TSA mess and the police

[Anjelica]

Actually, I have traveled overseas quite a bit. Used to do it for a living. I routinely made 4 or 5 trips overseas a months, and am well aware of the searches they do over there. However, as a foreigner in their country it never entered my mind to claim that my rights as an American citizen were being violated. I'm quite certain that would not have gone over too well.

They search their own citizens very similar than they search their non-citizens. I have never encountered where they treat their citizens in terms of searches, patdowns - basically general airport security - any different than they have treated non-citizens (outside of the seperate lines when entering a country - i.e. customs).

 

[LuvOrlando]

I need to process what I just read... WOW, just WOW

 

[CPT Tripss]

it will be interesting to hear the spin on this.

(Dec. 6) -- A former "Baywatch" beauty is feeling overexposed after going through what she says was a humiliating body scan by Transportation Security Administration agents at Los Angeles International Airport.

...

After waiting in a long line of holiday travelers, D'Errico and her son finally made it to the moving carrier where all the carry-on bags are placed. That's when a TSA agent took her by the elbow and told her she needed to "come this way."

Donna D'Errico says she felt overexposed at LAX airport after being forced to go through a body scan that she suspects was ordered because she was pretty and not because she was a terrorist suspect.
"I said I was traveling with my son, motioning to him, and the agent said he was to come along with me as well," D'Errico said. "I immediately asked why we were having to go through an extra search, and no one else was being made to do so, indicating the long line of other passengers in front of and behind where we had been in line. In a very sarcastic tone, and still holding me by the elbow, the agent responded, 'Because you caught my eye, and they' -- pointing to the other passengers -- 'didn't.'"

http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/a...posed-after-tsa-scan/19745498?test=latestnews

 

[bicker]

And personally I'm more scared of the people running around accusing the TSA of being molesters and rapist and screaming we're turning into "socialist" then I am of the government.

Good point. I too am far more suspicious of the folks who engage in that type of rhetorical gameplay than I am suspicious of those that they complain about.

I don't feel that equating the act of asking questions and asserting rights with an all or nothing approach is really appropriate here.

The actions of the critics go far beyond what any reasonable person could qualify as "asking question" or "asserting rights".

Strongly worded, yes,

No... it's beyond that. It hyperbole, and hyperbole is arguably misleading and deceptive, because it seems to incite a response rather than foster understanding.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Good point. I too am far more suspicious of the folks who engage in that type of rhetorical gameplay than I am suspicious of those that they complain about.


The actions of the critics go far beyond what any reasonable person could qualify as "asking question" or "asserting rights".


No... it's beyond that. It hyperbole, and hyperbole is arguably misleading and deceptive, because it seems to incite a response rather than foster understanding.

It would appear as though your definition of hyperbole and mine are different when applied. In my opinion hyperbole is saying a criticism is the equivalent of hyperbole or a call for anarchy or a call to eradicate all laws or saying that all voices of dissent are a call to "exploit our nation's salacious and sensationalistic media (fostering unreasonable fear, uncertainty and doubt) in order to incite others to unwarranted panic. The attempt to create "backlash" (a clearly effrontery tactic) indicates an intention to bypass reasonable consideration."

It would seem hyperbole is in the eye of the holder.

 

[bicker]

The difference is that I was describing specific criticisms, for which my descriptions were dead-on accurate, not hyperbole at all. That's really the whole point I've been making - the difference between rationality and exhortation.

 

[LuvOrlando]

The difference is that I was describing specific criticisms, for which my descriptions were dead-on accurate, not hyperbole at all. That's really the whole point I've been making - the difference between rationality and exhortation.

Again, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[DMRick]

After we went through security and lined up to get on SW, we were told to again take out our ID's and have our tix in hand. TSA (3 of them) came over with gloves on and everyone of us had to show our ID and tix. No idea why, wer were already through security.

We will fly home through LAX in a couple of weeks..I'll let you know how that goes. What a crowded airport!

 

[skater]

Yep, and once again you have the stalmate. you call it political correctness. I can tell your not a minority because when you get pullled over and have the tar beaten out of you for nothing more than "driving while black", it becomes more than political correctness. So yep, since I have about a gazillion % greater chance of being "profiled" along with about 150 years of history to back up my belief that all it will result in, is a whole lot of african americans and hispanics being racially profilied, So unfortunatley every one gets the same crazy treatment.
Sorry but those same TSA agents are being labelled perverts are going to be the ones supposedly fairly profiling. Please, don't make me laugh. Heck, last year some stupid white women in pa decided to make up a story about being carjack by 2 black men which made it open season for the "law abiding" cops in Pa/nj/De to pull over every african american male including my 2 sons. oh and mz sunshine was living la vida loca at the Grand floridian and this is 2010.


So of course you don't see the problem with it. It's only a problem when it starts effecting you.

I'm not a minority, but I can have empathy with this. I would be so mad, sad, scared, and frustrated if my sons had to go through this. My sons are Asian, and although there's far less racism for them (as a rule), we have experienced some stuff.

 

[CPT Tripss]

Again, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

Or perhaps who has the larger thesaurus.

 

[eliza61]

I'm not a minority, but I can have empathy with this. I would be so mad, sad, scared, and frustrated if my sons had to go through this. My sons are Asian, and although there's far less racism for them (as a rule), we have experienced some stuff.

That's why I think that security is going to be one of those issues where we are going to have to stop trying to find a "magic bullet" solution. It may take some combo of the suggestion here, or we may find in coming days it takes some thing radically different.

Since no one knows how terrorist think or what the next attack will be, it's going to be a never ending evolving process.

