TSA mess and the police

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's why it is called a "mob". A few people wouldn't qualify.

My point is there is a national debate and it isn't rooted in "hysteria". To suggest that it is, minimizes people's thoughts on the matter. People can have a civil debate without the put downs.
 
Wow bicker, you don't happen to work for a collection agency, do you? Having several collection agents in my circle of acquaintances, I must say that your grasp of pushback and circular logic is truly impressive.

However, you seem to have grasped onto a shred of an actual point, which I will be more than happy to debate with you. I believe that you stated that the TSA and the government have an obligation to keep society safe, correct?

Fair enough. That is indeed the entire reason for the existence of the TSA. Therefore, I'll momentarily take the position that the TSA has nothing but the very best of intentions for the traveling public. I'm sure that you and I can agree that logical decisions are made based on a detailed process of weighing all available evidence and making the *best* choice. I'm sure that we can also agree that there is no *perfect* choice, only the one that is better than the others, based on the evidence. Is that agreement a reasonable assumption to make?

So where is the hard evidence? For every single article that I publish, I must cite the primary research for each claim that I make. The actual research reports are right there, in the open, for every reader to examine for himself. Readers may come to an entirely different conclusion than I did, and that's fine. I have nothing to hide, so I am happy to provide the hard data.

Why isn't a bureaucratic agency that is unilaterally responsible for making decisions that represent a radical change to our way of thinking held to the same standard? Why can't the TSA provide the actual primary research reports that demonstrate the efficacy, safety, and usefulness of the new security procedures? I'm sorry, but I don't tend to believe spurious claims, particularly those that come from any agency that operates in secrecy.

When the TSA shows me all of the evidence that went into making this unilateral decision, then I will be able to make an informed decision on whether to comply. As it stands, all they have provided is a Big Brother-ish "it's for your safety" argument that I don't buy.
 
My point is there is a national debate and it isn't rooted in "hysteria".
99% of the time that there is a so-called "national debate" it is rooted, at least in part (and sometimes entirely) in "hysteria". Representative government came about because not everyone is going to put in the effort to develop a full understanding of the entire issue, including all the myriad tangential dependencies. The legitimate context for "national debate" therefore is the big picture - we just went through this (rather imperfectly, for much the same reason, but at least national elections have a chance of being an effective means of getting something close to an adequate bead on the big picture issues). Once we put a government in place, it follows the mandate we gave it to decide operational issues. What you're advocating is the very worse and most destructive kind of micro-management. My example earlier was absolutely on-target, but perhaps you missed it: What you're advocating is just like empaneling a jury to hear a murder trial, and then leaving the verdict, instead, up to call-in voters, American Idol style, after a three minute blurp on the local television news tabloid.

To suggest that it is, minimizes people's thoughts on the matter.
No, not people's thoughts. It "minimizes" the inherent abuse of process. That's the point. People who refuse to see that the criticisms being outlined here are about the process are not going to understand what they're reading.

People can have a civil debate without the put downs.
They sure can. And if you consider the objections being voiced by myself and others as "put downs" then you're not reading what I'm writing, or choosing to misinterpret what I'm writing so as to fit that characterization, instead of interpreting them as they are, as criticisms of the abuse of process, as criticisms of trying to override operational decisions within a government agency by abusing our nation's naturally-sensationalistic mass-media.
 
99% of the time that there is a so-called "national debate" it is rooted, at least in part (and sometimes entirely) in "hysteria". Representative government came about because not everyone is going to put in the effort to develop a full understanding of the entire issue, including all the myriad tangential dependencies. The legitimate context for "national debate" therefore is the big picture - we just went through this (rather imperfectly, for much the same reason, but at least national elections have a chance of being an effective means of getting something close to an adequate bead on the big picture issues). Once we put a government in place, it follows the mandate we gave it to decide operational issues. What you're advocating is the very worse and most destructive kind of micro-management. My example earlier was absolutely on-target, but perhaps you missed it: What you're advocating is just like empaneling a jury to hear a murder trial, and then leaving the verdict, instead, up to call-in voters, American Idol style, after a three minute blurp on the local television news tabloid.

