TSA mess and the police

[bicker]

I'm getting extremely tired of the attempts to cast aspersions on my intelligence.

It is interesting that you say that in response to a reply to your message casting aspersion on my knowledge. This is why, several times now, I have asked you to stop trying to distract attention away from points you don't like but cannot refute by resorting to making personal slights. If you just talk about the topic, then folks replying to you will just talk about the topic.

Beyond that, note that I wasn't the only (nor first) person to get the message that you were tripping up on the word "anecdotal". Regardless, either you didn't understand the word or you refuse to acknowledge the significance of individual reports being anecdotal. I outlined both as possibilities. If you want to say that it is #2 instead of #1, I'm fine with that; and everything I wrote was fine with that up to now.

That post to JLT was exceptionally below the belt.

Not even a little. Like I said, I wasn't the only, nor first, person to raise the possibility.

Misunderstanding.. I wasn't commenting on your post..

Which shows how little merit your accusation had, since Kaytie actually said it first.

 

[OceanAnnie]

But you can hazard a very good guess on what you read and hear. NO mattter what you call it do you honestly believe in this country of over 300 million individuals that cross referencing is going to happen.

Look at the uproar in Arizona and the fall out over the immigration bill. last I heard every body from the federal government to the corn syrup association of America has got a lawsuit. they've got lawsuits piled up like airplanes ready to take off at JFK. They are now predicting it will be 20 years before the legal wrangling can even get straightened out. How many stories of police abuse did we get out of that story and of course the ever popular "Nazism" reference and potraying the state police asking every one for "Papers please". How many businesses cancelled planned meetings etc?

I'm willing to bet we'll have flying cars a'la George Jetson before the citizens of this country willing allow themselves to be "referenced or checked".

That was in response to alleged profiling. This is a different story.

 

[bicker]

For each and every method you can find a so called "expert" in the field who has written a paper on why that particular method will not work. They will always be some group or person who for what ever reason cannot adhere to the method and who's "constitutional" rights are being violated.

Yes, very true. People will grasp at straws to try to present their own personal preferences as somehow more important than they are, in order to try to make it seem like things should be done their way. That's simply not reasonable.

 

[eliza61]

I'd hold on that bet if I were you.

The cross referencing is happening now to an extent. The lack of communication between agencies is what enabled the terrorist of 911. There has been work in that arena to rectify it.

It wasn't my idea. I didn't make it up. It was in the article.

but the cross referencing is happening with known or suspected criminals or Terrorist. and even that is constantly being challenged with Muslim Americans. Can you image what would happen if some one suggested that every average Joe who wanted to fly now agree to have a background check? Sweet Lord.

Sorry I missed the topic on profiling but pretty much since I'm a minority you can guess where I stand on that issue but at least I've got 150 years (and counting) of American history to back up my stance that we can't do it properly.

I think the overall problem that I wanted to point out is exactly what Kaytieeldr pointed out.

No one is going to compromise on what they feel is their individual "rights" thus making any attempt a problem.

 

[skater]

but the cross referencing is happening with known or suspected criminals or Terrorist. and even that is constantly being challenged with Muslim Americans. Can you image what would happen if some one suggested that every average Joe who wanted to fly now agree to have a background check? Sweet Lord.

I think the overall problem that I wanted to point out is exactly what Kaytieeldr pointed out.

No one is going to compromise on what they feel is their individual "rights" thus making any attempt a problem.

But we are already compromising IMO. What's a background check compared to someone looking at my naked body or touching my DD in places she's saving for her future DH? I know this is an old argument, but its still my firm opininon that we've already compromised individual rights - and I don't think its just a feeling either.

 

[C.Ann]

Which shows how little merit your accusation had, since Kaytie actually said it first.

Seriously? I didn't even indciate which post I was referring to.. I believe that puts you in the firm camp of "assuming" what you don't know to be a fact.. It could have been a post pages ago.. I don't always respond to posts ASAP..

 

[OceanAnnie]

But you can hazard a very good guess on what you read and hear. NO mattter what you call it do you honestly believe in this country of over 300 million individuals that cross referencing is going to happen.

