.
Sincerely,
Ian M. Keogh
Ian at December 27, 2010 6:33 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1809622">comment from lovelysoulDo you honestly not care if Gregg is on a plane with a terrorist with a knife or bomb in his underwear?
I hope he won't be, of course, but the measures we have in place have been shown over and over not to prevent it. You look for terrorists, not tweezers, to be most safe. When the panty bomber's dad tells you that his kid is a radicalized risk, you aren't so busy focusing on some middle-class lady carrying her baby that you ignore the real risk.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 6:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1809625">comment from IanGreat letter, Ian.
And I didn't get a pat. I got my breasts felt up in a way I have not by anyone who isn't dating me or a doctor checking for cancerous lumps.
We cannot be docile about these unwarranted searches or we will continue to be led down this path.
Again, we have been shown over and over that the TSA are letting through big knives and possibly more. If somebody with two brain cells to rub together wants to bring down a plane, they probably can.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 6:39 AM
"When the panty bomber's dad tells you that his kid is a radicalized risk, you aren't so busy focusing on some middle-class lady carrying her baby that you ignore the real risk."
I totally agree with that. But, again, if this were not the case - if we had no idea who might be a terrorist - a lot of this outcry about pat downs and violation of civil rights would fly out the window.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 6:43 AM
"I hope he won't be, of course, but the measures we have in place have been shown over and over not to prevent it."
I don't know how you come to that conclusion. We haven't had a major terrorist attack using planes since 9/11. The fact that some weapons still get through isn't evidence that the security procedures don't work. Terrorists have no way of knowing if they'll be lucky to get them through or not. That's the deterrent. And if they have to go so far as to stick a bomb up their ass to get it through, that's a deterrent.
Ultimately, they'll probably do that, or move to others forms of transportation, but that doesn't justify making flying easier for them. As you note, commercial flying is critical for our economy. It wouldn't just be the plane and people they take down, but a whole lot of business, and with a withering economy, we really can't afford that.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 6:53 AM
But we do have ideas about who might be a terrorist. So, let's think about what we do know, rather than just groping everyone. Has the TSA actually found anyone they wouldn't let on a plane?
KateC at December 27, 2010 6:54 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1809636">comment from lovelysoulWe haven't had a major terrorist attack using planes since 9/11.
We have had attempts -- they just didn't work, probably mainly thanks to the way Islam is anti-science and says all the science comes out of the Quran. If Jews wanted to blow up planes, half of the US fleet would be in small particles in fields in Idaho.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 7:07 AM
She should have worn a hijab. Then she'd breeze right through!
Cousin Dave at December 27, 2010 7:13 AM
Look, this is not an ACLU type violation. None of us have to fly, although it's certainly a convenience. But it won't be convenient if planes keep being used as weapons. They are heavily loaded with fuel and make excellent bombs, as we learned on 9/11.
lovelysoul,
There will never be a 9/11 unless it caused by the pilots.
Everyone misses the point. From the Complete 911 Timeline everything changed that September day:
8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001: Flight 11 Hits the North Tower of the World Trade Center
9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001: Newark Controllers Watch Flight 175 Hit WTC
9:57 a.m. September 11, 2001: Passengers Begin Attempt to Regain Control of Flight 93
10:06 a.m. September 11, 2001: Nearby Cottage Destroyed When Flight 93 Crashes
The hijackers were taken out on Flight 93 a little over an hour after the North Tower was hit.
Every single attempted attack since 9/11 has been stopped by the passengers. Let me repeat it with some more emphasis: Every single attempted attack since 9/11 has been stopped by the passengers.
The TSA should be standing at the gates asking "Are you armed?" and if not handing you a knife, box cutter, taser or similar item to you. Lock the door to the flight deck and from there it will not happen again.
As far as not having to fly -- what if they set up checkpoints every 25 miles on the highway checking for contraband, DUI, insurance, etc. You don't have to go more than 25 miles from your house. Right?
Jim P. at December 27, 2010 7:21 AM
The TSA perverts aren’t doin’ titty grabs, they’re doin’ mammary gland manipulations.
Roger at December 27, 2010 8:10 AM
All we can do is make it harder. We're not going to make it impossible. And a lot of what keeps things running is the perception of safety.
The first time we have one of these jerks explode with a bomb inside him, commercial flying will come to a halt. Doesn't matter if he got into the cockpit. He'll take out everyone on the plane, maybe some on the ground, and effectively bring zillions of businesses, like mine, which depend on tourist travel, to a standstill.
I remember how it was after 9/11. If tourists couldn't get here by car, they didn't come. It was only after stricter security measures gave the perception that flying was safer that this changed.
I just went through the oil spill too. It didn't matter that we had no oil here. The peception that we could get oil was all that it took to costs businesses tens of thousands of dollars.
So, what are we going to do...just not screen or pat down because it's too intrusive? That will make a lot of people too nervous to fly. I think there is some comfort that we are not make it easy, at least.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 8:27 AM
The thing that bothers me the most is not just the egregious violation of privacy, but the fact that it's just ineffective. I am willing to give up a little privacy and money if I thought it was actually doing any good but it's not.
It's a dog and pony show. These searches are nothing but theater for the massess. They are meant to make the public "feel" safer, but that doesn't mean we "are" safer. The searches aren't actually preventing anything. Face it, it a terrorist wants to blow up a plane, he's going to find a way to do it. There is always an orafice that can be used to hide something. Just as drug mules have been doing for years, the same can be done with a small explosive or a weapon. The x-ray's and manual searches can't tell if you've swallowed something or if you've stuck something up your rear. Plus, we already know that children under the age of 12 are exempt from these searches. Would any of us put it past a terrorist to use a child, or a woman with a baby as a weapon? I sure wouldn't. Then what? Do we allow our children to be felt up as well in the name of "safety"?
And what about parcel packages? The last attempted plane bombing was done via parcel, not person. Are they coming up with a better screening process for those?
Also, the American public is more than capable of taking care of business as it proves over and over. Almost all recent problems on planes or at airports have been prevented and/or minimized not by TSA, but by other passengers.
The TSA is fighting yesterday's battle. They are using today's technology to prevent yesterday's problem but they aren't thinking ahead to tomorrow. And when tomorrow actually happens, then what? What else are we, the public, going to have to tolerate in the name of "safety"? How much power are we willing to give away just to "feel" safe?
Sabrina at December 27, 2010 8:38 AM
Flying is a privilege, not a right.
Tell me, where did I sign up to give up this:
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.
Or this:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Where exactly does the government get the idea that it is OK to grope my balls? please tell me how that is a reasonable request?
I R A Darth Aggie at December 27, 2010 8:47 AM
"And when tomorrow actually happens, then what? What else are we, the public, going to have to tolerate in the name of "safety"? How much power are we willing to give away just to "feel" safe?"
You made my point. Maybe the whole thing is smoke and mirors. Maybe we've never been any safer since 9/11, but the perception of safety kept commercial flying in existence, which surely helped keep our economy from completely collapsing.
Once the smoke and mirrors is up - if that's truly what it is - then, commercial flying may cease to be an option or become extremely limited, which will be devastating for our economy, so, personally, I'd rather people "feel" safer. We need people to feel safe enough to fly, even if it's just a false perception.
But I would also like to believe that we are a bit safer, despite the hassle and mistakes. Yes, passengers are more alert, but we also don't know how many plots were abandoned because it didn't look that easy to get through security. The one thing we have going for us is that these yahoos haven't been that bright.
And it's still unlikely that they're going to find women and children very accessible to plant bombs in...or blow themselves up. We know that we are primarily looking for males of middle eastern descent. They have had some luck recruiting young American males, so perhaps we're looking for those too, but, so far, we're not looking for white, middle aged American women, so grabbing their tits does seem foolish.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 8:55 AM
Oh, and for y'all who saying suck it up, flying is a privilege not a right, I'll come back with driving is a privilege and not a right, whatcha gonna do when you're required to waive your 4th amendment rights as a condition of getting a drivers license?
Imagine, you get pulled over for some minor infraction. You're told to get out of the car, assume the position and are patted down, then cuffed and put in the back of the squad car while the office tosses your vehicle looking for...well something. Maybe a concealed weapon. Maybe drugs. An hour later, you'll be let go because they didn't find anything, but your car is now a mess because they're not required to put stuff back.
I'm sure you'll say that'll never happen to me. Yeah, maybe. But you'd squeal like a stuck pig when it does.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 27, 2010 8:56 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1809706">comment from lovelysoulthe perception of safety kept commercial flying in existence
Now the perception (correct!) that you're likely to have your private parts touched by a stranger is sure to hurt the airline industry in substantive ways.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 9:05 AM
"Where exactly does the government get the idea that it is OK to grope my balls? please tell me how that is a reasonable request?"
Because you want or need to fly. The airlines are commercial businesses, being held up and protected by the government. If they can't keep you safe, they will have to close, just as I would if I couldn't keep you safe here at my business.
If I were under seige somehow by militants or drug cartels, and I could only assure your safety at my resort by searching anyone who entered, I'd have to do that. You, of course, wouldn't have to come and be searched, and if tourists still died because I couldn't keep them safe, I'm sure my business would end.
The alternative is to let the airlines fail, which I think they're too big and necessary to do. But if they can't keep travelers safe - or at least give the impression that they can - that's what will happen.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 9:06 AM
About a bomb-bra packing momma:
I don't want her on a plane with me.
Hey, flying is a privelege, so maybe you should consider walking? in the mean time, keep your cotton-picking hands off my 4th amendment rights.
It's the Bill of Rights not Bill of Suggestions.
I R A Darth Aggie at December 27, 2010 9:08 AM
Lovelysoul:
"You made my point. Maybe the whole thing is smoke and mirors. Maybe we've never been any safer since 9/11, but the perception of safety kept commercial flying in existence, which surely helped keep our economy from completely collapsing.
Once the smoke and mirrors is up - if that's truly what it is - then, commercial flying may cease to be an option or become extremely limited, which will be devastating for our economy, so, personally, I'd rather people "feel" safer. We need people to feel safe enough to fly, even if it's just a false perception."
So put lovelysoul down for expressly supporting catering to delusions as the basis of law-making, so long as enough people are fooled for a sufficient period of time.
Wow. Just, wow. Never heard anyone be that cynical without realizing how cynical they actually are.
Spartee at December 27, 2010 9:23 AM
"Flying is a privilege, not a right."
This is definitely not true. The Supreme Court has held that we have the right to travel freely between States, and that this includes flying.
Anyone - including TSA and/or LEOs - who tells you that you give up rights when you go to the airport is wrong.
a_random_guy at December 27, 2010 9:25 AM
Ohm, waa-waa-waaa, you get scanned or searched before boarding an airplane. This seems to have become a cause celebre for the People Organized to Oppose Policing (POOP) crowd.
This is an issue?
If you look at Wikipedia, you will find th nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the complete cost of the Iraqistan wars at $3 trillion and counting--about equal to 25 percent of our total outstanding federal debt, a curse we have handed off to our children, as we did not want to pay for these wars going in, and, of course, the real cost of the wars is never presented succintly to American taxpayers.
Although an expensive boondoggle, the scanners are approximately 1/3000th the costs of the Iraqistan wars.
But hey, those scanners--they can see my buns, and they might put my pics up on the web. And a TSA guy in Cleveland looked at me funny.
BOTU at December 27, 2010 9:37 AM
"So put lovelysoul down for expressly supporting catering to delusions as the basis of law-making, so long as enough people are fooled for a sufficient period of time."
There's a difference between being cynical and practical. It would've been absurd, and economic suicide, for the airlines not to do everything possible to give the perception of greater safety.
Many of you seem to believe that we aren't any safer, but I disagree. Not that I believe it's foolproof, but I think they're doing all that's humanly possible, and it's a good thing for our economy that this has kept people traveling.
As convenient and crucial as it is, air travel is not a public service or a right guaranteed by the constitution. For instance, I love my internet - and my business totally depends on it - but I understand that our founding fathers didn't give me the "right" to it. The fact that business has become so dependent on the internet...and air travel...and road travel...is a problem. Does the government step in and protect all these private businesses from attack? Does it step in if our grid or communication systems are attacked? And, if so, how?
We want that protection, but we don't like the cost of it. Airlines are for profit businesses. As such, they should be able to make any rules they want for allowing you on their planes. The fact the government has gotten involved in their protection has just made everything more complex. Airlines are not government entities.
What is really the alternative here? No screening or searching? That will cause the airlines to fold, and would be an open invitation to terrorists. It's just not practical.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 9:47 AM
"It's the Bill of Rights not Bill of Suggestions."
Love that line!!!!!
Lovelysoul,
You opinion is not exactly unbiased given that you're in the travel business.
Perception is not reality and I'd prefer to live in a real world with real solutions as opposed to living with a false sense of security shoved down my throat by a government more interested in controling it's people and being PC than making informed, practical decisions that could lead to a safer and less intrusive environment. The longer we continue to trade our freedoms for security the less we have of both. And the government will never-ever stop eroding them in the name of security unless we make them stop!
Next will be trains, buses, cars then your home. All in the name of safety mind you, so no real threat, right?
I have a small farm and have all the ingredients (diesel fuel, fertilizer) to do as much damage as Timothy Mcveigh, should the government be allowed to list me as a potential terrorist based on the perception that I could make a bomb?
You and the government may "perceive" you're safer but in reality you're not and while there wasting time on me (hard working, tax paying, law abidding citizen) a "real" threat goes un-noticed.
If your argument is the perception of safety is as good as actually being safe, you are woefully off base.....
Ed at December 27, 2010 10:03 AM
"an account of how you can supposedly file sexual assault charges against TSA screeners. Any lawyers want to weigh in?"
Sure. Its nonsense. According to the blogger's theory, one should vocalize their objection to the pat-down and then call the cops after it occurs. Ignores the fact that, absent a poorly-trained or misbehaving TSA employee, the pat-down simply won't happen if an objection is made. You may not be able to board the plane, but you will not be searched without consent. Once consent is obtained, all manner of criminal liability for the contact is vitiated.
There may also probably some criminal immunities at play for Federal agents performing their jobs, but I'm not super-familiar with how sovereign immunities work with TSA (which I understand to be a for-contract private entity).
In other words, there are far more effectie ways to protest this. Ian's, for one, is the most logical.
snakeman99 at December 27, 2010 10:29 AM
BOTU,
Comparing the cost of our military to the TSA is farcical to say the least. Might as well compare the costs of our military vs. the cost of the congressional subcommittee on mouse shit.
If you don't mind having your rights violated good for you. I however take great exception to our bill of rights being disregarded for a perception of safety. Israel has hundreds more terrorists per capita than we do with 1/10 the population yet some how manage to have the safest airports in the world; while every neighboring country is looking to eliminate them from the face of the earth. And they manage to do all of this without throwing the rights of there people under the bus.
My guess is you simply can’t manage to live your life without a nanny state to take care of you and assume the rest of us are beneath you and your very liberal logic.
Ed at December 27, 2010 10:43 AM
Again, the airlines are not government entities. The problem is that the government, rather than buying the airlines, and guaranteeing air travel as a "right" for all its citizens, has simply placed itself as the enforcer of safety for these private enterprises.
If I want to search everyone that enters my property and business before allowing them to use the services I provide and maintain, I believe, as a private enterprise, I have that right. Not sure, since I've never tried it, but I'm not the government searching you, and you certainly have the choice not to do business with me. I also have the right to refuse you services if you won't comply.
So, the dilemma is that the airlines are not strictly public. There's just this strange overlap with the TSA. Perhaps airlines should be public (do we really want to pay for that?), but, from the way I see it, these are their planes so they have the right to refuse to let you on if you don't adhere to their safety requirements, including a search.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 10:48 AM
Patrick, the ACLU of Philadelphia gets about 20k calls a year and can only take 800 cases. They have a limited staff, most of which is volunteer. I assume the same is for the other offices. They only take cases they are fairly sure they can win, where the facts are not in dispute.
NicoleK at December 27, 2010 10:52 AM
Ed-
I would love to reduce our nanny state, especially as it relates to rural Americans, who are the most mollycoddled, enfeebled, knock-kneed weaklings on Earth.
Did you know we spend $8 billion a year just on rural telephone subsidies? That dwarfs the one-time $2 Cash for Clunkers boondoggle. Every year.