No, not people's thoughts. It "minimizes" the inherent abuse of process. That's the point. People who refuse to see that the criticisms being outlined here are about the process are not going to understand what they're reading.

They sure can. And if you consider the objections being voiced by myself and others as "put downs" then you're not reading what I'm writing, or choosing to misinterpret what I'm writing so as to fit that characterization, instead of interpreting them as they are, as criticisms of the abuse of process, as criticisms of trying to override operational decisions within a government agency by abusing our nation's naturally-sensationalistic mass-media.

It's always interesting to see conflicting viewpoints and rationales. I disagree with everything you stated.

BTW, not agreeing does not equate to "not understanding". To state such a thing comes off as extremely demeaning.
 

99% of the time that there is a so-called "national debate" it is rooted, at least in part (and sometimes entirely) in "hysteria". Representative government came about because not everyone is going to put in the effort to develop a full understanding of the entire issue, including all the myriad tangential dependencies. The legitimate context for "national debate" therefore is the big picture - we just went through this (rather imperfectly, for much the same reason, but at least national elections have a chance of being an effective means of getting something close to an adequate bead on the big picture issues). Once we put a government in place, it follows the mandate we gave it to decide operational issues. What you're advocating is the very worse and most destructive kind of micro-management. My example earlier was absolutely on-target, but perhaps you missed it: What you're advocating is just like empaneling a jury to hear a murder trial, and then leaving the verdict, instead, up to call-in voters, American Idol style, after a three minute blurp on the local television news tabloid.

No, not people's thoughts. It "minimizes" the inherent abuse of process. That's the point. People who refuse to see that the criticisms being outlined here are about the process are not going to understand what they're reading.

They sure can. And if you consider the objections being voiced by myself and others as "put downs" then you're not reading what I'm writing, or choosing to misinterpret what I'm writing so as to fit that characterization, instead of interpreting them as they are, as criticisms of the abuse of process, as criticisms of trying to override operational decisions within a government agency by abusing our nation's naturally-sensationalistic mass-media.

What you're describing here is not the representative government of a free people. What you're describing is Stalinism. Trust your government. Don't think for yourself. Quell the rebellion. Dispose of the dissidents. The ordinary citizenry cannot be expected to understand such complicated issues, so we will do the thinking for them. Free debate is based in hysteria. The media is sensationalistic and not to be trusted.
 
Wow bicker, you don't happen to work for a collection agency, do you?
Hey: OceanAnnie - is this one of those "put downs" that you were referring to?

I must say that your grasp of pushback and circular logic is truly impressive.
Please stop trying to avoid the issues being raised, by trying to discuss the discussion. You don't like that I made valid objections to what you wrote. I get that. Message received. Move on, please.

However, you seem to have grasped onto a shred of an actual point, which I will be more than happy to debate with you. I believe that you stated that the TSA and the government have an obligation to keep society safe, correct?
No that isn't what I said, and you cannot hope to discuss what I said until you actually read it and internalize it, accurately. That's really the concern I outlined earlier: That people are reading objections to their criticism of the TSA and insisting that those objections are therefore the easiest points to refute, rather than what those objections actually were.

So where is the hard evidence?
Are you so involved in the agency's internal operations that you know that this was a knee-jerk policy decision? Please enlighten us about how you have so much insight into the agency's internal operations.

The decision was, as you implicitly acknowledge, made in a realm where considered reason and evidence mattered. However, thanks to critics of the agency and the government, this issue is now being transferred from that venue into the media now, where all that matters is salaciousness and sensationalism. That's the problem.

If you want to focus on small bits of context, instead of the entirety of what the agency and the government must concern itself with, then let me choose which small bits of context to focus on. I'll choose a bit that is easy to argue against your perspective, just like you're trying to shoehorn the discussion into a bit that is easy to argue for your perspective. However, that's all noise. This isn't the right venue for considering all the obligations and objectives, weighing them, and making a balanced decision. LuvOrlando said it very well, above, that critics such as she are not obligated to look at the big picture.