Look at the uproar in Arizona and the fall out over the immigration bill. last I heard every body from the federal government to the corn syrup association of America has got a lawsuit. they've got lawsuits piled up like airplanes ready to take off at JFK. They are now predicting it will be 20 years before the legal wrangling can even get straightened out. How many stories of police abuse did we get out of that story and of course the ever popular "Nazism" reference and potraying the state police asking every one for "Papers please". How many businesses cancelled planned meetings etc?

I'm willing to bet we'll have flying cars a'la George Jetson before the citizens of this country willing allow themselves to be "referenced or checked".

Well, get back to me on that one. Because I don't' know how I feel about it.

but the cross referencing is happening with known or suspected criminals or Terrorist. and even that is constantly being challenged with Muslim Americans. Can you image what would happen if some one suggested that every average Joe who wanted to fly now agree to have a background check? Sweet Lord.

I think the overall problem that I wanted to point out is exactly what Kaytieeldr pointed out.

No one is going to compromise on what they feel is their individual "rights" thus making any attempt a problem.

Everyone has a line they won't cross.

TSA officials have stated the new measures are not the end of the line. They are evolving. I only referenced the article, indicating background checks and cross referencing were on the horizon. I'm not advocating it. And again, I didn't make it up.

Profiling is out. The information is needed to weed out "bad guys vs bad things.". How else are the TSA officials going to get the information? It's the same thing with the screening and pat downs. No profiling. I imagine they will build or expand their databases. I don't know. I only copied parts of the article.

 

[bicker]

So in other words you admit to engaging in innuendo rather than speaking plainly.

Regardless, the outrage referred to was expressed by JT, and that was a direct reply to a specific message. Let's stop with the silliness and stick to the topic okay?

 

[kaytieeldr]

Seriously? I didn't even indciate which post I was referring to.. I believe that puts you in the firm camp of "assuming" what you don't know to be a fact.. It could have been a post pages ago.. I don't always respond to posts ASAP..

But then you said you weren't commenting on my post

We're good, but bicker's right. I jumped in ahead of him to explain 'anecdotal'. He wasn't here, and I know what it means in general and how it related to his post. This being an open discussion, I felt and continue to feel free to do that - explain where I have the knowledge and ability.

 

[OceanAnnie]

But we are already compromising IMO. What's a background check compared to someone looking at my naked body or touching my DD in places she's saving for her future DH? I know this is an old argument, but its still my firm opininon that we've already compromised individual rights - and I don't think its just a feeling either.

Exactly.

 

[eliza61]

Well, get back to me on that one. Because I don't' know how I feel about it.



Everyone has a line they won't cross.
TSA officials have stated the new measures are not the end of the line. They are evolving. I only referenced the article, indicating background checks and cross referencing were on the horizon. I'm not advocating it. And again, I didn't make it up.

Profiling is out. The information is needed to weed out "bad guys vs bad things.". How else are the TSA officials going to get the information? It's the same thing with the screening and pat downs. No profiling. I imagine they will build or expand their databases. I don't know. I only copied parts of the article.

Absolutely!! and one thing I've tried to repeat is that I respect all of you guys who feel that this is your line. I really do hope that this can be resolved in a way to get you comfortable with flying again.
I also know the agents I know and talk to are definitely conscious of the fact that many in the public don't like them or the procedures.
The TSA should be evolving, you have to be. My dad use to say, for every new type of car alarm that is develop, there is a crook buying it to get around it. Hopefully we can get them to change in some positive but realistic directions.

One reality I think we may have to accept is that no procedure is going to be 100% unintrusive, 100% effective or 100% universal.

 

[C.Ann]

So in other words you admit to engaging in innuendo rather than speaking plainly.

Regardless, the outrage referred to was expressed by JT, and that was a direct reply to a specific message. Let's stop with the silliness and stick to the topic okay?

What I am "admitting" to is that I did not indicate which post I was referring to..

What you are not admitting to is that you made an assumption with no facts to back it up..

It's not difficult to admit you're wrong - nor is there any shame involved.. You were wrong - nothing more to discuss..

But then you said you weren't commenting on my post .

Correct - but I still didn't state "which" post I was referring to.. Let's put it this way - there are so many to choose from.. I could come back here tomorrow (or even in a few hours) and have to go back pages and pages to catch up..

An assumption - with no basis for fact - was made by someone other than you.. Someone who chooses not to "own" it..

When I make a mistake, I own it.. I admit it - apologize - and move on.. What I won't do is accept responsibility for the assumptions and errors of someone else.. I think "most" of us feel that way - don't you?..