POstal service, highways, water systems, power systems, rail stops, airports--all subsidized. Rural America would blow away without federal subsidies.
The Departmebnt of Defense, the VA and the State Department suck down nearly $1 trillion a year--and our only "enemies" appear to be armed primarily with cell phones and homemade bombs.
We have 11 aircraft carrier strike groups--to fight some guys in the hills of Afghanie (Time to pull out was several years ago anyway.)
We could eliminate the USDA, Dep't of Education, the Commerce Department, the Labor Department, and all foreign aid without meaningful impact on business life in America.
Getting scanned--I just don't care.
As for being liberal, I don't think so. I just notice the Red State Socialist Empire and the incredible waste called the US military.
That is where our federal income taxes go (read carefully--federal income taxes. Your payroll deductions finance Social Security and Medicare, also which should be cut).
BOTU at December 27, 2010 11:11 AM
I go to the airport, find out that my fourth and fifth amendment rights are suspended for being on the property and then decide I'm going to opt out. That's fine. But then if I leave with my rights intact -- I am subject to an $11,000 fine?
Kiss my ass!!
The last time a 9/11 style attack will ever happen was on 9/11. Blowing a plane out of the sky may still happen. A Pan Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie bombing) may happen again. But those are few and far between because they just aren't effective. You get maybe 175 passengers in the air and maybe fifty on the ground.
Jim P. at December 27, 2010 11:17 AM
“Again, the airlines are not government entities.”
Correct, they are private business and as such should not be forced to comply with government mandated safety regulations that are written not for safety but for profit. Not by the airlines mind you but for those inside Washington. Profiting on the fear of the American public is reprehensible.
Former Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff has given dozens of media interviews touting the need for the federal government to buy more full-body scanners for airports, why? Because the Chertoff Groups (his security consulting firm) largest client owns the manufacturing business for these machines. Rapiscan’s lobbyists include Susan Carr, a former senior legislative aide to Rep. David Price, D-N.C., chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee. And then we have George Soros who’s heavily invested in OSI Systems Inc. which is the parent company for Rapiscan. And that’s just to start with.
This is not, nor ever has it been a safety first issue. This is typical Washington insider, politics as usual, slight of hand spin doctoring that has been going on for generations.
Like my father always told me; if you want the truth, follow the money…..
Ed at December 27, 2010 11:27 AM
Ed-
Congrats, you are catching on. The entire federal defense complex mirrors the rest of the federal government, in that it is there to enrich the well-connected, or sustain itself.
Rapiscan is a rivet on the supertanker of federal defense-homeland security waste and lard.
BOTU at December 27, 2010 11:35 AM
BOTU,
Don't need to catch on, I'm there already. We have over 10,000 government agencies. And we need desperately to eliminate most and get spending under control. But we are not talking about our spending indiscretions, we are discussing the erosion of our basic rights. I’ve read what you said, agree with most, which is why I’m so perplexed that any further erosion of our rights just doesn’t seem to bother you much.
Spending on our military has scant little to do with the TSA violating our bill of rights and the 4th amendment of the constitution. In fact the military is sworn to protect the constitution of the United States. So we can save the spending habits of our government for another thread and try and stay on topic in this one.
Ed at December 27, 2010 12:06 PM
Ed-
My rights? As in, I can be detained and have no access to a lawyer--indeed no one need be informed I have been detained--under the Patriot Act?
Frankly, I just don't care about scanners. I was walking through metal detectors before. Probably we should use both, before letting some lulus on the planes.
Amy Alkon has pointed out repeatedly that scanners would not pick up cylinders (metallic or flesh-like) jammed into her rectum. BTW, here is a human behavior article Alkon missed: http://www.slate.com/id/2270622/
As for profiling and letting "obviously" non-threatening people onto airplanes: Recall Lockerbie? I think a bomb was placed into the backpack of a pregnant blonde lady. I would never suspect a pregnant blonde of carrying a bomb onto a plane.
That is why I say scanners are not a major issue; huge federal waste is the issue.
BOTU at December 27, 2010 12:51 PM
This seems to have become a cause celebre for the People Organized to Oppose Policing (POOP) crowd. This is an issue?
Yes. And it goes back to The Founders. Someone thought the 4th Amendment was worth writing down. That's probably the biggest hurdle to the constabulary across the country. Then there's that pesky "I invoke my right to counsel" 5th Amendment thingie, which maybe the next biggest roadblock to quick and efficient policing.
You can waive your rights at any time you want. But in the meantime, keep your cotton-picking hands off mine.
Franklin's line about those who give up essential liberty for safety deserves neither seems to ring oh so true - we're giving up liberty for questionable safety. Do you know for a fact that these pr0n scanners are actually safe?
I R A Darth Aggie at December 27, 2010 1:10 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1809918">comment from BOTUIt's "The Hindawi Affair" where the bomb was placed in the luggage of a pregnant Irish woman.
What you didn't mention is that the Israelis found it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindawi_affair
The Israelis don't have people who might just as well have gone for a job at McDonald's manning their security. And they look for terrorists, not tweezers.
Amy Alkon at December 27, 2010 1:23 PM
According to the US weather service
Odds of being struck by lightning in a given year
1 in 5000
Now your odds of dying in a plane talen down by terrorists?
246 passangers + the 19 hijackers = 265
UP poulation = 300,000,000
300,000,000 / 265 = 1,132,075
So on 9/11 your odds of dying on a plane attaked by terrorists was 1 in 1.13 million
December 17 1903 was the first 'heavier than air' powered flight, its been 107 yrs
107 * 365 = 39055 add in leap years (27 to be exact) and you get 39,082 days
Now I havent slept in a while and am about to crash but if I am douing my math right, taking into account 9/11 was the ONLY succesful forgein national terroist attack in US avation history, it pushes your odds up to about 1 in ten billion.
Your odds of dying in a plane attacked by terrorists is 1 in tens of billions.
lujlp at December 27, 2010 1:28 PM
Amy-
A quick Wiki suggests you are right. But it serves as an example why profiling does not always work. Sure, Israelis are good, there is no contesting that.
But Americans?
BOTU at December 27, 2010 1:31 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/23/AR2010122304412.html
"About eight of every 10 registered lobbyists who work for scanner-technology companies previously held positions in the government or Congress, most commonly in the homeland security, aviation or intelligence fields, a Washington Post review of lobbying-disclosure forms and other data shows."
Sio at December 27, 2010 4:01 PM
George Soros also profiting off of controversial new TSA scanners
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/11/george-soros-also-profiting-controversial-new-tsa-scanners
Feebie at December 27, 2010 4:17 PM
*****There's a difference between being cynical and practical. It would've been absurd, and economic suicide, for the airlines not to do everything possible to give the perception of greater safety.*****
It's not the airlines doing it, it's the government, which you seem to know, since you next said
*****Again, the airlines are not government entities. The problem is that the government, rather than buying the airlines, and guaranteeing air travel as a "right" for all its citizens, has simply placed itself as the enforcer of safety for these private enterprises.*****
As private companies, the airlines should be the ones who police who and what gets on their planes. Trust me, their revenue is directly tied to their planes landing successfully with all passengers and cargo intact, so I'm quite sure they could do a much better job than the TSA and it would not involve sexually molesting the general public.
And good Lord, allowing the government to own the airlines would effectively make air travel the least convenient method of travel on the planet. What a trainwreck that would be.
D at December 27, 2010 4:40 PM
You know what? I'll give BOTU his ditching the military on one condition - any nation fucks with us in any way, we melt them off the face of the earth.
as far as the scanners go, they can't detect what they were bought to detect, the manufacturer says so. They should go. And so should the groping and all the rest of the security. You get on the highway with the express disclaimer that you drive at your own risk, flying should be the same deal.
When you know your ass is on the line, you tend to be a bit more vigilant.
brian at December 27, 2010 4:49 PM
"Yes. And it goes back to The Founders. Someone thought the 4th Amendment was worth writing down. That's probably the biggest hurdle to the constabulary across the country. Then there's that pesky "I invoke my right to counsel" 5th Amendment thingie, which maybe the next biggest roadblock to quick and efficient policing."
Our forefathers never envisioned anything like the threats we face. Plus, we aren't talking about straight-out government searches. These are isolated and advertised - just like the DUI checkpoints they do in so many places now. You can read the paper or airline website and know you'll be stopped or searched. These searches are not a surprise. In fact, the checkpoints are more of a surprise than airport security, which everyone knows about.
"You can waive your rights at any time you want. But in the meantime, keep your cotton-picking hands off mine."
You do not have a right to fly. Our founding fathers wanted you to have the freedom to travel, state to state, but they never said you had a guaranteed right to any advancement in travel. Horse and buggy, or walking, was good enough for them, as it is for you. They could've no more predicted airplanes than the internet. You're free to waive your right to get on that airplane. Nobody is forcing you. This isn't like a search and seizure at your residence. I agree that nobody should be criminally charged for refusing the pat down. They just shouldn't be allowed to fly. The airlines are private, for-profit businesses, and every blow-up destroys not only their planes, which they purchase at great expense, but also their future profitability and reputation for safety.
"The Israelis don't have people who might just as well have gone for a job at McDonald's manning their security. And they look for terrorists, not tweezers."
I agree Israelis have better trained personnel. Yet, they didn't catch the blond pregnant woman. What are we going to do if blond pregnant women start carrying bombs on planes...just say, "hey, the odds are still pretty good?" No, people will not fly, so the convenience of flying will end.
Airlines cannot continue unless a certain number of travelers use them. If they're government owned, and it doesn't matter if there's 3 or 100 people on a flt, then perhaps it could work (at great expense to us!), but as long as they're in the business of making money, they have every right to ask travelers to adhere to whatever safety measures are necessary, and scanners and pat downs do not, under the circumstances, seem unreasonable.
"Your odds of dying in a plane attacked by terrorists is 1 in tens of billions."
But that's not the true damage that's caused. Our government knows that commercial flt is crucial for commerce. If people are afraid to fly, the ripple effect to business is huge.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 4:53 PM
lujlp,
Your numbers may be off -- the point you and I are trying to make -- there will never be another 9/11 is the same.
You might be able to do it in some other country -- but it is doubtful. Once you break the standard model it is permanently broken. There was a model in Madrid -- you get on the train in the morning -- don't notice anything and go to work. Want to bet the police are told "look at him" since then?
Jim P. at December 27, 2010 4:59 PM
The airlines are in trouble no matter which way they go. If there is another successful terrorist attack, they lose big time although if it can be laid at the feet of the TSA, they may escape legal liability. On the other hand, there is a point where large numbers of the flying public will no longer put up with the hassles at the airport created jointly by the TSA and the airlines quest for profit. It may become a death by a thousand cuts, or else, you might see domestic carriers almost disappear as the hassles of short flights exceed the cost and time of driving for both business and pleasure. Ever wonder why cruise ships are almost all run by foreign owned corporations? It is because US laws and regulations are burdensome enough to make them uncompetitive against non US flagged carriers. I see the airlines going the same way.
Isabel1130 at December 27, 2010 5:01 PM
Most of the pilots I know (and many live where I do) are crying because their pensions and salaries have been drastically cut. My sister-in-law was a flt attendent with National, then Eastern, then (luckily before Eastern collapsed) Delta.
The airlines are hurting. They are not too big to go under. Are we really prepared to go without flying?
If not, I think we should just suck it up and endure the pat downs. Honestly, anybody who feels violated by a pat down is a wussy American. We think everything is "molestation" and cause to sue, which is ridiculous.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 5:12 PM
You do not have a right to fly. Our founding fathers wanted you to have the freedom to travel, state to state, but they never said you had a guaranteed right to any advancement in travel. Horse and buggy, or walking, was good enough for them, as it is for you.
lovelysoul,
You keep missing the point, and the facts.
If I want to travel by foot or horse and buggy it is illegal -- look at the signs when you get on the highway. They say a minimum speed and such.
As far as a right to fly -- short of Texas and Alaska -- tell me how many places I can fly within a state. The right to travel is not in the Constitution but in the Articles of Confederation.
The point being that if they were to setup checkpoints every 25 or 50 miles on the highway and say you shouldn't be surprised; would you agree to it?
Jim P. at December 27, 2010 6:19 PM
Jim, I think the Omish still travel from state to state. Maybe not by freeway but backroads. Our founding fathers didn't anticipate the amazing advances in travel that we have now. If a private company invents a rocket that can propel you to CA in ten minutes, that doesn't mean you have a "right" to be on it.
If it's profitable for the company, you can pay for it and use it, ahdering to their rules. Same with cars - you buy them from a private company, pay insurance and maintenance, but there's no "right" to them. No one is guaranteed a car by the constitution, just the freedom to travel, which means you can find the opportunity to travel however you may. It does not mandate that any company inventing a faster, better way to travel must give you the right to use that product.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 6:32 PM
It's Amish.
Feebie at December 27, 2010 6:39 PM
Yesh, you're right Feebie...oops. I just read a book about them. They travel quite a lot.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 6:44 PM
Yes...geeze.
lovelysoul at December 27, 2010 6:46 PM
I'm not sure it's a constitutional issue, unless the airlines wanted to bring a lawsuit. As long as they go along with it, the searches amount to something that happens as a requirement to use their private property.
But the current level of security is insanely stupid for two very simple reasons:
1. It just doesn't work. They've caught zero terrorists trying to get onto planes with bombs, but they've let the shoe bomber and the underpants bomber onto the planes.
2. Even if it did work, it's not worth it. I'm seriously ok with the occasional plane going down, if it means we can cut an hour of travel time off of every plane trip. Every year 30,000 people are killed in car accidents. If we reduced the national speed limit to 30 mph we could save thousands of lives. But it would not be worth it. We make trade offs of time and convenience for safety all of the time.
Maybe we should just give airlines the ability to opt out of TSA screening, give them statutory immunity from lawsuits, and let people choose super-safe with groping or quick with the tiny possibility of flaming death.
clinky at December 27, 2010 8:03 PM
I love people being obtuse. Just makes my day.
If it's profitable for the company, you can pay for it and use it, adhering to their rules.
Show me where in the United Airlines, Southwest, Continental, etc. has TSA in their flight manuals, checklists, etc. prior to 9/11?
Same with cars - you buy them from a private company, pay insurance and maintenance, but there's no "right" to them.
There is also no right to TV, internet, computers, refrigerators, stoves, washers, dryers, wash lines, showers, or buggy whips written in the Constitution either.
No one is guaranteed a car by the constitution, just the freedom to travel, which means you can find the opportunity to travel however you may.
You are absolutely right. But you refuse to answer the question: If I were to search you, for absolutely no reason, before getting on a Greyhound bus -- would you think it was right?
If I were to put up a checkpoint every 25 or 50 miles on the highway that searched and checked you for DUI, insurance, or other contraband would you say that was a good thing?
But if I walked that same distance and walked through the checkpoint -- you would not have the right to search me?
You can't have it both ways. What if I had a horse and buggy? Does that mean it can be searched just because I have a horse and buggy and not a car? Or is the horse and buggy protected but not a car? What if I'm walking and carrying everything on my back? That means I can't be searched? What if I'm flying and carrying a bag. Does that mean I give up my rights?
Jim P. at December 27, 2010 8:20 PM
*****If not, I think we should just suck it up and endure the pat downs. Honestly, anybody who feels violated by a pat down is a wussy American. We think everything is "molestation" and cause to sue, which is ridiculous. *****
Well, hello there, comrade. You DO realize that today it's airplanes, tomorrow it's cars, then bicycles, then your home, right? Just keep on being a sheep. You and your ilk are the reason the TSA is getting away with this now. Remember this example?
They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
It's happening. Again. Wake the fuck up, sister.
Daghain at December 27, 2010 10:46 PM
When will this utter Orwellian madness end?! And why have so many sentient people handed in their Sentient Being cards and agreed to forever after live their lives as Sheeple?!
Robert W. (Vancouver) at December 27, 2010 11:19 PM
> When will this utter Orwellian madness end?!
Is it happening in Canada, too? You seem to be taking it so personally...
Actually, that's the only one of these comments I've read. Everyone who's actually a genuine citizen of the United States of America ought to be enraged by this... That's what I stepped in here to write.
People in other nations should get upset only if their own national identities don't being a suitable quantity of melodrama to their lives.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 27, 2010 11:33 PM
I'm avoiding flying as much as possible lately, possibly angering a few family and friends but oh well.
One upside of the TSA nonsense, I got extra x-mas gifts of a bottle of vino and a pack of smuckers jams that my mother got. She couldn't take them with her since she was flying back tomorrow. Probably could've checked them but I'm sure that would just mean red wine all over her clothes or the TSA/baggage folks helping themselves.
PS, I enjoy reading your justifications LS.
Sio at December 27, 2010 11:50 PM
"But you refuse to answer the question: If I were to search you, for absolutely no reason, before getting on a Greyhound bus -- would you think it was right?"
If you were Greyhound, I would. They are a private company, and if that was their rule, to protect their assets, I'd have to go along or opt out of bus travel.
"If I were to put up a checkpoint every 25 or 50 miles on the highway that searched and checked you for DUI, insurance, or other contraband would you say that was a good thing?"
Again, depends on who is doing the searching and why. I agree the government should not arbitrarily search citizens. However, they DO search us all the time - our property (code enforcement), for instance. Hang the wrong sign, fence, or do a little too much repair work and see how fast you get a violation. I personally have the DCA, DEP, DNR overlooking my every move, so, comrade, I understand the intrusive nature of government, and it doesn't start at the airport. It starts with US. Every time we ask government to fix something, we end up with fewer freedoms.
"Even if it did work, it's not worth it. I'm seriously ok with the occasional plane going down, if it means we can cut an hour of travel time off of every plane trip."
This is theoretically how it should've worked. The airlines should've been responsible for the security, but Americans trust corporations even less than the government. I'm not sure that's right, but certainly, the airlines would've run a cost/benefit analysis and determined that losing a plane now and then would've been an acceptable risk of doing business vs providing this level of security.
But would this have been acceptable to the American people? Not likely. We demanded the government step in to protect our "right" to fly. That's how we got into this mess.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 1:09 AM
Here's the biggest problem, with what they're doing now - no matter how much they search, I can open my carry-on and let them see every single thing in it, and STILL have a weapon from it in 30 seconds or less. There are simply tons of things that you can still carry on a plane that can be used as weapons if you're a little creative.
So what does the enhanced pat-down or the scan accomplish? I can go on the plane naked (you don't want that), carrying a briefcase which has been provided by security and the contents of the one I brought transferred to it, so there aren't any hidden compartments to consider, and still kill you any time I want.
As far as explosives go, it really doesn't take much to open the seam of an airplane fuselage. It's not that hard to get enough materials through security to do the job. How far are you willing to go in preventing people from bringing things on the plane to avoid that?
WayneB at December 28, 2010 6:14 AM
"There are simply tons of things that you can still carry on a plane that can be used as weapons if you're a little creative."
Well, we're hoping they're not that creative, and pushing them to be ever more creative offers us some protection, plus we learn more. The shoe bomb was pretty creative, and, before that, we didn't have to remove our shoes.
I'm sure you could figure a way to make some kind of weapon, Jim, but how many weapons do you think will get through if we simply say, "We're not going to scan or search because any creative terrorist can figure out a way to bring down a plane?"
That's like the DEA saying they're just not going to search for drugs because obviously some are getting through.
Deterrence is really our only option here, because the flying public is not going to accept the concept of removing these deterrents, limited as they may be, and just taking the chance of blowing up. They're not going to just play the odds without at least trying to make them as good as they can be.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 8:05 AM
LS, are you intentionally missing the point? It's that searching and forbidding even the smallest of sharp objects DOES NOT WORK. There needs to be behavioral profiling, background checks, and some basic searches for obvious things, but this invasive, unconstitutional affront to basic liberty needs to stop.
WayneB at December 28, 2010 8:20 AM
Oh, and yes, it's a VERY good thing that the terrorists aren't very creative, because if they were, they could have ground this country to a standstill by now, even with a relatively modest budget.
WayneB at December 28, 2010 8:26 AM
There are simply tons of things that you can still carry on a plane that can be used as weapons if you're a little creative.
You don't even need to be that creative. I got a box cutter on board in my purse by just forgetting it was there. Wasn't even trying to hide it.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 8:45 AM
Okay, no searching or scanning as you are not a criminal. So you are visiting your pal in prison. No searching or scanning?
Why or why not?
BOTU at December 28, 2010 10:16 AM
Because it doesn't work, Asshole. Even with searching and scanning, there's plenty of contraband in prisons.
Or were you planning to extend it to full cavity searches and tell everyone to stop whining?
brian at December 28, 2010 10:46 AM
"Because it doesn't work, Asshole. Even with searching and scanning, there's plenty of contraband in prisons."
There's a lot LESS of it than there would be otherwise. There's a lot fewer prison breaks, or guards killed, and there are undoubtedly fewer planes being downed today because of these scans and searches.
They're not unconstitutional because flying is not a "right". Anyone can opt out of flying. Americans need to quit confusing their rights with their privileges.
Flying was a private invention, an advancement in travel, designed for profit. Saying flying is a right is like saying we have freedom of speech therefore everyone has a right to a cellphone.
Plus we, the citizens wanted the TSA to oversee airline safty. Long before 9/11, we didn't want to leave the airlines to police themselves. So, we invited government in, and it should be no surprise that government does what it always does - grows larger and more intrusive.
We've invited government in to protect the environment too. As a result, we've lost a hell of a lot of property rights and freedoms, but it's arguably worth it because we couldn't trust corporations, developers, and private land owners to be good stewards of the environment.
I bet those of you upset about the TSA aren't that upset or worried about the EPA or DEP or DNR. Many of you probably think those are critical. But I'm here to tell you they are just as intrusive. I'll take a pat down at the airport any day over the nosy jerks from those agencies showing up and sniffing around on my land.
So, of all the many ways government intrudes, airline safety is, to me, one of the more innocuous and arguably justified. Air travel, like the environment, is really too important to go without oversight.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 11:25 AM
For the last forty years most of my fellow Americans have sat by while real, meaningful freedoms & liberties have been stolen one by one and few spoke out. Now people are 'outraged' because someone might get a peak at what they look like naked, touch their tits, ass, or other delicates. There is plenty wrong with what is going on at the airport, and I don't like it one bit, but TSA searches are not sexual assault.
nuzltr2 at December 28, 2010 11:26 AM
"That's like the DEA saying they're just not going to search for drugs because obviously some are getting through."
Indeed. Oh wait, the DEA/cops already routinely breach 4th ammendment rights in "drug searches" every damn day. "Oh, you don't consent to a vehicle search even though I just stopped you for speeding (real or fake stop), I can get a drug dog here!" Go look up the inland border checkpoints on youtube.
Sio at December 28, 2010 11:29 AM
Amen, nuzltr2. These folks should've woken up and gotten angry way before now. I got angry when I moved to FL and saw all the land takings, which is totally unconstitional. A pat on the ass - to get on a plane that you don't really have to get on - is nothing compared to having your property stolen by the government.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 11:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810581">comment from nuzltr2TSA searches are not sexual assault.
Actually, they are. http://www.womenshealth.gov/faq/sexual-assault.cfm
"Sexual assault can be verbal, visual, or anything that forces a person to join in unwanted sexual contact or attention."
I am forced, by virtue of the fact that modern life often requires airplane travel for business, to have my breasts groped by a female TSA worker. It is tremendously violating, and the fact that many Americans (not me) are sheeplike about other rights grabs that do not involve feeling up their labia is no justification.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 11:40 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810582">comment from Amy AlkonKelo, as lovelysoul points out, is despicable.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 11:42 AM
Oh, come on now, Amy. You're a big defender of men who get wrongly accused of that sort of thing for just making out with a girl. You're really going to say a TSA worker is sexually assaulting you?
She's checking for bombs not trying to feel up your labia.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 11:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810591">comment from lovelysoulIntent is not the issue. I am having my private parts touched by a stranger. This is sexual assault.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 12:04 PM
By that definition, a doctor performing a breast exam would be guilty of sexual assault.
But you go to the doctor and consent to the touch for your own protection. Same here.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 12:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810608">comment from lovelysoulI go to the doctor because I want him or her to perform a breast exam, so it is not sexual assault.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 12:54 PM
There is nothing about flying on a plane that inherently requires them to touch my breasts. You can't conduct a breast exam without touching a woman's breasts.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 1:12 PM
The guys here are always saying if there's consent, it's not sexual assault. Blind date, and you consent to let him touch you, or even have sex with you, you can't call it sexual assault the next morning.
You do consent to these pat downs. Plus, I think intent has to play a role in whether touch is considered sexual assault. A fireman helping a woman deliver a baby will touch her labia..an EMT performing CPR will your breast. But they're not getting a sexual thrill out of it, just doing their jobs.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 1:28 PM
You do consent to these pat downs.
I consent to them because I'll never see my family on the other side of the country again if I don't. My husband consents because he'll be fired if he doesn't, because he won't be able to do the part of his job that requires him to travel. It's certainly coercive under those conditions. I can call it sexual assault if my blind date locks me in his car and forces me to touch his penis before he agrees to take me home -- after making me pay for gas and tolls.
A fireman helping a woman deliver a baby will touch her labia..an EMT performing CPR will your breast.
Again, delivery a baby and doing CPR require close physical contact of this nature. Allowing me to board my flight does not.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 1:40 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810635">comment from MonicaPMonicaP is exactly right.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 1:42 PM
Also, if someone's doing CPR on you, it's because you're dead, so consent can only be implied, which is not the same as this at all.
Context is everything.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 1:44 PM
You may not like the options or the reason you consent, but it's really a bit much to call it sexual assault. A guy forcing you to touch his penis is definitely assaulting you. There's no comparison.
Be against the searches, but don't go all feminist paranoid and call it sexual assault. I was patted down, and there's no lasting trauma from a pat down, unlike true sexual assault. We demean the phrase and true experience of sexual assault when we start applying it to things like this. We also encourage the kind of thinking that leads to false charges.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 1:53 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810659">comment from lovelysoulBe against the searches, but don't go all feminist paranoid and call it sexual assault.
Oh, cut it out with the inflammatory language.
Being against my boyfriend having strange men grope his balls every few weeks is "feminist paranoid"?
I would call it rights and liberty-positive.
I still feel violated by getting felt up in Vegas last January.
It is sexual assault to have somebody touch your sexual parts without your consent. It is not the same level sexual assault as getting raped in an alley at knifepoint, but it is sexual assault nonetheless.
Drawing out the "we demean the phrase"...now that's feminist-speak!
And I say over and over that I am not a feminist, because too often, feminists are for special treatment under the guise of equal treatment, not equal rights for all. I am against men having their balls touched by government workers as a condition of boarding a plane, and I am against women and children having their genitalia touched as well.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 2:00 PM
I was patted down, and there's no lasting trauma from a pat down, unlike true sexual assault.
For you. The experience seems plenty traumatic for some. And not everyone suffers lasting trauma from "true" sexual assault. So context. And by your definition, we run the risk of defining sexual assault by how traumatic someone finds it.
When people are feeling me up against my will, I consider that assault.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 2:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810664">comment from MonicaPI'm pretty tough and unsentimental and I'm still disturbed by it. It was a major violation for me, to have the condition of using an airline ticket I'd paid for, and getting to a hotel and conference I prepaid for, being groped by a government worker.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 2:08 PM
Sure, and not every girl has drunken sex and wakes up feeling violated. We all have different reactions, which is why we need some objective standard of what actually consitutes sexual assault. Clearly, just because someone "feels" violated doesn't make it assault.
I highly doubt they're playing with guy's balls or diddling women. Cops do pat downs all the time. Should they be charged with sexual assault?
My girlfriend is flying today. I'll see if she feels violated. Maybe pat downs have become a lot more pornographic than they used to be.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 2:14 PM
It was a major violation for me, to have the condition of using an airline ticket I'd paid for, and getting to a hotel and conference I prepaid for, being groped by a government worker.
Imagine if we did this in a restaurant. "OK, sir, before we let you eat this nice juicy steak you just paid for, we need to feel your balls to make sure you're not a threat to the other passengers. And if you change your mind and want to leave, we'll fine you."
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 2:18 PM
Sexual assault can't be defined by the reasons consent is given. Girls play that all the time..."I was drunk, felt pressured," etc. That doesn't change the fact that their consent was given, and really having to get someplace doesn't either.
Fact is, you're free not to fly. Pain in the ass, but that's the truth. My nephew just took the train here from Montana because he's afraid of flying.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 2:24 PM
Cops do pat downs all the time. Should they be charged with sexual assault?
This is more in line with cops patting you down when you're on line at McDonald's waiting for a hamburger. And then charging you hundreds of dollars for the honor.
Sexual assault can't be defined by the reasons consent is given. Girls play that all the time..."I was drunk, felt pressured," etc. That doesn't change the fact that their consent was given, and really having to get someplace doesn't either.
When consent is given under extreme coercion, it's not really consent. It's surrender.
Fact is, you're free not to fly. Pain in the ass, but that's the truth.
Same argument goes for anything short of breathing air. You're free to make your own hamburgers if you object to being patted down on line at McDonald's. We can take this to absurd extremes -- and we have.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 2:27 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810679">comment from lovelysoulThere's a difference between having bad judgment about sleeping with a guy and having no choice as to whether you are groped. MonicaP is making excellent points -- just thought I'd chime in and second them.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 2:36 PM
She's making terrible points. You CAN make your own hamburgers. You don't have to eat at McDonalds or any restaurant. If a private business says "this is our price of admission", you can either consent to it or not, but if you consent, no matter what the reason ("I really love their food!") it can't be sexual assault later.
Airlines can make the rules about what you need to do to board their privately owned planes.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 2:43 PM
Airlines can make the rules about what you need to do to board their privately owned planes.
The TSA is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, not the airlines.
And all of this stuff may very well be legal and still be terrible to do to people. Just because someone created a law somewhere doesn't mean it's a good one. The question we should be asking is not "Is this legal?" but "Is this a good idea?" Another one: "Why are we doing this?" If the answer isn't really, really good, then we need to stop. "There's a law" has never been a good reason to continue doing something stupid and never will be.
My husband can refuse to fly, as long as we're OK with being homeless, because we need his salary. That's not the same as "I really love their food!" Flying on planes has become an essential part of American existence.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 2:50 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810686">comment from lovelysoulBut, the airlines are not making the rules. It would be an absolutely idiotic business decision.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 2:53 PM
If the airlines were making the rules, the problem would work itself out the way other market problems do. There would be one or two airlines that didn't do something so stupid, and people could choose to fly with them. As it stands, there is no market option that lets me pay for a service without the booby grab.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 2:57 PM
The airlines apparently aren't contesting the rules. For one, TSA helps them spread liability because if you get blown up, they're going to be sued. And what do you want to bet the case will be, "They didn't screen enough". So, I don't think the airlines mind one bit. They have millions of dollars of equipment and liability on the line. They're happy to have the government help protect their interests.
I agree it convolutes things to have the government involved, but you also probably wouldn't feel so secure flying if your life was left solely in the hands of a for-profit corporation, who, as I said earlier, will do the cost analysis and figure it's not worth trying to save every life. Some planes will simply have to explode. Just the cost of doing business. Will that make any of us feel better?
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 3:06 PM
Will that make any of us feel better?
Actually, yes, because that's the risk I already take when I board a plane. The TSA is not making us safer as it is. In fact, these procedures are making us less safe because they are sucking resources that could be used to make us safer. So I resent the TSA for endangering me AND pissing me off.
MonicaP at December 28, 2010 3:18 PM
"...if your life was left solely in the hands of a for-profit corporation, who, as I said earlier, will do the cost analysis and figure it's not worth trying to save every life"
That's right, it's not worth trying to save every life. If we wanted to do that, we wouldn't fly, or drive, or leave the house. The costs in time, effort, and gropy discomfort are too high for the dubious increase in safety...
And on a different point, I do think it's the airlines who need to file suit against the TSA. They may not make the rules, but I think legally they may have the best standing to contest them. They are probably, however, looking at the short term benefits of selling more sodas on the flights (because people can't bring their own) and being able to charge rescheduling fees when people miss flights due to long security lines, rather than looking at the long term costs of people deciding not to fly.
clinky at December 28, 2010 4:40 PM
Dear Little Snivelers:
If you want to fly on a big jet in the sky with lots of other adults, then walk through the scanner. I did, and nothing happened to me! Nothing!
This is not one of the great "train of abuses" to be foisted upon a suffering citizenry.
Yes, it is the most visible and noisome part of the War on Terror, a war, like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, primarily designed to take money out of your wallets on a permanent basis.
But it is small potatoes.
BOTU at December 28, 2010 5:46 PM
> A guy forcing you to touch his penis
> is definitely assaulting you. There's
> no comparison.
Seriously, what planet are you from? Is it enveloped by a thin layer of gases which sustain aerobic biology on a shallow, shifting crust, as is our Earth?
And what of the organisms? Has your world seen, in recent eons, a breakout species with respect to cognition?
> I did, and nothing happened to
> me! Nothing!
You lost your last shreds of dignity. But none of us could tell the difference.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 28, 2010 6:03 PM
Luv this blog.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 28, 2010 6:03 PM
"I bet those of you upset about the TSA aren't that upset or worried about the EPA or DEP or DNR. Many of you probably think those are critical. But I'm here to tell you they are just as intrusive. I'll take a pat down at the airport any day over the nosy jerks from those agencies showing up and sniffing around on my land."
LS, how about we vote for neither? I'm completely with you regarding the EPA and all of the other federal agencies that have far outgrown their stated missions and now claim the power to perform warrantless "administrative searches" on whim. I'm the guy who was arguing last week that the FCC needs to be abolished. You're a business owner so I hear where you're coming from: you've got a dozen (at least) city, state, and federal agencies that you have to pay tribute to in order to stay in business. And that's what most of it is: tribute, serving no purpose other than to transfer some of your hard-earned money to someone else. You obviously know that. We all know that.
So let's start drawing some lines. Let's demand that the TSA be replaced with an air travel security system that actually works. Let's demand a Constitutional amendment to reverse Kelo. Let's demand that some federal agencies be slashed and forced to justify their continued existence. Let's demand a government of limited and enumerated powers, with all other rights and privileges reserved to the people. Chin up, soldier. We can win this fight yet.
Cousin Dave at December 28, 2010 6:42 PM
Dear God In Heaven, I haven't had to deal with so may twisted logical fallacies since I talked to my teenager 5 minutes ago. Lets start at the beginning, shall we?
Dear Little Snivelers:
The bastion of all civilized discourse, the ad hominum. You lost me at Dear, dear.
If you want to fly on a big jet in the sky with lots of other adults, then walk through the scanner. I did, and nothing happened to me! Nothing!
Get back to me in a couple of years, when all the medical data is in, the research has had time to be collated, sifted, and published. Oh, and the cancer that you didn't have today has had time to settle into your bones tomorrow. Because you don't *know* what that machine is doing to you, and enough experts are concerned about its effects to make me want it looked into more before I subject my Cancer-surviving self to the possible side effects.
This is not one of the great "train of abuses" to be foisted upon a suffering citizenry.
Says you. I happen to think that dragging a rape victim away in handcuffs is a flagrant abuse, as is making a small child endure a molestation while her parents stand by helplessly.
Yes, it is the most visible and noisome part of the War on Terror, a war, like the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, primarily designed to take money out of your wallets on a permanent basis.
One small thing we can agree on, tho I would add that it is an incompetant government program designed to grab money and power.
But it is small potatoes.
No encroachment of our Liberties is small, or we would never have had a Revolution.
Kat at December 28, 2010 6:57 PM
Oh wow, I was traveling that same day out of Austin! And was in that same security line. Didn't see this go down though.
I can imagine the TSA agents were on edge. Really, the Austin airport was a mess with the checkpoint shut down and the line going out the door. Took me an hour and a half just to get through security., and my flight took off half full b/c so many were stuck in security. My guess is that the TSA weren't in the mood to spend time arguing with anyone. Not that that excuses what supposedly happened here...Austin doesn't have the porno scanners yet, thank GOODNESS, but when they do next year, I guess I'm getting a pat-down b/c I'm not getting in one of those ridiculous things.
sofar at December 28, 2010 7:45 PM
"So let's start drawing some lines. Let's demand that the TSA be replaced with an air travel security system that actually works. Let's demand a Constitutional amendment to reverse Kelo. Let's demand that some federal agencies be slashed and forced to justify their continued existence. Let's demand a government of limited and enumerated powers, with all other rights and privileges reserved to the people. Chin up, soldier. We can win this fight yet."
Dave, I'd vote for you for President, although I'm afraid you're wildly optimistic. For every one of us who understands this, there's at least 10 of our fellow citizens - our neighbors - who'll vote to strengthen these agencies' powers, or any government power if they believe they're fixing something or protecting something.
They use fear...chicken little scenarios. The sky is falling...the environment is rapidly deteriorating, the water quality isn't what it used to be...nothing is what it used to be. Look how different things are from 30 years ago. Got to stop anyone from doing anything.
It's the same with this too, except that I think the fears have a bit more validity. We can't have people genuinely afraid to fly. The economy will collapse.
Perhaps the Israelis can come over and run our security. We've certainly provided enough for them.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 8:15 PM
Perhaps the Israelis can come over and run our security. We've certainly provided enough for them.
Bitchy much? Since when does protecting our fellow human beings from genocide call for a "thank you", let alone payback? Isn't it enough to know that *we* have done the right thing, without throwing it in the faces of 6 million people that a country of over 300 million has saved their bacon a few dozen times (oosps, shoulda said lox!) in such a condescending tone, as if they OWED us for doing so?
Jesus jumping on a pogo stick, next you are gonna say we OWE Britain for colonizing the states.....
Kat at December 28, 2010 8:45 PM
>>"But you refuse to answer the question: If I were to search you, for absolutely no reason, before getting on a Greyhound bus -- would you think it was right?"
If you were Greyhound, I would. They are a private company, and if that was their rule, to protect their assets, I'd have to go along or opt out of bus travel.
How long do you think they would stay in business if they searched granny with an artificial hip? And as a private business they can put in those standards. I doubt their existence would be long. Also considering that the Suicide and Other Bombing Attacks in Israel Since the Declaration of Principles (Sept 1993) have killed 542 people -- I think they have a pretty good model.
>>"If I were to put up a checkpoint every 25 or 50 miles on the highway that searched and checked you for DUI, insurance, or other contraband would you say that was a good thing?"
Again, depends on who is doing the searching and why. I agree the government should not arbitrarily search citizens.
Wow, you actually agree the fourth amendment exists. I'm amazed.
However, they DO search us all the time - our property (code enforcement), for instance. Hang the wrong sign, fence, or do a little too much repair work and see how fast you get a violation. I personally have the DCA, DEP, DNR overlooking my every move, so, comrade, I understand the intrusive nature of government, and it doesn't start at the airport. It starts with US. Every time we ask government to fix something, we end up with fewer freedoms.
I also think those agencies need to be drastically scaled down as well. The FCC needs to go. The EPA/DNR needs to exist in a very scaled down version (i.e. find the source of major pollution but you have nothing to do with CO2.) That's just from the point they have the resources to test for toxins downstream of everyone.
The Department of Ed needs to go. The Department of Energy needs to go. We should have a small Nuke Regulatory Committee.
You still haven't answered the question.
Clarifying my question saying that it was part of the government which I meant from the start:
If I were to put up a checkpoint every 25 or 50 miles on the highway, as part of the TSA, that searched and checked you for DUI, insurance, or other contraband would you say that was a good thing?
What if you could walk through a TSA checkpoint on the highway or U.S. routes without being searched? But you are on the bus and you are searched? What if I have legal fireworks in my car -- can you still search for firearms?
What if firearms are exempt in when carried or in a horse and buggy, but illegal when in a car?
Jim P. at December 28, 2010 8:57 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810927">comment from lovelysoulLet's demand that some federal agencies be slashed and forced to justify their continued existence.
Meet Milton Friedman.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 9:09 PM
JimP, I did answer your questions. You just put so many out there, but they're all pretty much covered by, "I don't think government should arbitrarily search its citizens." Whether in a buggy, car, or what not.
I was pulled over not long ago as a part of a DUI checkpoint. Did nothing wrong, and they get around that by advertising the dates, times, and location in fine print in my local paper. It was clear that they were itching for any cause I could've possibly given them for a search of my car. I HATE government. I agree with Cousin Dave.
But I do believe private entities have the right to search if their assets are under threat. Of course, there's a vested interest in not pushing away customers, so I think the airlines would have a tough balancing act.
Theoretically, they should provide their own security, and naturally, they have an interest in seeing that their customers aren't blown up too often. But they also want to cater to comfort, political correctness, and the bottom line. So, my sense is that they wouldn't do the best job.
Plus, some would probably become the "safe airlines" utilizing many of these same procedures, and the cost of travel on those carriers would go way up. I don't necessarily like the idea of a free-market competition for safety. Air travel needs to be both safe and affordable for the average traveler. Not fair to have the poor traveling only on Valuejet with crappy security.
Kat, I meant no disprespect to the Israelis, who, apparently do a very good job. Obviously, we should follow their lead. But, as I understand it, they're best at profiling and flagging threats, which I'm all for, but that's not going to help if the terrorists are able to recruit beyond the ethnic look and background we expect. And extremist Islam is getting its tentacles into all corners of the world now. It's not that farfetched to imagine a blond, eastern european female suicide bomber.
If we can't profile, we'll have to search everyone. It's the safest way.
lovelysoul at December 28, 2010 10:47 PM
> It's the safest way.
Who says we want the safest way?
Listen, if you wanted to roll in harder for monster, Napolitano, how exactly would you do so? Hand her your checkbook? What? What would you say to surrender more authority? HANDS IN YOUR BLOUSE, and you're concerned with what's "safest"? Where do you go from there?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 28, 2010 11:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/12/27/no_titty_grab_t.html#comment-1810966">comment from lovelysoulThe Israelis aren't just looking to see if you're swarthy to figure out whether you're a terrorist.
And medical discoveries and other scientific discoveries are disproportionately made by Jews, so whether you're a fan of Jews or not, if you're a fan of living, and of the ease scientific discoveries bring to your life, it's best Jews not be slaughtered in a Holocaust or by a bunch of idiots who think they'll get 72 virgins and a scone for doing it.
Yes, I made up the scone. It seemed to need something.
Amy Alkon at December 28, 2010 11:40 PM
*snicker*
I can tell you work in a retail environment, LS. My ex husband is in retail. I watched him work his customers for 20 years, so don't try to change the subject or try to make it seem like I didn't understand what you said in the first place. You said:
Perhaps the Israelis can come over and run our security. We've certainly provided enough for them.
Translation: "We've given them money, arms and protection, it's *their* turn to pay us back!!! *Waaaah*"
Not: "Well, they seem to do an absolutely brilliant job of it, perhaps we should look into outsourcing to the Israelis."
So yes, you meant what you said, and said what you meant, and dodged the rest.
Tap dancing is a speciality in retail, isn't it? *taptaptap* Of course you'll love it! *tappity (as long as I get paid) tappity* Oh! It's a lovely shade of puce, goes great with your hair! *taptaptap (and all the grey) taptaptap*
All I have read, and seen you say here is "Suck it up and deal, so I can get the business, you losers." So, if I don't want to take the risk of another bout of cancer from the machine, and I don't want to relive certain trumatic memories by subjecting myself to a government sanctioned molestation, Why the Hell should I risk Life and Limb to DRIVE hundreds of miles to spend money on a business run by a sucktastically selfish, unrelentingly selfcentered drone of the state such as yourself? I prefer to reward businesses that actually, you know, deserve my money.
And that ain't you.
Kat at December 29, 2010 12:22 AM
I'm not in "retail", Kat. I own a resort in FL. Yes, my business depends on air travel. I'd like to keep it open, safe, and affordable to the average family. It's not just my business, but millions of other businesses in this country that depend on safe, affordable air travel.
I'm also part Jewish, so I have nothing against Jews or Israel. Amazing how sensitive this subject is for some. Fact is, we have funded the Israeli defense for decades. Is that such a taboo subject? If they're so great at airport security, why wouldn't they owe us a favor? Why shouldn't we ask them to help?
Look, I hate government, especially the petty, bureaucratic, regulatory kind. But if there is ever a valid purpose for government it is in protection and defense - military, police, fireman, etc. I don't have as much problem with that as I do the other kind. In fact, I think they should stop all the other kinds and just concentrate on that.
Keeping us safe in the air - and ports, and everywhere else - is arguably their job. And it seems, so far, that they are doing just that. My fiance is a commercial captain, and he had to have a special clearance and background check because he could conceivably run his vessel into a port, killing hundreds of people. I've taken many cruises out of the Port of Miami, and I'm glad, each and every time, to see Homeland Security protecting that port.
So, Homeland Security is doing their job - not perfectly, mind you - but I, for one, am grateful, even as much as I loathe government, in general, and I do. But, in this area, I'm glad they're doing all they can to keep us safe.
lovelysoul at December 29, 2010 2:33 AM
LS a smoke and mirror show which makes people 'feel' safe without doing a thing to contribute to their acctually safty is not only wrong, its criminal.
lujlp at December 29, 2010 6:29 AM
Folks, I'm going to do something that's a bit out of character for me: I'm going to come to LS's defense. I'm pretty dense about a lot of things, but LS has been commenting here for a while now and I'm starting to learn a bit about how she thinks. Mind you, I've had some rave-up arguments with her on these pages too, but that was because I didn't understand what was going on.
LS isn't advocating TSA-groping because she thinks it's a great idea. She's advocating that we tolerate it because she's pessimistic about the situation getting any better. The only alternative she sees is that everyone stops flying and the airlines shut down. As she's owned up to, that would impact her personally because she's in the travel business, but it would also be a huge hit to the economy generally. If you believe that those are the only two choices available, then it makes sense to choose the groping.
(Some full disclosure at this point: A collapse of the airlines would hit me directly too. I work for Boeing.)
Now here's why LS is pessimistic: She is correct in that the modern big-government regime has been pretty successful in convincing some percentage of the population that their very minute-to-minute existence depends on the government watching out for them; the sky will surely fall if the government isn't there to hold it up every second fo the day. The very concept of libertarianism frightens these people -- that's one of the things the modern libertarian movement has to work hard to overcome. How big is this percentage of the population, and how convince-able are they that libertarianism is a better way? That remains to be seen, but this is where I disagree with LS. She apparently thinks (jump in here and correct me if I'm wrong, LS) that the percentage is too big to overcome and that big government has a built-in, self-sustaining majority. I think that the percentage isn't as big as some people think. Further, I've observed that people who support the idea of a heavily regulated citizenry often have second thoughts when it impacts the freedoms that they personally care about.
And in that regard, I'm seeing the TSA thing as a (I hate this phrase but I can't think of a better one at the moment) teachable moment. I haven't seen any polls on the TSA thing yet, but I'll hazard a guess that most people aren't as cavalier about being felt up by government agents; America is still a country where personal modesty is still the rule rather than the exception. Some of these people who are offended are people who have been supporters of big government. We can take these people and show them that, when you support big government, something like this is inevitable; you can't hand government unlimited authority and then trust that it will exercise that authority in a limited fashion. (Sadly, I think the view that the federal government has unlimited authority except as specifically prohibited by the Constitution is the majority view these days. Not because that's what most people really want, but because it's what they are used to.)
I think that, politically, now is the best time since I've been alive to start making that argument. Back in 2008, I told a libertarian friend of mine, who was pretty discouraged about the election results, that every generation has to experience a little bit of socialism first hand so they can see for themselves why it's a bad idea. My generation had Carter; today's younger generation has Obama, and their opinion of him has changed a lot in the last two years. This particular Rome wasn't built in a day, and it will take a long time to un-build it. But today is a good day to start.
Cousin Dave at December 29, 2010 9:36 AM
> Keeping us safe in the air - and ports,
> and everywhere else - is arguably their
> job. And it seems, so far, that they
> are doing just that.
Cocksuckingly preposterous. You can't prove a word of it. And you can't believe a word of it without being a taxpaying zombie.
Napolitano wants to squeeze your tits and pillage your purse. And she does, and you're cool with it... Because your capacity for reason is that foreshortened: 'It seems they are making us safer!'
I would kill to be your financial adviser. Gullibility like that could feed ten generations.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 29, 2010 11:14 AM
Leave a comment