For every single article that I publish, I must cite the primary research for each claim that I make.
Again, please tell us how many hours you spent working with the agency and the government on this issue before they made a decision that went against the volumes of evidence you presented proving that every single objective they have would have been better served by doing what you preferred instead of what they decided.

It is easy to be a back-seat driver. Why not actually put yourself forward and take on the obligations, instead of taking random pot-shots at decisions arrived at via due process? The approach you are defending (let the agencies make reasonable operational decisions and then critics try to trump logic and responsible decision-making by exploiting the sensationalistic media) is destroying this country's ability to accomplish any good for its citizens.
 
What you're describing here is not the representative government of a free people. What you're describing is Stalinism.
And in as measured a manner of characterization, what you're advocating is wanton Anarchy. The reality is that neither is true. You're just trying to refute a point you don't like by trying to apply a nasty, and utterly inaccurate, label to it. It's representative government. It is. I know you want to have more say that just your one vote. I understand that sentiment.

Trust your government. Don't think for yourself.
Wow you're really laying it on thick. Nothing I said is anything like that. You're really grasping at straws. I made it clear that people think for themselves, and they think long and hard to put their representatives in place. They work long and hard to put qualified people in positions of decision-making. All power comes from the people. Your assertions to the contrary are ridiculous.

Stop trying to defend abuse of the media and knee-jerk reactions to trump rational decisions. Stop trying to equate things you don't personally like with evil.
 
And yet again, bicker, you claim that hard evidence matters. But you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental point that the hard evidence has not been revealed to the public. If documents exist that demonstrate unbiased hard data backing up the TSA's claim that the new procedures make us safer, why is the agency so reticent to simply release those documents? It's not a national security risk; after all, those documents will go a long way toward demonstrating to the terrorists that they can no longer get away with threatening our planes. It would certain "quell the rebellion" and make the TSA look like shining stars in the minds of the American citizenry. What would they have to lose by making these documents public? It sounds like a win-win scenario all the way around.

So no documents have been released. There are two logical conclusions as to why:

A) The TSA wants our "trust" and releasing documents that show why we should trust them undermines that basic need for blind loyalty.

B) No such documents exist at all.

I'm thinking B is much more likely, but A is just as frightening.

ETA: Two basic problems with your assertion that all the power comes from the people. First, I didn't vote for the TSA. No one did. That agency was assembled, staffed, funded and given unprecedented powers without the approval of the people. Second, at no time in our nation's history has there been the requirement to sit down and shut up once an election was over. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the words of Thomas Jefferson, drafted into the Declaration of Independence: "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

Also from the Declaration of Independence, in regards to the King's actions that necessitated the Revolution: "He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance."

But I suppose you know more about representative government than Thomas Jefferson.
 
I think the national debate is just beginning on this issue.

CAIR Travel Advisory: New Airport Pat-Downs Called Invasive, Humiliating
Posted 11/10/2010 4:03:00 PM



(WASHINGTON, D.C., 11/10/2010) -- CAIR today issued a travel advisory for airline passengers who may be subjected to new Transportation Security Administration (TSA) "enhanced pat-downs" that many of those who undergo the procedure describe as invasive and humiliating.

The advisory comes after two of the nation's largest pilots' unions urged commercial pilots to avoid both full-body scanners and public pat-downs. Pilots have compared the new pat-downs to "sexual molestation." A union for flight attendants has expressed similar concerns.

SEE: Pilots Refusing to Use Full Body Scanners or Submit to Patdown
Flight Attendants Union Upset Over New Pat-Down Procedures
TSA Statement on New Pat-Down
ACLU: TSA Pat-Down Search Abuse

Travelers are being asked to educate themselves about the new policy and to know their rights if asked to undergo security pat-downs. CAIR's advisory is particularly important for Muslim travelers leaving for or returning from Hajj because of concerns that they will be singled out for secondary screening by security personnel.

CAIR offices have already received complaints, particularly from female travelers who wear hijab, about being subjected to the new pat-down procedure.

The enhanced pat-down involves a much more intrusive manual search of passengers' bodies by TSA officers. Passengers who have undergone the new pat-down procedure have reported feeling humiliated by a search they describe as invasive and that has involved TSA officers touching the face and hair, the groin area and buttocks, and in between and underneath breasts.

SEE: CNN Report on TSA Pat-Down
Pilot Refuses Full-Body Pat

One traveler wearing hijab, a 56-year-old Muslim flying out of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, told CAIR the TSA screener patted-down her entire upper body, including, head, neck, chest, and hips, with the backs of her hands. The Muslim woman said she had "no idea" how invasive the procedure would be and would otherwise have opted for a private room or demanded to know why she was selected for secondary screening.

[NOTE: The woman had been referred to secondary screening even though the metal detector did not go off, a phenomenon reported frequently to CAIR by female Muslim travelers.]

BACKGROUND: Beginning earlier this year, the TSA began using full-imaging scanners in airports. In February, CAIR supported a statement by a prominent group of Muslim scholars that the full-body scanners violate religious and privacy rights.

SEE: Airport Body Scanners Violate Islamic Law, Muslims Say

As of August 2010, passengers who opted out of the full-body scanners were subject to the enhanced pat-down.

In light of the growing concerns about the invasiveness of the new enhanced pat-down procedure, CAIR offers the following recommendations to Muslim travelers:

* If you opt out of the full-image body scanner, you have the right to request that the manual search be conducted in private.
* It is your right to be screened by an officer of the same gender. The TSA states in its Head-to-Toe Screening Policies: "It is TSA's policy that passengers should be screened by an officer of the same gender in a professional, respectful manner."
* If you experience any disturbing incidents with the new pat down procedure, particularly if you feel you have been subjected to religious or racial profiling, harassment or unfair treatment, immediately file a complaint with the TSA and report the incident to your local CAIR chapter.

Special recommendations for Muslim women who wear hijab:

* If you are selected for secondary screening after you go through the metal detector and it does not go off, and "sss" is not written on your boarding pass, ask the TSA officer if the reason you are being selected is because of your head scarf.
* In this situation, you may be asked to submit to a pat-down or to go through a full body scanner. If you are selected for the scanner, you may ask to go through a pat-down instead.
* Before you are patted down, you should remind the TSA officer that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They SHOULD NOT subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down.
* You may ask to be taken to a private room for the pat-down procedure.
* Instead of the pat-down, you can always request to pat down your own scarf, including head and neck area, and have the officers perform a chemical swipe of your hands.
* If you encounter any issues, ask to speak to a supervisor immediately. They are there to assist you.




http://www.cair.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?ArticleID=26681&&name=n&&currPage=1

-----------------------------


ETA- It will be interesting to follow the reaction to these suggestions. It raises a host of questions and concerns.

The people posting about their concerns are not alone.

Growing backlash against TSA body scanners, pat-downs

(CNN) -- A growing pilot and passenger revolt over full-body scans and what many consider intrusive pat-downs couldn't have come at a worse time for the nation's air travel system.

Thanksgiving, the busiest travel time of the year, is less than two weeks away.


Grassroots groups are urging travelers to either not fly or to protest by opting out of the full-body scanners and undergo time-consuming pat-downs instead.

Such concerns prompted a meeting Friday of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano with leaders of travel industry groups.

Napolitano met with the U.S.Travel Association and 20 travel companies "to underscore the Department's continued commitment to partnering with the nation's travel and tourism industry to facilitate the flow of trade and travel while maintaining high security standards to protect the American people," the department said in a statement.

Federal officials have increased security in the wake of plots attributed to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

Industry leaders are worried about the grassroots backlash to Transportation Security Administration security procedures. Some pilots, passengers and flight attendants have chosen to opt out of the revealing scans.

More of the units are arriving at airports, with 1,000 expected to be in place by the end of 2011.


"While the meeting with Secretary Napolitano was informative, it was not entirely reassuring," the U.S. Travel Association said in a statement.

"We certainly understand the challenges that DHS confronts, but the question remains, 'where do we draw the line'? Our country desperately needs a long-term vision for aviation security screening, rather than an endless reaction to yesterday's threat," the statement said. "At the same time, fundamental American values must be protected."

The travel industry is concerned that consumers may decide not to take a plane to Aunt Gertrude's for the holiday.


"We have received hundreds of e-mails and phone calls from travelers vowing to stop flying," Geoff Freeman, an executive vice president of the U.S. Travel Association, told Reuters.

A 2008 survey found that air travelers "avoided" 41 million trips because they believed the air travel system was either "broken" or in need of "moderate correction," the U.S. Travel Association said. The decisions cost airlines $9.4 billion, the survey said.

One online group, "National Opt Out Day" calls for a day of protest against the scanners on Wednesday, November 24, the busiest travel day of the year.

Another group argues the TSA should remove the scanners from all airports. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-profit privacy advocacy group, is taking legal action, saying the TSA should be required to conduct a public rule-making to evaluate the privacy, security and health risks caused by the body scanners.

Pilots' unions for US Airways and American Airlines are urging their members to avoid full-body scanning at airport security checkpoints, citing health risks and concerns about intrusiveness and security officer behavior.

"Pilots should NOT submit to AIT (Advanced Imaging Technology) screening," wrote Capt. Mike Cleary, president of the U.S. Airline Pilots Association, in a letter to members this week. USAPA represents more than 5,000 US Airways pilots.

"Based on currently available medical information, USAPA has determined that frequent exposure to TSA-operated scanner devices may subject pilots to significant health risks," Cleary wrote.


Napolitano told industry leaders that biometric identification, such as retinal scanning and thorough background checks will expedite the screening of 80,000 passengers who participate in "trusted traveler" programs, the department said.

But the chorus against the security measures is getting louder.

The website "We Won't Fly" urgers travelers to "Act now. Travel with Dignity."

"We are opposed to the full-body backscatter X-ray airport scanners on grounds of health and privacy. We do not consent to strip searches, virtual or otherwise. We do not wish to be guinea pigs for new, and possibly dangerous, technology. We are not criminals. We are your customers. We will not beg the government anymore. We will simply stop flying until the porno-scanners are history," the site says.

"National Opt Out Day," organized by Brian Sodegren, encourages solidarity on November 24, amid the crush of Thanksgiving travelers.

"It's the day ordinary citizens stand up for their rights, stand up for liberty, and protest the federal government's desire to virtually strip us naked or submit to an "enhanced pat-down" that touches people's breasts and genitals. You should never have to explain to your children, 'Remember that no stranger can touch or see your private area, unless it's a government employee, then it's OK.' "

According to the group, passengers who say "I opt out" when told to go through body scanners are submitted to a pat-down.

"Be sure to have your pat-down by TSA in full public -- do not go to the back room when asked. Every citizen must see for themselves how the government treats law-abiding citizens," the website says.

The Facebook page of the group includes a litany of complaints about the scanners.

"I'm completely appalled by this," one woman wrote. "What happened to our right to privacy? Has Homeland Security forgotten our rights because they think its going to stop terrorists?"

Meanwhile, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has issued its own travel advisory over pat-downs many "describe as invasive and humiliating."

Muslim women who wear a hijab and are selected for secondary screening because of a head scarf should remind TSA officers "that they are only supposed to pat down the area in question, in this scenario, your head and neck. They should not subject you to a full-body or partial-body pat-down," the group said.

The TSA has deployed nearly 350 advanced imaging technology (body scanner) units in nearly 70 U.S. airports, administrator John Pistole said recently. "By the end of calendar year 2011, we plan to have deployed approximately 1,000 units."

The agency is exploring enhancements to the technology.

"This capability would make screening more efficient and would eliminate most privacy concerns about the technology," Pistole said.

Privacy concerns aren't the only reason for protests.

Some scientists and two major airline pilots unions contend not enough is known about the effects of the small doses of X-ray radiation emitted by one of the two types of airport scanning machines.


The Transportation Security Administration's advanced imaging technology machines use two separate means of creating images of passengers -- backscatter X-ray technology and millimeter-wave technology.

While the TSA says the machines are safe, backscatter technology raises concerns among some because it uses small doses of ionizing radiation. The use of millimeter-wave technology hasn't received the same attention, and radiation experts say it poses no known health risks.

The risk of harmful radiation exposure from backscatter scans is very small, according to David Brenner, director of the Center for Radiological Research at Columbia University and a professor of radiation biophysics.

The TSA says the technology has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TRAVEL/11/12/travel.screening/index.html?hpt=T1

---------------------------

Interesting - when even the pilots and flight attendants are up in arms about this.. Aren't they also among the groups of people who are supposed to insure our safety? And I would assume they would like to be safe themselves - considering how often they have to fly - so I guess they don't see the validity in these new procedures either..:confused3

If they felt these steps were necessary - and would actual serve the purpose as intended (keeping terrorists out of the skies) - wouldn't they be "for" it - rather than strongly opposed to it?

Thanks for the articles.. Interesting to read..:goodvibes
 
But you refuse to acknowledge the fundamental point that the hard evidence has not been revealed to the public.
When you talk about hard evidence, please list the operational objectives for which you are asserting that you have hard evidence to the contrary. I ask because if you only have hard evidence with regard to a few of the objectives, and you're ignoring the rest of the objectives, then you're proving my point.

There are two logical conclusions as to why.
Actually, there are several others. I think once you answer my inquiry above, it'll be obvious what those are.
 
When you talk about hard evidence, please list the operational objectives for which you are asserting that you have hard evidence to the contrary. I ask because if you only have hard evidence with regard to a few of the objectives, and you're ignoring the rest of the objectives, then you're proving my point.

Actually, there are several others. I think once you answer my inquiry above, it'll be obvious what those are.

No, I don't have hard evidence to the contrary (I assume you mean to disprove that the new procedures make us safer). It's not my job to have that evidence. The TSA is the organization that chose to make changes, therefore the burden of proof is on that organization to prove the need for the change, not the other way around. That is, of course, the way that due process works.

And since I'm clearly hysterical, paranoid and stupid, I have no idea what others you may referring to. Perhaps you could stoop to generating a list for us poor stupid irrationals on the thread?
 
YAY! A new story in the news says that the NJ Executive Director of the ACLU and some other can-do'ers will be having a press conference to discuss the situation.:dancer::thanks::dancer:

I'll be watching closely because Newark is our favored airport. I hope when it comes down to put up or shut up the people who are SUPPOSED to be our advocates have the nerve to follow through. I don't know about anyone else out there but I could really use a Super Hero right about now:goodvibes My expectations are low but there is still an ember of hope.

Still, with them or without them I will not walk into an airport the way things are so no matter what the outcome, I still win so I can be my own families superhero if necessary:hippie: Sure it will sting if I can't go to Aruba or Orlando in 2011 but there is always Cedar Point and Hershey, and the NJ Shore and Cape Cod, and Cape May, and Wet & Wild in Virginia. Not my first choice but we'll do just fine. Now I have the Nickelback song 'Hero" in my head.
 
We will probably be hearing about the TSA, pat-downs, full-body scans, CAIR, ACLU and possible groping by TSA personnel for quite awhile.

Thanks everyone for posting.
 
YAY! A new story in the news says that the NJ Executive Director of the ACLU and some other can-do'ers will be having a press conference to discuss the situation.:dancer::thanks::dancer:

I'll be watching closely because Newark is our favored airport. I hope when it comes down to put up or shut up the people who are SUPPOSED to be our advocates have the nerve to follow through. I don't know about anyone else out there but I could really use a Super Hero right about now:goodvibes My expectations are low but there is still an ember of hope.