 

[bicker]

Which is pretty much what the people who's job it is to deal with this issue indicate that they have done. Critics refuse to acknowledge this because the conclusion from that process didn't meet with their personal approval.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Well since I'm the one who is supposed to pony up the cash for the product whose approval should I rely on if not my own?

You keep complaining about critics and forget the so called critics are customers who have a right to an opinion because they are supposed to be buying the product.

 

[skater]

Which is pretty much what the people who's job it is to deal with this issue indicate that they have done. Critics refuse to acknowledge this because the conclusion from that process didn't meet with their personal approval.

I said I wouldn't argue with you, but here I am . I just don't believe the people who's job it is to deal with the issue have done so correctly. Just because they're in charge doesn't mean that they did the right thing (doesn't mean they didn't - but some of us are not sure). I can't argue on your level, but there is something more than just personal approval going on here. There are lots of laws and changes that come in my life that I don't like or personally approve, but I don't feel that they violate my personal space or my constitutional rights. So, I deal with the laws I don't like, but the laws I think are wrong, I protest. Of course, there's not a whole lot I can do other than write my representatives and the airlines I use, or not fly of course.
The reason I "complain" on a thread is because its interesting - I know it won't change the policies, but its fun and stimulating. I also like to read respectful disagreements - that's informative and stimulating. And maybe even mind changing - who knows ?

 

[bicker]

Well since I'm the one who is supposed to pony up the cash for the product whose approval should I rely on if not my own?

The money you pay for the product has nothing to do with the security screening that our government administers. If money was that integral to the system, then they'd allow people to pay more to get better screening service.

Security screening is an action taken by society. It is society's collective approval that matters, not your own personal approval.

You keep complaining about critics and forget the so called critics are customers who have a right to an opinion because they are supposed to be buying the product.

Or not buying the product. A consumer not willing to walk away from an offer that involves conditions that make the offer unsatisfying is a fool. A consumer not willing to accept the conditions that are implicit in an offer accepted is suffering from Entitlement Mentality.

 

[bicker]

I just don't believe the people who's job it is to deal with the issue have done so correctly.

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.

Just because they're in charge doesn't mean that they did the right thing (doesn't mean they didn't - but some of us are not sure).

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.

There are lots of laws and changes that come in my life that I don't like or personally approve, but I don't feel that they violate my personal space or my constitutional rights.

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.

So, I deal with the laws I don't like, but the laws I think are wrong, I protest.

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.

Of course, there's not a whole lot I can do other than write my representatives and the airlines I use, or not fly of course.

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

 

[LuvOrlando]

The money you pay for the product has nothing to do with the security screening that our government administers. If money was that integral to the system, then they'd allow people to pay more to get better screening service.

Security screening is an action taken by society. It is society's collective approval that matters, not your own personal approval.

Or not buying the product. A consumer not willing to accept the conditions that are implicit in an offer accepted is suffering from Entitlement Mentality.

So the fact I have to pay for the ticket isn't part of the arrangement, a consumer who refuses to purchase an unsatisfying product is a fool and a consumer who won't buy something he/she doesn't want is suffering from Entitlement Mentality, really? Oops, double negative confused me... could you say this part again "A consumer not willing to walk away from an offer that involves conditions that make the offer unsatisfying is a fool." Do you mean only a fool would buy something unsatisfying because if that's what you are saying I agree with this part 100%. But that doesn't make sense, how do you make the u-turn from here back to entitlement?

 

[bicker]

A consumer not willing to walk away from an offer that involves conditions that make the offer unsatisfying is a fool. A consumer not willing to accept the conditions that are implicit in an offer accepted is suffering from Entitlement Mentality.

So the fact I have to pay for the ticket isn't part of the arrangement, a consumer who refuses to purchase an unsatisfying product is a fool and a consumer who won't buy something he/she doesn't want is suffering from Entitlement Mentality, really?

Holy moly. I don't think you could have corrupted what I wrote any more than if you had tried. Read what I wrote again.

I wrote: "A consumer not willing to walk away from an offer that involves conditions that make the offer unsatisfying is a fool."

You read: "a consumer who refuses to purchase an unsatisfying product is a fool"

I wrote: "A consumer not willing to accept the conditions that are implicit in an offer accepted is suffering from Entitlement Mentality."

You read: "a consumer who won't buy something he/she doesn't want is suffering from Entitlement Mentality"

Please at least have the decency to acknowledge that you read what I wrote completely and totally wrong. And I believe this is a very clear indication of how off some of your objections are: you're not reading what we're writing.

 

[bicker]

Oops, double negative confused me...

Thanks for admitting that. I really appreciate it.

could you say this part again "A consumer not willing to walk away from an offer that involves conditions that make the offer unsatisfying is a fool." Do you mean only a fool would buy something unsatisfying because if that's what you are saying I agree with this part 100%.

So don't buy air travel if the security screening makes that much of a difference.

 

[LuvOrlando]

Holy moly. I don't think you could have corrupted what I wrote any more than if you had tried. Read what I wrote again.

I wrote: "A consumer not willing to walk away from an offer that involves conditions that make the offer unsatisfying is a fool."

You read: "a consumer who refuses to purchase an unsatisfying product is a fool"

I wrote: "A consumer not willing to accept the conditions that are implicit in an offer accepted is suffering from Entitlement Mentality."

You read: "a consumer who won't buy something he/she doesn't want is suffering from Entitlement Mentality"

Please at least have the decency to acknowledge that you read what I wrote completely and totally wrong. And I believe this is a very clear indication of how off some of your objections are: you're not reading what we're writing.

I think the structure of the middle sentence totally messed me up, I don't usually nit pick but it's obvious sometimes things can go very wrong. So if I am now reading you right, money isn't part of the situation, 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?