Tiffany Applewhite Touched My Vagina
And my breasts. She's a "team leader" at the Delta TSA checkpoint at LAX. I had to ask her for her first name because her name tag only says "Applewhite" and "team leader."
There is not a shred of probable cause to search me at the airport because there is no reason to believe I am anything but what I am -- an advice columnist, author and blogger flying to New York with my boyfriend, where I'll have a business meeting and go with him to some events honoring his boss, Elmore Leonard.
But, in order to complete normal business travel, I have my body violated just about every time I take a plane.
I had my breasts and vagina and the rest of my body groped by Tiffany Applewhite, a tall, light-skinned black woman with tight-permed hair. She asked me if there were any sore areas on my body.
Hmmm...maybe the gropenfrau would take it easier if I said so. So, I said my breasts and vagina. She said she'd be gentle in those areas and only use the back of her hand. Well, that makes it all fine, then, doesn't it?
She instructed me at one point in how to lean over so she could correctly violate me in the name of "security." I didn't do it quite right -- partly because I was being violated at around 5 o'clock in the morning, and partly because I've never been in prison or been prison-raped.
Oh, and they again used the punishment and intimidation factor of making you worry your stuff is going to be stolen if you get the patdown -- leaving your stuff out on the belt unguarded. They just "don't have personnel to watch it, they told me -- as I'm always told. Yet, they can spend billions on useless machinery.
"You chose the patdown," a bald, light-skinned black man who chose it for me added (when he told me to go through the cooker instead of the metal detector).
Read any George Orwell, you big loser? You scumbag earning money for violating people's bodies and rights?
Caught any terrorists lately -- or EVER?
Of course not, because the TSA has not caught A SINGLE TERRORIST.
Beyond the fact that the problems we had on 9/11 were due to our not expecting terrorists to perform suicide missions, the TSA is staffed by McDonald's fry cooks on track to get a government pension. These people couldn't catch Al Zawahiri if he crawled up their ass and whistled.
They have, however, stopped some really good pot from reaching its destination and being smoked. And, this is a jobs program for unskilled workers and a way for government swells to funnel money to their friends who own the companies that make the scanners and other equipment useless in catching terrorists. (Jonathan Corbett showed how absolutely child's play it was to defeat the body scanners.)
And ultimately, as I wrote in my op-ed about the TSA, this is about obedience training for the American public -- teaching us to be docile as our rights are taken from us.
I cried as I was screened and told them they were horrible for violating our rights for money. I will at least make a spectacle of myself and in turn of what they are doing.
Don't go quietly, please. And name names of those who violate you -- post their name (THEDALA MAGEE!) and a picture of them if you can find or take it. (To avoid a libel suit, be absolutely sure it's the right person -- there were a number of Tiffany Applewhites, and most of them are regular people who don't appear to grope people's genitals for a living.)
If more people screamed and yelled and protested in some way, we might be able to make some change. In so many ways lately, our constitutional rights are being eroded. Keeping quiet will not end well for any of us.
Sheeple
http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/americans-views-tsa-positive-negative.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ -- Despite recent negative press, a majority of Americans, 54%, think the U.S. Transportation Security Administration is doing either an excellent or a good job of handling security screening at airports. At the same time, 41% think TSA screening procedures are extremely or very effective at preventing acts of terrorism on U.S. airplanes, with most of the rest saying they are somewhat effective.
Andrew garland at November 13, 2012 8:23 AM
Gallup TSA poll biased?
by BILL FISHER on AUGUST 9, 2012
More thoughts on the TSA Gallup poll
by PHILIP WEBER on AUGUST 10, 2012
Frequent flyers rate the TSA: epic fail
by LISA SIMEONE on SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
http://tsanewsblog.com/
Lisa Simeone at November 13, 2012 8:58 AM
I wish people would stop referring to female exterior genitalia as a "vagina". That is a "vulva". The "vagina" is the interior tubey part. Now if some TSA stormtrooper is groping that, then things are far worse than I thought. Personally, I stopped flying when the groping and nudie scans came around. Can't say as I miss it, though I'm sure the airlines miss the revenue.
Nolo Contendere at November 13, 2012 12:22 PM
IF we had lots and lots of good paying manufacturing/trades/small business/labor jobs available, TSA wouldn't be able to hire anyone (but perverts) for this disgusting task. They surely don't pay them *that* well and frankly, I'd rather work in an honest tuna cannery than prod strangers' junk all day. But I would do either, if I had to, to support myself and dependants.
Unfortunately, in this economy, Tiff and Thedalia might just be trying to maintain their families with the best job they can find. She's not on Welfare. I bet TSA has a huge turnover rate for a job where the task is to physically and systematically violate angry people all day, get your name in the paper and lawsuits filed against you- for (a guess) 15 bucks an hour.
I'm lucky-I'm old and will never have to fly again. I've chosen not to since the 90s, when all they made me take off was my shoes, which was enough for me. TSA has become a monster in a few short years. They are even sticking their long nose into a big explosion in Indianapolis on the theory that they have oversight of natural gas pipelines.
bmused at November 13, 2012 1:25 PM
Quote-"I wish people would stop referring to female exterior genitalia as a "vagina". That is a "vulva".
Yeah, that's important in this context. I don't give one fuck whether you're touching the outside OR the "tubey part". If I touched EITHER of those parts on any woman without consent, I'd be a rapist. Of all the stupid-assed troll comments.
And before you start about consent-When the gubbymint tells us that we can't move around in public without being violated, it's no longer "consent".
Sorry, Amy. I promise to be nice for the rest of the week.
Frank at November 13, 2012 2:09 PM
"Yeah, that's important in this context. I don't give one fuck whether you're touching the outside OR the "tubey part". If I touched EITHER of those parts on any woman without consent, I'd be a rapist. Of all the stupid-assed troll comments."
Damn, Frank. All I was gonna say was, "Pedantic? Pedantic."
Old RPM Daddy at November 13, 2012 2:14 PM
So... Jeff? Mike?
Where are the excuses?
Radwaste at November 13, 2012 2:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/11/13/tiffany_applewh.html#comment-3448005">comment from Nolo ContendereI wish people would stop referring to female exterior genitalia as a "vagina".
I sure am glad you don't edit my work.
The guy who copyedits my column, David Yontz, is really great. He understands that usage sometimes means the meaning of a word changes.
Elmore Leonard, too (who -- because whom sounds prissy -- I will see in about 45 minutes for drinks), says "If proper usage gets in the way, it will have to go."
"Tiffany Applewhite Touched My Labia" doesn't quite have the bite of "vagina." People refer to girlparts as vaginas and boyparts as penises.
And is a pickywicky discussion about language usage what we should really be having while we're allowing government functionaries to flush our civil liberties?
Amy Alkon at November 13, 2012 2:49 PM
While we're on the subject of language, here's a great birthday card story I picked up from Naomi Dunford of IttyBiz:
There's this birthday card. On the front it shows two friends having a conversation.
"Happy birthday. Where's your party at?"
"Don't end a sentence with a preposition."
You open the card and it says:
"Fine. Where's your party at, bitch?"
Little Shiva at November 13, 2012 4:29 PM
We need a mole inside TSA. Amy is on a target list, I guarantee.
KateC at November 13, 2012 4:35 PM
For all you regular readers of the Goddess' blog you can skip past this post. I'm going to post my regular rant about not needing the TSA. For all you new readers, please read it carefully and refute any statement or misstatement. ;-)
=================================================
The TSA was not needed one hour and one minute after Tower II was hit!
The paradigm, the norm, the expected, what everyone was taught to do was to sit down, shut up and wait for the plane to land and the negotiations happen. That was the model from Entebbe onward.
The passengers on board did not really know what was about to happen on September 11, 2001 at 8:46:30 when Flight 11 struck Tower I.
Even the passengers on Flight 175 probably didn't realize what was about to happen when they struck Tower II at 9:03:02.
The Pentagon crash of Flight 77 at 9:37:46 may have been still a matter of ignorance.
At 10:03:11 on September 11, 2001, United Airlines Flight 93 crashed after the brave souls counter-attacked and caused the hijackers to crash the plane.
The time difference is 60 minutes and 9 seconds from Tower II being struck to the crash of Flight 93. The shoe bomber and panty bomber were taken down by fellow passengers as well. Recently, JetBlue's Flight 191 pilot was taken down by the passengers once he was out of the cockpit. Additionally how many times have you heard of passengers' concerns and diverted flights?
The TSA is and has always been a joke, no make that a total stupidity, that has wasted our country's fortune going down a rabbit hole.
If you don't believe me look at the 9/11 timeline.
There will never be another 9/11 style attack unless the attackers can arrange planes full of geriatrics, and even then it would be doubtful.
Oh, and someone brought bombs being an issue. If bombs were effective and simple then the Lockerbie bombing would have been repeated multiple times between 21 December 1988 and 11 September 2001. That's 4647 days or 13 years. Where was the TSA in that time? There was one successful bombing that was done in Colombia and two unsuccessful attempts in that time. The bombing in Colombia was a drug dealer assassination and not a terrorist attack.
=================================================
Amy,
I'm sorry I always shut the comments down with this, but I don't think anyone has truly ever really refuted this.
Jim P. at November 13, 2012 7:40 PM
"You chose the patdown."
The hell you did.
DrCos at November 14, 2012 4:14 AM
TSA deserve to be violently assaulted. There's a passive-aggressive dynamic going on with those sociopaths. That "you chose the patdown" comment was just one of thousands of snide remarks they make every day. That submit and obey mentality of theirs just gets worse. I'm sorry this happens to anyone.
Vic Kelley at November 14, 2012 6:33 AM
Why don't you just walk through the bloody scanner?
That is because you insist on missing the point. Yes, another 9/11 style hijacking is never going to happen: reinforced cockpit doors and completely different pilot protocol since then have ensured that.
But the point you are missing completely is this: what made 9/11 different was suicidal hijackers. The post-9/11 problem is suicidal bombers.
How do you defend against that?
(And in case you think the TSA is ineffective, try sneaking something that could plausibly be a bomb on board.)
Jeff Guinn at November 14, 2012 10:50 AM
"But the point you are missing completely is this: what made 9/11 different was suicidal hijackers. The post-9/11 problem is suicidal bombers. How do you defend against that?"
No, Jeff: YOU miss the point.
America is not "safer" because TSA pats you down, or anybody else.
Not only is the line waiting to be groped the perfect terror target - it will result in all airports being shut down again, and the patdowns being moved to another supposedly "secure" area where the concentration of people still makes a lovely target - the entire rest of America is a ridiculously easy target, through which travels millions of tons of hazardous materials.
Meanwhile, AMMUNITION is still shipped by air (I'm still waiting for an explanation about how to tell the box labeled "ammunition" isn't really a bomb). TSA agents themselves are apparently not subject to any kind of background check, the aircraft is still accessed by dozens of people who do NOT get patted down...
And you apparently still think magic exists in the world, i.e., patdowns = safety. Patting grandmothers at an airport means that the bad guys cannot go anywhere else, despite their sworn opposition to Israel and its allies.
And that groping the hot redhead author, but not everybody, means that no one can pull a stick of dynamite out of a cavity and slap it on the bulkhead.
You Are Ridiculous.
Either other agencies are preventing attack, or the enemy is not here. Take your pick.
Radwaste at November 14, 2012 3:05 PM
Getting groped is the self inflicted wound of a professional hysteric -- there is absolutely no reason not to just go through the scanner, except for the fact that it doesn't provide any opportunity for creating a scene.
By all means, try to sneak a simulated bomb onto a plane. Then tell us how it works out.
Here is your explanation. There is no such thing as a bomb without a fusing mechanism, and, for shipped ammunition, a triggering mechanism, as well. So far as I have been able to determine, all checked luggage gets the heck X-rayed out of it, making those essential elements very visible.
But hey, if you don't believe me, try sneaking a simulated bomb into your checked luggage. Then tell us how it works out.
---
Worst of all, though, you are arguing a null. What the heck would you do to keep suicide bombers off airplanes (and you don't seem to understand very much about Islamist psychology to think that security lines are a target they most want to attack)?
Maj Hassan.
My pick is that security is multi-layered, and the TSA is sufficiently effective to reduce the odds of success to well below what Islamists need before attempting to put a suicide bomber on a plane.
Clearly, you don't think so. Yet I'll bet you aren't willing to that thought to the test.
Jeff Guinn at November 14, 2012 4:33 PM
... to put that thought to the test.
Jeff Guinn at November 14, 2012 7:44 PM
We are now eleven years after 09/11/2001. In that time we had the attempted shoe and panty bomber. Those are two (2) incidents in 4082 days. Meanwhile the TSA has dumped tons of liquids, gels, and other "objectionable" material in plastic garbage cans next to TSA checkpoints. Have they exploded?
If suicidal bombers were truly a problem, they would have hit the line of 1000 people as they go through the TSA security.
Are you willing to go through the same TSA security procedures to enter your bank, local fast food restaurant, Wal-Mart or Taget store?
If you can answer "yes", then you are a contemptible coward that is willing to give up your liberty for the illusion of safety.
You are below a sheeple.
Jim P. at November 14, 2012 8:16 PM
> Yet I'll bet you aren't willing to that
> thought to the test.
Well for fuck's sake, YOU WON'T LET US.
The United States, as was so howlingly-well demonstrated last week, is populated by oblivious, cowardly, submissive buffoons who sincerely believe in the efficacy of government. We are entrapped by them, and offended, delayed and molested far more by those voters and their despicable public employees than we could ever have been by Al Qaeda or any terrorist enterprise.
AMERICANS are doing this to us, and you're HAPPY about it. You're GRATEFUL to them.
I cannot understand this. I cannot understand where you summon the audacity to repeatedly accuse others of arguing a null, the central fault in your own argument.
I cannot understand the shallowness of your projection of outcomes. You never seem to deny that another plane will come down someday, and these molestations and squandered resources (including goodwill) will count for naught. Yet somehow, you think that the crash of a single plane will mean the end of the American experiment, as if such tragedies never happened through any other circumstance, and as if each accident were a repudiation of capitalist Democracy.
Bad things will happen. And when the do, Americans will respond quickly, and will leave no corner of the world untouched in investigation. Did the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan –and the sacrifices of Ty & Renee– make that shallow an impression on your memory?
Because let me tell you something, I think the rest of the world noticed. I think every government in the world, including the most odious village Big Men in the most wretched villages of the most forlorn valleys, were given occasion to understand that when provoked, Americans will honor no boundary and spare no expense in responding to these offenses.
How did the American people miss this lesson? Explain for me.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 14, 2012 9:18 PM
"Getting groped is the self inflicted wound of a professional hysteric -- ..."
Straw man, as well as an insult to our hostess. Nice going.
Don't miss this: no other attacks on the USA are happening.
You want to explain that?
Of course not. You want to be patted down, assumed guilty, for wanting to ride on a plane, and in the process make excuses for an agency so abymally stupid they searched Joe Foss for carrying his own Medal of Honor, and took the airline butter knife from Patrick Smith. The pilot. In uniform. On duty.
Radwaste at November 15, 2012 2:26 AM
I disagree with the assertion that there's no reason to not go through the scanner.
As I understand it, they are based on X-rays. Now, if I'm wrong, cite a source and I'll check it out. However, if they ARE X-rays...
X-rays do a very particular type of cellular damage - they basically break chromosomes (DNA) into chunks. If you use a bunch of carrots to represent your DNA, and you randomly cut a few into 2-3 (cylindrical) pieces, that's a good picture of what it does.
When broken this way (as opposed to cutting the carrot into two half-cylinder pieces), chromosomes don't have any mechanism to reattach properly... so they almost always reattach the wrong way. This is VERY BAD for your cell and usually causes it to die.
So, what's the problem, you loose a few cells? It's not the cells, it's the gametes (eggs in particular). If the dentist takes a teensy X-ray of my tooth, which is not located anywhere near my ovaries, he puts a lead apron over me and I have to certify that I'm not pregnant! He's not putting it on my legs or brain, but over my midsection!
If you x-ray a human egg, you're likely going to cause it to have a massive mutation that will render it nonviable (no baby) - hence the lead apron. Eggs are present at birth and NO MORE ARE MADE (unlike sperm). So, I'm betting that airline employees (secure area jobs) in a few years will have higher rates of female infertility than the rest of the population. If people fly their whole lives, that's lots of X-rays!
As for the certifying I'm not pregnant part... embryos (and fetuses to a lesser extent) are very sensitive to this type of damage. When the "kid" is just a few hundred cells and you mutate or kill one, you can cause major problems because that cell needed to go on to be a LOT of other cells and tissues. Sure, this could happen for other reasons too, but I go back to the lead apron theory. If its bad enough that I can't get my tooth x-rayed (again, not my body, just my mouth), then it's not a good idea to send our ovaries or pregnant bellies through them until post-menopause.
Probably not as bad for men, but do we really need to go splicing our genome randomly???
Shannon M. Howell at November 15, 2012 1:15 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/11/13/tiffany_applewh.html#comment-3451098">comment from Shannon M. HowellIt's also bad for our civil liberties to go through the scanner.
We need to have it be a spectacle, our rights being taken from us.
I just got groped again at JFK, and I will blog about this. Delta, Terminal 2, a woman named Moore who refused to give me her last name. She wore her photo ID badge upside down so it couldn't be read, I'm guessing. Light skinned black woman who grazed my labia, stuck her vile hands inside my turtleneck, groped my breasts.
The supervisor, Roger Grant, also refused to give me his first name but his badge was right-side up. He threatened to call the cops on me for wanting the name of the government worker who groped my breasts entirely sans probable cause. I'll write more about this, but we're on the plane and Gregg needs the Internet back now. (I'm using his subscription.)
Amy Alkon at November 15, 2012 1:20 PM
Also cells with damaged dna replicate damaged cells with damaged dna, which is one of the main ingredents for cancer
lujlp at November 15, 2012 2:38 PM
No, five (counting only the ones that got to the plane). Three of which were successful.
Here is a perfect example of arguing a null. As opposed to what?
Islamists — not any government agency — hatched the idea of getting explosives past checkpoint security by putting them in binary form.
That fact alone should have, but apparently did not, make you think. Why did they choose the complexity of a binary explosive? The answer is self-evident: because security checkpoints are sufficiently effective to make the likelihood of successfully sneaking a conventional bomb unacceptably low.
So now that the splodeydopes have made the attempt, now what?
To that obvious question, your answer is [crickets].
Hard to know which fallacy this is; no true Scotsman, perhaps? Non-sequitor?
For sure, it reveals ignorance about Islamist motivations and asymmetric warfare.
First, should a splodeydope detonate a bomb in a security area, it might kill as many twenty people (rather than taking the time to explain why, I'll let you figure that one out for yourself).
Second, the knock-on effects would be relatively small, and collateral damage practically nil.
Contrast with the same explosive on an airplane. Everyone on board, probably at least 200 people if they choose well, dies. Plus, since a splodeydope can choose the timing of the explosion with fair precision, there is a decent likelihood of collateral damage from the aircraft debris. On top of that, aircraft mishap sites, particularly in city, are extremely photogenic.
What that translates into — so self evidently that I am surprised I have to explain this — to Islamists, passenger airplanes are extremely high value targets.
Which makes this: Are you willing to go through the same TSA security procedures to enter your bank, local fast food restaurant, Wal-Mart or Target? yet another fallacy: a false dilemma.
Woah. Internet tough guy.
The audacity is easy to come by, because that is precisely what you and Jim P are doing.
Of course I can't deny that another airplane will come down someday — just because you insist on me trying to prove a negative doesn't mean I have to.
Rather, I am making an affirmative argument. Splodeydopery exists, as do bombs. Therefore, absent a variety of efforts to keep them both off airplanes, not only will they get blown up, it will happen frequently. And that the only way to prevent that is to include checkpoint screening sufficiently effective to put the odds of success below what splodeydopes are willing to tolerate. (The fact that they are resorting to increasingly convoluted and failure-prone methods proves that checkpoint security is effective, and the threat, regardless of Jim P's inability to consider the obvious difference in target value, still exists.)
Against that you, and Amy, Jim P, and Amy are in favor of what instead?
So far, a null, which isn't even nothing.
That is a statement of fact: Amy could easily have avoided a pat-down, but chose not to, and then proceeded to make a giant scene about it.
BTW, clearly, you don't know what a strawman argument is.
And your reading comprehension is no better.
I have not for a moment defended the TSA, for which I have plenty of hatred. Despite getting to sit in the pointy end of the plane, right next to the crash axe that comes as standard equipment, I can't even carry a Leatherman on board. When I travel out of uniform, I do my best to be just like any other passenger, but when I get to Orlando and the wait is at least 45 minutes, I admit that rather than stew in simmering fury for that long, I whip out my ID and go through the crewmember line. That the TSA still pays for sky marshals is beyond foolish (and that ALPA insists that taxpayers continue to fund the FFDO program is equally stupid for precisely the same reasons).
But strip all the TSA buffoonery out of the way, and there is still the question of what to do about suicide bombers.
In my opinion, checkpoint security has been, and is increasingly, effective at keeping spodeydopes off airplanes.
Clearly, you don't agree. Fine. So, unless you wish to argue that self-detonating Islamofascists do not exist, then what?
Your understanding is a perfect example of unrealistic risk assessment. The incremental risk of walking through a scanner is miniscule, at most. And is dwarfed by taking a bath, gardening, driving, living in an area with natural radon, getting in water of any depth, sharks, mis-hit golf balls or baseballs, cosmic radiation from the flight itself, the flight itself (which is rendered less risky by the scanner), the food on the flight, falling trees, electric appliances …
That's like focussing on ants in the midst of an elephant stampede.
Is it reasonable to prohibit bombs on airplanes?
And I can't help noting that while pitching a fit over a scanner, you are perfectly willing to undergo quite intrusive medical exams.
When it is your skin in the game.
(NB: I'll bet anyone here over fifty has undergone a colonoscopy. Do you have any idea what the pay off is? No fair peeking …
As far as I can determine, colonoscopies prevent one death in 1,208 from colon cancer. That's what, 0.08%? For that you will have a garden hose shoved up your fundament. But to reduce the chance of someone else getting killed, you pitch a fit at walking through a scanner. Interesting. Would be good material for an ethics seminar.)
Jeff Guinn at November 15, 2012 5:22 PM
You still have not refuted my statement:
THE TSA WAS NOT THERE!!
Yes binary explosives exist. I can also make napalm out of totally innocuous ingredients that I could get through the TSA very easily, 3.2 ounces at a time.
Blowing planes out of the sky is not an effective tactic.
Ok -- so the Islamists won't attack a soft retail target. Sure, just as the Islamists wouldn't attack a school.
You are advocating giving up your freedoms for security.
"I have not for a moment defended the TSA, for which I have plenty of hatred."
None of your posts refutes your willingness to accept being searched because you want travel or fly a plane. The TSA is incompetent.
Prior to 9/11 I was never patted down, had to take off my shoes, or any of the rest of the crap. I would empty my pockets into a dish, throw my carry-on a belt to be x-rayed and went through a magnetometer. That was it. After Flight 93 went down that should have been the standard still.
You keep insisting that bombers are a threat.
As far as I can determine, colonoscopies prevent one death in 1,208 from colon cancer. That's what, 0.08%?
So let's look at the airline bombings in history -- it is between 86-88. Let's just use round numbers and call it 100 attempted and 500 seriously planned per decade. That is 50 per year out of over 50K flights per day. Want the percents?
Your willingness to advocate for more fake "security" is not helping your cause.
Jim P. at November 15, 2012 7:44 PM
"BTW, clearly, you don't know what a strawman argument is."
You diverted from the point to argue your own. There you go.
Now let us revisit what you are avoiding, missing, not addressing, etc: there are no attacks happening elsewhere in the USA.
TSA is not at trucking terminals, making sure the dynamite shipment gets to the construction site rather than into the Civic Center event featuring Christmas In The South.
TSA is not watching aircraft mechanics, fully capable of setting advanced devices in place weeks ahead of flights.
The list of things TSA is NOT doing is REALLY long.
So. When you ask, "Is it reasonable to prohibit bombs on a plane?" - you only avoid noting that they ARE NOT PREVENTED BY SEARCHING PASSENGERS.
This means that you haven't demonstrated that they are actually prohibited, especially by TSA action.
The next time you pass the pile of confiscated property at the terminal, you may fool yourself into feeling good. Denial is an important human trait, allowing us to get on with life without despair. But don't believe for a moment that others cannot see you are in that denial.
Maybe you missed the description of evidence I provided for gcotharn, as he insisted on fantasies on another blog item. If you offer X as "the reason for Y", you must show how it excludes other reasons, AND how it is comprehensive, i.e., the only reason. Otherwise, you must modify your statement to include the other factors producing Y.
Get busy. You have a long way to get there.
Radwaste at November 16, 2012 5:08 AM
By the way - this should be obvious to anyone following the trail of TSA incidents, especially arrests of their agents - searches are not 100% effective. Safety analysis aims for the "bullseye" of 0% errors, but any prison guard can tell you that unless you use penetrating x-rays and cavity search everyone, you cannot prevent contraband from entering a supposedly secure area. You can only make it less likely with lesser measures. The number of guns and drug shipments allowed on planes supposedly made "safer" makes the assertion that they are prohibiting anything from being on a plane logically false. Prohibit is an absolute term in logic, and is not strictly attainable. Colloquialism interferes with thinking about this.
Gee. A supposedly dedicated enemy of the USA is going to put a device on a plane via suicide bomber. Do you really think this is stopped by searching by current techniques?
Don't be silly.
Meanwhile, tell your daughter to submit, and to get used to it. Relax and enjoy it. Right?
Radwaste at November 16, 2012 5:20 AM
I'll tell you about something foolish to help illustrate how ridiculous risk assessments and other thoughts about "terror" are nowadays.
The Department of Energy has a rule. This rule is that no private vehicle may be parked within 30 yards of a normally-occupied building at its Federal facilities.
There are a lot of things wrong with this. Assumptions:
1) Clearing the vicinity of parked cars does not make it easier for the car bomber to drive into the building at high speed.
2) A bomber will not simply walk into the occupied building with a backpack of explosives.
3) The bomber, having the will to bomb others, will not have the smarts or audacity to put a government license plate on a private vehicle, nor will she simply steal such a vehicle to deliver the goods.
4) There is a mechanism to remove a vehicle parked in violation of this rule within seconds of its having been placed.
Of course, none of this is true. All the rule has done is eliminate parking spaces near the buildings we use every day. Meanwhile, the fuel truck servicing generators and construction equipment can go wherever it pleases.
Even so, there are those who would point out that no privately-owned vehicle has been used as an explosive delivery vehicle because of this rule.
They would be utterly wrong. I hope you can see why.
Radwaste at November 16, 2012 5:33 AM
Maj Hassan. The guy who tried to detonate a car bomb in Times square. Some other guy who tried splodeydope in Seattle. Another guy caught trying to cross the Canadian border en route to LAX. A shooting at the LAX terminal. Two guys trying to bomb US bound flights. Another group attempting the same thing using binary explosives.
Besides either forgetting or ignoring all those events, you continue to neglect the convoluted nature of the attempted airline bombings, and the fact that they originated outside the US, with the US as the target. The question begs you to ask it: why?
How do you know how closely anyone watches dynamite shipments? (My guess — and guess is all that it is, I admit — is fairly closely, as there is already a watch list on things used to make bombs.)
Clearly, you don't know much, if anything, about aircraft maintenance, or pervasive and long standing foreign object prevention programs.
You get to that conclusion only by ignoring every bit of evidence to the contrary. To repeat — there have been attacks on US airplanes, and they have originate outside the US using convoluted and failure prone means, transported by passengers. Why?
The answer is obvious, even if you don't like it. Checkpoint screening has so far been sufficiently effective to deter attempts in the US. Try it for yourself if you don't believe me.
In what universe does it make sense to equate safety programs with acts of war?
In case the problem with your category mistake isn't clear, safety programs exist to prevent unintentional consequences. In contrast, checkpoint security aims to deter intentional actions. Prevent unintentional vs. deter intentional.
That you posed a safety program as some criteria indicates, that regardless of anything else, you haven't really thought through what is going on.
Gee. A supposedly dedicated enemy of the USA is going to put a device on a plane via suicide bomber. Do you really think this is stopped by searching by current techniques?Deterred — the difference is important. Successful deterrence means, by definition, zero stops.
Like Bill Maher after 9/11, you seem to not understand Islamist motivations. Splodeydopes are not afraid of death; instead, they positively welcome it. What deters splodeydopes is the prospect of getting caught without having reached the right hand of Allah, because that means spending the rest of their lives in a SuperMax prison everything that entails.
Therefore, the goal of checkpoint security is a detection rate sufficient for deterrence — every stop means a deterrence failure. Now, of course no one knows precisely what the detection rate has to be in order provide sufficient deterrence, but the clear and undeniable evidence is that, in the US, it is at least enough.
And I can't help but noticing that you continue to argue a null, or that neither you, nor anyone else has even touched the ethical contradiction you haven't touched. Ok, I grant that so long as you argue a null in the first place, getting a grip on ethics in the second is out of the question.
Jeff Guinn at November 16, 2012 3:16 PM
No no no
More over the weekend.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 16, 2012 10:03 PM
So what significant improvement in security changed between 9/9 and 9/11511?/200
Jim P. at November 16, 2012 11:43 PM
"In what universe does it make sense to equate safety programs with acts of war?"
This is incredible. Just what about preventing aircraft bombings is NOT a safety program?
Do you really not hear or read the numerous claims of Americans, hell, the TSA itself, that they are about safety?!
Your citation of events also amazes me as it undermines your own position. Major Hassan would have been specifically exempted - was specifically exempted - from special scrutiny because of his religious affiliation. He already acted in defiance of numerous laws and military regulations even as those around him complied, AND the only measures to prevent his crime would have exceeded current TSA performance measures. How do we know this? Testers still get guns on planes through the TSA!
You're saying I don't know about foreign material exclusion programs? My God man, have you not seen the news that people have been bribed to put cargo aboard planes clandestinely?
Evidently not. Magically, no mechanic can be bribed - to attach a little beige box the size of a soda can somewhere.
You accuse me of "arguing a null" as you do so yourself. What you can actually point to in the TSA search process is an infrastructure which is not actually what is claimed. This is actually shown in news about criminal activity among the screeners, as well as notable gaps in coverage, shown for your convenience in Patrick Smith's Ask The Pilot series of articles if you are too dense to figure these things out for yourself.
What I am actually doing is NOT pointing at a "null", to use your term, but to show where the current program does not do what is claimed.
It is clear that claims of TSA effectiveness are NOT backed by the absence of terroristic events in the inspection process. They are coincident, but not causally related. Check again what "evidence" means.
By the way - to increase your knowledge of aircraft hull losses, check The Jet Airliner Crash Data Evaluation Centre.
Maybe you can find the word "safety" somewhere in there!
Radwaste at November 17, 2012 2:15 AM
Jeff,
I didn't argue that the risk was high. But, this sort of risk is CUMULATIVE. For young women, that means potentially reduced fertility. Not much - not from one trip through. But what about flight attendants? Gate agents?
I'm not saying that they're awful horrid things. I'm just saying that they have more risk than, say, the metal detectors they used to use (or do they still somewhere?). Moreover, the risk is asymmetrical in its impact on per-menopausal females (for those who care about such things).
This won't matter... unless you're a woman who desperately wants children and can't have any. Of course, there'd be to way to prove that it was these machines that caused it. But that's not the point. The point is that there IS a risk and it should be acknowledged in an adult discussion about the risks and rewards involved.
I'm sure that many people would say "to hell with it - the risk is small." That's their choice. But, no one - NO ONE - has the right to make that choice for another person (outside of legal guardianship). I don't skydive. I don't live an an area prone to earthquakes. I don't eat food that has been in the refrigerator a questionable amount of time. Other people do. They make their choices, I make mine.
To me, if the dentist covers me in a lead apron for a teensy x-ray of my not-body (since the 80's - before malpractice suits were quite as bad as now), that's evidence enough that I'm not sending my daughter through a full-body x-ray. As a parent, it would be irresponsible to not CONSIDER the risk (an no, I wouldn't judge a parent who made the opposite decision, so long as it was considered).
Again, to be perfectly clear, I'm not saying they are evil or bad, just saying that there's a whole piece of public discourse that NO ONE (besides me, as far as I know) is talking about.
We can't help natural radiation exposure - that's not an argument that we shouldn't care about further exposure (and discuss the pros and cons of it)!
I have to be given (by law, I believe) details of the advantages and disadvantages of each x-ray or ultrasound I've had. I have to sign a CONSENT form saying I know the risks, etc. So, my question is, why not for the airport???
If my risk assessment is, to you, unreasonable, that's fine. You don't have to agree. But, maybe not everyone agrees with YOU. If you want kids and have low fertility to begin with, it might just not be an acceptable risk. So, maybe you should consider that risk also involves not just objective numbers, but personal choices and preferences... that you don't get to pick for other people.
Shannon M. Howell at November 17, 2012 9:36 AM
By the way, has anyone yet found a better alternative than the one I offered? Bomb/chemical sniffing dogs and the metal detectors used together?
Some one did, once, mention that such dogs give false positives on occasion. However, this is minimized by making sure the dogs get occasional positives (even in training). Furthermore, those can be then sent for further screening to confirm or refute (and how many people already undergo "additional screening?"). So, that's a minor detail really. Even metal detectors give off false positives.
I suppose some one could be terrified of dogs... but I'm gonna say that's not as bad as making rape victims be groped by strangers... and the dogs don't actually have to touch to smell.
I suppose severe allergies could be an issue, but you'd know about it before hand, could be tagged for that, and they could stock epi-pens (not that you don't regularly get dog dander all over the baggage area from animals being transported and passenger luggage anyway).
So, given that a well-trained dog would be less expensive (cost(training + kibble + vet care)
For that matter, some airports have used dogs to find people carrying fruit (not allowed in some places due to risk of spreading agricultural diseases to local crops).
If you had the choice of being groped by TSA or sniffed by a dog, which would you pick?
Shannon M. Howell at November 17, 2012 12:19 PM
From my previous, paraphrased: Safety — prevent unintentional; Deterrence — discourage intentional.
Protecting people from harm is the ultimate goal of both, but the means and ends of a safety program are completely different from deterrence. Confusing the two, as you thoroughly have, is wallowing in incoherence. You couldn't possibly distinguish between the fire and police departments.
Speaking of incoherence …
That's as may be; regardless, it is irrelevant. What you said was:
You are wrong, a half dozen times wrong, and that was without me having to even glance at Google.
But anyway, you go on with:
No they don't, because this is about deterrence. How close to zero does the likelihood of getting something through checkpoint security have to be in order to deter someone from doing it? TSA checkpoint security is nowhere near 6-sigma, but I'll bet its close enough to deter you from trying to get a gun on board, and close enough to deter you from taking even odds on Hassan getting through, either.
Also, you should note that Maj Hassan, absent an ID check, was not subjected to any checkpoint screening at all.
You aren't giving any particular sign that you do, nor any awareness that mechanics also go through checkpoint security. I know, because I go through with them.
Even my wristwatch gets X-rayed.
The reason I repeatedly accuse you of arguing a null is because that is what you are doing.
I am making several positive arguments. First, are groups who have the motivation and the means to blow up airplanes. Second, that checkpoint security capable of reliably (not perfectly) detecting bombs large enough to bring down is an essential element of greatly reducing the rate of bombed airliners.
As an observation, I believe that the TSA, aside from all its manifest faults, is sufficiently reliable that it is an effective deterrent. Of course, I could be wrong on that. You can test for yourself, if you like.
(BTW, speaking as a pilot, I think Patrick Smith is a great writer, and unparalleled at describing anything having to do with air travel in terms that are both readable for any audience, and accurate enough to satisfy any expert critic. He was the only part of Salon worth reading, and I have read his criticisms of the TSA, as well.)
When I say you are arguing a null, I mean this: you are arguing against the TSA (for which I am not arguing), but not only are you not arguing for nothing, you aren't even arguing for anything. Nullity is sometimes a difficult concept to get a handle on, but this stands a pretty good example.
You are right, you didn't say it was high. Perhaps I didn't make my point clear. Absent hysterics of the Jenny McCarthy stripe, no one asserts that the incremental risk from airport scanners is anything more than negligible — IOW, statistically indistinguishable from zero.
More importantly though, is that the radiation exposure you get from the flight itself is far, far greater than what you get from a scanner. (Flight crews apparently have a 1-2% higher cancer incidence than otherwise identical non-flying populations; the difference is attributed to radiation.)
Of course, people's mileages on this sort of thing vary. But regardless of that, it is hard to see how rational risk assessment leads one to willingly accept the radiation risk of the flight itself while objecting to the comparatively miniscule risk from a scanner.
(And, SFAIK, the X-rays in the older scanners have very little penetration, and the newer millimeter wave scanners pose no radiation hazard at all.)
You are posing a false dilemma, because you left off one choice — the scanner. But never mind, the least intrusive means that meets the goal of effective deterrence would be my choice. So, if dogs are capable of meeting that goal, why not?
Jeff Guinn at November 17, 2012 3:18 PM
> I can't deny that another airplane
> will come down someday
Then what? What is the meaning of this insanity? Why do you care so little for the lives that are 100% certain to be lost in an airliner accident in 2013? Why aren't you putting Americans through this kind of Hell on behalf of those accident victims, who are in fact much more real, statistically and rhetorically?
> just because you insist on me trying
> to prove a negative
That's not logical. No one's insisting that you prove anything. You're making an argument, and you've failed to sustain it. You've not proved and cannot prove that the TSA has protected us, or that it as done so at acceptable cost. There's nothing "null" in our observation of this failure. Meanwhile, you and your agency have been an inexcusable burden.
> I am making an affirmative argument.
Negatory, Big Ben.
> Splodeydopery exists, as do bombs.
?
> Therefore, absent a variety of efforts
> to keep them both off airplanes, not
> only will they get blown up, it will
> happen frequently.
This is insane! "Therefore..."
It's just nuts. AGAIN (for we have covered this before), again you've got this weird tripwire fantasy happening where one thing goes wrong, one flight is attacked, and our entire civilization accelerates into a delusional methamphetamine apparition wherein NO PLANE WILL EVER AGAIN FLY WITHOUT BEING BOMBED.
I do not understand why you do this. I do not understand. I do not understand. In any case, this is not "affirmative argument." It's not even respectable paranoiac psychosis.
If terrorists strike another plane someday –and they will- the full military, public and commercial investigative might of the United States (and the civilized world) will step up to find out who did it, and to punish them. We've covered this in this argument before.
Indeed, we've been through this before... The era of frequent airliner hijackings ended years ago, with the strengthened communications of law enforcement internationally, a trend which has accelerated greatly in recent years. (See also Barnett, who speaks of the need to bring 2nd & 3rd world ports into the modern shipping marketplace.)
The "Therefore" of your argument is, y'know, nuts. You have a citrus knife in your kitchen drawer; therefore, you will use it to slice your own wrists. Huh? What? The world is full of hazards that don't turn up in delicate contexts... Your wife needn't check the utensils every night before bed.
But very specifically, the bottom half of your argument is without merit. It will not "happen frequently." I can't imagine why you say it would.
> The fact that they are resorting to
> increasingly convoluted and failure-
> prone methods proves that checkpoint
> security is effective
It proves nothing of the kind, and you know it. If that's your best case, we can consider this discussion concluded.
But I bet there's something else going on with you. I can't imagine what it is... Some personal resentment, some fascination with bodily searches, some personal fear about travel and flying, some story about a family member, who knows. But the TSA is indefensible by logic.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 17, 2012 7:01 PM
Jeff, safety analyses consider deliberate acts as well as failures.
One more time: revisit the definition of evidence. Merely claiming that A prevents B is not enough. A must be shown to be exclusive as well as having the direct causal effect claimed.
Radwaste at November 18, 2012 3:24 AM
Jeff,
I don't think you know quite how dismissively you are coming across (or maybe you do?). It doesn't do much for your argument - more flies with honey than vinegar and all. :)
It's not that what you say doesn't sound reasonable on the surface, but you are ignoring some things. In fact, you ignored one of my comments entirely.
Specifically, you ignored the part about individual choices.
Example: Some one's mother is on her deathbed, and the only way s/he can get to see her before she passes is by airplane. Assuming a desire to see the mother, one will likely choose to accept the flight-related risks (including mechanical failure, radiation, and having the person next to you be rather objectionable in some manner).
That does NOT necessitate additional risk from these scanners. Accepting the risk inherent in an activity does not mean that one should be forced to accept another additional risk. This is especially true since some of these risks are cumulative. Sure, if there's a 0.000001 percent chance of crashing, you have that same chance each flight. If you crash - no more flights. If you kill an ova, the next time through, you can kill off another (or more). So, in that sense, it is cumulative in a way some of the other risks are not.
As for your statement about statistics please show me references... because I don't believe there is any way those studies have all been done, and thoroughly. You'd need one on fertility, one on cancers, and one on other issues if you are going to cover all types of "risk" (have you seen all the risks for a basic medication such as amoxicillian? the lists are LONG).
These scanners simply haven't been around long enough for the appropriate longitudinal studies (not even in non-human animal studies). So, we can't know the risks of frequent exposure in any meaningful way (sure, the risk of going through once or twice might truly not be any greater than NOT going through... but tell that to a gate agent who goes through hundreds of times a year!)
A good study would look at something very specific such as "infertility in females ages 25-30 who fly between 10 and 20 times annually for 3 consecutive years."
So, if you are going to state that the difference is statistically indistinguishable from zero, you will need to tell me what hypothesis was tested, and against what alternative. I would also want a p-value, sample size, and reference population (I'm a statistician, after all).
So, if you can find sources, I'll look at them, and come back here with a statistician's view on them - heck I'll put in mine and ask a colleague to drop in their 2 cents as well.
One more thing - "statistically indistinguishable from zero" is NOT the same thing as zero, nor is it equivalent to "negligible." It means that we don't have statistical evidence it is NOT zero. So, a small sample, or even dumb bad luck, could mask a true difference. There is a big difference between statistically significant and CLINICALLY significant!
Back to choice (and personal perspective) and why I say it's not the same as negligible...
If I need new lungs, the risk of surgery is negligible -to me- compared to the risk of NOT having it! But no one is going to argue that having a lung replacement has negligible risk!
If fertility was of high value to me, even minor risks might not be worth it. Have you not seen (even on TV) some story of a woman's insane sacrifices for a child? I've met women who'd rather loose an arm than not be able to have kids. Not the choice I'd make, but it's not my right to make it for them.
In short, what you consider ignorable, they might not. Non one gets to tell them otherwise.
Shannon M. Howell at November 18, 2012 12:30 PM
Nearly forgot: my comment about the choice between dogs or pat-down wasn't a "false dilemma." It was a separate comment to the scanner discussion.
I was asking if anyone had come up with a good reason why it is NOT used or shouldn't be tried. My rhetorical question was meant to suggest that there are FAR less invasive methods that accomplish at least as much, if not more, than the pat-downs.
Moreover, if you fail the scanner for any reason (including inability to use it due to medical conditions - like inability to stand that way long enough), you get a pat-down. So, it is NOT always a choice.
So... a separate thread, ok?
Shannonn M. Howell at November 19, 2012 8:01 PM
I didn't mean to be the slightest bit dismissive of your comments; I'm sorry if I came across that way.
I think there are two problems with the way you are looking at this. First, you seem to be asking for proof of a negative, which is almost always impossible, regardless of what you are talking about.
Second, your risk assessment is incomplete.
The risk to this traveler isn't just being in an airliner crash and going through the scanner, it is the sum of all the risks taken between leaving the house and arriving at the destination, and some of those risks, especially the drive on both ends, completely swamps all the incremental risks directly associated with the flight itself. In other words, the risk of the entire trip is equal to just the risk imposed by driving: your calculator doesn't have enough significant digits to distinguish between the two.
(It is true that the risk baseline for airport scanners isn't long, but the baseline risk for higher energy and more penetrating X-rays is. Not only is that risk very, very, small, it also is the upper bound for airport scanners. Also, SFAIK, airport scanners, by design, do not use penetrating radiation, so the fertility risk is zero.)
More in awhile ...
Jeff Guinn at November 20, 2012 10:29 AM
> First, you seem to be asking for proof of
> a negative, which is almost always impossible,
> regardless of what you are talking about.
Correct! WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DEFEND YOUR FAITH IN THE TSA. You cannot. You cannot logically explain how or even if this has made us safer. And it apparently offends you that we keep asking. Your offense has no basis; this is how reasoning works.
> The risk to this traveler isn't just being
> in an airliner crash and going through the
> scanner, it is the sum of all the risks
> taken between leaving the house and arriving
> at the destination
Risks for which the TSA offers zero, zero amelioration. But rest assured, your government is listening to you, and will soon be offering intrusions throughout your life and passages in the name of making you safer.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 21, 2012 9:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/11/13/tiffany_applewh.html#comment-3467471">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]You cannot logically explain how or even if this has made us safer.
Exactly.
Amy Alkon at November 21, 2012 10:30 PM
If that is what you are asking at this point, then you clearly haven't been paying the tiniest bit of attention.
Unfortunately, while shotgunning the cooling system on one of my cars, two studs broke.
Priorities.
Jeff Guinn at November 21, 2012 11:08 PM
> If that is what you are asking at this
> point, then you clearly haven't been
> paying the tiniest bit of attention.
If you concede that your faith is indefensible, than we truly are through here.
There's no reason to believe the TSA has made anyone safer.
Zilch. The empty set, the vacant lot. De nada... De Nadia Comaneci. The Big O. The Void. The Dead Parrot.
None.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 23, 2012 6:45 PM
Ummm, no. If you think I'm talking about the TSA, then either my argument has cleared your head by about the same distance -- and sound -- as an airliner at cruise altitude, or you haven't been attending it particularly closely.
I'm betting on the latter.
---
8 x 30 mm bolt, fifty cents.
Getting the !@#$%^&*() thing out, because the design engineers were too !@#$%^& thick to figure out 8mm is too small, or the production engineers too !@#$%^&* thick to put on a little anti-seize, $450.
All to replace a $15 thermostat.
Jeff Guinn at November 23, 2012 7:06 PM
> either my argument has cleared your head by
> about the same distance -- and sound -- as
> an airliner at cruise altitude, or you
> haven't been attending it particularly
> closely.
Well, never closely enough to make your argument for you, if that's what you mean.
This is looking like a point of religious faith with you. As do so many believers, you tart up your discussions with irrelevancies and digressions and preciousness and talk-talk-talk; then we're told that we missed something, or that it's all over our heads... There's something in the reading that we didn't give enough attention to, a delicate passage of scripture, perhaps a darling anecdote or some curlicue of logic... When in fact, you got nothin'.
When believers do this, the lesser nature of their humanity is plain, as this horseplay is seen from every schoolyard heart; they're (redundantly) making social distance from people who almost never wanted anything to do with them. They compound the offense of their sophistry with the social equivalent of sour grapes, straight offa the Elm Street Elementary swingset; 'Your faulty awareness means you were never going to be fit for fellowship, or even redemption, anyway'. Of course, the flex of this muscle mocks and undermines every affectionate and rational religious impulse... But that almost never troubles the believers.
Sagan & the Missus gave one of the best explications of this characteristic, showing too-infrequently-seen respect for the centrality of telling people to fuck off:
But our argument isn't theological; the probing fingers and humiliations are very much with us in the Earthly realm. The rest of us would sincerely, sincerely like to know why you think we should put up with them.It's become apparent that you'll never tell us.
Dunno why not.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 23, 2012 10:06 PM
You haven't yet made anything resembling an argument, and pretending effects don't have causes doesn't count as one.
You are the HDWIC. What would you do instead?
Oh, by the way, no need to take my word for it. Here is what ALPA has to say about checkpoint security:
Here is where you, and Amy, and Jim P go right off the rails. Based upon an understanding of the constitution that should embarrass even a product of the Detroit School System, and a security "expert" who apparently knows nothing about explosives, and your own tunnel vision, you have collectively entered into an echo chamber.
I assume that you would completely drop checkpoint screening. Why do I assume that? Because in the face of your perfect null, I have to assume something. (Actually, Amy's null is even more perfect. She hates the TSA for not being more like the Israelis, and hates them when they try to emulate the Israelis.)
Read the entire link.
Okay -- you get rid of all checkpoint screening. What do you think the odds are you are going to fly anywhere?
(If the answer still isn't immediately apparent after reading the entire link, then take a look at FAR 91.3.)
Jeff Guinn at November 24, 2012 2:37 PM
Ah, sorry, I thought this was dead. I'll have a response up in the morning.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 27, 2012 8:11 PM
First of all, it's Chinese in it's arrogance.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 28, 2012 5:51 PM
> You haven't yet made anything resembling
> an argument
Dude, you're getting Nathan Thurmy.
But if you missed it:
Airport security checks have become an unacceptable burden. They delay and intrude to an intolerable degree. The electronic apparatus is obnoxious and distrusted by many. TSA agents are shitty government employees. They're repellent by habit and intention: they cost too much by definition, as their purpose is to fatten the budgets of meddlesome, power-mad bureaucrats. They can't be trusted not to steal or cause other havoc, and the relevant agencies can't be trusted to come clean when these offenses occur. Perhaps most grievous is their propensity and license to sexually humiliate through petty authority, misconduct which a modern feminist polity should reject and punish out of hand. The security checks will not meaningfully deter an eager assailant, and you've offered (and can offer) zero evidence to the contrary. The airport security checks are a far worse burden to our nation than anything a terrorist could have devised... For worst of all, they sustain a pantomime of submission to and reliance upon government scoundrels that mockingly diminishes the finest of American character when faced with terrorism or any other challenge: Our courage, our independence, and our stoicism. Perhaps most importantly, I don't want my government to do that, which is all the argument you (and it) should need.
There's nothing in that paragraph that you haven't read in our arguments, and probably on this page, earlier. Chatter about "pretending effects don't have causes" illustrates only that you've offered, and can offer, NO sequence to sustain your enthusiasm for this hideous charade.
What's an HDWIC? Presumably something in charge, but internet acronym finders report only:
Perhaps the acronym refers to some law enforcement agency I've not heard of, but I can't imagine being impressed by appeals to authority: Indeed, I don't much care how professional airline pilot associations feel about this... And if they reject my standards as a passenger and as a taxpayer, they can quit their jobs and do something else. (I feel the same way about licensed pharmacists who don't think they should have to sell birth control: Tough titty, mister.)
> Based upon an understanding of the
> constitution that should embarrass even
> a product of the Detroit School System
Jeff, that's just ludicrous. There's nothing in the constitution about grabbing women's cooters on the way into flying machines. Your arguments have never been about legalisms, and there's no reason for you to pretend they have, or to hope that they could persuade.
> and a security "expert" who apparently knows
> nothing about explosives
This is not about expertise. This is about the citizen, his government, and his response to threats. The citizen suffers more from the government than the "terrorist" threat, indisputably.
> vision, you have collectively entered into
> an echo chamber.
No, we have individually entered into airport security lines. Our offense is real. You neither represent nor instill political will for such things... You only find them agreeable, for reasons you cannot or will not explain. You needn't regard this argument as concluded, or even well-begun. See also, Obamacare.
> Because in the face of your
> perfect null
Null again! Your love of that word is as weird as it is inappropriate.
> I have to assume something.
Love those italics... They demonstrate the hidden passion about this, the terror, the religiosity.... As something becomes anything. 'Let's hire a bunch of overweight high-school dropouts –at the federal level– to wear weird sweaters and take our nail clippers and bottled water away! They'll feel up the women and irradiate the men, and then America will be safer! Eventually, they'll unionize, and we'll give 'em whatever they want....'
The TSA is a loathsome and destructive power grab by some of the shabbiest people America has produced in my generation. Had I been asked, and I wasn't, I'd have encouraged (or at least considered) the kinds of things discussed in my comments here nearly ten years ago, when the offense of these fuckballs was new... Perhaps a much less intrusive airport presence by an armed service, with everything that entails, including physical fitness, community involvement, and martial justice. But I'm just thinking out loud here, which is silly, because...
I've got no responsibility, personally or rhetorically, to offer a competing security regimen for the American flyer or even to affirm that one's required. You're flatly wrong: I don't have to offer "something." Have faith that if I did, it would be better than this. My three-year-old great-nephew could have done better than the TSA.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 28, 2012 10:58 PM
Every time a TSA agent feels up, gropes, humiliates, or intimidates an innocent passenger, the terrorists win without lifting a finger. It could be argued that the TSA does more terrorizing then the terrorists they are supposedly protecting us from. I know I don't feel safe to fly because of the TSA. Having never been molested, I don't want my first sexual abuse to be at the hands of a TSA goon. The TSA has raised the art of terrorism to a mass production level, terrorizing millions of people per day simply because they want to fly. TSA = Terrorism Society of America.
A Citizen at November 29, 2012 7:06 AM
Gee, Crid, don't you recognize that a blurb from the ALPA - even as it represents a concept not provided by the TSA - trumps everything else?
This guy can't connect ANY dots.
Radwaste at November 29, 2012 8:44 AM
You know, I just scrolled by the words, "self-inflicted wound of a professional hysteric", and it occurred to me that I should pity any female in that commenter's life.
They're undefended, unsupported in any case of abuse by someone wearing a uniform.
Radwaste at November 29, 2012 8:53 AM
Listen, here's the thing about the word "null." There's nothing clever about it... There's no complexity that hides what it's about, no articulated machinery that makes it hard to understand.
Jeff says we're 'demanding he prove a null,' as if the request were arrogant, or unusual, or distracting. But it's not! It's straight-ahead kindergarten conversation: You affirm a belief; Why, I ask?
But there's no answer. Jeff expects us to somehow understand that what he believes is true without evidence. And we doe-wanna.
"Null" isn't a popular word, but it's not a special one, either. It has no moving parts. I can logically & mathematically demonstrate the burden airport security has placed on millions and millions of innocent people over the years. When asked why we've borne this burden, the response is silence... null.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at November 29, 2012 7:26 PM
I could explain his point (well, what I would mean by the null bs), but I'd rather he stew in his inarticulate self. It's not what you would call a bullet proof position. No suggestion of threat intended, I know how you TSA guys can be.
Assholio at November 29, 2012 10:02 PM
> I could explain his point
Whose?
> well, what I would mean by the null bs
Huh?
> I know how you TSA guys can be.
What?
> Posted by: Assholio
'K.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at December 1, 2012 2:34 AM
Leave a comment