Still, with them or without them I will not walk into an airport the way things are so no matter what the outcome, I still win so I can be my own families superhero if necessary:hippie: Sure it will sting if I can't go to Aruba or Orlando in 2011 but there is always Cedar Beach and Hershey, and the NJ Shore and Cape Cod, and Cape May, and Virginia.

Woohoo! This is very good news indeed :woohoo: Thank you so much for starting this thread and drawing attention to the matter. Discussion, debate and ultimately action are the only things that have ever induced change.

And congrats on making the decision to be your own family's superhero :thumbsup2 I've made the same decision, and apparently so have a lot of other people. Ultimately, no matter how much you (or anyone) would like to make things better for everyone, you have to focus on your immediate surroundings first.
 
I liked this article. It is rather balanced for both sides I think, but the end of the article particularly caught my attention.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/12/AR2010111206580.html?hpid=artslot

As for the effectiveness of all of the new and enhanced airport security methods, the jury is out.

"Most of these security features are for public consumption," said Vahid Motevalli, the co-founder of the Aviation Institute at George Washington University and now a professor at Purdue University. "In many cases, if you don't catch these issues well in advance of the airport, it's too late."
 
Good article Punkin.

The whole part about being for public consumption got me thinking in a big picture sort of way.

IF all these measures are in place to make people feel safe so commerce isn't disrupted and people fly THEN how exactly does a measure that stops people from flying contribute to the ultimate goal? If the net effect of an attack is the same as the net effect of overzealous security, what exactly has been accomplished? :confused3
 
Hey: OceanAnnie - is this one of those "put downs" that you were referring to?

My post was a statement and an observation of prior posts.

I do find it quite interesting that you didn't respond to my pointing out the "put down" in your post addressing me. Instead you chose to deflect to someone else. Interesting choice indeed.

It's the whole pot/kettle thing.
 
Not at all. Don't fall for JLTraveling's misguided claims ;). Just as I trust ccgirl's and eliza61's reports of their recent flight experiences, I trust you to accurately report your and your family's TSA experiences on your upcoming trip. The fact that I've never met you notwithstanding, I would believe you over an actor taping himself 'reporting his mother's experience' on YouTube, or a radio talk show host's observations (not experience, but what he thinks he saw), or assumptions based on what people have heard from other sources.

Thanks, I will.

On Friday, I was thinking about making and wearing a see through bikini to the airport. Of course at 52, I don't look like I did at 20(still a size 6 but gravity has moved things around a bit.:) ) Maybe this would deter an agent? By trying to make a point though, more than likely, I'd get myself into trouble and I really want to go to Disney World. Instead of a bikini, I'm going commando under my attire and if chosen for the pat down, I will insist that it be done in front of God and everybody else at the airport. Sorry for the possible flashing to my fellow travelers.
:cheer2:Go protesters, thanks for standing up for our rights as citizens!:cheer2:
 
Thanks, I will.

On Friday, I was thinking about making and wearing a see through bikini to the airport. Of course at 52, I don't look like I did at 20(still a size 6 but gravity has moved things around a bit.:) ) Maybe this would deter an agent? By trying to make a point though, more than likely, I'd get myself into trouble and I really want to go to Disney World. Instead of a bikini, I'm going commando under my attire and if chosen for the pat down, I will insist that it be done in front of God and everybody else at the airport. Sorry for the possible flashing to my fellow travelers.
:cheer2:Go protesters, thanks for standing up for our rights as citizens!:cheer2:


How about a new line of T Shirts? I'd like one that says, "I wonder what number SPF would be appropriate?" on the front and, "No means No!" on the back, just kidding but I'm sure someone somewhere right now is busy cranking out slogans and t-shirts. I bet some new slogan shirts will be in the streets of NYC by the end of the week and in places like Hot Topic and Spencers by December.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom