TSA mess and the police

[CPT Tripss]

snip

Again, we've already outlined the various options available to critics to redress their concerns, other than the irrational chest-beating, deceptive manipulation of public opinion, and other exploitations that critics of the policy have engaged in.

That's silly: Everything I've been objecting to is that which critics are doing beyond just those reasonable measures.

Please help me out . . . this thread is much to long to try to track back. What are the "approved" reasonable measures that critics of the existing TSA processes have available to them?

 

[MushyMushy]

Well, we're flying tomorrow night, so I'll check in and let you know if we had to go through the extra measures.

 

[skater]

And they don't believe that you're correct. Yet they have been duly appointed to make that decision and you have not. Their determination therefore has primacy.

And we've already outlined the various options available to critics to redress their concerns, other than the irrational chest-beating, deceptive manipulation of public opinion, and other exploitations that critics of the policy have engaged in.

Everyone has different priorities. Other posters have told you, in this thread, that this thing you feel they don't. Yet assuredly there are other things that they feel aggrieved about, that you probably couldn't care less about. I'm part of a religious minority, so don't get me started about things that violate what I believe are my constitutional rights. However, I acknowledge that my feelings in that regard are my own and have no bearing on what should or shouldn't happen in society, overall.

Again, we've already outlined the various options available to critics to redress their concerns, other than the irrational chest-beating, deceptive manipulation of public opinion, and other exploitations that critics of the policy have engaged in.

That's silly: Everything I've been objecting to is that which critics are doing beyond just those reasonable measures.

I don't believe that the fact that someone is in a job position gives them primacy if enough people are dissatisfied (and maybe enough aren't - I'm still waiting to see on that one).

Constitutional rights are always at the top of my concern and if yours are being violated, its ok to get started on it.

What are your examples of the deceptive manipulation of public opinion?

And you have no way of knowing whether or not I care about the concerns of people on the other side of this issue - in fact, that's not true at all.

 

[skater]

Well, we're flying tomorrow night, so I'll check in and let you know if we had to go through the extra measures.

That would be appreciated. I woudl love to hear more experiences of people who get the extra screening. I would also love to hear from more people who have been through the extra screening who don't mind it - and why they don't.

 

[bicker]

So if I am now reading you right ... a consumer who doesn't walk away when unhappy is a fool & a consumer who accepts the offer then complains about it is suffering from entitlement. That sound right?

It's a little different from what I wrote - you've simplified what I wrote so it no longer has all the nuances that make what I wrote actually strongly accurate - but this interpretation of yours is much closer than your first try. The bits you're missing are important. Try this: A consumer who doesn't decline an offer when what is being offered will be unsatisfying to them for the price paid, is a fool. A consumer who accepts an offer but expects more than what was promised in the offer is suffering from entitlement.

 

[bicker]

What are the "approved" reasonable measures that critics of the existing TSA processes have available to them?

Expressing your concerns to your Members of Congress. Also, voting for representatives who will support your personal perspectives in the first place, so that the government won't actually do things that upset you so. That's critical, really, because a lot of what's going on here is ridiculous: Americans vote for people who will clearly drive things in one direction, and then they whine and moan when the folks they elected administer society consistent with that. While there's a lot of lying going on, in Washington, when it comes to economic issues, taxes, spending, etc., politicians generally do not lie about what kind of governance they're going to support, otherwise. (Politicians who profess to be pro-choice tend to vote pro-choice. Politicians who profess to be for Law and Order tend to vote Law and Order. Politicians who profess to be forward-looking tend to vote for advances and progress.) The agency, its policies, etc., all are consistent with the general direction provided to it by We The People through our elected representatives. Yet now the critics are engaging in over-the-top chest-beating, and really only because either they didn't get their way (they didn't get the kind of people elected who would have agreed with their personal preferences) or they're actually two-faced, supporting one thing when voting and supporting another thing when push-comes-to-shove.

 

[bicker]

I don't believe that the fact that someone is in a job position gives them primacy if enough people are dissatisfied (and maybe enough aren't - I'm still waiting to see on that one).

Dissatisfaction, though, must be genuine. Scenario: A customer comes to me and says that they want Feature X. Feature X implies Consequence Y. The customer doesn't like Consequence Y, but still wants Feature X more than they don't want Consequence Y. Feature X wins. A myopic fixation on dissatisfaction with regard to a consequence, ignoring the satisfaction from the features that brought about the consequence, is falling for mob mentality. That's why good decisions are practically never made by mob rule; why good decisions practically never stem from pressure applied through exploitation of the media's appetite for salaciousness and sensationalism.

Constitutional rights are always at the top of my concern

However, you're only considering the rights you care about most, and ignoring all other aspects of Constitutional responsibility, i.e., government's obligations to the people, which are just as important. Everyone has rights, and rights often directly conflict with each other, and with the overriding obligations of government, as is the case here. Which leads us back to the reasonable measures for weighing these conflicting considerations.

What are your examples of the deceptive manipulation of public opinion?

The manipulated photo posted earlier in the thread. What was presented is not what TSA agents see. The colorization was changed to make the photo more salacious. Also the references to "naked" and "groping"; etc.

And you have no way of knowing whether or not I care about the concerns of people on the other side of this issue

Indeed we all do, by reading what you write.

 

[eliza61]

That would be appreciated. I woudl love to hear more experiences of people who get the extra screening. I would also love to hear from more people who have been through the extra screening who don't mind it - and why they don't.

I've got a business meeting in Chicago next Wednesday. I have a 6:30 flight out on United. Not sure if United uses terminal F at the Philly airport which is the terminal with the scanner.

If it does, I plan on using the scanner (this will be the 2nd time), I do not opt out.

ditto on my return trip from Chicago. Last time I flew out of Ohare, I went through the old xray machine. don't know if that will change but once again if I'm given the choice of scanner or pat down, I go with what's quicker.

I'll let you know next week. It's a biz trip so I'll have my lap top. Generally these are not crowded flights, maybe 40 people tops so security is not a big problem. Most of the delays we encounter seem to be that 5:00 am is shift change time for TSA so we have to wait while more lanes open and personnel changes over.

I don't have luggage general just a very big tote bag and a bag for my lap top.

 

[skater]

Dissatisfaction, though, must be genuine. Scenario: A customer comes to me and says that they want Feature X. Feature X implies Consequence Y. The customer doesn't like Consequence Y, but still wants Feature X more than they don't want Consequence Y. Feature X wins. A myopic fixation on dissatisfaction with regard to a consequence, ignoring the satisfaction from the features that brought about the consequence, is falling for mob mentality. That's why good decisions are practically never made by mob rule; why good decisions practically never stem from pressure applied through exploitation of the media's appetite for salaciousness and sensationalism.

However, you're only considering the rights you care about most, and ignoring all other aspects of Constitutional responsibility, i.e., government's obligations to the people, which are just as important. Everyone has rights, and rights often directly conflict with each other, and with the overriding obligations of government, as is the case here. Which leads us back to the reasonable measures for weighing these conflicting considerations.

The manipulated photo posted earlier in the thread. What was presented is not what TSA agents see. The colorization was changed to make the photo more salacious. Also the references to "naked" and "groping"; etc.

Indeed we all do, by reading what you write.

Bicker, I sincerely doubt that many if anybody on this thread think that I don't care about the concerns of people on the other side of this issue. I have been fair and caring and respectful throughout this thread and very open to other opinions. And I've said all along that I am still educating myself about this issue.

And the reasonable measures that you're discussing - that's just your opinion. And many others of course. How is that more important than the "other side?" And vice versa of course. A real discussion of everybody's rights is OK here, but you deciding that I don't care about others' concerns or rights is unfair and detrimental to an open discussion.

I still don't know what the real story is on the "naked" pictures. I have seen some very revealing pictures on websites I thought were reasonable. Maybe they're not. I will go back and look again. (have to go to the library to do it because we're one of the few households without high speed internet ).

I don't know if you plan to attack people with your posts, but they come across that way. Maybe its using the word selfish (or words like that) when you discuss people with an opinion other than yours? I'm not sure what it is. If I'm off base, I'm sorry, but that's how your posts sometimes read. This is why for a while, I decided to not respond to you. I would love to have an honest and respectful debate without all that unnecessary language. You're good with language - I'm sure you can out-debate me any day without deciding that I don't care about the other side and/or I'm selfish.

 

[skater]

I've got a business meeting in Chicago next Wednesday. I have a 6:30 flight out on United. Not sure if United uses terminal F at the Philly airport which is the terminal with the scanner.

If it does, I plan on using the scanner (this will be the 2nd time), I do not opt out.

ditto on my return trip from Chicago. Last time I flew out of Ohare, I went through the old xray machine. don't know if that will change but once again if I'm given the choice of scanner or pat down, I go with what's quicker.

I'll let you know next week. It's a biz trip so I'll have my lap top. Generally these are not crowded flights, maybe 40 people tops so security is not a big problem. Most of the delays we encounter seem to be that 5:00 am is shift change time for TSA so we have to wait while more lanes open and personnel changes over.

I don't have luggage general just a very big tote bag and a bag for my lap top.

I will definately be interested in your story. I would also love to hear from people about the pat downs. I guess I'm more concerned about these because I will probably opt out of the screener until I learn more about it. And not from the people selling it or the people hysterical about it.
I really with I felt relaxed and settled about this like you do .

 

[OceanAnnie]

Legal experts are divided about whether the measures cross the constitutional line or not. I think that is important to note.

 

[skater]

Legal experts are divided about whether the measures cross the constitutional line or not. I think that is important to note.

That's what I've heard too.

 

[olwyngdh]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think I have figured out why the idea of background checks bothers me a lot more than the scanners and patdowns. My body is a shell, a container, not <u>me</u>. My background--what church I attend, what clubs I belong to, whether or not I got busted at a frat party in college, who I have dated, etc, is personal, it is the real <u>me</u>. The scanner and patdowns look at the cover of the book, not at the contents. The contents are what is personal.

Going to or adding background checks will not stop me from flying, but it will make me feel violated so much more than something that just looks at the physical container.

I think when it comes down to it, what we object to is based on how we define the self.

 

[eliza61]

I will definately be interested in your story. I would also love to hear from people about the pat downs. I guess I'm more concerned about these because I will probably opt out of the screener until I learn more about it. And not from the people selling it or the people hysterical about it.
I really with I felt relaxed and settled about this like you do .

Here in Phily, there isn't much noise on it anymore. We never did have the pat down horror stories that people found here on this forum (not to say they did not happen). The scanners went into effect around the 2nd week of November in one terminal and have been in use pretty much continuously since then. every one here at my job that travels routinely uses the scanners, what can I say, we are more concerned with speed and convenience. It may be that we hang out in chemical plants, petroleum refineries and nuclear facilities so we pretty much figure that if working in these places for 30 years hasn't turned us "glowing green" we doubt if security screens will but we're scientist, we've got warped humor senses.

Wishing you the best, I totally agree that no one should feel scared or apprehensive about flying before they even get on the plane.

I'll keep you posted.

 

[LuvOrlando]

The people who won't fly aren't there with you so how could you hear them?

That's like saying the whole world loves paying $50 for their family to go to a movie because the people in the theaters aren't complaining. The dissenters are not in the theaters, they are getting Blockbuster and Netflix, Redbox and Cinemax.

The people who have a problem with something will be everywhere else.

 

[skater]

Here in Phily, there isn't much noise on it anymore. We never did have the pat down horror stories that people found here on this forum (not to say they did not happen). The scanners went into effect around the 2nd week of November in one terminal and have been in use pretty much continuously since then. every one here at my job that travels routinely uses the scanners, what can I say, we are more concerned with speed and convenience. It may be that we hang out in chemical plants, petroleum refineries and nuclear facilities so we pretty much figure that if working in these places for 30 years hasn't turned us "glowing green" we doubt if security screens will but we're scientist, we've got warped humor senses.

Wishing you the best, I totally agree that no one should feel scared or apprehensive about flying before they even get on the plane.

I'll keep you posted.

This gave me a good chuckle! I love the pragmatism.

 

[skater]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and I think I have figured out why the idea of background checks bothers me a lot more than the scanners and patdowns. My body is a shell, a container, not <u>me</u>. My background--what church I attend, what clubs I belong to, whether or not I got busted at a frat party in college, who I have dated, etc, is personal, it is the real <u>me</u>. The scanner and patdowns look at the cover of the book, not at the contents. The contents are what is personal.

Going to or adding background checks will not stop me from flying, but it will make me feel violated so much more than something that just looks at the physical container.

I think when it comes down to it, what we object to is based on how we define the self.

I like your points although this is not why I personally object to the enhanced screenings. I can see why this would make sense to you. Your points are very interesting.

I don't persoanlly define my self by my body, but I still don't want to feel violated. Admittedly, I don't want the government digging around in my personal information either .

 

[kaytieeldr]

The people who won't fly aren't there with you so how could you hear them?

That's like saying the whole world loves paying $50 for their family to go to a movie because the people in the theaters aren't complaining. The dissenters are not in the theaters, they are getting Blockbuster and Netflix, Redbox and Cinemax.

The people who have a problem with something will be everywhere else.

That's disingenuous. Those people are speaking with their wallets. IF (big if) air travel drops and it can be proven to be a direct result of preboarding screenings and not the economy, that's former/potential passengers speaking with their wallets. WHEN people don't go to the movies - 'when' accentuated because it's already happening - partly due to the high cost, partly due to the economy, and partly due to the reasonably available alternatives, that too is people speaking with their wallets. They don't need to literally speak.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Expressing your concerns to your Members of Congress. Also, voting for representatives who will support your personal perspectives in the first place, so that the government won't actually do things that upset you so. That's critical, really, because a lot of what's going on here is ridiculous: Americans vote for people who will clearly drive things in one direction, and then they whine and moan when the folks they elected administer society consistent with that. While there's a lot of lying going on, in Washington, when it comes to economic issues, taxes, spending, etc., politicians generally do not lie about what kind of governance they're going to support, otherwise. (Politicians who profess to be pro-choice tend to vote pro-choice. Politicians who profess to be for Law and Order tend to vote Law and Order. Politicians who profess to be forward-looking tend to vote for advances and progress.) The agency, its policies, etc., all are consistent with the general direction provided to it by We The People through our elected representatives. Yet now the critics are engaging in over-the-top chest-beating, and really only because either they didn't get their way (they didn't get the kind of people elected who would have agreed with their personal preferences) or they're actually two-faced, supporting one thing when voting and supporting another thing when push-comes-to-shove.

That's a really short list, one item . . . tell your congressman/senator.

I can't think of a single social change or policy change issue that made a dent using simply that tactic. Marches, sit-ins, strong rhetoric and civil disobedience all have been elements of 20th century social change.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Contrary to a pp, PHL has had problems with over zealous TSAers:

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/colu...ch_at_Philadelphia_International_Airport.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/l...in_about_TSA_screeners_at_Philly_airport.html (includes stories of several women)

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/colu...bin__Another_flier_s_run-in_with_the_TSA.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/tsa-thugs-harass-4-year-old-disabled-boy.html

http://www.goldinvestmentstocks.com...e-tsa-employee-puts-white-powder-in-carry-on/

http://www.infowars.com/tsa-grilled-student-about-his-opinion-of-911/

http://tsa-abuse.blogspot.com/2010/06/nadine-pellegrino-philadelphia-airport_30.html

It's a long sordid story of systemic problems.