TSA mess and the police

[bicker]

So I was right, about 100 pages ago. Personal experiences mean nothing to you.

Wrong! Personal experiences mean as much as personal experiences should mean - they're anecdotes. They disprove the assertion that nothing ever goes wrong. And that's it. A big part of the problem is the critics' refusal to acknowledge that their own personal experience does not justify imposing their personal preferences on others. It justifies imposing their personal preferences only on themselves (i.e., not flying).

Now, if I had photographs of the supervisor's degree and resume, and placed them side by side with the stated job requirements, would that suffice?

You are yet-again erroneously venerating an anecdote. Where is the study showing that people are routinely hired for TSA jobs without being qualified? What is that you say? You don't have one. Figures.

You want to disagree and share your personal experiences?

No. I want you to acknowledge that your personal experiences are just your own, and have only 1/250,000,000th bearing on what should go on in this country.

I think bicker's point is that your experience is a single, really secondhand - hence 'anecdotal' - report.

Precisely.

Well, if anyone's really THAT curious to verify, there was a related lawsuit that should now be a matter of public record.

I think you may not understand what the word "anecdotal" means, and/or don't understand what the difference between "anecdotal" and "significant" evidence is. (For example, anecdotal does not mean that the experience is false.) Without that understanding, I'm not sure how we can discuss the issues raised further.

 

[tiggerplus5]

Oxygen generators are different than pressurized oxygen tanks. As it was explained to me, the generators pull oxygen out of the air. It is great to see that they allow POC's now. But you can see from the link above that they suggest that you contact the airlines in advance because you are essentially asking for a reasonable accommodation.

This was not the case 2 years ago when I called around. They said they would not provide oxygen and the pressurized tanks were not allowed. I don't know if it was a TSA rule or the airlines themselves or maybe uninformed customer service representatives.

 

[chicagodisneyfan]

Being on regular oxygen? Not being able to get out of your wheel chair at all, and it not being able to fit in the plane door?

but that has nothing to do with the TSA!

There is nothing the TSA is now doing that prohibits physically disabled people from traveling.

 

[DMRick]

You're right, DMRick. There are people who can't fly for the medical reasons you state, and others. My apologies.

But you know something? That all appears to be an attempt (by one or more posters against the 'new' procedures?") to misdirect the conversation. Because those people can't fly commercially, what treatment they might receive from the TSA is moot.

And of course those people couldn't fly no matter what the TSA says so you are right, it really doesn't have anything to do with the new changes. Someone asked, so I responded (although someone else said there are some airlines that allow regular oxygen, so I guess if that airline is accessible to the flyer, that would be great).

 

[bicker]

And the main point is that people have always been allowed to decide not to fly because they didn't like aspects of the flying experience, whether it be security checks, recycled air, cramped seating, air traffic delays, air marshals, what-have-you.

 

[DMRick]

Regular oxygen is OK (on some airlines). . . http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/specialneeds/editorial_1374.shtm#2

Airline policies regarding oxygen can be found at http://www.airlineoxygencouncil.org/cms/?page_id=42

Yes, those are POC's. Those do not work for everybody on oxygen.

 

[LuvOrlando]

eeh, I'll let it go

 

[DMRick]

The fact that a majority of people got lost in trying to point out how many people with physical disabilities are ignored thereby justifying the fact people with mental disabilities are ignored, was not my intent. I can't help it that people think the poor treatment of certain people validates the poor treatment of others because I certainly don't think it.

clip

I also don't think it was a misdirection, I think people can get so caught up in wanting to be right that they stop thinking about what they are really saying. At least I'd like to think so, maybe they really do feel this way I can only speak for myself and say I certainly don't.

Wow, am I reading the same thread as you??

 

[LuvOrlando]

I deleted it, I'll let it go.

I really don't understand what was behind the disagreement, if not this then what? What is there to be gained by the examples? What is the final goal of it a long list of people who are not accommodated?

 

[C.Ann]

In terms of people being able to fly before and after these new security measures it got me to thinking about one of my friends at the lake.. Every year she would have her car shipped down to Florida and then fly down for the winter to stay with her sister.. When it was time to return to NY, she would have her car shipped back up here and fly home..

A few years after 9/11, while in Florida, she was in a horrific accident.. A travel trailer came off the hitch of a truck and came right through the side of her car.. Still to this day, the paramedics don't know how she survived.. (She had just turned 80, but I swear she didn't look - or act - a day over 60 years old..) She spent over a month in ICU - and between the regular hospitalization and rehab, she ended up being in Florida for over a year and a half - probably around 18 months..

When it came time for her DD to go down and fly her home, she had so many metal rods, pins, and screws in her body she lost track of the number (and of course she was still in a wheelchair).. Her DD called ahead to the airport and was told that the only thing they required (knowing the old metal detectors would go haywire) was a current letter from her doctor and all of her x-rays - no more than 5 days old.. At the airport, all of this was presented to the proper authorities - she was not required to go through the metal detector - nor was she required to have a pat down..

She flew back to Florida for the winter one or two times after that (no more car though) - using the same method that allowed her to come home after her accident - and then her DD was involved in a freak accident that left her with brain damage.. (My friend, her DD, and her DD's DH, all live together now - so that my friend can remind her DD to take her meds, etc.. Her DD suffered severe memory loss - among other things..)

I don't know if she ever plans on flying to Florida to see her sister again, but I think it's safe to assume that the "before" method she was allowed to use after her accident would no longer be acceptable and due to all of the metal rods and such, it would kick her right over to the enhanced pat down - correct? I don't know if she would have any objections to that - for personal and/or other medical issues - but if she did, then it's an example of someone who "could" fly before the new safety measures and might "not" be able to now..

Just a thought - and an example of "before and after"..

Also, what happens to people who have both legs in metal braces, are in a wheelchair, and can't stand up without them? Are they automatically kicked over to the enhanced pat down?

 

[OceanAnnie]

Interesting article:

Local TSA Agent Speaks Out On Pat-Downs




....."The irony is that the person most likely subjected to an enhanced pat-down is not someone acting suspiciously.

It’s America’s seniors that are most often the targets of a pat-down, says this local TSA officer.

“These are your mother, your father, your grandparents. They’re the ones who have to put up with this every time they fly.”

And it breaks the heart of some local TSA officers.

“Just the looks on their faces, some of them, the fear.”

America’s older folks seem targeted because their artificial hips, knees, plates, and pace-makers most often trigger the metal detectors.

“They are the ones who get the brunt of the pat downs. Most of the American public will not have any difference in their screening. The people who alarm the MAG are the ones that will get this invasive pat down.”

And it targets the wrong people, some TSA officers believe.

“The ones who are least likely to be terrorists, the elderly, are the most likely to get the pat downs?” KDKA’s Jon Delano asked a local TSA officer.

“Correct. And that’s the big problem with this system.”
....


http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2010/11/25/local-tsa-agent-speaks-out-on-pat-downs/

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

Quoting prior article.

I think you are right, C.Ann. Sadly.

 

[surfgirl]

Since it's safe to say you are talking about me let me direct you so you don't misdirect: The conversation meandered NOT because of a misdirection but because I made a comparison between how people with physical disabilities are accommodated vs people with mental disabilities are accommodated. I plainly stated that if one group can get special treatment ALL people with disabilities should be accommodated in the same way. The fact that a majority of people got lost in trying to point out how many people with physical disabilities are ignored thereby justifying the fact people with mental disabilities are ignored, was not my intent. I can't help it that people think the poor treatment of certain people validates the poor treatment of others because I certainly don't think it. I will agree the conversation went somewhere that is a total surprise to me this morning because it's the opposite of just about everything I've ever said and believe.

bolding mine.

Are you saying that all disabilities should be treated the same way ? For purposes of illustration, that would mean that a blind person, a deaf person, and a person in a wheelchair should all receive the same treatment.

 

[surfgirl]

Every year she would have her car shipped down to Florida and then fly down for the winter to stay with her sister.. When it was time to return to NY, she would have her car shipped back up here and fly home..

A few years after 9/11, while in Florida, she was in a horrific accident..

snip
- and then her DD was involved in a freak accident that left her with brain damage.. (My friend, her DD, and her DD's DH, all live together now - so that my friend can remind her DD to take her meds, etc.. Her DD suffered severe memory loss - among other things..)

CAnn, no matter the answer, your friend has suffered through a lifetime of heartbreak in the last 10 years. I hope that she is able to enjoy the rest of her life with less pain and suffering than the last few years.

 

[JLTraveling]

I think you may not understand what the word "anecdotal" means, and/or don't understand what the difference between "anecdotal" and "significant" evidence is. (For example, anecdotal does not mean that the experience is false.) Without that understanding, I'm not sure how we can discuss the issues raised further.

I'm getting extremely tired of the attempts to cast aspersions on my intelligence. I happen to have a documented IQ of 185. Yes. 185. That's more than five standard deviations above the norm.

I don't generally bring it up, because I don't think that it makes my position in a debate any more valid than anyone else's, and I don't think it's relevant to most conversations. But I do not appreciate having my ability to understand simple words called into question. Considering the fact that I was reading, digesting and able to answer complicated questions about college psychology and engineering textbooks at age three, I don't think I have difficulty understanding words.

I'll be more than happy to produce my test results and links to the hundreds of media interviews I did as a profoundly gifted child if you feel you need "proof."

/rant. I now return this thread to its regularly scheduled debate already in progress.

 

[DMRick]

The ignore feature can be a good thing, when another poster irritates someone.

I'm getting extremely tired of the attempts to cast aspersions on my intelligence. I happen to have a documented IQ of 185. Yes. 185. That's more than five standard deviations above the norm.

I don't generally bring it up, because I don't think that it makes my position in a debate any more valid than anyone else's, and I don't think it's relevant to most conversations. But I do not appreciate having my ability to understand simple words called into question. Considering the fact that I was reading, digesting and able to answer complicated questions about college psychology and engineering textbooks at age three, I don't think I have difficulty understanding words.

I'll be more than happy to produce my test results and links to the hundreds of media interviews I did as a profoundly gifted child if you feel you need "proof."

/rant. I now return this thread to its regularly scheduled debate already in progress.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

We cannot run our country in such a way that the expectation becomes that everything has to work for and be accepted by everyone. That is not possible, so it should never be a stated goal. You create environments that accommodate as many people as possible and accept that some people are not going to be satisfied. Such is life.

No matter how we set up screening, some people are going to be unhappy.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

...I happen to have a documented IQ of 185...

Wow! That is pretty impressive. Scary, almost.

 

[C.Ann]

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

Quoting prior article.

I think you are right, C.Ann. Sadly.

Yeah - I know..

CAnn, no matter the answer, your friend has suffered through a lifetime of heartbreak in the last 10 years. I hope that she is able to enjoy the rest of her life with less pain and suffering than the last few years.

Would you believe she's still taking care of her adult DD? After all she's been through, she's still sharp as a tack and never, ever complains.. She's a gem..

Thanks for those best wishes for her remaining years.. It's very nice of you to express those thoughts..

The ignore feature can be a good thing, when another poster irritates someone.

In the particular situation at hand, I have to agree.. It's becoming extremely insulting for the poster on the receiving end - who has been nothing but polite..

Maybe the person who is questioning every single solitary statement; qualifications; etc. - while not answering questions him-or-her self - could start a new thread and hash it all out there..

 

[C.Ann]

No matter how we set up screening, some people are going to be unhappy.

Who was unhappy with the security methods that were being used prior to the new ones? I wasn't - and I felt extremely safe while flying - even shortly after 9/11..

 

[OceanAnnie]

In the particular situation at hand, I have to agree.. It's becoming extremely insulting for the poster on the receiving end - who has been nothing but polite..

Maybe the person who is questioning every single solitary statement; qualifications; etc. - while not answering questions him-or-her self - could start a new thread and hash it all out there..

That post to JLT was exceptionally below the belt.