 

[OceanAnnie]

Absolutely!! and one thing I've tried to repeat is that I respect all of you guys who feel that this is your line. I really do hope that this can be resolved in a way to get you comfortable with flying again.
I also know the agents I know and talk to are definitely concious of the fact that many in the public don't like them or the procedures.
The TSA should be evolving, you have to be. My dad use to say, for every new type of car alarm that is develop, there is a crook buying it to get around it. Hopefully we can get them to change in some positive but realistic directions.

One reality I think we may have to accept is that no procedure is going to be 100% unintrusive, 100% effective or 100% universal.

1. Agreed.

2. I think we are all coming to that conclusion whether we like it or not.

Nice "talking" with you guys. I have to get some work done. I'll check in later.

 

[C.Ann]

Getting back on track here..

http://newsok.com/in-bra-panties-and...ad_story_title

Does anyone know what kind of screening animals have to go through?

 

[eliza61]

But we are already compromising IMO. What's a background check compared to someone looking at my naked body or touching my DD in places she's saving for her future DH? I know this is an old argument, but its still my firm opininon that we've already compromised individual rights - and I don't think its just a feeling either.

And thus the problem. It's your opinion. You feel you're compromising, I feel like it's a pretty simple solution. don't like it, don't fly (in general, yes I know there are people who fly due to business. I am one of them)

Like I said before, IMO the basic premise of "public safety" is that assumption that the individuality will be compromised
(ok dissers, I know nothing about constitutional law, save yourself the energy of posting a response about how to interpet the constituion. I fully admit to knowing nothing)
You think there's nothing wrong with a background check, I spend a bunch of summers at a Portugese beach where every one and their mother is 1/2 naked so I can't understand the big booha over fuzzy images.

See the problem?

The only solution I see is get rid of all security and let the dice fall where they may.

 

[eliza61]

Getting back on track here..

http://newsok.com/in-bra-panties-and...ad_story_title

Does anyone know what kind of screening animals have to go through?

Oh Lord, C. Ann don't throw my poor dog into the mix. God only knows what they will come up for that.

 

[skater]

Oh Lord, C. Ann don't throw my poor dog into the mix. God only knows what they will come up for that.

Good one!

 

[C.Ann]

Oh Lord, C. Ann don't throw my poor dog into the mix. God only knows what they will come up for that.

Sorry - LOL.. But I'm serious.. They said the dog was able to fly out with her, so that got me to thinking of people who take dogs and cats with them on airplanes..

All kidding aside, do you know how they're screened?

And if you looked at that link, can you believe that woman is 52 yrs. old??

 

[skater]

And thus the problem. It's your opinion. You feel your compromising, I feel like it's a pretty simple solution. don't like it, don't fly (in general, yes I know there are people who fly due to business. I am one of them)

Like I said before, IMO the basic premise of "public safety" is that assumption that the individuality will be compromised
(ok dissers, I know nothing about constitutional law, save yourself the energy of posting a response about how to interpet the constituion. I fully admit to knowing nothing)
You think there's nothing wrong with a background check, I spend a bunch of summers at a Portugese beach where every one and their mother is 1/2 naked so I can't understand the big booha over fuzzy images.

See the problem?

The only solution I see is get rid of all security and let the dice fall where they may.

I understand what you're saying. You know, if I was convinced that these new procedures are really keeping us safe, and there's no hypocrisy (certain officials exempt), and that everything else is being done that should be (cargo screened better, airport workers screened better, etc.) - then I might be willing to consider giving up some individual rights. I just haven't been convinced that this is absolutely necessary yet. And my basic instinct is to hold onto our constitutional rights with both hands (I know this is still open for interpretation - but IMO there's a constiutional issue).

Again, there's just too much hypocrisy and unclear information about how this really keeps us safer.

There would also need to be more training in professionalism for tsa workers to satisfy me. Of course that costs money, so there's another problem.

I know what you mean too about the nakedness issue. Its obviously all about perspective. Personally, I guess its not too terrible if someone sees my out of shape body - I do feel concerned for some teens and past victims and I guess just the idea of it bothers me. Also, for people who have religious issues with it.

I still can't get past the radiation thing, so I woudl probably opt for the pat down and ugh does that bother me!

 

[rie'smom]

A little humor: