Stalinism? Really? I can't speak for the rest of the population, but I'm perfectly capable of thinking for myself. Do I agree with the new procedures or think they're necessary? Still neutral.
I've been planning a domestic vacation for a number of months. I purchased plane tickets over the summer. I could use alternate transportation, but it's a lonnnnnnnnnnng trip except by plane, so I'm keeping my tickets (well, that and that they're nonrefundable). No, I haven't been through the scanner or had the front-hand patdown YET, nor have I ever been taken into a private area for more intense screening. I've had, as far as I know, every other type of check: metal detector, if Logan's Terminal C had puffers at any point that too; I've been wanded; I've been patted down several times...
I CHOOSE to fly on commercial airlines*.
Security screening is a requirement of commercial air travel.
Therefore, I must undergo security screening any time I fly on a commercial airline.
WHAT the security screening is doesn't matter to me. Really.
*As opposed to earthbound travel; not to be confused with private jet travel being an option, as my bank account doesn't allow that
Weak attempt at sarcasm aside, the majority of the time the media ARE sensationalistic and not to be trusted. That sells. Facts don't.
The guy looks like a Ken doll... unless it's a very flat woman.
Okay - I found a partial answer to the colostomy bags and such on the TSA link below.. If you scroll down the page you will see the various appliances..
------------------------------------------
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1370.shtm#3
Security Officers should not be asking you to remove your orthopedic shoes, appliances, or medical device (insulin pump, feeding tube, ostomy or urine bag, or exterior component of cochlear implant) at any time during the screening process.
Advise the Security Officer if you have an ostomy or urine bag. You will not be required to expose these devices for inspection.
----------------------------------------------------
So if you don't have to remove them - or expose them - how do they know what's inside of them?
Remember - anyone can purchase many of these appliances and just stick them on with the proper adhesive..
Hmmm...that page still refers to the metal detectors and doesn't mention the new backscatter scanners at all, so I wonder if it's been updated since the new regulations took effect.
Either way, though, I'm with you. That would seem to leave a gaping hole in security, and make the entire process rather pointless.
In other news, I wonder if this mess will change kids' games. Instead of playing doctor, they can just play TSA agent!
Don't know but if you look in the children's screening process it mentioned something about pat downs for kids in wheelchairs (or those unable to stand) and also something about helping prepare your child for the TSA's to avoid or control "outbursts" or something along those lines.. Are they assuming much?
Color me completely confused. Based on the criteria you provide, you and your husband seem to be each triply subjected to additional screening - both of you because you're Australian with a Polish surname; then him because of a beard (since when does a beard make one a Muslim, or suspect of being a Muslim; I'll have to have conversations with the bearded men I know) and you because of your job? Respectfully, how does the TSA know your job? Is it on your passport? Do you tell them? Why would they care? I'm not talking about Customs, I'm talking about the security screeners. Or is this simply drama?
Yes, you are missing my point. That is not what I want you to discuss. I asked you to list the operational objectives for which you are asserting that there is hard evidence to the contrary. I want you to set forth what you think the criteria would be for evaluating this policy. You have repeatedly failed to mention anything beyond one criteria, so I have to conclude, as I suspected, that that is the only criteria that you are considering, and therefore that proves my point that you're not evaluating the work of the agency and the government properly.
And in doing so you again failed to address all the factors. You've proven my point well. For example, just picking up on the one other criteria I referred to earlier: Where are your criteria for assessing how well the policies serve the public's interest in feeling that their government is doing something pro-active? Your approach would work well if we were a nation of machines, but we're not. We're a nation of people - human beings - with emotions. Your narrow focus fails to address that.
That's a very common way of trying to avoid discussion that refutes one's argument: Trying to label such counter-argument as evil.
And this is critical. This issues that drive operational decisions like this are not simplistic. If they were, then we wouldn't need to have Senate hearings to determine whether the people who would be making the decisions are qualified, for example. I think such disrespect for the work of others is rampant in our society these days: In many people's minds, no one's work is worthy of respect except themselves. :sad2
Precisely. The only way to get yourself in a situation where you're going to be able to appreciate the actual responsibilities of making decisions like this is to be involved in the process, have all the input pass across your desk, listen to both sides of the argument respecting both sides as valid (instead of dismissing one side out of hand, as many people seem to), and then balancing the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments against each other, and making the decision that serves the public interest - all of it, not just one myopic view of it - best. None of that rigor in thinking sells on television, or on radio, or in newspapers.
I know you are speaking tongue-in-cheek, but even the insinuation is interesting: I highly doubt that most people making such bombastic pronouncements now would follow-though on them. However, it may or may not make flying cheaper for the rest of us. The reality is that the system is over-crowded. It isn't just a matter of aircraft capacity - that can be managed relatively easily by selling some more aircraft currently in domestic service into foreign markets. The real bottleneck is airport capacity, and to a lesser extent, air traffic control capacity. There is a point to be made that perhaps the system could not only withstand, but really seriously needs, a reduction in load.
Yes, good point, and I agree that that's probably most of what we're seeing here, and indeed I think a good number of people will have a knee-jerk reaction to certain issues, and will put their own sense of entitlement paramount in most circumstances. It is just human nature, and earlier in the thread LuvOrlando outlined the parameters of this phenomenon very well.
Yes, good point. This goes hand-in-glove with the whole "Stalinism" silliness. People defile the true victims of evil things like those you mentioned, and like "Stalinism". Another word Ive seen defiled a lot in discourse of public policy is 'rape'. The abuse of language is not just persnicketiness... it's disrespect for real victims.
Presumably, you're addressing your comments to the thread, not to any specific posters. This isn't a place to discuss posters and posting... it is a place to discuss issues. If you have something you want to direct to a specific poster, use PMs.
